Archives

The measure marks a dramatic turn for U.S. energy policy (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-na congress5aug05,1,1104116.story)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/GHG_-_Earth_Photo.jpg Noam N. Levey & Richard Simon – Chicago Tribune – August 5, 2007

WASHINGTON — Pushing to chart a new national energy policy, House Democrats on Saturday passed legislation that would require the nation's utilities to generate more electricity from clean-energy sources, such as the wind and the sun.

And in another indicator of the changed political landscape on Capitol Hill, they stripped the oil and gas industries of $16 billion in tax incentives and voted to apply those tax breaks to efforts to spur production of cleaner forms of energy.

The energy measures passed in a final burst of activity before lawmakers were to adjourn for their summer recess this weekend.

Late Saturday, the House also modified the Foreign Intelligence Services Act. The changes, a concession to the White House that was strongly opposed by liberal Democrats, would expand the authority of U.S. spy agencies to monitor overseas phone calls and e-mails. The measure passed 227 to 183 — with Republicans providing 186 of the "yes" votes.

The House also approved as much as $255 million in emergency aid for repairs of the Interstate 35W bridge that collapsed Wednesday in Minneapolis.

The energy legislation, part of a broad energy package that congressional Democrats hope to send to the president later this year, would mark the first time the federal government had set a national standard for so-called renewables.

If enacted, the measure would mandate that utilities generate about 15% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020. Power plants account for about a third of the carbon dioxide emissions — the leading contributor to global warming — in the United States.

"We are turning toward the future," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), who has made legislation to combat global warming a priority. "This beautiful planet is God's gift to us. We have a moral responsibility to preserve it."

The renewable-energy bill passed 241-172, with 26 Republicans joining Democrats on Saturday to back the new standard. The tax package passed 221-189, with nine Republicans joining Democrats.

The California delegation split along party lines, with Democrats voting in favor and Republicans opposed. Reps. Duncan Hunter (R-El Cajon) and Tom Lantos (D-Burlingame) did not vote.

The House energy legislation must still be reconciled with an energy bill that passed the Senate in June — a version without a renewable requirement or the removal of oil industry tax breaks. And the White House had threatened a veto, criticizing the bill Friday as failing to address high energy costs or promote domestic energy production.

But the measure marks a dramatic turn for U.S. energy policy and is a sharp contrast to the energy bill passed in 2005 by the Republican-controlled Congress.

That legislation emphasized greater production of traditional energy sources, such as coal, oil and nuclear power.

The House bill is the counterpart to the Senate's energy legislation, which passed in June and contains provisions to increase the average-fuel-efficiency requirements for cars for the first time in nearly two decades.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-na-congress5aug05,1,1104116.story

Follow-up to article:

Here is a comparison of highlights in the energy legislation passed Saturday by the House and the bill approved by the Senate in June. The two will have to be merged.

TAXES

-- House calls for $16 billion in new taxes on oil companies over 10 years by removing several of the industry's tax breaks. Senate bill has no tax provisions.

RENEWABLE ENERGY

-- House calls for incentives to build biomass factories and for research into cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel. Senate has similar provisions.

-- House requires electric utilities to produce 15 percent of electricity from renewable energy sources. Senate has no such requirement.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

-- House has new efficiency standards for appliances, lighting and buildings, and creates bonds to be used by cities and counties for energy conservation. Senate has appliance and lighting efficiency standards.

AUTOMOBILE FUEL ECONOMY

--House bill has nothing on automobile fuel economy. Senate bill increases auto mileage requirement to 35 mpg by 2020 for cars, SUVs and small trucks, about a 40 percent increase.

ETHANOL

-- House bill has no mandate on ethanol use as a replacement for gasoline. Senate requires a sevenfold increase in ethanol use to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022.

-- House provides tax credits for installing E-85 pumps. Senate requires half of new cars manufactured by 2015 be capable of running on E-85.

HYBRID CARS

-- House provides tax breaks, subsidies for research into better batteries for plug-in hybrid cars and up to $4,000 tax credit for purchasing such cars. Senate provides loan guarantees and other assistance for advanced diesel and hybrid battery technology.

CARBON DIOXIDE

-- House calls for an assessment of areas for underground carbon dioxide storage and calls for developing large-scale storage demonstration projects. Senate has similar provision.

ENERGY PRICE GOUGING

-- House bill has no provision. Senate makes it unlawful to charge an "unconscionably excessive" price for oil products, including gasoline.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/08/04/highlights_of_energy_legislation/

Doesn't mention a likely Republican veto.

"They still faced a steady barrage of criticism from House Republicans — and some Democrats — who complained that the legislation did not support the domestic coal, oil and nuclear industries."

Leave climate/environmental issues on the side for now. U.S. proven reserves are only enough to last 3 years without imports. There is simply no way to supply our way out to have any significant impact on oil imports. And these legislators know it. But the corporate gravy train is a beautiful, beautiful siren song that they must obey.

15% renewable electrical energy is rather agressive. I believe that the US doesn't currently produce much more than 15% with all the Nuke plants and probably not much more than 1% with the current wind and solar generation. And with the 'not in my backyard' mentality, good luck getting enough land to do either. A 1000-1500 MW Nuke or Coal plant with modern clean technologys take up alot less space, and are usually built on land the the utilities already own. There would have to be a reason to build additional generation (wind, solar or other) in an area as well, if there isn't much growth, then there is no incentive to spend the money for construction.

"House requires electric utilities to produce 15 percent of electricity from renewable energy sources. Senate has no such requirement."

The most common interpretation of this clause is that most people will think of windmills or solar farms or renewable fuels, but I would like to see the emphasis switched around so that there is increased incentive on harnessing the acres of rooftop space that could be utilized for PV panels. Hopefully this 15% requirement, if passed, gets translated into incentives for consumers.

This would put the focus not on vast utilities, but on individuals (and businesses, and municipalities) who can install panels on their homes, and have a personal stake in the issue. Solar is not perfect, but it's good. My house is perfectly oriented for PV panels, I'm just waiting until it's time for a new roof so I can do it all at once, and perhaps a few more tax breaks to help offset the cost.

ENERGY PRICE GOUGING

-- House bill has no provision. Senate makes it unlawful to charge an "unconscionably excessive" price for oil products, including gasoline.

I really wish politicians were forced to take a basic microeconomics course. There is no such thing as price gouging in competitive markets. If demand exists at a certain price, suppliers would be foolish to accept anything but that price. If the price is "too high," there won't be any demand and suppliers will be forced to lower their prices until they can sell it.

Besides, what/who defines "unconscionably excessive"? It seems that's a moving target judgment call, and only something that can be determined after the fact -- which certainly wouldn't stand up in court. --RN

SUV's and other gas-hogs drive up the price of gasoline. It's a simple case of supply and demand. Yet I don't hear anyone blaming the true culprits of high gasoline prices: the American consumer, and his irrational and selfish preference for gas hogs.

Harry

"House requires electric utilities to produce 15 percent of electricity from renewable energy sources. Senate has no such requirement."

The most common interpretation of this clause is that most people will think of windmills or solar farms or renewable fuels, but I would like to see the emphasis switched around so that there is increased incentive on harnessing the acres of rooftop space that could be utilized for PV panels. Hopefully this 15% requirement, if passed, gets translated into incentives for consumers.

This would put the focus not on vast utilities, but on individuals (and businesses, and municipalities) who can install panels on their homes, and have a personal stake in the issue. Solar is not perfect, but it's good. My house is perfectly oriented for PV panels, I'm just waiting until it's time for a new roof so I can do it all at once, and perhaps a few more tax breaks to help offset the cost.

Actually thats kind of what I was thinking too, I don't believe that it would work without a distributed Wind/Solar system at the consumer level.

15% renewable electrical energy is rather agressive. I believe that the US doesn't currently produce much more than 15% with all the Nuke plants and probably not much more than 1% with the current wind and solar generation.
.....
..... There would have to be a reason to build additional generation (wind, solar or other) in an area as well, if there isn't much growth, then there is no incentive to spend the money for construction.

I think we're currently at about 11% with the biggest chunk being hydroelectric. World wide I think the figure is around 20%. It doesn't seem that aggressive to me.

I don't know details of proposed implementation, but I'm guessing utilities would be allowed to swap credits, so that utilitlies with bad hydro/wind locations could in effect pay places with good hydro/wind sites to develop them.

[...]passed legislation that would require the nation's utilities to generate more electricity from clean-energy sources, such as the wind and the sun.

And in another indicator of the changed political landscape on Capitol Hill, they stripped the oil and gas industries of $16 billion in tax incentives and voted to apply those tax breaks to efforts to spur production of cleaner forms of energy.

Woo hoo!
[/Homer simpson]

Hi All:
And the White House had threatened a veto, criticizing the bill Friday as failing to address high energy costs or promote domestic energy production.
___And I am sure the White House really cares let alone understands the ramifications of that statement? The president and his Administration (minions) must live in a bubble on another planet or something?

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Hi All:

___And the story goes on and on and on …

Levin fights for energy bill changes.

He's enlisting other senators to alter fuel rules in effort to protect jobs, auto production. (http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071018/AUTO01/710180353/1148)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/Senator_Carl_Levin.jpgDavid Shepardson - Detroit News - Oct. 18, 2007

Senator Carl Levin (D-MI.) shown in this “Meet the Press” interview tries to change the Democrats posture when it comes to the upcoming Energy bill’s automaker CAFÉ standards in the congressional battle of the year. -- Ed.

WASHINGTON -- Michigan Sen. Carl Levin and a bipartisan band of senators are mounting a new effort to stave off provisions in the Senate energy bill that the auto industry says could cost carmakers at least $85 billion and threaten 17,000 small-car production jobs in the United States.

Levin, D-Detroit, said he and eight to 10 other senators plan to send letters to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid later this week. The first letter seeks at least four key changes to the Senate bill that will help Detroit automakers meet new fuel rules while protecting U.S. jobs and production.

Another letter will ask Reid to move to formal conference negotiations with the House on an energy bill.

Both Levin and Rep. John Dingell, D-Dearborn, the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, think the formal bipartisan conference will allow them to strike a better deal for Detroit, rather than going through an informal process that would let Democratic leaders push through a tougher bill for automakers.

Fuel fight

Changes to the current Senate fuel economy measures urged by Sen. Carl Levin:
Retain separate standards for light trucks and passenger cars in an "overall combined average."

Give automakers more time to meet new tougher standards.

Extend the flexible fuel credit set to expire in 2010 that gives automakers a 0.9 mpg credit for building vehicles that run on E85, a fuel made of 85 percent ethanol. (The Bush administration is deciding whether to extend it through model year 2014.)

Don't repeal "anti-backsliding" provisions that keep small-car production in the United States.
Automakers face the worst climate on Capitol Hill he's ever seen, Levin said Wednesday: "The auto industry is unpopular."

In June, Levin lost the opening battle in the energy bill war when the Senate passed its first major fuel economy increase in two decades.

By a 65-27 vote, the Senate OK'd a 40 percent increase in a combined fleet-wide fuel economy requirement of 35 miles per gallon by 2020 for passenger cars and light trucks.

The bill as it now stands also would do away with the "two-fleet rule," which maintains different mileage standards for passenger cars and light trucks. It also would end separate calculations for domestic- and foreign-made vehicles, a move the United Auto Workers union say would reduce or end small car production in the United States … http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071018/AUTO01/710180353/1148