The next great side show coming from Washington will be the energy bill….after the health debate runs its course then energy will replace it as the stuff lies are built on…will it be the same as the health debate? Or will it be a civil discussion? It will most likely be a lot of things but civil is not one of them.
I would like to help my readers be prepared for the song and the dance of the next “great” debate…..ENERGY.
But I will bet that you, my reader, is asking what is the debate going to be? A good question and I have a good answer for you. There are three plans that should be considered; one from the Dems, then one from the GOP and then l;astly the yellow dogs…oh my bad the Blue Dogs……
First, the Dems plan:
The most aggressive provision in the legislation aimed at curtailing U.S. oil consumption is language requiring auto manufacturers to build cars that use less fuel. But the language requiring an increase in corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE, standards for vehicles and light trucks to 35 miles per gallon by 2020s is expected to face fierce opposition from Democratic lawmakers hailing from Michigan, home to the domestic auto industry.
The bill’s other significant provision would ramp up the federal renewable fuels mandate enacted in the 2005 energy bill and require 36 billion gallons of renewable biofuels to replace fossil fuels in the nation’s fuel supplies annually by 2022. The current standard sets a goal of 8.5 billion gallons per year in 2008.
The biofuels proposal would also move production away from corn-based ethanol, which was the big winner under the Republican-drafted biofuels agreement. The legislation would require cellulosic ethanol alternatives that rely on grasses and agricultural waste to be used to meet 60% of the increase in renewable fuel production in 2022.
The bill contains a host of other modest conservation and efficiency measures that would improve energy efficiency for light bulbs and home appliances, encourage research for so-called clean-coal technology, and set a national goal for reducing gasoline consumption.
The bill is also noteworthy for what it doesn’t contain — language addressing climate change and a cap on greenhouse-gas emissions created by burning fossil fuels. Democrats have steadfastly pushed for climate-change provisions in past Republican energy bills.
This bill is similar to the health bill and the financial bill…it is a tweak not a REFORM.
Then we move on to the plan of the GOP…..their proposal is called the American Energy Act:
Both the Presidential and Congressional moratoriums were lifted last year and the previous Administration published a draft leasing program to lease previously unavailable Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) areas. The current Administration has delayed the draft leasing program. This bill would put the leasing program in place immediately to facilitate the environmentally responsible development of these additional OCS areas.
Directs the Interior Secretary to establish a competitive oil and gas leasing program in the Arctic Coastal Plain to be conducted in an environmentally-sound manner. The bill repeals a prohibition against the production of oil and gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Before conducting the first lease sale, the Secretary would prepare a NEPA impact statement with respect to the actions authorized by this subtitle.
Requires the Secretary to hold a lease sale within 180 days of enactment, offering 10 parcels for lease for research, development, and demonstration of oil shale resources, under the terms offered in the solicitation of bids published on January 15, 2009.
Allows the EPA Administrator to authorize financial assistance to facilitate the hiring of personnel with experience in fields relevant to consideration of Federal refinery authorizations. A Federal agency would also be able to provide technical, legal, or other nonfinancial assistance to a State or tribe to facilitate its consideration of Federal refinery authorizations.
Provides competitively awarded cash prizes to advance the research, development, demonstration, and commercial application of innovative energy technologies and new energy sources. The bill allows funding for the prizes to come from appropriated funds, provided by the administering entity, or funds raised through grants or donations. The bill prohibits the Federal government from being entitled to any intellectual property rights derived as a consequence of awarding a prize. The bill requires that a portion of the funds in the American Renewable and Alternative Energy Trust Fund be available to carry out the prize program. Finally, the bill prohibits any prize money from being taxed by any Federal, State, or local authority.
Authorizes an accelerated regulatory process for new reactor applicants, which meet certain conditions, in order to cut the time needed to permit new plants by roughly 50 percent. Under the two-year program, eligible applications must:
Include a design already certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC);
Include a site at a location already licensed for operating reactors,
Be submitted by an operator in good standing with the NRC;
Have a full and complete Combined Operations and Construction License application; and
Demonstrate a financial commitment to secure long-lead components.
Expands an existing energy investment tax credit for renewable energy equipment to include nuclear and clean-coal equipment. The bill clarifies that no “double benefit” can be received by collecting both the investment tax credit and the existing production credit for nuclear power.
There you go Repubs are heavy on helping the oil industry retain its strangle hold on the economy and as usual, there is the proposal for tax cuts and incentives. And as usual they are in the pocket of the nuke industry.
Even Obama is talking about clean coal….there is NO such thing….one can try to clean up the emissions but NO coal is clean burning. The term “clean coal” is referring to the technology of controlling the emissions.
Analysis from the Center for American Progress Action Fund (CAPAF) of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), which passed in the House, explained why the bill is so popular. Provisions in the bill designed to offset higher energy prices for typical consumers would reduce energy bills by $63 billion between 2012 and 2020, if implemented this year.
According to recent media reports, right-wing led business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) have financed congressional lobbying and national media campaigns to block the bill, claiming that controlling pollution would harm profit margins.
The impact of this multi-million dollar campaign has been felt. A Senate version of the climate change bill excludes mandatory renewable energy standards. And in a call for “bipartisanship,” Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., is pushing for a climate change bill far weaker than the bill he supported in the last session of Congress and that provides major exceptions for the coal and nuclear energy sectors.
A recent survey released earlier this month revealed that more than six in 10 voters in the home states of 16 Senators who may cast key votes on climate change legislation support a bill like the one already passed by the House of Representatives. Voters also said they would be likely to vote for their Senator in the 2010 elections if they voted for such a bill.
My point is when this debate heats up it will be an argument for retaining coal or helping the environment…the health bill and debate may be a precursor to the next great debate…ENERGY.