Posted on 06/28/2005 8:08:55 AM PDT by GPBurdell
By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer 13 minutes ago
The Senate overwhelmingly approved energy legislation embraced by both Republicans and Democrats Tuesday, but hard bargaining looms with House GOP leaders who favor measures more favorable to industry.
After finishing most work on the bill late last week, the Senate approved the sweeping legislation 85-12. It includes a proposed $18 billion in energy tax breaks, an expansion of ethanol use and measures aimed at increasing natural gas imports to meet growing demand.
But lawmakers acknowledged that the measure would do little, if anything, in the short run to stem the soaring cost of energy including oil that this week has eclipsed $60 a barrel and gasoline that last week averaged $2.22 a gallon at the pump, according to the Energy Department.
"We still have many hurdles to overcome," said Sen. Jeff Bingaman (news, bio, voting record), D-N.M., who led the Democrats in fashioning the massive bill. The bill passed by the House in April differs sharply from the Senate legislation over oil production and the degree of emphasis on conservation.
Sen. Pete Domenici (news, bio, voting record), R-N.M., said the Senate bill would usher in "a new policy for the United States ... that energy should be clean, renewable and that we have conservation" to curtail energy demand. He said it would help assure a broad mix of energy sources in the future from nuclear power to wind energy.
But the Senate deliberately skirted 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. The House-passed bill calls for developing the refuge and assumes $2.6 billion over 10 years in federal revenue from refuge oil lease sales.
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.
The Senate twice before in the last four years has passed energy legislation only to see the effort fall apart without a final agreement. Both GOP and Democratic lawmakers predicted that if a compromise is to be reached with the House and also be acceptable to the Senate, it will require in the close involvement of the White House.
President Bush has called on Congress to give him an energy bill by August. Most senators believe that is unrealistic, given the expected difficult discussions still ahead.
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 Domenici, who as the bill's floor leader had seen months of tough negotiations go for naught two years ago.
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.
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.
___
On the Net:
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee: http://energy.senate.gov/public
White House Council of Environmental Quality: http://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq/index.html
Buzz
Buzz Blog
So the reality is that there is no there, there.
I had a doubletake on this one, I thought I was reading an article from scrappleface! Thanks for posting it!
As far as I'm concerned the Senate got nothing done but pass a watered down do-nothing bill. Until a bill is signed by the President that authorizes more drilling, all of this is just nimbling at the edges of the problem.
We can drill all over this nation and it won't do any good until we increase our refinery capablities..
Sounds like it.
Then I guess the AP and Wash Times need to do some homework as well.
Senate energy bill excludes ANWR oil drilling
Why write an article about something that's not supposed to be there?
But of course no mention that MTBE was used only because the gov't demanded that it be added. Nor that long after one part of the CA gov't had demonstrated clear and covincing harms caused by MTBE, another part of the CA gov't was fighting hard to continue its mandatory use.
Rot in hell, dishonest media.
Stabbed in the back by Senate GOP again. I knew the fix was in the second I saw "overwhelming" in the title.
ping
what good is this bill without ANWR?
I thought we had enough senate votes to win over ANWR, what happened?
My company (a very large one) does alot of business in oil refinery construction, and we're expanding into other fields, including natural gas regassification, coal gassification, clean coal plants (will be BIG), liquefied natural gas reinjection (to provide more efficient pumping of oil, my current project), and even hydrogen processing. If the govt will open nuclear energy back up, we would jump back into that in a heartbeat.
As you noted, the industry will phase itself out of oil-dependency, as it has to. Thats the way things work. There's no crisis really, just shifting markets.
Right. Good point. Need both.
Can someone more familiar than I about the intricacies of the legislative process explain how I'm getting screwed by this bill?
"an expansion of ethanol use"
IE welfare for farmers.
Will this crapola ever end?
Show me a media lie in there. ANWR was part of the energy bill - no if's, and's or but's. Now apparently it's not. I did hear discussion of moving ANWR into the budget bill, but never heard any confirmation of such a move.
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.