When debate began earlier this week on a climate-change bill, Sen. Jay Rockefeller objected that the legislation didn't do enough to help the coal industry survive a national cap on greenhouse-gas emissions.

The West Virginia Democrat said that legislation should have provided "massive investments" in technology to capture and safely bury carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants.

Actually, the legislation did just that, funneling more than $400 billion in free pollution permits to coal-fired power plants.

The free permits would provide "transition assistance" to existing power plants and then be aimed at new plants that include equipment to control greenhouse pollution.

Supporters say the bill is the biggest government effort ever to clean up coal-powered energy and a last-ditch effort to help the industry stay alive. By comparison, the federal government has spent about $57.5 billion over the last 30 years on researching clean-energy technologies, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Project.

Opponents said the legislation goes too far, giving coal companies and utilities huge subsidies in a bill that would not do enough to curb climate change.

"It is a wholly inadequate response to the greatest environmental crisis of our time," said Brent Blackwelder, president of Friends of the Earth, an environmental group that opposes the bill.

By later today, the legislation is expected to be dead. Republicans have used a variety of parliamentary tactics to stall debate and votes, and the Democratic majority appears unable to gather the 60 votes needed to end a GOP filibuster.

But the debate over how to deal with climate change will continue into the fall election season and beyond, and many observers think any eventual legislation will build on this bill.

On Monday, Rockefeller voted with the Democratic majority to begin debate on the legislation, despite his concerns over its impacts on coal.

Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., was the only Democrat to break ranks and join 13 Republicans to vote not to debate the bill.

Byrd said the vote reminded him of "another election-year debate, when the Congress was rushed to judgment in voting for war in Iraq.

"We must not be rushed to judgment on this vital issue," Byrd said. "If not properly drafted, such legislation could well result in more harm than good."

The Climate Security Act of 2008 being discussed this week would cut emissions by as much as 66 percent below 2005 levels between 2012 and 2050, according to a Senate committee report issued in late May.

But in December, a group of international climate scientists recommended that emissions levels be reduced by at least 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. In March, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concluded the current legislation would reduce U.S. greenhouse pollution by only 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Business groups, including the National Mining Association, have opposed the legislation as being far too costly.

Carbon-emission caps are a major problem for the coal industry. The industry has fought such caps for years. Some industry officials argue climate change isn't as big of a problem - or really a problem at all, despite widespread scientific agreement otherwise.

A typical coal-fired power plant will produce about 1 ton of carbon dioxide for every megawatt of electricity, compared to about one-half ton from a natural-gas-fired plant.

One Department of Energy report, issued in April, estimated the legislation could cut coal consumption by two-thirds or more by 2030.

When debate began earlier this week on a climate-change bill, Sen. Jay Rockefeller objected that the legislation didn't do enough to help the coal industry survive a national cap on greenhouse-gas emissions.

The West Virginia Democrat said that legislation should have provided "massive investments" in technology to capture and safely bury carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants.

Actually, the legislation did just that, funneling more than $400 billion in free pollution permits to coal-fired power plants.

The free permits would provide "transition assistance" to existing power plants and then be aimed at new plants that include equipment to control greenhouse pollution.

Supporters say the bill is the biggest government effort ever to clean up coal-powered energy and a last-ditch effort to help the industry stay alive. By comparison, the federal government has spent about $57.5 billion over the last 30 years on researching clean-energy technologies, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Project.

Opponents said the legislation goes too far, giving coal companies and utilities huge subsidies in a bill that would not do enough to curb climate change.

"It is a wholly inadequate response to the greatest environmental crisis of our time," said Brent Blackwelder, president of Friends of the Earth, an environmental group that opposes the bill.

By later today, the legislation is expected to be dead. Republicans have used a variety of parliamentary tactics to stall debate and votes, and the Democratic majority appears unable to gather the 60 votes needed to end a GOP filibuster.

But the debate over how to deal with climate change will continue into the fall election season and beyond, and many observers think any eventual legislation will build on this bill.

On Monday, Rockefeller voted with the Democratic majority to begin debate on the legislation, despite his concerns over its impacts on coal.

Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., was the only Democrat to break ranks and join 13 Republicans to vote not to debate the bill.

Byrd said the vote reminded him of "another election-year debate, when the Congress was rushed to judgment in voting for war in Iraq.

"We must not be rushed to judgment on this vital issue," Byrd said. "If not properly drafted, such legislation could well result in more harm than good."

The Climate Security Act of 2008 being discussed this week would cut emissions by as much as 66 percent below 2005 levels between 2012 and 2050, according to a Senate committee report issued in late May.

But in December, a group of international climate scientists recommended that emissions levels be reduced by at least 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. In March, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concluded the current legislation would reduce U.S. greenhouse pollution by only 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Business groups, including the National Mining Association, have opposed the legislation as being far too costly.

Carbon-emission caps are a major problem for the coal industry. The industry has fought such caps for years. Some industry officials argue climate change isn't as big of a problem - or really a problem at all, despite widespread scientific agreement otherwise.

A typical coal-fired power plant will produce about 1 ton of carbon dioxide for every megawatt of electricity, compared to about one-half ton from a natural-gas-fired plant.

One Department of Energy report, issued in April, estimated the legislation could cut coal consumption by two-thirds or more by 2030.

Carbon capture and sequestration, or CCS, is considered the biggest hope for the coal industry's future.

But carbon capture and sequestration is incredibly expensive and currently done only on a very small scale. The process' future is complicated by questions about infrastructure, safety and liability.

Scientists with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have cautioned that carbon capture is not a quick fix and could take several more decades to make a dent in greenhouse emissions.

The climate legislation aims to speed up deployment of such projects, and most studies agreed it would succeed in doing so.

The EPA found that the bill would help promote construction of roughly 80 gigawatts of advanced coal plants with CCS by 2025. That's about two dozen facilities the size of the John Amos Power Plant.

A DOE study put the figure slightly lower, at about 64 gigawatts of new, cleaner plants, but the DOE said that still wouldn't be a cure-all for the coal industry.

"The increased use of coal at these new facilities with CCS is not large enough to offset the reduction that occurs because of the retirement and reduced utilization of existing coal plants," the DOE study said. "It is possible that the continued addition of coal plants with CCS post-2030 could lead to resurgence in coal use, but these plants will continue to face competition from other low-emission technologies."

Many environmental organizations favor the bill, and the Natural Resources Defense Council is among its strongest supporters.

The climate bill employs one of the NRDC's pet concepts, a "cap and trade" system to control pollution emissions. The government will sell and give away "allowances," or credits, that power plants and factories need for every ton of greenhouse gases they emit.

Initially, the government will auction off about $15 billion worth of emissions permits, with the money then going to fund carbon-capture burial - or sequestration - projects.

In the longer term, between 2012 and 2020, polluters would have to buy yearly allowances for every ton of carbon dioxide emitted. At the same time, companies that capture their carbon dioxide would receive credit for the pollution they avoid.

Under current formulas, this could amount to $120 billion worth of credits for new coal-fired plants that include carbon sequestration.

David Hawkins, director of the NRDC's climate center, said $120 billion in pollution credits then can be sold by those new plants, creating a big financial incentive to build cleaner coal plants.

"There is really a tremendous amount of money in the bill for carbon capture and storage - far more than you would ever get through the congressional appropriations process," Hawkins said this week.

On top of that $135 billion in coal subsidies, the legislation includes another roughly $240 billion to $300 billion in free pollution credits under a "transition assistance" program for coal-fired power plants.

The Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, says these giveaways of pollution permits are where the current climate bill goes wrong.

If all greenhouse-emissions allowances were instead sold, "the resulting revenue could create a dedicated source of public financing to invest in a just and equitable transition to the low-carbon economy," the center says.

"A 100 percent auction will ensure that large polluters, and not the hardworking Americans least able to foot the bill, are financing the investments necessary to carry out these vital public projects."

To contact staff writer Ken Ward Jr., use e-mail or call 348-1702.