How fast can and should greenhouse gas emissions be reduced? How soon can carbon capture and storage, or 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.

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

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

Among the important questions facing lawmakers is whether the nation can attain greenhouse gas emission levels set at 20 percent below 2005 emissions levels by 2020. That's a more aggressive target than a 17 percent target set out in the House bill.

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 American utility, and Rowe has been a utility leader on 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 fear that carbon capture and sequestration technology will not be ready.

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

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

Dan Reicher, director of Climate Change and Energy Initiatives for Google, echoed others when he called for the $15 billion in annual federal clean energy research and development funding promised by President Barack Obama during his candidacy.

Also raised by industrial interests were concerns that utilities will switch from coal to cleaner-burning natural gas, raising 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 committee's ranking Republican, insisted often 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 close of the hearings.

The EPA reviewed the Boxer-Kerry bill 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.

Still, when the committee's seven Republicans boycotted a markup that began on Nov. 3 in protest of the economic analysis, Boxer went ahead with the mark-up but stated that a full EPA analysis would be available before the bill passes to the full Senate.

Meanwhile, other Senate committees will have a hand in the climate legislation as well.

With numerous possibilities for delay, Kerry and many others said the timeline maybe too tight for the bill to become law before global climate talks in Copenhagen in December.