Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
What will $16 billion buy? A Senate energy plan
Bill passes 85-12, but it differs sharply from House version
Updated: 10:34 a.m. ET June 28, 2005
WASHINGTON - For the third time in four years, the Senate on Tuesday approved 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.
The bill had overwhelming support among senators, passing 85-12, but it 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.
Lawsuit waiver an issue
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 also funnel 40 percent of some $18 billion in tax breaks over 10 years to boost renewable energy sources such as wind, solar 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.
Senate bill twice as costly
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 wildlife refuge.
“It’s going to be a tough conference (with the House),” said Sen. Pete Domenici, 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.
Other details of the Senate bill include:
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.
Past efforts
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, 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.
What will $16 billion buy? A Senate energy plan
Bill passes 85-12, but it differs sharply from House version
Updated: 10:34 a.m. ET June 28, 2005
WASHINGTON - For the third time in four years, the Senate on Tuesday approved 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.
The bill had overwhelming support among senators, passing 85-12, but it 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.
Lawsuit waiver an issue
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 also funnel 40 percent of some $18 billion in tax breaks over 10 years to boost renewable energy sources such as wind, solar 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.
Senate bill twice as costly
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 wildlife refuge.
“It’s going to be a tough conference (with the House),” said Sen. Pete Domenici, 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.
Other details of the Senate bill include:
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.
Past efforts
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, 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 Senate has it right on this one, but I am sure the House will shoot it down since it is basically a Bush arm.
Attempts at increasing fuel economy have been shot down for 30 years. The only way to get the auto industry to change is to force them, but they always come back with whines about losing jobs which is a red herring.
If they let the oil companies off on MTBE it will be criminal. MTBE is a byproduct of the refining process, it also happens to be an oxygenate. Oil companies were removing it from gas when Bob Dole came along and made it law that all gas had to have an oxygenate added to "burn cleaner" (he tacked it onto the federal clean air act). Dole figured everyone would pick to buy corn to to satisfy that need, Kansas would benefit, they'd love him.
LOts of states just started controlling the MTBE level instead of taking it out, and now we have all the water contamination.
Every change they ever made they passed on to us with charges, it's expensive to take MTBE out, then they charged us to add it back in, when they weren't even adding it, just not removing it. If they now don't have to pay a dime for cleanup, when they're all making record profits because of gas prices, it'll be criminal.
If they let the oil companies off on MTBE it will be criminal. MTBE is a byproduct of the refining process, it also happens to be an oxygenate. Oil companies were removing it from gas when Bob Dole came along and made it law that all gas had to have an oxygenate added to "burn cleaner" (he tacked it onto the federal clean air act). Dole figured everyone would pick to buy corn to to satisfy that need, Kansas would benefit, they'd love him.
LOts of states just started controlling the MTBE level instead of taking it out, and now we have all the water contamination.
Every change they ever made they passed on to us with charges, it's expensive to take MTBE out, then they charged us to add it back in, when they weren't even adding it, just not removing it. If they now don't have to pay a dime for cleanup, when they're all making record profits because of gas prices, it'll be criminal.
Linear Mode
