Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower

Energy Bill Update: House Passes Bill with Strong Support for Renewables

December 7, 2007 | 18 Comments

Do you like this news?

Bookmark

Feed

Washington, D.C. [RenewableEnergyAccess.com] After much speculation about the status of renewables in the upcoming Energy Bill, the House of Representatives passed legislation yesterday that included strong incentives for the industry, including investment and production tax credits and a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). The Bill passed by a margin of 235-181.

"This is a very important day for our country. A day in which this Congress can declare itself a Congress for the future."

-- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

“This is a very important day for our country. A day in which this Congress can declare itself a Congress for the future,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in response to House approval of the Bill.

The Bill now moves to the Senate, where it will have a tougher time passing. Even if the Bill does move through, there may not be enough votes to override a Presidential veto.

“Speaker Pelosi and the House of Representatives delivered a great Bill for clean energy as we still try to broker in incentives for a few renewable technologies, and it is now up to the Senate who's future is not so sure in the face of another threatened White House veto,” said Scott Sklar of The Stella Group, Ltd.

President Bush and some leading Republican Senators have voiced strong opposition to the $21 billion in tax incentives for renewables, paid for by repealing subsidies for the fossil energy industries. There are also concerns over the RPS, which has been vigorously opposed by some powerful utilities.

Passage of the House Bill is a big step, considering that only last month Democratic leaders were thinking of stripping out most of the provisions for renewable energy to make any legislation more likely to pass. Now after a hard-fought campaign by the renewable energy community, the long, bumpy road continues to the Senate where the future of the industry is less certain.

Additional Information

Earlier Story on the House Energy Bill

Bioenergy, Geothermal Energy, Green Power, Hydropower, Hydrogen - Fuel Cells, Ocean Energy, Other, Solar Energy, Wind Power

18 Reader Comments

Comment
1 of 18

david-miller-69770

December 7, 2007

Here is the "nay" list I found. Please contact your Senators and tell them just how important this bill is.
NAYs ---42
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

Comment
2 of 18

jon-burnham-74275

December 7, 2007

A big step this is. People will begin to notice the overly favorable treatment big oil gets at the hands of certain congressional members. They will begin to sweat caught between the pressure of their oil sponsors and the groundswell of public opinion. They will swing or they will be replaced. Let them know! write/email your senator. Let them know we mean business

Comment
3 of 18

daniel-simon-33441

December 7, 2007

Brian McKinley @#1: ever heard of an Alaska Senator named Ted Stevens? I would further speculate that Senator Imhoff is likely to oppose this bill if past action is any indication.

Comment
4 of 18

brett-dotson-54127

December 7, 2007

When the voting on the bill in the Senate is over, I suggest that Renewable Energy Access provide the names of the Senators that voted against this bill, so the American people will know who vote out of office. "It takes a revolution to make a solution."

Comment
5 of 18

jake-jenkins-67472

December 7, 2007

Change is slow my friends. Keep up the good work, keep fighting the good fight, keep the ongoing discussion alive and focused on the positive. Just like the article mentions, a month ago this was getting the rug pulled on it. Fourteen months ago there weren't enough votes in either house to consider this. First hurdle cleared, second one in view and even if Bush vetoes, the momentum and visibility gained are not reversible, this is happening whether or not it makes the end of the 2007 Congress or not. So keep the pressure on your representatives and especially your SENATOR's and let's see what's what come the end of this Congress.

Comment
6 of 18

b-p-solar-72512

December 7, 2007

It may be clever to use the phrase "increasing taxes" when in reality it is eliminating a tax incentive, thus achieving the effect of a larger marginal tax burden.

Clever like a fox

Comment
7 of 18

mortimer-shnerdlyfrump-47009

December 7, 2007

One of the governments roles is national security. Being dependent for oil from terrorist states threatens our national security. On top of the annual billions in tax breaks the poor oil companies are getting directly, they are also getting $16,000,000,000 a month in subsidies from the protection of oil in Iraq.

The governement has always been involved in industries and the economy. They break monopolies when they get too big. They bail out airlines and banks. They subsidize oil companies and farmers. They also take care of people - Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Social Security.

Why is it that when they MAY assist an industry that could bring about the greatest benefit in security, jobs and economic prosperity, and propose funding it by giving less to an industry that's busting at the seams from profits, there are those that complain.

Comment
8 of 18

steven-woodcock-74971

December 7, 2007

Actually that's not fair...it's not all Republicans. There are a variety of congress-critters involved on both sides of the aisle.

We should encourage renewables, definitely, but NOT by demonizing the fossil fuel guys. The bill should provide funds to help clean up existing refineries and build new ones, not increase taxes on them.

As far as subsidies go, NO energy producer should get them whether it's fossil fuels, ethanol farmers, solar producers, etc. That's not government's role. They should work instead to encourage consumer and corporate adoption of the newer, cleaner technologies--the carrot is way more effective than the stick in this case.

I'm neutral on the CAFE standards. Won't really do much one way or the other, but in general I think they're a good idea.

Comment
9 of 18

shaun-powers-35571

December 7, 2007

I'm ashamed to say that I live in kentucky, as both my senators -- Mitch McConnell and Jim Bunning -- are great friends to the fossil fuel industry and it's been tough trying to change their views.

Comment
10 of 18

brian-mckinley-73540

December 7, 2007

Who are the republicans who have voiced opposition from taking money from fossil fuels to give toward renewable energy?

Comment
11 of 18

david-ahlport-66657

December 8, 2007

The problem being that the Senate wants to remove the 15% Renewable Electricity Standard.

And yes I'd argue that the biofuels approach simply isn't possible, and will have to be defaulted on in the future. But whatever if they can actually swing the RES then it's worth it.

But without the RES, it's a crappy deal.

Comment
12 of 18

jack-morrison-74117

December 8, 2007

You can probably add Texas' other Senator to the list- Kay Bailey Hutchison. She generally does whatever the oil companies tell her to do.

Comment
13 of 18

joey-ventura-ca-54371

December 8, 2007

Way to go Dems. A tip of the hat. It's about time we saw some spine out of you.

Comment
14 of 18

jim-berry-51310

December 8, 2007

Don't be naive about the political aspect of this vote which has nothing to do being "green" but centers on pork barrel spending.

As can been seen from the list above, this was a largely party line vote and non-complying members probably had approval to vote on the other side due to the upcoming election. This bill reassigns money (or subsidies/ tax credits/ regulatory restrictions = money) from big oil to renewables. Since the Democrats control both houses that means the Bill takes money and gives it to Democratic party supports and donors. Its all about money, nothing about power generation.

Guess what? Renewable companies and environmentalist are mostly supporters/donors for the Democrats. In contrast, big oil gives to both sides just like defense contractors, utilities, and agro-corps.

Comment
15 of 18

k-a-hruzer-75028

December 9, 2007

Could someone link to the entire text of the Bill, please.
-
While an odd Republican who favors reduction of big oil subsidies to promote renewable energy, this bill does need also to be considered in its' entirety.
-
As usual, the devil is in the details.

Comment
16 of 18

gamessier

December 9, 2007

Perhaps the political system is working about as it was designed to. It took 87 years, and the Civil War to abolish slavery; and women weren't enfranchised until 1920.
A national initiative of this magnitude, fraught with import and consequence for all of us, needs to be thoroughly deliberated and vetted at the state and local levels before "the feds" impose a solution which, if experience is any measure, may well be wrong.
As Churchill observed, Americans can be counted on to do the right thing, after having tried everything else...
Those eager to gore fossil generators (pardon that) should keep in mind that even if the RPS becomes law (and succeeds - an altogether diffrent standard), those fossil generators will still produce 85% of the nation's energy in 2020.

Comment
17 of 18

bob-lada-74249

December 9, 2007

it is about time,now if we can get our other half to pass it, we then can move forward for the common citizen TO WIN. SINCE WE KNOW THAT THE BIG CORPORATIONS WOULD LIKE NOTHING MORE, THAN TO PUT RPS'S, RENEWABLES, OUT OF REACH, FOR US. LET'S FACE IT, SOMEONE ALWAYS HAS TO HAVE, THEIR SLICE.

Comment
18 of 18

jeff-anderson-44139

December 12, 2007

I was wondering how many spending earmarks are attached to this bill. A bet alot that don't even have anything to do with energy independence. The tax incentives for oil companies is for exploration, and development of new oil fields. By removing these insentives will result in less future demestic oil production. Thats ok. The US will end up buying it from other forean countries instead. This bill sounds more like a pig in a dress. Just remember that the road to diaster is paved with good intentions. You should dig deep into this bill, and investigate everything.

Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!