“I might. I’m looking at it. I think it’s a reasonable thing to do,” the North Dakota Democrat told reporters this morning after speaking at an energy efficiency conference on the Hill.
Senator Rockefeller’s legislation can be viewed here.
PolluterWatch Director Kert Davies sent a letter to Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) urging him to release information about any conversations he may have had with lobbying firms or other potential employers regarding a job once he retires from the Senate early next year. In the letter Davies also calls on Dorgan to state unequivocally that he will refrain from engaging prospective employers and focus solely on his work as a Senator throughout the remainder of his term.
Here is the full letter:
Office of Senator Byron Dorgan
322 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-3405
Senator Dorgan,
It is no secret that Americans are increasingly cynical about their government. With influence peddling as a $4.5 billion a year “growth” industry, there are now 1,300 Washington lobbyists for every Senator. The revolving door between K Street and Capitol Hill does nothing to improve people’s faith in the independence of their elected leaders.
Throughout your public service career, you have been a strong leader on a wide range of issues including several key energy initiatives that are essential to America’s future. Given how much the nation’s clean energy future is at stake this year, I was disappointed when, earlier this month, you announced your decision to retire – and that you are considering several career options, including working “on energy policy in the private sector.”
As a longtime member of Congress I am sure you are aware that, regardless of your actual intentions, this language is often code for legislators who have begun trolling for an influence peddling job after they leave Congress. And, the path from public servant to influence peddler is a sadly well-worn one: Rep. Bob Livingston, Senator John Breaux, Rep. Billy Tauzin, and Senator Trent Lott.
I recall seeing you as a speaker at the oil industry’s controversial, pay-to-play forum on December 1st, just five weeks before you announced your retirement. As you will recall, this highly questionable exercise was one in which Newsweek was caught renting out its name, credibility and top pundit to big oil’s influence peddler, Jack Gerard. We were able to document Mr. Gerard’s unwillingness to answer basic questions about the purchase price of Newsweek’s credibility, and you can see the results at youtube.com/polluterwatch.
We are all confident that you will have no shortage of job options open to you at the end of this year. Why let dirty energy lobbyists, who are working overtime to imperil America’s clean energy interests, threaten your legacy as an independent advocate for what’s best for North Dakota and the people of this country?
To prevent that from happening, I call on you to:
· List the dirty energy lobbyists and their respective clients with whom you have had contact about your next job.
· Release all details of phone calls, emails or meetings you have had with prospective employers from energy interests who have lobbied you or your office. Of particular interest are Washington-area lobbying and public relations firms.
· Pledge that you will wait until after an energy bill is passed this year to engage in any further discussions about future employment with interests that lobby you.
This year the Senate is likely to debate and act on several key pieces of legislation that will shape the future of the American energy industry, our economy and our efforts to fight pollution. Regardless of your final positions on these bills, I am sure you agree that Americans deserve to be absolutely certain that your votes reflect your genuine view of what is best for them.
I am sure that you would not allow future career prospects to influence your legislative judgment. However, by releasing your records and pledging to refrain from any employment discussions, you can avoid creating any perception to the contrary.
Sincerely,
Kert Davies
PolluterWatch Director
Greenpeace
The Senate will probably not take up cap-and-trade legislation in 2010, retiring Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., said today. “In the aftermath of a very, very heavy lift on health care, it’s unlikely that the Senate will turn to a very complicated and controversial subject of cap-and-trade,” he told reporters in a conference call.He instead predicted that the Senate will consider the energy bill approved last spring by the Energy and Natural Resources panel, on which he sits. He said he hopes the Senate will pass that bill by the end of June.
Mary Landrieu of Louisiana — Since 1997, Senator Mary Landrieu has directly received $152,668 from these two lobbyists, their firms, their climate legislation clients, their PACs and employees.
Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas — Since 1997, Senator Blanche Lincoln, who is the Chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee and has jurisdiction over clean energy legislation moving through the Senate, has directly received $139,766 from these two lobbyists, their firms, their climate legislation clients, their PACs and employees.
Jim Webb of Virginia — Since 2005, Senator Jim Webb has directly received $25,700 from these two lobbyists, their firms, their climate legislation clients, their PACs and employees.
Byron Dorgan of North Dakota — Since 1997, Senator Byron Dorgan has directly received $119,446 from these two lobbyists, their firms, their climate legislation clients, their PACs and employees.
Ben Nelson of Nebraska — Since 1997, Senator Ben Nelson has directly received $65,770 from these two lobbyists, their firms, their climate legislation clients, their PACs and employees.
All told, these five Senators have directly received $503,350 from these two lobbyists, their firms, their climate legislation clients, their PACs and employees, since 1997.
Here is Greenpeace’s report on this:
Additionally, Greenpeace sent letters to the five Senators mentioned above, attempting to clarify their position on Murkowski’s Dirty Air Act amendment. Here is a copy of the letter they sent to Senator Webb:
Senator Dorgan, one of the five Senators who received a letter from Greenpeace, refused to say whether or not he supported the amendment in a conference call today with reporters:
Dorgan wouldn’t say whether he might support a possible amendment by Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, to stop the EPA from regulating carbon emissions. But, he said, his “preference is that Congress address this issue and not the EPA.” How the amendment is crafted — most notably whether it suspends the agency’s regulatory power or completely removes it — is crucial, the senator added.
Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski has gained co-sponsorship for her effort to block the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide from at least one Democrat, her office confirmed Friday evening.
Spokesman Robert Dillon said that one Democrat has signed on, though he was not able to confirm the identity of the Democrat. There are, however, plenty of ideas about who this Democratic cosponsor may be. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Jim Webb (D-Va.), Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), and Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), all previously on record voicing concerns about carbon regulation, have been floated as possible sign-ons. We’ve put in inquiries at all those offices and will update as more information becomes available.
Miles Grant thinks it might be Senator Webb.
I wouldn’t put it past any of the dirty Dems listed above. All five are in the pocket of the coal and/or oil and/or agriculture industries. Then again, Robert Dillon, Kate’s apparent source on this, is completely full of shit.
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) announced this evening that he’s retiring at the end of his term, a shocking development that threatens Democratic control of his Senate seat next year.
Dorgan was up for re-election in 2010, but the third-term senator wasn’t facing any strong Republican opposition– but was facing the growing possibility of a serious challenge from popular Gov. John Hoeven (R-N.D.).
Joseph Romm wonders if this increases the chances that Dorgan will vote for the climate bill.
Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd:
Embattled Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd (D) has scheduled a press conference at his home in Connecticut Wednesday at which he is expected to announce he will not seek re-election, according to sources familiar with his plans.
Colorado Governor Bill Ritter:
In a surprise move on Tuesday, Gov. Bill Ritter (D-Colorado) announced he would not seek re-election next fall, 9NEWS has confirmed.
Here is the full transcript of the event:
23527903-Newsweek-Dialogue-Series-Climate-and-Energy-Policy-Moving-12-1-09 –
Greenpeace’s Executive Director Phil Radford, understandably, took issue with this when the event was announced:
At present, the panel’s only member is American Petroleum Institute (API) President Jack Gerard.As you know, Mr. Gerard is the nation’s top registered lobbyist for Big Oil. API and its biggest member, ExxonMobil, have aggressively lobbied against global warming policy solutions that will inevitably limit global consumption of oil. API and its members have spent tens of millions of dollars over the past decade alone on propaganda efforts and front groups to undercut public confidence in the wide and deep global scientific consensus that global warming is real, that human consumption of fossil fuels is driving it, and that the problem is a serious threat to America and the rest of the world.
Greenpeace was not alone in its concerns:
“You’re selling access,” said Edward Wasserman, Knight professor of journalism ethics at Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Va. “Newsweek is using its reputation as a great news organization to convene these officeholders to talk about public policy. Then it’s renting out a space at the table for one of its customers who would not be at the table if not for giving money to Newsweek.”
Upping the ante before today’s big event, Greenpeace called for the event to be canceled and issued the following statement:
“Big Oil is buying access to our elected leaders by paying Newsweek to host this forum, and it must be called off,” Radford said. “Gerard and API will stop at nothing to stall progress on clean energy and climate solutions. I’m amazed Newsweek is endangering its reputation by renting its banner and top pundit to Big Oil. This forum is pay-to-play propaganda.”
In response to this, Newsweek’s Howard Fineman provided EnviroKnow with the following statement via email:
Rep. Ed Markey, the chief sponsor of the House cap-and-trade bill and a leading environmental advocate, is a full participant in the open, on-the-record discussion with no control by API over the questions or flow. Dem Sen Byron Dorgan is also participating and will reflect various views in Dem caucus. Rep Fred Upton, who opposed the House bill, will also participate. I see nothing wrong with an open, on-the-record balanced discussion like this. Newsweek has a long tradition of enviro reporting, including our annual green issue.
We’ll have more on this after tonight’s event.
Update: Talking Points Memo has now picked up this story.
Today, fourteen Democratic senators, led by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), affirmed their allegiance to the profits of polluting industry at the expense of the health and jobs of their constituents. In a letter to Senate leaders, a bloc of senators with powerful coal interests in their states called for “fair emissions allowances in climate change legislation.” Their definition of “fair,” unfortunately, turns out to be full taxpayer subsidies for global warming polluters. They call for the free allocation of pollution permits to electric utilities to be distributed “fully based on emissions.”
In the letter, the Senators write:
We believe it is essential that we strive to formulate legislation that equitably distributes transition assistance across individuals, as well as states and regions and economic sectors. We urge you to ensure that emission allowances allocated to the electricity sector – and thus, electricity consumers — be fully based on emissions as the appropriate and equitable way to provide transition assistance in a greenhouse gas-regulated economy.We thank you for your efforts to build consensus on the critical issue of energy and climate legislation.
The change we recommend would contribute to a more balanced and equitable bill for the Senate’s consideration, and a better strategy for America.
The Senators who have signed onto this inaccurate and deeply disingenuous statement are:
The signatories on the letter defending coal-heavy polluters are Senators Tom Harkin (D-IA), Al Franken (D-MN), Roland Burris (D-IL), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Russell Feingold (D-WI), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Mark Udall (D-CO), Robert Byrd (D-WV), Carl Levin (D-MI), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH).
The provision these Senators are advocating would not ‘contribute to a more balanced and equitable bill’. It would line the pockets of coal companies and offer zero protections whatsoever for consumers.
But don’t take it from me. Consider this chart from the Congressional Budget Office (via David Roberts).
The option on the right, in which 80% of American households experience a decrease in income while the top 20% experience an increase, is what these Senators are fighting for. The option on the left — a 100% auction of allowances with dividends distributed equally to the American people — has not been seriously considered by Congress. This is due entirely to the corrupting influence of corporate polluters on our political process.
David Roberts explains the distinction between these approaches succinctly:
Auction-and-rebate is vastly more progressive, favoring low-income taxpayers, while freely allocating permits overwhelmingly favors the rich.
But suppose you don’t trust the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. Surely someone else has weighed in on this.
In March of this year, 600 economists wrote a letter to Congress expressing their strong preference for a 100% auction of carbon credits. Specifically, they cited three reasons free allocation of allowances would “undermine the program’s long-term success”:
Free allocations will do little or nothing to protect families and businesses from higher energy costs.Free allocations will represent a significant and undeserved windfall to
utilities and other greenhouse gas producers.Free allocations will deny the government the necessary resources to
reduce the economic cost of combating climate change, and will thus
generate needlessly high costs of achieving any reduction target.
Congressional Budget Office: Check
Hundreds of Respected Economists: Check
Perhaps you need further evidence that these Senators are fighting for the coal industry at the expense of their constituents.
President Obama, during the campaign, advocated strongly for a 100% auction of allowances. During the primary, this was the key aspect of his plan that was superior to what candidates Clinton and Edwards proposed. During the general election, the Obama campaign attacked Senator McCain’s proposal to give allowances away as a huge government giveaway:
Obama’s camp attacks McCain’s program as a huge government giveaway. Says Jason Grumet, Obama’s principal advisor on energy and the environment: “McCain, in contrast to his self-description as a fiscal conservative, would give hundreds of billions of dollars of emissions permits away to the energy industry in the hope that they would pass the savings on to consumers.”
Even more tellingly, OMB Director Peter Orszag told the House Energy and Commerce Committee in March what giving credits away for free would amount to:
If you didn’t auction the permits it would represent the largest corporate welfare program that has ever been enacted in the history of the United States. All of the evidence suggests that what would occur is that corporate profits would increase by approximately the value of the permits.
So, the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget, hundreds of leading economists, and the Obama administration have all argued forcefully against giving away credits. The consensus is that this would be a massive giveaway to corporations and the wealthiest 20% of Americans at the expense of lower-income Americans and the middle class.
This leaves the 14 Senators who signed this letter in a precarious position. Are they actually disputing the arguments I’ve outlined above? I have offered each of them the opportunity to reconcile their claims with this evidence, along with an invitation to publish their response at EnviroKnow.com.
November 12, 2009
Dear Senators Reid, Boxer, Baucus and Kerry,
As the Senate formulates and debates energy and climate change legislation, it is clear that revamping our energy systems with alternative energy resources and technologies will be fundamental to our strategy for achieving energy security and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. A transition of this magnitude will take years to accomplish and will incorporate major changes to the way we produce and use energy. Both the House-passed “American Clean Energy and Security Act” (H.R. 2454) and the recently introduced “Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act” (S. 1733) recognize the importance of helping individuals and firms by alleviating potential financial impacts as this transition takes place. This assistance, in the form of the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances, is an important tool for protecting consumers and businesses as we move to adopt new energy systems and decrease greenhouse gas emissions. To be fair and effective, any legislation must equitably allocate these allowances to individuals and across states and regions and economic sectors.
The House bill falls short of that equitable distribution goal with its formula for allocating allowances to local distribution companies based 50 percent on emissions and 50 percent on sales. Unfortunately, the Senate bill currently under consideration includes the same 50/50 allocation provision. Under the proposed 50/50 formula, utilities that are more coal dependent will need to purchase even more allowances than they would have if all allowances were allocated based on emissions, and those higher costs will be passed on to their customers. Meanwhile, many utilities with relatively lesser emissions will receive sufficient allowances to completely cover their initial requirements. Thus, their customers will experience no price increases resulting from the legislation.
We believe it is essential that we strive to formulate legislation that equitably distributes transition assistance across individuals, as well as states and regions and economic sectors. We urge you to ensure that emission allowances allocated to the electricity sector – and thus, electricity consumers — be fully based on emissions as the appropriate and equitable way to provide transition assistance in a greenhouse gas-regulated economy.
We thank you for your efforts to build consensus on the critical issue of energy and climate legislation. The change we recommend would contribute to a more balanced and equitable bill for the Senate’s consideration, and a better strategy for America.
Sincerely,
Senator Tom Harkin Senator Al Franken Senator Roland Burris Senator Byron Dorgan Senator Herb Kohl Senator Russell Feingold Senator Kent Conrad Senator Michael Bennet Senator Amy Klobuchar Senator Mark Udall Senator Robert Byrd Senator Carl Levin Senator Debbie Stabenow Senator Sherrod Brown
