Nuclear.
The N-word is "nuclear," as in "nuclear power."
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), chair of the Senate Environmental & Public Works committee and hero to environmentalists, told reporters that "there will be a nuclear title in the bill." "The bill," of course, is the American Clean Energy & Security Act, aka cap & trade, climate change legislation, and (in the House) Waxman-Markey.
Smart move, or not? I report, you comment.
This is the fifth in a series exploring ACES in anticipation of an precedented gathering of 100 heads of state, including President Obama, at the United Nations on September 22. The starting point is obvious: Pass a Reality-Based Bill, where reality is 350 ppm. ACES will also provide for clean energy and clean jobs. I've also asked whether ACES should have Wind and Solar Power: Clean Jobs, Tariffs, or Both? and pointed out the natural security aspect of climate change in ACES: The Fate of the Himalayan Glaciers and National Security.
Political reality:
ACES has, depending on how you count, about 30 "yes" votes, all Democrats including Bill Nelson, and 13-14 "probably yes" votes, including Democrat Kay Hagan and Republicans Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. It also has about 22 "no" votes, all Republicans, and 12 "probably no" votes, including Democrats Mary Landrieux and Ben Nelson. Environment & Energy Daily (subscription required) lists 21 fence-sitters, including Carl Levin. Anyone capable of counting to 51 or 60 will quickly realize that if ACES is to pass the Senate, it needs to attract some of the fence-sitters.
Lamar Alexander (R-TN) is a jumbo shrimp decent Republican on climate change, acknowledging the reality of climate change, touting conservation and efficiency, and opposed to coal mining expansion. However, he's made it clear that he will oppose the bill unless it has a large nuclear provision, and thus is currently considered a "probably no" vote by E&E. His website argues forcefully for a Nuclear Renaissance: 100 nuclear power plants across the United States, including mini-reactors.
Great news for John McCain! He's long acknowledged the reality of global warming, but has been quiet during the climate change debate. All summer long, he's been expressing "substantive reservations about the emerging proposal in the Senate -- that it lacks sufficient nuclear power subsidies, that the money needs to go to clean-energy research and development rather than general revenue...." During the debate on the Lieberman-Warner climate bill act on 2008 (which did not pass), he tied his support to nuclear power.
Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA) are likewise considered fence sitters to probable no votes on ACES, but in favor of nuclear power. Democrats who have indicated, from time to time, that they favor nuclear power include Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Tom Carper (D-DE), Bob Corker (R-TN), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Mary Landreiux (D-LA), Harry Reid (D-NV), and Mark Udall (D-CO). In short, ordinary political reality suggests that the bill's chances of passing will be enhanced by including some nuclear provisions. On the other hand, recent political reality (e.g., ARRA, Max Baucus' Finance Committee health care bill) suggest that Democrats will insert provisions designed to lure Republicans that either add nothing to, or weaken, the bill, only to have Republicans uniformly refuse to vote for the bill in the end.
Specific nuclear provisions:
The House bill creates a Clean Energy Deployment Program and reforms the existing Department of Energy loan guarantee program. From the "myths and facts" section of the bill's official summary:
Myth: This bill does nothing for nuclear power.
Fact: The American Clean Energy and Security Act provides significant opportunities for nuclear power. Because nuclear power generates far less global warming pollution than fossil fuels, utilities will need to hold far fewer emission allowances for nuclear plants to comply with the carbon limitations in the bill. Under the new federal Renewable Electricity Standard, electricity generated from new nuclear units is not added to a utility’s baseline electricity level. As a result, the addition of a nuclear plant would not require a utility to obtain additional renewable electricity. This ensures that the Renewable Electricity Standard provides no disincentive to the construction of new nuclear units.
In addition, ACES establishes a self‐sustaining Clean Energy Deployment Administration (CEDA) to promote the domestic development and deployment of clean energy technologies. The Nuclear Energy Institute supports CEDA, which will provide direct loans, loan guarantees, and other types of financial support to clean energy technologies that might otherwise be unable to secure financing, including nuclear power. ACES also includes reforms to the existing Department of Energy loan guarantee program, which has received applications for federal loan guarantees from 16 proposed nuclear power plants, totaling $93 billion in requested assistance.
Will the Senate's bill do more for nuclear power than the House version? Conspicuous only by its absence in the House version is any effort to count nuclear power in the renewable electricity standard. So far, Boxer isn't saying anything at all about how nuclear power figures into her draft bill, scheduled to be released by the end of this month. She might have a very small section. McCain has decided to start speaking up: "McCain, whose state is home to Palo Verde, one of the largest U.S. nuclear power plants, wants a climate bill to include incentives for building more nuclear plants, beyond aid the industry already gets." (My emphasis.) McCain is famous for railing against pork and earmarks. Under the EPA's analysis (53 pg pdf) of Waxman-Markey, nuclear power usage is expected to grow substantially as coal becomes priced out of the market, without any pork incentives. It's unclear what kind of incentives he expects from ACES. It's also unclear whether expensive provisions, regarding nuclear power or anything else, might repel more fiscally conservative Senators than attract pro-nuclear advocates.
Obligatory promotion note here: You may have seen Adopt A Senator For ACES diaries over the last few weeks (linked above). I am coordinating a whip project in which a volunteer targets a particular Senator, ascertains and diaries the Senator's likely vote on ACES, and tracks the Senator's position as the bill moves through the Senate. Meteor Blades has previously written Adopt-A-Senator For ACES Targets Climate Legislation, and I originally announced Adopt A Senator for ACES, Win Friends, Influence Senate. Fence-sitters not already adopted by Kossacks include:
* Mark Begich (D-AK)
* Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
* Kent Conrad (D-ND)
* Byron "Coal is our most abundant resource" Dorgan (D-ND)
* Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
* Judd Gregg (R-NH)
* Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
* Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
* Mark Pryor (D-AR)
* Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
* Arlen Specter (D-PA)
* Jon Tester (D-MT)
If you're interested in helping to move ACES through the Senate, by adopting one of the Senators on this list, or a home state Senator, or otherwise helping out, please contact me (email address in profile) for details.
Many progressives who came of age in the 1970s have a vague distrust of nuclear power. It would be an enormous mistake for the Senate to reject the bill outright over any one provision and take no action on climate change. Political realities of the day indicate that some form of nuclear power is going to appear in the final version of ACES. Polls showthat the public is divided on whether to build more nuclear power plants, although support appears to be trending upward. Does the House version contain enough support for the nuclear industry or too much support? Given the debacle of Max Baucus' Finance Committee bill, should Boxer attempt to include anything in the hope of luring Republicans?