Brad Ellsworth is officially in the race for Indiana’s now-open Senate seat. Environmentalists who would consider supporting him should keep in mind his vote against the American Clean Energy and Security Act last June.

Following the vote, here is what he had to say:

In a statement released after the Friday vote, Ellsworth said that while he believes climate change “poses a threat to the planet,” he could not support a bill with the potential to have such a drastic economic impact.

“I am deeply concerned about the unintended consequences this bill may have on consumers and businesses in Indiana,” Ellsworth said. “We don’t know how these policies will ultimately impact utility bills, job prospects and the strength of our economy down the road.”

…

“The bill would place undue burdens on Indiana families and businesses, and particularly in these tough economic times, I could not support it,” Ellsworth said.

He also was worried about the potential effect of the bill on miners’ livelihoods. Most of Indiana’s coal mines are in the southwestern portion of the state.

Ellsworth made his final decision after deliberating with “a broad cross-section of groups and industries,” according to Elizabeth Farrar, his press secretary.

Ellsworth’s official website doesn’t say much about environmental issues, although his page on energy strongly emphasizes biofuels without even mentioning wind or solar.

Meanwhile, the DSCC continues its steady march to irrelevance by touting the fact that various media outlets are describing Ellsworth as ‘conservative’ ‘moderate,’ and ‘centrist.’ As far as I can tell, the DSCC is policy-agnostic, concerned exclusively with electing Democrats. Going further than just not caring whether or not the candidates they um, you know, support the Democratic agenda, they actually seem to prefer that they oppose it. May their influence continue to wane.

As soon as the House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act last June, Republicans went on the offensive. Within days, they had launched radio and television ads targeting 14 Democrats who had voted for the measure. Other than the blatant falsehoods in the ads, I have no problem with Republicans attacking Democrats for voting for or against a particular piece of legislation.

But in the past few days, they’ve taken things a step further. West Virginia businessman Mac Warner, who is challenging Democratic Rep. Alan Mollohan, made his case to CQ Politics on Tuesday:

“I’m running because I’m frustrated with the way things are going,” Warner told CQ Politics Tuesday. “I see that we’re heading in the wrong direction with so many of the different components of the economy.”Warner opposes a Democratic-written health care bill as well as a “cap and trade” climate change bill that he said would be “devastating” to West Virginia’s coal-dependent economy.

“Cap-and-trade takes a direct aim at the heart of the West Virginia economy,” Warner said.

You wouldn’t realize from listening to Warner’s tough talk, but Mollohan voted against the legislation, explaining his rationale as follows:

“As currently drafted, this legislation is not in the best interests of my constituents, and it’s not in the best interests of West Virginia,” Mollohan said. “For the past several weeks, I have joined the electric utility industry, the coal industry, the United Mine Workers of America, and other coal state Representatives on negotiations to improve the legislation. We have made significant progress on a number of fronts that together would hold down the cost of electricity to residential and industrial consumers, that would help level the playing field for our steel and manufacturing industries that face international competition, and that would enable the electric power industry to continue to burn West Virginia coal. As a result of our efforts, the bill is much improved from the original draft, but it still falls short in several key areas, and I cannot support it.”

If this were a one time occurrence, it may not have been noteworthy. But Warner isn’t alone in this tactic. State Senator Gilbert Baker is running in the Republican primary for the opportunity to challenge Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln. Here is how a local paper characterized the criticisms Baker made of Lincoln at a campaign event on Monday:

He criticized Lincoln for voting for the health-care bill and favoring a climate bill that he said would raise utility bills by $100 a month.

Leaving aside the absurd claim that the bill would raise utility bills by $100 a month, Senator Lincoln has been very clear that she does not in fact support clean energy legislation:

“The legislation recently passed by the House of Representatives has done nothing to ease these Arkansans’ apprehensions. The House’s Waxman-Markey bill picks winners and losers and places a disproportionate share of the economic burden on families and businesses in rural America. It is a deeply flawed bill. I will not support similar legislation in the Senate.

I’m not here to defend Rep. Mollohan or Senator Lincoln. I think their opposition to clean energy legislation is extremely misguided. But Republican challengers in November’s Congressional elections should run against Democrats for their actual positions, not the boogie-man positions they imagine them to have.

Originally published at EnviroKnow.

After severely weakening the House climate bill in the spring, Collin Peterson has now reversed his position:

“First of all, this isn’t going anyplace in the Senate,” Peterson told a conservative talk radio show based in North Dakota, according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune. “But if it did and we ended up with a bill that was similar to what came out of the House and that was going to become law, I would vote no.”

Peterson, who prides himself on doing the bidding of industrial agriculture corporations, never intended to support climate legislation on final passage. He lended the measure his support in the House in order to weaken it as much as possible, only to turn around and oppose it when it counts.

Democrats should seriously consider taking his Chairmanship of the Agriculture Committee away, since he is not negotiating in good faith with leadership.

Kate Sheppard:

In an email to Bonner headed “Ready to Rumble,” Hawthorn lists seven key Democratic targets it believed could be pressured to vote against the bill. Hawthorn also named specific interest groups it hoped would write letters opposing the legislation—especially organizations “representing the interests of veterans, senior citizens, minorities, and other groups,” according to the documents. The email requests Bonner to produce five letters from such groups in the district of each targted lawmaker.

Here is the letter:

Friends of the Earth:

We’re excited to give you a first look at our new video, “Just the Energy Bill,” about the trials of the Waxman-Markey energy bill as it lost its teeth at the hands of greedy lobbyists. Click “START” in the above viewer to see the video. After watching, we hope you’ll use the player to ask your senators to fix the bill and to share our video with your friends.

For more information about how polluting special interests impacted the Waxman-Markey energy bill, and what senators need to do to fix it, click here.

Please distribute this widely.

Climatewire:

A new U.S. EPA analysis requested by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) is spawning a lobbying frenzy among Midwestern utilities that claim the document shows they will be treated unfairly under federal climate legislation.They say the assessment reveals that states like California will receive a financial windfall under a global warming bill, while states like Wisconsin will not get enough help and will have to spike electricity rates as a result.

…

Some environmentalists are counterattacking that the three-page report is flawed because its author relied on questionable methodology and analyzed only one part of a bill that passed the House earlier this year. They also say a Senate version of climate legislation is still being drafted and could make EPA’s statements moot.

“I have not been particularly impressed of certain aspects of EPA modeling,” said Joe Romm, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. “It looks to me like they’ve done what is easy for them to do, but isn’t accurate.”

Yesterday, Senators Kerry and Boxer introduced the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (CEJAPA). You can view a section-by-section summary and the full text of the legislation here.

Many bloggers have already weighed in with their initial reactions. What follows is a round-up of these first impressions, as well as a few thoughts of my own.

Bradford Plumer has a solid summary, running down the list of they key differences between Kerry-Boxer and Waxman-Markey. Key among the differences are the preservation of the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases, a “crackdown on carbon speculators” and “stricter scrutiny for biofuels.” Among (what I consider to be) the weak points in the bill, Plumer identifies increased incentives for natural gas production and use, and a voluntary mechanism for methane capture, which on first glance seems awfully short-sighted.

Brad Johnson writes that: “Incorporating the efforts of a number of senators, the Kerry-Boxer legislation has strengthened a number of provisions.” Among these, Johnson highlights the stronger emissions limits, funding for green transportation, and the preservation of EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, which the House bill foolishly gutted. Johnson also mentions a few Senators who have already attacked the bill, including Democrat Kent Conrad and Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison.

Kate Sheppard makes an interesting observation: “Noticeably missing from both the bill and their rhetoric was any reference to cap and trade. Instead, they’re calling it a ‘Global Warming Pollution Reduction and Investment’ program — and they’re promoting the energy and national security benefits rather than the emissions reductions goals.” Sheppard also observes that, as of yesterday’s unveiling, there was no Republican support for the bill whatsoever.

Elana Schor laments the lack of focus on transport, writing that “transportation reform groups are already strategizing about how to increase the bill’s focus on their area — which currently accounts for one-third of U.S. emissions but stands to receive far less than the 10 percent of total climate revenue that is mandated in the so-called “CLEAN TEA” legislation.” Schor also predicts that the bill will not make it to the Senate floor in advance of December’s climate negotiations in Copenhagen, but that “Senate passage next spring remains a distinct possibility.”

Steve Benen also expresses skepticism that some of the more promising measures will make it to the Senate floor. Benen writes: “So, does the bill have a realistic shot? It won’t be easy. The first step for Boxer-Kerry will probably be the easiest: it’s going to pass the Environment and Public Works Committee, perhaps by the end of the month. From there, however, it will be subjected to scrutiny in at least four other Senate committees, each of which will change the bill, probably for the worse. Some of the entirely worthwhile measures introduced yesterday are not at all likely to withstand the process.” This, of course, brings to mind the old adage that the United States Senate is where good ideas go to die. This statement is as true now as it ever was, as far as I can tell.

Brian Beutler discusses the arduous path the bill must take through various unfriendly Senate committees. In particular, Beutler mentions potential roadblocks in both the Finance and Agriculture Committees. Beutler also takes note of the bright side: “James Inhofe will spend weeks and weeks saying more and more ridiculous things about it. So that should be fun.”

Matt Yglesias raises the same concern that I will below: “Kerry-Boxer is a somewhat stronger and better measure than the American Climate and Energy Security bill that passed the House. But of course ACES passed the House whereas Kerry-Boxer will doubtless be changed many, many times.”

Joseph Romm focuses on the genuine improvement over the House bill in terms of offsets. Romm republishes a guest-post from an expert on offsets, who writes: “Probably the most important difference between the bills is that the Kerry-Boxer bill does not specify which agency would be in charge of administering and ensuring the integrity of any offset program. In the House bill, a last minute compromise switched all of the administration of biological sequestration offsets to the USDA from the EPA, a change widely criticized by environmentalists because of the belief that the USDA would not be as effective in regulation.”

A. Siegel focuses primarily on the price collar, detailing the pros and cons of the approach Senators Kerry and Boxer have used. In the end, he concludes: “From my perspective, for the next 10+ years, it seems almost certain that the floor will have more impact on actual carbon prices than the ceiling … thus, having that floor will help drive more emissions cuts than a program without a cost collar.”

David Roberts takes note of the fact that the bill is called Kerry-Boxer, rather than Boxer-Kerry as was previously expected. Roberts writes: “Word has it this decision came down from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) himself.” He also speculates that this decision was due to Senator Boxer’s “bungling” of the Lieberman-Warner bill, which was the Senate’s last attempt to address global warming.

Personally, I’m cautiously optimistic. While — as others have pointed out — the bill as it currently stands is stronger than the American Clean Energy and Security Act is several crucial ways, it has a treacherous gauntlet to run before reaching the President’s desk. The two greatest roadblocks I anticipate are in the Agriculture and Finance Committees.

In the House negotiations, Agriculture Chairman Collin Peterson was able to extract several major concessions which significantly weakened the bill. Pollution-powered Senator Blanche Lincoln, who recently took over the Chairmanship of the Senate Agriculture will undoubtedly take the opportunity to do the bidding of her agribusiness benefactors. It would be a true shame for the Senate to grant devastating concessions to Senator Lincoln at the expense of the environmental integrity of the legislation.

The Finance Committee Chairman, Senator Max Baucus, is also likely to be a major thorn in liberals’ side. Baucus has been fighting behind closed-doors to have a major role in the key aspects of the bill, including the financing for cap-and-trade mechanism. Senator Baucus’ insistence on wasting months trying to secure Republican support — despite all evidence that such support would never materialize — has been a major detriment to Democrats’ ability to move healthcare legislation in a timely manner. Indeed, many progressives have now accepted that Baucus’ attempts to gain Republican support are little more than pretense for weakening the bill and delaying the process as long as possible.

A smaller but still significant concern is a group of Midwestern Democratic Senators — led by Sherrod Brown — who are intent on extracting concessions for manufacturers in their states. Senator Brown, speaking of Senators Kerry and Boxer to The Hill yesterday, gave the ultimatum: “They don’t get the votes from Midwestern industrial-state senators unless manufacturing is a major component of this.” While the Midwestern Senators do have some valid concerns, the manufacturers they are advocating on behalf of now join a long list of industries seeking favorable concessions (read: free emissions credits): Nuclear, Coal, Natural Gas, Agribusiness, Oil Refining, Electric Utilities, etc. The true test this bill faces is whether or not it can work its way through the Senate without ceding so much ground to these industries that the environmental integrity of the bill is compromised. Either way, as Steve Benen notes, “it’s a fight worth watching closely.”

Lincoln.Senate.Gov:

“In the current economic environment, the average Arkansas family sits down at their kitchen table, where they talk through their worries about retirement plans losing money, college savings accounts losing value, and their neighbors being laid off. Quite simply, they are scared,” Lincoln said. “In addition, our businesses are making tough choices about whether to cut benefits, hours, or workers, or close their doors altogether.

“The majority of Arkansans believe efforts need to be made to reverse the detrimental effects of climate change. However, they are apprehensive, and rightly so, about what a massive policy change such as a cap-and-trade plan would mean for them at a time of tremendous economic uncertainty.

“The legislation recently passed by the House of Representatives has done nothing to ease these Arkansans’ apprehensions. The House’s Waxman-Markey bill picks winners and losers and places a disproportionate share of the economic burden on families and businesses in rural America. It is a deeply flawed bill. I will not support similar legislation in the Senate.