“We will have a bill,” the California Democrat said in a brief interview today after her weekly press conference.

So Greenwire (subs. req’d) reports this afternoon, for those who had any remaining doubts about whether the Waxman-Markey clean energy and climate bill would pass the House (see also Boucher predicts “I think we’ll do far better than” the 218 votes needed to pass Waxman-Markey, GOP’s Walden agrees passage likely).

House Democrats are expected to close ranks within days on a major energy-and-climate proposal, leading to floor debate and final passage before the July 4th recess, according to key lawmakers and sources tracking the debate.

Behind-the-scenes talks on the comprehensive bill have left only a few critical sticking points, but those issues are expected to be resolved soon as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi weighs in on an issue at the top of her legislative agenda.

What about the push-back from the aggies that seems to be flooding the media in the last couple of day?

Read more

Yesterday, House Republicans, led by Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), introduced the “American Energy Act,” an energy bill that shares not just the title but most of its content with the “American Energy Act” of 2008, the Republican energy bill that died in the House last year.

House Republicans are quick to try to call the new American Energy Act a “substitute” and an “alternative” to the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454). Yet, like the 2008 version, the 2009 “American Energy Act” is heavy on dirty energy and light on the clean energy that generates American jobs.

Like its predecessor, Pence’s bill would continue the Bush/Cheney tactic of giveaways to oil companies. The GOP bill also makes a point of denying global warming — just as in 2008. This new bill merely restates the wrong-headed priorities of the past, mentioning “oil” three times more often that it mentions “renewable” energy and barely mentioning “climate change” at all.

This word frequency chart is a quick way to visualize the differences in priorities between the GOP energy plan and the Waxman-Markey clean energy economy bill:

The word “oil” appears 93 times in Pence’s legislation — much as it made 95 appearances in the 2008 bill — while there are just 29 mentions of renewable energy, only a few more than in the 2008 version. In the Waxman-Markey legislation, which would make historic investments in clean and renewable energy and create millions jobs, there are 141 references to renewable energy. The Pence “substitute” claims that it will “encourage greater efficiency and conversation,” but mentions “efficiency” only seven times. Waxman-Markey brings up “efficiency” more than 240 times.

Even the updated portions of the bill are just warmed-over, previously rejected Republican ideas: one of the biggest (and only) changes to the bill is the new emphasis on nuclear energy, but it’s just more of the same out-of-touch rhetoric on nuclear power that Sen. John McCain tried to push during the 2008 presidential election. As Joe Romm points out, this risky nuclear scheme could actually amount to an energy tax on American families.

Politico reports, “Republicans have proposed most of these ideas in the past.” A Media Matters fact-check exposes the similarities between Pence’s legislation and President Bush’s failed plans.

We’ve seen where this obsession has gotten us: the Bush energy system made us more dependent than ever on oil and increased annual energy costs for American families by $1,100. The House GOP just hasn’t gotten the message that we can’t afford more of the same.

As a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the “cash for clunkers” deal Congress appears to be on the verge of embracing is probably among the least cost-effective uses of federal dollars one could imagine (see here).  That doesn’t mean it won’t have benefits to the auto industry, but nobody should sell it as a GHG reducer. Today’s “guest bloggers” are Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Susan Collins (R-ME), whose piece, “Handouts for Hummers,” was first published in today’s Wall Street Journal.

It’s amazing how quickly a good idea can go bad in Washington. In January, we joined with Sen. Charles Schumer to introduce a bill that would allow Americans to trade in gas-guzzling cars in exchange for vouchers worth up to $4,500 toward the purchase of vehicles with greatly improved fuel economy. This legislation was modeled after programs in California and Texas that improved fuel efficiency, reduced pollution, and stimulated auto sales.

Our “Cash for Clunkers” proposal was a win-win for the environment and the economy. Then Detroit auto industry lobbyists got involved. Soon a rival bill emerged in the House, tailored perfectly to the auto industry’s specifications.

The House bill was written so quickly that one of its main components — a provision that would have excluded any vehicle manufactured overseas — had to be removed because it violated trade laws. But the worst item on the auto industry’s wish list is still at the heart of the bill — a provision that undermines fuel-efficiency standards.

Read more