Two U.S. Senators that head the Committee on Environment and Public Works today are introducing climate change legislation. Based on early reports, the bill authored by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-California) and John Kerry (D-Mass.), will call for greater reductions of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than the House version, which narrowly passed in June.

The House bill calls for a 17 percent reduction of GHG emissions below 2005 levels by 2020. The Senate version reportedly imposes a 20 percent reduction by 2020. Unlike the House version, the Senate bill will also preserve the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases. Unlike the House version, the Senate bill does not stipulate how the carbon permits will be allocatted, essentially punting on the most contentious issue until hearings begin. The Senate version also will include provisions to fund training of workers in the nuclear industry and provides some funding for development of clean coal technology.

Senator Boxer’s office has indicated that the legislation’s remaining details will be fleshed out in upcoming committee hearings, with the expectation of passing the bill out of committee by the end of October. The prospect of a climate change bill passing the full Senate this year, however, is looking less and less likely. The health care legislation is consuming almost all of Washington’s time and attention, leaving little time for the Senate to address climate change. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) has also publicly acknowledged that there might not be enough time or support to bring the bill for a vote before the full Senate by the end of the year.

This then raises the question of whether a bill can pass at all during the 111th Congress (which ends in Jan. 2012). Heading into an election year, it may be difficult for the Senate to cobble together enough votes to stave off a filibuster.

We will continue to provide updates on both the Senate and House climate change bills.

We recently reported that the U.S. State Department granted a permit to construct a 326-mile oil pipeline from the Canadian border to Superior, Wisconsin. The Sierra Club opposes construction of the pipeline and is attempting to halt the project. The Sierra Club filed a lawsuit in California, ostensibly to seek what the environmental group perceives as a friendlier venue. The U.S. State Department filed a motion to have the case transferred to a federal court in Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Dakota, or Washington, D.C.

Judge Susan Illston granted the State Department’s motion and ordered that the case be moved to Minnesota. Judge Illston found that the majority of the activities underlying the suit took place within or very near the district’s jurisdiction, and that the case would be better heard in the jurisdiction with the greatest local interest.

We will continue to provide updates as the lawsuit proceeds.

Two polls released last week show that Wisconsinites have seemingly diverging views on whether to address climate change. However, when the two polls are closely analyzed, it appears that there isn’t any discrepancy - people support actions that reduce climate change as long as it doesn’t cost a lot of money or jobs.

The first poll, performed by the Public Opinion Strategies on behalf of the Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, found that a vast majority of the public believes that solving global warming is not the state’s job if it means it will hit their pocketbooks. Not surprisingly, 37 percent of those polled said that the economy and jobs are the number one issue - one percent cited climate change as the top policy issue.

Other findings from the poll include:

• 62 percent of voters said they believe global warming is not Wisconsin’s problem to solve; 27 percent say it’s a crisis that Wisconsin should address.
• 68 percent of voters oppose increased renewable energy mandates when told of increased costs on their electric bill.
• Voters are unwilling to pay as little as $25 a month to pay for policies aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions by a 3-to-1 margin: 55 percent to 17 percent.
• 72 percent oppose restrictions on Canadian crude oil that would drive up gasoline prices.
• 73 percent oppose paying increased fees on utility bills to pay for energy efficiency programs for low-income families and businesses.

More information about the poll can be found here.

The second poll was released by the Mellman Group on behalf of the Forest County Potawatomi (Potawatomi), which favors environmental regulations that would reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The Potawatomi poll found that Wisconsinites overwhelmingly favor regulations that would reduce GHG emissions.

Why the apparent discrepancy between the two polls? The polls find nearly identical numbers when it comes to those who think the state should take action to reduce GHG emissions. However, the WMC poll asks a second question: whether people support such laws if it means higher energy costs and fewer jobs. In response, people overwhelming oppose such regulations.

It appears that most Wisconsinites are willing to reduce GHG emissions, but not if it hits their wallet or costs them their job.

A federal appeals court this week ruled that eight states can proceed with their lawsuit against five power plants for their contribution to global warming. (State of Connecticut, et al. v. American Electric Power Company, Inc. et al.)

The eight states, including Wisconsin, sued the power plants seeking abatement of “ongoing contributions to the public nuisance of global warming.” The states claim in their lawsuit that by emitting CO2 the power plants are causing “serious harms affecting human health and natural resources.”  (Wisconsin joined the case at the direction of former Attorney General, Peg Lautenschlager.)

The lower federal district court dismissed the states’ lawsuit. That court ruled that the plaintiffs did not have legal standing to bring the lawsuit because their claims involved  political questions. The appellate court reversed the lower court and ruled that the plaintiffs had legal standing and could proceed under either a federal or state nuisance claim.

The decision could have significant implications for emitters of CO2. In addition to potential legislation and regulations, the court’s decision will likely set precedence allowing more litigation against businesses and utilities.

CBS News is reporting that a memorandum prepared by the Obama administration shows that enacting cap-and-trade legislation would cost taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, or equivalent to $1,761 per household.

Another memorandum obtained by CBS News shows the Obama administration transition team discussing the economic impact climate change policies will have. According to the memo:

“Economic costs will likely be on the order of 1 percent of GDP, making them equal in scale to all existing environmental regulation.”

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger this week will issue an executive order requiring that state to generate one-third of its power from renewable resources by 2020. Currently, California imposes a 20 percent requirement by 2010.

Gov. Schwarzenegger is expected this week to veto a similar bill passed by the California Legislature. The bill limited the amount of renewable energy that could be imported from outside the state. It appears that Gov. Schwarzenegger’s executive order will not include such a limitation.  There are also reports that Gov. Schwarzenegger may include nuclear energy as a renewable resource. See here for more information about California’s renewable energy regulations.

What is happening in California is likely a precursor to what will happen in Wisconsin in the coming months. Gov. Jim Doyle’s Global Warming Task Force Final Report recommends increasing Wisconsin’s “Renewable Portfolio Standard” from the current 10 percent requirement to 20 percent by 2020 and 25 percent by 2025. The Task Force also recommended requiring that 6 percent of the renewable energy be generated in Wisconsin by 2020, and 10 percent by 2025.

The renewable energy policy is just one of many policies currently being drafted by Wisconsin legislators as an omnibus bill. The renewable energy provision will likely be one of the more controversial issues as the bill moves forward.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Automobile Dealers Association on Tuesday filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. over the EPA’s decision to grant California a waiver under the Clean Air Act.

On June 30, 2009, the Obama administration granted California’s waiver request for its greenhouse gas emission standards for motor vehicles beginning with the 2009 model year. Under the Clean Air Act, California has special authority to enact stricter air pollution standards for motor vehicles than the federal government.

The U.S. Chamber and automobile dealers argue that granting California’s waiver would set dangerous precedent by allowing a state the authority to regulate global warming, which they contend should be handled at the federal level.

For more information about the lawsuit, see here and here.