The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News, Information, and Companies.

Don't Blame Dems For Dreadful Energy Bill

The energy bills now before the Senate and the House may be wrongheaded, irrelevant, costly and destructive -- but that's not the Democrats' fault.

After two failed attempts in three years, Congress may be only days away from sending an energy bill to the President. Most Americans assume the bill will deal with our number one energy problem -- a growing and increasingly oppressive reliance on imported oil. Republican leaders are doing their best to nurture that assumption. "With oil prices recently topping $60 a barrel, this legislation can come none too soon," declares Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. Frist insists the bill will "make us less dependent on foreign sources of energy." President Bush agrees. We need a national energy bill because "we have grown more dependent on foreign sources of energy and consumers see the consequences of that at the gas pump on a daily basis." Those who actually read the energy bills, however, will quickly realize we've been had. For the awful truth is that, even as the price of gasoline edges toward $2.50 a gallon and Congress appropriates another $82 billion for the Iraq war, the White House and Congress may enact an energy bill that does nothing to reduce our dependence on imported oil. Much has been made of the differences between the Senate and the House versions of the energy bill. There are differences. But when it comes to oil imports, the only difference between the two is the difference between tragedy (Senate) and farce (House). Consider just one example. The Senate, apparently having screwed its courage to the sticking point, asks the President to implement measures that will ensure that our consumption of oil INCREASES by only 4 million barrels per day by 2015, rather than the 5 million barrels per day currently projected by the Department of Energy. In other words, our dependence will worsen considerably, but not as much as it could have! The House couldn't even bring itself to go that far. It flatly refuses to call for any reduction in our oil consumption. How bad is it? The most effective provision in either energy bill may be a small program to promote a technology that cuts off heavy-duty truck engines after 15 minutes of idling. Is it any wonder that the world looks at America circa 2005 and shakes its collective head? Many commentators have severely criticized the energy bills for lavishing tens of billions of dollars on companies whose balance sheets are swollen with unprecedented profits and cash. Far less attention has been given to non-monetary sections of the energy bills, the long-term social and economic costs which may be much higher. One such provision, for example, allows the federal government to impose high voltage transmission lines on recalcitrant states. Another severely limits the authority of state and cities over the siting of liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals. Provisions stripping states and communities of their authority over private energy companies are accompanied by another that would have the same debilitating effect on federal authority. Both bills repeal the 70-year-old Public Utilities Holding Company Act (PUHCA). PUHCA was passed to clean up the mess created by massive utility mergers in the 1920s and the resulting wave of fraud and financial manipulations that helped to bring about the Great Depression. PUHCA forced utilities to refocus their corporate structure on their core obligation -- the delivery of low cost, reliable electricity. And it endowed the newly created Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) with the power and responsibility to examine the utilities' books and evaluate any merger proposals. As people discover the appalling content of the energy bills, they naturally condemn both political parties. Progressives go further. They direct their most vitriolic remarks at the Democrats. This is wrongheaded. When it comes to national energy policy there is a stark difference between the Republican and Democratic parties. We can illuminate the differences by examining votes on specific issues (see link below). When the House voted on a provision to raise the fuel efficiency standard for new cars from the current 27.5 miles, to 35 miles per gallon by 2015, 84 percent of Republicans voted against; 70 percent of Democrats voted in favor. When the Senate voted on whether to require 10 percent of U.S. electricity to come from renewable resources by 2020, 82 percent of Republicans voted against; 93 percent of Democrats voted in favor. When the Senate voted on whether to call for a reduction in oil imports by 40 percent by 2025, 95 percent of Republicans voted against; 98 percent of Democrats voted in favor. When the House voted on whether to repeal the Public Utilities Holding Company Act, 97 percent of Republicans voted in favor; 91 percent of Democrats voted against. When the House voted on whether to preempt local and state authority over liquefied natural gas terminals, 85 percent of Republicans voted in favor; 79 percent of Democrats voted against. The energy bills now sitting in a House-Senate Conference Committee are truly dreadful -- wrongheaded, irrelevant, costly and destructive. The White House and the majority parties in the House and Senate deserve our censure. But our anger and frustration should not lead us to paint with too broad a brush. The Democrats are not to blame for this mess. About the author... David Morris is co-founder and vice president of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance in Minneapolis, Minnnesota and director of its New Rules project.


Coal plant

US Clean Power Plan Will Double Coal Plant Closures

Jim Snyder and Tim Loh, Bloomberg

A new government analysis of President Barack Obama’s signature effort to fight climate change affirms what critics suspected: the proposal could further weaken an already battered coal industry.

Renewable energy jobs

Global Renewable Energy Employment Surges 18 Percent to 7.7 Million

Andrew Burger, Correspondent Ongoing growth in renewable energy investment and deployment is creating jobs worldwide — and lots of them. This job growth is helping governments address a fundamental economic problem plaguing developed and developing cou...
Canadian Climate Goals

Canada Announces Weak Climate Target

Danielle Droitsch, NRDC Last week, Canada has announced its contribution to the global effort to reduce greenhouse gases by announcing its post-2020 target. The target announced today is off-track to the 80 percent cut by 2050 they committed to in...
Renewable Energy Stocks

What Drives Alternative Energy Stocks?

Harris Roen, The Roen Financial Report Alternative energy became a serious market player after the turn of the millennium. Since that time, solar, wind, smart grid and other alternative energy stocks have experienced both strong up and down trends. The forces at...


Volume 18, Issue 3


To register for our free
e-Newsletters, subscribe today:


Tweet the Editors! @megcichon @jennrunyon



Doing Business in Brazil – in partnership with GWEC, the Global Win...

Brazil is one of the most promising markets for wind energy.  Ranke...

Renewables and Mining Summit and Exhibition

African mining leaders are seriously exploring new energy solutions to s...

JuiceBox Energy Certified Installer Class

JuiceBox Energy is reapidly building out its national certified installe...


The new Lumos Solar website!

We are incredibly excited to introduce our new website to you....

Sales Professional As Symphony Conductor

When planning your strategy for closing the complex sale, one of the fir...

5 Reasons You Can’t Miss Intersolar

It’s hard to believe that in just 7 weeks, we’ll be at Inter...


Renewable Energy: Subscribe Now

Solar Energy: Subscribe Now

Wind Energy: Subscribe Now

Geothermal Energy: Subscribe Now

Bioenergy: Subscribe Now