WASHINGTON - The House approved incentives for renewable energy and conservation Saturday, and edged closer to passing nearly $16 billion in taxes on oil companies.

Republican opponents said the legislation ignores the need to produce more domestic oil, natural gas and coal. One GOP lawmaker bemoaned "the pure venom ... against the oil and gas industry."

The House approved the energy measures, including a requirement for electric utilities to use more renewable energy to generate power, by a vote of 241-172. Lawmakers later were to consider a companion tax package, totaling nearly $16 billion, that targets the major oil companies.

"We are turning to the future," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

On one of the most contentious and heavily lobbied issues, the House voted to require investor-owned electric utilities nationwide to generate at least 15 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources such as wind or biofuels.

The utilities and business interests had argued aggressively against the federal renewables mandate, saying it would raise electricity prices in regions of the country that do not have abundant wind energy. But environmentalists argued the requirement will spur investments in renewable fuels and help address global warming as utilities use less coal.

"This will save consumers money," said Rep. Tom Udall, D-N.M., the provision's co-sponsor, maintaining utilities will have to use less high-priced natural gas. He noted that half the states already have a renewable energy mandate for utilities, and if utilities can't find enough renewable they can meet part of the requirement through power conservation measures.

The bill also calls for more stringent energy efficiency standards for appliances and lighting and incentives for building more energy-efficient "green" buildings. It would authorize special bonds for cities and counties to reduce energy demand.

Pelosi, D-Calif., said it was essential to commit to renewable energy while reducing reliance on fossil fuels. Doing so, she said, will help address global warming and make the country more energy-independent.

"It's about our children, about our future, the world in which they live," Pelosi said.

She had pledged to have the House pass energy legislation before lawmakers depart this weekend for a monthlong vacation.

Debate on cars, ethanol postponed
Democrats avoided a nasty fight by ignoring — at least for the time being — calls for automakers to make vehicles more fuel-efficient. Cars, sport utility vehicles and small trucks use most of the country's oil and produce almost one-third of the carbon dioxide emissions linked to global warming.

That issue, as well as whether to require huge increases in the use of corn-based ethanol as a substitute for gasoline, were left to be thrashed out when the House bill is merged with energy legislation the Senate passed in June.

Republicans said the House bill did nothing to increase domestic oil and natural gas production or take further advantage of coal, the country's most abundant domestic energy resource.

"There's a war going on against energy from fossil fuels," said Rep. Ralph Hall, R-Texas. "I can't understand the pure venom felt against the oil and gas industry."

Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, said the bill was "a political exercise" to promote "pet projects, ... pet ideas." He predicted it "isn't going anywhere" because President Bush will veto it if it gets to his desk.

The White House said the legislation makes "no serious attempts to increase our energy security or address high energy costs" and would harm domestic oil and gas production. The administration's statement criticized the singling out of oil companies for tax increases.

Oil company tax breaks could end
A separate tax measure, expected to be voted on later in the evening, would end two sizable tax breaks for major oil companies. One was aimed at promoting domestic manufacturing; the other pertained to income from foreign oil production.

The tax measure also would provide an array of loan guarantees, federal grants and tax breaks for alternative energy programs. They include building biomass factories, research into making ethanol from wood chips and prairie grasses and producing better batteries for hybrid gas-electric automobiles.

The legislation would end a tax break for buying large SUVs, known as the "Hummer tax loophole" because it allows people who buy some of the most expensive SUVs to write off much of the cost.

The proposal also provides tax incentives for companies to produce flex-fuel vehicles that can run on 85 percent ethanol and for gas station operators to install E-85 pumps.


---------------------------------------

I doubt Bush would sign the bill into law. The self declared "former oil man" (note the sarcaism here) is too deep into the pocket of big oil. Also he entrench the US in a bog down war in Iraq for oil although he claims it's the forefront of the war on terror.

ughh i hate the house

More taxes, hurray hurray. Get real.

Bush, unlike his father was a failure in the oil business. He lost millions of his investers money. the only way he can make it up is to protect the oil industry, and this country wanted to impeach Nixion. Why don't we impeach that rat from texas

We've had alternative energy for years..could all be driving our vehicles, heating/cooling our homes and businesses, powering everything with energy cells. Look how long we've had nuclear powered submarines. It would have ruined the economy if we had switched...and it's not just the oil industry, would get the gas and electric utilities as well.
They will gradually switch to ethanol, but it won't help you and me...ethanol will cost as much or more than gasoline and will contain gasoline and corn sqeezing.

So, dream on...we've had liberals in the white house and controling congress and we've had conservatives in control.
Niether has done anything about it other than to say 'we need alternative energy'....they're too busy trying to stay in power.

corporations do not pay tax

they tack it on to the price

and the consumer gets hit again

I'm glad when obstructionist Bush
is out of the White House.

He is the worst President in the
history of this nation, bar none!



What is needed is a carrot and stick
approach for the oil companies.

If they build more refineries
and renewable sources of energy,
they get to keep their tax breaks.

If they don't, they get socked with
a heavy windfall profits tax.

Remember those? They had them
during the Carter era.

It's only fitting for an industry
that makes obscene profits and
does nothing to make this a cleaner
world.

I don't know all the details but wouldn't switching to ethanol fuel would end the subsidities for farmers to not grow anything. Plus it could end our oil need from countries like Iran, Venezula, Iraq, and other volital areas and foreign oil co. The money that not's sent to those hostile countries won't be use to fund terrorist who want to harm us. Additionaly the money not sent over would be put into American agriculture and provide jobs here.

Building new refineries is a noble idea, trying to get it by the legal blocks put up by the environmental groups is another question. They are trying to build another ethanol plant here in South Dakota and already the environmental lawsuits are flying. They are also trying to do drilling to map uranium deposits for mining that is being blocked by the environmental wackos.

If all the corn produced in the U.S. were turned into ethanol, it wouldn't replace 10% of the oil we use yearly. Yet everyone thinks it will be our salvation. We could drill the AWR but environmentalists have blocked that too. It wouldn't be a permanent solution but it would buy us some breathing room while other sources of energy are developed and it would reduce our dependence of foreign oil but we can't do that because some caribou might get disturbed.

One of the biggest groups that is against requireing the auto industry to produce more fuel efficient cars is the United Auto Workers Union. Their president testified in congress a few months ago that if the American Auto Manufacturers were required to make more fuel efficent vechicles it could cost jobs in the American Auto Industry. Just how that would happen I don't know, the foreign imports are already more fuel efficient that their American counterparts.

The energy crisis has been coming at us for many years and congress and previous administrations have refused to address the problem. Now the problem is at our doorstep and congress is running around like a chicken with it's head cut off shouting that we need to do something about finding alternative fuels and become more fuel efficient. Congress always has issues but they never have a solution to a problem yet they always have someone to blame. Just once I wish they would all look in the mirror and they would see what the problem is.

exactly gardenforge, you don't know. i'm tired of people putting down the UAW because they don't know what they are talking about. the UAW is not against greater fuel efficiency. they are for it. what they are against is the way that the government and auto manufactuers waqnt to go about it. it is called the two fleet rule and has nothing to do with not wanting fuel efficient automobiles.

facts are greater fuel efficient automobiles are good for UAW workers because that is what the public wants. please look this stuff up before you slander the good names of american workers.

what i have never been able to figgure out is why the unions push democretic dogma???
Democraps...? the same crew that shipped the jobs overseas to "save money? "

kingbreeze

looks like you are making a point here

could you put up a web address so i can check it out

thanks

oh yeah garden could you as well

i would like the no spin ability

if you tax the oil companies they will just push the prices up even more out of our financial ability to afford.

UAW blasts Markey's rule change
Union wants 2-fleet rule kept in fuel-economy proposal
August 4, 2007

BY JUSTIN HYDE

FREE PRESS WASHINGTON STAFF

The UAW on Friday accused U.S. Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass. of an "entirely gratuitous attack" against the jobs of 17,000 autoworkers through an overlooked provision in his most recent fuel-economy proposal.

Democrats have pulled back from debating any fuel-economy proposals before the August recess.

Advertisement

The UAW wanted to telegraph its opposition to the provision dealing with what is known as the two-fleet rule for domestic and imported vehicles -- a rule that Nissan Motor Co. would like to abolish.

Markey's original bill calling for a 35-m.p.g. standard by 2018 maintained the two-fleet rule, as does the fuel-economy plan from Reps. Baron Hill, D-Ind., and Lee Terry, R-Neb., which is favored by the auto industry. But technical language tucked into an updated version of Markey's proposal filed this week would eliminate the rule.

"The revised Markey proposal would enable auto manufacturers to offshore all of their small-car production, and would thereby threaten the jobs of thousands of American workers," Alan Reuther, the UAW's legislative director, said in a letter to all House members Friday.

"The UAW deeply regrets that, in a desperate effort to gain a few votes, Representative Markey apparently decided to abandon his past position on this critically important jobs issue, and to join forces with Nissan in seeking to eliminate the domestic-foreign fleet" distinction, he added.

The UAW maintains that without the rule, automakers likely would close five plants that assemble small cars in the United States, including the Ford plant in Wayne.

A spokeswoman for Markey declined to say why the provision was included in Markey's revised fuel-economy plan. Markey withdrew his amendment to the House Democrats' energy bill late Wednesday, saying he instead would fight to maintain the Senate's fuel-economy plan when the two chambers hammer out a compromise bill later this year.

"We plan to continue to work with all parties as we head into conference," said Markey spokeswoman Jessica Schafer.

Federal fuel-economy rules require automakers to separate domestic and imported cars so that each group meets the current 27.5-m.p.g. standard. The UAW pushed that clause into the original Corporate Average Fuel Economy bill in 1975 so that Detroit automakers would build small cars in the United States, rather than shift production outside the country to cut costs on what are typically money-losing models.

Detroit automakers had accepted the rule as a cost of doing business, and Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda Motor Co. have not opposed it in recent years.

But Nissan has struggled with the rule, and faced with violating the standards, Nissan won a waiver in April 2004 that runs through the 2010 model year, saving it at least $50 million.

With the waiver set to expire, Nissan must bulk up sales of imported small cars or limit sales of larger ones, shift production among plants, or sharply improve the efficiency of larger imported vehicles.

The Senate's energy bill eliminates the two-fleet standard, and the provision was key to winning not only Nissan's support but those of Southern senators with Nissan facilities in their states. Until Markey filed his amendment, no similar plan had been proposed in the House.

Because of a procedural meltdown late Thursday that sparked a walkout among Republicans, the House was not expected to tackle its energy bill until today


if you do a search for UAW and the two fleet rule or anything similar you'll get a lot of articles.

my whole point is that the UAW is not against better fuel efficiency for the cars that are built. they are however against losing small car production to overseas facilities because of this two fleet rule. if the cars go over seas we lose jobs and plants here.

there are also statements made by ron gettlefinger(president of UAW)to congress where he says that the UAW if for greater fuel efficiency but not at the price that they want to do it now.

That's funny considering how many "Japanese" vehicles are built in the US.
Maybe they should start taxing the consumer for the vehicles they drive like they do in the UK. I see a lot of gas guzzling SUV's and trucks on the road.

I saw the President of the UAW on TV testifying before congress he said if American Auto Manufacturers were required to make cars more fuel efficient it would cost American Auto Worker Jobs. No spin, no hype no nothing in his own words out of his mouth.

kid, that is exactly the point. they are trying to keep the us automakers from shipping the work overseas. it has nothing to do with the vehicles that are already built here in the US.

nissan is currently seeking an exemption from this rule. to save money.

foregin automakers donot have the legacy costs that the US automakers have because they have not been in business as long and the majority of their healthcare coverage is from overseas where it is tied to a nationalized coverage which US automakers do not have the luxury of having something like that.

Oh well. Do nothing and all the Asian manufacturers will be setting up shop in the US to beat the tariffs.
The big three seem to be building what is selling to a certain market. Others will continue to build more efficient vehicles and take a bigger percentage of the market share.
Let them slit their own throats and see what happens. Uncle Sam might have to start handing out some big band aids.
Oh wait! That might be communist or liberal thinking! Can't do that!

http://energycommerce.house.gov/cmte_mtgs/110-eaq-hrg.031407.Gettelfinger-Testimony.pdf


here is gettlefingers report on energy conservation...he os not against greater fuel efficiency. only against outsourcing of american jobs.