Could the Democrats cave on THAT, too? (Update #2)

On Monday we asked, Can the Democrats be THAT stupid? about whether the Democrats would remove wind and solar subsidies from the energy bill.  We'll know soon.. they're trying to make up their minds.

Let me repeat: The Democrats are trying to decide whether or not to remove all subsidies and support for renewable energy from the 2007 Energy Bill.  By contrast, subsidies for nuclear energy, below-market rate leases for oil and natural gas, and subsidies for coal all look safe.

This is stunning.  Solar and wind are very popular (unlike oil companies).  They are infant industries crucial to decarbonizing and reducing risk to over a billion lives.  They are also crucial to American competitiveness.

Its an old story...the "60 vote requirement"... the wavering moderate GOP Senators... leadership that refuses to make the GOP actually filibuster an unpopular position... the unmet medical need for spinal transplants.

But this one is still up in the air.  Our counterpressure might still prevent them from caving.  Here's how..

 Update at 9:05 AM EST:  Its working
Called Pelosi's and Reid's offices this morning.  Reid's aide said that  phone calls have been running very heavily in favor of continued support for renewables.  He also said that Reid is a strong proponent of renewables, a strong environmentalist and that there are no plans to remove Renewable support from the Energy bill.

I've heard that such plans from too many sources to take this at face value, so I interpret this to mean that the pressure is working... keep it up.

(Pelosi's aide only said that my message would be passed on.  More pressure may be needed there.)

Update #2 1:30 PM
I've just been given an answer to my question of why the GOP can block the reconciliation process: its because the Senate and House passed bills with different numbers (3221 & 6).  To reconcile bills with different numbers, there are additional procedural hoops one has to go through (it apparently requires a change to the rules), which makes it susceptible to a filibuster.  If the bills had the same number (as is usually the case), there would be no such requirement.  Seems to me this is a mistake that comes from being a bit out of practice of being in the majority.  Hopefully, they will learn the lesson and it won't happen again.

Also, I've been told that if renewable support is dropped from this bill, that doesn't mean its dead.  The Dems need 60 votes to pass CAFE, and 60 votes to pass renewables.  But these don't have to be the same 60 votes.  So if renewable support is dropped from this bill, we will have to try again to get it passed-- preferably as soon as possible.

Leadership apparently wants to get something passed.. its up to us to help them do so by keeping the pressure on them.. and on all wavering Senators and Representatives.  This situation is still very fluid.

Of course, all of the above leaves open the question of why the Democrats remain afraid to have the GOP actually follow through on a filibuster and explain to the whole nation why solar/wind subsidies are bad, and subsidies for oil companies are good.  

What is going on
Here is my understanding of what is going on.  Some of this comes from Truthout's Energy Bill to Sacrifice Renewables, some from this, some from votesolar.org, and some from private communications.  Most of it is second-hand, but the picture is coherent enough to rise above the level of rumor.

 Pelosi (and probably Reid) understand the importance of renewables.

 However, the Dems really want to pass a bill-- any bill-- to give the appearance of "doing something" about energy costs in a time of $100 oil.  Republicans are equally keen to make sure nothing gets passed.

 Republicans have blocked a formal conference committee from convening to reconcile the House and Senate versions of the Energy Bill.  (Silly question: When the Dems were in the minority and constantly shut out of the reconciliation process, why couldn't they block the conference committee from convening?  Oh, never mind.)  Also, the Democrats want to adhere to pay-go, and want to avoid a veto.

 In order to get something-- anything-- passed,

the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate are seriously considering breaking off the three most contentious policy issues of the Energy Bill — vehicle mileage standards (CAFE), renewable energy portfolio standard (RPS), and the host of energy tax incentives (ITC/PTC).

  But the administration does support a modest CAFE increase (along the lines of 35 mpg by 2022), so that's the least likely to get thrown out.  (In my opinion, its also the least important.  Any cars actually on the road in 2022 are going to be getting a lot more than 35 mpg, as Congress can not outlaw Peak Oil.)

 The utilities and Bush Administration have been lobbying against RPS for ages. RPS require utilities to get a certain percentage of their energy from renewable sources.  This both acts as a powerful incentive and directly reduces carbon emissions.  The leadership might cave on this.

 Investment tax credits (ITC) and production tax credits (PTC) would likely be payed for by leasing oil and gas fields in the Gulf of Mexico at market rates, instead of the current subsidized rate.  This has brought a veto threat.

 Companies considering building solar plants, large wind farms or geothermal plants still need these tax credits, and they need them to be extended for long enough to allow for stability in planning.  These are extremely important for the growth of both industries.

  The Democrats are currently more responsive to the needs of the Republicans and fossil fuel industries than to the needs of the renewable industries.

 Meanwhile, Republicans (Domenici) are reportedlytrying to move the stuff they want the most-- ethanol and nuclear subsides-- into the Farm Bill, which is considered more likely to pass.  (Silly questions:  Leaving aside the larger issue of subsidies for nuclear power, is there ANY coherent argument for putting nuclear subsidies into the Farm Bill?  But if the GOP wants to play that game, why not move renewable subsidies to the next Iraq or defense bill?  After all, Solar is civil defense.)

  Final decisions will probably be made within the next few days.

  We need to pressure leadership and wavering Senators today, tomorrow and Friday

  Things apparently look pretty good for us on the House side, although situation is still fluid.  Not so good on the Senate side, thanks to the Constitutionally mandated 60 vote requirement (using the version of the Constitution dating to November, 2006, of course).  

  As usual, Dems have no plans of actually making the Republicans filibuster, and give speech after speech about why tax breaks for oil companies are more important than supporting research into clean energy.

  It still isn't clear what is going to happen.. but the Democrats could cave in any day, in order to finish a bill by Thanksgiving recess.

Call Pelosi and Reid
Pelosi's offices number is 202- 225-4965 (fax [phone])
Reid's office's number is 202-224-3542  (fax [phone])

Call wavering Dem and GOP Senators and House members.  I don't know who these are right now, but will update this if anyone can tell me.  Apparently, wavering Senators are more important than House members.  Democrats and Republicans.

Tell them you support renewable energy.

If they want details, the House bill is H.R. 3221 and the Senate bill is an amendment to H.R. 6.  The tax measures we are fighting for only passed the House energy package (H.R. 3221; starting on page 902).  The Senate Finance Committee easily passed a comparable set of tax measures but the "60 vote requirement" prevented them from going to a vote.  Tell them you support investment tax credits (ITC) and the production tax credits (PTC).  Tell them you support Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS)

Tell them not to cave in.  Tell them its more important to do it right than to do it quickly.

Tell them elections have consequences-- and so do emissions.

Remember.. solar and wind energy are clean and the technology is progressing very rapidly.  The fate of hundreds of millions of people literally depends on how much carbon we emit.

Let's try very hard to do something to reduce our emissions.

Call today.  Let the answer be:

No.. they didn't cave on this, too.. our counterpressure helped them hold.