Georgia Senate Results and CCL Strategy

Tony Sirna

784 Posts

With the results in GA showing that Democrats will likely control the Senate CCLers are understandably asking how this affects CCL's strategy.

The short answer is that this does mark a shift in power but for the most part our existing strategy holds

Having a Democratic majority in the Senate with Senator Chuck Schumer in charge will definitely change what legislation might be brought to the floor for a vote, including making it more likely that climate legislation can reach the floor. It will also mean that committees will be controlled by Democrats which might make hearings on climate change more likely and allow climate legislation an easier path through committees.

CCL believes that the best way to have durable climate change legislation is for it to be bipartisan. That also happens to be exactly what it takes to pass legislation through the Senate right now. While there was a lot of talk before the election of Democrats getting rid of the filibuster so they could pass legislation with a simple majority rather than 60 votes, they are unlikely to want to, or have the votes to, do that now given their barest majority. So, almost all legislation will still require 60 votes in the Senate which means that it would require 10 or more Republicans to join with Democrats to pass a bill. That means bipartisanship is still our best path to passing durable climate change legislation, and our focus on the Senate remains key.

There is, of course, the budget reconciliation process which allows the budget to be passed with just a simple majority in both houses. This is a complex process with significant limitations on what can be part of such a bill (provisions must be budget related, etc.). While legislation similar to carbon fee and dividend could, in theory, reconciliation would likely not allow a border adjustment or any regulatory streamlining provisions. This would make it difficult to get Republican support, or even the support of all 50 Democrats. Even if such legislation could be passed with votes from just one party, it would be seen as a very partisan move and would risk being a major campaign issue and might then be undone at the next shift in power. Climate legislation needs to be durable to be effective which is a major reason we focus on passing a bill with bipartisan support

So as we outlined in our 2021 Chapter Action Guide, we want to find 10 or more Republican Senators to support the bill and Democrats who are willing to work with them. Now is the time to show our members of Congress and especially our Senators that we can work together to pass major bipartisan climate legislation, and that carbon fee and dividend is the best place to start because it is fair, effective, and popular. Let’s do it!

Tony Sirna
CCL Strategy Director

Jan '21

13 Replies

Marc Cesare

61 Posts

I think control of what comes up for vote will be important and can create a juxtaposition that makes it easier to pass carbon fee and dividend. I can see a scenario where vulnerable Republican Senators will need to make some vote, perhaps even a meaningful one, on climate. A Democrat controlled Senate makes it more likely that climate legislation more to the left comes up, but will likely not garner 60 votes. Carbon fee and dividend provides Republicans that want impactful legislation an attractive alternative to present to voters to show they are serious about addressing climate change. My understanding is that Manchin will not vote to remove the fillibuster. Given that he will be needed for key legislation and to reach across the aisle, I don't think Biden and other Senators will push to go against him on that.

Jan '21

Jennifer Wood

47 Posts

I don't think the Democratic House leadership will ever let the regulatory pause provision in the HR 763 fly through. It is also really difficult to argue for it in climate circles. Is there any thought that that provision will be left out this time around?

Jan '21

Ted Obbard

118 Posts

Thanks, Tony!

Jan '21

Brian Emanuels

6 Posts

Thanks for the update, Tony. I think one way to make this bill much more palatable to MOCs representing rural districts/states, including many Republicans, would be to include a specific provision to pay farmers (and private owners of forest land) directly for every ton of carbon sequestered, and to pay individual dividends from the net proceeds. A ton of carbon removed from the atmosphere is as valuable as a ton not emitted in the first place, so those who pollute should pay, and those who clean it up should get paid to do so. This provision would be a windfall to farmers who adopt regenerative practices, and that could make the bill highly attractive to the Reps and Senators who represent them. I hope you and Danny will consider suggesting that to Rep.Deutch to see if it will aid in attracting Republican co-sponsors in the House and Senate (such as those who have co-sponsored the Growing Climate Solutions Act, which could be folded into EICDA if this approach was adopted).

Jan '21

George Donart

162 Posts

The Growing Climate Solution Act set up the mechanisms necessary to pay farmers for sequestration, but not a source of payments. This prerequisite structure is critical to have in place before payments can be made. The bill had about equal numbers of R & D cosponsors in the House and Senate, but didn't get out of committee.

Jan '21

Heath Massey

5 Posts

Thanks, Tony, for sharing these thought re CCL strategy for the new congress and administration. I would have thought the narrow majority in the Senate would make it even more likely that Dems would want to get rid of the filibuster; can you explain why you think the opposite? Also, while bipartisanship is undeniably important, moving forward, might it be more strategic now for CCL to focus on moderate Republicans who seem more likely to be allies. Seems pointless, a waste of valuable resources, and possible morally compromising to be lobbying Trump loyalists at this point. Now that we are all working virtually, could we develop a strategy that doesn't rely quite so exclusively on in-district lobbying? Could we start strategic lobbying efforts, i.e. cross-chapter opportunities, to reach out more effectively to new, moderate candidates like Young Kim, in CA, for example? This kind of strategy that has been employed so effectively across the country in recent elections, i.e. postcards, calling, contributions from allied constituencies outside the districts. I look forward to your thoughts. Best, Heath

Jan '21

Kevin Mulvey

109 Posts

Thanks Tony, those are all useful points to keep in mind. Another is we do not know yet exactly what the Administration may propose to Congress on climate legislation, and by extension how that fits into their larger climate strategy. For example, how they approach international negotiations and deal with China and India could have an impact on how willing domestic legislators are to impose climate disciplines here at home. Also, depending on what "big government" climate policies progressives coalesce around, it's possible that a market based, revenue neutral approach like CF/D could become a more palatable alternative for Rs who are concerned about both climate change and an exploding federal deficit, which Republicans are usually more concerned about when they are in the minority.

Jan '21

Brian Emanuels

6 Posts

@Heath: It may have been the case that Dems might be less likely to kill the filibuster if they had won, say, 58 seats vs. say 52 -- e.g. with 58 seats, there's it's less imperative to kill the filibuster as it's easier to pick up 2-3 Republicans than to get 8 to jump ship. But the problem with the 50-50 split is two-fold: first, and most importantly, at least a couple of Democratic Senators (esp. Joe Manchin) have stated pretty firm opposition to eliminating the filibuster, so unless the Republicans go overboard and begin filibustering everything (quite possible), the Democrats probably don't have the votes to get rid of it. Secondly, even if they did, it would be very difficult to really utilize it as they would have to have complete unanimity to pass legislation, which is tough. So I think the only scenario (again, other than Republican obstructionism forcing them there even with just 50 votes) where they might realistically have killed the filibuster is if the Democrats had won at least 52 or 53 seats, to offset those who were opposed and to allow them some working space to pass bills thay not necessarily every single Democratic Senator supports. One other possibility that has been discussed is a temporary waiver to Senate rules to allow certain bills to pass with just 50 votes (though that's a slippery slope, so I'm skeptical), or modifying the filibuster back to what it was historically, which is requiring Senators to actually hold the floor to try to talk a bill to death, unless there were 60 votes to end debate. But I think Democrats expect to be in the minority in the Senate more often than Republicans, and thus that maintaining the ability to block unfavorable legislation (as they were able to do in 2017-18) is a net benefit for them, which adds to their reluctance to give that up.

There are a couple other ways, however, where they can pass stuff without 60 votes: budget bills, which can pass by simple majority (and can, and typically do, include a lot of policy riders), and once-per-year "budget reconciliation" (which the Rs used to pass their 2017 tax-cut bill with only 50 votes). Reconciliation has some significant restrictions, however, and is meant mainly for taxing and spending, with limits on what kinds of policies can be attached. My understanding is that a carbon fee and dividend likely could be passed via budget reconciliation, but wouldn't be able to include the border carbon adjustment or regulatory pause. It would be great to hear Tony/Danny's thoughts on this.

Jan '21

Joseph Collett

3 Posts

This answers some questions I had Tony! Thanks for posting.

I do have a question though. It seems like the biggest downside to reconciliation is the inability to include a Border Carbon Adjustment. Could this be done via executive power (without congressional legislation)?

Trump seemed to be able to use National Security concerns pretty easily to impose tariffs through the Commerce Department. Maybe that strategy can be commandeered for a Border Carbon Adjustment?

Jan '21

Jennifer Wood

47 Posts

Tony you mention the regulatory streamlining as one provision that we need to get Republicans or Senators like Manchin board. However, I am starting to feel like the the regulatory pause provision in H.R. 763 is a non starter for environmentalists and progressive democrats who are going to have a lot more power as we move forward. I would really like to see that provision gone from the new version of H.R.763 and/or a decrease in emphasis on that particular bill in our advocacy going forward. I find it to be a nonstarter in my conversations with my local climate community. There was nearly a vote to specifically condemn H.R.763 in the latest CA Democratic Party Platform vote, and it is becoming increasingly hard to argue for that provision to people who just see it as a betrayal of everything climate advocates and activists have been fighting for.

Jan '21

Robert Hendricks

77 Posts

I agree that the "regulatory pause" (which is badly named) would initially be opposed by Democratic leadership in congress, especially by progressives. The EICDA's regulatory pause is not really a pause in EPA regulations. It affirms some regulations including fuel efficiency standards for cars (CAFE), planes, etc. It clearly does not apply to any EPA regulations based on other bills other than the Clean Air Act (CAA) and not on any regulations in the CAA based on public health or anything other than cutting CO2 and fluorinated greenhouse gases. It stops EPA regulations that would duplicate reducing the covered greenhouse gases that the EICDA can better reduce. Dr. Kaufman's recent presentation of research showed that such regulations wouldn't help anyway but that other government regulations, subsidies, and programs, not covered in this "regulatory pause", would complement and enhance a carbon fee's ability to cut greenhouse gases. The "regulatory pause" would kill the Clean Power Plan (which is already dead) and prevent the president from trying to put forth another plan like it (which would be less effective and easier to challenge in court than a Congress-passed bill).
The bottom line is that we must educate progressive MOCs and congressional leaders that this bill doesn't gut environmental regulations, it just avoids a few current regulations that would duplicate the reduction of covered greenhouse gases less effectively than the EICDA.
For those MOCs who argue, "what if doesn't work?", that is also built-in but if the EICDA had more reasonable and aggressive targets which, if not met, would trigger further actions, that would help a lot in reassuring them. (The EICDA's target of zero percent reduction in CO2 by 2025 is unacceptable and conveys little confidence that the carbon fee will work.)

Jan '21

John Doherty

8 Posts

"I would really like to see that provision gone from the new version of H.R.763 and/or a decrease in emphasis on that particular bill in our advocacy going forward."

I also would like to see our laser focus on HR763 be expanded - to be advocating for something more than just that. My belief is that the Biden administration is not going to be friendly to a fee on carbon - and if not they, who and when? I would like to see CCL be advocating for more - and in terms of my own activism, how many times can I say just "Please support HR763?" Our big picture vision is "creating the political will for a livable world." That encompasses much more than just a carbon fee and dividend.

Jan '21

Jennifer Wood

47 Posts

Hey All - If any of you have been following Dave Roberts from Vox, he recently moved to writing a newsletter on Substack called The Volt. There is free access to his posts and the last one addresses Budget Reconciliation and prospects for climate legislation in the Senate and Joe Manchin. https://www.volts.wtf/p/what-the-georgia-senate-wins-do-and

Jan '21

Search Forums

Forum help

Select a question below

The Sitewide Forums are open to the entire CCL community to create, comment on, and view online discussions. Posts and comments should address the subject or focus of the selected forum.

Note: Categories can only be created by community administrators.

Guidelines for posting: (also see general Community Guidelines)

Don’t see your question or topic? Post it.
Be thoughtful, considerate (nonpartisan) and complete. The more information you supply, the better the better and more engaging the conversation will be.
Feel like cursing? Please don’t.
Ask yourself, “Would my topic post reveal sensitive or confidential information?” If so, please don't post!

Flag/report any offending comments, and then move on. In the rare instance of a comment containing a potentially credible threat, escalate that immediately to CCL.

If you have questions or wish to add comments on a posted forum topic, open the post and click the blue “Add Reply” button at top. You can also click on the “Reply” link at the bottom of the original topic posting.

This opens a text box. Add your reply. You can also add documents by dragging a file into the text box. Click “Post” at the bottom of the reply window This will add your reply to other replies (if there are any), sorted by oldest on top.

If, however, you want to reply directly to someone else’s reply, click on the “Reply” link at the bottom of their reply.

When replying to a topic post or a topic reply it may be helpful to quote the original text, or the part that your reply is referring to. To quote a topic or reply, click on the "Quote" link at bottom of post.

When you do this the full text of either the post or reply will be pulled into a reply text box. If desired, you can remove parts of the quoted text in order to get the portion you are interested in quoting.

You can subscribe to notifications of new postings from any of the Sitewide Forums or forum categories. To subscribe, select the green “Subscribe” button at the top of the forum. Click on dropdown arrow to select frequency of notification.

If you are already subscribed, the button will display “Unsubscribe.” Select it to unsubscribe or select the dropdown arrow to modify frequency of notification.

Note: If you subscribe to a Sitewide Forum, such as "Media Relations" that has categories (such as "LTEs and Op-Eds"), you will also be subscribed to all the categories. If you wish to subscribe to only one or more of the categories, unsubscribe to the parent forum and subscribe individually to desired categories.

CCL Community Guidelines

Discuss, ask and share
Be respectful
Respect confidentiality
Protect privacy

More guidelines

Georgia Senate Results and CCL Strategy

Georgia Senate Results and CCL Strategy

Georgia Senate Results and CCL Strategy

CCL Blog Policy Area Categories