Posted on 06/28/2005 6:34:49 AM PDT by bluebeak
WASHINGTON - For the third time in four years, the Senate is certain to produce an energy bill embraced by Republicans and Democrats. But its chance of becoming law depends on hard bargaining with House GOP leaders more favorable to industry.
After finishing most work on the Senate bill late last week, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist scheduled a final vote on the measure Tuesday. Both Republicans and Democrats predicted approval.
But the Senate bill deliberately skirts some of the most contentious energy issues facing Congress.
The legislation says nothing about drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, although that's a top priority of the Bush administration and House GOP leaders.
And unlike the House bill, it is silent on giving aid to larger oil companies and refiners who want protection against environmental lawsuits because one of their products, the gasoline additive MTBE, has contaminated drinking water in hundreds of communities. House leaders have insisted an MTBE waiver be part of energy legislation.
More environmentally friendly than the energy bill passed by the House in April, the Senate measure would funnel 40 percent of some $18 billion in tax breaks over 10 years to boost renewable energy sources such as wind and biomass. The Senate bill also would try to reduce energy consumption through tax incentives for efficient appliances and homes and for gas-electric hybrid cars.
Other fights are expected with the House over how much corn-based ethanol refiners would have to use — 8 million gallons a year in the Senate version vs. 5 million under the House bill — and whether utilities should have to produce at least 10 percent of their electricity from wind, solar or other renewable energy sources.
The cost of the Senate package also is expected to be an issue.
It would cost $16 billion over 10 years, according to a preliminary analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, compared to about $8 billion for the House bill. The White House wanted a $6.7 billion price tag. The House version is somewhat misleading, however, since it relies on $2.6 billion in revenue, not yet certain to be approved, from oil leases in the Alaska wildfire refuge.
"It's going to be a tough conference (with the House)," said Sen. Pete Domenici (news, bio, voting record), R-N.M., who was the bill's floor leader and saw months of tough negotiations go for naught two years ago. Then, the Senate also passed legislation that differed sharply from what had been approved by the House. After weeks of closed-door discussions, a compromise emerged only to have it fall apart in the Senate over the MTBE issue.
The Senate also passed energy legislation in 2002, when Democrats were in the majority, but saw efforts to get a compromise with the House evaporate when Republicans regained their majority in the Senate in that's year's November election.
The Senate bill, cobbled together during months of behind-the-scenes discussions and two weeks of floor debate, was viewed by its supporters as an attempt to expand and diversify the country's energy supply and reduce its reliance on oil.
How successful the effort will be is anybody's guess. Sen. Richard Durbin (news, bio, voting record), D-Ill., argued that little progress can be made to wean Americans off foreign oil unless cars are required to be more fuel efficient. His attempt to include sharp increases in auto fuel economy was soundly defeated.
The bill would, however:
_Provide government backing for new energy technologies, like next-generation nuclear reactors, clean coal systems and devices that capture carbon from burning fossil fuels.
_Provide $1 billion to help states repair coastlines and estuaries damaged by offshore oil drilling.
_Launch an inventory of Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas resources including those protected by a drilling ban.
_Establish federal authority over the location of terminals for importing liquid natural gas.
Republicans in the Senate = Polish Tanks (i.e. don't come any closer or I'll shoot as they drive in reverse)
So the AP is already blaming the Republican House. Typical.
Of course the Rats never oppose anything.
ANWR-- A totally political waste of time with no impact on our long term (or hell, even short term) energy needs. It's a joke.
it is silent on giving aid to larger oil companies and refiners
GOOD! What the hell do I want to let the gubmint and they're oil company buddies (a redundancy at the moment, I guess) pick my pockets. Like I don't have my own stinking liabilities to look out for. Screw you!
the Senate measure would funnel 40 percent of some $18 billion in tax breaks over 10 years to boost renewable energy sources such as wind and biomass.
Pick my pocket some more. No wonder we have growing deficits.
The Senate bill also would try to reduce energy consumption through tax incentives for efficient appliances and homes and for gas-electric hybrid cars.
Yes, let's give more taxpayer money to huge corporations. Yeah, that makes sense!
how much corn-based ethanol refiners would have to use — 8 million gallons a year in the Senate version vs. 5 million under the House bill — and whether utilities should have to produce at least 10 percent of their electricity from wind, solar or other renewable energy sources.
Gubmint control of energy. Nice. So, remind me, what does conservatism stand for? Heterosexuality and democracy? Is that all we got left?
Re the MTBE liability relief - the energy companies have a real point on this one. They were pushed into using MTBE by the EPA and now the fed govt wants to allow the liability for the EPAs mistake to fall on the energy companies.
As far as the rest - no tax incentives should be necessary. Let a technology stand or fall on its own merits and costs.
That's not true. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA) require the use of oxygenated gasoline in areas with unhealthy levels of air pollution. The CAA does not specifically require MTBE. Refiners may choose to use other oxygenates, such as ethanol.
So, the companies chose to use MTBE and because there may be liability issues involved, the taxpayer should pick up the check?? Screw that!
True, but there's this - ethanol is not harmless, either.
From the Europeans, who are doing the same things re oxygenates that we are:
The car industry and the oil industry do not want to use ethanol for technical reasons. It is a fact that they consider MTBE to be a far better compound than ethanol: this is documented for instance in the World Wide Fuel Charter developed by all the world car maker associations. Concerning the environmental impact of ethanol, the Danish EPA recently mentioned that use of ethanol could cause a remarkable increase (50-70%) in the release of acetaldehyde, which is classified as a respiratory irritant in the EU and is categorised as a possible human carcinogen by WHO (IARC Group 2B). Adding ethanol to gasoline will also increase the volatility of the gasoline and thereby cause an increase in the emission of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Technically and environmentally, MTBE is a far better compound than ethanol.
So - get rid of MTBE, use more ethanol, have more liability problems. No win, either way.
Let me call a waaaaambulance. That ain't my problem. Don't pick my pocket. I'm sure the oil companies pay lawyers. Unless the oil companies want to help me pay my car insurance, house insurance, and all the other liabilities I have to look out for, they can kiss my @ss. Why the hell would I want to pay their bills???
I think your anger is misplaced. Blame it on the EPA and the environmentalists, not the oil refiners.
The cost of gasoline is partly so high because of all of the supply issues caused by so many gasoline formulations and ever-changing regulations (not to mention taxes, of course). You put all this liability on the oil companies, you'll be paying $$$$ more a gallon for gas. If the refiners were solely responsible, I's say yeah, go for it with the liability, but you want the government to keep proposing regulations that cause liabilities ?
No matter what, the taxpayer/consumer is going to be paying for all this stupidity. The only difference is, if you allow sole liability on the refiners, all the trial lawers get fat fees and consumers will pay the costs at the pump. If you place part of the responsibility back on the government, the trial lawyers don't get quite so rich but your local/state taxes will have to be used in part for cleanup.
Which do you prefer ?
As for me, I'd rather place part of the blame on the gov't, which may make some people wake up and stop demanding EPA action until the science says it's OK.
Four years to get a 85-12 passage in the Senate. Now off to conference committee for reconciliation with the House. I wonder which 12 senators opposed the energy bill.
Corzine, Feingold, Gregg, Kyl, Lautenburg, Martinez, McCain, Nelson FL, Reed, Schumer, Sununu, and Wyden
Dodd, Lieberman, and Sessions did not vote.
How about I keep myself and my bank account out of it altogether? I like that idea much better. Anger's got nothing to do with it. Why the hell should taxpayers basically write off business losses for oil companies or banks or anyone else for that matter? Because we require oxygenated gasoline? No way. What makes you want to screw the taxpayer?
but you want the government to keep proposing regulations that cause liabilities ?
I want private businesses to assume their own risks. Simple.
all the trial lawers get fat fees and consumers will pay the costs at the pump. If you place part of the responsibility back on the government, the trial lawyers don't get quite so rich
LOL. As if the gubmint doesn't have its own high priced lawyers.
My idea is simple. Private business assumes its own risk.
Yeah and where were they when the Democrats nuked the President's first energy package proposal?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.