NationStates Jolt Archive

House Approves Energy Bill
Published: 12/6/07, 6:05 PM EDT
By H. JOSEF HEBERT
(AP) - WASHINGTON - The House approved the first increase in federal automobile fuel efficiency requirements in three decades Thursday as part of an energy bill that also repeals billions of dollars in oil company tax breaks and encourages the use of renewable fuels.

The bill, passed by a vote of 235-181, faces a certain filibuster in the Senate and a veto threat from the White House.

Democrats characterized the legislation as "a new direction" in U.S. energy policy away from dependence on fossil fuels. But Republicans said the actions amount to government mandates that would lead to higher energy prices while doing little to spur production of more domestic oil or natural gas - fuels they say will remain essential for decades to come.

"We will send our energy dollars to the Midwest, not the Middle East," countered House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, referring to the bill's emphasis on promoting renewable energy sources, especially ethanol, which would see a sevenfold increase by 2022 to 36 billion gallons a year.

"The point of this is, are we about the past or are we about the future," declared Pelosi, D-Calif.

The bill would roll back $13.5 billion in tax breaks enjoyed by the five largest U.S. oil companies with the money to be used for tax incentives for development of renewable energy sources like ethanol from grasses and wood chips and biodiesel and for energy efficiency programs and conservation.

"There's nothing in here that's going to lower gas prices in America ... nothing that is going to help American families deal with heating costs this winter ... nothing to increase production," complained Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio.

The centerpiece of the bill is a requirement to boost automobile fuel economy by 40 percent to an industry average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, the first such increase since 1975, when Congress enacted the federal auto fuel economy requirements.

Pelosi garnered enough support to assure passage by working out a deal with Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., a longtime staunch protector of the auto industry. Dingell more than a year ago warned auto executives the tide had turned on fuel economy and it was inevitable that stricter requirements were in the offing. He got some concessions to help the industry in return for his support of the bill.

White House Press Secretary Dana Perino called the House-passed bill "misguided" and unacceptable.

"Their proposal would raise taxes and increase energy prices for Americans. That is a misguided approach and if it made it to the president's desk, he would veto it," she said.

The White House in an earlier statement called the proposed taxes on the oil companies unfairly "punitive" to a single industry and said the requirement for electric utilities nationwide to use renewable fuels such as wind and solar to generate 15 percent of their electricity would be harmful to some regions of the country where there is little wind or solar energy potential, resulting in higher electricity costs.

Pelosi was determined to get the bill through the House this week with Senate action likely next week before lawmakers depart for the holiday recess.

Her decision to insist on including the tax increases on oil companies - costing them $13.5 billion in taxes over 10 years - surprised even some environmentalists and set the stage for a contentious fight in the Senate where Republican leaders have indicated they will try to strip it from the bill.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said Thursday an energy bill could pass the Senate, but without the "twin millstones of tax hikes and utility bill increases around its neck."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada told reporters he will move quickly to take up the bill if it passes the House. When asked about its prospects, Reid said, "I don't know. We're going to try very hard."

At a news conference after the vote, Pelosi declined to speculate what might happen if the Senate were to remove the tax provisions, or the renewable fuel requirement power companies.

"I don't think anybody can predict what will happen in the Senate," she said and then added, "We will have a bill."

The $21 billion tax package, essential to finance much of the initiatives in the bill, was worked out in consultation with the Senate Finance Committee, which earlier this year proposed nearly $32 billion in new energy taxes. Republicans kept the tax provision from being included in an energy bill passed by the Senate in June.

Senate Democrats last summer also were unable to get the renewable electricity requirements into the bill because of a threatened GOP filibuster.


How long do you think this one will last? I'm sure oil lobbists are at the
phones non-stop telling their puppets to stop it at all costs.

While some of it is a little extreme, some of the ideas in there are well over do.

I personally LOVE removing the tax breaks for Big Oil.

Ah, but there might be less fight from the fuel-guzzling pickup lobby, seeing as demand for pickups has all but collapsed.

True, at least they have realized it.

Who wants to bet this gets a veto?

The irony is probably that these days it seems the only person keeping fuel prices high is George W Bush (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7132225.stm).

I can think of a much better way of lowering oil prices for all those concerned republicans.

Since when is any of this any of government's business anyway?

I say veto the shit out of it.

Since when is any of this any of government's business anyway?

I say veto the shit out of it.
Funny, so you don't mind things continuing the way they are?

With companies that are causing the problems getting huge tax breaks, remaing a dependence on oversea's oil, and continuing to contribute to climate change.

Right...

The irony is probably that these days it seems the only person keeping fuel prices high is George W Bush (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7132225.stm).

I can think of a much better way of lowering oil prices for all those concerned republicans.

YEAH! Because as everyone knows, Bush sets the OPEC prices!!!

...wait... ok maye not but he's the one who wants to raise the Gas TAX!!!!

...no... that's Democrats... ok but Bush raises Federal gas tax!!!

...no... didn't do that either... then he um... I know.. STEALING IRAQI OIL!!!

no wait... we're buying that... uh... OOH he's refusing to allow new refineries to be built!!!!

no... that's environmentalist lobbies... but Bush opposes drilling in Alaska to increase the supply to lower prices!!

no... he supports drilling in Alaska...

hmm.

Wait... what?

Who wants to bet this gets a veto?

No bet

Funny, so you don't mind things continuing the way they are?

With companies that are causing the problems getting huge tax breaks,
All taxation is illegitimate anyway.

remaing a dependence on oversea's oil,
Not the government's concern.

and continuing to contribute to climate change.
Not the government's concern.

YEAH! Because as everyone knows, Bush sets the OPEC prices!!!

...wait... ok maye not but he's the one who wants to raise the Gas TAX!!!!

...no... that's Democrats... ok but Bush raises Federal gas tax!!!

...no... didn't do that either... then he um... I know.. STEALING IRAQI OIL!!!

no wait... we're buying that... uh... OOH he's refusing to allow new refineries to be built!!!!

no... that's environmentalist lobbies... but Bush opposes drilling in Alaska to increase the supply to lower prices!!

no... he supports drilling in Alaska...

hmm.

Wait... what?


Surprisingly, playing dumb doesn't make you appear intelligent.

If you'd read the article you'd see that prices fell 10% soley because Bush's casus belli against Iran was shown once again to be total bunk.

But you know - waging war on two middle east countries and threatening a third won't do anything to oil prices. How naive of me to assume otherwise. Bush is a real hero when it comes to the price of oil. Thanks for your intelligent post proving me wrong.

All taxation is illegitimate anyway.

Do you drive? If so you shouldn't be allowed to use government roads, after all Taxes are what made them XD.

Go away stupid Libertarian.

Surprisingly, playing dumb doesn't make you appear intelligent.

If you'd read the article you'd see that prices fell 10% soley because Bush's casus belli against Iran was shown once again to be total bunk.

But you know - waging war on two middle east countries and threatening a third won't do anything to oil prices. How naive of me to assume otherwise. Bush is a real hero when it comes to the price of oil. Thanks for your intelligent post proving me wrong.

The biggest factor influencing the cost of oil is supply and demand. This is basic economics. Market forces have their effect but ultimately if you want a lasting solution to the oil price you have to either reduce demand or increase supply. The President does NOT have direct control over this.

Making cars more efficient isn't going to make a whit of difference. If the law gets passed then the new standards won't be enforced for years to give the technology time to be developed. That does NOTHING to help in the short term. It doesn't really help in the long term either as demand for oil is expected to continue to rise faster than these economy restrictions can counteract.

Also, you think tighter efficiency technology is free? Get ready to pay more for that car. We saw this in the 80s when emmissions requirements came to town.

The only real solution, until we can develop an alternative power source as a viable alternative, is to increase the supply and reduce the reliance on the very people who are charging such high prices to export oil.

In the meantime, why not repeal federal gas tax? Why not repeal state gas tax? Guess which political party wants to RAISE those taxes? Here's a hint: It's not the party Bush belongs to.

But hey, if blaming the President is what makes you happy then knock yourself out. It's a lot easier than thinking for yourself.

Do you drive? If so you shouldn't be allowed to use government roads, after all Taxes are what made them XD.


The government shouldn't be building and maintaining roads in the first place.

The biggest factor influencing the cost of oil is supply and demand. This is basic economics. Market forces have their effect but ultimately if you want a lasting solution to the oil price you have to either reduce demand or increase supply. The President does NOT have direct control over this.

An overly simplistic and ultimitly not very useful analysis.

An overly simplistic and ultimitly not very useful analysis.

I have to agree with you here. There is simply no denying that millitary conflict and terrorism in the middle east has raised oil prices.

Now for other expensive fuels!

Let's look at Ethanol:

-It's incredibly expensive. Even after subsidies, the cost is around $5.00 a gallon.
-Production is limited by the amount of land/Corn yield available, which is not great enough to produce all the ethanol needed in America. This is saying something, as America has a lot of land.
-In addition to the cost of the ethanol, ethanol production will also drive up food costs (Corn), so any Iraqi/Iranian children you save will be made up for by more dead African ones.
-Ethanol engine are mechanically inferior to Gasoline ones. So you're expecting customers to go for an inferior product.
-Before you say woodchips may I remind you that if the energy yield from those is as great as people say, they would be an excellent source of carbohydrates and therefore we wouldn't need to farm in the first place. We would just eat woodchips.
-AND ETHANOL STILL PRODUCES CARBON DIOXIDE!

EV's anyone?

I have to agree with you here. There is simply no denying that millitary conflict and terrorism in the middle east has raised oil prices.

Now for other expensive fuels!

Let's look at Ethanol:

-It's incredibly expensive. Even after subsidies, the cost is around $5.00 a gallon.
-Production is limited by the amount of land/Corn yield available, which is not great enough to produce all the ethanol needed in America. This is saying something, as America has a lot of land.
-In addition to the cost of the ethanol, ethanol production will also drive up food costs (Corn), so any Iraqi/Iranian children you save will be made up for by more dead African ones.
-Ethanol engine are mechanically inferior to Gasoline ones. So you're expecting customers to go for an inferior product.
-Before you say woodchips may I remind you that if the energy yield from those is as great as people say, they would be an excellent source of carbohydrates and therefore we wouldn't need to farm in the first place. We would just eat woodchips.
-AND ETHANOL STILL PRODUCES CARBON DIOXIDE!

EV's anyone?

The assumption is that ethanol will be produced from corn in the futue. If you read the OP article again, you will see that it specifies that these tax incentives will go to developing ethanol production from such sources as grass and wood chips.

Brazil does so from sugar cane refuse and from what I've heard, they're pretty good at it.

An overly simplistic and ultimitly not very useful analysis.

Ah yes right it's only useful when it implicates Bush.

Ah yes, it's not physics that keeps us from having flying cars that get 300 miles to the thimble of veggie oil, it's the evil, conspiring oil and car companies that suppress useful information and inovation rather than exsploiting it for profit. Yeah, that makes sense.

If you wanted to run the country's cars on corn booze then you'd need to ramp up the amount of land used for corn production. A lot. I think the last estimate I read put it at 3x as much corn as is used for food in the US just to run the cars and I'm not sure if that factored in the fuel required to grow, harvest, process, and distribute the stuff. Corn ethanol is a scam, if it were really so great it wouldn't need the heavy subsidies to stand on its own. Politicians use it to get elected, farmers use it to drive up their prices, and ethanol producers use it to fleece America.

And before you say EV's show me one affordable EV that can get 300 miles per charge, is as roomy as a regular car, fast, strong, and doesn't take 4 hours to charge.

And before you say EV's show me one affordable EV that can get 300 miles per charge, is as roomy as a regular car, fast, strong, and doesn't take 4 hours to charge.

Show me a non-pollution gas-powered car that can get 115 miles per gallon and is totally silent.

There are always trade-offs to be made.

"There's nothing in here that's going to lower gas prices in America ... nothing that is going to help American families deal with heating costs this winter ... nothing to increase production," complained Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio.

Why is Mr. Erection complaining? That's good what he says it will do. We don't want more production, we want less.

"There's nothing in here that's going to lower gas prices in America ... nothing that is going to help American families deal with heating costs this winter ... nothing to increase production," complained Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio.

Why is Mr. Erection complaining? That's good what he says it will do. We don't want more production, we want less.

Exactly. Why on earth would we want to increase production of a finite resource we'll run out of soon?

"There's nothing in here that's going to lower gas prices in America ... nothing that is going to help American families deal with heating costs this winter ... nothing to increase production," complained Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio.

Why is Mr. Erection complaining? That's good what he says it will do. We don't want more production, we want less.
Do you remember the 70's? I don't because I wasn't around for them but I did read about them in history. Bad hair, bad clothes, bad cartoons, high gas prices caused by a reduction in production, and failure-elect Jimmy Carter told poor people to wear sweaters as they slowly froze rather than come up with a real solution. There is a greater demand for energy and the people that will be hit hardest by the rising cost of fuel will be the poor. I guess what I'm trying to say is "Why do you hate poor people?"

Show me a non-pollution gas-powered car that can get 115 miles per gallon and is totally silent.
Show me an electric car that doesn't generate pollution. The power has to come from somewhere. Same with the materials. And why 115 mpg? Most cars get over 250 per tank, some well over 300. And do you really want a silent car coming 'round the corner in a residential area where there may be kids in the street?

In the meantime, why not repeal federal gas tax? Why not repeal state gas tax? Guess which political party wants to RAISE those taxes? Here's a hint: It's not the party Bush belongs to. If they instead go after the huge Loophole in the budget that the Oil Companies exploited instead, they wouldn't need the Gas taxes.


The government shouldn't be building and maintaining roads in the first place.
Go away Anarcho-Capitalist, 90% of the shit we get into has the market somewhere nearby. So people like you who say "Give everything to the Market" like it will fix everything aren't worth my time.

The assumption is that ethanol will be produced from corn in the futue. If you read the OP article again, you will see that it specifies that these tax incentives will go to developing ethanol production from such sources as grass and wood chips.

Brazil does so from sugar cane refuse and from what I've heard, they're pretty good at it. Sadly there are people who seem to think that Ethanol=Corn.
Explaining otherwise is an uphill battle.



----------

UPDATE: Turns out the Senate just blocked it. (Who saw that coming?)

Show me an electric car that doesn't generate pollution. The power has to come from somewhere. Same with the materials. And why 115 mpg? Most cars get over 250 per tank, some well over 300. And do you really want a silent car coming 'round the corner in a residential area where there may be kids in the street?

Yeah? Well, most electric cars get 3,000 miles per tank.

-It's incredibly expensive. Even after subsidies, the cost is around $5.00 a gallon.

The question is, however, how much does gasoline cost per gallon if you factor in all of the subsidies, tax credits, and expenditures related to maintaining supplies around the world? The US taxpayer shoulders a huge amount of the cost of protecting world oil supplies through the deployment of significant US military force to places like the Persian Gulf.

That being said, corn ethanol is a terrible idea. Electric vehicles, renewables, and nuclear are a lot more viable economically and environmentally than biofuels. We need to move away from liquid fuels in general, not try to preserve them through the use of ethanol.

Before you say woodchips may I remind you that if the energy yield from those is as great as people say, they would be an excellent source of carbohydrates and therefore we wouldn't need to farm in the first place. We would just eat woodchips.

Human metabolism=/=bacterial metabolism. Cellulose is difficult to break down, but the organisms that have evolved to break it down can do so very efficiently.

The government shouldn't be building and maintaining roads in the first place.

No, the government should be maintaining and building roads where it's unprofitable for the private sector to do so. Places where it is profitable should be sold off to private interests to encourage investment in infrastructure.

Show me an electric car that doesn't generate pollution. The power has to come from somewhere. Same with the materials. And why 115 mpg? Most cars get over 250 per tank, some well over 300. And do you really want a silent car coming 'round the corner in a residential area where there may be kids in the street?

Electric cars would produce much less polution. That's the point. There're very few (if any) things that would literally stop pollution.

Again, as pointed out before, trade-offs must be made.

Your last point has nothing to do with a debate over energy. It has to do with driver awareness. They should damn well know to drive careful in any residential (or any area, honestly) area, no matter how loud or quiet their car is.

Yeah? Well, most electric cars get 3,000 miles per tank.
Actually an electric car's range is measured in miles per charge. One of the best on the market right now (though its cost is more than a little prohibitive) is the Tesla Roadster which gets about 245 miles per charge and requires at least 3.5 hours to charge a dead battery. These are problem that need to be fixed.

Another thing that needs to be considered is where the extra power will come from. If all cars were suddenly on the grid there'd be a huge new strain on an already taxed system. To handle the extra load of a fleet of electric cars would require a huge increase in the amount of power generated in the US. Since not everyone has the luxury of a large river they can damn like Vegas you'd either need to increase the amount of coal plants or start building a whole lot of new nuclear facilties and more than a couple of breeder reactors and waste reprocessing facilities to handle the depleted uranium and any other radioactive waste. I like nuclear power but it has an undeserved black eye and most people hate it because they don't understand nuclear physics.

"But what about wind?" you may be tempted to ask. Well, there are some problems with it, starting with inefficiency and low output. Wind turbines don't actually pull all that much power out of the wind, mostly because there isn't a lot to begin with. If you wanted to replace all of the UK's energy with wind, you'd have to build a vast, miles wide park of windmills that'd literally surround the island. And when the windspeed drops from 6 Beaufort to 3 Beaufort (a 50% drop) the energy within the wind will actually drop by just over 88%. Combine that with the low percentage of energy procured from wind by the mills and the cost of producing the damn things and suddenly the only thing wind power seems good for is working wells.

Solar ain't much better. Though it is improving, it won't be fast enough and you'll never be able to run a regular vehicle on it. Someone tried to make a boat than ran on solar power and it took then nearly a month to go across the pond that is the Atlantic Ocean.

Electric cars would produce much less polution. That's the point. There're very few (if any) things that would literally stop pollution.
Not all pollution comes out of the tailpipe. Electric cars have a higher initial cost and their battery packs do wear out leaving you with a large pile of toxic waste.

I know a lot of you have brought up an electric cars affordabillity and environmental friendliness. Theoretically, an electric car could actually be cheaper then a gas car because it contains fewer moving parts. It generates little heat, so there's no need for a radiator, fuel injection is much simpler (it's a wire), and the engine itself is much simpler.

As for range, that is an issue, but there are some potential solutions, including Fuel Cell technologies and certain advanced batteries, that if managed could bring fuel capacities actually greater then currently present in mass-production gasoline automobiles.

And then there's environmental friendliness. Even if the power is produced from fossil fuels, the centralization of a power plant and the fact that what little is lost in recharging is easilly made up for by not losing energy as heat would mean that more energy would be produced per pollutant and resource spent. It is not a secret that economies of scale tend to create greater efficiency, and power plants do create scale. It is also easier to clean pollutants out of a central plant (ever heard of a sulfur-scrubber system on an exhaust pipe?) However, the energy would not have to be generated by fossil fuels, and while replacing our power plants is expensive, in comparison to the cost of building viable mass-transit systems it's actually pretty cheap and it is a cost that would have to be paid sooner or later anyways as those things cannot last forever and many of them, especially here in Georgia, are already nearing the end of their serviceable lives.

You make a good argument, Plotadonia, and I am not opposed o the idea of electric vehicles. I understand their advantages but I think they need work before they can be considered a viable option.

One problem with EV's for someone like me, living in a northern state like I do, is that they don't warm up as fast. When a gas engine is running it generates heat, that waste heat can be used to heat the cabin and keep the windows from frosting which is important if you want to see while driving. Electricity can be used for this too but in a regular car it is the engines already generated waste heat that is used to heat the cabin and defrost windows while it would be an extra (though small) drain in an electric.

I'm not opposed to the idea of EV's, I just think they had issues that should be addressed before they become the standard. You can't patch a car as easily as you can software.