Energy Bill

They finally passed the Energy Bill. Not that it's a good one, but at least it's a start.

I was thankful that this bit didn't get in.

House Republicans also abandoned a provision that would have given the makers of the gasoline additive MTBE protection against lawsuits stemming from the chemical's contamination of drinking water supplies in at least 36 states.

Though I'm uncertain why the manufacturer would be liable when it was the government that required the use of MTBE and only MTBE. I suppose that would take a lot more research.

There of course is the ravings of the Representatives from the People's Republic of Massachusetts just in case you need a laugh.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said it falls far short of what is needed by not addressing climate change and including nothing that would increase the fuel economy of automobiles, the biggest guzzlers of oil. Just this week, Kerry said, a report was made public from the Environmental Protection Agency showing a decline in automobile fuel economy.

Yes, we always see such wonderful success when legislating these types of requirements. Gas Guzzlers will be punished by the price of fuel. Reaction there after will be for movement to more energy efficient vehicles. I honestly don't believe that legislation is a better path than market forces. That attitude has caused the price of new refineries and power plants to be so high that there hasn't been a new refinery built in 25 years. Let's not mention the fact that there hasn't been a new nuclear power plant in the country in at least that long. God forbid that any new technology be used when the government can punish the user because the old technology wasn't very efficient.

The one that irks me is Ed Markey:

Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., said, "This bill is packed with royalty relief, tax breaks, loan guarantees for the wealthiest energy companies in America even as they are reporting the largest quarterly profits of any corporation in the history of the United States."

The reason he irks me is that he's actually right this time. Funny thing is that I saw a segment on the news where Bush spoke against these tax breaks, but I can't find a quote.

This article has more on what was proposed and what succeeded. You'll need Bugmenot.com to get in.

The Burr Amendment - named for its sponsor, Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C. -— would reverse a 13-year-old U.S. policy banning exports of weapons-grade uranium unless the recipients agreed to start converting their reactors to use less-dangerous uranium. The Senate rejected the measure last month after critics in both parties warned that it would accelerate the worldwide proliferation of nuclear materials, but a House-Senate conference committee agreed this week to include it in the final bill.

Now there is a bloody foolish proposal.

Other major provisions in the legislation include:
Subsidies and tax breaks for wind, geothermal and solar industries and for technology aimed at making coal more environmentally friendly.
New efficiency standards for many commercial appliances.
A requirement for utilities to meet federal reliability standards for the electric transmission grid, in hopes of avoiding blackouts like the one in the summer of 2003.
Easing the way for more imports of liquefied natural gas by giving federal regulators final say over terminals.
Spurring construction of new nuclear-power reactors by offering loan guarantees and "risk insurance" against regulatory delays for the initial units to be built.
A nationwide inventory of offshore oil and gas resources. Critics said theyÂ’re concerned the inventory may lead to drilling in areas now off-limits.

I think the nuclear power incentives are a good idea, though no one will act on them. Nuclear power is probably one of the best ways to get out of the odependencyncy problem. The risk insurance isn't likely to be enough. I'm betting that it doesn't cover all the frivolous law suits that would be issued against any company just trying to plan a plant.

Well at least it's a start.