While Lieberman-Warner has garnered most of the headlines since late last year, other climate change bills continue to appear in Congress, illustrating the difficulties ahead for forging a consensus on carbon legislation.

Senator Voinovich (R-OH) recently drafted, but has not formally introduced, the “Incentives-Based Climate Policy Act” as an alternative way of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The Voinovich proposal calls for more modest reduction targets than Lieberman-Warner, with a goal of reducing emissions to - but not below - 2006 levels by 2020 and 1990 levels by 2030.

Initial attempts to meet these targets will be made through incentives programs, including public-private partnerships providing energy research funding, loan guarantees for nuclear facilities, and tax breaks for developing new technologies. Mandatory action will be required only if the incentive programs fail to achieve the desired results. If mandatory action is needed, the government would design and implement a cap-and-trade program for carbon emissions. The proposal includes cost containment mechanisms that limit the price of an allowance to $5 per ton in 2012, and would be indexed roughly to inflation thereafter.

The initial draft also calls for expanded energy research and $20 million a year to train workers for jobs in the nuclear energy field. In addition, it would preempt state climate change efforts and prevent the EPA from regulating GHG emissions, suggesting a reversal of the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA.

More important than the individual provisions in the proposal is the implication that it has for Lieberman-Warner, which needs the support of a 60 vote supermajority to defeat a threatened filibuster and reach a floor vote in the Senate. In order to put together a 60 vote coalition, a future bill will need support from moderate Republicans as well as nearly all Democrats in the Senate.

By putting forward his own competing proposal, Senator Voinovich is making clear that - at this point - Republican support for Lieberman-Warner is anything but certain. The proposal, which may provide an alternative avenue for moderate Republicans who do not favor the more stringent provisions in Lieberman-Warner, suggests that the road ahead for comprehensive carbon legislation could be a difficult one.

For further information about this topic, please contact Akin Gump.