POWER September 2010 - 6

SPEAKING OF POWER
Cap and Trade Is Dead
C
ap and trade officially died on July
22 when Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid announced at a news
conference that the Democratic Caucus
was unable to reach a consensus on any
form of energy bill, even a recent shortlived
version that proposed reducing
carbon emissions from only the utility
sector. I predict that carbon cap and
trade is now dead for at least a decade,
maybe longer.
Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) was next
to the podium to offer his mea culpas.
He described the stripped-down energy
bill as an " admittedly narrow, limited
bill " in seemingly apologetic tones.
" President Obama called me before this
meeting and said, point blank, he is committed
to working in these next days at
a more intensive pace . . . to help bring
together the ability to find 60 votes for
that comprehensive legislation. "
In fact, the long-promised comprehensive
energy and climate legislation
has devolved into a bill that now covers
oil spill liability, manufacturing natural
gas vehicles, and a home energy program
known as Cash for Caulkers. It's crunch
time for the Senate; pass anything with
the word " energy " attached, declare victory,
and go home to campaign.
Practical Politician
President Obama, regardless of your personal
feelings, is a realist and carefully
invests his limited political capital on
initiatives that he believes he can win.
Therein lays the crux of the problem
for advocates of cap-and-trade legislation-finding
60 votes has been and
will remain an impossible task for the
near future.
Without the promise of 60 votes,
Obama's support will continue to be
merely strong rhetoric. In the past,
Obama has used his words in support
of various energy and climate legislative
initiatives, especially before heading
over to the overhyped UN Climate
Change Summit in Copenhagen last December,
but without response from the
Senate. You may also remember that
6
shortly after his election, Obama recorded
a talk for YouTube promising climate
legislation as one of his legislative
priorities. However, the much-reported
arm-twisting and deal-making that took
place on the eve of the health care and
financial regulatory reform votes illustrates
that Obama is willing and ready
to go move beyond rhetoric and spend
much political capital when victory is
within his grasp.
On the other hand, Obama has remained
a cheapskate when it comes to
investing political capital on energy
legislation with carbon cap and trade.
There have been no signs that he has
been kicking butt (to use his own term)
and taking names on any of the recent
cap-and-trade legislative proposals. My
guess is Obama knows that Reid's announcement
of the demise of the American
Power Act (APA) was the fourth time
that energy legislation with carbon cap
and trade has failed in the Senate since
2003, the first time with 43 votes in favor
and then again in 2005 with only 38
votes. During Obama's watch, The American
Clean Energy and Security Act of
2009 (ACES) passed the House on June
26, 2009, by a vote of 219-212 (with 44
Democrats in opposition), but it never
saw the light of day in the Senate. Cap
and trade is now political kryptonite,
even for Obama.
Gain Must Exceed Pain
In my opinion, Reid pulled the plug on
the APA before a Senate vote to avoid
certain humiliation just months before
his own reelection bid. Insiders put
the expected vote tally at between 35
and 40 votes in support, even with the
strong support of large utilities, the Edison
Electric Institute, and many, but not
all, environmental organizations. It's a
mystery how another " comprehensive "
legislative proposal could possibly garner
another 20 or so votes if it includes
cap and trade, in spite of the president's
optimistic promises. It's clear that major
disagreements within the majority
party on carbon cap and trade remain
www.powermag.com
strong and beyond Reid's ability to exert
control. The bottom line is the political
pain for senators representing capaffected
constituencies overwhelms the
possible political gain by going along to
get along with the Democratic leadership.
The differences are primarily regional,
not party ones.
The president also faces much fencemending
with his constituents before he
can push cap and trade again. I've read
reports that supportive environmental
groups fully mobilized their forces and
invested upwards of $100 million since
Obama's election on media blitzes supporting
climate change legislation.
Obama must now mend fences after
throwing House Democrats that supported
ACES under the bus. In addition,
his environmental supporters may think
twice before again investing so much
sweat and money until the president's
actions match his rhetoric.
Regional Differences Rule
This lack of support for carbon cap and
trade in the Senate goes beyond the simple
arithmetic of counting votes to the
power and prestige of individual senators.
For example, key congressional Democrats
such as Ben Nelson (Neb.), Mary Landrieu
(La.), Evan Bayh (Ind.), Jay Rockefeller
(W.V.), and the late Robert Byrd (W.V.)
consistently opposed carbon cap-andtrade
legislation at every turn. Others,
such as Jim Webb (Va.), Mark Warner
(Va.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), and Jeff
Bingaman (N.M.) would like to support
cap and trade but have the intellectual
honesty to temper their enthusiasm with
true concern about its economic impact
on their constituents.
Would cap and trade pass were the
president to put his full political weight
in support of it? I doubt it. Without the
unfailing support of these Democratic
stalwarts by addressing their unique regional
concerns, carbon cap-and-trade
legislation will remain out of reach for
this, or any future, president. ■
-Dr. Robert Peltier, PE, is POWER's
editor-in-chief.
POWER | September 2010
http://www.powermag.com
POWER September 2010

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of POWER September 2010
