Energy Bill Gets Senate Nod

Hello everyone!

Welcome to the first edition of Rob Comments on the News. On this blog, I'm going to select a news story and repost it with my smart ass comments intermingled. My plan is to do at least one a week, but plans can and do change.

Let's get right to today's story:

Energy Bill Gets Senate Nod
Friday, Jun. 22, 2007

Democrats celebrated a step toward reducing U.S. dependence on oil as the Senate approved a bill calling for more ethanol and the first boost in gas mileage in decades.

It's a step alright. One small step for man. One... small step for mankind. Get used to it because we'll be taking lots of steps when we can't afford to drive anywhere anymore.

Now the House plans to follow suit, perhaps as early as next week.

The Senate late Thursday voted 65-27 to pass the first energy bill since Democrats took control of Congress in January. But it was far from a complete victory.

Well, it's about time the Democrats had some sort of victory, even if it's a partial one.

Resistance to the new auto fuel economy standards threatened passage until the final hours. Democratic leaders held off a vote until shortly before midnight as senators were called back to the Capitol to assure the votes needed to overcome a threatened filibuster by opponents of the tougher fuel regulations.

I can see why they'd want to filibuster. I mean, tougher fuel regulations? Sure, regular people might be able to afford gas again, but what about the poor oil companies? How will they survive?

The bill finally passed even as Republican senators grumbled that it did virtually nothing to increase production of traditional domestic fuels such as oil and natural gas.

Of course, increasing "production of traditional domestic fuels such as oil and natural gas" is code for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I love it when senators grumble.

Democrats saw it differently.

There's a surprise.

"This bill starts America on a path toward reducing our reliance on oil," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., proclaimed.

Apparently, it's a path that we'll be taking steps on.

The legislation would require ethanol production for motor fuels to grow to at least 36 billion gallons a year by 2022, a sevenfold increase over the amount of ethanol processed last year.

Well, enjoy your tortilla chips now because they'll be $20 a bag in 15 years when all the corn that is grown goes toward producing ethanol. But hey, there's always those delicious genetically modified Tostitos chips for half price. You know, the ones made from corn that has clam DNA so it grows in shells under the ocean. It would be even cheaper except lobsters keep getting caught in the corn traps. I understand Monsanto is developing lobsters with human DNA that are smart enough to avoid the traps.

And it calls for boosting auto fuel economy to a fleet average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, a 40 percent increase over current requirements for cars, SUVs, vans and pickup trucks.

Let's do some math. I said "math", not "meth". Anyway, a 2007 2WD Ford Expedition with a 5.4 Liter 8 cylinder engine and an automatic transmission is rated by the EPA at 12 MPG city and 18 MPG highway. We'll split the difference and call it 15 MPG. A 40% increase would make it 21 MPG. Wow. That's about as good as a 2007 Ford Escape SUV (not the hybrid one). And it's only going to take them 15 years to get there.

How long is 15 years? Well, 15 years ago I had just graduated high school. I wasn't even old enough to legally buy cigarettes (though I never had any problem doing so).

The legislation also calls for:

—Price gouging provisions that make it unlawful to charge an "unconscionably excessive" price for oil products, including gasoline. It also gives the federal government new authority to investigate oil industry market manipulation.

Good old "unconscionably excessive". That means...well, whatever they want it to mean. And hey look, the federal government now has the authority to investigate things. Will the feds be able to use illegal wiretaps and torture on the oil companies, too?

—New appliance and lighting efficiency standards and a requirement that the federal government accelerate use of more efficient lighting in public buildings.

Question: how many Senators does it take to change some light bulbs? Answer: 65, but it takes an official act of Congress.

—Grants, loan guarantees and other assistance to promote research into fuel-efficient vehicles, including hybrids, advanced diesel and battery technologies.

But Democrats had wanted more for renewables than they got.

Earlier in the day Reid could not hide his displeasure as Republicans blocked one of the Democrats' top priorities, a $32 billion tax package aimed at boosting renewable fuels, energy efficiency and clean energy programs. The Republicans didn't like the $29 billion in additional taxes on oil companies that the plan required to pay for the new alternative energy subsidies.

How are they supposed to keep having record profits if they have to pay taxes?

"Big Oil seems to do pretty well here on Capitol Hill," Reid told reporters, making no effort to hide his sarcasm.

Are you really that surprised, Harry? Regular people aren't.

Democrats also failed to get a provision that would have required electric utilities to produce at least 15 percent of their electricity from wind, biomass or other renewables after Republicans refused to allow the measure to come up for a vote.

"Electricity from wind, biomass or other renewables", what a horrible idea. Nope, lets build more coal and nuk-yoo-lur plants. Haven't you heard, coal is clean now! Just ask a coal miner. And don't forget clean, affordable nuclear power. Nuclear waste: coming soon to a neighborhood near you. And if there's a meltdown at the plant, well, Ringling Brothers can always use someone with three nostrils for their freak show. Thank God for Republicans.

Intense negotiations among a small group of senators produced a compromise on the auto fuel economy matter that emerged as the crown jewel of the Senate-passed bill.

It requires automakers to make a 40 percent increase in the fuel efficiency of their vehicles by 2020 and for the first time puts SUVs, vans and small trucks under the same regulation as passenger cars.

You mean SUVs, vans and small trucks won't get special treatment anymore? That's it--the terrorists have officially won!

Under the bill each vehicle group must achieve a 10 mpg increase in fuel economy by 2020 with an overall average requirement for a manufacturer's fleet increasing to 35 mpg. Currently cars must meet a fleet average of 27.5 mpg; light trucks — including SUVs and vans — must achieve an average of 22.2 mpg.

"We've been fighting to reach this day for over 20 years," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who was involved in the negotiations that led to the compromise. "For the first time in a generation we've overcome powerful opposition to make our cars more fuel efficient."

Well, 20 years ago, this would have made sense. Now it's a bit of a joke.

Congress last passed a federal auto fuel economy standard in 1975 and the current requirement for cars of 27.5 mpg has not changed since 1989.

Hmm, 1975. Wasn't everyone freaking out about gas prices back then, too? I don't remember because I was too busy BEING BORN!

Here's a novel idea: why not pass laws like this BEFORE things get bad?

The House has yet to act on its energy legislation. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has said reductions in auto gasoline use are needed and Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., said he plans to work "to ensure that the House matches the Senate's action."

"It's clear the political movement to increase our nation's fuel economy ... has shifted out of neutral into drive," said Markey, responding to the Senate action Thursday.

"Shifted out of neutral into drive"? WORST. PUN. EVER. This guy should never be allowed to talk again. Ever.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., who opposed the Senate provision and had fought to instead pass a more auto industry-friendly fuel economy measure, said one reason for his effort's failure was growing public concern about global warming.

"The public wants action, rightfully so, on global warming," Levin said in an interview. And he added, the auto industry is "a juicy target."

Well, he is from Michigan. Still, it's not like too many cars are made there anymore. That's just where all the executives live. Hmm.

My Final Thoughts

This whole biofuel debate is stupid, pointless, and a real waste of time. Yes, I have a bioethanol sticker on my car, but I'm fully aware that it's only a temporary quick fix and that we need to completely get away from the internal combustion engine for transportation. It's 150+ year old technology. Put it this way, my cellphone is about the size of a well-used bar of soap. Not only can I use it as a phone, but I can also store a bunch of CD quality songs on it, there's a digital still camera as well as a digital video camera. This is not some James Bond model, either, it's a very common model that was free after a rebate when I signed up for my calling plan. Just 10 years ago, it would have seemed like science fiction. But with transportation, why are we still dependent on thousands of tiny explosions per minute inside a cast metal engine? In a 3000 pound car, almost all the energy goes to moving the car itself, and only a fraction goes toward moving the passengers. That don't make no sense.

We need something like this instead.

Anyway, I hope you've enjoyed the first edition of Rob Comments on the News. See you next time!

Rob