Not this August, nor this September; you have this year to do what you like. Not next August, nor next September; that is still too soon… But the year after that or the year after that they fight. — Ernest Hemingway

Hemingway wrote these words about war.  But I want to appropriate them today for another cause.  In the next two months, before the August recess, congress is going to tackle a series of bills that could define… everything.  This is how the United States will deal with the rest of the world.  This is how we will work.  This is what we will leave our children.  This is where we will spill our blood.

When it comes to energy, it’s all about this August.  

The Bush energy plan, first proposed pre-9/11, is perhaps the most distasteful stack of warts this administration has tried to pass off as legislation.  After three years of wading the swamps of congress, it has finally uglied its way to the fore.  The primary feature of this plan — in fact, the whole core of the plan, revolves around reversing environmental laws, opening more areas to drilling, and making it easier for fossil fuel companies of all sorts to get around existing regulations.  The plan also contains tax breaks for fossil fuel companies.  In announcing the plan, Bush made a lot of noise about reducing our need for foreign oil, but though the plan also opens up more protected areas to drilling, it ultimately (by it’s own figures) leaves us using a higher amount of imported oil than before putting the plan into action.  The BBC called it correctly at the time: Bush’s plan wasn’t a policy, it was payback to his pals in the energy game.

Bush has voiced some modifications to the plan since it was first announcing, including his proposal to site new refineries on closed military bases (with “relaxed” regulations) and more emphasis on nuclear.  The new Bush rhetoric suggests that the only crisis we face is a lack of refineries. Again these were made to sound like ideas to address our oil thirst.  Again the figures show that if we do what Bush proposes, we will end up using more foreign oil, not less.

Several attempts have been made to push some version of the Bush plan through congress.  Some parts of these plans have made it through (and Bush has made good on his threats to use executive orders to roll back as much environmental policy as possible), but for the most part the plans have foundered because they overreached.  

For example, the 2003 version included provisions that would have made it even easier for coal-bed methane producers to destroy western ranches.  You want to know why the west is now in play for Democrats?  Want to know why there’s Democrats making advances in states that only a few years back were the reddest of the red?  Look no farther than the havoc raised by coal-bed methane.

Despite these past misfires, the administration and the right-wingers in congress keep taking swings at passing variants on the Bush plan, and this year is no exception.  What’s different this time is the expectation.  This year, everyone thinks some version of the energy bill will actually pass.

In April, the House passed a version of the Bush plan that makes even the original White House proposal look good in comparison.  Even the Denver Post — an energy-friendly paper in an energy-driven town — has nothing but scorn for the House bill.

The House measure is filled with federal giveaways to the oil and gas industries – mature businesses that don’t need a taxpayer handout. Worse, the House bill contains massive environmental rollbacks.

 Thank you, Mr. Post editor, sir, I couldn’t have said it better myself.  

In the meantime, the Senate has been working on its own version of the energy bill — a version that may come up for a vote as early as today.  This version is in some ways better than the House version (mostly because it doesn’t try to use energy as an excuse to gut every environmental law of the last thirty years).  However, it’s still lacking some of the most important elements needed for a functional plan and has elements that no one outside of Exxon could love.   And the Senate bill even surpasses the House version in opening up areas for drilling (Funny, the Denver Post editorial never really points out that the Senate bill gives the shaft to coastal areas. )

Because the two versions differ significantly, reconciling the two pieces of legislation is going to take time, and the ultimate plan is likely to vary widely from both of the “parents.”  Now is a good time to take a look at what’s in these plans, and how you should lean on your congress-folk for real changes.  Between now and this August, we have to make our stand.  

What’s in the House and Senate Plans?
Both plans provide rich chests of booty for Bush’s friends in the oil, gas, and coal industries.  How much gold is actually out there to find is open to debate, but figure on at least $23 billion no matter how many times the House leadership says $6.8 billion.  There are tax exemptions for exploration, development, and production.  There are easing of restrictions and grants for research.   This gravy train could be endless.

Cheney’s Favorite: The House Bill

LNG: Locals have No control over Gas
Right now, there are several enormous LNG (Liquid natural Gas) facilities being built in countries like Qatar.  With these facilities, the Middle East may (in fact, almost certainly will) eventually ship more energy in the form of LNG than petroleum.  But the ships that carry LNG are huge, they require special docks, and they’re potentially dangerous (both in the case of accidents or terrorist attack).  So where are all this big ships going?  Here, if they get a chance.  Bush has promoted LNG docks, and the House bill gives it to him in spades — complete with language that exempts these facilities from most regulations and prevents state and local officials from blocking their construction.  How loathsome are these sites?  When a similar proposal came up in the Senate and Sen. Feinstein offered an ammendment returning control over these sites to local governments, look at how the two “we couldn’t be more red” Alabama senators voted:

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Mobile, co-sponsored Feinstein’s amendment and voted in favor of it; Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Tuscaloosa, was opposed.

Why would they vote this way?  Mobile is on the coast, and a potential site for an LNG facility.  Tuscaloosa is safely inland.

Carcinogens for everyone!
What issue could unite the US Conference of Mayors, the Lutheran Church, and the Navajo Nation in opposition?  Try toxic gasoline additive Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether.  The House bill contains rules making producers of the fuel additive MTBE immune from prosecution.  And tax payers would get to pick up the bill for the mess.  Why would anyone want to protect makers of a toxin that has ruined water supplies in at least 29 cases?  Ahem.  

At the insistence of Reps. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, and Joe Barton, R-Texas, the House measure would shield ExxonMobil and other makers of MTBE from product liability lawsuits. If their special-interest deal became law, taxpayers would be forced to write checks to clean up the MTBE mess, estimated by municipal water experts at $29 billion.
The MTBE makers have made different types of investments. Barton, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee has received more than $368,000 in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry since 2001, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

 If there’s any issue that might sink the whole deal, this could be the one.  Delay won’t let it go.  Now the question is if Senators will hold their noses and let it through.

Only Slightly Less Odious Senate Version

Corn, corn, corn
With the Senate plan, comes more ethanol.

The bill would double the used of corn-based ethanol, which the ethanol industry says would supplant the need for 2 billion barrels of oil a year.

Note that I think this is a good thing.  The House version limits gains in ethanol production to 20%, while the Senate version doubles production.  Score one for the Senate.

Partly sunny
There’s a bit of alternative energy sources in the Senate plan.  The bill calls for utilities to get 10 percent of their electricity from renewable-energy sources by 2020.   Considering that we do 2% now, that’s a significant improvement.  However, it’s a long way from what we should settle on in the next fifteen years — and significantly less than regulations some states have already passed (Maine is requiring the utilities to get 30 percent of their electricity from renewables by 2011).  The sentate plan also includes some tax breaks for alternate energy providers and a scheme for trading “alternate energy credits.”  This last means that if states like Maine meet their 30% goals, other areas might not improve at all, they’d just buy some credits from Maine.  

Blinding you with Science
Rather than addressing problems with off the shelf technology, the Senate bill proposes increasing funds for research.  At the same time, it moves around some research programs in ways that make some of the researchers involved more than a little nervous.  There are more funds for hydrogen, solar and geothermal power (along with more research in oil drilling techniques and nuclear power), but all programs in these areas are moved under the control of the DOE.  Folks interested in alternative energy are a might nervous that DOE wants people to know that renewables are the future of American energy — and always will be.

Also be sure to take any mention funding for of alternative fuels in the Senate bill with a large grain of sodium chloride.  In describing the bill, the Senate’s definition of alternative includes things like oil produced from tar sands and coal-bed methane.  Still, there are some interesting things in there — like credit for badly needed low-sulfur diesel fuel, biomass, and co-generation.

Don’t get me wrong, all the research is necessary.  But none of it substitutes for immediate action.  Leave those funds there, but make sure that money is directed toward things we can do to help today.

Gulf Oil
Not the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Mexico.  The Senate bill opens up drilling in the Gulf off the coast of Florida.  Florida isn’t alone.  There’s the possibility of drilling off the Virginia coast, off Washington state, off… well, if you’ve got a coast, odds are it’s going to get drilled should this bill pass.  Some have noted that the bill could be seen as an appropriate “payback” for Mel Martinez (R-FL) who earlier voted for drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.  

Perhaps the recent move to weaken Florida’s ban has something to do with Sen. Martinez’s vote to open the pristine preserve in northern Alaska to oil drilling. Martinez contends his vote was made in exchange for a five-year extension of the existing Florida drilling moratorium that was due to expire in 2007. But his version of that vote is nothing but a political sham, as the existing moratorium, signed in the Clinton administration, already runs until 2012.

Get that, Floridians?  Mel signed on to a bill in exchange for a five year cut in the state’s drilling ban.  (Oh, and the Senate bill also includes funds to speed up development of a new pipeline across Alaska.)

Sending Coal to the Cleaners
There’s also a good deal of clean coal funding in the bill.  Electric plants that run on coal and meet certain requirements get some money, power plants that run on more advanced coal technology get even more money.  Research and investment in clean coal technology gets… money.  See the trend?

What’s not in either plan (but should be)
If you were thinking of an energy bill, what would your two top priorities be?  How about 1) decrease imported oil consumption and 2) limit production of greenhouse gases.  So, how surprising is it that neither bill does a thing to address either issue?

Increased Fuel Economy
The number one thing missing from both plans is any restriction, any plan, anything at all to improve vehicle mileage.  Foreign oil goes into domestic gas tanks, not power plants.  Building a nuclear plant on every block wouldn’t reduce our oil consumption one drop if it didn’t include some movement of vehicles off of oil.  Right now, 95% of our transportation (including trains, planes, and automodoodads) runs on oil.  Neither the House nor the Senate put in any requirement to increase vehicle mileage.  You may want to review that sentence again: neither plan does a thing about improving vehicle mileage.  The Senate bill includes some tax credits for high mileage vehicles (my Prius thanks you), but both bills extend a provision that keeps the CAFE standards from being enforced.  Without this, all the rest of the plan is smoke and mirrors.

The Senate bill does include requirements for improved energy efficiency on a number of consumer products — notably, products that do no run on oil.  You can still count on the Republicans to make ridiculous statements about even the most minor increases in CAFE standards, and they come through year after year.  

“What about choice? This is still America,” said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss. He brought to the Senate floor a picture of a European mini-car, declaring, “I don’t think we should be forced to drive that automobile.”

 Sponsoring the legislation that turned back CAFE increases and virtually assured that they couldn’t be moved?  Good old Kit Bond, who once famously said that increasing mileage standards would force us to drive “clown cars.”

Greenhouse Gas Limits
But wait, perhaps they put this plan in there to help clean up our electrical grid.  Nope.  Neither bill addresses production of greenhouses gases, and just yesterday, the Senate voted down the only pending legislation to address this problem.  Leading the charge?  Kit “clown car” Bond, who can always be counted on as a defender of any burning hydrocarbon.  

“McCain-Lieberman will hurt farms, hurt our national security, drive jobs overseas,” said Senator Kit Bond, a Missouri Republican. …  The Senate yesterday approved an amendment to offer incentives for voluntary, rather than mandatory, reductions in emissions. Incentives in the voluntary amendment will result in real reductions in carbon emissions, Bond said.

 Yes, I’m certain that Bond also favors voluntary penalties on murder, theft, and bribery.  Oh, wait, the rest of that was sarcasm, but on bribery, Bond probably does favor only voluntary controls.

All is not completely bleak on the “deep-frying of the Earth” front.  Pete Domenici (R-NM), who is the principle sponsor of the Senate bill, has promised to work with his cross-state neighbor Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) on some limits for global warming pollution.  Bingaman’s plan is modeled on work by the National Commission on Energy Policy (a bi-partisan foundation).  Currently, it doesn’t look like any of this language will make it into the energy bill.  Good luck getting Republicans to pass it if it’s not tied to all the breaks included in the big package.

Bringing It Home
The two bills vary in the amount of payola they reward oil, gas, coal, and nuclear power, and the Senate bill trades LNG ports and MTBE protection for the right to drill on every inch of land and sea.  The Senate bill gets a patina of respectability from its minor increase in alternative energy.  The House… well, there’s nothing good at all to say about the House bill.

I want to ask you to do something.  Think of it as a special favor to me, to folks who live along the coast, to service women and men fighting in the Middle East, to people who breath, and to your unborn great grandkids.  I want you to get on this issue.  I mean get on it.  Lay into your senators.  Make your congressman’s phone ring off the hook.  Make them know that this issue is just as important — if not more so — than Social Security or Medicare.  

They think you’re asleep on this one.  They think you don’t care.  They think they can give billions to the producers, wave their hands, and you’ll go back to sleep on energy issues.  Please show them you’re fed up with more of the same and demand an energy policy that works to better the nation, not just the bottom line at ExxonMobil.