Dems To Do Something On Energy? / Bush To Veto Either Way

Democrats are attempting to finalize, beginning with votes this week, their big 2007 energy bill. As much as I pay attention to the climate issue, I admit I am no expert on energy matters, so I can never tell if these congressional proposals are substantive or just kabuki. So I found two separate AP articles on the bill, to try and get an overview of it. The first-

Congressional Democrats reached a compromise late Friday to boost automobile fuel economy by 40 percent, clearing the way for a House vote probably next week on an energy bill...

The agreement came after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reached an accord with Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., a longtime protector of the auto industry that dominates his home state, to ease the impact of the new fuel economy requirements...

...Automakers would be required to meet an industrywide average of 35 miles per gallon for cars and light trucks, including SUVs, by 2020, the first increase by Congress in car fuel efficiency in 32 years...

...[Pelosi] said the bill also will include a ramp up in the use of ethanol and other biofuels and a requirement for nonpublic electric utilities to use a minimum amount of renewable energy such as wind and solar to produce their power.

The second version of the article reiterates the same points, but clarifies the compromises-

Dingell had demanded and won an extension of the use of so-called flex-fuel vehicles that run on 85 percent ethanol to offset some of the fuel efficiency increases until 2014 after which the program will be gradually phased out and eliminated in 2020. Automakers also are given greater flexibility in meeting new fuel efficiency for SUVs and pickups, and assurance of no "backsliding" on measures designed to protect U.S. auto industry jobs.

Still, the industry overall must achieve 35 mpg average...

So, does anyone who follows energy minutia better than I do have a take on this bill?

My initial reading was mixed, but then I read this article, in which the President threatens a veto (natch), and I realized there must be some heft to the bill. As with S-CHIP, the President becomes Mr. Veto Man anytime a decent bill threatens the system. What has the President reaching for veto sharpie? Let's see-

The White House said it opposed provisions expected to be included in the bill that would require utilities to get 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020, and raise taxes on oil and natural gas companies.

Oh, the horrors! Not renewable energy mandates! Not taxes! Kill it! Kill it!!!

So what do the Republicans want from this bill then? Well-

House Republicans have called the legislation a "non-energy bill" because, they said, it ignores any measures to promote domestic production of oil, natural gas or increased use of coal.

Ahhh, yes. That's looking toward the future all right. [/sarcasm]

An industry analyst said that they expect Pelosi, Reid, et al, to cave, stating that "We expect the House to proceed back to a leaner energy bill" that will escape a White House veto and a possible Senate filibuster threat. Probably a safe bet, but for me is proof that the bill-- as it stands now-- is a pretty serious piece of legislation.

[PS- World-renowned scientist Matt Drudge is at it again (flashback).]