Politics and Law

Editors' note: This is a guest post. See Paul Bell's bio below.

When President Obama addressed a joint session of Congress in February, he spoke to the need for the United States to become more energy-efficient. To that end, the stimulus bill he recently signed into law provides more than $30 billion for energy efficiency projects, innovative technology loan guarantees, the retrofitting of federal facilities, and the development of the initial framework for a "smart" electrical grid.

These measures put the country on a long-term path toward so-called green-led growth. But how they are implemented is as important as their passage. Moving forward, policymakers must adopt reforms and take advantage of the stimulus funds to make government IT operations more energy-efficient. They also should set policies that encourage and incentivize the private sector to do the same.

To start, they should spotlight the significant stimulus funds aimed at upgrading information technology in federal facilities. Newer, more energy-efficient IT will drive long-term cost savings and environmental sustainability, while boosting government productivity and reducing energy consumption.

The federal government is a major IT user and, as such, a major energy consumer. The most recent Environmental Protection Agency report on federal energy consumption indicates that federal servers and data centers accounted for approximately 6 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity use, for a total electricity cost of about $450 million annually (PDF). And energy use is slated to double by 2011.

The federal government can lead by example by pursuing two interlocking--but equally important--objectives:

First, the Obama administration should challenge federal agencies to freeze IT-related energy consumption at current levels while boosting computing output. This will be faster and potentially more effective than legislation.

And it's not as difficult as it sounds, but depends on successful implementation of three measures: New federal data centers must use the best available energy-efficient IT; existing federal data centers must be converted to "green" data centers within three years; and federal data centers must be connected to intelligent utility networks or smart grids, where possible. This will reduce energy consumption and drive significant cost savings for consumers, small businesses, large enterprises, and public-sector organizations, while enhancing U.S. competitiveness.

At Dell, we've learned that going green doesn't have to involve building costly new data centers. By applying a green approach to our own data centers, we are on track to save $52 million in related costs by the end of this year, and we've avoided the need to build a new data center altogether. We're able to compute more while consuming less.

The federal government must modernize data centers to improve energy efficiency. Most government--and private-sector--data centers have significant unused capacity due to servers consuming power but not always doing a lot of work. That can change by embracing technologies, such as virtualization, that optimize server productivity.

Virtualization is a technology that allows one server to do the work of many. Using software to create multiple virtual machines inside each physical system, virtualization reduces the number of servers required to run a data center. Combined with other technologies, a data center can do as much as three times more work using the same power and space. This unlocks unused capacity, increases computing power, and avoids the expense associated with overprovisioning and buying additional servers.

Second, government should establish policies that encourage greater IT energy efficiency in the private sector. The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy found that for every extra kilowatt-hour of electricity consumed by information and communications technologies, the U.S. economy increases its overall energy savings by a factor of 10. In essence, efficient IT saves more energy than it uses.

Congress, regulators, and the Obama administration should start with a comprehensive assessment of government servers by class and power use. They also should develop a national strategy for deploying IT that drives energy efficiency. A senior White House representative, perhaps federal CIO Vivek Kundra, should coordinate federal efforts on energy-efficient IT, working with Congress to advance this agenda.

Policymakers also should develop a framework to support private-sector energy efficiency, including:

• Tax credits to invest in projects that reduce energy demand.
• Immediate expensing, or accelerated depreciation, for retrofitting or replacing IT that improves energy efficiency by at least 25 percent. Similar benefits should be considered for investment in broadband or related IT that supports flexible work or virtual-meeting programs.
• Energy efficiency investments for small-business administration loan programs.

In an era of tight budgets, Washington can invest in greater energy efficiency--an investment that will show a strong, timely return. While this is an investment for the long-term, it's imperative that desired efficiencies can be realized immediately.

Technology is the great catalyst for human progress, and now there is a valuable opportunity for government to help the sector realize vast new efficiencies, reduce costs, and simplify IT management.

This was originally published on CBSNews.com.

WASHINGTON--Congressional Democrats' proposal to create a trading system for carbon emissions will create jobs and bolster the economy, the Obama administration told Congress on Wednesday.

House Republicans insisted, however, that the proposal, which would charge the largest emitters of carbon dioxide for burning fossil fuels, would result in higher energy and gasoline prices for consumers, as well as a loss of U.S. jobs as carbon emitters moved positions overseas to unregulated markets.

"I believe this is a jobs bill that focuses our country's attention on the global industry of the future, which is the clean energy industry," Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson said before the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

The far-reaching legislation being drafted by Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) would institute a cap-and-trade system in which carbon emitters would be allowed to buy and trade permits for certain levels of emissions. The bill would also establish a renewable electricity standard and an energy efficiency standard.

"In the future, it is very clear we will be living in a carbon-constrained world," said Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu. "The U.S. must position itself so we can lead that transition."

Republicans on the committee, however, countered that the bill does not provide enough specifics to reach the administration's optimistic conclusions and warned that just the opposite could be true.

"My fear, my belief, is this is an intentional move to deceive us so we're not allowed to do the cost-benefit analysis," said Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.).

This bill is the "largest assault on democracy and freedom on this country that I've ever experienced," he said.

Specifically, the bill lacks details on whether the permits would all be auctioned to carbon emitters, or whether some would be automatically granted to some companies to relieve their economic burden during the transition to a cap-and-trade system. Other data has yet to be provided, such as a proposed cost for the permits.

"This proposal puts a bull's eye on the back of working families," said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.). "Just wait until they get their hands on their utility bills that are capped and taxed."

The administration representatives said cost of the carbon permits should be returned to the American people in the form of the rebate.

Additionally, they said, any costs that may be passed onto consumers would presumably be offset from the benefits gained from higher-efficiency homes and appliances.

Working with the information available from the draft bill, the EPA completed a preliminary analysis of the cap-and-trade portion of the bill, concluding that it would accelerate the deployment of clean-energy technology while growing the economy, at relatively little cost to the consumer.

Before including cost-saving measures like the increase of energy-efficient appliances, the analysis concludes the cap-and-trade program would cost the average household $98 to $140 a year. To reach that figure, the EPA assumed about 40 percent of the allowances would be returned to citizens in some form such as rebates.

The number stands in stark contrast to the figure of $3,100 a year floated by Republicans. That figure was based on a report from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, but its author said it misrepresented his findings.

In addition to higher energy prices, consumers would suffer from job losses, said Shimkus, who pointed to the 35,000 coal-mining jobs lost in Ohio as a result of regulations imposed under the Clean Air Act.

Jackson warned, "The 'no, we can't' crowd will spin out doomsday scenarios about runaway costs."

She pointed out that the Acid Rain Trading Program, which was established in 1990 under the Clean Air Act, delivered huge benefits--to the tune of $120 billion a year--with an annual cost of only $3 billion a year. The acid rain program is a trading system comparable to a carbon cap-and-trade program.

Republicans also questioned whether putting a price on carbon in the United States would have any impact, given that growing carbon producers like China and India are not adopting similar programs.

"If the United States does take the lead, China will follow," Chu said, adding that he had spoken at length personally with Chinese officials on the issue. "They are taking it very seriously because they see the impacts of climate change as well."

WASHINGTON--Democrats and Republicans share some common goals in terms of energy policy--both parties want a diversified energy portfolio and a lower dependence on foreign oil. With different motives for achieving those goals, however, as well as opposing views on how to accomplish them, partisan politicians in Congress could stall the ambitious energy and climate change legislation currently up for debate.

If the House cap-and-trade bill or the comprehensive energy legislation currently under works in the Senate are delayed, it will certainly not be for a lack of discussion.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee on Tuesday began three full days of hearings on climate change legislation, sponsored by Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), which calls for national mandates for renewable energy and energy efficiency. Wrapping up with testimony from former Vice President Al Gore and former Republican Senator John Warner on Friday, the committee will hear from a total 54 witnesses.

There have already been eight hearings this year within the full committee and its subcommittees relating to energy and climate change, and Waxman hopes to move the bill to the full House before the Congress breaks for Memorial Day recess.

John McCain harshly criticized President Obama's cap-and-trade plan on Tuesday.

(Credit: Stephanie Condon/ CNET)

All 23 Republicans on the committee, however, signed a letter sent Tuesday to Waxman and Markey asking for more hearings. The Republicans primarily expressed concern over the lack of any specifications on permit allocations versus auctions.

"The manner in which you will address this issue is the cornerstone of the legislation," the letter says. "Without it the bill is simply not finished and not ripe to be marked up or accurately discussed in the context of a hearing."

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee is also currently working on a comprehensive energy bill that could potentially encompass a number of facets of energy policy, including a renewable energy standard, transmission line development, and energy market financing. Committee Chair Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) also wants to forward the bill to the full Senate for a floor vote by Memorial Day, with at least three more meetings to amend and reshape the bill planned.

However, ranking Republican Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said on Tuesday the bill should remain in development into the summer, given the complexity of the issues.

"I do have concerns we won't be given the time sufficient in committee to draft the policy," she said at an energy forum hosted by the Reform Institute. "Senator Bingaman and I are saying we need to be working through the committee process, but on the other hand you'll hear comments made by the (Senate) majority leader and folks on the House side that we need to move it more quickly--that we need to have it done yesterday."

Climate policy vs. energy policy
Murkowski said it was unwise for House Democrats to "hijack (energy policy) as a vehicle for climate change legislation," and that a system to put a price on carbon emissions should be tackled independently from energy policy.

"Climate change is a serious issue, and we must take steps to address it, but we should be honest about such a price tag (regulating carbon) would carry," she said.

At the same event, Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) excoriated President Obama for the cap-and-trade plan in his budget, which anticipates raising $650 billion from the auction of carbon credits from 2012 to 2019.

"I am a supporter for a strong cap and trade system, but I cannot align myself with a giant capital slush fund...used to pay for health care reform or other programs that fit with this president's agenda," he said. "The budget the president puts together undermines our ability to work together on this crisis."

The views expressed during Tuesday's energy forum were mostly conservative, though the Reform Institute bills itself as a nonpartisan organization. McCain and former Democratic Senator Bob Kerrey were the founding co-chairs of the institute. In spite of the largely conservative sentiment, though, a number of speakers at the event took a more favorable view of the president's climate change policies.

"We are at a very special time in Washington in that we have a president who has proven with the checkbook he is sincere in the promise" of energy and climate change reform, said Eric Schwartz, chairman of the nonpartisan, not-for-profit Securing America's Future Energy. "The stimulus package was the largest energy bill by far. It's a huge amount of money, and the commitment is pretty deep."

"If you believe him, the president wants to do things in a bipartisan way," he added.

The partisan controversy over energy policy, the speakers explained, largely stems from the two major parties' divergent priorities: Republicans are interested in diversifying energy sources primarily for the sake of security, while Democrats are more interested in lowering greenhouse gas emissions, they said.

"We ought to be able to develop a bipartisan solution around those goals," said Dave Conover, an attorney for the Bipartisan Policy Center. "Good energy policy is good climate policy."

Certain issues, however, are expected to be especially difficult to forge compromises on.

For instance, Murkowski said she was concerned about Bingaman's interest in a provision that would require utilities nationwide to abide by a common renewable energy standard.

"We've got to come to terms with our relationship with fossil fuels," she said. "While we're moving towards a low carbon energy future, we have a long ways to go."

She also said the committee will have a difficult time agreeing on state versus federal eminent domain authority for building transmission lines.

"We have reached an impasse in terms of transmission siting," she said. "That's one of the tougher nuts we have to crack."

The Environmental Protection Agency on Friday took the first step toward regulating greenhouse gas emissions by proposing a ruling to declare greenhouse gases a cause of global warming and a threat to public welfare.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson proposed the ruling after completing the scientific review ordered by the Supreme Court in 2007, when it ruled that the agency has the authority to regulate emissions from vehicles. Before the EPA can officially adopt the ruling or take any regulatory actions, the proposed ruling must undergo a 60-day public comment period.

"This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations," Jackson said in a statement. "Fortunately, it follows President Obama's call for a low carbon economy and strong leadership in Congress on clean energy and climate legislation. This pollution problem has a solution-one that will create millions of green jobs and end our country's dependence on foreign oil."

The proposed ruling is based on a peer-reviewed scientific analysis of the six gases in question: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride.

"The current global atmospheric concentrations of the six greenhouse gases are now at unprecedented and record high levels compared to both the recent and distant past," the ruling (PDF) says. "It is also unambiguous that the current elevated greenhouse gas concentrations are the primary result of human activities."

It also calls the U.S. transportation sector is a "significant contributor" to U.S. and global carbon emissions.

In addition to saying human emissions have caused an increase of global temperatures and subsequently changes like increased drought, more intense storms, and more flooding, the ruling says climate change has serious national security implications.

"Climate change can aggravate existing problems in certain regions of the world such as poverty, social tensions, general environmental degradation, and conflict over increasingly scarce water resources," it says.

While the proposed ruling could lead to regulatory action, Jackson, President Obama, and other administration leaders have said they would prefer to see comprehensive legislation to address the issue.

"There are things that can be done that won't quite work within the existing law," White House "energy czar" Carol Browner said Monday.

Congressional hearings are set to begin on Tuesday on a cap-and-trade bill under consideration.

Washington is also attempting to address climate change and carbon emissions in conjunction with other nations. President Obama and Mexican President Felipe Calderon announced Thursday that Mexico and the U.S. are establishing a "bilateral framework on clean energy and climate change" that will allow for greater political and technical cooperation and facilitate joint efforts to develop clean energy economies. Players in the global carbon market expect actions by the United States to have a significant impact on the market.

The Obama administration and Congress are determined to ratchet up the production of green energy in the United States, but that goal is being undermined by "radical environmental activism," the business community is trying to convince Washington.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce on Thursday stepped up its campaign for congressional action to streamline the production of clean-energy infrastructure by launching the Web site ProjectNoProject.com.

Too many infrastructure projects, including electric transmission lines and solar farms, the chamber says, are held up by what it refers to as "green tape": lengthy permitting processes, litigation from concerned local activists and environmental groups, and other hurdles like rezoning. In many cases, the chamber says, these challenges delay projects for so long that financing dries up and the projects are abandoned.

"If we're truly going to be a green society and begin deploying these projects, we're going to have to find a way to streamline these projects into commerce," said William Kovacs, the U.S. Chamber's vice president of environment, technology and regulatory affairs.

Within the last 18 months, around 65 projects have been substantially delayed or killed, he said.

The new Web site gives examples of delayed projects in each state, and it gives visitors a "grassroots toolkit" to promote the site. It also provides a link to a standard letter that visitors can send to Congress members to urge them to shorten the environmental permitting process and more strictly regulate litigation against green-energy projects.

The chamber is asking Congress to set a 270-day time limit for the environmental assessments that must be completed for a stimulus-funded green-energy project to move forward. The organization would also like to see some limits on litigation against these projects, such as a time limit on legal actions or limits on the number of appeals possible. Alternatively, the chamber may ask for adjustments to the litigating process, such as taking cases directly to a court of appeals.

"We're not trying to change anyone's rights," Kovacs said. "All we're saying is there has to be an end point."

The Sierra Club and other prominent groups have adamantly opposed some projects, such as San Diego Gas & Electric's proposed Sunrise Powerlink project, a 1,000-megawatt transmission line that would transfer geothermal energy from California's Imperial Valley to the San Diego area.

"The center pin at a bowling alley isn't better positioned to do more damage at once than this reckless scheme which would string a power line over eagles, waterfalls, and history," the Sierra Club said in its April newsletter (PDF).

The energy bill proposed by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) is too tolerant of this kind of opposition, said Kovacs, since it has no limits on lawsuits against energy projects.

Janet Kavinoky, the chamber's director of transportation infrastructure, said the chamber's message is catching on around Capitol Hill and already has support from some members like Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wy.) and David Vitter (R-La.).

"We have heard from members interested in finding out what projects have been stopped in their states," she said.

WASHINGTON--Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced on Thursday a number of ways he will streamline the process by which the Energy Department distributes funding, with the goal of dispersing 70 percent of its funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act by the end of 2010.

"We have undergone a detailed scrubbing of the process," he said. "What we've found is that the old process required too much paperwork and simply took too long. These are sweeping reforms in the way the Department of Energy does business."

The energy investments in the stimulus package intimately tie the reshaping of the energy sector to the country's economic recovery.

Chu called the significant investment "very farsighted."

To get the money out more quickly, Chu announced Thursday he is naming Matt Rogers as a senior adviser to implement the new department reforms. Rogers formerly served as a senior partner at McKinsey and worked with the energy industry for more than 20 years. He also served on the Obama transition team.

The changes Rogers will implement include rolling out appraisals of applications for loan guarantees, rather than waiting for the application deadline to evaluate them. Loan application forms will be simplified and the department will speed up loan underwriting by using outside partners.

With these changes in place, the department should be able to begin offering loan guarantees under its previous loan guarantee program by late April or early May, Chu said, though some recipients may have to secure their own share of the financing or meet other conditions before their applications are approved. With the same financing conditions, the department should be offering loan guarantees under the stimulus legislation by early summer, Chu said.

"The goal is to begin making these investments in months, not years," Chu said.

Steven Chu, now secretary of the Department of Energy, at his former lab at Stanford University.

(Credit: Stanford University)

Among other things, the department also intends to establish a Web site to provide more assistance to applicants and add transparency to the process.

The department will also be working with outside industries to find good projects to finance.

"It'll be interesting to see what the market brings forward," Rogers said Thursday.

When President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on Tuesday, he said the bill should allow the country to double its use of renewable energy within three years.

Chu said he could not parse out specifically how much of that energy will come from which sources, but he said there are a few mature renewable sources that could help the country reach that goal, such as wind and photovoltaic energy.

"There are numerous wind projects that can go forward," he said. "The Bonneville Power Administration has (transmission) lines sited and those lines will connect to wind farms. This is something that can be done within this two-year period."

Chu said as the government tries to accelerate the use of renewable energies, it will also be exploring different methods of carbon capture and sequestration.

"Right now, to the best of my knowledge, it is not a slam dunk which technology is the right one," he said.

He also said he meets with White House climate czar Carol Browner and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson about once a week to make sure the Energy Department's interests do not conflict with the White House's climate change goals.

As the department works to develop the renewable energy sector, Chu said it is imperative it also fund basic science research.

"If you look at some of the wealth creation in the United States--the Internet, biotech--a lot of that was driven by companies that deeply believed in research like Bell Laboratory, IBM Labs," he said. "In the energy sector, you don't have that. What I see is the Department of Energy filling that vacuum."

WASHINGTON--A Senate panel approved major portions of the Democrats' "stimulus" bill on Tuesday over objections from Republicans that debate had been squelched and not even one hearing had been held on the topic.

"The goal of this package is to find ways to stimulate the private sector through public-sector spending," said Committee Chair Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii). "We have no interest in enlarging the federal bureaucracy."

Yet a failure to act, Inouye said, could result in economic problems for years to come.

The Senate Appropriations Committee voted 21 to 9 to pass the spending package which, among other things, allocates $650 million to the digital-converter box coupon program, which the Senate agreed on Monday night to extend until June.

The committee's spending bill gives $9 billion to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration in order to improve broadband access, stipulating that 50 percent of the funds must go to projects in rural areas--a point of contention in the House of Representatives. It also gives the NTIA authority to impose grant conditions with respect to nondiscrimination requirements.

The appropriations bill also allocates approximately $49 billion in spending on energy provisions, including $40 billion going through the Department of Energy. More than $14.3 billion is allocated to the department for grants and other expenses relating to energy efficiency and renewable energy. An extra $10 billion is allocated to fund the loan guarantees authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

President Obama met with Republican leaders on Capitol Hill on Tuesday to discuss the legislation. Obama's support for such a large "stimulus" bill appears to be a reversal of his position during the campaign, when he said during a debate with Republican John McCain: "Now, what I've done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut...Every dollar that I've proposed, I've proposed an additional cut so that it matches."

Other measures in the legislation include:

• $5 billion for health information technology.
• $1.5 billion for NASA, including $500 million to acquire data about the Earth's resources and climate.
• $1.4 billion for the National Science Foundation to use for research, infrastructure, and grants.
• $14 million to support cybersecurity efforts within the Department of Homeland Security.
• $575 million for the National Institute of Standards of Technology.
• $200 million to develop a nationwide integrated wireless network for federal law enforcement.

All the amendments to the bill offered in the committee were withdrawn at Inouye's request that they be offered when the bill goes before the full Senate. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) is prepared to offer an amendment pertaining to broadband investments, but his office has not released any details about the amendment.

As in the House, Republican senators complained that the legislation was moving too quickly through Congress and that many of the measures were too vague.

"There's a process of ready, aim, fire," said Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.). "This looks like fire, ready, aim. We just authorized a whole year's discretionary nondefense spending without a hearing, without a series of amendments, without engaging this side at all."

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) voted against the bill, saying there should be more specific information about how the money will be appropriated. She recommended appropriations guidelines such as a population standard, a jobless rate standard, or a foreclosure rate standard.

"It just seems to me (that) if you don't have earmarks, someone is going to make these decisions, and it is going to be agencies and bureaucracies," she said. "There should be some standard by which we can judge where this money is going."

Republicans also expressed concern that the spending bill would not stimulate the economy, at least not quickly enough. Democrats countered that the bill provided a good balance of immediate stimulus and long-term investments.

"I don't think there's anything we can do in appropriations to put all these people back to work right now," said Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.). "Anyone who thinks we can get out of this recession this year is sadly mistaken--it's going to take a couple years."

What the committee can do, he said, "is lay the groundwork for recovery."

Dorgan and Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), praised the bill's $5 billion investment in health care IT as a way to create new jobs and lay the groundwork for more health care reform.

Update 10:30 a.m. PST: Added new information, including comments from Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio).

President Obama on Monday signed an executive order directing the Environmental Protection Agency to immediately review its denial of California's request to set auto emissions standards stricter than the national standards, saying, "the days of Washington dragging its heels are over."

Obama commended California for trying to forge tougher fuel efficiency standards and said, "Instead of standing as a partner, Washington stood in their way."

The president also said new fuel efficiency standards should be implemented so car manufacturers can apply them to 2011 models.

"Our goal is to help American automakers prepare for the future by building the cars of tomorrow," he said.

Noting the recently announced layoffs by Microsoft, Sprint Nextel, and other major companies, Obama said urgent action is needed to pursue energy independence.

He urged Congress to pass the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The energy provisions of the bill, he said, will create jobs for 460,000 Americans.

"America will not be held hostage to dwindling resources, hostile regimes, and a warming planet," he said. "Now is the time to make tough choices."

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, called Obama's energy plans a "long overdue step for energy independence and the environment." His committee approved the energy-related portions of the so-called "stimulus" package last week, though the vote fell largely down party lines.

Republicans today were no less wary of the president's plans for stricter emissions regulations.

"I am fearful that today's action will begin the process of setting the American auto industry back even further," said Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio). "The federal government should not be piling on an industry already hurting in a time like this."

Voinovich sits on the Senate Appropriations Committee, which will convene Tuesday to review portions of the economic package, as will the Senate Finance Committee. Senate Democrats are hoping to pass their version of the bill by February 6 or 7, while House Democrats intend to vote on their version this week. The aim is to get the bill on Obama's desk before Congress breaks for Presidents Day.

WASHINGTON--House Democrats rebuffed Republican attempts to include more loan guarantees for nuclear and clean coal technologies into the so-called stimulus package, along with Republican efforts to make the energy sections more market-oriented.

By a largely partisan vote of 34 to 17, the House Energy and Commerce Committee ultimately approved the energy portion of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which spends about $25 billion on renewable energy, energy efficiency, and electricity transmission. (See our related story about the broadband portions of the bill.)

The legislation creates a loan guarantee program for renewable energy systems, and the committee on Thursday voted to extend the loan program to specifically apply to hydropower, as well as commercially viable "leading edge biofuel projects."

Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) had specific praise for the company Sapphire and its work producing algae-based gasoline, which he said will be commercially viable "any place with saltwater and sunshine."

However, the committee rejected an amendment to extend the loan guarantees further to apply to "zero emissions energy"--which would make nuclear and clean coal power eligible for the loans.

"This is a job stimulus bill, and there are literally 100,000 jobs that could be added if we increase our nuclear portfolio," argued Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), who introduced the amendment.

The committee also rejected a Republican amendment to make carbon capture technologies eligible for loan guarantees.

Democrats insisted the amendments were inappropriate given that another portion of the stimulus package allocates $2.4 billion specifically for carbon capture and that using taxpayers' money for nuclear power would not create immediate economic stimulus.

"No amount of incentives will change the fact that no nuclear projects are ready," said Committee Chair Henry Waxman (D-Calif.).

Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) also pointed out that $10 billion in loan guarantees were offered to the nuclear industry last year.

Republicans and Democrats were also divided over the proposal to decouple energy rates from usage. The purpose of decoupling, Democrats said, is to enable energy companies to promote energy efficiency without facing the threat of lower revenues.

Inslee called it "the single most effective thing for creating jobs in energy efficiency and giving people an opportunity to lower their (energy) costs in the long run."

California's energy efficiency improved remarkably, in comparison with the rest of the country's, after the state adopted decoupling 20 years ago, Inslee pointed out.

Republicans were unconvinced and unsuccessfully tried to change that portion of the bill.

"I think this is the most anti-consumer vote any of us could make," said Greg Walden (R-Ore.). "This is the reverse of an incentive system."