What the Tea Party Means for National Energy Policy

On 11.22.10, In Opinion, By Natalie Relich

The success of the Tea party has been a constant focus of the media leading up to and in the wake of November’s election. The newly elected cohort of Tea Party-backed candidates is making its way to Washington, bringing a cause for joy among some Americans and despair for others. There may only be 39 new Tea Party candidates heading to Capitol Hill, which is a relatively small number given the size of Congress, but don’t let the numbers fool you. In the short amount of time since the election, Tea Party candidates have shown considerable influence within the Republican Party. Many uncertainties remain over the direction of public policy during the next term, but one thing is for certain, the small but feisty Tea Party minority cannot be ignored.

Several newly elected Senator’s owe their success to a Tea Party endorsement. An ABC article notes how this block consisting of newcomers Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Pat Toomey, and Ron Johnson as well as veteran Jim DeMint could be an ultraconservative force pushing against the moderate Republican leadership. Republican Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, has already caved to Tea Party pressure and supported an earmark ban, despite previously defending the practice. This could be the first of many instances where the Tea Party prevails over Republican leadership. In the House of Representatives, freshman members Kristi Noem and Tim Scott, both of whom received Tea Party backing, have been given leadership posts in the new Boehner- led majority.

Where does energy policy fit into this new establishment?  Senator McConnell and President Obama have already indicated that energy is an issue where both sides might be able to achieve compromise. But where does the Tea Party stand on energy issues? At first glance, the rise of the Tea Party presents a gloomy picture for environmentalists; however, energy policy may be one of the few issues that politicians with starkly different ideologies will be able to achieve progress.

(more…)

Tagged with: • • •
 
5 Comments
Leave A Response

Senators Call for Clean Energy Innovation

On 11.17.10, In News, By Staff

In order to regain its economic greatness, the United States needs to re-invest in clean energy innovation.  That’s the conclusion of a new report by Third Way, “Creating a Clean Energy Century,” and an accompanying op-ed in today’s Politico by Senators Stabenow (D-MI), Hagan (D-NH), and Udall (D-CO). Citing a history of American innovation and its economic benefits, the Senators write:

“Beyond recovery from the current economic crisis, the country that first develops and integrates affordable clean energy technologies is likely to dominate the 21st century global economy — and create the jobs that go along with it…

The innovations we need to dominate this market include major, game-changing breakthroughs, like next-generation nuclear power and long-distance electric cars. But they also include incremental progress — like expanded battery storage, upgrades to our transmission system and improvements in solar panels.

But large or small, innovations don’t just happen. With slower capital returns than usually seen with IT and biotech investments, we need to encourage private sector involvement in clean energy. Lack of demand — since new energy sources have been more costly than fossil fuels — can deter development of promising technologies.

But we have succeeded in past when the public sector worked hand-in-hand with business to solve these problems. We can re-ignite this public/private partnership, as Third Way outlines in an innovation report out today, by focusing on four steps:

(more…)

Tagged with: •
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

How Energy Reform Can Break the Partisan Stalemate

On 11.16.10, In Columns, By Teryn Norris

Published by National Journal
Energy & Environment Expert Blog

By Teryn Norris
November 16, 2010

In the aftermath of the mid-term elections, it’s unlikely that Washington can overcome the crippling gridlock in Congress. Yet one critical opportunity for bipartisan compromise stands out among the rest: energy policy.

Addressing the country the day after elections, President Obama signaled a clear opening by pressing the reset button on cap and trade and calling for a new agenda. “I don’t think there’s anybody in America who thinks that we’ve got an energy policy that works the way it needs to, that thinks that we shouldn’t be working on energy independence,” he declared. “And that gives opportunities for Democrats and Republicans to come together and think about… how do we move forward on that agenda.”

Senator Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) quickly agreed. “I think energy is an area where there is potential for a bipartisan accomplishment of some consequence,” Senator McConnell told the Wall Street Journal. “There are a variety of other things there could be pretty broad agreement on… Nobody thinks it is a bad idea to reduce carbon emissions, the question is how do you do it.”

(more…)

Tagged with: • • • • •
 
1 Comments
Leave A Response

News Roundup: What Does the Election Mean for Energy Policy?

On 11.03.10, In News, By Staff

The midterm results are in.  As expected, Democrats have lost the House and held the Senate but with a slimmer majority.  To what degree the failed cap and trade bill doomed House Democrats has become a central question.  Pundits and politicians are scrambling to predict what the election means for energy and climate policy.  Here we provide a roundup of some top news and opinion:

President Obama, speaking at his post-election press conference:

“Cap-and-trade was just one way of skinning the cat, it was not the only way, it was a means, not an end, and I am going to be looking for other means to address this problem…I don’t think there’s anybody in America who thinks that we’ve got an energy policy that works the way it needs to, that thinks that we shouldn’t be working on energy independence.  And that gives opportunities for Democrats and Republicans to come together and think about — you know, whether it’s natural gas or energy efficiency or how we can build electric cars in this country — how do we move forward on that agenda.”

NYT Dot Earth, Andrew Revkin, “The Real Threat to Science in the New Political Climate”

“I see the looming problem as much deeper, with cuts in money for science unlikely to be climate-centric. This election almost guarantees an end to the brief stimulus-driven period of increased investment in advancing energy technologies that could supplant finite fossil fuels.”

(more…)

Tagged with: •
 
1 Comments
Leave A Response

Can Conservatives Support Clean Energy Innovation Policy?

On 10.19.10, In News, By Teryn Norris

Steven Hayward, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and co-author of the “Post-Partisan Power” report, has a new article in The Weekly Standard that makes the conservative case for a federal energy innovation agenda.  Hayward’s independent analysis is a must-read for conservatives advocates and indicates a strong bipartisan consensus point for energy policy reform.

Is there a way for government to adopt an energy policy that avoids wasting money on inferior energy sources and unproductive laboratory research and that could gain bipartisan support in today’s bitterly polarized climate? There just might be.

Hayward summarizes the report’s recommendations, including $25 billion per year of federal investment in clean energy science, education, R&D, and procurement designed to drive down the price of low-carbon energy technologies.  Anticipating potential concerns from fellow conservatives, Hayward writes:

No doubt critics will say this level of state involvement in promoting technological innovation doesn’t sound very Reaganite, but they are wrong. Just as Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative was intended to be a long-range game changer rather than just another weapons system, this energy strategy is intended to reestablish the United States as the global leader in energy innovation and potentially upend the geopolitics of energy.

He continues:

(more…)

Tagged with: •
 
3 Comments
Leave A Response

Chunks: A(nother) New Approach to Energy Policy?

On 10.01.10, In Opinion, By Staff

By Alex Trembath. Originally posted at Energetics.

In a recent interview with Rolling Stone, President Obama addressed the failed climate/energy attempt of this summer, promising to move forward with a reinvigorated agenda in 2011. However, any such action will likely bear little resemblance to previous attempts. Mr. Obama conceded that “we may have to end up having to do it in chunks, as opposed to some sort of comprehensive legislation.” If this is indeed going to be the form of a new course of action on climate/energy for Mr. Obama, commentators are beginning to wonder exactly what those “chunks” will be.

Never mind the fact that the most recent attempts at energy reform have been piece-meal to begin with–that’s more or less inevitable with so many regulations, markets, fuels, interest groups and players at stake. Before its total dismantling, the American Power Act (formerly Kerry-Graham-Lieberman) was a hodge-podge of cap-and-trade, tax incentives and subsidies for renewables and clean coal technology, loan guarantees for next-generation nuclear power production, and a slew of regulatory reforms to preempt state action of GHGs and promote energy efficiency. Of course that bill never came close to a floor vote in the Senate, but my point stands: a “comprehensive” bill would have to be built one brick at a time anyway, so maybe Obama’s explicit “chunks” approach will get the job done.

So what’s on the table this time around? And, more importantly, what can pass a divided Congress? (more…)

Tagged with: • • • • •
 
3 Comments
Leave A Response

Renewable Electricity Standard: Symbolism or Substance?

On 09.28.10, In Opinion, By Daniel Goldfarb

Originally published at the Huffington Post

By Daniel Goldfarb

Amongst those who have fought for energy reform, the announcement that Senators Jeff Bingaman (D- N.M.) and Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) are pursuing a stand-alone renewable energy standard (RES) should be cause for both cautious celebration and deep concern. While a RES could be an effective tool to help catalyze a market for clean-energy, this particular bill falls short of the ambitious legislation needed to ensure that America is competitive in the global clean-energy economy. In talking about this piece of legislation it is important that we distinguish between the effects of the policy and the symbolism of its potential passage.

Although the final language hasn’t been released, Bingaman’s bill will likely set out of the goal of 15% of renewable production by 2021 with up to 4% coming from efficiency. This proposal is essentially a paired down version of Bingaman’s contribution to the 2009 American Clean Energy Leadership Act (ACELA), which called for a stiffer 20% renewable production goal.

Here are some facts about renewable energy standards in America. 36 states already have some form of an RES in place, most of which are more ambitious than the proposed bill – although it should be noted that some do not contain the enforcement mechanisms that a national bill would. Yet even for those states that don’t have an RES in place it still may have little effect. A 2009 analysis by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a research arm of the Department of Energy, shows that a goal of 15% renewable production by 2021 with 4% coming from efficiency is actually right on track with business-as-usual growth in the industry. Marchant Wentworth, deputy legislative director for the Union of Concerned Scientists, said of the original more ambitious RES standard, “This bill’s renewable standard is so pitiful that it wouldn’t require any new renewable energy development beyond business as usual.”

(more…)

Tagged with: • • •
 
2 Comments
Leave A Response

NYT calls for climate bill

On 01.24.10, In News, By Kevin Hsu

The New York Times editorial board is calling on President Obama to forge ahead with a climate bill, despite the loss of the Democrats’ 60th Senate seat. According to conventional wisdom (and some pundits), the chances of Congress taking action on energy and climate this year are  ”somewhere between terrible and nil.” The editorial challenges Obama to “prove the conventional wisdom wrong by making a full-throated case for a climate bill in his State of the Union speech this week.”

(However, as previously noted by this blog, the Senate bill in its current form has far less federal investment in clean energy technology development and deployment than what many experts, and the White House, have called for.)

Some of the reasons Congressional action cannot wait? In addition to concerns about climate change (which only continue to mount in severity), the editorial cites issues of national competitiveness at stake:

  • China is “moving aggressively to create jobs in the clean-energy industry. Beijing not only plans to generate 15 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020, but hopes to become the world’s leading exporter of clean energy technologies. Five years ago, it had no presence at all in the wind manufacturing industry; today it has 70 manufacturers. It is rapidly becoming a world leader in solar power, with one-third of the world’s manufacturing capacity.”
  • The U.S. faces a “question of credibility.” At COP15, the US pledged to “meet at least the House’s 17 percent target. Success in the Senate is essential to delivering on that pledge. Failure would undo many of the good things [Obama] achieved in Copenhagen, and it would give reluctant powers like China an excuse to duck their pledges.” [Not sure about this last sentence with regard to China, which agreed to a voluntary carbon intensity reduction unilaterally ... and they probably mean to keep it.]
  • Finally, the editorial notes, “the ‘jobs argument’ should impress the Senate … The climate change bills pending in the Senate would not begin to bite for several years, when the recession should be over. The cost to households, according to the Congressional Budget Office, would be small. A good program would create more jobs than it cost.”

Unfortunately, things look a bit hazy, despite Harry Reid’s earlier announcement that the climate bill was on the agenda for March. The editorial worries that “many Democrats as well as Republicans seem willing to settle for what would be the third energy bill in five years—loans for nuclear power, mandates for renewable energy, new standards for energy efficiency. These are all useful steps. But the only sure way to unlock the  investments required to transform the way the country produces and delivers energy is to put a price on carbon.” (This presumably refers to investment from private capital markets and not government-sponsored programs or federal investment.)

(more…)

Tagged with: • • •
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response
Next Entries »
Go To Top »