House Looks to Save PACE Solar; Senate Gambles on Climate Bill

As oil stopped gushing from BP’s undersea well for the first time in nearly three months, some modicum of action finally started flowing out of Congress.

In response to crippling restrictions by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on homeowner participation in PACE solar financing programs, 30 members of the House of Representatives have come out in support of a bill that would protect the popular programs from the likes of Fannie and Freddie. On the Senate side of Congress, hungry Democrats, possibly riding the wave of outrage at BP and subsequent backlash against fossil fuels, will gamble on their climate change bill by bringing it to the floor for debate.

The PACE Assessment Protection Act

Just a day after California Attorney General Jerry Brown announced a lawsuit against the Federal Housing Finance Agency (which regulates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) for violating California’s law authorizing Property Assessed Clean Energy programs, a group in the House offered up the PACE Assessment Protection Act.

The aim of the bill (via PublicCEO) is to “ensure that the underwriting standards of (mortgage leaders) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac facilitate the use of Property Assessed Clean Energy programs to finance the installation of renewable energy and energy efficiency improvements.” Some 30 Representatives have signed on in support, including three Californians. California is the state in which the PACE financing model was invented (Berkeley, specifically), and more than 140 municipalities in the state have already developed their own local programs. 21 other states have also signed enabling legislation allowing their own municipalities to adopt PACE programs.

Dem’ed if you do, damned if you don’t

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced this week that he and other Senate Democrats would gamble on climate change legislation this summer, despite wide opposition from the GOP and tippy-toeing by moderate Democrats. Of course, the bill, which could be introduced by the end of July, falls short of goals supported by progressive Democrats and even President Obama himself, although he’d probably take just about any climate bill that crossed his desk at this point.

The bill does not set an economy-wide cap on carbon emissions nor any specific carbon tax; indeed, Harry Reid asserts that such words “are not in [his] vocabulary.” Instead, it compromises by only limiting emissions in the electric utility sector. While this does include our biggest polluters (i.e. coal-fired power plants), it only addresses about one-third of total U.S. emissions.

The bill, says Reid, will have four parts. First, an oil spill response; second, a clean energy and job-creation title based on work done in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee; a tax package from the Senate Finance Committee; and the section that deals with greenhouse gas emissions from the electric utility industry.

The spill response section is an obvious ploy to ride the anti-BP wave in order to get the broader legislation passed, hoping that some Republicans will be wary of voting no on such a bill for fear of electoral repercussions. Still, many Democrats are asking, is the gamble worth it? On one hand, the amount of compromise will surely upset progressive Democrats, who, like climate scientists, will see it as not doing enough in the short term to curb climate change, and if passed, will only delay necessary, bolder climate legislation from seeing the light of day. On the other hand, many Democrats also fear that finding the 60 votes to avoid a filibuster is a long shot and don’t want yet another loss on climate change.

Unfortunately, even in the face of the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history, it’s highly unlikely that Democrats will be able to unite under anything. Assuming the bill can pass Congress and head to Obama’s desk, the real question for the people is whether it matters. There is no doubt that proposing a gradual cap on GHG emissions from one sector of our economy — the electric utility — will fall well short of what the prevailing science says we must do to avoid the worst effects of climate change. But at least it’s something!

So, do we settle for the consolation prize or keep fighting for gold?

Photo thanks to Jan Hinton Music & NorCal Blogs

Posted on July 19th in Solar Politics by Dan.