Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) released details of the energy bill he is putting before the Senate on Tuesday, making it official that any hope for a national renewable electricity standard (RES) is dead. Last week Reid said as much while foreshadowing the contents of his bill, which focuses more on oil spill response than renewable energy. Since then, dozens of democratic senators (including one republican) and industry groups pressed Reid for, at the least, inclusion of a national RES to promote a shift to cleaner power over the long term.

For at least the short term, any RES prospect has been declared dead by the one man who could have given it life.

To make matters worse, the bill excludes just about everything else that could really help the renewable energy industry, especially the troubled wind sector, which has seen quarterly figures drop 71 percent from the same time last year.

NOT included are:

• A national RES
• Extension of the production tax credit (expires next year)
• Extension of the Treasury Grant Program (expires this year)
• Any cap or tax on carbon emissions by polluters

What the bill does offer:

• Oil Regulations: A removal of the $75 million cap on economic liability that oil companies must account for in response to an oil spill. Companies would pay higher fees into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. It would also speed up the claims process for people damaged by oil spills and overhaul government regulation to ensure that conflicts of interest do not exist.
• Energy Efficiency: The bill would set aside $5 billion for the proposed federal Home Star rebate program that incentivizes homeowners to make energy efficiency improvements.
• Conservation: The bill would also fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which uses a portion of receipts from oil and gas leases to support state and local conservation programs.
• Electric and Natural Gas Vehicles: Encourages the deployment of electric cars through $400 million doled out to certain cities. Also funds a federally-run competition to develop a battery that will power an EV for 500 miles in a single charge, and encourages federal agencies to introduce EVs into their operating fleets. Finally,  the bill offers incentives to retrofit heavy-duty vehicles to run on ?clean natural gas? (CNG).

The oil industry is railing against the bill, which means it must be doing something right. Yet while incentives for electric vehicles, increased oil regulation (so obviously lacking in the lead up to the BP spill) and energy efficiency incentives are good steps, this can hardly be called an energy bill ? at least not in the sense that the renewable energy industry, President Obama, nor any environmental advocate had hoped for.

Harry Reid and other Senate Democrats admit that the bill is far from sweeping, but claim that it's the best they can do without a guaranteed, filibuster-proof 60 votes ? something Reid says they most certainly do not have. And even this gutted sham of a climate change bill faces stiff opposition from republicans, whose main objective seems to be to oppose anything and everything until the GOP has a chance at regaining power in November. Although, they apparently have all the power they need already, or at least enough to stop the less-than-brave democrats tiptoeing around the Senate floor and all over the progress-minded constituents that voted them in nearly two years ago.

And where's President Obama on all this? Good question.

More »

Despite Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's assurances that no such provision will be included in a climate bill this summer, 27 Democrats and one Senate Republican are nonetheless pressing the Nevada senator for inclusion of a renewable electricity standard (RES). An RES would require utilities to obtain a percentage of their power from renewable resources within a set time frame, and is considered one of the best ways to promote clean energy production in the United States over the long term. Last week, Reid came out saying that such language was not in his vocabulary.

Sam Brownback of Kansas (a state that already gets 20 percent of its electricity from wind power) is the lone Republican senator to join Democrats in signing the letter urging Reid to include a national RES in his bill. Brownback is, however, staunchly opposed to any carbon cap or tax being included.

Reid and many other Democrats in the Senate are apparently fearful of a Republican filibuster because they do not have the 60 votes necessary to nullify that option (although, why they don't force the Republicans' hand instead of constantly allowing the opposite is beyond me). Still, Brownback and his unlikely Democratic allies believe they can get the 60 votes and that there is enough bipartisan support in the Senate to pull off an RES-inclusive bill.

Senators Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, Mark Udall of Colorado and Tom Udall of New Mexico led in drafting the letter, which argued, ?A strong RES will give certainty to clean energy companies that are looking to invest billions of dollars in the U.S. to manufacture wind turbines, solar panels and other renewable energy components.?

29 states already have their own renewable energy mandates, but legislation would have to be uniform throughout the country to truly facilitate wide-scale, permanent growth in the national renewable energy industry.

Why the Opposition to RES?

The main opposition to a national RES comes from senators of both parties representing the American South, where only four states ? Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina and Texas ? have state-level RES portfolios.

Many of these states are rich in coal and have a strong lobby against any legislation that would tax or otherwise inhibit its production. Senators from these states often argue that their states do not have the renewable resources that other states have, such as the Southwest's sunshine or wind along the coasts and in the Midwest. Subsequently, their states would be at a disadvantage when trying to meet RES requirements and would pay an unfair amount of penalties for noncompliance.

How the South Could Benefit from Renewable Standards

However, Environmental Leader reports that a new study, Renewable Energy in the South, released by the Georgia Institute of Technology and Duke University, asserts that a national RES would be an economic boon to the South. It claims that southern states could obtain 20 to 30 percent of their energy from renewable resources within 20 years if strong federal mandates are passed, all while adding thousands of new jobs. The South gets less than 4 percent of its energy from renewables today. Most of what there is comes from hydropower.

Yet despite letters, broad support outside the South and intense pressure from RE industries, nearly all hope for a strong climate bill coming out of the Senate this year is gone. The heavily compromised bill Harry Reid is expected to release this summer will include some minor but largely ineffectual clean energy incentives and some oil and gas industry regulations in response to the BP oil spill. Reid has shown no signs yet of relenting on his no-cap, no-RES position.

Photo Credit: Switched

More »

I recently wrote a post about the BP Republicans in Congress. Those are the no-brainers like Joe Barton who apologized to the now infamous oil (spilling) company because President Obama took some semblance of leadership on the issue by forcing BP to set aside billions for the relief effort.

The actual list of BP Republicans was put together by the Democratic National Committee and I took a lot of guff for harboring ?one-sided,? ?partisan? and [insert other buzzword] politics.

Now while I regret no part of the word-lashing we gave these frankly out-of-touch and steeped-in-oil-money Republicans (Joe Barton is the leading beneficiary of oil money in the 111th House of Representatives), those who admonished me are not wrong, either.

Obviously, the DNC is not an impartial source of information, and while Barton and the BP Republicans are, in my opinion, fools, at least they had the wherewithal to openly stand up for their benefactors. Many Democrats in Congress will loudly scold BP for its negligence and incompetence but quietly take their money at the same time, defending them in any way they can in the legislative process (i.e. yell NAY, vote YEA).

Democrat Chet Edwards (TX) is the second-leading beneficiary of oil money in the 111th House of Representatives.

So I thought hard about writing up a ?Who are the BP Democrats?? piece in fairness, and knowing even without looking at any data that perhaps the only non-partisan deals in Washington were political contributions, especially from the energy industry. However, when I did look at the data, I noticed BP contributions were small potatoes in the grand scheme of oil and gas donations; BP is not even in the top 75 percent of total contributions by company in either house.

Nevertheless, oil money flows freely and abundantly throughout Congress, and like tributaries, the majority of senators and representatives feed into a system that carefully and quietly protects dirty energy interests.

The proof-laden pudding containing all this information regarding oil money is a web tool developed by Oil Change International. There you can follow every dime of oil money straight to its Congressperson.

For instance, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) has accepted nearly $34,000 of oil money since 1999, although very little since 2002, and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Kerry's co-author of recent climate change legislation, has received nearly $100,000 since 1999.

You can also check contributions during political campaigns. Barack Obama received $898, 251 from oil companies during his winning 2008 campaign, most of that coming from ExxonMobil ($113,646). BP gave President Obama $39,405.

Obama's rival, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), blew everybody out of the water in oil contributions. He pulled in more than $2.4 million from oil and gas companies, spread out over a wide range of sources. McCain did receive a comparatively small $18,850 from BP.

Bear in mind that every major party candidate, including the likes of Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, Rudolph Giuliani, and Bill Richardson, took money from oil companies during their 2008 campaign. And in an election system where the candidate with the most money tends to win, who's going to turn it down? Not to excuse politicians that prize oil companies over constituents, but the problem may be more systemic than it is individual.

The oil and gas industry has in the realm of 600 registered lobbyists pestering Capitol Hill, and three out of every four of them once worked for the federal government. That, in political jargon, is what you call a revolving door (by far the most used door in D.C.).

How does an out-of-work shrimper in Louisiana stand up against that?

Whether Republican or Democrat, the money can be followed ? as required by law ? and it's important that we follow it. This way, we can know why on one hand John Kerry wants to put a cap on carbon emissions but on the other votes no on ending tax subsidies for the oil and gas industry.

Here are the top 10 recipients of oil and gas contributions in each house during the current 111th Congress:

Top Ten House Members (contributions 2009-2010)

1. Joe Linus Barton (R-TX) ? $85,770
2. Chet Edwards (D-TX) ? $73,430
3. Michael Conaway (R-TX) ? $72,800
4. Eric Cantor (R-VA) ? $69,400
5. David Daniel Boren (D-OK) ? $65,100
6. Randy Neugebauer (R-TX) ? $64,750
7. Peter G. Olson (R-TX) ? $54,400
8. Michael Avery Ross (D-AR) ? $54,250
9. Charles Boustany Jr. (R-LA) ? $49,450
10. John Calvin Fleming Jr. (R-LA) ? $44,800

Top Ten Senate Members (contributions 2009-2010)

1. Blanche Lambert Lincoln (D-AR) ? $216,700
2. David Vitter (R-LA) ? 170,200
3. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) ? $146,550
4. Robert F. Bennett (R-UT) ? $117,650
5. John Cornyn (R-TX) ? $87,575
6. Thomas Coburn (R-OK) ? $76,500
7. Arlen Specter (D-PA) ? $74,000
8. Byron Dorgon (D-ND) ? $70,950
9. Evan Bayh (D-IN) ? $62,150
10. James Demint (R-SC) ? $58,850

Look to Oil Change International to learn more about oil contributions for these as well as your own representatives in Congress. Follow the money and then follow their actions. Connections between the two are hard to miss.

Also check out OpenSecrets.org for more comprehensive information on campaign contributions to senators and representatives.

BP Oil Logo: Seven-Sided Cube & Congress Oil Money: Not the Answer

More »