Senate Proposes Broader Energy Tax Package

WASHINGTON - A package of energy tax breaks proposed in the Senate would give up to $2,400 to buyers of hybrid motor vehicles, subsidize the purchase of more efficient appliances and help pay for the development of clean coal technologies.

The $16 billion in tax incentives is double what was proposed in the House and would commit about $6 billion over 10 years to energy efficiency, conservation and promotion of alternative fuels. The House agreed to about $8 billion, with less than $500 million for efficiency and conservation, in the energy bill it passed in April.

The Senate Finance Committee was expected to clear the tax proposals, tentatively agreed to Tuesday, in a formal vote Thursday so they can be rolled into a broader energy bill that the Senate will debate over the next few weeks.

Senators also tentatively agreed to require refineries to use 8 billion gallons a year of ethanol, mostly from corn, as a gasoline additive, rebuffing attempts by some senators to reduce the requirement. Some details remained to be worked out on the ethanol provision before the issue comes up for a vote in the Senate, probably Wednesday.

In the first floor vote on the energy bill, the Senate on Tuesday rejected 59-30 an attempt by Sen. Barbara Boxer (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., to strip from the bill a provision that would protect makers of ethanol from liability in potential environmental lawsuits. She argued that if ethanol is safe to use, as proponents maintain, the liability protection wasn't needed.

As the Senate began what was expected to be at least two weeks of debate over energy policy, the rhetoric focused on the need to reduce the country's dependence on imported oil. Lawmakers acknowledged the bill does little to ensure reductions in oil imports, which accounted for nearly 58 percent of the crude oil used during the first three months of this year.

Senate Democrats planned to propose Wednesday reducing the growth of oil imports over the next 20 years. The energy bill already includes a provision that would direct future presidents to find ways to cut U.S. oil use by 1 million barrels a day by 2015.

Sen. Maria Cantwell (news, bio, voting record), D-Wash., said she wants to go further. She planned to propose a national goal of cutting oil imports 40 percent below what they are projected to be in 2025.

Cantwell said the proposal doesn't pretend to outline how the reduction on oil imports would be achieved. "The goal is simply a goal," she said.

The White House said it strongly opposed the provision to save 1 million barrels. It said the directive would "effectively require a rapid, near-term increase" in federal automobile fuel economy requirements "and may well be impossible to achieve."

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the president should support a goal of reducing imports if he's really serious about energy independence.

Last year net oil imports averaged nearly 11.9 million barrels a day, or 58 percent of the crude oil consumed, according to the Energy Information Administration, which projects imports to total 68 percent of consumption by 2025 under current conditions.

Environmentalists and fuel efficiency advocates said the oil savings measures would likely achieve little because they do not prescribe actions to be taken to meet the goals or include consequences should the goals not be met.

Cantwell said the proposal doesn't pretend to outline how the reduction on oil imports would be achieved. "The goal is simply a goal," she said.

They want the president to reduce imports and then get right up and defend bans on offhore drillng off both coasts. Who do they think they are kidding?

Nuts! nuts! nuts! Why are we trying to clean a 17th century fuel source (coal) when nuclear power could run most of the nation without ANY air pollution. Even the quisling French get 75% of their electricity from nuclear power. Congress should be ashamed.

I was glad yo see that there was no mention of wind generated power in this post. It is the biggest fraud ever foisted on the American public.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.