An e-mail from Sen. Tom Udall’s (D-N.M.) staff sent to the New Mexico Independent read, “The big picture here is that this never would have happened without Sen. Udall’s advocacy on behalf on consumers on this issue.

“And an agreement between the FCC and the wireless companies is extremely encouraging news.”

The Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA), the main trade group representing wireless and data companies, collaborated with the FCC ahead of yesterday’s announcement. CTIA sent a memo to its members yesterday on how to comply.

The e-mail from Sen. Udall’s staff followed an article NMI wrote on the ruling yesterday. More news coverage of the decision from others news outlets came out today

Wireless service companies are being asked by the FCC to warn customers when they will begin incurring extra costs for going over their allotments for data and phone minutes.

The request is voluntary and stops short of legislation proposed last year by Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) that would have made data and wireless phone companies legally responsible for warning customers of incoming fees.

A recent FCC report noted 30 million Americans suffer “bill shock” — defined by the federal body as a “sudden and unexpected increase in a mobile wireless user’s monthly bill that is not caused by a change in service plans.”

At a Brookings Institution event yesterday FCC chairperson Julius Genachowski said he encountered consumers who endured $34,000 and $18,000 in single monthly bills without prior warning from their cell phone companies.

In some cases, the bills are much higher, but data companies are willing to compromise.

Daniel Watson, a spokesperson for the senator, said given the intransigence of Congress, representative government is still possible through other avenues. “A lot of people have been impacted by bill shock, and Sen. Udall’s bill helped bring that to national attention with a straightforward solution for wireless companies.”

Asked by NMI whether Sen. Udall’s bill would reach the president’s desk, Watson said, “It would take a crystal ball to determine which bills will make it to the President in the current congressional climate.”

The FCC has five members who are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate for five-year terms. The current chairperson, Genachowski, was appointed by President Obama after a career in the tech space. He also clerked for liberal Supreme Court justices Justice David Souter and Justice William J. Brennan, Jr.

The FCC currently has four sitting members, with two appointed by the previous Republican administration.

Sen. Mark Udall

Mark Udall has tried several times in the past to model a federal standard after Colorado’s RES, which is the second most aggressive in the United States behind only California. Last year he and Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet tried unsuccessfully to at least pass a federal RES even when it looked like a comprehensive climate bill didn’t have enough votes to make it out of the Senate.

The Udalls’ latest bill would require utilities to generate 25 percent of their electricity from wind, solar and other renewable energy sources by 2025. Colorado’s RES, first approved by voters in 2004 at the 10 percent by 2020 level, has since been legislatively increased to 30 percent by 2020.

The latest Udall bill would require utilities nationwide to generate 6 percent of their power from renewable energy sources by 2013, followed by gradual increases up to 25 percent by 2025. Including Colorado and New Mexico, 29 states and the District of Columbia currently have some sort of RES.

“I was proud to lead the effort in Colorado to pass one of the country’s first Renewable Electricity Standards – and it has helped the state create over 30,000 new good-paying jobs and spurred the growth of one of the strongest renewable energy sectors in the country,” Mark Udall said in a release.

“We can do the same thing across the country with a robust national RES. A national RES would unleash innovation, helping America compete for renewable energy manufacturing jobs and lead in the global economic race.”

A recent PEW Environment report revealed the United States has dropped to third behind China and Germany in renewable energy investment.

The Udalls first introduced a RES in 2002 while members of the House. They later built a coalition in the House that won passage of a national RES amendment in 2007, but it died in the Senate. When both were elected to the Senate, they introduced another national RES bill in 2008.

“Americans want to put our nation on a path towards energy independence, and this bill is our best chance to get America running on homegrown energy while creating good jobs for hardworking Americans,” Tom Udall said in a release.

“Studies show that a federal RES would reduce energy bills, revitalize rural America, slow global warming and strengthen our energy security. With American innovation and ingenuity, we can put our people to work in a thriving, clean energy economy.”

While the bill may be able to make it out of the Senate – although even that isn’t a certainty – it has almost no chance in the Republican-controlled House. A climate change bill made it out of the then Democrat-controlled House last year but later died in the Senate.

Last week Mark Udall introduced a resolution in support of the Clean Air Act, which the GOP-controlled House – including members of the Colorado delegation — has been trying to dismantle in order to prevent the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse gas emissions as a form of air pollution. The resolution was signed by 33 other senators and makes it clear that any anti-EPA bills that make it out of the House will likely die in the Democrat-controlled Senate.

Until they did. Suddenly, advocates of tight immigration enforcement are up in arms, claiming that the measure to protect the environment of this mountainous terrain would hinder Border Patrol and allow a new flood of immigrants to enter New Mexico. And an increase in activity by immigrants and cartels, in turn, could actually end up hurting the environment, they argue.

But environmental groups say this argument is just a political ploy to clamp down on immigration. It’s a complicated debate, with no clear answers. The full Senate will be considering the bill sometime after it reconvenes, and much is up in the air. Elise Foley has the full story.

Border Patrol agents survey land near the U.S.-Mexico border. (Mark Allen Johnson/ZUMA Press)

On July 21, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources unanimously approved a bill to designate part of the Organ Mountains in southern New Mexico as wilderness. It was a routine measure — the committee passes several federal land designation bills each year — that generated little debate at the time and seemed destined to pass the full Senate without fanfare when it eventually reached the chamber floor.

[Immigration1] But in the intervening months, the innocuous-appearing bill has sparked a surprising amount of controversy, as immigration enforcement advocates have expressed concern that it could hamper border security and send a flood of illegal immigrants into New Mexico.

In other wilderness areas, particularly Pima County in southern Arizona, wilderness designation areas set by the Arizona Wilderness Act of 1990 have at times corresponded with areas with higher levels of illegal immigration. Most experts dismiss the connection and attribute the rise in immigration to increased border enforcement elsewhere: As fences and security made it more difficult to cross the border into California, immigrant guides, or “coyotes,” began to move through lands where they could better avoid detection.

But pro-immigration enforcement groups claim that federal wildlife designations are to blame for illegal immigration in Arizona, and that the wilderness designation proposed by New Mexico Democratic Sens. Jeff Bingaman and Tom Udall would make New Mexico the new hotbed for illegal border crossing.

The argument goes like this: In lands designated as wilderness, Border Patrol cannot build roads or surveillance posts because of environmental concerns. As a result, more illegal immigrants and drug cartels enter the country through un-policed land.

“It’s like a big welcome mat to the cartels,” said Janice Kephart, director of national security policy at Center for Immigration Studies, a pro-enforcement group. “They know the designation is there, they know they can start using it.”

This increase in illegal activity, enforcement advocates argue, can actually undermine the environmental goals of a wilderness designation, since the new flood of border-crossers damages the lands the government is trying to protect.

These claims are all the subject of heated debate, at the center of which is the question of how best to balance environmental concerns and border enforcement — or whether the two truly are mutually exclusive.

There is no easy answer; the Department of Homeland Security has struggled with the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture over how Border Patrol can work under strict guidelines in the federal lands along the border. In theory, tensions between the agencies were ironed out in a 2006 memorandum of understanding that allows for some exceptions to land designations, such as emergency access to lands without permission. But according to an Oct. 19 report from the Government Accountability Office, 15 percent of Border Patrol officials said regulations from the Interior Department and the Agriculture Department have prevented them from catching illegal border crossers.

The laws that govern federal lands along the border can hold up a patrolling process that requires speedy adaptability. While Border Patrol shifts its resources and patrolling to react to changing pathways used by immigrants and smugglers, federal law requires agents to receive permission from the other agencies before it can build roads or establish surveillance posts. The GAO report said the process can often take months.

But despite these delays, most of the agents in charge along the border — 22 of the 26 lead agents in the southwest region — told the GAO that overall security in their jurisdiction was not affected by the land management laws. Instead, the Border Patrol leaders said their challenge was the terrain itself, which in many areas is mountainous or otherwise difficult to navigate.

Still, Republicans and anti-illegal immigration groups have latched onto tension over federal land designations as a cause for the number of unauthorized immigrants who move across the border each year. They argue that the laws funnel illegal activity through certain areas where Border Patrol agents are less likely to catch them — and where they can destroy the wildlife that the designations are designed to protect.

In a report released this month, Kephart wrote that the Bingaman-Udall bill would likely lead to a groundswell of illegal immigration to New Mexico, where immigrants would then leave trash and waste behind and devastate the local land.

Wilderness designation laws are too outdated and strict to allow Border Patrol agents to act effectively, she told TWI. Overall, the wilderness designations hurt border security by limiting patrol actions within certain areas and requiring Border Patrol to pay mitigating fees to the Department of the Interior for lands it harms.

Kephart said the best decision for both border security and the environment would be to allow Border Patrol unfettered access to enforce immigration within wilderness areas.

“If by allowing the border patrol in, you can help save the environment and secure the country, that’s a double win,” Kephart said. “The cartels don’t care about people, let along the environment.”

The argument is standard among critics of federal land designations along the border. Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), one of the leaders of the movement in Congress, gave an impassioned 37-minute speech on the House floor in June arguing that illegal border crossers and drug cartels do massive damage to the border landscape.

“The sole purpose of trying to stop the border patrol is because of the fear they may cause damage to the environment,” Bishop said on the floor. “The bad guys, the drug cartels, the human smugglers, the potential terrorists: they’re not inhibited by any of that. They go into that area and they don’t care what kind of environmental damage they do.”

Melanie Emerson, executive director of the border region environmental group Sky Island Alliance, said these claims are “wholly unsubstantiated by science.” Most of the harm done to the environment along the border is due to border infrastructure, such as fencing, that prevents animals from migrating and changes the ecosystem.

“One of the issues that they talk about a lot is garbage, but while there are patches of trash, trash is mitigatable,” Emerson said. “You send volunteers out, you pick it up and it’s gone. Border infrastructure is permanent and it unequivocally alters natural processes. That whole system of security far exceeds — by magnitudes of 10 — trash.”

Wilderness designations are important because they allow species to live in a protected space as much of their natural habitat is taken over by cities and sprawl, Emerson said. She said environmental arguments against wilderness designations are disingenuous and a means to limit illegal immigration, not to protect the environment.

The Center for Immigration Studies has attempted for years to tie illegal immigration to concerns about climate change and overpopulation. There are numerous reports on the group’s website arguing for population stabilization and tying illegal immigration to higher greenhouse gas emissions.

When it comes to the Bingaman-Udall bill, however, concerns about the environment seem somewhat misplaced. The bill would change the land from a wilderness testing area, which has many of the same limitations for Border Patrol, to a wilderness area. This would be the final step in a process that was started in the 1980s, when the Reagan administration first set the land aside for protected status, and continued when the George H.W. Bush administration recommended the area for full wilderness status. The bill includes provisions that expand the land that Border Patrol can easily access for patrolling and surveillance.

Border Patrol worked with the senators’ offices on the bill, which includes a section on how border enforcement can work within the changes. Border Commissioner Alan Bersin wrote a letter to Bingaman on June 1 acknowledging the Border Patrol-friendly aspects of the bill, such as an expanded “buffer” area for patrols and clarification that the bill would not restrict agents from pursuing suspects in restricted areas or conducting low-level overflights.

Jude McCartin, a spokeswoman for Bingaman, said the senator was focused from the beginning on maintaining Border Patrol access as the land transitioned to wilderness designation.

“They were very mindful of the security needs along the border and what makes this unique in all of that,” she said. “Neither congressman would want to do anything to harm national security.”

Sens. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) unveiled a proposal Tuesday to increase use of renewable energy. (Flickr, Auntie K)

A bipartisan coalition of senators today unveiled a proposal that would require a certain percentage of the country’s electricity to come from renewable sources like wind and solar. The announcement revived hopes that the measure could move this year, but it remains unclear if there is enough time or political will in the Senate to pass the legislation this session.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has not committed to setting aside floor time for the proposal this year. And the bill’s author, Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), told reporters today that he would wait to cement the necessary votes before approaching Reid to schedule a vote.

Renewable energy advocates and environmentalists praised the announcement, while noting that the renewable energy standard, or RES, is not stringent enough. The last six months have been difficult for environmentalists, who faced a string of legislative defeats — first on economy-wide cap-and-trade, then on a narrow cap-and-trade bill. And now there are legitimate questions about whether the Senate will be able to pass a slimmed-down energy bill or an oil spill response bill, even after the mid-term elections.

So the RES announcement was, for many environmentalists, a welcome respite from months of disappointment. Sean Garren, clean energy advocate at Environment America, said, “Senator Bingaman’s renewable electricity standard would commit America to beginning the move towards a clean energy economy.  While the standard is weaker than America can and should achieve, the Senate must pass the bill quickly to deliver to the entire country the benefits that states with standards are already enjoying.”

The bill, which is sponsored by Bingaman and Sam Brownback (R-Kans.), has early support from a number of Democrats, including Sen. Byron Dorgan (N.D.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.). Two other Republicans, Sens. Susan Collins (Maine) and John Ensign (Nev.), also lent their support to the proposal.

The proposal, which is nearly identical to a provision in an energy bill passed by Bingaman’s Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee last year, requires that 15 percent of the country’s electricity comes from renewable sources by 2021. Entities can meet the standard by producing or purchasing renewable energy like wind, solar, biomass and some hydropower. They can also meet the standard through energy efficiency savings. The RES will not affect state programs, many of which are more stringent than the federal proposal, according to a summary of the bill.

But a 2009 analysis of a similar RES proposal by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a research arm of the Department of Energy, found that it likely won’t increase renewable energy development beyond a business-as-usual scenario. The analysis is based on Bingaman’s original 20 percent by 2021 RES proposal, which was cut down to 15 percent to win support from Republicans on the committee.

Bingaman said he believes he has the 60 votes necessary to pass the new RES bill. “I think that the votes are present in the Senate to pass a renewable electricity standard,” he said in a statement. “I think that they are present in the House. I think that we need to get on with figuring out what we can pass and move forward.”

Franz Matzner, climate center legislative director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, says the RES proposal “doesn’t deliver the goods the way we’d like to see it.” The bill is a “band aid” measure, he says, arguing that the Senate needs to move on comprehensive climate change legislation. But Matzner says, “If this is the best place we can get bipartisan agreement, it’s better than getting nothing done.”

It’s too early to say whether the bill will be able to pass the Senate this year. There are very few legislative days left before the Senate breaks for the mid-term elections, and it’s unclear how long a lame-duck session might be. “They could have an eight-hour lame-duck session or they could have a productive two weeks or they could sit and do nothing,” Matzner says.

Reid’s spokeswoman, Regan Lachapelle, notes there is very little time left in the year to pass the RES bill. “Senator Reid strongly supports a national renewable electricity standard,” LaChapelle says. “But, there is very limited time before the October recess and probably even during the lame duck, so the proponents of a stand-alone RES will need to demonstrate they have 60 votes for swift floor action before floor consideration could be scheduled.”

One environmentalist — who has been closely following the issue but is not authorized to speak on the record — said passage of the RES could be dependent on whether it moves as a stand-alone measure or is packaged together with other provisions. At the same time, the environmentalist says, much will depend on the outcome of the mid-term elections. “The bigger the Republican success on election day, the less likely anything will be accomplished during the lame duck session,” the environmentalist says.

Many environmentalists have called for a 25 percent RES by 2025, but before the August recess a coalition of renewable energy advocates endorsed the Bingaman 15 percent RES, noting that it was the only proposal that could win bipartisan support. “In this political climate, we have to do what we have to do,” American Wind Energy Association President Denise Bode told reporters in July.

The announcement comes as the renewable energy industry has ramped up lobbying efforts to pass an RES this year and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has left the door open to considering such a proposal. But it remains unclear when, exactly, the Senate might take up the bill and whether it will be coupled with other provisions or go forward as a standalone measure.

In a statement, Bingaman said he believes the Senate has the votes to pass the measure, which would require that a certain percentage of the country’s electricity come from renewable sources like wind and solar. Bingaman said:

I think that the votes are present in the Senate to pass a renewable electricity standard.  I think that they are present in the House.  I think that we need to get on with figuring out what we can pass and move forward.

Brownback, who hails from the wind-rich state of Kansas, called for a “sensible and modest” RES proposal.

Today, 22 Democratic senators signed a letter urging action on a climate bill this year. And while the support of less than half the Democratic caucus wouldn’t ordinarily be noteworthy, what’s interesting here is the makeup of the letter’s signatories: They’re almost all moderates or representatives of states with significant industrial or fossil fuel interests. Take a look at the list (via Dave Roberts):

• Tom Udall (NM)
• Jeanne Shaheen (NH)
• Michael Bennet (CO)
• Kay Hagan (NC)
• Ron Wyden (OR)
• Mark Begich (AK)
• Sherrod Brown (OH)
• Tom Harkin (IA)
• Tom Carper (DE)
• Mark Udall (CO)
• Al Franken (MN)
• Debbie Stabenow (MI)
• Jeff Merkley (OR)
• Patty Murray (WA)
• Ted Kaufman (DE)
• [Roland] Burris (IL)
• Bob Casey Jr. (PA)
• Mark Warner (VA)
• Maria Cantwell (WA)
• Arlen Specter (PA)
• Jon Tester (MT)
• Amy Klobuchar (MN)

Not exactly jam-packed with coastal liberals. As Roberts points out, Casey, Begich, Tester, Stabenow and Cantwell are all arguably fence-sitters on the issue — and a number of others have expressed reservations about carbon-capping legislation.

The full letter is available here (PDF).

The 2008 election has transformed a big part of the mountain West into a Democratic redoubt. Not only did President-elect Barack Obama carry both Colorado and New Mexico, Democrats picked up two Senate seats and four congressional seats in the two states.

In New Mexico, the party hit a “grand slam” — winning all three of the state’s congressional districts and an open Senate seat, according to New Mexico Independent.

Rep. Tom Udall easily moved into [Republican Pete] Domenici’s Senate seat, defeating Rep. Steve Pearce of Hobbs. Similarly, Ben Ray Lujan had little problem sweeping a three-way race to replace Udall in the 3rd Congressional District.

The surprises of the night were Martin Heinrich blasting past popular Bernalillo County Sheriff Darren White in CD1 and Harry Teague topping Ed Tinsley in southern New Mexico’s CD2. Both Democrats had slim leads in the polls leading up to Election Day, but substantial numbers of undecided voters apparently swung their way.

In a stunning upset in Colorado, a longshot liberal businesswoman, Betsy Markey, ousted Marilyn Musgrave, an outspoken incumbent conservative best known for her opposition to gay marriage. Markey is the first Democrat in 36 years to win the vast 4th congressional district that stretches from the Great Plains to the Rocky Mountains. Opponents of legal abortion in the state suffered a setback when a proposed constitutional amendment to confer the legal status of personhood on the embryonic egg cells in pregnant woman was overwhelmingly rejected by voters.

Where conservative Republicans once prevailed, moderate liberals now hold sway.