Boxer delicately steers Senate's global warming bill

WASHINGTON – Sen. Barbara Boxer, who heads the U.S. Senate committee handling legislation to curb global warming, has called the law California enacted last year the "gold standard."

But the bill taking shape in her committee isn't identical to the package that emerged from the California Legislature.

Here's a primer on the emerging legislation:

Q: Is this Boxer's bill?

A: No. Although the liberal Bay Area Democrat has her own bill patterned on California's landmark law, the law her committee is debating is a bipartisan compromise introduced last month by Sens. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., and John Warner, R-Va.

Q: How are the state and Senate approaches alike?

A: Both seek to lower emissions from burning fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas. Both use emission releases in 1990 as the benchmark. And both seek emission reductions broadly throughout the economy.

Q: Are their targets the same?

A: Close. The state law caps greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by 2020, but Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed an executive order pledging the state to cut emissions 80 percent by 2050. The Senate bill would require them to be cut by 63 percent by 2050.

Q: What is "cap and trade," and do both the California law and the Senate bill require it?

A: A cap-and-trade system would immediately cap emissions and then steadily lower them to reach reduction goals. Key to the program are emission allocations – basically annual pollution rights given or sold to big industries that would permit them to release a defined amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

A plant would need to have sufficient allocations to cover its total emissions. If it didn't, it would need to buy more. If it had more than it needed, it could sell the surplus. Trading these allowances would produce cash to install equipment to cut emissions, thus lowering the global warming threat.

California's law does not require a cap-and-trade system, but the state Air Resources Board is looking at such a program to meet nearly half of the needed emissions cuts. Under the Senate bill, a cap-and-trade system is mandatory and the principal way the 2050 goals are reached.

Q: How would California fare under the Senate bill?

A: Fine. The Senate bill does not pre-empt California's law, meaning it would remain in force.

Q: If California's law remains in effect, will the state feel any effect if the Senate bill becomes law?

A: Not much of one. After testifying on the bill last week at a Senate hearing, PG&E Corp. chief Peter A. Darbee said the Senate bill is "largely consistent" with the direction California is heading.

Some environmentalists aren't so confident. They think California could lose in the distribution of emission allocations, which could be worth hundreds of billions of dollars to pay for innovative technologies and pollution reduction.

Under the Senate bill, most of the allocations would be awarded in a way that critics say rewards the biggest polluters – those that burn coal. California doesn't have any big coal plants.

Q: If California doesn't burn much coal, why would it be hurt?

A: Because these emission allowances will be very valuable – money in the pockets of those who receive them. The Friends of the Earth environmental group thinks the allowances could be worth as much as $3.6 trillion between 2012 and 2050. Trading those allocations would be a key incentive for financing plant improvements.

An analysis by Clean Air Watch ranked California 45th in the number of allowances it would receive per capita.

Q: What is California's reaction?

A: The state has called the Senate bill a good starting point. But it also thinks a much fairer way to handle the allowances is to auction them off to the highest bidder. Several environmental groups agree, and this could be one of the biggest fights ahead.

Q: If the allocations are so unbalanced, why are they in the bill?

A: To win votes. Each coal state has two senators, just like California. To pass a bill, coal-state senators need something they like. Emission allocations are a key trading stock.

Q: The House elects its members based on population, and California has the biggest delegation. What's happening there?

A: Unclear. The House is not as far along as the Senate, but some sort of cap-and-trade program is certain, with the same political dynamic.

Q: What is Boxer's position?

A: She's sticking to the Senate bill. At a hearing on it last week, Boxer called it "a very good bill indeed."

Q: Is Congress likely to enact global warming legislation before it adjourns for the 2008 elections next year?

A: The odds don't look great.

In the Senate, there is a vocal group of Republicans led by Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., who want to slow down or kill the legislation. There also are Democrats who are uncomfortable with the Senate bill.

Already the issue has entered the presidential elections. The leading contenders for the Democratic nomination – Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.; Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.; and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards – favor auctioning all the emission allowances instead of giving away half of them. That would likely kill the Senate compromise.

Q: So this will be a big test for Boxer?

A: Yes. Careful negotiations will be necessary to hold the support of 60 senators – the number needed to beat a filibuster that critics are certain to mount.

Boxer said at the hearing that her job will be to steer the legislation down the political center, saying, "The perfect cannot be the enemy of the very good."

"I hope to keep a delicate balance," she said. "If passed as it is, this would be the strongest global warming bill, the most far reaching, in the world."

About the writer:

• Call David Whitney, McClatchy Washington Bureau, (202) 383-0004.