President Barack Obama is going to speak today about energy policy. I'm not sure if this is going to come up:

When the White House announced the federal government would loan $465 million to Tesla, a California start-up company with plans to develop an all-electric sedan, President Obama called it an "historic opportunity to ensure that the next generation of fuel-efficient cars and trucks are made in America."

The loan also represented a lucrative opportunity for Steve Westly, a major investor in the car company who had raised more than $500,000 for the president's campaign.

In 2009, the U.S. Department of Energy lent more than half a billion dollars to companies backed by Westly's California venture capital firm. In 2010, the White House tapped Westly for a seat on a special energy advisory panel that gives him regular access to Energy Secretary Steven Chu. Westly boasts on his website that his firm is "uniquely positioned" to take advantage of the Obama administration's interest in green energy.

Congress has given the Energy Department authority to distribute billions of dollars in public funds to help stimulate the economy and seed a new generation of clean energy firms. A joint investigation by ABC News and the Center for Public Integrity that will air on World News with Diane Sawyer tonight has found that Westly is just one of several political allies of the president who have ties to companies receiving chunks of that money through loans, grants, or loan guarantees.

The New York Times ran a story today on the nuclear industry's lobbying efforts over the past decade to revive the industry. The lobbying and PR campaign has been brilliant and effectively catapulted the nuclear industry into the discussion of clean energy in Washington that brought both parties together on a pro-nuclear consensus. That consensus looks to be fraying after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactor disaster currently unfolding in Japan.

The Times story cites and links to a story I wrote earlier this week, so I thought I'd share some of the data directly. Here's the relevant Times quote:

And the industry has spent tens of millions more lately on lobbying. Last year, electric utilities, trade groups and other backers spent $54 million hiring lobbyists, including former members of Congress, to make their case, according to a separate analysis by the Sunlight Foundation, which also tracks money and politics.

And here's the relevant quote from my post:

An analysis of the lobbying expenses of electric utilities operating a majority of the nation’s nuclear reactors and the main industry trade group show a doubling on lobbying spending since 2004. The industry’s lobbying jumped from $27 million prior to the nuclear-friendly Energy Act of 2005 to nearly $54 million in 2010.

In collecting this data I looked at the thirteen major companies operating nuclear reactors and the main industry trade group, the Nuclear Energy Institute. Some reactors are operated by government cooperatives or the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), so these were excluded. I also had to exclude Pacific Gas & Electric because they file their lobbying disclosure reports in a dramatically different way than the other utilities. Including PG&E's numbers would have wildly skewed the data upwards.

PG&E reported spending over $45 million on lobbying in 2010. Only a small fraction of this number was actually spent on lobbying the federal government. The rest was spent on state-level lobbying and campaigns against propositions they opposed. PG&E does list, as a note, a separate amount for federal lobbying on their quarterly filings, however, this is not consistent for the number of years that I covered in reviewing the nuclear industry's lobbying.

Anyway, here's the list of companies and trade group that I looked at and their lobbying spending year over year. (All data came from the Center for Responsive Politics):

This morning the Sunlight Foundation's award winning Sunlight Live platform will turn the spotlight on the Committee on Natural Resources' hearing on gas prices and U.S. jobs. Sunlight Live mashes up commentary and research from Sunlight's Reporting team with contextual data and graphics.

The hearing comes as gas prices approach $4 a gallon and amidst increasing pressure for more domestic oil drilling. Meanwhile, there is renewed attention to nuclear energy, thanks to the recent disaster in Japan. The full House Natural Resources will convene for the hearing as witnesses from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Geological Survey, CRS, GAO, as well as the University of Texas and Center for Strategic and International Studies present testimony.

Members of the Natural Resources Committee have benefited from contributions from the oil and gas industry. According to Sunlight’s Influence Explorer, Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-WA) received $85,671 from the oil and gas industry in 2010, Ranking Member Edward Markey (D-MA) received $29,250 and committee member Rep. Dan Boren (R-OK) tops the list at $210,500.

• Richard G. Newell; Administrator, U.S. Energy Information Administration
• Brenda Pierce; Energy Resources Program Coordinator, U.S. Geological Survey
• Gene Whitney; Manager, Energy Research, Congressional Research Service
• Michelle Michot Foss; Chief Energy Economist, University of Texas
• Guy Caruso; Senior Adviser, Energy and National Security, Center for Strategic and International Studies
• Frank Rusco; Director, Natural Resources and Environment, Government Accountability Office

On October 5, 2008 U.S. and Libyan business leaders met with Department of Commerce Assistant Secretary Israel Hernandez as he opened a new Foreign Commercial Service office in Tripoli. In the same year, more companies and trade associations than ever before disclosed that they were lobbying the U.S. government in Washington to keep the newly opened African nation open for business. Much of that lobbying aided in the growing U.S.-Libyan business connection that led to the opening of the office.

According to lobbying disclosure reports, fifteen companies and two trade associations listed Libyan issues on their lobbying disclosure forms since President George W. Bush lifted economic sanctions on Libya in 2004. Libya’s large oil reserves, the biggest of any African nation, were the main focus of the lobbying efforts in Washington.

These companies include a who’s who of international oil companies including ExxonMobil, BP, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, Marathon Oil, Occidental Petroleum, Shell, and Hess Corporation. The non-energy firms lobbying on Libya include Boeing, Caterpillar, Dow Chemical, Fluor Corporation, Halliburton, Motorola, and Raytheon. All of these companies have been engaged in business deals or attempted to enter the Libyan market over the past six years.

The current revolution in Libya has upended the recent engagement between the Government of Libya, the foreign oil companies, and the other corporations that have worked to enter the country’s market.

Lobbying was a regular feature as these companies sought to protect their new investments and get the U.S. government to smooth out business problems with the erratic regime. One issue that combined both of these lobbying topics came about from one amendment proposed to deal with state sponsors of terrorism.

According to diplomatic cables obtained by Wikileaks, an amendment added to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008, known as the Lautenberg amendment, made it easier for plaintiffs in terrorism lawsuits to seize foreign government-owned assets from state sponsors of terrorism. This proved problematic for companies that had already entered into business arrangements with Libya as the government had not finished making payments to plaintiffs in the Lockerbie bombing case.

In 1988, terrorists blew up a passenger airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland at the behest of the government of Libya. In total, 270 people were killed. In 2002, Libya announced that it would pay the victim’s families $2.7 billion and paid it back in part as sanctions were lifted from the country and the country was removed from the list of state sponsors of terrorism.

This initial payment led to further discussion to repay victim’s families for other terrorist attacks that Libya undertook in the past. The passage of the Lautenberg amendment occurred in the context of these new negotiations.

The cables show that the Libyan government told the U.S. oil companies that “it is "their problem" to solve, and has begun requiring U.S. and other companies to conduct all operations in non-dollar denominations.” This meant that the companies would have to face the consequences of any future settlements that occurred under the Lautenberg amendment.

For the large part of 2008, the fifteen companies lobbying then focused on the repeal of the Lautenberg amendment. On August 4, 2008, they were successful. The resolution, known as the Libyan Claims Resolution Act, exempted Libya from the Lautenberg amendment barring the country settle for the victims of the other four terrorist attacks. On August 14, 2008, the United States approved a $1.8 billion settlement for the victims and the companies no longer faced the possibility of asset forfeiture.

These companies did not just rely on lobbying to their benefit over the years, but also created a non-lobbying advocacy organization to influence public opinion. The US-Libya Business Association was founded by many of the companies that lobbied Washington on Libyan issues in the 2000s along with White & Case, the law firm retained by the Government of Libya as registered foreign lobbyists

In 2009, the US-Libya Business Association ceded all of its advocacy work to the National Foreign Trade Council, a long-standing free trade group operating in Washington. According to a press release, “The association will remain a separate entity but will be co-located with the NFTC.”

With the present turmoil in Libya, the future prospects of the companies that have lobbied to protect their stake in the country are unclear. Some companies have evacuated employees while others have stated that their operations can still continue. The political response from the United States government may be equally worrying.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry said that the crackdown “beyond despicable” and called for American and international businesses to cease operations immediately and for the Obama Administration to re-impose sanctions lifted by President Bush. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Ileana Ros-Lehtinen echoed Kerry’s call for a re-imposition of sanctions.

As the revolution continues unabated, these companies may wind up needing their lobbyists more than ever.

The alternative energy heavy NextEra Energy already had six different firms helping it lobby on tax policy when it brought Akin Gump Straus Hauer and Feld, one of the three biggest lobbying firms in Washington over the past decade, into the fray in the last months of 2010. A tax fight was gearing up and NextEra Energy, along with other companies, sought to preserve newly won tax breaks that have helped to push their tax burdens to among the lowest in the nation.

In this year’s State of the Union address, President Obama said that “a parade of lobbyists has rigged the tax code to benefit particular companies and industries. Those with accountants or lawyers to work the system can end up paying no taxes at all. But all the rest are hit with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. It makes no sense, and it has to change.”

It looks as though the alternative energy industry and their lobbyists won’t be one of the losers in any proposed corporate tax reform. The administration has repeatedly gone to bat for the tax provisions sought by alternative energy lobbyists.

NextEra Energy is one of six energy companies that pay less than five percent in taxes, according to a collection of data from Capitol IQ by Business Insider. The data is an aggregate amount covering the years 2005-2009. NextEra is reported to have paid a 1.74 percent tax rate over this period.

Taxes have been a focal lobbying point for many of these companies, but especially important for five of the six identified by Capitol IQ. Two of them—NextEra Energy and Xcel Energy—reported spending millions on lobbying while listing taxes on their disclosures more than any other issue in 2010. Xcel reportedly paid a 1.78 percent tax rate over the 2005-2009 period.

The teams assembled by NextEra and Xcel included lobbyists with years of tax experience, often on the appropriate congressional committees or in the executive branch. They include a former member of the Ways and Means Committee, a former tax counsel for the Ways and Means Committee, a former political advisor to Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus, and a former tax counsel to the Senate Finance Committee.

In the fourth quarter of 2010, six out of the fifteen outside lobbying firms hired by NextEra and Xcel listed energy tax provisions as the sole issue they lobbied on. Six other firms lobbied on a mix of issues including taxes.

This fall the administration held meetings with alternative energy lobbyists including those from the low-tax rate NextEra and Xcel.

In October of last year Heather Zichal, deputy assistant to the President on energy and climate change, held meetings with NextEra’s vice president for government relations, Christopher Chapel, the American Wind Energy Association’s Robert Gramlich, the Solar Energy Industry Association’s Dan Adamson, and the American Biofuels Association’s Michael McAdams and Jack Huttner. In January and September Zichal held meetings with Xcel Energy lobbyists John O’Donnell and Stephen Plevniak, respectively.

NextEra Energy and Xcel Energy are two of the largest producers and provides of wind power in the United States and both have major holdings of solar platforms.

Much of the reduced tax burden for these energy companies comes from a number of subsidies, grants, and tax credits that have been advanced since the 1990s and expanded under the Obama administration.

One of the favorite credits of the industry is the production tax credit, which provides a 2.1-cent per kilowatt subsidy for companies generating power from wind, solar, geothermal, and certain bioenergy sources. It’s estimated that NextEra saved $430 million under the production tax credit in 2010.

Equally important to alternative energy producers is the grant in lieu of tax credit program created in the stimulus bill. This program, administered by the Treasury Department, provides a 30 percent subsidy of capital costs to new construction for wind turbine construction. This has pushed NextEra and Xcel to speed construction before the program ends.

The increased construction associated with the application of credits and grants comes with an added benefit: much of the spending can be deducted from the company’s taxes.

Both NextEra and Xcel hired the majority of their outside lobbyists in the fourth quarter of 2010 to push for the extension of the grant in lieu of tax credit policy. They were quite successful. The tax reform compromise package worked out between the administration and congressional Republicans in December included an extension of this policy.

NextEra is uniquely situated to gain from the extension of this policy. NextEra subsidiaries won three grants under the program totaling $257 million, according to the Sun-Sentinel.

While these tax policies may appear to diverge from the administration’s stated goal of reducing lobbyist sought tax credits and loopholes they are likely to survive. Other companies with unusually low tax rates are more likely to see their hard won tax breaks and loopholes targeted by the administration and Congress if a corporate tax reform push comes to shove.

After passing the cap and trade bill in rush, we are beginning to see what was included in the last hours prior to the vote. According to the Washington Times, the final 300 page amendment to the 1,200 page bill appears to have been filled with sweeteners for wavering congressmen.

The Washington Times reported on the actual contents of the cap and trade manager's amendment -- those 300 pages that dropped at the last second -- and found a sweetener for one lawmaker likely aimed at enticing her to vote for the bill. The bill contained a nearly unintelligable section creating a federally authorized power administration with $3.5 billion in funds to distribute to renewable energy and development projects in Ohio. The power administration was championed by Rep. Marcy Kaptur and its last minute inclusion likely helped obtain her vote and other wavering lawmakers from Ohio.

We have little idea how many sweeteners were added into the 300 page manager's amendment and it is very difficult to determine due to the obscure language used in the amendment. Take, for example, the language of the Kaptur power administration:

SEC. 199. DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR RENEWABLE POWER BORROWING AUTHORITY. (a) DETERMINATION.—No later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy, in coordination with the Secretary of Commerce, shall— (1) determine any geographic area within the contiguous United States that lacks a Federal power marketing agency; (2) develop a plan or criteria for the geographic areas identified in paragraph (1) regarding invest- ment in renewable energy and associated infrastruc- ture within an area identified in paragraph (1); and (3) identify any Federal agency within an area in paragraph (1) that has, or could develop, the abil- ity to facilitate the investment in paragraph (2). (b) REPORT.—The Secretary of Energy, in coordina- tion with the Secretary of Commerce, shall provide the de- terminations made under subsection (a) to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representa- tives. (c) ESTABLISHMENT.—Based upon the determina- tions made pursuant to subsection (a), the Secretary of Energy, in coordination with the Secretary of Commerce, shall recommend to the Committee on Energy and Com- merce of the House of Representatives the establishment of any new Federal lending authority, including authoriza- tion of additional lending authority for existing Federal agencies, not to exceed $3,500,000,000 per geographic area identified in subsection (a)(1). (d) AUTHORIZATION.—$25,000,000 is authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2010 to carry out the provi- sions of this section.

Now for those looking to see how the last minute changes affect voting behavior, this kind of language isn't helpful at all. There are even more obscure sections of the bill that could contain vote-getting sweeteners. Not that I'm advocating for plain language bills or anything (laws are written in legal language for a reason), but the language in this amendment is particularly -- and likely intentionally -- obtuse.

Of course, one of the biggest problems is that we were given under 24 hours to read these 300 pages of obscure language. So, we are brought reporting after the bill is passed teasing out the actual contents, which appear to include vote-attracting sweeteners. No one could have realistically known what was in the bill, and inserted for whom, before the vote took place.

If you want to see if you can find these sweeteners, please have at it. I spent a good amount of time reading the bill last week (what a concept) and wouldn't mind some help pulling out the choice sections that were inserted to gain specific votes. Here's the pdf. Let me know what you find in the comments. And don't forget to tell your congressman to Read the Bill in the future.

Today is the day that the House plans to vote on the cap and trade bill that has mysteriously changed this week. Last night, the bill changed again. We are now looking at an additional 300-pages that will be considered as amending H.R. 2998, the replacement bill of origins unknown. This is what the House Rules Committee tells us:

[I]n lieu of the amendment recommended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 2998, modified by the amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted.

This means that H.R. 2998, which will be considered as an amendment in the form of a substitute, will include an additional 300 pages approved by the Rules Committee that will not be voted on. Let me see if I can run this down quickly and succinctly:

1. The original bill, H.R. 2454, approximately 1,000 pages, was reported out of the Energy & Commerce Committee.
2. It was replaced this week by H.R. 2998, 1,201 pages, which will be voted on as an amendment in the form of a substitute.
3. The Rules Committee, last night, released a committee report that includes a 300-page amendment to H.R. 2998. This 300-page amendment, the Waxman amendment (#121), is considered as adopted upon an affirmative vote for H.R. 2998, the amendment in the form of the substitute.

This means that we are looking at 300 extra pages added to the bill overnight. Stay tuned for more and go to ReadTheBill.org to tell your congressman that we need time to read the bills.

The pace for the cap and trade bill continues apace. Today, the House Rules Committee posted to their web site the bill number, H.R. 2998, for the draft of unknown origin that has become a point of much debate over the past few days. This bill, H.R. 2998, is set to replace H.R. 2454, the bill previously reported out of committee. As I wrote two days ago, we have little idea as to the negotiations that transformed the approximately 1,000 page H.R. 2454 into the 1,200 page H.R. 2998. If nothing else it reminded me of South Park's underpants gnomes (for an image that might help explain the image below, see here). And thus I present this image that represents, to the best of our knowledge, how this bill grew overnight:

Phase 1: Report H.R. 2454 out of committee

Phase 2: ?

Phase 3: Replace H.R. 2454 with H.R. 2998

The House Rules Committee is currently deciding which of the 224 amendments proposed will be allowed a vote on the floor of the House. That could take a while. In the mean time we'll all twiddle our thumbs and try to figure out what process led to this compromise bill.

Or you can go to ReadTheBill.org and tell Congress that they shouldn't let this happen again. Tell them to support H. Res. 554 and require bills to be posted online for at least 72 hours prior to consideration.

So, it looks as though the cap and trade bill will continue to sail toward a Friday vote despite the final version not being actually finalized. As I noted yesterday, this process prevents both the public and the lawmakers on Capitol Hill from having adequate time to review a critically important bill. The hurried process also spells danger for the many activist organizations and other actors seeking to have an effect on the end result. How can you lobby when you don't know what you're lobbying on? And how can you get your supporters to call Congress when you don't know what to tell them?

Now some of these actors may already have a wing-tip or birkenstock in the door with their lobbyists, but that doesn't do much for activating their membership. If no one knows what a bill will contain until 24 hours prior to consideration it is remarkably difficult to get a message to your representative to express your position on how they ought to vote. Even more complicated is to organize a membership around amendments to support or oppose. And this is, in many ways, why this process occurs. It stymies public interaction and voices, whether independent of a larger group or not.

Now this does not solely apply to the party in power now. Historically, leadership aims to control the pace of legislation. And why wouldn't they? In Congress, time is just another tool of power.

In this case, time is being used to prevent citizen action and to reduce outside pressure on potentially wayward lawmakers. If the leadership wants to pass a bill and fears that calls from constituents to certain lawmakers may place the vote in jeopardy, rushing the bill to the floor will prevent an inundation of calls, especially from members of organizations organized around a particular bill.

If you are the Sierra Club or the Chamber of Commerce, you're getting squeezed right now. (The same thing happened with groups organized around the FISA Amendments Act last year.) For the general public that wants their voice heard, you're getting squeezed even harder.

This is a critical reason for Congress to establish a 72 hour rule. Not only does Congress need to read their bills. Not only does the public writ large deserve a chance to read the bills. But so do advocacy groups that organize and drive much of the public support or opposition to specific pieces of legislation.

If you think that bills should be made available for at least 72 hours before they are considered, go to ReadTheBill.org and tell your congressman to support legislation to create a 72 hour rule.

There is currently some wacky legislative maneuvering going on with H.R. 2454, the cap and trade energy bill, that puts a serious spotlight on the failure of Congress to make bills properly available. According to the New York Times:

House Democratic leaders late last night released a revamped, 1,201-page energy and global warming bill (pdf), clearing the way for floor debate Friday even though it remains uncertain if they will have the votes to pass it. The House bill posted on the Rules Committee Web site has grown from the 946-page version adopted last month in the Energy and Commerce Committee. Sources on and off Capitol Hill said the bulk of the changes largely reflect requests from the eight other committees that also had jurisdiction over the bill, including the Ways and Means Committee and Science and Technology Committee.

The bill is only available online at the House Rules Committee and is reported as "text of the bill to be introduced." Despite having a bill, H.R. 2454, that has been reported out of the Energy & Commerce Committee and discharged by eight other committees, there is now, suddenly, a new bill that is almost 300-pages longer -- but it's still being considered as H.R. 2454. Stay with me here.

Here's the timeline:

Introduced - 5/15/09

Reported with amendments out of Energy & Commerce - 6/5/09

Discharged by Education & Labor and Foreign Affairs Committees - 6/5/09

Discharged by Financial Services, Science & Technology, Transportation, Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Ways & Means Committees - 6/19/09

Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 90 - 6/19/09 (This version is 946 pages)

Submitted to House Rules Committee - 6/22/09, 4:22pm (This version is 1,201 pages)

So, where along the line does the bill suddenly expand by 300 pages? According to the New York Times, the various committee chairs held behind the scenes meetings and hashed out a compromise with no allowance for public input. (What lobbyists were involved in those meetings?) And now we are expecting a Friday vote on a bill that has had no public hearing in a committee with jurisdiction over it and that is not yet available in the main engine of public disclosure, THOMAS.

This raises serious questions about how we expect Congress to disclose their activities to the public. Is a bill posted to the House Rules Committee and not THOMAS truly publicly available? While the bill may be available for 72 hours prior to consideration, the public does not have reasonable access to it. Nor does the public know how the final details were reached.

And that isn't even the worst part. This, apparently, isn't even the final bill. The final bill will be a manager's amendment that will be drafted later this week! From a posting on the House Rules Committee, we know that the deadline to submit amendments is Thursday at 9:30am. And there is talk that this will be voted on on Friday. Thus, the final version of this bill will likely only be available for less than 24 hours.

Sunlight has been advocating for all bills to be posted online for 72 hours prior to consideration. It doesn't look like that is going to happen here. If you think that Congress should read the bills they vote on, you can tell your congressman to both support the Read the Bill resolution, H. Res. 554, and to give the public enough time to read the final version of the cap and trade bill, whenever that is made available.

As Open Left's Chris Bowers says about this process:

[Y]ou don't get to know what is in the bill until it is too late. Further, you get no chances to improve the bill.

This is an unacceptable process and it needs to change.