California's Proposition 23
This coming campaign season, Californians will be given the opportunity to vote on Proposition 23, an initiative that would suspend California's clean energy legislation, the Global Warming Act of 2006 or AB32. The California Jobs Initiative, a movement reportedly financed by Texas oil companies, is charging that AB32 will cost California 1.1 million jobs and $3.7 billion a year in higher energy costs.
Proponents of AB32 are answering the charge. Joe Romm, a well-known climate expert and blogger, considers it to be "one of the most progressive pieces of environmental legislation ever enacted." According to Romm, in addition to reducing pollution levels and dependence on foreign oil, AB32 is spurring market growth in California’s clean tech and clean energy industries. His climate blog reports that AB32 has stimulated more than $9 billion of private investment, helped pave the way for more than 12,000 companies, and has contributed to the creation of more than 100,000 green jobs. Also, by sending a clear carbon price signal, AB32 provides the long term market certainty necessary for businesses to invest. As a result, California’s clean energy sector has grown stronger and now sits at the forefront of our nation’s energy innovation. In 2007 alone, Californian businesses patented 1,401 new clean technologies, constituting one sixth of all clean energy technology patents in the nation for that year. Contrary to the arguments of the jobs initiative, supporters of AB32 argue that the law has helped buoy California’s economy through the recent recession. Perhaps more importantly, as California has historically done with clean air legislation, AB32 serves as a model for federal action. Suspending AB32 would further complicate the struggles to enact federal legislation on climate change. If California decides that it cannot afford to address climate change, other states will be hesitant to follow California's lead. This would not be welcome news for climate change activists at a time when our most respected environmental groups feel as if they’re losing the battle over the climate bill. Regardless of the outcome this November, it will serve as an important referendum over energy policy.
Potential Battles Ahead on Energy and Climate Policy if the Republicans Win the House
The prospects of a Republican-led House have been increasing as the U.S. nears the November mid-term elections. If Republicans do win back control of the House, it will dramatically reshape the contours of the national debate on energy and climate policy. The discussion would shift from a discussion over legislation to cap greenhouse gas emissions to the following issues.
Climate Regulations
The controversies regarding EPA’s climate regulations, particularly the Agency’s “tailoring” rule, have been ongoing for the past year. These controversies, however, would be amplified with a Republican majority, especially with large emitters becoming subject to the regulations in January 2011. A Republican-led House would likely target the rule by considering legislation to block the “tailoring” rule or strip funding for its implementation. If the House were to pass this type of legislation, and assuming that it could also pass through the Senate, then it would spark a veto battle with the Obama Administration. Republicans could also target other climate regulations, including a draft guidance proposed by the Council of Environmental Quality earlier this year that would require that federal agencies consider climate change in conducting environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act.
Funding for Clean Energy Programs
The Administration has made the transition to a clean energy economy a priority, evidenced by increased funding for clean energy programs. Republicans have criticized these programs for failing to create the jobs promised by the Administration. Campaigning on the need to reduce federal spending and the government’s role in the economy, a Republican-led House could propose reducing or eliminating funding for some of these programs. The Administration will likely oppose efforts to reduce funding for these programs. At the same time, the Administration will be under pressure to also reduce federal spending, and it will be interesting to see how hard the Administration is willing to fight to sustain funding for some of these programs. Additionally, with subpoena power, Republicans could hold Committee investigations and hearings into alleged mismanagement by the Department of Energy into stimulus funding.
Nuclear Incentives
The Obama Administration and Congressional Republicans generally agree in the importance of nuclear energy to our nation’s energy future, one of the few issues where there is at least some consensus. A Republican-led House could work with the Obama Administration on incentives and other regulatory reforms to spur growth in the nuclear industry. That being said, the Administration’s support for closing Yucca Mountain as permanent storage site for nuclear waste could become a major issue in a potential debate over nuclear energy.
As this blog outlines, House Republicans and the Obama Administration have starkly different views over energy and climate policy. If Republicans win the House in November, one can expect some bitter battles to occur over these and other energy and climate issues.
