Text size

A bipartisan energy innovation bill, delayed because of emergency coronavirus legislation this week, is widely expected to pass the U.S. Senate in the next two weeks. It will focus on promoting research and development in innovative energy solutions and lots of goodies for proponents of green energy—except a carbon pricing mechanism, which would help limit carbon emissions by taxing emitters.

The 550-page bill, sponsored by Lisa Murkowski (R., Alaska) and Joe Manchin (D., West Virginia), leaders of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, aims to promote “a technology-oriented but technology-neutral approach that will boost energy efficiency and lead to then development of a wide range of low and zero-emissions energy options. This will lead to cleaner air, cleaner water, and help reduce the impacts of climate change.”

It contains elements of 53 other bills introduced by various legislators.

James Lucier of Capital Alpha Partners: “This is exactly the kind of energy bill we need. It is about getting the process unstuck, and showing that Republicans and Democrats can work constructively in a bipartisan manner [and] reduce the polarization that has turned Capitol Hill into a frozen wasteland.”

The bill doesn’t include any form of carbon pricing, unlike a similarly named bill introduced in the House by Rep. Ted Deutch (D., Florida) last year. Carbon pricing is viewed by many to be critical to any legislative effort to address climate change, but including it would have likely killed the bill.

“I have concerns about the pricing of carbon” not being included in the bill, says Danielle Fugere of As You Sow, a California environmental shareholder advocate. “It isn’t what we need to create change.”

Peter Marsters, a research associate at Columbia University Center on Global Energy Policy, says the bill “is not explicitly designed to go after emissions. It isn’t designed to be a climate bill. It’s a good step in general but certainly not the climate package you’d imagine the U.S. needs to be on towards decarbonization.”

It’s nothing like the recently unveiled European Climate Law, which would give the European Union’s executive branch new powers to reach the bloc’s goal of net zero greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050. This bill is green legislation, U.S. style.

“It’s really worlds apart from the climate law in Europe,” says Andy O’Kelly of The Institutional Strategist newsletter. U.S. energy demands are too great to drastically curb emissions, O’Kelly continued: “The emissions aren’t specifically targeted [in the bill] but are moving in the right direction.”

The bill does, however, contain an array of benefits for green-tech companies and investors. It would direct $270 million a year through 2025 toward Energy Department programs to improve costs, efficiency and manufacturing of solar cells, $120 million a year through 2025 for wind power investments, $180 million a year through 2025 for energy storage programs, and $100 million for new energy storage research. The Trump administration has already proposed $158 million to back advanced energy storage research and development. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce called the bill “the most consequential energy legislation passed by Congress in 13 years.”

“A federal commitment to demonstration [of these technologies] is necessary” to develop them at scale and to attract investment, says Brad Townsend, managing director of strategic initiatives for the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.

A number of institutions have already made public commitments to green investments. For example, New York State Common Retirement Fund has pledged to commit $20 billion over the next 10 years to address climate change, including alternatives and technologies like energy storage.

In addition, because it is made up of 53 other bills, “there’s a solid foundation for a House package,” says Townsend. He believes the Senate will vote next week. If the Senate approves the bill, the hunt will be on for a companion version in the House.

In a news conference, Manchin said that, “We’re not saying that [the elimination of carbon emissions] isn’t doable. It is doable, but not by elimination [of fossil fuels]. The rest of the world is not going to follow suit.” He continued: “By 2040-2050, 50% of the energy produced in India and China is still going to be from fossil fuel—coal fired,” he added. “If they do not use new technology, that’s not going to correct the climate issues we want.”

The bill has been endorsed by Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky).

Corrections & Amplifications: Lisa Murkowski is a senator from Alaska. An earlier version of this article mistakenly said she represents Arkansas.

Write to Leslie P. Norton at leslie.norton@barrons.com