Swing Votes in the Senate on Climate Change
As the Senate prepares to consider energy and climate legislation this Fall, the vote counting begins again on cap & trade. Assuming a cap & trade bill moves forward, 60 votes are necessary for a procedural vote (cloture) to cut off debate on a motion to proceed on a floor vote. Reaching this filibuster proof 60 vote count threshold remains a steep hill to climb despite 59-60 Democratic votes in the Senate. Climate positions don’t fall along party lines. Further, the challenge has just grown harder with Senator Kennedy’s death and no replacement likely until January 2010.
Climate Change Insights takes a look at three swing Senate votes that are indicative of the political landscape and substantive policy issues in play. There are different accounts of how various Senators might vote but it is fair to say that the following 3 Senators are representative of the key issues under consideration: the level of ambition for greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets, industry specific allowances, protections and incentives, a priori limits on the price of carbon and pure politics.
Senator Evan Bayh (D-Indiana). Indiana is among the highest energy consumption per capita States and is responsible for approximately 5 percent of US annual GHG emissions. Almost all of Indiana’s electricity generation comes from coal. As one of the nation’s top corn-producing States, Indiana has significant ethanol production potential, and the state has immense wind energy opportunities. Energy and steel industries are among Mr. Bayh’s top campaign contributors and he is facing a tight re-election campaign in the fall of 2010. The BP Products refinery in Whiting has the largest processing capacity of any refinery outside of the Gulf Coast region. Senator Bayh is weighing these considerations deliberatively. A suite of cost-containment provisions for regulated industries, clean energy incentives for emerging technologies and international competitiveness protections that have direct benefit to Indiana are considerations, as are political prospects in a conservative State.
Senator George Voinovich (R-Ohio). Energy consumption in Ohio’s industrial sector ranks among the highest in the Nation. Ohioans are still haunted by a 2003 transmission failure that led to the largest blackout in North American history, affecting over 50 million people. Coal fuels about nine-tenths of net electricity generation in Ohio. Senator Voinovich is set to retire in 2010. On climate change, Voinovich has stated, “There is a lot of work to be done, but it’s still open…I think there is a possibility in getting something done that is meaningful.” In the past few years, Voinovich has introduced and supports energy bills that focus on incentives for clean energy technology deployment both domestically and internationally including the "Incentives-Based Climate Policy Act," and the “21st Century Energy Technology Deployment Act.” He is on record saying that there is “too much crap” in the House-passed “American Clean Energy Security Act” (Waxman-Markey), his main concern being the 2020 greenhouse reduction targets under the bill are too ambitious.
Ohio’s current unemployment rate (11.1%) is higher than the national average (9.7%) as of July 2009. There is significant angst in the State of losing jobs overseas due to issues such as lower labor and environmental standards. Accordingly, one can anticipate Voinovich desiring price controls on the cost of carbon and protections against overseas industries that don’t take sectoral or economy-wide carbon cap.
Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA). Pennsylvania ranks second in the Nation in nuclear power generating capacity, is a major coal production State and sells approximately 50 percent of its coal to other States. Pennsylvania is also the leading petroleum refining State in the Northeast. At an August meeting of Netroots Nation, Senator Specter hinted that he “expected” to vote for cloture on a climate bill and stated that he joined the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee after switching to the Democratic Party with a view to shaping the climate legislation and he “expects a strong bill.” In the past Specter co-sponsored with Sen. Jeff Bingaman, the “Low-Carbon Economy Act,” which had weaker GHG emission targets than Waxman-Markey and established so-called “automatic off ramps” allowing the US to weaken its targets if key developing countries don’t adopt their own caps.
Therein lies the conundrum of getting a robust climate change bill through the Senate and signed into law. The route to political success relies upon GHG targets that may not match the level of ambition required by science, a further expansion of allowances to regulated entities, and trade protectionist measures as a stick for developing country commitments. Such provisions are a long way from the Obama Administration goals of science driving policy, 100 percent auction of allowances and emphasizing bilateral clean tech cooperation with China. Yet, it appears to be the only pathway to move the issue forward in the Senate this political season.
http://www.climatechangeinsights.com/admin/trackback/153883
