K Street in Brief

NOT QUITE RIGHT

The mountain of material for and against climate change legislation continued to grow Tuesday as senators entered a second day of debate on the measure, which is as sweeping in scope as any they are likely to consider this year.

The bill seeks to cut greenhouse gas emissions by more than 65 percent over the next four decades through a federal cap-and-trade program that would touch, either directly or indirectly, most segments of the economy.

{mosads}It isn’t expected to pass the Senate, and Republicans in particular were looking forward to pointing out that the bill would likely raise energy prices that already seem high.

But supporters can take solace in one thing: The debate is further proof that the question is no longer whether to do anything about climate change. Even the bill’s chief critics allow that something needs to be done.

William Kovacs, vice president of environment, technology and regulatory affairs for the Chamber of Commerce, said the business community “wants to be a leader in crafting a logical plan to address climate change.”

But the bill before the Senate crafted by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.) “fails to recognize the importance of technology as a solution to curbing carbon emissions,” Kovacs said in a statement.

The National Association of Manufacturers said it would work with Congress to “establish sensible and responsible federal climate policies” in a letter that explained why the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner bill would do neither.

The American Chemistry Council was more charitable. It wrote of its support for efforts the bill makes to promote energy efficiency programs, many of which are supported by some of its members.

But it too found fault: The bill doesn’t do enough to ensure domestic energy supplies, particularly natural gas, demand for which is likely to grow under a climate bill because the fuel releases less carbon dioxide than does coal.

Nevertheless, environmentalists noted the tide was beginning to turn in their favor, even if the Senate bill doesn’t make it this year.

Phyllis Cuttino, director of the U.S. Global Warming Campaign for the Pew Environment Group , said the debate, combined with the fact that all three presidential candidates support a federal cap-and-trade program, “signals to the world that American progress toward solving this threat is both inevitable and undeniable.”

Jim Snyder

CAPTURING CASH, THEN CARBON

There are many lobbies interested in the debate over climate change: farmers, local governments, airlines, venture capitalists invested in renewable industries, utilities, unions and on and on.

“We’re having conversations with clients all the time, trying to keep them up to date,” said Robert Mowrey, who directs the energy infrastructure, climate and technology group at Alston and Bird .  “This is going to be a sea change in the next three to five years in how energy is managed and produced.”

One of the biggest areas of interest is in developing the technology to capture and store carbon dioxide. Coal producers and users in particular are working hard to convince Congress to spend billions of dollars a year on developing capture and storage technologies.

The process is, at present, prohibitively expensive. Making it less pricey will be critical to efforts to curb greenhouse gas. Coal, which generates more carbon than other fuels, is responsible for around 50 percent of the electricity produced in this country. With a two-century supply, most energy experts believe it would be impractical to leave coal out of the nation’s energy mix.

Business groups, as they tend to do, have formed a few new coalitions to lobby on the climate bill.

Among them is the North American Carbon Capture and Storage Association , a coalition Alston formed on behalf of its energy clients to support the development of carbon capture and storage.

The group was founded with 13 members, including Shell Oil Co. and Peabody Energy , a major coal producer.

A bill lobbyists expected to be introduced by House Democrats Rick Boucher (Va.), John Murtha (Pa.) and Nick Rahall (W.Va.) would create a dedicated funding stream to develop carbon capture technologies.

The bill would charge utilities based on the amount of electricity they send over transmission lines. That would spread out the impacts of the bill equally across all regions. Critics contend the climate bill under consideration in the Senate would hurt certain areas like the Southeast that heavily more rely on coal to produce electricity.

The wire charge would avoid that. But it will have its own problems. Appropriators tend not to like dedicated funding streams, and environmentalists want “polluters to pay” through firm emissions targets that are set sooner rather than later.

Even after some of the issues discussed above are resolved, the debate over climate will generate business in the lobbying industry for years to come.

Mowrey, who specializes in federal regulation, says by his count the bill would require the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct at least 30 different rulemakings.

J.S.

SEEKING A DELAY

The rank-and-file push for the House to postpone a controversial Medicare competitive bidding program for durable medical equipment continues apace.

On Monday, 132 House members wrote to the Democratic and Republican leaders of the Ways and Means Committee and its Health Subcommittee asking for legislation that would delay the implementation of the first phase of the program for one year.

“We are very concerned that the suppliers will not be able to meet the needs of Medicare beneficiaries,” the lawmakers wrote. Reps. John Tanner (D-Tenn.) and David Hobson (R-Ohio) are the top signatories to the letter.

The House missive is likely to be given a sympathetic reception. Health Subcommittee Chairman Pete Stark (D-Calif.) has been drafting legislation to postpone the July 1 start date.

The medical supply industry — particularly those companies that did not submit winning bids — has been lobbying hard for a postponement, claiming their businesses are at severe risk.

Under the program, suppliers of 10 categories of medical equipment, from oxygen tanks to power wheelchairs, in 10 metropolitan areas submitted bids to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The winning bidders, announced last month, are to begin getting the reduced payments on July 1. Firms not offered contracts are not permitted to sell their products to Medicare beneficiaries in those 10 metro areas. CMS plans to begin the process of expanding the program to 70 more metropolitan areas in July.

At a Health Subcommittee hearing last month, Stark indicated the price the industry would pay for a delay could be lower payments for their products across the board. Merely delaying the program would cost $6 billion over five years, an expense Stark told industry representatives they would have to bear.

Stark conveyed exasperation with CMS’s implementation of the program during the hearing. Full committee ranking member Jim McCrery (R-La.) and other lawmakers on the panel expressed similar sentiments, along with concern that the program would limit patients’ access to medical equipment and supplies.

Jeffrey Young