July 28th, 2010
07:24 AM ET
4 years ago

Senate energy bill focuses on oil spills, clean alternatives

Washington (CNN) - A proposed Senate energy bill unveiled Tuesday would increase the liability of oil companies in the event of spills and provide incentives toward more energy efficient homes and greater use of vehicles powered by electricity and natural gas.

The draft proposed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, is a compromise that has dropped major provisions in a House bill passed last year, including a cap on greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change.

Senate Democratic aides who gave a background briefing to reporters said Reid needed to scale back the energy bill to have any chance of getting Republican support that is necessary to pass the measure in the Senate.

Full story


Filed under: Energy • Harry Reid • issues • Senate
soundoff (18 Responses)
  1. Uncle Sam

    It needs to include a continuation of tax credits for blenders or there will be another 250,000 unemployed come January 1st.

    July 28, 2010 08:30 am at 8:30 am |
  2. annie s

    Here we go again. Scale back a good bill in order to get support from a Republican or two, who then won't support it anyway. And Americans actually want to vote for these fools – go figure.

    July 28, 2010 08:31 am at 8:31 am |
  3. Hugo

    Where is the production of bio diesel in all of this. It can be made out of any organic materials and wastes and we have seen relatively nothing on mass development of it. Think of all the wastewater treatment plants, pig farms, sheep, cattle ranches and chicken farms that could be turning waste into fuel, not to mention the slaughter houses with their waste and bi-products...Oh that's right, green house gas and global warming, I forgot...well then how about that old pesky hydrogen generator and electron gun technology that the Islamic Outreach Center (fka NASA) has developed?

    July 28, 2010 08:38 am at 8:38 am |
  4. g

    war yes -clean renewable fuel no-republicans don,t want to give up the 20th century

    July 28, 2010 08:49 am at 8:49 am |
  5. Tom-Vermillion, Ohio

    Anything about disclosure, quality assurance and containment responcibilities & how? Public right to know?

    July 28, 2010 08:50 am at 8:50 am |
  6. Carmelle

    But yet, They still won't vote for it!

    Then the trolls here will say that democrats are forcing things on the "American people". Not capping greenhouse gas is a HUGE concession to make from the left. So why won't you do the right thing for a change and allow this country to start shifting our dependencies while creating jobs and new technologies? WHY NOT?? We are the U,S,A, danm it. We lead. Not follow!

    Dems compromise and govern, Repubs lie and steal. That's why I'll be voting Dems in Nov.

    July 28, 2010 09:13 am at 9:13 am |
  7. Henry Miller, Libertarian

    The bill the House passed had little to do with energy and a lot to do with soaking Americans with huge new taxes.

    July 28, 2010 09:20 am at 9:20 am |
  8. Pragmatic

    Every bill seems to be watered down to get GOP support and yet, the GOP moans that no one listens to them!

    What are their alternatives? It is just a few months before the November elections. When John Boehner was asked what the Republican agenda would be if they won election, the man smugly replied, “TBD" = “To be determined!”

    Running on their record? Republicans on Tuesday blocked legislation requiring fuller disclosure of the money behind political advertising ... have something to hide – do we?

    July 28, 2010 09:23 am at 9:23 am |
  9. S.B. Stein E.B. NJ

    This process of getting a better energy policy legislated will be going to be done in short steps because of lack of vision from the GOP. This may also be needed to get businesses to see that there are ways to make money of the changing policy.

    Personally, I would like to see a very small carbon tax that grows slowly as well. This money would be used to fund development of cleaner and renewable fuel sources. It should also be used to develop new fission reactors that can used the waste from reprocessing of spent fuel. I would also hope that there is an increase in the gasoline tax so that it can help maintain road and spur new mass transit systems.

    July 28, 2010 09:28 am at 9:28 am |
  10. chill

    I don't think you can even call this an energy bill. It's mouse when a lion is neded. Still, it is better to get a tenth of a loaf rather than nothing. But please don't characterize this as an energy independence or global warming response. That remains to be done.

    July 28, 2010 09:41 am at 9:41 am |
  11. diridi

    without asking for "Entitlements" and Derivatives, another form of corruption, just work on passage of energy and climate reform, and immigration reform....we need to pass senate and representatives term limits...to two years.....so that these old idiots like Mitch McConnell, and Joe Lieberman will never talk like idiots...

    July 28, 2010 09:53 am at 9:53 am |
  12. aproudmemberoftheunpatrioticmob

    Certainly does not contain jobs, just more penalties and taxes for the "rich" which includes anyone who did not vote for the inept, corrupt, union toady president the "Nutwork Nation" installed as our leader. Won't be long now and he will be blasting someone else who is successful. Liberals cannot stand individual success, unless it involves stealing from taxpayers or putting our troops in danger, they like that.

    July 28, 2010 10:08 am at 10:08 am |
  13. Deborah/Kansas City

    The rules of the senat need to change so that no super majority is needed to pass legislation. Majority rules. The Democrats have had to weaken the legislation to the point of absurdity to get even 1 Republican to vote for progress in needed reforms for finacne, elections, healthcare, and on and on.

    July 28, 2010 10:10 am at 10:10 am |
  14. Naqib

    None of Reids crackpot crud will pass until November... you boys had a chance... and blew it big time... Will re-address in December!

    July 28, 2010 10:19 am at 10:19 am |
  15. floridian

    From what I read in this article, Congress will pass a bill that is going to try to hoodwink the public into thinking that they are hitting up on the oil companies to pay more for spill cleanup and other things, when all of this will be passed on to us via a significant rise in the cost of gasoline at the pump. Isn't this what the President and the Democrats wanted to do when this Administration started in Jan 2009 - $5 or more per gallon? Sugar coat the reason for a bill and maybe a majority of the public will fall for it. When is Congress and the President going to be honest and square with us?

    July 28, 2010 10:19 am at 10:19 am |
  16. Dean

    According to the Senate Democratic aides, the total cost of the bill is $15 billion, which would be offset by an increase in the per-barrel tax paid by oil companies to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund that pays for spill clean-up and recovery costs.............................................................................So the drivers of America will pay for it with increased prices of gasoline. Why can't our Democrat led government just say it like it is?

    July 28, 2010 10:44 am at 10:44 am |
  17. conservative liberal

    I'm wondering why this country is sitting on their hands about tapping into natural gas. I think that oil should be slowly phased out while natural gas be phased in. That will be something both parties can agree on. But we must suffer through the bickering and arguing and corruption from both parties. USA stand up this is our time to make our govt. Officials listen to the middle class. Through non-violence of course.

    July 28, 2010 10:47 am at 10:47 am |
  18. Liz the First

    It says a lot about the human species as a whole that there is even any debate about whether to clean up our act when it comes to how we produce energy. it's been proven beyond a doubt that climate change is happening and the fact that some folks are arguing against doing what it takes to stop it is just plain insanity. we are literally arguing over whether we are going to save ourselves. who in their right mind argues against it? no one in their right mind, only folks in their 'right' mind.

    July 28, 2010 10:50 am at 10:50 am |