Kerry-Lieberman 2010
last serious try at bill? 2010
NON-AGGRESSION PACT?
Introducing the American Power Act: On strategy and substance
By John Kerry on May 12, 2010
Busy day here — started early with some curtain-raising morning television to kick off the discussion a bit about the American Power Act that Joe Lieberman [I-Conn.] and a unique coalition are talking about later today.
But sometimes those morning-show interviews are a bit of a reminder of how much detailed discussion we lose when we’re crammed into a two- or three- or five-minute back-and-forth, which is especially tough on an issue like a comprehensive approach to climate and energy.
Which brings me to why I wanted to come by Grist — because of the in-depth discussions you’ve already had here again and again on this issue.
But — and here’s the but — I don’t want to swing by and just sort of preach to the choir. We’re true believers — we already get the imperative of the threat our addiction to carbon-emitting energy poses. You know the science, you know the reality, and so do I.
So, what I do want to talk about is this: We need to take a deep dive together on the Senate strategy, and on the real details of the bill that make it important for the things you and I care about. So, I hope I bring something new to that discussion that we can use as a jumping-off point.
First, the Senate dynamic — the politics of this place. I want to be candid about this, and I do so with a record on this issue that I think earned me the spurs to say this. We’ve been at this a long time. Al Gore and I held the Senate’s first climate-change hearings in the Commerce Committee way back in 1988. Since then, precious little progress has been made and ground has been lost internationally, all while the science has grown more compelling. I can barely even count any more the number of international summits I’ve attended, or press conferences we’ve held after losing climate-change votes in the Senate where our message was, “Next year, we can get this done — don’t give up on the United States or the Senate.” Two Congresses ago, we had 38 votes for a bill. Last Congress, we had 54 votes for cloture out of 60 needed — and we said then — me, Joe, Barbara Boxer [D-Calif.] — that this Congress we could get to 60 and pass a bill.
So what have we done? A lot of meeting and listening — between me,Joe Lieberman, and Lindsey Graham [R-S.C.], hundreds of meetings one-on-one with our colleagues to find out what they needed to support a bill. And I absolutely believe we’re closer than ever to getting across the finish line — but make no mistake, it remains difficult, even with President Obama in the White House, and even with the House of Representatives having passed their bill by the slimmest of margins last summer. But we’re going full-steam ahead because, in my judgment, this may be the last and certainly the best chance for the Senate to act, especially with the fact that I think the next Senate — given a 2012 presidential campaign added to the dynamic and a lot of new senators — is going to be less likely than this one to find a path to the 60 votes needed for passage. So we’ve got to get it done this year.
Hear me out on this one — you know where I’ve been and continue to be on all the major environmental fights since even before I became a senator. As a lieutenant governor, I focused on acid rain and we laid the groundwork for the successful fight on the Clean Air Act in 1990, with the support of the first President Bush and bipartisan support from Congress. In stark contrast to that effort to find a bipartisan way forward, I led the successful filibuster — against the urging of many in our Democratic caucus — to defeat the second President Bush’s plan to drill in and destroy the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I point to these twin examples because I think they’re evidence that I know when to dig in and fight, and I also know when and how to find the path to getting something done across the aisle.
And here’s what I can tell you: A comprehensive climate bill written purely for you and me — true believers — can’t pass the Senate no matter how hard or passionately I fight on it. No, it’s got to be an effort that makes my colleagues — and that has to include Republicans so we can get to 60 — comfortable about the jobs we’re going to create and the protection for consumers and the national security benefits — and it has to address those pieces on their terms. The good news: I think we got that balance right.
So, the straight scoop on the details, the real down-in-the-weeds details:
First and foremost, this bill creates a major — mandatory — pollution-reduction program that sends the needed price signal on carbon, with carbon allowances auctioned in a heavily regulated market that doesn’t allow any speculators access. Only corporations that need the pollution allowances can buy them, period. No bank can swoop in and start speculating. These corporations that buy the allowances can trade them among themselves, but again, no outside entities are allowed, with the minor exception of a few heavily regulated “liquidity providers” who are there to make sure there are always buyers and sellers at any one time. The actions of these providers, however, are tightly controlled, and their profits are extremely limited by the law. There’s no Wild West of speculation possible here, just a strict market only open to those who need it.
It will also be a stable market. The American Power Act creates a hard price collar for the sale of carbon allowances. This will cut down on the volatility of the market, especially in the early days, and give investors a clear signal on future prices. We don’t let this affect the environmental integrity or jeopardize the pollution reductions we’re going for, though. Instead, we hold back a strategic reserve of allowances that we release if the market gets too high to bring down the cost without adding new carbon to our pollution targets.
And, look, creating this pollution-reduction market is incredibly important to do. We absolutely have to send a price signal to move to a new energy economy. Every business leader I talk to confirms this — nothing else will get the job done. Without it, we won’t get the certainty we need in our economy that drives the innovation and investment in the clean energy economy. And without that, we won’t be able to get a real international agreement, with teeth, to confront the crisis of climate change.
Now, we can’t leave American workers exposed, waiting forever for others to join us in the effort to price pollution, because that would force them to compete against countries that have no greenhouse-gas emissions limits. That would just shift pollution abroad rather than reduce it, and in the process, it would cost us jobs. So we’ve included a robust, WTO-consistent border-adjustment mechanism in the bill. It’s pretty simple: Imports from countries that aren’t doing what we’re doing will need to pay a fee at the border or we will give our producers the resources they would need to keep from having their production shifted overseas to avoid the cost of polluting. This will prevent the “carbon leakage” of companies moving production offshore, and it allows American manufacturers to compete on a level playing field with those overseas. And I guarantee that on a level playing field, nobody beats the American worker.
We also want Americans to share in the benefits of this legislation, so the American Power Act — inspired in part by the great work of Sens. Maria Cantwell [D-Wash.] and Susan Collins [R-Maine] — sends the bulk of the proceeds from the sale of the pollution allowances back to the American people directly in the form of rebates. None of it stays with or grows government. Those rebates rise over time until it all goes straight back to Americans.
That’s the heart of the bill. I realize there’s been a lot of discussion about some other aspects of it, so here are some of the other parts of the bill:
- Clean Air Act: This part of the bill has generated a lot of commentary and reporting recently, and some of it has just missed the mark. Here’s the deal: This bill does not take the EPA out of the mix on regulating carbon. In fact, it strengthens the Clean Air Act by expanding the authority of the EPA and making that authority permanent. First, the entire pollution-reduction program is under the authority of the EPA. The bill specifically requires the EPA to regulate large sources of carbon pollution, but it does not allow it to issue what in many cases would be duplicative regulation of the same sources. Essentially, what the bill says is that EPA should use the program specifically designed for making the deep reductions in carbon pollution called for in the bill. The bill preserves key Clean Air Act tools for sources not in the program, and it calls on EPA to continue setting tough emission standards to reduce global-warming pollution from cars and trucks. It also continues EPA’s ability to set performance standards for old, dirty power plants to make sure they clean up.
- Offshore drilling: We’re in the middle of a catastrophe in the Gulf, and it’s important that we fully understand the implications as we move forward. This bill starts that process by tightening current federal law and implementing two major reforms. First, any state can veto drilling less than 75 miles off its border. Second, any new rig will have to be studied for the environmental impact of any potential spill, and any state that is found to be at risk can veto that drilling.
- State laws: The long-standing efforts of states like California to implement innovative programs around vehicle emissions and other programs will not be affected. The bill does make clear that carbon is a national problem, and that the national policy on carbon needs to be the law of the land. But outside of that specific area, states are still free to pursue the policies that they wish. I’ve talked with [Massachusetts] Gov. Deval Patrick about this — Massachusetts has been one of the states ahead of the curve and our bill rewards them — but like with acid rain, these governors know we ultimately need a national solution.
So — one more time – would I design every piece of this legislation exactly as it is if I only had to get my vote? Of course not. But that’s not the way democracy works. The Senate — and our caucus — is a very diverse coalition, from coastal states to Midwestern states to states with large coal reserves. Sixty votes is a tough coalition to put together.
But our planet can’t wait for the perfect bill. We need to get a really good bill now, one that reduces carbon pollution and puts us on a path to a clean energy future. And if we do this, I know we can get a tough international agreement to deal with this global problem. Those are the two things I remind myself of every day when it comes to this bill. You’ve got to keep your eye on the prize. Bottom line: We’re at a crossroads. On one path is clean energy, a more stable climate, and a more prosperous economy with America back in control of our own energy, generating good clean-energy jobs. On the other is the status quo, which is unsustainable. Keep that in mind when you look at this bill and engage in the debate.
---
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act
American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES) was an energy bill in the 111th United States Congress (H.R. 2454) that would have established a variant of an emissions trading plan similar to the European Union Emission Trading Scheme. The bill was approved by the House of Representatives on June 26, 2009 by a vote of 219-212, but was never brought to the floor of the Senate for discussion or a vote.[1][2][3]
The House passage of the bill was the "first time either house of Congress had approved a bill meant to curb the heat-trapping gases scientists have linked to climate change."[4]
The bill was also known as the Waxman-Markey Bill, after its authors, Representatives Henry A. Waxman of California and Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, both Democrats. Waxman was at the time the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and Markey was the chairman of that committee's Energy and Power Subcommittee.
==
American Power Act: Senators Kerry and Lieberman Release ...
https://fedsoc.org › publications › detail › american-power-act-senators-ker...
1.
Kerry-Lieberman climate bill: The details | Grist
https://grist.org › article › kerry-lieberman-climate-bill-the-details › full
1.
Oil-Industry Group Hires New Leader for Media Team
By ANNE C. MULKERN ofGreenwire
:{:{}:
As it works to reshape the oil industry's image, American Petroleum Institute's media shop has nabbed a former spokesman for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Eric Wohlschlegel started work yesterday as API's director of media relations. Running the team that talks to reporters, Wohlschlegel said he is focused on communicating the oil and natural gas industry's importance. It is the latest move as trade group CEO Jack Gerard reorganizes API's work force.
"We're basically under new leadership at API," Wohlschlegel said. "This is sort of getting all hands on deck towards that goal.
"It's obvious that he's assembling a new team and sort of focusing his assets with a very clear goal of advocacy and communications on behalf of the industry," Wohlschlegel said of Gerard's plan.
Wohlschlegel said his strategy is to "communicate to the general public how critical the oil and gas industry is to our economy and to jobs in America."
Wohlschlegel's recruitment marks API's latest hire from the U.S. Chamber, one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington, D.C., and one with strong ties to the oil and natural gas industry. API in April recruited Linda Rozett, who previously worked as communications director for the Friends of Fred Thompson organization and as senior vice president of communications for the Chamber (Greenwire, April 16). Rozett is in charge of all communications.
Earlier this year, API nabbed Deryck Spooner, who ran the Nature Conservancy's push to spur legislative action on climate change (Greenwire, Feb. 2). Spooner now heads API's grass-roots activism arm. He previously ran campaigns for labor group AFL-CIO and abortion rights organization NARAL Pro-Choice America.
API in December cut 15 percent of its work force, but Gerard said at the time that he planned to bring on new hires to fill gaps. Gerard said that the organization had "not been as effective as we could be in educating public officials or the public about the critical role of oil and gas in our economy. ... You will see us evolve into a more nimble, more aggressive" organization. "We're going to be aggressive in our outreach to educate the public" (E&ENews PM, Dec. 11, 2009).
Before working at the Chamber, Wohlschlegel worked at a small public relations firm, was the deputy press secretary at the House Energy and Commerce Committee under then-Chairman Tom Bliley (R-Va.), and worked for the National Petroleum Refiners Association.
API clearly is seeking out "big guns," as it works to reshape its message, said Tyson Slocum, director of the energy project at Public Citizen.
"It seems that API is going on a new recruiting spree; they are clearly assembling an impressive team to go on the offensive," Slocum said.
Key victories on Hill
The work force restructuring is helping API achieve big wins in Congress, Slocum said. The oil and natural gas industry last month "handily beat back," Slocum said, a measure that would have repealed $35 billion worth of tax breaks for oil and gas producers over the next decade. The amendment (pdf) would have cut oil and gas tax breaks related to amortization, depletion of oil wells and domestic production income(E&E Daily, June 16).
While the petroleum industry is under pressure because of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, Slocum said, "they're still able to muster an awfully lot of support" within Congress.
API and the oil industry over the past year changed its approach toward the push for climate legislation in Congress, Slocum said. The industry largely opposed the House bill that passed in June 2009. That bill, H.R. 2454, (pdf) capped carbon emissions and set up a program for buying and selling pollution permits. While it gave away a large number of free allowances to utilities and industries that rely on energy, it allocated almost none tooil refiners. The oil industry condemned that policy, calling it a redistribution of wealth.
The oil industry then struck a deal with lead Senate Democrats as Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) crafted their climate bill, said Slocum, who said that he was part of an April conference call where Kerry talked about that arrangement. The industry agreed not to condemn the legislation and Kerry's "American Power Act (pdf)" set up a special emissions trading program for the oil industry.
"That was part of the nonaggression pact that was essentially signed," Slocum said.
Copyright 2010 E&E Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
For more news on energy and the environment, visit www.greenwire.com.
Greenwire is published by Environment & Energy Publishing. Read More »
}:
==
NYer
On April 20, 2010, Senators John Kerry, Lindsey Graham, and Joseph Lieberman, along with three aides, visited Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s chief of staff, at the White House. The legislators had spent seven months writing a comprehensive bill that promised to transform the nation’s approach to energy and climate change, and they were planning a press conference in six days to unveil their work.
Kerry, of Massachusetts, Graham, of South Carolina, and Lieberman, of Connecticut, had become known on Capitol Hill as the Three Amigos, for the Steve Martin comedy in which three unemployed actors stumble their way into defending a Mexican village from an armed gang. All had powerful personal motivations to make the initiative work. Kerry, who has been a senator for twenty-five years and has a long record of launching major investigations, had never written a landmark law. Lieberman, an Independent who had endorsed John McCain for President, had deeply irritated his liberal colleagues by helping the Republicans weaken Obama’s health-care bill. Graham, a Republican, had a reputation as a Senate maverick—but not one who actually got things done. This bill offered the chance for all three men to transform their reputations.
The senators had cobbled together an unusual coalition of environmentalists and industries to support a bill that would shift the economy away from carbon consumption and toward environmentally sound sources of energy. They had the support both of the major green groups and of the biggest polluters. No previous climate-change legislation had come so far. Now they needed the full support of the White House.
The senators sat around the conference table in the corner of Emanuel’s office. In addition to the chief of staff, they were joined by David Axelrod, the President’s political adviser, and Carol Browner, the assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change. Lieberman introduced his aide, Danielle Rosengarten, to Emanuel.
“Rosengarten working for Lieberman,” Emanuel said. “Shocker!”
Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman knew that Obama’s advisers disagreed about climate-change legislation. Browner was passionate about the issue, but she didn’t have much influence. Axelrod, though influential, was not particularly committed. Emanuel prized victory above all, and he made it clear that, if there weren’t sixty votes to pass the bill in the Senate, the White House would not expend much effort on the matter. The Democrats had fifty-nine members in their caucus, but several would oppose the bill.
“You’ve had all these conversations, you’ve been talking with industry,” Emanuel said. “How many Republicans did you bring on?”
Kerry, the de-facto leader of the triumvirate, assured him that there were five Republicans prepared to vote for the bill. One of them, Lindsey Graham, was sitting at the table. Kerry listed four more: Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Scott Brown, and George LeMieux. With five Republicans, getting sixty votes would be relatively easy. The Obama White House and the Three Amigos would be known for having passed a bill that would fundamentally change the American economy and slow the emission of gases that are causing the inexorable, and potentially catastrophic, warming of the planet.
The Senate coalition that introduced the bill started to form in early 2009, when Lieberman instructed Rosengarten to work with the office of John McCain, Lieberman’s longtime partner on the issue. As the newest member of Lieberman’s staff, she was in charge of his climate portfolio, and Lieberman made a simple and oft-repeated demand: “Get me in the room.”
Lieberman had worked on climate change since the nineteen-eighties, and in recent years he had introduced three global-warming bills. He also had long been interested in a pollution-control mechanism called cap-and-trade. The government would set an over-all limit on emissions and auction off permission slips that individual polluters could then buy and sell.
By late January, 2009, the details of the Lieberman-McCain bill had been almost entirely worked out, and Lieberman began showing it to other Senate offices in anticipation of a February press conference. The goal was to be the centrist alternative to a separate effort, initiated by Barbara Boxer, a liberal from California and the chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee.
But the negotiations stalled as the bill moved forward.In Arizona, a right-wing radio host and former congressman, J. D. Hayworth, announced that he was considering challenging McCain in the primary. McCain had never faced a serious primary opponent for his Senate seat, and now he was going to have to defend his position on global warming to hard-core conservative voters. The Republican Party had grown increasingly hostile to the science of global warming and to cap-and-trade, associating the latter with a tax on energy and more government regulation. Sponsoring the bill wasn’t going to help McCain defeat an opponent to his right.
By the end of February, McCain was starting to back away from his commitment to Lieberman. At first, he insisted that he and Lieberman announce a set of climate-change “principles” instead of a bill. Then, three days before a scheduled press conference to announce those principles, the two senators had a heated conversation on the Senate floor. Lieberman turned and walked away. “That’s it,” he told an aide. “He can’t do it this year.”
In Barack Obama’s primary-campaign victory speech, in St. Paul, Minnesota, he said that his election would be a historical turning point on two pressing issues: health care and climate change. “We will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick,” he said. “When the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” During the campaign, he often argued that climate change was an essential part of a national energy strategy. “Energy we have to deal with today,” Obama said in a debate with McCain. “Health care is priority No. 2.”
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/11/101011fa_fact_lizza#ixzz17MeFiDRm
---
9/30/09
grist
The new Boxer-Kerry Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act gives progressives a second chance to influence climate legislation, if we learn the right lessons from both the legislative process for the House climate bill and the ongoing health care debate.
Many progressives have varying degrees of frustration with both processes, but the fact is the progressive grassroots has had more impact in the health care debate than the climate debate.
---
29 Jul 2010: Analysis
In Wreckage of Climate Bill,
Some Clues for Moving Forward
Ample blame exists for the demise of climate legislation in the U.S.
Senate, from President Obama’s lack of political courage, to the
environmental community’s overly ambitious strategy, to Republican
intransigence. A way forward exists, however, to build on the rubble of
the Senate’s failure to cap carbon emissions.
by eric pooley
http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2299
very good
- The Green Group. At a meeting in February 2007, the Green Group, an
unofficial association of the leaders of the big U.S. environmental
non-profits, told Harry Reid they supported a single legislative goal:
An economy-wide cap. Their strategy was to assemble the broadest
possible coalition to push the broadest possible bill. Given the
magnitude of the crisis and the need to reduce emissions quickly, this
made sense. Politically, though, it proved disastrous, because it led to
bills of such cost, scope, and complexity that they scared the pants off
timid legislators.
The Green Group held out for an economy-wide bill even after it became
clear, in late 2009, that it wasunachievable in the Senate. Only
recently did
environmental leaders try to negotiate a compromise cap on electric
power plants, which account for 40 percent of U.S. emissions. Passing a
utility cap would have been a great first step, but the talks got
started too late. The Green Group wanted too much and ended up with
nothing.
- The Power Barons. When the eleventh-hour search for a compromise
began, the utilities got too greedy. If they had to go it alone, they
argued, they deserved virtually all of the carbon allowances in the
program for free. This left too few for other crucial purposes, such as
cushioning manufacturers from higher electricity prices. Worse, in
exchange for supporting a carbon cap, some utilities demanded relief
from Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations governing
conventional pollutants such as mercury. Like the greens, they asked for
too much and got nothing. (The greens, however, were overreaching on
behalf of the planet, not their own coffers.) Some utility bosses were
relieved to see the bill die. Those feelings may prove short-lived as
the battle to reduce emissions moves to the EPA and the courts.
Some advocates, such as Lee Wasserman of the Rockefeller Family Fund,
regard the decision to negotiate with the power barons as the height of
folly. Washington, they argue, should simply dictate the terms of
surrender to the polluters. Such a stance ignores an important fact: It
isn’t possible to remake the U.S. energy system without negotiating with
the power barons. Punishing generators means punishing households that
pay electricity bills. That doesn’t mean, however, that the politicians
should give the barons everything they want. But there was only one
player with the clout to cut a fair deal with them, and he was missing
in action.
FED SOC
American Power Act: Senators Kerry and Lieberman Release “Discussion Draft” of New Climate Change Bill
New Federal Initiatives Project
| Sponsors: | Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group |
Brought to you by theEnvironmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group
The Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy initiatives. Any expressions of opinion are those of the author or authors. We hope this and other publications will help foster discussion and a further exchange regarding current important issues.
Introduction
On May 12th, 2010, Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman released a long awaited draft of their American Power Act (APA).[[1]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn1 "_ednref1") The legislation was originally planned to be issued as a bi-partisan measure, but those hopes disappeared when Senator Lindsey Graham withdrew his support to protest the decision by Senate leaders to give priority to immigration legislation over climate change legislation.[[2]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn2 "_ednref2") Observers assert that the lack of Republican support means that the measure stands little chance of enactment this year.[[3]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn3 "_ednref3") Nevertheless, the purportedly bi-partisan approach taken in the bill may offer insights into any ultimately successful legislation.
The bill, which is being circulated as a "discussion draft" and has not been officially filed in the Senate, aims at achieving greater energy independence, driving US leadership in green energy technology creation and deployment, creating economic growth and US green energy related jobs, reducing pollution, and improving public health.[[4]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn4 "_ednref4") Key to these efforts are the bill's support for greater use of domestic nuclear energy, allowance of revenue sharing to encourage states to allow offshore continental drilling in certain areas, creation of a fund to drive carbon sequestration research and deployment, implementation of performance standards for coal-fired power plants built after 2009, and the creation of a Clean Energy Technology Fund.
The central features of the bill, however, are caps on greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions and the creation of a market to trade in GHG permits, a so-called "cap and trade" approach to dealing with climate change. The approach taken to cap and trade is not economy-wide as in other bills previously introduced[[5]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn5 "_ednref5") but focused on those sectors of the economy that are responsible for the bulk of GHG emissions: power plants, transportation and heavy manufacturing ("covered entities").
The unveiling of this draft legislation is just one of many recent developments in climate change law and policy. For a more comprehensive discussion of other recent developments, please refer to the NFIP paper by Jeffrey Clark on EPA's Endangerment Rule published on April 24, 2010.[[6]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn6 "_ednref6")
Summary of Major Provisions
Cap and Trade[[7]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn7 "_ednref7")
The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would be the primary administrator of the GHG emissions caps, which the bill establishes as amendments to the Clean Air Act. GHGs regulated in the legislation include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons emitted as a byproduct, perfluorocarbons, and nitrogen trifluoride.[[8]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn8 "_ednref8") EPA has the discretion to add additional pollutants to the list of GHGs in the future.[[9]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn9 "_ednref9") The bill's caps are projected by its authors to reduce US-based emissions of GHGs by 17% (from 2005 levels) by 2020, 42% by 2030 and 83% by 2050.[[10]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn10 "_ednref10") The bill provides guidance to the Administrator, but allows for deviation to some extent based on EPA findings each year.
Once the Administrator determines the overall cap, the Administrator parcels allowances to those entities covered by the cap for the first few years as a transition to mitigate price shocks. The bill also provides various safeguards to protect against spiking emissions costs such as unlimited banking of emissions allowances (any unused allowances may be retained and used into the indefinite future) and one year of borrowing (an entity may emit using allowances it will receive next year).[[11]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn11 "_ednref11") Covered entities may also purchase allowances on the open market or sell unused ones without restriction.[[12]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn12 "_ednref12")
Nuclear Energy
With the proposal of the APA, there appears to be some degree of consensus on Capitol Hill that nuclear energy must play a key role in America's push to reduce GHG emissions. Senator Lamar Alexander has been promoting a proposal to facilitate the construction of 100 new nuclear power plants in the next 20 years.[[13]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn13 "_ednref13") In February of 2010, President Obama announced more than $8 billion in federal loan guarantees to support the construction of the nation's first new nuclear power plants in over 30 years.[[14]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn14 "_ednref14")
With this political backdrop, the APA would seek to promote a new renaissance in nuclear power. It would begin by combining the processes for obtaining permits to both construct and operate a nuclear power plant into a single, streamlined process, and reducing the number of issues that require an adjudicatory hearing by removing non-contested issues.[[15]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn15 "_ednref15") Both of these measures would reduce the time and expense associated with licensing new nuclear units. The APA also calls on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to identify and report on other barriers to creating new nuclear plants.[[16]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn16 "_ednref16") The APA provides an enormous injection of funds into the Energy Department's loan Technology Program, increasing the funds in that program to $54 billion.[[17]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn17 "_ednref17") The bill also amends the Energy Policy Act of 2005, doubling the number of nuclear plants eligible for regulatory risk insurance.[[18]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn18 "_ednref18")
Supplementary measures designed to ease the way for nuclear energy include extending the suspension of duties on certain components used in nuclear facilities,[[19]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn19 "_ednref19") accelerated depreciation for nuclear power construction, [[20]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn20 "_ednref20")investment tax credits,[[21]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn21 "_ednref21") modification of existing tax provisions to allow their use in nuclear projects,[[22]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn22 "_ednref22") the use of exempt bonds in public - private partnerships,[[23]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn23 "_ednref23") and federal grants.[[24]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn24 "_ednref24")
Offshore Drilling
Currently, all states (except Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas[[25]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn25 "_ednref25")) are prohibited from receiving revenues directly from offshore drilling. The APA would allow revenue sharing with certain coastal states and areas seaward of Alaska, providing those states with the incentives to allow continental oil and gas drilling off their coasts.[[26]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn26 "_ednref26") In the wake of the recent Deepwater Horizon oil drilling incident in the Gulf of Mexico, the bill also gives coastal states additional powers to impact oil drilling off their coasts, such as the ability to veto drilling plans "if the States would suffer significant adverse impacts in the event of an accident"[[27]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn27 "_ednref27") or opting out large portions of their coastal areas (up to 75 miles off the shore of the coastal state).[[28]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn28 "_ednref28")
Coal Sequestration
A special funding program would be established for developing and deploying carbon capture, sequestration and conversion technologies.[[29]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn29 "_ednref29") The fund would be part of a larger effort to create a "National Strategy for Carbon Capture and Sequestration" by the EPA Administrator and the Secretaries of Energy, Interior and other agencies designated by the President. The Secretary of Energy would collect an assessment from electric utilities based on megawatts sold that derive from fossil-fuel based electricity, with a mandate to collect approximately $2 billion from this assessment each fiscal year.[[30]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn30 "_ednref30")
International Components
The APA contains a wide array of provisions with international implications. For example, the bill establishes criteria for the use of carbon allowances from foreign programs as part of the American cap and trade system,[[31]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn31 "_ednref31") and discounts the value of international offsets so that it would take 1.25 international offsets to equal 1 domestic offset.[[32]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn32 "_ednref32") In addition, Section 797 of the bill gives the President discretion to consider the impacts of an international agreement that, according to the summary on Senator Kerry's website, would "substantially reduce the risk of climate change and the existence of one or more funds to address key international priorities in allocation decisions subject to specific constraints."[[33]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn33 "_ednref33")
There are also provisions aimed at promoting international reductions in industrial emissions,[[34]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn34 "_ednref34") and with respect to "international agreements," Senator Kerry's summary explains that "it is the policy of the United States to work proactively under the UNFCCC and in other forums to establish binding agreements committing all major-emitting countries to contribute equitably to the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions."[[35]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn35 "_ednref35") Moreover, Title V of the bill, entitled "International Climate Change Activities," purports to "outline[] the policy of the United States with respect to the international impacts of global climate change and the important role supporting international efforts to address these impacts plays in protecting America's national security, growing our economy, and reducing global pollution."[[36]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn36 "_ednref36") The "Strategic Interagency Board on International Climate Investment" would be created to "assess, monitor and evaluate the progress and contributions of U.S. Government entities in supporting financing for international climate change activities."[[37]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn37 "_ednref37") The bill also directs the federal government to work toward reducing deforestation in foreign countries.[[38]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn38 "_ednref38")
Other Key Components
The bill contains provisions preempting state and local cap and trade programs,[[39]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn39 "_ednref39") establishes a technology fund for clean vehicles,[[40]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn40 "_ednref40") tax credits for natural gas vehicles,[[41]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn41 "_ednref41") directs states and metropolitan authorities to develop strategies to meet GHG emission reduction targets for transportation,[[42]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn42 "_ednref42") and assistance to offset higher costs for "working families."[[43]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn43 "_ednref43") Important to union interests, the bill contains so-called "anti-leakage" provisions that seek to ensure that carbon emissions achieved in the U.S. do not result in increased emissions elsewhere.[[44]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn44 "_ednref44")
Analysis
Review of the APA has been largely mixed in the days following release of the discussion draft. Some environmental groups have expressed disappointment with aspects of the bill, including NRDC's disapproval of the state preemption measures and the incentives for nuclear energy (although NRDC believes the bill provides a "strong foundation" for a final bill).[[45]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn45 "_ednref45") The Center for Biological Diversity went further in its criticism, calling the bill a "disaster" for climate change.[[46]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn46 "_ednref46") The National Petrochemical and Refiners Association has taken the view that the APA would be "destructive" to the American economy,[[47]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn47 "_ednref47") a sentiment echoed by the ranking member of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, Senator James Inhofe.[[48]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn48 "_ednref48") Others were quick to applaud the bill including the Edison Electric Institute, General Electric, Entergy Corporation, DuPont, Duke Energy, Shell Oil, and The Nature Conservancy, just to name a few.[[49]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn49 "_ednref49") The U.S. Chamber of Commerce reserved judgment until it could fully evaluate the draft bill.[[50]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_edn50 "_ednref50")
Of course, this is not the first piece of climate change legislation to garner significant attention. In June of 2009, the House passed H.R. 2454, the "American Clean Energy and Security Act" (or "ACESA"), which is similar to the APA in many respects. For instance, the ACESA and the APA contain essentially the same schedule and targets for emissions reductions-17% and 83% reductions from 2005 levels by 2020 and 2050. Both bills would also preempt state limits on stationary sources of GHGs (although the ACESA would only preempt those state programs until 2017), and both bills would exclude GHG emissions from the Clean Air Act's PSD and Title V permitting programs.
However, the two bills differ in other important respects, including the treatment of transportation fuels and refined products and the schedules for distribution of emission allowances. There are also important differences in how the House and Senate versions would deal with offset credits. Moreover, while the ACESA has a renewable energy portfolio standard for utilities of 20% by 2020, the APA contains no such standard. And it's fair to say that the APA goes much further than the ACESA in promoting nuclear power.
As public discussion over the details of the Kerry-Lieberman draft bill gets underway, a number of important legal and policy issues are likely to receive attention, including (among other things):
- Is "cap and trade" the right approach? Many argue that a "carbon tax" approach would be a more efficient and effective mechanism for reducing carbon emissions, without the creation of a new complex trading system that some might argue results in a hidden tax. Important questions will be raised about the potential for "gaming" the system, and the long-term viability of capping and pricing GHG emissions. Will the tax increases and attempts to offset those increases with a new system of tax credits be politically palatable given prevailing economic conditions?
- Will the APA be able to achieve its ambitious GHG emission reduction targets?
- Should Congress preempt the states on the issue of GHG emissions, and should Congress place a moratorium on EPA from regulating GHG emissions? Industry largely welcomes the APA's decision to preempt the states from, and remove EPA from the precipice of, regulating GHG emissions associated with stationary sources. But many environmental groups fear that states like California will lose their ability to push for more aggressive GHG emission reduction measures. Others note that, at least with respect to removal of GHG regulation from the Clean Air Act, there is still the risk that other federal statutory regimes, including the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act, can lead to additional restrictions on GHG emissions..
- Does the APA place too much faith in coal sequestration and nuclear power? It is worth noting that the APA comes on the heels of other recent federal efforts to promote nuclear energy and to streamline the nuclear licensing process.
- Will the coastal states endorse the APA's new provisions regarding oil drilling?
- Does the APA sufficiently protect American economic interests, which would incur additional costs, from competition with foreign businesses that will not be subject to similar GHG emission reduction requirements?
- Will the bill's provisions aimed at promoting international reductions in foreign countries, including expenditures of federal treasure to do so, be acceptable to a majority in Congress?
- And many are still asking whether science currently supports the need for drastic reductions in man-made GHG emissions.
These and many other questions will be the subject of much discussion over the coming weeks and months as the Congress continues to seek a final compromise on energy and climate legislation.
* Alec D. Rogers is the Manager of Government Policy at a technology company and Jeffrey H. Wood is an attorney in Nashville, Tennessee. Both serve on the Executive Committee of the Federalist Society's Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group. Any opinions expressed in this article are the opinions of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of their employers.
[[1]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_ednref1 "_edn1") The text can be viewed online at: http://kerry.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/APAbill3.pdf.
[[2]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_ednref2 "_edn2") http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/28/nation/la-na-graham-20100428
[[3]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_ednref3 "_edn3") http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/08/us/politics/08climate.html?src=me
[[4]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_ednref4 "_edn4") APA, Section 2.
[[5]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_ednref5 "_edn5") See, e.g., H.R. 2454 which passed the House of Representatives in June 2009.
[[6]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_ednref6 "_edn6") http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/epas-endangerment-rule.
[[7]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_ednref7 "_edn7") For an interesting debate on the merits of a "cap and trade" system versus a "carbon tax" approach, please visit http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/a-conversation-on-climate-change-policy-a-look-ahead-at-2009-event-audio. Last year, The Federalist Society and The Vanderbilt Climate Change Research Network presented, "A Conversation on Climate Change Policy: A Look Ahead at 2009," with Professor Michael Vandenbergh, an advocate of comprehensive federal and international climate change regulation including a cap-and-trade system, and Professor Jonathan Adler, an advocate of a carbon tax system for addressing greenhouse gas emissions.
[[8]](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/american-power-act-senators-kerry-and-lieberman-release-discussion-draft-of-new-climate-change-bill#_ednref8 "_edn8") Sections 711-
Kerry, Lieberman to End the Suspense With Climate Bill ...
The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com › cwire › 2010/05/12 › 12cli...](https://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/05/12/12climatewire-kerry-lieberman-to-end-the-suspense-with-cli-19936.html?pagewanted=3)
May 12, 2010 — The Kerry-Lieberman legislation will call for a 17 percent reduction in carbon pollution from 2005 levels by 2020; 42 percent by 2030 and 83 ...
[### Short Summary of the American Power Act (Kerry-Lieberman)
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions
https://www.c2es.org › Publications](https://www.c2es.org/document/short-summary-of-the-american-power-act-kerry-lieberman/)
This bill contains a comprehensive, sector-based approach to enhancing energy security, spurring the development and deployment of clean energy ...
[### Kerry-Lieberman Climate Proposal a Disaster for Climate
Center for Biological Diversity
https://www.biologicaldiversity.org › news › 2010](https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2010/kerry-lieberman-05-12-2010.html)
“The Kerry-Lieberman proposal is not the answer because it asks the wrong questions. A successful climate bill must build upon, and not roll ...
[### As the World Burns
The New Yorker
https://www.newyorker.com › ... › (Sen.) Harry Reid](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/10/11/as-the-world-burns)
Oct 3, 2010 — On April 20, 2010, Senators John Kerry, Lindsey Graham, and Joseph ... Kerry and Lieberman abandoned their attempt to cap the emissions of ...
[### Kerry and Lieberman Release Draft Climate Bill While EPA ...
Faegre Drinker
https://www.faegredrinker.com › publications › 2010](https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2010/5/kerry-and-lieberman-release-draft-climate-bill-while-epa-issues-final-tailoring-rule)
May 14, 2010 — On May 12, 2010, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) released their long-awaited "discussion draft" of climate ...
[### Boxer Statement on Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (.gov)
https://www.epw.senate.gov › index.cfm › 2010](https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2010/5/post-8e31ddc7-802a-23ad-4daa-f9fa8de962d2)
Senator Boxer said, "America has a tremendous opportunity to transform our economy and create millions of clean energy jobs while reducing our ...
[### How Cap And Trade Was 'Trashed'
NPR
https://www.npr.org › 2010/04/26 › how-cap-and-trade...](https://www.npr.org/2010/04/26/126280761/how-cap-and-trade-was-trashed)
How Cap And Trade Was 'Trashed'. April 26, 20103:01 PM ET. By. Alan Greenblatt ... while the abortive Kerry-Graham-Lieberman bill sought out alternatives to using such a system.
[### Kerry, Lieberman introduce bill to stem global warming ...
Daily Camera
https://www.dailycamera.com › ...](https://www.dailycamera.com/ci_15072174/)
May 12, 2010 — May 12, 2010 at 6:09 p.m.. Loading your audio article. WASHINGTON — Sens. John Kerry and Joe Lieberman disclosed a long-awaited bill Wednesday ...
[### Anatomy of a Senate Climate Bill Death
Center for American Progress
https://www.americanprogress.org › article › anatom...](https://www.americanprogress.org/article/anatomy-of-a-senate-climate-bill-death/)
Oct 12, 2010 — ... Kerry, Lieberman, or Graham in 2010. This Republican lockstep opposition to the energy bill and other Democratic priorities is reflected in ...
[### Kerry-Lieberman energy bill: better than nothing
Baltimore Sun
https://www.baltimoresun.com › bs-mtblog-2010-05-ke...](https://www.baltimoresun.com/bs-mtblog-2010-05-kerrylieberman_energy_bill_bet-story.html)
May 12, 2010 — May 12, 2010 at 12:41 pm. Loading your audio article. The massive ... Kerry-Lieberman proposal. What states and the U.S. Environmental ...