Senate Finance proposed IRA text is out

Thanks for the summary, @Dana Nuccitelli! To the volunteers reading this thread — we'll have a fresh action out for you ASAP so you can contact Senate Republicans with an updated message based on this latest development.

@Flannery Winchester Any chance by tomorrow evening? We have our chapter meeting then.

@Dana Nuccitelli
Jeez, what a mess. Very small improvements on clean energy tax credits, and the quid pro quo for this is being portrayed as further cuts to Medicaid. So they've pitted the climate/clean energy folks against the poor and working class. I'm sorry, but it's very hard to think of what in the world to say to Congressional Republicans these days.

It's worth noting that Republican Senate leaders say they're open to changes, so we have to advocate that those changes move in the right direction.

During a meeting with Senate Republicans on the megabill, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) emphasized the need to get legislation to the president’s desk. But he and Crapo are also open to changes.

“They’re really patient. They are listening to everyone’s ideas. And they’re still working on it — it’s still a work in progress,” said Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.).

@Lynn Dransoff we should have the action out Wednesday morning! You can let folks at your chapter meeting know to watch for the action email in their inboxes and the action alert text on their phones tomorrow.

@Deirdre Henderson

The priority of the United States Republican Party is clear. It is hard to stay non-partisan in the fight for survival of the planet in the face of this reality.

@Michael Feeney
It should make it easier than ever to stay non-partisan, certainly for me it is.

Energy Innovation has a good new analysis and blog post out about how the proposed IRA repeals would hurt Texas, California, and North Carolina the most. It's worth reading.

@Rob Johnsoncould you explain what you mean?

@Kathy Seal Hey Rob, I'm curious too about why it's easy to stay non partisan, when one side has so little regard for norms, our constitution, and basic rights like freedom of speech and due process. Thanks.

I joined CCL not just because of the urgent need for climate action but also because of CCL's Core Values. Our Core Values say: "In the face of challenges, we choose optimism — that people are good, that democracy can work," They DON'T say: "the people we like and agree with are good." They say that people are good." Period. You can believe that or not, but it IS a core value of the organization we all joined. Another Core Value says: "We take the most generous approach to other people as possible — appreciation, gratitude, and respect." It DOESN'T say: "We take a generous approach to the people we like and agree with." It doesn't say: "We are sure that SOME people, OUR people, care and mean well, but OTHER people, those BAD people, don't care and don't mean well." Like it or not, those ARE CCL's Core Values, and I love our organization for adhering to those values. I can take whatever action I want outside of CCL, but as a CCLer, I adhere to those Core Values. If you bother to listen, REALLY listen, to conservatives opposed to our CCL climate policies, you will find that most of them care very much about making things better, even if you decide that they are wrong about their conclusions and actions.
I look forward to our lobby meetings in Washington, to having respectful conversations about climate issues, even though I know that the results may well disappoint and worry me. But I will do everything I can to make those conversations such that the MOC's and staffers come out of those lobby sessions feeling that they were appreciated, thanked, and respected for what they said and how hard they work.

Just my take on this back and forth. @Bruce Frishkoff and @Ron Johnson: discounting another's feelings isn't so generous, respectful or appreciative. The poster said she was finding it HARD to remain non-partisan, she didn't say she couldn't. I sympathize with her. But feelings and actions CAN be two different things. We can be positive and optimistic and respectful in our interactions around climate policy, but some of the other legislation that is being proposed and passed may call for a negative or critical response--depending on your views. And negative doesn't mean disrespectful.

This chart from Bloomberg was passed along to me—just another way to look side by side at the difference between the House and Senate Finance versions.

@Dana Nuccitelli how do you view the Senate Parliamentarian's decision today? Is advocating to support the authority of the parliamentarian a possible lane for CCL?

Hi @Joanne Leovy. The Parliamentarian is doing her job, and her findings have generally been good in terms of eliminating some proposed changes to climate-related regulations that don't meet the Byrd rule (which we discussed a bit in the new episode of the Citizens' Climate Radio podcast). Several Senate Republicans have said they plan to abide by the Parliamentarian's decisions in the budget reconciliation process, including Majority Leader Thune, so hopefully this won't be an issue.

@Bernard Seeger
So you identified a problem, so you think a Partisan approach is better, ?

@Dana Nuccitelli Here's an idean for another change in the Reconciliation Bill that CCL could lobby for. Washington Post is reporting that the Reconciliation bill would undo the Biden administration steps towards electrifying the US Postal Service:

The Senate’s version of Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill would see the General Services Administration take possession of the nearly 7,200 new postal EVs and associated infrastructure and put the assets up for auction. The proposal is unlikely to generate much revenue for the government; there is almost no private-sector interest in the mail trucks, and used EV charging equipment — built specifically for the Postal Service and already installed in postal facilities — generally cannot be resold.

@Rob Johnson Hey Mr. Johnson, so can we start by asking when did a rule of law and respecting election outcomes become partisan? I refute the assumption that we should describe them as such. We find ourselves in the terrible conundrum where if a D does it, it's partisan but if an R does it, it's patriotic…that's what I'm rejecting. Can we do this thought experiment? If Obama would have lost the 2012 election, then went to court 62 times to prove there was fraud…and lost everyone of them, all the while repeatedly lying to the press and his followers that there was rampant fraud…(that “they” were trying to cover up to rig the outcome), and then capped it off by holding a massive rally on the day the election was certified which then led to a 3 hour violent attack on our capital with plans to murder his VP… IMO only the most extreme nut job Ds would say attacking him made you partisan. Yet, this is where we are when the table is flipped. Let me probe another angle, would you have criticized the elected officials fighting for the abolition of slavery as partisans? To me what we are seeing now is that fundamental. PS If you'd like to discuss this further please feel free to give me a call. My number is in the community data base.

Well @Robert J Hudson, while that's certainly a pretty terrible provision, we need to say focused on the clean energy tax credits to maximize our lobbying efficacy. There are loads of bad provisions in the bill that we would lobby against if we had unlimited bandwidth, unfortunately.

@Bernard Seeger
If you want to turn CCL into another liberal group, I don't know what the purpose in having CCL is. If I wanted that, I would have stayed at Sierra Club. CCL policy is check your baggage at the door. That is why I am here. Bruce Frishkoff above explained it better than I ever could.

@Dana Nuccitelli Given that the CCL lobbying on behalf of IRA incentives in the House had zero efficacy, why not add a list of smaller asks such as the USPS EVs and other climate-related provisions that you mention? It might increase the odds of getting a few adopted? In the USPS case, dumping all those new vehicles is clearly wasteful and serves little purpose other than to disrespect those in favor of the energy transition. Maybe they would at least feel a little bit of shame about that.

Also, I'm curious whether CCL volunteers only asked House Republicans to revise their bill to preserve IRA clean energy incentives or encouraged them to oppose the bill if it didn't preserve IRA incentives. I'm guessing the former and am curious about the logic of doing it that way as it seems to undercut our claims about the importance of climate change as an issue.

@Dana Nuccitelli The Substack you linked to argues that the Reconciliation Bill would be very bad for CA, TX, and NC. Why not have CCL lobby against the entire bill, especially in those states? It would only take persuading a couple of Representatives to sink it. I'm also curious about the wording of CCL's ask about preserving IRA clean energy incentives. Are Republican MoCs being asked to a) oppose the bill if IRA isn't preserved or b) try to change the bill? Shouldn't we be asking for option a) if we believe climate is not just a secondary issue?

@Bruce Frishkoff I appreciate the clear articulation of your approach to speaking with Republican MoCs in your post. Besides making sure Republican members of Congress don't feel put down, I am most curious whether you attempt to educate them on the climate issue. For example, do you communicate that climate change is a fact that needs to be and can be addressed, much like the national debt? Or do you decide that might create too much bad feeling?

I had a Republican Congressman for almost a decade who voted the wrong way on everything related to climate for about a decade and even denied that climate was changing at a chance conversation that I had with him back in 2012. Later at a town hall, he made clear that he wouldn't do anything in the climate space that would negatively impact the economy in the short term, i.e., require change. I suspect that's a common view among Republicans. How can we start to open their eyes? Are you hoping that one day something happens that makes them open to change?

There's a political reality that isn't addressed by generously assuming Republicans just want the best but see things a little differently. That reality is the threat from the Koch brothers to primary any Republican that doesn't toe the fossil fuel industry line on climate. As reported in the NY Times (gift link):

[Polarization around climate ] did not happen by [itself]. Republican lawmakers were moved along by a campaign carefully crafted by fossil fuel industry players, most notably Charles D. and David H. Koch, the Kansas-based billionaires who run a chain of refineries (which can process 600,000 barrels of crude oil per day) as well as a subsidiary that owns or operates 4,000 miles of pipelines that move crude oil.

…

[The Koch brothers'] first target: unseating Democratic lawmakers such as Representatives Rick Boucher and Tom Perriello of Virginia, who had voted for the House cap-and-trade bill, and replacing them with Republicans who were seen as more in step with struggling Appalachia, and who pledged never to push climate change measures.

But Americans for Prosperity also wanted to send a message to Republicans.

Until 2010, some Republicans ran ads in House and Senate races showing their support for green energy.

“After that, it disappeared from Republican ads,” said Tim Phillips, the president of Americans for Prosperity. “Part of that was the polling, and part of it was the visceral example of what happened to their colleagues who had done that.”

What happened was clear. Republicans who asserted support for climate change legislation or the seriousness of the climate threat saw their money dry up or, worse, a primary challenger arise.

“It told Republicans that we were serious,” Mr. Phillips said, “that we would spend some serious money against them.”

Passing this budget bill is Republican MOC's top priority, @Robert J Hudson. They're not going to vote against it because we ask them to, but preserving the clean energy tax credits is a smaller and more feasible ask. When choosing our asks, we always consider where CCL efforts can make a meaningful impact so that we're maximizing our political capital.

@Bruce Frishkoff
“In the face of challenges, we choose optimism — that people are good…”

I'm sorry. I try to be open to other's ideas and to non-partisan progress, but I can find nothing good about the President of the United States or the MAGA sheep in Congress who embrace or tolerate his narcisstic, dystopian world view. Maybe I don't belong in CCL?

@Michael Feeney I have to edit this value in my head to “We believe people are (mostly) good.” I expect a very large percentage of CCLers do this. Please don't leave, yet.

I see that CCL leadership is working incredibly hard and struggling, as we are, to keep some sort of balance as the rug gets pulled out from under us almost daily. This is all on top of CCL's pending leadership transition, which no doubt creates challenges for staff. I trust that we will get a clear direction from leadership soon.

@Dana Nuccitelli Would you please explain how Members of Congress (MoCs) become aware of and measure CCL's political capital? We don't keep a scorecard of their votes the way League of Conservation Voters and some other organizations do and we never complain about past votes, so there's no “stick” in our approach. We don't contribute campaign funds or even bring petitions with hundreds of signatures to the lobby meetings. We don't campaign on their behalf if they do vote the way we ask. So what is the “carrot?” Is the idea to sound so appreciative that they hold out some hope that the CCLers in attendance will vote for them and so will consider the ask?

If we aren't really applying leverage, then perhaps meeting with MoCs is mainly a chance to convey the reasons behind our asks, e.g., the economic reasons for retaining the IRA incentives. This makes sense if our meetings are the only or the principal way they will hear those reasons. Is that the case?

We don't attempt to present climate science to challenge Republicans engaged in various shades of climate denial. Is that because they would take that as a signal that we're unlikely to vote for them and thus make them unlikely to take meetings in the future?

I appreciate that as volunteers we learn a lot about policy from all the training that CCL provides, but it would help to know what we are accomplishing. For us, it may feel like we're doing something significant by attending a lobby meeting, but I don't recall ever hearing a clear explanation of how we have an impact or what evidence there is that we've actually had an impact in the past.

Maybe the impact of our lobby meetings is mainly in the motivation of volunteers to speak out back at home.

@Michael Feeney we are so happy to have you, your knowledge, energy and friendly helpfulness! Your question has been echoed in some form by many others and has been a source of a lot of discussion in other forums and in meetings. There is a “democracy” forum thread for group leaders, but others have asked for one for general membership so that thoughtful folks like you can wrestle with these issues. I hope that @Ricky Bradley might consider starting such a thread or having another way for volunteers to figure out how they can best resolve questions about whether and how to use their energy and talent with CCL in this time.

I believe there is a straight line from fossil fuel funding to political obstruction and inaction on climate policy. CCL does not actually name fossil fuel money as a root cause problem. But I volunteer because the implicit promise of CCL is that engaged constituents might counterbalance some of that funding. (Certainly volunteers can do other types of “counterbalancing” – I take off my CCL hat and do those things as well). Separating a few Congressional Republicans from some of the most climate-damaging policy still seems possible. Positioning certain legislative policies for action during a more favorable future Congress seems reasonable. Strategic silence about the administration doesn't mean lack of concern--it often is a tactical way of trying to get a few Members of Congress to do a right thing while saving face.

But CCL tries to be a place where ANYONE concerned about climate change can have a voice and take action, so I think you belong here!

@Deirdre Henderson

When I talk to Republicans I discuss Energy Policy.

I don’t “educate” about climate change, I understand their political position; I show restraint by not lobbying for renewable credits. I would lose credibility.

It’s crucial for me to separate CCL from the Sierra Clubs and Friends of the Earth. We don’t support “leave it in the ground”, we do support energy agnosticism.

These policies allow me to become a more trusted messenger: a moderate, not quite in their tribe, but not in the “other” tribe of Progressive Greens.

IMO, CCL focus ought to be on finding areas of agreement with Republicans, not re-hashing the loss of tax credits and the grid-destabilizing EPA GHG rules.

I hope that we learn from the current whipsaw why we used to support only bipartisan legislation.

Republicans felt just as annoyed by a one-vote margin bill to increase US spending by 2-3 trillion dollars as Democrats are feeling by the Republican tax cuts that will take our grandchildren’s debt from one account to another.

In the last Conservative AT meeting , I pushed hard against what I consider to be a quite partisan Group Leaders “Democracy” Rebellion.

I presented a list of energy policies and that we share with Republicans. Jaws dropped as folks were reminded of non-partisan principles that are all too rare these days.

• Patriotism, pride in our institutions and history.
• A trust in a regulated market to allocate resources.
• Energy security.
• Affordable and abundant energy.
• The cost-effective use of wind, solar, and battery resources.
• Energy efficiency.
  Reducing pollution from power sources.
• Nuclear power.
• Geothermal power.
• NEPA reform.
• Electric transmission construction
• Fix Our Forest Act.
• Air pollution and GHG-based border adjustments.

This list is off the top of my head, there are many more.

@Robert Blackburn
Thank you for your advice. Having said that, I have been a CCL volunteer for 11 years, a founder of two chapters on opposite sides of the country, a group leader for eight years, and have lobbied in district and in Washington every year (that it was possible) since 2014. I have never been represented by a Democratic MOC, always conservative Republicans, and navigated lobbying one of the true climate deniers in the House for several years. I mentor our youth action team, one of the most active in CCL, and raised funds for and started a summer CCL DEI internship for local Latino students as part of outreach to our large but difficult to reach Latino community. I got our town government to endorse the Energy Innovation Act, a campaign so effective that it was replicated in two nearby localities, which also endorsed. We got more Energy Innovation Act grass tops endorsements from our small rural area than most large city chapters. I helped to start a regional climate transformation alliance, of which our chapter is a founding member. I was recently given a special gratitude award for my climate advocacy by our town government. I am, and always have been, a political independent, not registered with any political party. If I am wondering about communicating with Republican MOCs in the current political environment, it is not because I lack experience and knowledge or do not understand and appreciate CCL's core values. It is because of our current, abnormal political environment and the wreckage visited upon climate action by the current administration with the apparent assent of Congressional Republicans.