Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

x close
The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

Rep. Inslee Key as House Committee Pushes Clean Energy Bill Forward

News   May 22, 2009 at 1:08 pm Chris Kissel

insleecapt

After two months of negotiations and a week of 14-hour days, bitter partisan arguments, scapular probing at the minutiae of the bill, and round after round of GOP amendments, Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA,1) and the rest of the House energy committee finally finished marking up the American Clean Energy Security Act yesterday. This year’s comprehensive climate bill, of which Inslee was one of the major authors and most fervent defenders, may be one of the largest packages of legislation ever undertaken by Congress. [Editor's note: Sorry, Chris is only 21.]

“Since coming to Congress, I have worked tirelessly to harness America’s innovative genius to break our country’s dependence on foreign oil and make this country the world leader in clean energy technologies,” said Inslee in a statement. “The passage of this bill… is an historic moment for the Energy and Commerce Committee.”

Among the key provisions Inslee safeguarded out of the committee, Inslee’s office reports, is the creation of a clean energy bank, a central bank set up solely to finance research and development of clean energy technology and a loan guarantee program for setting up new transmission lines. Of course, there’s also the cap-and-trade program. Inslee went for the standard version—similar to the Obama proposal, as opposed to more lefty variants like Sen. Maria Cantwell’s rebate version where money goes back to consumers or Rep. Jim McDermott’s de facto carbon tax. Inslee’s version also gives a leg up to carbon-intensive industries like steel, glass, and pulp and paper manufacturers. (According to opensecrets.com, timber industry giant Weyerhaeuser is a major Inslee donor).

At one point, the debate became reminiscent of a fight that broke out in Olympia this year—energy committee Republicans argued that nuclear and hydroelectric power should be included in the bill’s list of viable renewable resources.

Inslee was defiant, just as he was earlier this year when he came home to defend I-937, which Inslee advocated strongly for when it was introduced in 2006.

“Whereas nuclear and hydro are very clean, and very efficient, and very efficacious, they are not new,” said Inslee, according to the Huffington Post. The amendment to add hydro and nuclear to the list of renewables was voted down.

One Inslee proposal missing from the list of provisions his office is touting is his measure to create a low-carbon fuel standard, which aims at a gradual 10 percent reduction of greenhouse gas chemicals present in transportation fuel. California, which adopted the first-ever low-carbon fuel standard last month, ultimately had to give concessions to producers of corn-based ethanol, which has apparently has a negligible effect on reducing emissions.

I have a call in to Inslee’s office to see what happened to the fuel standard proposal and to see if Rep. Brian Baird’s (D-WA, 3) biomass provisions were included.

The climate legislation will now enter the House docket, and is expected to reach a vote by the beginning of summer.

Also, while going through the Internet to find first-hand accounts of the House debate, I found two great exchanges between Inslee and Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX,6), the ranking Republican on the energy committee. (The first one may explain why we aren’t hearing back from Rep. Inslee’s office today.) 

From Climate Progress:

“You should have a tremendous celebration tonight for your effort on this bill.”

—House Energy and Commerce Committee ranking minority member Joe Barton (R-TX) to Jay Inslee (D-WA), a little after 7 PM EST.

Barton also said to Inslee, “you have been an indefatigable proponent of the bill.”

According to Fox News Radio:

At 11:27 pm, Waxman announced that Reps. Jay Inslee (D-WA) and Kathy Castor (D-FL) would offer the last amendment of the night. Their plan would grant states the power to set some energy rates. The amendment galled Barton.

“It is late,” Barton started. “But this is probably the worst amendment we’ve seen today.”

Inslee took umbrage with Barton’s criticism.

“The fact that Mr. Barton has said I have the worst amendment has guaranteed my re-election in Washington’s First District,” Inslee countered.


  • Ross Macfarlane

    Thank you for highlighting Jay Inslee’s leadership on this issue. It has been his passion for years and the last months have been a unique combination of passion and (hard earned) opportunity. I participate with a number of national groups environmental and clean economy business groups that have been working on this issue, and Jay is universally regarded as one of the most effective and tireless champions.

    I have to quibble with your characterization of the cap on climate pollution as “standard” issue, compared to more “lefty” variants like Cantwell’s cap and dividend or McDermott’s hybrid carbon tax. First, the issue shouldn’t be left or right, it should be what takes us farthest toward what the science demands. A firm, declining cap on global warming pollution is the clearest way to get the tons out of the atmosphere that we need and to link up with the international community. Both the bill reported out Thursday night and Cantwell’s cap and dividend bill contain this commitment. Jay Inslee stands with us in trying to make it the cap strong as possible with as few loopholes as possible. But a key issue is speed — it is imperative that we begin today to turn the corner on our addiction to oil and other fossil fuels. That’s why Inslee’s work to get this bill moving to the House floor is so critical.

    A carbon tax proposal, such as McDermott’s bill, doesn’t put us firmly on the path to a low carbon future, and so is not the favored approach for most environmental and clean economy groups working on these issues (although we strongly support a carbon tax as a quick way to get price signals right). The fact that a tax is less politically viable (as witnessed by the fact that Joe Barton and his GOP cronies have been trying to hang the “Energy Tax” label around the neck of the House cap bill) does not mean that it is more progressive.

  • Ross Macfarlane

    Thank you for highlighting Jay Inslee's leadership on this issue. It has been his passion for years and the last months have been a unique combination of passion and (hard earned) opportunity. I participate with a number of national groups environmental and clean economy business groups that have been working on this issue, and Jay is universally regarded as one of the most effective and tireless champions.

    I have to quibble with your characterization of the cap on climate pollution as “standard” issue, compared to more “lefty” variants like Cantwell's cap and dividend or McDermott's hybrid carbon tax. First, the issue shouldn't be left or right, it should be what takes us farthest toward what the science demands. A firm, declining cap on global warming pollution is the clearest way to get the tons out of the atmosphere that we need and to link up with the international community. Both the bill reported out Thursday night and Cantwell's cap and dividend bill contain this commitment. Jay Inslee stands with us in trying to make it the cap strong as possible with as few loopholes as possible. But a key issue is speed — it is imperative that we begin today to turn the corner on our addiction to oil and other fossil fuels. That's why Inslee's work to get this bill moving to the House floor is so critical.

    A carbon tax proposal, such as McDermott's bill, doesn't put us firmly on the path to a low carbon future, and so is not the favored approach for most environmental and clean economy groups working on these issues (although we strongly support a carbon tax as a quick way to get price signals right). The fact that a tax is less politically viable (as witnessed by the fact that Joe Barton and his GOP cronies have been trying to hang the “Energy Tax” label around the neck of the House cap bill) does not mean that it is more progressive.