Lately, we've been documenting the exodus of companies from the Chamber of Commerce over its opposition to serious efforts to address global warming.
But as the Senate gets set to take up climate change legislation, already passed by the House, there's a larger question behind the Chamber's woes: What's motivating energy-sector companies on both sides of the issue, and how are their positions affecting the debate on Capitol Hill?
Experts stress that, even within the utility sector, a range of factors drive companies in different directions. Perhaps the most important is to what extent the utility has already begun to shift away from carbon-intensive fuels -- oil, coal, and natural gas -- toward renewable sources. Thus, Exelon --- which was an early mover on de-carbonization, divesting itself of its coal-fired capacity over ten years, and becoming one of the leading providers of nuclear energy -- left the Chamber recently and supports efforts to pass strong legislation. Meanwhile, Southern Company, still heavily oriented around fossil fuels, remains a Chamber member, and did not support the House bill.
Another key factor is the existence of different regulations in different states. PG&E, another refugee from the Chamber, is responding in part to the fact that California, where it operates, has in place a very strong renewable portfolio standard, requiring utilities to make a significant shift over to renewable sources in the coming years. As a result, national legislation would actually be helpful for PG&E, in part because it would make things easier to attract developers and capital for new projects.
Indeed, for companies like PG&E, Exelon, and Duke Energy, Congress's approach doesn't move fast enough. Having made strides to convert to renewables, says Michael Zimmer, a lawyer and energy policy expert at Thompson Hine in Washington, D.C., they'd like to see new standards kick in by the end of the next decade at the latest. "They've made the institutional decision [to shift to cleaner fuels]" says Zimmer. "So why should that be delayed or impeded by a postponement until 2025 or 2030, which is what the House and Senate bills do?"
By and large, most utilities have gotten the provisions that are most important to them into the bill. That wish list includes support for clean coal technology; support for nuclear power -- which was largely absent from the House bill, and could help win Republicans over; flexibility in terms of which renewables can be used; and long-lasting carbon emission permits, given for free, in order to protect rate-payers from price hikes.
"They negotiated the deal they wanted and are now largely supporting the bill," says Jesse Jenkins, an expert on energy and climate change at the Breakthrough Institute, a progressive policy think-tank. "This is the PG&E, Duke Energy, GE bill. It's questionable whether it's even the environmentalists' bill anymore."
That support, in turn, could significantly boost the bill's chances of passing. Says Tony Kreindler of Environmental Defense: "The fact that the utilities have come around generally has changed the face of this debate in DC."
Electricity companies, too, have "undergone a fairly significant policy shift on climate," says Kreindler. The Edison Electric Institute, a trade group of electricity companies, has worked constructively to draw up a plan for the value of emissions permits.
Of course, it's a different story with fossil-fuel suppliers -- that is, coal, oil, and gas companies. Coal is the most carbon intensive fuel, and the coal industry, in particular, remains strongly opposed to efforts to reorient energy policy around cleaner sources -- as the controversy over those forged letters, sent on behalf of a coal-industry lobbying group, illustrated.
But others are beginning to see the writing on the wall, calculating that change is coming eventually, and it makes sense to have a seat at the table. BP, Conoco-Philips and Shell are all members of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, an industry-environmental alliance that's working to shape the legislation.

TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

mans_best_friend
October 15, 2009 4:44 PM
2025 is too late. By that time we'll have put so much CO2 into the air that even if we cut emissions to zero it will be too late to prevent large-scale climate changes.
We have about a 10 year window to make serious changes. I see no reason to think we will.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
datora
October 16, 2009 6:26 AM in reply to mans_best_friend
Actually, our window is more like five years, and it doesn't look like we're going to make it. Just in the last week:
The Group of Eight (G8) and other countries have endorsed the target of pegging warming to no more than two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial times; talks are taking place under the 192-nation UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Copenhagen December 7-18.
Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Nobel-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):
"If this path of mitigation is to be embarked on, to ensure stabilisation of temperatures at the level that I mentioned (2 C, 3.6 F), then global emissions must peak by 2015."
"It is not enough to set any aspirational goal for 2050, it is critically important that we bring about a commitment to reduce emissions effectively by 2020."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091015/sc_afp/unclimatewarmingpachauri
Global emissions will not peak for 10 to 20 years, at least. To do so that fast (or faster), thousands of generating facilities need to be shut down worldwide and replaced with non-coal, non-oil, non-gas facilities.
I don't think it can be done in under 30 years, based upon the reality of politics (worldwide) and the engineering required to replace so many facilities with technology that has not even been fully developed yet ... thus the reason why 2040 and 2050 keep showing up in realistic projections.
We get to watch our children and grandchildren boil in the chemical soup we've created, a fitting reward for our greed and self-centered, wasteful lifestyle choices.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Backseatdriving
October 15, 2009 4:55 PM
Good article. I would hesitate to use the Breakthrough Institute to represent the "progressive" agenda, however. They have an agenda that emphasizes technological investment over direct mandates to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I think groups like Environmental Defense, NRDC, and League of Conservation Voters more broadly represent the environmental opinion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ian
October 15, 2009 10:30 PM in reply to Backseatdriving
@Backseatdriving: I’m familiar with the Breakthrough Institute, or at least with the work of their senior advisors and -- they are a committed progressive organization that supports large public investments (New Deal/Space Race/Marshall Plan/etc.) to directly build a new clean energy infrastructure and accelerate innovation to "Make Clean Energy Cheap". Google says the same stuff, BTW. Pretty progressive stuff! Certainly not just neoliberalism run amok and obsession with regulation... can you regulate innovation? Can you regulate your way to an entirely new energy infrastructure? That's what EDF and NRDC and LCV represent, and sadly, I believe that is the “environmental” position, espeially when they align themselves with corporate interests (http://us-cap.org) and fight for a “market-based” cap and trade bill full of giveaways to coal, oil, nukes and heavy industry and so riddled with loopholes... it's not "cap and trade", because the "cap" is just a sweatband. Not progressive, just sweaty.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Schwartz
October 15, 2009 5:49 PM
We are hosed, but I'm glad to see that some people in high places are aware that we are hosed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PeakRo
October 15, 2009 5:59 PM
You might also want to look into the effort by the American Natural Gas Alliance. I'm a licensed investment broker and specialize in private oil & gas programs. And yes I'm a staunch Democrat. I have found it interesting that they have gone to great lengths to position Natural Gas as a bridge fuel to get us past oil and transition to renewables. They tout that NatGas burns some 30% cleaner than oil and almost 50% cleaner than coal. They also tout it as a fuel that addresses climate change.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LBS
October 15, 2009 8:48 PM
Fine reporting here: you really take aparty the hype and get down to the agendas. I've said it elsewhere, but when does a climate change bill stop being one to prevent climate change, and become, instead, part of the problem. I would argue that the current bills (particularly the Kerry endeavors with Graham and Boxer) are counterproductive, to say the least.
I would love it if you looked into the NG industry. I have selfish reasons, but there is something very fishy going on here, not to mention dangerous. This is not a transition fuel: drilling is being pursued world-wide. One google hit will give you dozens of locations. And the players are not small -- nor are the stakes: for all its efficiency when in actual use, natural gas is still methane, and for that a very dangerous greenhouse gas, indeed. It's production is incredibly polluting, and the current climate bills do not stipulate any form of mitigation or regulation for this virtually unregulated industry.
Pipe leaks alone impact climate change -- and more pipes are being built all over the place. And have you looked at what is going on in PA? Jeeze -- they don't even tax the industry on a state level. And as for pollution -- its a disaster. But I haven't seen any NG drills in the US that aren't disasters. (I'm not sure I am exaggerating here -- if one defines acquifer and air contamination as a disaster than the assessment is correct.)
I'd like to find out how the lobbying effort got off the ground to position itself as "clean and green." They got the Sierra Club and the large environmental organizations on a national level (though not regionally, and not with all hands on board) and they got the democrats. The Tom West Firm hit Albany hard. How is this working nationwide? Who is bedding whom?
(Why in hell, for example, is NY's governor giving millions to a Canadian gas company to install a gas pipeline up to the hinderlands of NY? He just announced the need for $5 billion in cuts.)
Anyway, thanks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SleepinJeezus
October 15, 2009 10:15 PM
Much of what we see going on with the utilities and energy industries being "in support of Climate Change legislation" can be attributed to what they have seen happen in the Health Care Reform Effort. The Health Insurance Industry maintained a seat at the table through their "reasonableness" that they then used to subvert and corrupt everything into their favor.
There are a lot of irresponsible schemes ready to be promoted as solutions to our carbon emissions problem. Expansion of our natural gas industry is only one such proposal being vigorously promoted that will contribute greatly to the problem rather than offer anything close to a solution. Look to the utilities and the other industry interests to promote any number of such bogus solutions that will enhance their bottom line; boost their "Green" credentials among a gullible public; and offer little more than window-dressing on the way toward preserving the status quo.
Ultimately, we best keep our belts tightened pretty closely throughout these discussions lest we find ourselves with our pants down around our ankles wondering what the hell just happened.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LBS
October 15, 2009 10:41 PM in reply to SleepinJeezus
Well stated. In this case (to repeate myself) bad legislation is bad legislation, period. To some degree, that is what "bipartisonship" is about -- not negotiating with "the other side" and calling it good, but understanding the issues and doing what will actually work. In this case, what the democrats have on the table, including the Kerry-Boxer bill, will lead us (as you more eloquently state) down the primrose path. I'm not ashamed to say that I'm frightened, not just because shale development is threatening my community, but because natural gas development seems as sure a way as any to increase global warming to the point of no return. That no one seems to be discussing this is alarming. It seems obvious, but we are oblivious: a methane based economy is catastrophic in an age of serious of climate change.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?