The decision earlier this week (subscription) by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to delay climate change legislation until spring is drawing criticism and praise in NationalJournal.com's Energy Expert Blog.

American Chemistry Council CEO Cal Dooley warned that with this delay, "Congress runs the very real risk of letting EPA's regulatory deadlines overtake the legislative process." In fact, neither industry groups, lawmakers, nor the administration want the EPA regulating greenhouse gas emissions, but White House officials say the impending threat of EPA regulation could serve as an incentive for skeptical lawmakers to get on board with climate legislation. "Congress should redouble its efforts to develop effective emissions reduction legislation," Dooley wrote. "But I would argue that Congress's top priority is to stop EPA from moving forward with a regulatory train wreck that EPA estimates could cost as much as $55.5 billion and deliver, by its own admission, 'absurd results.'"

National Wildlife Federation President and CEO Larry Schweiger urged the Senate put energy reform at the top of its agenda immediately after health care, before financial regulatory reform or a jobs bill. "Americans have had enough delay," he wrote. "We can't afford to wait and let clean energy jobs go to other countries ready to invest in clean energy."

But some experts say the delay -- as long as it doesn't extend too long -- could help the bill's chances in the long run. The delay "gives time to draw together the set of compromises that are going to be needed to make the bill palatable to at least 60 Senators," wrote Dick Forrister of Natsource LLC, who worked on climate change and energy issues in the Clinton administration. But Robert Sisson, president of Republicans For Environmental Protection, warned that if the delay extends beyond early spring, climate legislation "could be overtaken by 2010 campaign politics, pushing resolution of the issue out for at least another year."

Michael Formica, chief environmental counsel for the National Pork Producers Council, said delaying action could help lawmakers explore potential negative consequences of "conversion of crop and pasture land to forest" that Formica says could result from carbon offsets in Waxman-Markey. "We are confident that the new chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Blanche Lincoln, will make good use of this time to better understand the full implications of this legislation and help craft a sound path forward," he wrote.

In the eyes of conservatives who oppose the whole concept of an economy-wide cap on carbon emissions, the delay is a good thing in and of itself. "The longer it is delayed, the greater the opportunity everyday Americans have to learn about its economic impacts," wrote Thomas Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research. "And the more they learn, the less they like." William O'Keefe, CEO of the George C. Marshall Institute, wrote that the delay suggests Democrats are "starting to realize that the high cost and incredible intrusiveness of cap and trade would only exacerbate the problems evident in trying to pass comprehensive health care legislation."

More in Energy Go to section

October 04, 2010 | Energy and Environment Bulletin

Is Unpriced Carbon The Next Subprime?

September 02, 2010 | Energy and Environment Bulletin

Dems Seek Answers On Gulf Explosion

September 01, 2010 | Energy and Environment Bulletin

BP Spent Big On Advertising After Spill

August 24, 2010 | Tech Daily Dose

Biden: Stimulus Dollars Fueling Energy and Life-Saving Technology

August 17, 2010 | Insider Interviews

Deepwater Horizon's Enduring Lessons