Energy Legislation

Coalition for Affordable and Reliable Energy ^ | 7/30/03 | Paul Oakley

[Luke1]

Right now, the U.S. Senate is considering a comprehensive energy bill that would have a big impact on electricity in your state. It's really important that the bill includes provisions that maintain coal as a reliable and affordable source of fuel so that we can have plenty of affordable electricity and reduce our dependence on foreign fuel sources.

However it looks like there may be some senators that try to add amendments that will dramatically drive up the cost of making electricity. You can learn more at http://www.CAREenergy.com or you can write your Senator at http://63.66.87.48/cweb4/index.cfm?orgcode=CEPUB Thanks for your support!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Calpowercrisis:

To find all articles tagged or indexed using Calpowercrisis, click below:
	click here >>>	Calpowercrisis	<<< click here
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)

[citizen]

So what's up witth this bill?

What are the enviro whackos trying to do to us?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Do you have more detail on the specifics as to what is being contemplated?

Everyone using Natural Gas will drive our cost of Electricity sky high!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I am not sure, some Senators trying to impose some of the Koyoto Plan on us I suspect!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Related article:

GOP Senators Blame Nature for Climate Change

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

ping!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

The Link includes this:

The Coalition for Affordable and Reliable Energy (CARE) viewed the passage of the House bill as "bringing the country one step closer to a more secure energy future." As for the Senate bill currently being considered, CARE opposes Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) and greenhouse gas admissions amendments which would reduce energy supplies and increase costs.

[FreeLibertarian]

It looks like CARE has an agenda of insuring that coal is used as the sole source for generating electrical power. It should certainly be one source but nuclear, wind, and solar should be given a boost. I don't support CARE's position.

[snopercod]

Congressional Research Service Summary.

Better read this, folks.

[MD_Willington_1976]

The PBMR (PEBBLE BED MODULAR REACTOR) is the way to go...There are plenty of places in the USA that no one will ever live in, these places are prime for new technology nuclear power plants...

http://www.pbmr.co.za/3_pbmr_technical_info/3_1gen_description.htm

http://www.pbmr.co.za/2_about_the_pbmr/2_3how_it_works.htm

http://www.pbmr.co.za/2_about_the_pbmr/2_3how_it_works.htm#Reactor%20Operation

[FreeLibertarian]

I read it. It seems a lot better than I was afraid it would be.

[snopercod]

Did I not read nuclear fuel reprocessing in there?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

However it looks like there may be some senators that try to add amendments that will dramatically drive up the cost of making electricity.

Maybe the amendments don't show up on your linked summary?

[FreeLibertarian]

Here are Care's comments on the amendments.

CARE Letter Urges Senators to Reject Energy Bill Ammendments


This letter was sent by Paul Oakley, the Executive Director of the Coalition for Affordable and Reliable Energy (CARE) to all members of the U.S. Senate in anticipation of the Senate resuming consideration of S. 14, the Energy Policy Act.

July 24, 2003

Dear Senator x:

The Coalition for Affordable and Reliable Energy (CARE) strongly urges you to oppose any amendments that would require mandatory greenhouse gas emissions controls or reporting schemes, or impose a federal "Renewable Portfolio Standard" (RPS) when the Senate resumes consideration of S. 14, the Energy Policy Act of 2003. Such harmful mandates would dramatically increase energy costs for families and businesses, put reliable energy supplies at risk, and threaten American jobs and the economy.

More than half of the electricity generated in the United States today comes from coal. But imposing Kyoto-like greenhouse gas emissions controls - particularly caps on CO2 emissions, which are not a pollutant under the Clean Air Act - would force many coal-based power plants to either shut down or switch from using coal to using more expensive and less available natural gas. Capping CO2 emissions alone would cost nearly 1 million American jobs, according to the independent Energy Information Administration. Further, imposing a broad, complex and costly greenhouse gas reporting scheme on America’s businesses and industry would place severe burdens on our economy and merely serve as the first step down the road to mandatory emission controls.

CARE supports the use of a diverse mix of domestic energy resources, including renewable forms of energy. However, many electric power suppliers will not be able to meet a one-size-fits-all RPS mandate and would be forced to purchase higher cost renewable energy from other suppliers or pay for government-issued energy credits. Both options would result in higher energy prices for consumers and businesses. A federal RPS mandate would also undermine decisions already made by many individual states regarding the proportion of renewable fuels that best enables them to meet their particular energy needs.

America needs a national energy policy that promotes our energy independence and ensures reliable supplies of affordable energy that are essential to economic growth. An energy plan cannot be effective if it is burdened with mandates that would increase costs and restrict supplies for consumers and businesses.

Again, I urge you to oppose amendments to S. 14 that would require mandatory greenhouse gas emissions controls and reporting regimes, or impose a federal renewable portfolio standard for the generation of electricity.

Sincerely,


Paul C. Oakley
Executive Director