What will $16 billion buy? A Senate energy plan

More environmentally friendly than the energy bill passed by the House in April, the Senate bill would funnel 40 percent of $18 billion in tax breaks over 10 years to boost renewable energy sources, energy conservation and alternative transportation fuels.

Domenici, chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said it would help diversify the country's energy and usher in "a new policy for the United States ... that energy should be clean, renewable and that we have conservation" to curtail energy demand.

Among other key provisions are:

• Loan guarantees of up to 80 percent for developing new technologies for clean coal and next-generation nuclear power reactors.
• A doubling of ethanol use in gasoline to 8 billion gallons a year by 2012, a boost to corn farmers.
• A requirement for utilities to produce 10 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources, such as wind and biomass from garbage or plants, by 2020.
• Mandatory reliability standards for electric power grids, ending the current system of industry self-regulation.
• Tax breaks for people who buy gas-electric hybrid cars, more energy-efficient appliances or energy-efficient homes.

The bill skirted some of the most contentious energy issues, from drilling in an Alaska wildlife refuge — which is called for in the House bill — to requiring automakers to build more fuel-efficient cars. It also avoided mandatory reductions in heat-trapping emissions to address climate change, which some senators had wanted.

The bill "is short on the truly bold action needed to break this country's addiction to foreign oil and long on the traditional boondoggles that waste taxpayer money and fail to promote energy independence," complained Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., one of the dozen senators who voted against the legislation.

A number of Republicans, including Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, opposed the bill in part because of its cost, an estimated $16 billion in direct spending and tax breaks. That's double what the House-passed bill would cost and well above the $6.7 billion price tag the White House had wanted.

$55 billion over the next 10 years
An analysis by the advocacy group Taxpayers for Common Sense said the bill would cost $55 billion over 10 years if all the programs it authorizes were actually funded by Congress. Lawmakers acknowledged many of the programs in the bill will never be given the money authorized under current climate of tight budgets.

"We're not talking about something that's enormous," said Domenici of the bill's realistic expenditures.

Bodman said he'd like to see the cost trimmed, adding, "We're going to work toward that."

He also said lawmakers need to resolve the MTBE issue. Still, he told The AP, "To the extent we have an impasse, I stand ready to step in."

In the last four years the Senate has passed energy legislation twice, only to see the effort fall apart without a final agreement with the House. Republican and Democratic lawmakers predicted that a compromise will require the close involvement of the White House.

MORE FROM POLITICS

Politics Section Front

Reid confident in revised health bill Analysis: Obama takes pragmatic climate path Wrap-up bill clears Senate hurdle Potential Reid opponent has deep pockets Liberal MoveOn.org opposes Senate health bill U.S., others broker modest climate deal Reid plans Christmas Eve passage of health bill CQ: Women carry corporate success to campaigns Poll: Brown still leads in Calif. governor's race Obama faces high-risk climate talks Politics Section Front   Add Politics headlines to your news reader: