Jeanne Shaheen on Energy & Oil Democrat Sr Senator; previously Governor

Easier for citizens to participate in energy regulation

Allow efficient use energy that would be wasted

US must be a leader in climate change agreements

A: Yes. I support a cap and trade program.

Q: Do you support US participation in binding international climate agreements?

A: The entire world, including developing countries, must be involved in reversing climate change. International agreements are an important step toward addressing the global issues of climate change, and the US must be a leader in shaping the implementation of such efforts--a role we have abandoned in the last eight years.

Independence from foreign oil and reverse global warming

Voted NO on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases.

1. Water vapor
2. Carbon dioxide
3. Methane
4. Nitrous oxide
5. Sulfur hexafluoride
6. Hydrofluorocarbons
7. Perfluorocarbons
8. Any other substance subject to, or proposed to be subject to regulation to address climate change.

Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:
[Sen. McConnell, R-KY]: The White House is trying to impose a backdoor national energy tax through the EPA. It is a strange way to respond to rising gas prices. But it is perfectly consistent with the current Energy Secretary's previously stated desire to get gas prices in the US up to where they are in Europe.

Opponent's Argument for voting No:
[Sen. Lautenberg, D-NJ]:We hear the message that has been going around: Let's get rid of the EPA's ability to regulate. Who are they to tell us what businesses can do? Thank goodness that in this democratic society in which we live, there are rules and regulations to keep us as a civilized nation. The Supreme Court and scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency agreed that the Clean Air Act is a tool we must use to stop dangerous pollution. This amendment, it is very clear, favors one group--the business community. The Republican tea party politicians say: "Just ignore the Supreme Court. Ignore the scientists. We know better." They want to reward the polluters by crippling EPA's ability to enforce the Clean Air Act.
Status: Failed 50-50 (3/5 required)

Voted NO on protecting middle-income taxpayers from a national energy tax.

Congressional Summary:
• On budget resolutions, it shall not be in order in the Senate to consider any bill or amendment that includes a National energy tax increase which would have widespread applicability on middle-income taxpayers.
• The term "middle-income" taxpayers means single individuals with $200,000 or less in adjusted gross income and married couples filing jointly with $250,000 or less.
• The term "widespread applicability" includes the definition with respect to individual income taxpayers.
• The term "National energy tax increase" means any legislation that the Congressional Budget Office would score as leading to an increase in the costs of producing, generating or consuming energy.

  Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Sen. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R, SC): The climate change proposal that was in the President's budget would create a massive tax increase on anybody who uses energy, and that would be every American middle-class family, which already has a tough time getting by. This [amendment creates a procedure to block] any bill that would raise the cost of energy on our middle-class families who are struggling to get by. I ask the Senate to rally around this concept. We can deal with climate change without passing a $3,000-per-household energy tax on the families of America who are having a hard time paying their bills.

  Opponent's argument to vote No:No senators spoke against the amendment.

  Reference: Graham Amendment; Bill S.Amdt.910 to S.Con.Res.13 ; vote number 2009-S135 on Apr 2, 2009

  Voted NO on requiring full Senate debate and vote on cap-and-trade.

  Congressional Summary:AMENDMENT PURPOSE: To prohibit the use of reconciliation in the Senate for climate change legislation involving a cap and trade system.

  Sec. 202 is amended by inserting at the end the following: "The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget shall not revise the allocations in this resolution if the legislation is reported from any committee pursuant to sec. 310 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974."

  Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Sen. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R, SC): This idea to most people of a debate about reconciliation probably is mind-numbing and not very interesting. But there is a process in the Congress where you can take legislation and basically put it on a fast track. It is subject to 50 votes.

  The whole idea of the Senate kind of cooling things down has served the country well. In that regard, to end debate you need 60 votes. If 41 Senators are opposed to a piece of legislation, strongly enough to come to the floor every day and talk about it, that legislation doesn't go anywhere. If you took climate change and health care, two very controversial, big-ticket items, and put them on the reconciliation track, you would basically be doing a lot of damage to the role of the Senate in a constitutional democracy.

  Senator Byrd, who is one of the smartest people to ever serve in the Senate about rules and parliamentary aspects of the Senate, said that to put climate change and health care reform in reconciliation is like "a freight train through Congress" and is "an outrage that must be resisted." Senator Conrad said: "I don't believe reconciliation was ever intended for this purpose."

  I think both of them are right. Under the law, you cannot put Social Security into reconciliation because we know how controversial and difficult that is. I come here in support of the Johanns amendment that rejects that idea.

  Opponent's argument to vote No:No senators spoke against the amendment.

  Reference: Johanns Amendment; Bill S.Amdt.735 to S.Con.Res.13 ; vote number 2009-S126 on Apr 1, 2009

  Voluntary partnerships reduce greenhouse gases economically.

  Shaheen adopted the National Governors Association policy:
  Considering the evidence and the risks of both overreaction and underreaction, the Governors recommend that the federal government continue its climate research, including regional climate research, to improve scientific understanding of global climate change. The Governors also recommend taking steps that are cost-effective and offer other social and economic benefits beyond reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In particular, the Governors support voluntary partnerships to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while achieving other economic and environmental goals.
  • The Governors are committed to working in partnership with the federal government, businesses, environmental groups, and others to develop and implement voluntary programs that reduce greenhouse gas emissions in conjunction with conserving energy, protecting the environment, and strengthening the economy.
  • The Governors urge that those who have successfully achieved reductions of greenhouse emissions receive appropriate credit for their early actions. The Governors strongly encourage these kinds of voluntary efforts.
  • The Governors believe that federally required implementation of any treaty provisions, including those that mandate limits or reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, must not occur before the U.S. Senate ratifies an international agreement and Congress passes enabling legislation.
  • The Governors support continued federal funding for research and development technology in this area. They also believe it is essential to engage the private sector by fostering technology partnerships between industry and government. Public-private partnerships serve to achieve desired environmental goals, speed the introduction of new technologies to the marketplace, and meet consumer needs and product affordability goals, while avoiding market distortions and job losses.
  Source: NGA policy NR-11, Global Climate Change Domestic Policy 00-NGA3 on Aug 15, 2000

  Kyoto Treaty must include reductions by all countries.

  Shaheen adopted the National Governors Association policy:
  The Governors recommend that the federal government continue to seek the advice of state and local officials and nongovernmental organizations with expertise in economic, trade, jobs, public health, and environmental issues and assess the potential economic and environmental consequences of proposed policies and measures, including a thorough and broadly accepted analysis of costs and benefits. The Governors recommend that the US:
  • not sign or ratify any agreement that mandates new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the US, unless such an agreement mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for developing countries within the same compliance period;
  • aggressively undertake strategies for including emissions-reduction commitments from developing countries;
  • not sign or ratify any agreement that would result in serious harm to the US economy;
  • support flexible policies and measures in continuing negotiations that provide an opportunity for the US to meet global environmental goals without jeopardizing US jobs, trade, or economic competitiveness;
  • insist on flexible implementation timetables in continuing negotiations that permit affected parties adequate time to plan strategies for meeting commitments; and
  • ensure that no single sector, state, or nation is disproportionately disadvantaged by the implementation of international policies.
  If appropriate international commitments are established and are ratified by the US, the Governors believe implementation should be allowed to be achieved through cost-effective market-based activities, which account for scientifically verifiable and accountable reductions in greenhouse gas levels regardless of where the reductions are achieved. Any multinational emissions trading program must provide a flexible and workable framework that takes full advantage of market forces and maximizes international participation. Source: NGA policy NR-11, Climate Change International Policy 00-NGA4 on Aug 15, 2000

  Create Regional Emissions Registry for GHG trading.

  Shaheen signed the New England Governors' Conference resolution:
  • WHEREAS, the Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers (NEG/ECP) have developed a Climate Change Action Plan to address actions to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases in the Region and adapt our economies and social infrastructure to the negative impacts likely to result from climate change; and
  • WHEREAS, within the region, greenhouse gas emissions within one jurisdiction associated with cleaner energy production, can be offset by greenhouse gas emission reductions within another jurisdiction, resulting from the replacement of higher carbon intensity fuels with imported cleaner energy; and
  • WHEREAS, the Conference recognizes that substantial opportunities to improve conservation and efficiency in energy use and transportation are embodied in the Climate Change Action Plan [with the following summary of Action Items]:
    1. The Establishment of a Regional Standardized GHG Emissions Inventory
    2. The Establishment of a Plan for Reducing GHG Emissions and Conserving Energy
    3. The Promotion of Public Awareness
    4. State and Provincial Governments to Lead by Example
    5. The Reduction of Greenhouse Gases from the Electricity Sector
    6. The Reduction of the Total Energy Demand Through Conservation
    7. The Reduction and/or Adaptation of Negative Social, Economic and Environmental Impacts of Climate Change
    8. A Decrease in the Transportation Sector’s Growth in GHG Emissions
    9. The Creation of a Regional Emissions Registry and the Exploration of a Trading Mechanism
• NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that NEG/ECP accepts the Climate Change Action Plan and [commits to its] implementation; and
• BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that [NEG/ECP commits to] work together to address regional energy and environmental issues such as integrated approaches to energy reliability, fuel diversity, regional emission credit trading, energy conservation, and improved energy facility and transmission siting.

50% clean and carbon free electricity by 2030.

Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should establish a national goal of more than 50 percent clean and carbon free electricity by 2030 for the purposes of avoiding the worst impacts of climate change, growing our economy, increasing our shared prosperity, improving public health, and preserving our national security.

• Whereas failing to act on climate change will have a devastating impact on our Nation's economy, costing us billions of dollars in lost GDP;
• Whereas extreme weather, intensified by climate change, has already cost taxpayers billions of dollars each year in recovery efforts, and this will only continue if climate change is left unaddressed;
• Whereas climate change will have devastating public health implications, including increased asthma attacks and exacerbation of other respiratory diseases, especially in vulnerable populations;
• Whereas inaction on climate change will disproportionately impact communities of color and exacerbate existing economic inequalities;
• Whereas the transition to a clean energy economy is feasible with existing technology;
• Whereas the transition to clean energy will create millions of jobs and will increase our country's GDP and increase disposable household income;

1. Establish a national goal of more than 50 percent clean and carbon free electricity by 2030; and
2. Enact legislation to accelerate the transition to clean energy to meet this goal.

Maintain federal funds for transit funding above 12.5% cap.

On behalf of the nation’s Governors, we are writing to express our serious concerns regarding the transit cap provision included in the fiscal 2000 appropriations bill for the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies.

Governors are concerned that with this provision included the bill does not honor the funding guarantees in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). Specifically, capping a state’s share of transit funding at 12.5 percent of total transit spending abrogates the commitment that Congress made to the states just last year in TEA-21. Congress, with the support of NGA, recently opposed the administration’s attempt to reopen TEA-21 state allocation formulas in the Fiscal Year 2000 budget and should oppose the Appropriations Committee’s action as well.

Your critical leadership on TEA 21 assured that adequate funds were authorized to create a balanced federal transportation program to meet the nation’s varied needs. Transit funding formulas were balanced with hard-won agreements on highway funding formulas. Members made agreements and compromises based on the total surface transportation funding package for their states. We strongly urge you and your colleagues to oppose efforts to reopen the transit and highway allocation formulas through the appropriations process. This will preserve the structure and intent of TEA-21.