Are There GOP Senators Who Will Back The Climate Bill?

Much of the talk (including my own) concerning prospects for a Senate clean energy and climate protection bill has been focused on the reluctance of Dems from fossil-fuel producing states to embrace the House bill.

But when the Senate's main environmental committee kicked off a series of hearings today, the Senators signaling a willingness to break ranks were not Democrats, but Republicans.

While most Senate Republicans trotted out standard right-wing talking points (The EPA is covering up the truth! The White House is keeping the bill secret!) Sens. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) and Michael Crapo (Idaho) offered only mild criticism while pleading for more nuclear power. Might they be signaling a willingness to deal?

Lest I be called delusional or a sell-out or both, do note that the House bill may not have passed without 8 GOPers breaking ranks. The Democratic caucus is not solid enough on climate issues to presume GOP votes are unneeded. Anyone giving a positive signal is at least worth feeling out.

The signals from Alexander and Crapo during today's hearing were faint to be sure, nothing to get excessively optimistic about.

Alexander expressed opposition to an "economy-wide cap-and-trade" system, which is what the House bill creates, in favor of a "low carbon fuel standard" which he claimed would generate "cheap" nuclear power.

But he did not dwell on his disagreement with the House bill's carbon cap (note he has previously introduced legislation with a more limited carbon cap). The emphasis in his questions to the testifying members of Obama's cabinet was how to support more nuclear power.

Which may be a signal that he could be persuaded to vote for an economy-wide cap-and-trade if his concerns about nuclear power are satisfied.

Now, Alexander's logic is deeply flawed. As Joseph Romm notes, nuclear power is the opposite of cheap. The massive expansion of nuclear power Alexander and other Republicans call for would cost $1 trillion. Further, for better or worse there is already renewed support for nuclear power in the House bill, loans and loan guarantees that would lead to the construction of twice as many plants as would happen otherwise.

But the fact that Alexander is looking for nuclear assurances, and the fact that there already is some nuclear support in the House bill, suggests they are not so far apart and a deal could be struck that doesn't make the current bill markedly worse. Romm predicted: "Sadly, I expect some sort of nuclear energy title will be required to get a climate bill through the Senate. The only 'good news' is that it will fall more into the category of 'taxpayer money flushed down the toilet' than 'needless weakening of an already too-weak bill.'"

Sen. Crapo was more specific in what he wanted for nuclear power, to falsely deem it "renewable energy" that counts toward meeting the House bill mandate of generating 20% of electricity from renewable sources. Such a concession would be more damaging than merely wasting taxpayer money on loan guarantees, because meeting a standard is a zero-sum game. Shoehorning in nuclear means less actual renewable energy. Case in point: we already get 20% of our electricity from nuclear power.

Still, his emphasis on increased nuclear power, rather than wholesale rejection of the House bill, signaled a possible openness to make a deal. Idaho has an interest in supporting wind and solar power, so Crapo may simply be looking to get on the gravy train before it leaves the station.

Regardless of your feelings on nuclear power (I, frankly, do not like it all), the important political takeaway is that Alexander and Crapo may have cracked open the door to supporting the climate bill. And the more grassroots pressure they feel from their constituents, the more likely they will make a deal that is not weaker than the House version.

Views expressed on this page are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Campaign for America's Future or Institute for America's Future