Skip to main content

The Republican Energy Bill

lugar The Republicans put up an alternative to the Kerry-Lieberman energy bill yesterday via Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.). For starters, it’s much smaller (112 vs. 987 pages) and has fewer titles (4 vs. 7) than Kerry-Lieberman. It is called the Practical Energy and Climate Plan Act of 2010 vs. The American Power Act. We don’t know if Lugar will have a nice logo drawn up for his bill, as Kerry and Lieberman did for theirs. Lugar has posted a video of his press conference introducing it. See that on his home page, along with a lot of links.

Let’s see what the bill offers:

  • No provisions for mandatory reductions in carbon emissions – that is, no cap-and-trade or carbon tax. Lugar has ideas on how to achieve carbon emission reductions, so hold tight.
  • The bill heavily stresses energy efficiency, especially as regards cars, trucks and light vehicles.
  • And buildings, too. The bill proposes $2 billion to DOE to use as a basis for loans, loan guarantees and other financial tools to help homes and businesses retrofit for energy efficiency.
  • It cuts back on foreign oil imports by encouraging domestic oil production. It’s silent (at least on our first read) on off-shore oil drilling.
  • Coal plants do not need to introduce new technology as long as they close by 2018.
  • Biofuels get a big push, especially algae-based fuel and especially not grain-based fuel. Lugar proposes $250 million per year to DOE over the next five years to seed this effort.

We’re not completely sure we understand the clean energy provisions, but the bill proposes that states can include “clean coal,” nuclear energy (but see below) and energy efficiencies (presumably a national standard) toward carbon emission reduction goals.

Those goals are 15 percent by 2015, incrementing to hit 50 percent by 2050. How different states would accommodate this is where we’ll need further explanation, as the states will start off in drastically different places based on their current electricity production.

---

Oh, and what about nuclear energy? There’s strikingly little, with only two mentions in the bill.

Lugar proposes $36 billion in additional loan guarantees for 2011 (for a total of $54 billion), equal to the amount requested in the 2011 DOE budget request.

Only new nuclear plants qualify in the clean air goals specified above. This is also true of hydroelectric plants, though (apparently) uprates to existing hydro count but not uprates to existing nuclear plants. (By uprates, we mean adding capacity.) We don’t get this one at all – it’s as if using existing nuclear energy to further reduce carbon emissions is cheating or too easy.

So that’s it. Do read the whole thing – if we’ve misread a section, let use know in comments and we’ll correct.

Bills offered by the minority traditionally do not gain much traction, but this one may buck that common wisdom a bit by de-stressing climate change issues and anything that could be called a “carbon tax.”

---

Energy Secretary Steven Chu sent a letter to Sen. Lugar about his bill. There’s this:

I appreciate your ideas for reducing America's oil dependence - which has taken on greater urgency as a result of the BP oil spill.  I also commend your focus on energy efficiency, which as you have noted is the fastest, cheapest route to our energy and climate change goals.  Even as we focus on efficiency, we also need a broad approach that includes building the next generation of nuclear power plants, deploying technologies to burn coal more cleanly, significantly expanding renewable power generation and a host of other clean energy technologies.

That’s pretty positive. And this:

I continue to believe that to fully capitalize on these opportunities we need comprehensive legislation that puts a price on carbon and makes clean energy the profitable kind of energy.

Oops! Well, Lugar probably expected that.

Sen. Richard Lugar presents his bill.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I guess that someone that represents Gary, Indiana (official A/C recirc mode city of America) would be pushing more coal.

Who would have thunk that the Democrats would be pushing new nuclear, and the Republicans would be relatively silent? This sounds more like the evil parallel universe Congress.

What happened to all of that Republican enthusiasm during the State of the Union address? I am a Republican, and I still have that enthusiasm.

Me thinks that Lugar needs to go back to the drawing board.
SteveK9 said…
This is not a serious plan.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …