"Senate energy bill escapes House trap" (Denver Post Editorial)

With the leadership of several key Western senators, the Senate is crafting legislation that addresses both production and environmental concerns.

The U.S. Senate is crafting energy legislation that's far more worthwhile than the retrograde bill that sailed through the House in April.

The Senate proposal could actually help wean America from imported oil in the long term. And it doesn't sidestep such environmental concerns as global warming.

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.

The Senate wants utilities to get 10 percent of their electricity from renewable-energy sources such as wind and solar by 2020. Colorado's senators split on this issue, with Democrat Ken Salazar voting (indeed pushing) for it, and Wayne Allard voting no. The proposed national requirement would be lower or slower than what some states have enacted. Colorado, for example, requires utilities to obtain 10 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2015, while Maine is requiring the utilities to get 30 percent of their electricity from renewables by 2011.

The White House remains stuck in the past century on such matters, though, stoutly opposing the Senate's support of alternative energy sources. The Office of Management and Budget has complained about the cost of the Senate tax credits, yet the Bush administration didn't whine when the House offered huge giveaways to the oil and gas industry.

The Senate measure further seeks long- term progress by setting a national efficiency standard for a host of appliances not covered under existing law. The Colorado legislature passed a similar measure this year, but Gov. Bill Owens vetoed it.

What a load of one-sided garbage: "We can't imagine why Allard would oppose a measure that is so obviously consistent with the measure approved by Colorado voters last November.

Ummm, didja maybe think he might have a point? Like say, this federally subsidized non-baseload energy might cost everyone more when they get their power bill each month? Like, solar isn't even a reality? And wind won't provide energy when the wind doesn't blow?

These Denver Post numbnuts have a first-grader's understanding of how the world works. It is very condescending to criticize Allard and glorify Salazar without any analysis of both sides of an argument.

yet the Bush administration didn't whine when the House offered huge giveaways to the oil and gas industry.

ON THE CONTRARY I heard Bush himself say, more than once BTW, that there was no need for incentives for the Oil & Gas Industry because prices are so high the incentives are built in.

That makes the Denver Post editorial a LIE.MORE MSM LIARS ON DISPLAY PING

"

The Senate wants utilities to get 10 percent of their electricity from renewable-energy sources such as wind and solar by 2020. Colorado's senators split on this issue, with Democrat Ken Salazar voting (indeed pushing) for it, and Wayne Allard voting no. The proposed national requirement would be lower or slower than what some states have enacted. Colorado, for example, requires utilities to obtain 10 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2015, while Maine is requiring the utilities to get 30 percent of their electricity from renewables by 2011. "

This is a horrible idea that will only make electricity prices higher. Horrible.

The oped praises everything bad and denounces everything good ... the world is upside down!

Yes, and the (renewable portfolio) energy standard Colorado voters approved in November exceeded the Bingaman standard the Post is carping about. Which the Post might have discovered if they had bothered to do a little research. Bad policy to create a national mandate when the states have so many different circumstances. Better to let the states set their own standards, based on their own conditions and resources. Extremely slipshod journalism and editoriaizing, even for the Post.

What's remarkable is that so many seemingly intelligent people believe that passing a law requiring something to happen by a certain date is the same as actually making it happen.

If this works in the real world, I'm going to request that my legislature pass a bill that requires me to fly (unassisted) by the year 2008. I'll even work out in the meantime!

At the turn of the century, the state of Idaho came within one vote of declaring the mathematical value of "Pi" to be officially 3.2, in order to make the math easier.

Every time we decide we have seen all the idiocy possible, someone invents (or breeds) a better idiot.
Then we elect them to political office.

Like, solar isn't even a reality?

Solar will become a reality a lot sooner if it has tax incentives to help it grow.

And wind won't provide energy when the wind doesn't blow?

In huge areas of Colorado and New Mexico the average wind speed is sufficient to generate energy more than 90% of the time. We need tax incentives to encourage its growth a lot more than we need tax incentives for existing technologies.

If the House version of the Energy Bill is the best we can get then we shouldn't pass any Energy Bill at all. The House should be ashamed of itself for the terrible legislation they have created.

Sorry, wind power is a fringe element here. Understand how baseload power charges the grid, read about spinning reserves, basically educate yourself. Wind power should be subsidized and does help out, but it is quite marginal, and insignificant, compared to demand-side requirements.

Solar is still ridiculous, but I do favor R&D. I'm not saying we need to de-fund research, but we certainly do not need ridiculous feel-good measures setting policy. We need common sense, intelligence, rationality, and REASON - not emotional nonsense.

Go back to school and get your G.E.D.

Sorry, wind power is a fringe element here. Understand how baseload power charges the grid, read about spinning reserves, basically educate yourself. Wind power should be subsidized and does help out, but it is quite marginal, and insignificant, compared to demand-side requirements.
Solar is still ridiculous, but I do favor R&D. I'm not saying we need to de-fund research, but we certainly do not need ridiculous feel-good measures setting policy. We need common sense, intelligence, rationality, and REASON - not emotional nonsense.
Go back to school and get your G.E.D.

For more than twenty years, I have been a consultant specializing in Energy Automation and Control Systems. I have designed several of the leading Power Monitoring and Control systems, including Demand Management, currently used by G.E., Square D, and Rockwell Automation.

The Wind Farms in New Mexico and Colorado are growing everyday. On a recent two day trip through S.E Colorado and Eastern New Mexico I observed hundreds of the G.E. 2.5 MW units already in place and five new units in shipment. That is very good start toward to some serious nonpolluting Gigawatts. Certainly they will never be our sole source of power but they can be a large part of our overall energy strategy.

When do you anticipate retaking your GED exam?

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.