There are two somewhat dispiriting things about White House energy and climate advisor Carol Browner’s statements last weekend that climate change and energy legislation are “not going to happen” this year.

First was the automatic conflation of comprehensive energy reform and climate change. It’s a drum we’ve beat in this space often: without wading into the controversial climate change debate itself, energy security is a vital issue and it has a chance to pass on its own. If putting the two of them together dooms both, they should be considered separately to ensure energy security has a chance. But in Browner’s eyes (and in the eyes of many on the Hill), the two are clearly one. When asked about a climate bill, her response was about energy legislation in general: in addition to saying that it was “not going to happen,” she added “I think we would all agree the likelihood you would have a bill signed by the president on comprehensive energy by the time we go [to Copenhagen] early in December is not likely.”

The second—and perhaps even more—depressing thing about her statement was the behind-the-scenes response of so many on Capitol Hill: “well, duh.” To them, Browner was stating the obvious. The chances for either climate change or energy security to pass this year are dwindling.

But are they right? And if so, what has happened to a process that looked so promising only a few short months ago?

At the top of the list, of course, was health care. It took over Washington for the summer and early fall and still is by far the highest priority on the congressional and presidential calendars. Add to that the necessity to finish the appropriations process, and subtract the rapidly shrinking number of legislative days left before Copenhagen (less than 40 now), or even the end of the year, and it’s easy to see how many believe that the math becomes harder and harder for an energy bill.

That’s not the only thing that has changed. In June, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved their comprehensive bill on a bipartisan basis. Their debates were heated, but ultimately, what happened was most Senators agreed to give up something they cared about to get something else. Democrats got RES. Republicans got expanded domestic production. It was a compromise, which is how major bipartisan bills get done. But since then, energy in the Senate has morphed back into a partisan issue. Senators outside of the Energy Committee are less willing to give up on the things they want or accept the things they don’t want.

And things get more complex when we consider the Kerry-Boxer climate legislation that exists beside the Energy Committee’s comprehensive bill. For the past week, the assumption was that, if nothing else, climate was definitely dead this year. But today, there are rumors on the Hill that Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina may be leaning towards supporting the Kerry-Boxer bill. That muddies the water even more, not only for that bill, but for the bipartisan Energy Committee legislation. Supporters of both bills have been courting Graham and Senator John McCain for some time. Both Graham and McCain were reportedly willing to consider coming aboard a bill that had significant incentives for expanded nuclear energy. Whether that is what has occurred this week in relation to the Kerry-Boxer bill—or whether the rumor about Graham is even true —may not become clear today. What is clear, however, is that the energy and climate maneuvering continues behind the scenes.

So what happens now? Despite everything, there is still a real opportunity here. The fact that a major bipartisan energy bill even exists gives hope. The fact that some pretty major Senate movers and shakers support the bill keeps its chances at least measurable, if not necessarily probable. There will not be enough time for a major floor fight. The way to get the Energy Committee bill passed is for its sponsors and supporters to continue to work behind the scenes to find the bipartisan compromise in the wider Senate that they found in the Committee. This process is not yet over. Meetings are still happening and deals are still being made. This is how the sausage is made, and while it isn’t always pretty, in this case, the result could very well be a safer and stronger America.

Previous Post  

Next Post

Weekly Political Roundup
September 3, 2010

Political Roundup
August 27, 2010

Political Roundup: Recess Edition
August 20, 2010