Ken Silverstein | Dec 07, 2010

When Republicans take control of the House of Representatives in a couple weeks, the national legislative agenda will also change. While trimming the national debt is the top goal, Americans can also expect to less emphasis on environmental regulations and more focus on expanding businesses.

The Republicans have selected their leaders, who created a steering committee to name committee heads. Among those with seniority is Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., who appears to be the top candidate to take over the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee - an obvious slap in the face to Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, who wants this job and who has been that committee's ranking member for several years.

Both Upton and Barton have touted their conservative credentials. But Barton has three strikes against him: He has peeved the upcoming House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, by challenging his leadership position four years ago and by making excuses for BP this past summer during a highly publicized hearing. Lastly, Republicans say that the rules prohibit Barton from seeking an additional term as the chair or ranking member - all to keep individual members from accumulating too power.

So, what's Upton likely to emphasize when he gets the gavel? In a letter to incoming Speaker Boehner, the Michigan lawmaker said that his priorities would be to scrutinize each and every program that the Energy Committee oversees to ensure it is on budget and not overly burdensome. If any is, he would seek to "aggressively cut spending."

After his formal interview with the Republican Steering Committee, Upton told reporters that "I'm doing my best to stay on message."

Upton would replace the progressive Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif. He had knocked off two years ago the long-time chairman and the moderate Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich. The change in party priorities will therefore be extremely noticeable.

First up: The elimination of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. That group was created by the House leadership in 2007 as a way to fast track sustainable fuel sources while simultaneously dealing with climate change. Debate would not cease, the new leaders say, but would merely shift to established subcommittees - all while saving millions of dollars.

No Surrender

Many Democrats, of course, point to the numerous scientific studies showing that global warming is a man-made phenomenon. Republicans, meanwhile, are not convinced and say that the cost of pending regulations to deal with this would unduly burden the corporate community at the worst possible time.

"A cap-and-tax, cap-and-trade will essentially kick American families when they're down," says Rep. Upton, in a 2009 public statement. "I do believe that we need to reduce emissions, but it needs to be done in a common sense way that takes into account the economic and global realities of the issue."

For their part, utilities have long been accused of dragging their heels when it comes to taking proactive positions on environmental positions. But in recent years, many have said they would continue investing in best available technologies if only they could get consistent policies out of Congress.

Admittedly, companies find it hard to justify to their shareholders or stakeholders that they are spending billions on solutions that Congress may or may not require. While the thinking is that climate legislation is on the backburner now, it will eventually regain traction. That's why energy types want more assurances, or more specifically, to be able to value a ton of carbon so as to better plan for the kinds of electric generation to build.

In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases could be regulated under the Clean Air Act. And on December 15, 2009, the EPA published its final rule, noting that such releases would endanger public health and welfare. Congress, obviously, has the power to alter or to suspend that authority - something that is currently a high priority of the new Republican leadership.

EPA is now the target of multiple legal and legislative actions meant to stop it altogether, or to at least slow it down. But it is vigorously defending itself, noting that by acting to limit carbon emissions it is safeguarding the environment and protecting jobs. Without such regulatory actions, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has said that power plants and other industrial types would have "little incentive" to implement modern technologies.

Indeed, the position of progressives such as Rep. Waxman and Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., who co-authored the climate change bill that passed the U.S. House is that they won't surrender. The issue is too critical and too urgent to sideline, they say. That position has run headfirst into those of conservatives who say that the matter should wait until the technologies to cut carbon are commercialized.

Therein lay the opportunity for moderate lawmakers and for utilities that want to be at the forefront of this topic. "We've taken a position over three years ago in support of federal legislation, carefully crafted, workable and balanced legislation," says Mark Crisson, chief executive of the American Public Power Association.

Even with all the uncertainty that exists in Congress, many utilities are moving toward greener and less carbon-intensive generation portfolios. That's the evolutionary tack that the Republicans are advocating, although the Democrats say that with a little push, they would move quicker.

EnergyBiz Insider was named Honorable Mention for Best Online Column by Media Industry News, MIN.

So what do you think? Please share your thoughts by posting a quick comment below, or by sending a longer reply to energybizinsider@energycentral.com.

Copyright © 1996-2010 by CyberTech, Inc. All rights reserved.

To subscribe or visit go to:  http://www.energycentral.com

To subscribe or visit go to:  http://www.energybiz.com