Senate passes compromise U.S. energy bill

[Nambe]

WASHINGTON (Reuters)

The Republican-controlled Senate late Thursday passed a Democrat-written energy bill that originally cleared the chamber last year, breaking an impasse over the first major overhaul of U.S. energy policy in a decade.

To push out an energy package before lawmakers leave this week for their summer recess, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist lobbied his fellow Republicans to revive the energy bill that the Senate approved last year when Democrats controlled the chamber.

Republicans agreed to abandon their version of a new energy bill introduced this year after it became bogged down in lengthy debate and partisan finger pointing this week. ---

[dusty64]

1. This is interesting.

I remember the plan was not much better, anyone recall the details?

[dusty64]

2. Any thoughts on this?

x

[joshcryer]

3. ::shrug::

Nope, not sure what the difference was. Glad the Dems 'won' though. :)

[salin]

6. Still a bad and ugly bill.

Back in 2002 it was a modified version of the House bill which was almost identical to the "cheney energy plan" recommendations - you remember that - the secret energy advisors whose identity and topics of discussion are at the center of several court cases?

The senate bill is still very ugly - for example - gives tons of tax breaks for dirty fuels (increases over current levels) - tax giveaways for bush donors. It shuts down a New Deal era consumer protection oversight agency that reviews mergers of primary utility/energy providers to prevent market manipulation and pricegouging (look for the ability for more corporate-induced "energy crises" like California in 2001). It is limited in its push for R&D in renewable and alternative energy sources - though it is MUCH better than the house bill.

It may have been a "political victory" both times (in '02, and now) for the dems - but it is a HUGE LOSS for the country.

Note - the GOP strategy in 2002 was to keep all debate focused on ANWR - made all of the environmental groups focus in the one issue - and let many other equally bad provisions fly under the radar screen. THis happened both in the senate debate (dems won - anwr got knocked out); and the stage was set for it to be the focal point in the house/senate negotiations (again - leaving all sorts of other vile things in there as all lobbying attention would solely focus on Anwr.) I can not remember whether they ran out of time before the elections so it never got hashed out in conference committee... or if the Anwr provision killed the bill. I think that it never got out of conference and congress got distracted on HLS and other issues in the rush to legislate before the elections.

Does anyone know if ANWR is in or out of the House bill? It inclusion (or lack there of) will shape the type of debates /discussions in conference and in final vote. I think the house took it out - recognizing that the strategy of distract from all else - while effective - also served as a poison pill (if it stays in - it would never get through the senate).

Bush and CHeney are out fundraising again. They need this tax giveaway to their energy backers. Hence the renewed push to get this out now.

[gottaB]

9. good summary, yours

I read ANWR was in the House bill.

[salin]

11. Interesting - so it really is "Act Two"

I wish the dems would filibuster on this one - claiming that they could not in good faith vote for a bill that is closely linked to the secret energy task force documents. That, for the good of the American people - and the need of the public to be able to trust government, that it could not vote on this until all is disclosed about its formulation.

But that will never happen.

Btw, thanks for the compliment! :D

[revcarol]

4. They'll just kill all those alternative energy provisions in

the conference committee. The repugs are NOT interested in alternative energy, when they can invade countries at the public's expense and turn over the profits from their oil grabs to their buddies.

[goobergunch]

5. Yeas 84 Nays 14

Senators voting in the negative: Boxer, Cantwell, Clinton, Feingold, Feinstein, Kennedy, Kyl, Lautenberg, McCain, Murray, Reed (RI), Schumer, Sununu, and Wyden.

Senators not voting: Kerry and Lieberman.

Vote No. 317

[salin]

7. Good for them! Why did Kyle and Sununu vote against

are either closet environmentalists?

Or are either such fiscal conservatives that the budget giveaways embedded in the bill (they are HUGE) pushed the vote against?

[gottaB]

8. opposition to new/old bill

I was glad that the nuclear subsidies for new plants were gone. The fossils and nukes still get juicy breaks, but it's about what you'd expect with 51 Republicans. Domenici is promising to add the nuclear power plants back in when it gets to conferrence.

I couldn't figure out exactly why these dems were opposing it.

sfgate reports:

"I opposed this energy bill in 2002 because it did not offer the sound and innovative policy that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, protect the environment, improve our energy and fuel efficiency and protect consumers from Enron-like scams," Boxer said. "All of these reasons still stand."

My Washington State Senators opposed (reported here):

The lack of measures to prevent manipulation of the energy market prompted several senators to vote against the bill, including Washington Senator Maria Cantwell.

Cantwell, a Democrat, had been at the center of the partisan debate over the now defunct bill- she was repeatedly frustrated as she tried to offer amendments to curb Enron-style abuses of the wholesale energy market.

"I deserve to be heard and my constituents deserve to be heard," Cantwell said. "My constituents were not invited to discuss energy policy in Vice President Cheney's office."

this post is made from 100% recyled materials from Goobergunch's locked-down dupe

[Star]

10. Cantwell voted Nay

It is NOT good that Cantwell voted Nay on this bill.

I was listening to her yesterday on CSPAN, and she has really immersed herself into the energy problem in the western states. She sounded very well informed, and if she voted nay, then this can't be a very good bill.

[salin]

12. She is wise

it is a bad bill. Not as bad as the House bill, and certainly not as bad as what the GOP senators' bill would have been - but it is bad. It will only get worse in Conference committee.

Henry Waxman is Minority Chair of the House Committee on Government Reform - linked is their page on Energy. There is an analysis of the House '02 Energy Bill - I think the current bill is much of the same.

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/inves_energy/index.htm

Here is USPirg's statement about the Senate Energy Bill
http://uspirg.org/uspirgnewsroom.asp?id2=10472&id3=USPIRGnewsroom&

USPirg's statement about the rejection of Senator Cantwell's amendment:
http://uspirg.org/uspirgnewsroom.asp?id2=10479&id3=USPIRGnewsroom&

Here is a side by side analysis of the '02 Senate and House bills (I believe todays bills are very similar - so the content should be close if not identical.)
http://www.uspirg.org/reports/pirg_analysis_final.pdf