How fast can and should greenhouse gas emissions be reduced? How soon can carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology be available?

These questions lay at the heart of sometimes surprisingly similar statements from coal, utility, manufacturing and environmental leaders who addressed the Environment and Public Works Committee Thursday.

Their diverse interests coincide in a desire for faster development of cleaner technology.

S. 1733, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act sponsored by Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., would, like the parallel bill that passed in the House of Representatives in June, establish a cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gases.

A near-term target of 20 percent below 2005 emissions levels by 2020, more aggressive than a 17 percent target in the House bill, is among the important questions.

The House and Senate bills are “a good start toward a cost-effective, efficient, market-based response to the climate change challenge,” according to Exelon Corp. CEO John W. Rowe. Exelon is the largest U.S. utility and Rowe has been a leader on utility involvement in climate action.

Still, Rowe specifically sought in his testimony “more reasonable” near- and mid-term targets and timetables for curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

Ohio Coal Association President Mike Carey expressed a broad range of concerns, including the concern that carbon capture and sequestration technology will not be ready for the timeline

“Simply throwing some funding at CCS is not going to make the technology available prior to 2020 or 2030,” Carey said. “In fact the Kerry-Boxer bill states that it’s the sense of the Senate that CCS needs to be fully deployed by 2030. Unfortunately, that comes 18 years too late. Since the reductions begin in 2012, utilities will be forced to start making emissions reductions immediately.”

Eugene Trisko, attorney for the United Mine Workers of America, expressed among mineworkers’ concerns the stringency of near-term targets and potential adverse impact on domestic coal production and employment.

Carbon capture won’t be ready in time, he said.

David Hawkins of the Natural Resources Defense Council restated that group’s support for clean coal technologies.

“The work we’ve been doing is supporting a pathway so coal is not used the way it is today,” Hawkins said. “We’re not against coal, we’re against the way coal is used today.”

And during the previous day of hearings Dan Reicher, Google Director of Climate Change and Energy Initiatives, called as others have for the $15 billion in federal investment in clean energy research and development promised by President Barack Obama during his candidacy.

Also raised frequently through third the day were concerns that utilities will switch from coal to cleaner-burning natural gas and that such switching will raise the cost of natural gas to manufacturers; that not enough qualified emissions offsets, such as landfill methane capture projects, will be available to help meet declining emissions targets; and that Congress should not leave the door open for the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gases.

Running through all three days of hearings was disagreement about the analysis of the legislation’s cost.

Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, the ranking Republican on the committee, insisted frequently that a fresh, detailed cost analysis of this bill is needed before committee members can draw conclusions about it.

Boxer took issue with that position at the end of the third day.

The EPA reviewed Boxer-Kerry and concluded that it is substantially similar in cost to the legislation passed by the House in June — a cost the agency estimated at the time at between $80 to $111 per household per year.

“Once we change (this bill) and get it to the floor, it will have to be modeled at that stage,” Boxer said. “We spent five weeks with the EPA on Waxman-Markey … I am not going to waste taxpayer money to delay a bill.”

The Washington Post reported that Boxer is aiming for a Tuesday, Nov. 3 markup, but that two of the committee’s seven Republicans will be required for a forum and those members appear to be aiming to block the markup.