Streetsblog New York City

"We know we don’t have the votes."

With those seven words last Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid dashed hopes for a comprehensive climate bill. Prospects also dimmed for a transportation component in the final energy legislation that emerges from the Senate. Reid is expected to announce that plan later today.

Up until Reid's announcement, advocates for transportation reform had reason to believe the Senate bill might include some form of action to improve fuel efficiency, increase transit options, and encourage more sustainable land use patterns -- ideas drawn from the Oil Independence Bill introduced by Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley. The oil independence legislation contained elements of Delaware Senator Tom Carper's "CLEAN-TEA" bill, introduced in March 2009, which would have funded the planning and implementation of green transportation projects with revenues from a carbon emissions cap-and-trade system.

Instead, Reid indicated that his bill will likely contain language dealing only with the Gulf oil spill and some energy efficiency provisions.

"The package that Reid announced [Thursday] doesn’t address climate change at all,” said Colin Peppard, deputy director of federal transportation policy at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "What we were hearing from staff on the Senate side is that basically up until pretty close to Reid’s announcement, there was still consideration for pieces of the Merkley bill."

Reid’s announcement “took the entire environmental community off-guard,” said Stephanie Potts, a policy analyst with Smart Growth America.

While the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe became an emblem of the need to wean the nation off oil, it did not stiffen many spines in Congress. In fact, said Potts, the Gulf spill may have worked against a broader climate bill by narrowing the avenues for compromise and horsetrading. Without expanded offshore drilling as a bargaining chit, there were few lures to win the votes of some recalcitrant Senators, especially those from coastal states.

In the end, the globs of brown in the Gulf of Mexico didn't overcome the absence of will to raise revenues. "The biggest obstacle is lack of funding," said one source close to the legislation, who said some transportation component may still surface in the final bill. "[Reid's bill] has not been released. There are opportunities to effect influence on that legislation, that bill, via amendments."

Read more...

The Senate environment committee released new details of its climate change legislation over the weekend, including the share of "emissions allowances" -- the revenue generated by regulating carbon in a cap-and-trade system -- that the bill would reserve for various sectors of the American economy.

And the release brought good news for clean transportation: The Senate has largely tripled the share of allowances set aside by the House for transit, inter-city rail, and other efforts to trim transport-based emissions.

While the lower chamber of Congress gave states the option of using 1 percent of climate revenue on transit, the Senate measure would set aside more than 3 percent of allowances in the first two years of the cap-and-trade system for limiting pollution from the transportation sector.

The Senate's beefed-up transportation language comes after a strong push by sponsors of the so-called "CLEAN TEA" bill, which set a high-water mark of a 10-percent climate set-aside for transit, local land-use planning, and other sustainable development projects. Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), a chief author of the "CLEAN TEA" measure, hailed the Senate's move in a weekend statement.

My CLEAN TEA bill is a common-sense solution to the problem that we use a gas tax to fund our nation's transportation system. My language in the [Senate climate bill] directs cities and states to determine how much they can reduce greenhouse gas emissions from their transportation systems by investing in driving alternatives, public transit, intercity passenger rail, transit-oriented development, sidewalks and more. States and cities with more ambitious plans will receive more federal funds -- finally rewarding local governments for doing the right thing.

According to the environment committee's weekend release, the share of Senate climate allowances reserved for clean transportation would total 3.21 percent in 2012 and 2013, before dipping to 2.35 percent in the two subsequent years and returning to a share that ranges between 1.9 percent and 3.5 percent in future years.

But not all emissions allowances are created equal; 1 percent of the total amount going to clean transportation would be reserved in the early stages of the program, thus increasing the value of those allowances relative to the ones distributed later on. These early set-aside allowances would also go towards reducing the federal deficit and supplementing other high-priority programs.

Though it falls short of the "CLEAN TEA" mark, the 3-percent set-aside represents a victory for clean transportation advocates as well as the nation's cities. The allowances would be split between grants to states for reducing transport-based emissions and transit grants -- with 80 percent of the latter going to urban areas, 10 percent going to rural areas, and 10 percent to growing states.

Read more...

Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), chief sponsor of a plan to give green transportation 10 percent of the emissions allowances in the upcoming climate change bill, took to the pages of his home-state newspaper yesterday with an op-ed that begins with a pithy description of "the problem":

Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) (Photo: DTI)

We use a gas tax to fund our nation's transportation system. That means that we pay for roads and transit by burning gasoline. It also means that when Americans drive less, transportation funds dry up.

How, then, can we in Washington ask cities and states to help combat climate change by reducing the amount their residents drive, when doing so will deprive them of federal transportation dollars? We would be punishing local governments for doing the right thing, and that is not acceptable.

Carper also offered an answer to skeptical rural officials, such as the South Dakotan who testified at a field hearing last week that less-populated areas would be better off decreasing emissions from agriculture than trying to tackle cleaner transportation:

Our legislation directs cities and states to determine how much they can reduce greenhouse gas emissions from their transportation systems by investing in driving alternatives, public transit, intercity passenger rail, transit-oriented development, sidewalks and more. States and cities with more ambitious plans will receive more federal funds -- finally rewarding local governments for doing the right thing.

This aspect of Carper's proposal, also known as "CLEAN TEA," is pivotal. Setting emissions targets would be up to states and metro areas, not forced upon them by federal policy-makers. A state that determined its ability to cut transport-based pollution was limited could propose a lower emissions target and accept less of the 10-percent pot.

But wouldn't that penalize South Dakota and other states that have less transit potential? No more than the current guarantee of 92 cents' return for every gas-tax dollar sent to Washington has penalized states such as New York, where less driving has come to mean less aid available for transport.

In fact, the White House's high-speed rail effort offers proof that the promise of federal funds can get almost every state interested in green transportation. Forty out of 50 states have begun the process of competing for $8 billion in rail, according to the U.S. DOT.