Democrats hope to show voters that they’re breaking with six years of policies by Bush and the Republican-led Congress, which focused on boosting domestic energy supplies, especially oil, gas, nuclear and coal. The new bill instead emphasizes conservation by increasing energy-efficiency standards for lightbulbs, appliances and buildings and offering a $3,000 tax credit to consumers who buy plug-in electric hybrids.
The bill would, for the first time since 1975, raise the fuel economy standard from the current average of 27.2 miles per gallon for cars and 22.2 mpg for light trucks to a fleetwide average of 35 mph by 2020. The measure also would increase the use of ethanol and other biofuels from 9 billion gallons next year to 36 billion gallons by 2022.
Republicans belittled the measure as a “no-energy energy bill,” because it would not boost production of oil, natural gas or coal…
Some of the features of the bill:
— Raise fuel economy standards for cars and trucks to 35 miles per gallon by 2020.
— Require electric utilities to get 15 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2020.
— Repeal $21 billion in tax breaks for the oil and gas industry.
— Provide $3 billion to states for tax credits for homeowners who make their homes more efficient, buy energy-efficient appliances or install solar panels or geothermal heat pumps.
— Offer $9 billion in tax incentives for wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, small irrigation hydropower, ocean tides, landfill gas, and trash combustion energy.
— Give plug-in electric hybrid owners a $3,000 tax credit, and let employers offer workers a $240 per-year, tax-free benefit for biking to work.
What’s-his-name has vowed to veto the bill. Of course.
Crucial problems, some of which will be its downfall in Senate, some of which show that the car industry still has a choke-hold on the House:
-Separate standards for trucks,… have they learned nothing about how the industry will use that as a loophole? (My Subaru Outback is now officially a truck, for no other reason but to exploit this loophole).
-Fines that are essentially govt. subsidy for the violators (equivalent of “oh, you robbed someone? Well, you obviously need money so as a punishment you’ll give the stolen goods to the govt. to be sold and we’ll give you the proceeds back, you poor robber you…”).
-NOT fighting for renewable energy but against energy producers. Requirement that certain percentage of produced energy is renewable is great, but why exclude hydro-power form being renewable?! It is same (if not better) as wind energy… Only reason: real goal is to hurt industry. Won’t help us.
-Why 2020? Technology exists to deadline this 5 yrs into the future (if not sooner)…
– And yes, why not include boosting the production of existing energy staples as a way to get cheaper energy overall?
Sadly the people of the world are 20 years ahead of their corrupt “leaders”. As soon as my car is paid off I plan to see how much a electric conversion kit will cost me.
Not much likelihood of getting this through, at least not for the next 409 days. No matter how much of a half-step in the right direction it might be, Dumbya’s puppetmasters are NEVER going to go for anything that would “cut America’s addiction to oil by setting the most aggressive fuel economy standards in 30 years” and CERTAINLY not by “revoking $21 billion in tax breaks to oil companies”
NFW.
An energy bill that produces no energy. Instead it tells people to do and live less.
I’m surprised they didn’t put in a provision to ban Christmas. All this light ing must be adding plenty of greenhouse gases.
Increasing energy efficiency standards, if there was nothing to be lost, people would buy these anyway. So obviously something is being lost by implementing these standards.
I think they could probably do a great deal with a different provision. There are all these apartment buildings where the energy bills are higher because of inefficient insulation, windows, etc. The owner has no incentive to change things because he doesn’t pay the bills. How about actually spending money to make it worthwhile for these apartments to be upgraded?
Congress is lead by Democrats? Who knew?
RBG
“– Raise fuel economy standards for cars and trucks to 35 miles per gallon by 2020.
– Require electric utilities to get 15 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2020.”
My problem with things laws that set standards out 10 years or more is that they are meaningless. There will be six more Congresses and at least two more Presidents before we get to 2020. All of which are likely to change what ever is passed this time around.
What they should do is set a goal that can be reached during the current term or at least the next.
#1 – dusan maletic,
My reading of the section of the full text of the bill still says that the CAFE standard including light trucks (non-passenger vehicles) will be 35MPG.
#3 – MM,
I’m guessing you have the same firefox plugin I do for remaining days of Bush’s term.
[You can get that here: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3792 – ed.]
#4,5 – MikeN,
People are not as smart as you assume. People will continue to make really stupid decisions on fuel mileage of their vehicles for as long as we continue to subsidize the $15/gallon price of gasoline. If we paid it at the pump instead of in our tax bill, people might make better decisions.
As for lighting, holiday lights do bother me, but probably mostly because I’m an antitheist. But for real changes in everyday lives, how does it negatively affect your life to have CFLs instead of incandescents? If you like the dingy yellow of incandescents and even halogens, you can buy CFLs in that color (2700-3500K) or you can buy white lights (4100K) or full spectrum lights. These options will save you money on your energy bill and make your home look as if you just remodeled it.
What else do you believe is lost in this? You make a vague statement about it on the assumption that humans have brains, a hypothesis that does not appear to be well supported. 🙂
Increasing energy efficiency standards, if there was nothing to be lost, people would buy these anyway. So obviously something is being lost by implementing these standards.
But, you say nothing specific about what these loses are. You just assume that people make good choices ’cause that’s what people do. This is circular. Obviously, this is not happening. 5% of the nation’s electric use is simply to have the TV ready for when we hit the remote or to have a clock on our DCD player. Vampire power adds nothing to human happiness. Where is your evidence that people make good choices in the absence of legislation?
#7 – GigG,
My problem with things laws that set standards out 10 years or more is that they are meaningless. There will be six more Congresses and at least two more Presidents before we get to 2020. All of which are likely to change what ever is passed this time around.
That assumes congress actually does anything. We have not had a change in CAFE standards in around 30 years.
#4 – MikeN,
Just saw this. Deck the halls with LEDs. Thought you might like it.
>>MM,
>>
>>I’m guessing you have the same firefox plugin
>>I do for remaining days of Bush’s term.
Correct, Scottie. It reminds me that all may not be lost, and that there’s light at the end of the tunnel.
Although I gotta say I haven’t become a true believer in CFLs yet; when the recommended action after breaking one is to “call the EPA” (even the General Electric web site says “you must follow your state and the federal regulation for disposing of mercury-containing lamps.”), I’m a little hesitant to light up Rudolph’s nose with mercury bulbs.
What bothers me about this is it will cause gas prices to rise. It says repeal tax breaks for oil companies. Which, in essence, means a tax increase for oil companies. Now, no company anywhere actually pays taxes, they pass that cost on to the consumer….which means prices go up. In effect, they are increasing taxes on us.
Might be nice to have a new president come in and shake up the energy industry the same way GWB shook up the public education industry. Not that I agree with some (much) of what GWB did there, but it got them thinking and working towards improvement.
In closing, IMO if we don’t make nuclear power a priority we’re just wasting our time. Coal must be stopped. Seal nuke waste in those blister packs that hang on shelves in Target and dump it into the ocean trenches. Easy!
Mike N…you realize that you’re simply regurgitating a party line, don’t you? 🙂
#12 the liberal blame W for everything crowd on this site are not capable of realizing that companies do not pay taxes. Companies just pass them on to their customers in the cost of the product. Since the demand for Oil is fairly inelastic consumers will have little choice but pay the higher cost. Liberals love to raise taxes, but they have never figured out that the Rich don’t really pay the taxes.
#11 – Musty,
Well, you can wait for these to get a bit better and cheaper. Or, you can continue to breathe in the mercury from the coal plant providing the difference in electricity between your incandescents and your CFLs. The difference in electricity is putting more mercury in the environment than your CFL would. Personally, I don’t break light bulbs often. I can’t remember the last time I broke any kind of bulb.
And, with the life expectancy of CFLs, I expect proper disposal to be commonplace before I need to replace my bulbs and will probably do so with LEDs then. A friend did get a defective one and returned it to Home Despot who really didn’t seem to know what to do with it yet. I hope that improves soon.
There are trade-offs in everything. At this time, I think CFLs are definitely worth it. When LEDs replace them, it will be better. I think waiting that long is a bad idea though.
#12 – ,
What bothers me about this is it will cause gas prices to rise.
Not really. It will just shift the cost to the pump instead of our tax bills. This should be positive.
http://tinyurl.com/3b7w9m
Further, as people reduce their use of gasoline, the price may drop. Or, even if it stays the same but we buy less, our bills will drop. In fact, with current level of technology, it would be easy to imagine cars that perform just as current cars do on so much less gas that the bill will drop even with a rise in prices.
I have tried out the LED “tire alerts”, Scottie; they’re pretty cool.
I’ll look into the CFLs. I’m not agin ’em, I’m just not a true believer. And while I don’t break bulbs too often either, just a couple of calls to the EPA for their toxic waste cleanup team would start to grate on my nerves.
And as of yet, my building’s trash area doesn’t have a “contains mercury” bin in the recycling area.
I’m willing to do my part, and will check out the CFL thing, but I think that greater progress will be made by crushing Heart Attack’s Energy Cabal than by you and me replacing our 60-watt bulbs with CFLs.
409 days, and we’ve got a shot at that.
This is actually a very effective way for congress to increase taxes without actually increasing our tax bill. Sort or like the traditional Dem tax cut plan of not raising taxes as much as planned. Each of the summarized features of the bill will indirectly raise costs to the average consumer by shifting lost tax cuts or higher costs from the providers. Brilliant. As far the tag line, the legislative and executive branches form part of the governmental checks and balances. In this case, the president will “check and balance” this bill out the door.
#17 – MM,
I don’t break bulbs too often either, just a couple of calls to the EPA for their toxic waste cleanup team would start to grate on my nerves.
The mercury is in the gas of the bulb anyway. I’d probably just sweep up the glass and ignore the tiny amount of mercury. Breaking an old thermometer (as I have done as a child) would be much worse, probably orders of magnitude.
And as of yet, my building’s trash area doesn’t have a “contains mercury” bin in the recycling area.
Nor does mine. My building also doesn’t have a cell phone battery recycling bin. I take the latter to Circuit City or other locale for recycling. I’d hope to take the former to Home Despot or other, once they are required to take them back, as they probably should be. Gas stations are required to take back used motor oil. In states with deposits on cans, locations that sell them must take them back. There is a long precedent for this sort of thing.
I think that greater progress will be made by crushing Heart Attack’s Energy Cabal than by you and me replacing our 60-watt bulbs with CFLs.
409 days, and we’ve got a shot at that.
You’ve got that right!! But, as residents of the highest per capita producer of CO2, we also have the power to do more than individual citizens of any other country just by doing what we can as individuals to reduce consumption. It’s sort of empowering if you look at it that way. So, I keep doing my part for the environment.
My house is full of CFL’s. Well, all except the light over the stove, in the stove, in the fridge, and my bedside lamp (I prefer the softer tones for a reading lamp, and I can’t find CFL’s locally that will go in the other spots).
I put them all in almost a year ago…I’ve replaced one. I love them. There’s a small delay when cutting on a light switch, but once you get used to it, it’s no big deal. The light is quite sharp and clear. And since I live in an older house, I usually had to keep a stock of regular light bulbs, and there was always at least one to change every single week. Now, I don’t have to bother with them.
I’ve seen basically no difference in my light bill, but I’m just happy I don’t have to change bulbs all the damn time. I haven’t done the math, but I honestly think I’ve saved money in just the longevity of the CFLs over the ones I was using.
As far as other reductions, instead of a sportier car, I bought a smaller one for the commute to work (right at 30 miles one way). It gets close to 40mpg. I picked out a new fridge mostly based on the energy savings. I also went in and had a new layer of insulation put in my attic over the top of the old one. I have replaced about half the windows in my house with more efficient, newer models (which also look much better). The rest are on my list of things to do next.
I do these things, and I’m a global warming denier. I don’t think our CO2 emissions are doing jack or shit to the planet at large. However, I’m a big fan of efficiency. I’m also a big fan of local clean air and local clean water. So I do what I can.
To get noticed I think you should Overtax the non efficient rather give a bonus to the efficient. People remember negatives more then positives. Besides, typical american assholes will pay attention when they see a $6000 tax for buying a car that gets less then 30 mpg
#21 – the answer,
Unfortunately not. How much has the Gas Guzzler Tax actually accomplished. In fact, many people like to pay more to show that they can, hence the term status symbol. It would be worth a try though.
Perhaps we could start with a baseline like 50 MPG. Any car that gets less pays (50 – it’s mileage) * 1000. Perhaps it could even cost that for every registration renewal. That might get some attention. Still though, paying all of our gasoline costs at the pump would probably do even more. And, I do mean all of the costs. Let’s include the Iraq war costs while we’re at it.
Nothing wrong with trying to conserve but how come no one has had the balls to start a company and go mano a mano with the big auto companies and win? Do you think Ford had it easy against the railroad robber barons? Hmmm? If you wait for government to do something you might as well kiss your ass goodbye.
That said, I still think we should drill in ANWR. Using 2,000 acres of the 19.6 million acres in ANWR for 5 to 10 percent of our daily national consumption is a no brainer. This would signically reduce our dependence on the Arabs and Russia. The footprint on ANWR would be 1.0204081632653061224489795918367e-4 %. Insignificant.
http://tinyurl.com/2h9rm8
[Please use TinyUrl.com for overly long URLs. – ed.]
#23 – GF,
As for mano a mano with the big boys, how’s this?
http://www.teslamotors.com/
As for drilling ANWR, are you forgetting the inevitable spills? Do you think anyone has even made a significant and real attempt to clean up after Valdez?
http://tinyurl.com/39j9rz
Do you think it pays to spend all of this money drilling to get 6 months worth of oil in 10 years when we could put that money into conserving oil now and get far better return on investment and get it now? Do you think that spending the money to produce wind, solar, and tidal energy to get far more energy than would be produced in an oil plant from this oil would be a good idea?
I bet we could easily do better than subsidizing ExxonMobil for a return we won’t see for 10 years.
#24 Misanthropic Scott
I am aware of Tesla Motors but many are not. Further Tesla needs to have a Model T event, i.e. a car that is cool and affordable.
Phoenix Motorcars might pull this off with their electric SUV.
6 months of oil in ANWR? Please cite your source.
No, I am not forgetting oil spills. I think you should cite something more relevant than something that happened 18 years ago. Have you heard about the pipeline that is being built in Canada going into Chicago from the northern Canadian oil fields? If they could add a spur coming from Fairbanks it would solve the Valdez issue you have but alas it would not solve the problems coming from the Middle East, Russia and the North Sea.
Now that oil is over $40 a barrel solar is more viable than ever. Have you installed your system yet?
Whenever I hear this sort of thing being proposed, I have to wonder how broke Congressmen and Senators are at the moment. Because it’s like a call for the lobbyists to come a-runnin! And bring plenty of cash! Oh yeah, Congress is finally going to fix everything that they let slide for decades. But not if the lobbyists have anything to PAY about it. They’ll be wining and dining those in Congress, at some Caribbean resort, during the winter months. And the bill will get royaly screwed. They Bush delivers his final blow to it, so they’re all off the hook. And we don’t get to see the compromised details of what was vetoed. But they’ve had several weeks (or months) of bragging about it, in the press. So it looks like they’ve been doing a fine job to the average voter.
We already have energy conservation in the US.
It’s called $100/barrel oil.
If you want to cut back further, raise it to $200/barrel.
There are some good things in this bill, there are also some really really stupid things, particularly the expansion of Ethanol
“The measure also would increase the use of ethanol and other biofuels from 9 billion gallons next year to 36 billion gallons by 2022.”
The more I read about Ethanol, the bigger the scam it appears to be. It is being mostly subsidized by tax dollars, it does not save gas consumption, it costs more to put it in your car, and the production greatly increases food prices, so we are paying 3 times for a fuel that pollutes more than gasoline.
The smartest congressman in regards to energy policy is Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) and his reaction to this bill is mine as well.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3339
Yep, Ariane. Same here. I first thought ethanol was a swell idea, but the closer you look, the worse it gets, and I’ve seen more than enough by this point to see it for the joke/scam that it is.
As the Cato Institute has pointed out:
All with the help of their very good friends in the GOP. needless to add.
Dumbya is headed for another failure… he might not even be able to provide $100 / barrel prices to his Arab masters. I guess he will just have to suck harder to keep them happy.