The Senate is debating the Energy Bill. I used to think we could depend on the Senate to mitigate the ridiculous excesses of the House. No longer.
From:
E & E DAILY
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Mary O'Driscoll
Senate Energy panel clears coal, vehicles in advance of today's electricity debate
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee yesterday cleared the decks for this morning's anticipated electricity policy debate when it approved energy bill language covering coal, vehicles and fuels, hydrogen, and research and development.
The bill is over 1000 pages long. 200 longer than the 2004 bill. It contains a ton of environmental rollbacks including a vague but sweeping provision to end the public's say about oil and gas drilling on public lands and national forests. But we will get to that when the Committee does.
Today it was cars, coal and electricity.
It seemed the most important work on juice came from NM. My own St. Pete Domenici, Committee Chair, announced that he and Sen. Bingaman (D-NM) had just about wrapped up an electricity policy deal that would allow for a repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA), something the electricity industry has wanted for years. It is my understanding that without PUHCA in the way, mergers and acquisitions of smaller producers would proceed with less oversight and regulation. Bingaman wants FERC to be able to have some authority over mergers but I doubt if that will ever go through. The House version repeals PUHCA in its entirety and gives no authority to FERC. If any of you out there have a better handle on PUHCA, please correct me if I'm wrong.
As for coal, the committee authorized $200 million/year for the "Clean Coal" (um...uh...ok...) initiative. 80% of that is earmarked for coal gasification and other research including integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC).
But the committee added the caveat that there be further discussions on distribution of funding for advanced clean coal research, as some committee members expressed concern that allocating so much of the funding to IGCC would signal favoritism of that technology and choke off funding for other potential clean coal research.
IGCC offers the possibility of sequestering carbon dioxide from coal-burning power plant emissions in an effort to combat global warming. Current practice is that clean coal power initiative funding is not allocated to any specific type of technology, but is awarded only to the winning programs. The House-passed version of the energy bill allocates 60 percent of its clean coal power initiative funding to IGCC research.
The 80 percent funding level for IGCC upset a lot of Senators. Why? Favoritism of one technology over all others.
"I do not believe that government should be in the business of picking winners and losers," Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) said. By putting a "substantial amount of money into one technology, we run the risk of backing one technology too soon," he added.
Although I agree with Sen. Bunning in principle, I think this again shows Republican hypocrisy. After all, isn't this whole Energy Bill about picking one industry - the fossil fuel industry - over all others? Essentially creating winners and losers?
Democrat Ron Wyden of Oregon picked up on this hypocrisy and suggested "funding parity" between coal and renewable energy. Oh the nerve!
"The suggestion clearly irritated Domenici, who called for an immediate committee vote on whether such a "ridiculous" and "absolutely absurd" proposal should be included in the energy bill. "Let's get this kind of amendment out of the way," he said.
After some heated arguing across the aisle, the committee voted the idea down, and Domenici left the dais. When he returned, Domenici apologized, saying he had spent four months working on the bill and felt Wyden's idea came out of nowhere.
"And here we have sprung on us a new philosophy," he said. "It was sprung on us and that's what made Sen. Domenici get upset." Domenici added that he will discuss the funding issues with Wyden.
Domenici may actually talk with Wyden but he wont give in. Funding parity "absurd", "ridiculous"? It's appalling that this was not even taken seriously. Again, I point to these simple stats: the oil and gas industry gets around $50 BILLION/year in tax breaks and subsidies. The solar and wind producers have gotten $145 MILLION since 1945(!). No parity at all and that is why the technologies are so far apart in development. Imagine if we had had parity the past 60 years! Imagine if we had it now!
Reality isn't an option here and I support that by pointing you to Sen. Domenici referring to himself in third person.
Environmentalist gets mad because one of the most powerful men in this nation is losing it.
Sen. Feinstein offered an amendment to close what is known as the "SUV loophole". This gaping abyss keeps light trucks and SUVs from having to adhere to the same CAFÉ standards as cars. Feinstein's amendment failed, 7-15. Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) joined Feinstein to vote for the proposal.
Colorado's Sen. Salazar (I am less and less impressed with this guy...) voted against it as did these Dems: Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Byron Dorgan of North Dakota and Tim Johnson of South Dakota. Here is an outtake from Salazar's statement defending his vote:
I do not want anyone to think that I am against increasing the fuel economy of the United States. In fact, I very much support increasing the efficiency of all vehicles in America, because better efficiency will directly reduce our dependency on foreign oil.
Ya, um so...why are you against the Feinstein Amendment?
...because the agricultural community in Colorado is worried that Sen. Feinstein's amendment will cause the price of their working vehicles to rise.
Is there anything to substantiate that fear? Salazar goes on to say that he supports raising the CAFE standards in a way that reduces our dependence on foreign oil while not hurting farmers. But, he offers no proposals.
Salazar is increasingly pissing me off.
Domenici said there is no Senate appetite for an increase in CAFE standards...
And that reflects on what a sad position we are in in this debate. Logic has flitted out the door. Even a minimal increase in CAFÉ standards would save our nation millions of barrels of oil, decreasing our reliance on foreign supplies and also negating the need to drill the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
But I give Domenici credit for seeing a pinpoint of light on this:
Though several of his fellow Republicans lamented that increasing CAFE standards would force closure of plants around the country, putting thousands of people out of work, Domenici said Feinstein's amendment "is not what's going to destroy those jobs."
The automakers, he said, "have not done the right thing in producing the kinds of automobiles people want."
"They're going to buy hybrid cars, and we're not ready to manufacture them," Domenici said. "They don't have them, and the American people want them."
[emphasis mine]
That's right folks! Our backwards-looking energy policy is increasingly hurting the American economy. Even Domenici sees this!!! Of course, the majority of Republicans just don't get it, crying that CAFÉ standards would put thousands out of work. Well, duh, even without CAFÉ "on their backs" the US Auto industry aint doing so well.
Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) offered that the market, not the federal government, should dictate what kinds of cars people drive. And the market has sent a clear signal that the automakers are on the wrong track, he said, because their stocks are now trading at junk bond status.
Sen. Jon Corzine (D-N.J.), a former Wall Street trader, said the automakers' junk bond status more likely will have the effect of taking capital away from investing in new plants to meet consumers' desire for hybrid and fuel-efficient vehicles.
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) said the market should be working, but it is important for the Senate to make a public interest statement, particularly as people are losing their jobs and pensions.
"We have not responded with fuel efficiency in the marketplace," she said. "Our national interest demands we create a catalyst. We don't want to lose jobs, but frankly, that's what we we're losing now."
So, setting aside the environmental arguments against the Energy Bill in favor of economic ones, this STILL does not make sense for the nation. It only makes sense for a few extraordinarily wealthy people - and for the dictatorships of the Middle East. Jobs, as well as future economic growth spread throughout the nation, does not seem to hit home to the Republicans NOR many of the Democrats. Neither does this get us anywhere close to energy security. The longer we stay addicted to fossil fuels the better grip the Saudis will have on us in the future.
Call you Senators Kossacks.
This crap is unacceptable.