Category: california policy

Urban Forestry Grants for Local Communities

By Lauren Michele, September 2, 2010

On behalf of CAL FIRE, the Strategic Growth Council is pleased to announce the offering of Urban and Community Forestry Grants for the 2010/2011 fiscal year.  These grants will be for activities that expand urban forests and improve or enhance urban forest management and knowledge.  Please see the two websites listed below for information about the grant programs for tree planting (Gren Trees For The Golden State), tree inventories, urban forest management plans, urban forest education, and innovative urban forestry projects (Leading Edge).  A new program, Leafing Out, can fund any of these previous activities, but in smaller grant amounts.  It is designed for communities and organizations that have less capacity or experience carrying out urban forestry projects.

CAL FIRE’s Urban Forestry Program has endeavored to make these grant offerings user-friendly by having a central procedural guide common to all of the offerings, with requests for proposals unique to each offering.  The concept application is a PDF form, four pages in length, and is submitted via email.  CAL FIRE Regional Urban Foresters are available throughout the state to answer questions and provide technical assistance.

Funding of these grants is dependent upon the state budget process and upon the state’s ability to sell bonds.

All grant materials and a list of available Regional Urban Foresters by geographic area can be found at the following websites:

http://www.fire.ca.gov/resource_mgt/resource_mgt_urbanforestry.php

http://www.ufei.org/grantinfo.lasso

For more information please contact:

John Melvin, State Urban Forester

CA Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection

(916) 657-2289 Office

(916) 508-2767 Cell

(916) 653-8957 Fax

Mailing: P.O. Box 944246

Sacramento, CA 94244-2460

Shipping: 1700 N. Market St., Ste. 105

Sacramento, CA  95834

www.fire.ca.gov , www.ufei.org

RPF #2817, CUF #101, ICA #WE-5889A

Trees make our communities cleaner, cooler, and more comfortable.  They leave a legacy for future generations.”

Local Government Technical Resources

By Lauren Michele, August 22, 2010

Local governments play a critical role in helping reduce greenhouse gas emissions — below are a few resources to support cities and counties with limited staff and fiscal capacity to initiate Climate Action Plans.

Cool Planet Project

The Climate Registry administers an energy efficiency and climate change mitigation program called the Cool Planet Project with electric and gas utilities throughout North America.  The Cool Planet Project is funded by Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas and Electric and funds funds the following for “utility customers” (e.g. local governments) FOR FREE for the first year of participation:

  • One year membership in California Climate Registry (for GHG inventory)
  • Third party verification of GHG inventory
  • Public relations services provided to communicate environmental leadership to the public
  • Strengthens an organization’s voice among industry peers and national policy makers

Cool California

Cool California is a partnership of the State of California Air Resources Board, Energy Commission, Public Utilities, and University at Berkeley.  Its mission is to provide all Californians with the tools they need to take action to protect the climate and keep California cool.  The partnership has developed a Local Government Toolkit to identify cost saving actions, financial resources, and case studies to assist local governments with achieving GHG emission reductions.  Cool California provides resources to local government to establish baseline GHG emission inventories and guide the development of a Climate Action Plan.

Statewide Energy Efficiency Collaborative (SEEC)

The Statewide Energy Efficiency Collaborative is a new alliance to help cities and counties reduce greenhouse gas emissions and save energy. SEEC is a collaboration between three statewide non-profit organizations and California’s four Investor Owned Utilities.

SEEC Members:

SEEC provides education and tools for climate action planning, venues for peer-to-peer networking, technical assistance and recognition for local agencies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and energy use.  The collaborative effort is designed to build upon the unique resources, expertise and local agency relationships of each non-profit organization, as well as those of the four investor owned utilities.


Strategic Growth Council to Host “Smart Schools for Sustainable Communities: Aligning Sustainable Communities Planning and Public Education in California” — August 31

By Lauren Michele, August 18, 2010

On August 31, 2010, in Sacramento, the California Strategic Growth Council (SGC) will host our first policy roundtable: Smart Schools for Sustainable Communities: Aligning Sustainable Communities Planning and Public Education in California, in Sacramento. One of the statutory objectives of the SGC is to recommend policies and investment strategies and priorities  to the Governor, the Legislature and other state agencies. We as Californians highly value education and invest billions of dollars in constructing and operating our schools. Community quality and schools are intricately connected and greatly impact our children’s future. Yet, we have not thought strategically how we can connect our investment in building schools to leverage state goals in other areas including improving the quality of our communities, the environment, and the health of our children. I hope that you can join me for an interactive dialogue with state wide decision makers that I know will be engaging and informative.

Date: August 31, 2010

Time: 1-5pm

Location: Health Professions High School, 451 McClatchy Way, Sacramento, CA 95818 (Map/Directions: here)

GOALS

The overall goal of this half-day meeting is to bring together statewide leaders in education, planning, and policy to discuss promising strategies for connecting schools to the creation of healthy, sustainable communities in California. Our three key objectives include:

1. Learn about the federal Housing and Sustainable Communities programs and their connections to education

2. Identify key opportunities to better link schools to the creation of sustainable communities in California, including

  • integrating schools into regional Sustainable Communities Strategies and local planning activities
  • school siting, design, and green construction policies
  • linking school curriculum and sustainable communities

3. Suggest policy strategies to leverage opportunities for improving educational experiences and realizing sustainable communities

BACKGROUND

California has been making tremendous financial and policy investments in improving educational quality and in making our cities and regions more livable and economically sound. Although schools and community quality are intricately connected, rarely do we think about linking policies across these sectors. This forum begins a conversation of doing so, building on recent statewide activities including the Senate Bill 375, federal Sustainable Housing and Communities Program, Senate Select Committee on School Facilities, and the California Department of Education’s new vision and guiding principles for school facilities that enhance achievement for all students.

This invitational state policy roundtable brings together the work of state, regional, and local agencies in the planning of sustainable communities and presents a unique opportunity to leverage California’s ongoing investments in educational innovations and school facilities. As state policy leaders and local communities work towards creating more economically resilient, vibrant, and sustainable communities, young people, and schools can, and should, play important roles.

The event is a collaboration between the Strategic Growth Council, California Department of Education (CDE), UC Berkeley’s Center for Cities & Schools, and other partnering state agencies.

This meeting will be limited in size to ensure that we have time and space to dialog and learn from one another. If you are able to join us, please RSVP to Anna Marie Young (annamarie.young@opr.ca.gov) by August 25, 2010.

An event description and tentative agenda are linked here: 2010 Smart Schools Aug 31 Agenda

I hope to see you on August 31st,

Heather Fargo

Executive Policy Officer
Strategic Growth Council

Policy “Makers and Shakers” Celebrate at Policy in Motion Open House

By Lauren Michele, August 13, 2010

Guests enjoy tours of Policy in Motion's urban office space and garden patio

Lauren ‘Iolani Michele was joined by dozens of California’s policy “makers and shakers” on Tuesday, August 10th in celebrating the completion of her MS thesis and graduate degree from UC Davis, launch of her new policy analysis & education business, personal and professional name change, and all the health & happiness that 2010 has brought this year.  We all influence policy – whether in its initial formation as an idea, the evolution of an idea over time and discussion, the final stages of making an idea a reality, or forming choices around ideas made for or by us.

Anyone can be a policy “taker,” but an effective policy process relies upon “makers” and “shakers”

Click Here to View Full Album of Open House Pictures

Become a Facebook Fan of Policy in Motion by Clicking “Like”

Policy "makers and shakers" enjoy good conversation, local wines, and raw-vegan appetizers

Policy advisors, board/commission members, SB 375 implementation staff, and committee consultants  from the State of California’s Department of Transportation, Energy Commission, Air Resources Board, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Institute of Transportation Studies,  and Senate Transportation and Housing Committee had an opportunity to exchange ideas with prominent NGO leaders from TransForm, ClimatePlan, and Environmental Defense Fund; consultants from leading environmental and transportation planning firms such as Fehr & Peers; and Sacramento’s local/regional planners from the County, Air Quality Management District, and SACOG.

“Lauren, you add so much to the transportation policy dialogue. Thanks.”

~ Sarah Michael, Advisor to Commissioner Boyd, California Energy Commission

Raw-vegan appetizers prepared by raw chef Margaret Gomes with local Sacramento ingredients

Lauren Michele features 2010 Transportation Research Board poster on “California’s SB 375 Implementation”

California’s Proposition 22 — What it Means for Public Transit

By Lauren Michele, August 13, 2010

Summary provided by “Yes on 22: Save Local Services

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Local Taxpayer, Public Safety, and Transportation Protection Act of 2010 would protect public transportation funding in the following ways:

  • Strengthens the status of the Public Transportation Account (PTA) as a trust fund.
  • Prohibits the practice of loaning or transferring PTA funds to the General Fund, and prohibits borrowing or using the money in the PTAfor any purposes other than “transportation planning” and “mass transportation,” as defined.
  • Defines mass transportation as surface transportation, operated by bus, rail, ferry, etc; generally for which a fare is charged; and provided by any transit district, joint powers authority, or other agencies that already receive funds for these purposes. School buses are not included under this definition.
  • Requires that the sales tax on diesel fuel, the only remaining core revenue source historically flowing into the PTA, shall be deposited quarterly into the PTA. It also requires that PTA revenue be continuously appropriated. This revenue sources has produced an average of $350 million per year since 2007-08. As part of the “gas tax swap” package, the Legislature raised the rate of sales tax on diesel starting in 2011-12. The Department of Finance estimates this source should generate $431 million in 2011-12.
  • Requires half these core PTA revenues to be spent on the State Transit Assistance (STA) Program – which can fund either transit operations or transit capital projects, and requires the other half of these core revenues to be spent on the historic state, regional and local transit purposes funded in the budget, such as the intercity rail program, or transit capital projects in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP).
  • Strengthens the status of local transportation funds as trust funds. Prohibits the legislature from reducing, diverting, transferring, appropriating, or using the one-quarter cent county sales tax that is deposited into local transportation funds for any purposes other than the historic public transit and streets & roads purposes. This local revenue source, which was created by the Transportation Development Act (TDA) of 1971, generates about $1.4 billion annually.
  • Prohibits the legislature from interfering in any way with locally imposed taxes, including half-cent sales taxes dedicated to transit and transportation purposes. This means the state can’t use the proceeds, reallocate them to some other agency, restrict how a local government uses the proceeds, or borrow them.
  • If approved by the voters, this ballot measure would protect nearly $1.8 billion per year in PTA and TDA funding for public transportation (and not counting local ballot measure sources of transit funding).

California Proposes “Ambitious & Achievable” SB 375 GHG Reduction Targets for Regions

By Lauren Michele, August 9, 2010

Today the California Air Resources Board (ARB) released a report on the “Proposed Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets Pursuant to Senate Bill 375.”

The report, required under SB 375 (Steinberg, 2008), proposes targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 and 2035 associated with passenger vehicle travel in the state’s eighteen Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), including the four largest: Southern California, San Diego, the Bay Area, and the Sacramento region. The Air Resources Board will consider adopting these targets in September.

Today’s press release from ARB stated that:

“These proposed targets are ambitious, achievable and very good news for Californians” and “Regions that meet the targets will receive incentives in the form of easier access to federal funding, and streamlined environmental review for development projects.”

Policy in Motion founder Lauren Michele provides a summary of the proposed targets here.

For the four largest MPOs, the report outlines proposed targets of per capita greenhouse gas reductions of 7 to 8 percent by 2020, and between 13 and 16 percent in 2035 compared to 2005 levels.

A separate approach was developed for the eight planning organizations that comprise the San Joaquin Valley, establishing placeholder targets of a 5 percent reduction in per capita emissions in 2020, and a 10 percent reduction in 2035.For California’s four largest MPOs, the report outlines proposed targets of per capita greenhouse gas reductions of 7 to 8 percent by 2020, and between 13 and 16 percent in 2035 compared to 2005 levels.

Targets for the remaining six Metropolitan Planning Organizations – the Monterey, Butte, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Shasta, and Lake Tahoe regions – reflect each region’s current plans for 2020 and 2035.

Strategic Growth Council Presentation on Prop 84 Grant Program

By Lauren Michele, August 4, 2010

The Strategic Growth Council has now posted on its website (www.sgc.ca.gov) a PowerPoint presentation given at the Technical Assistance Workshops on the Sustainable Communities Planning Grants Program. It is also attached to this email.

Power Point Presentation at this link:

http://officeofrustyselix.org/CALCOG/Planning_Grant_Power_Point_(July_27_2010)1.pdf

Policy in Motion Open House: Tuesday, August 10th

By Lauren Michele, August 2, 2010

Miss the event?

Read highlights at Policy “Makers and Shakers” Celebrate at Policy in Motion Open House

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fellow Policy Makers & Shakers,

Please join me in celebrating the start of my new business – Policy in Motion, new name – Lauren ‘Iolani Michele, and new live/work unit in Sacramento’s vibrant mixed-use hub.  In an affirmation of Policy in Motion’s sustainability as a business and in its vision for community development through effective transportation and climate policy, the August 10th Open House evening will highlight:

  • Wines from my homeland of Sonoma County
  • Transportation Research Board Poster on “California’s SB 375 Implementation”
  • Raw-vegan appetizers prepared by raw chef Margaret Gomes with local ingredients
  • Tours of Policy in Motion’s upstairs office and Lauren Michele’s urban garden patio
  • “Wall of Policy Reform” featuring guests’ ideas for sustainable community development
  • Good company with other policy visionaries!

For those of you who have not yet placed an RSVP: please do so by this Thursday, August 5th – you can stop by anytime between 5:30pm and 9pm to enjoy good company with familiar faces and new friends working to advance sustainable community planning whether through local, regional, state or federal policy.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Lauren ‘Iolani Michele

Principal / Owner

Policy in Motion | WBE/DBE

530.848.4342 | lauren.michele@policyinmotion.com | policyinmotion.com

*Please note that my last name and email address have changed*

“SB 375 Implementation and CEQA” — Policy in Motion / Fehr & Peers Presentation on Wed July 28th in Sacramento

By Lauren Michele, July 23, 2010

Miss the presentation?  Want to see it again?

View Ron Milam and Lauren Michele’s materials linked here!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Conceding they can’t find enough votes for the measure, yesterday Senate Democrats abandoned efforts to put together comprehensive climate change legislation that would seek to limit greenhouse gas emissions.  Here in the State of California’s maze of political and financial issues, the death of a federal climate bill certainly does not help our efforts to engage the public and promote change.  However, we should remember that it was the LACK of federal direction on climate change reform over the past decade that led California and 37 other states to develop Climate Action Plans (see Journalists Mourn the Death of the Federal Climate Bill)

The lack of federal direction provides an excellent opportunity for the State of California to make creative and long-lasting changes in its land use/transportation and environmental processes that thread through the State’s transportation revenue system.

You’re invited to “SB 375 IMPLEMENTATION AND CEQA” – an overview of policy and technical challenges in California.  Join us Wednesday, July 28th for this opportunity to ask questions and participate in a discussion with Lauren Michele – federal and California policy expert with Policy in Motion, and Ron Milam – Principal in Charge of Technical Development with Fehr & Peers.

  • What:     “SB 375 IMPLEMENTATION AND CEQA: Policy and Technical Challenges”
  • Who:       Ron Milam from Fehr & Peers and Lauren Michele from Policy in Motion
  • When:     Wednesday, July 28th from 12pm-1pm
  • Where:    Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District
  • RSVP:      Tuesday, July 27 to lauren.michele@policyinmotion.com to reserve FREE LUNCH!

Please join us for an overview on how federal agency and legislative efforts tie into California’s SB 375 implementation via incentive structures, transportation/land use planning processes, and technical data collection methods and modeling tools.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

More background on this topic can be found on the California Trans&Climate Policy page and in Lauren Michele’s analysis of the implications of California’s existing regulatory frameworks as presented throughout Chapter 3 of the report: “Rethinking California’s Planning Frameworks to Support Senate Bill 375: A White Paper on Local, Regional, State and Federal Climate Change Policy Reform

Journalists Mourn the Death of the Federal Climate Bill

By Lauren Michele, July 22, 2010

I went ahead and titled this post in anticipation of there being a flurry of articles written on Senate Democrats pulling the plug on comprehensive climate change legislation — below are the first three I’ve seen in the last 45 minutes…..but first here’s my own take.

So what does this mean for California? The lack of federal support and direction as California tries to move forward with implementation of AB 32 and SB 375 in our own climate where Proposition 23 is gaining support to kill AB 32, a governor’s race could result in a moratorium on climate change implementation, possibility of major climate-related job loss worsens already shaky morale at the California Air Resources Board, an uncertain future for the State budget looms, and local governments have been forced to launch an “SOS” (save our services) campaign to restore funds that were raided by the same State that is “incentivizing” sustainable communities through the Strategic Growth Council.  With California’s maze of political and financial issues, the death of a comprehensive federal climate bill certainly does not help our efforts to engage the public and promote change here.  However, we should remember that it was the LACK of federal direction on climate change reform over the past decade that led California and 37 other states to develop Climate Action Plans.  The end of one effort should be taken as a signal to reassess political strategies and financial priorities, particularly in California where our goals have become greatly distanced from actual implementation success.  The lack of federal direction provides an excellent opportunity for the State of California to be forced into making creative and long-lasting changes in its funding structures and the land use/transportation and environmental processes that thread through the State’s transportation revenue system.  In any case, California needs to take action in reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to the same level of importance that was executed during the Clean Air Act in the 1970s, and regional/local governments need both financial and technical support to make substantive changes in land use planning today so that the compounding effects of GHG reduction can be realized for the State’s 2050 GHG goals.

More can be found on the California Trans&Climate Policy page and in Lauren Michele’s analysis of the implications of California’s existing regulatory frameworks as presented throughout Chapter 3 of the report: “Rethinking California’s Planning Frameworks to Support Senate Bill 375: A White Paper on Local, Regional, State and Federal Climate Change Policy Reform

Download PDF from Pew Center

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

E&E Daily — Thursday, July 22 — www.eedaily.com

Senate Democrats today pulled the plug on comprehensive climate change legislation with their decision to move forward with a limited Gulf spill response and energy package. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) admitted the obvious today — they do not have the 60 votes to pass climate legislation. Reid placed the blame squarely on Republicans despite the fact that the 59-member Democratic caucus was never unified on cap and trade to begin with.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Senate Democrats Abandon Comprehensive Climate Bill

By Perry Bacon Jr. – Washington Post Staff Writer – Thursday, July 22, 2010; 4:22 PM

Conceding they can’t find enough votes for the measure, Senate Democrats on Thursday abandoned efforts to put together a comprehensive energy bill that would seek to limit greenhouse gas emissions, delivering a potentially fatal blow to a proposal Democrats have long touted and President Obamacampaigned on.

Instead, Democrats will push for a more limited bill that would seek to increase liability costs that oil companies would pay following spills such as the onein the Gulf of Mexico and would create additional incentives for the development of natural gas vehicles and provide rebates to people who buy products that reduce home energy use. They did not release details of the proposal, but Senate Democrats said they expected to find GOP support and pass it in the next two weeks.

Democrats have not ruled out pushing for a more comprehensive bill when Congress returns from its August recess or in the session after the November elections, although it’s not clear that any of the Democrats or Republicans who now oppose a more expansive measure would change their votes. Republicans have long argued the bill, by seeking to limit emissions, would lead to higher energy costs for American consumers, a view some conservative Democrats have also taken.

The decision to abandon the proposal was another concession to the difficult political environment Democratic leaders face, as many rank and file congressional Democrats are wary of casting any vote that could be used in political attacks by Republicans.

Democrats who advocated the broader measure didn’t hide their disappointment in falling short. Carol Browner, who heads the White House’s Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy, said, “obviously everyone is disappointed,’ while Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), the primary author of the comprehensive bill, said the legislation Democrats will take up next week is “admittedly narrow.”

“We now where we are. We know we don’t have the votes,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.)

Reid blamed the GOP for blocking the bill, noting that no Republicans in the Senate had said they would back the bill. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who had helped write the comprehensive measure with Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Kerry, announced in June he would no longer back the measure, arguing Congress should pursue a smaller, more targeted measure.

But in truth, despite weeks of meetings to reach a compromise, Democrats themselves were deeply divided on the legislation.

Efforts to put together a major bill to limit carbon emissions and encourage the use of alternative energy sources had long been considered doomed in the Senate, even though the House approved last June a bill that would set a limit on overall emissions of greenhouse gases while allowing utilities and other emitters to trade pollution permits.

A group of Democrats whose states produce coal, such as Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) thought the bill could lead to increased energy costs in their states, while others worried about pushing such a controversial political issue after Democrats had already passed the stimulus and health-care bills.

But following the Gulf oil spill, President Obama sought to push the public and Congress to back comprehensive approach, making the case that the accident illustrated the importance of the U.S. reducing its dependence on oil. In a speech last month in Pittsburgh, he said, “The votes may not be there right now, but I intend to find them in the coming months.”

But in the weeks after the spill, Kerry, who had months ago stopped pushing the so-called cap and trade measure the House had passed, failed to win backing among his colleagues for a pared-back measure that would limit greenhouse gas emissions by electric utilities.

Kerry said Obama had pledged to stay involved and keep working for a broader bill, but the longtime senator’s remarks hinted at the challenge: he said it would pass “much sooner” than the decades it took his late colleague Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) to get comprehensive health care bill through Congress.

The decision by Democrats means that two major issues they had pledged to take on this year, energy reform and immigration, could remain unresolved before the midterm elections.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Democrats Pull Plug on Climate Bill

By: Darren Samuelsohn and Coral Davenport – July 22, 2010 01:01 PM EDT

Senate Democrats pulled the plug on climate legislation Thursday, pushing the issue off into an uncertain future ahead of midterm elections where President Barack Obama’s party is girding for a drubbing.

Rather than a long-awaited measure capping greenhouse gases — or even a more limited bill directed only at electric utilities — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will move forward next week on a bipartisan energy-only bill that responds to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and contains other more popular energy items.

“It’s easy to count to 60,” Reid said. “I could do it by the time I was in eighth grade. My point is this, we know where we are. We know we don’t have the votes [for a bill capping emissions]. This is a step forward.”

“He’s anxious to get something done before we leave in August,” Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) said of Reid. “Given the time constraints, this probably is a realistic judgment on his part.”

“We don’t have the 60 votes,” said Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). “So Sen. Reid’s a pragmatist. So rather than take us to a situation where we don’t have the votes, rather than do half-measures, let’s wait until we can get it done and get it right. So I think it’s a smart decision.”

The bill headed to the floor will not include a carbon cap or a renewable electricity standard, Bingaman said. Instead, it has low-hanging-fruit provisions dealing with the oil spill, Home Star energy efficiency upgrades, incentives for the conversion of trucking fleet to natural gas and the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) was visibly disappointed but said he isn’t giving up hope on getting “a decent bill” on climate within the next two weeks.

Still, he said, “the Republicans don’t want to cooperate on anything. On any of these major issues they vote no, and we’ve got to get some Republican votes because we don’t have unanimity in our caucus. So we’re still hoping they decide they want to govern instead of scoring political points.”

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) insisted that he, too, had hope for getting some kind of climate bill through the Senate in the next two weeks. He said he spoke with Obama Thursday and that the president had “committed to work at a more intensive pace” in the days ahead.

But the writing has been on the wall all week, with advocates lowering expectations in light of continued opposition from GOP senators and some moderate Democrats.

“I don’t believe an energy bill has ever passed off the floor in less than about three weeks,” Kerry said earlier Thursday during a town-hall style forum hosted by the Clean Energy Works, an umbrella advocacy organization that includes environmentalists, labor and religious groups. “The fact is this is a very complicated bill that has a lot of moving parts. I’m very realistic about that.”

“It’s not dying,” Kerry added. “It’s not going away…We’re going to try our best to find a way to do it in the next few weeks. If we can’t do it in the next weeks, we’ll do something that begins to do something responsibly in the short term. But this will stay out there, and we’ll be working on it; we’ll be asking you to talk to your senators and move them to understand why we have to get this done.”

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), Kerry’s partner on the climate proposal, said he had no problem with Reid delaying debate on greenhouse gas caps. “If that’s the truth, it keeps the process open for negotiating a broader utilities-only bill in September,” he said.

Kerry and Lieberman are still working with the electric utility industry, including its lead trade group, the Edison Electric Institute, on a bill slicing its emissions around 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.

But other Democrats have their doubts that Kerry and Lieberman will even get time for a floor debate after the August break, especially with Reid and other senators girding up for their own reelection bids.

“We’ve got very substantial constraints on our time when we get back,” Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico said Thursday.

“I don’t think there are going to be two energy packages on the floor this year,” said Democratic Policy Committee Chairman Byron Dorgan of North Dakota. “Whatever comes to the floor on energy is going to be the package we’re going to consider.”

Panorama Theme by Themocracy