A better energy bill.

Byline: The Register-Guard

The energy bill approved by the Senate last week is like a can of stew: It's hard to get excited about it unless you're really hungry and there's nothing else edible in sight.

Like its predecessors, the Senate bill fails to address global warming and contains great slabs of pork for the energy industry - including a breathtaking $100 billion break on production royalties that even President Bush has declared unnecessary. The bill also lacks a provision increasing the fuel efficiency of vehicles, the most easily attainable way to reduce this nation's alarming dependence on foreign oil.

Yet the Senate shows signs of finally coming to grips with the nation's energy realities, while the backward-looking House remains dedicated to the proposition that America's energy policy consists of giveaways to the energy industry.

By an impressively bipartisan 85-12 vote, the Senate approved an energy bill that, while it falls short on many fronts, makes billions of dollars in long-overdue investments in conservation, alternative fuels and renewable energy sources. Unlike the House version, it does not call for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The Senate bill requires utilities to obtain 10 percent of electricity from renewable energy sources by the year 2020. That falls short of what some states currently require (utilities in Maine must get 30 percent of their electricity from renewables by 2011), but it would still increase nationwide renewable-energy use from the current abysmally low average of 2 percent.

The measure would also provide tax credits for developers of alternative fuels and renewable energy resources, and establish a national efficiency standard for a broad range of appliances. Other progressive provisions include tax breaks for people who buy energy-efficient homes, appliances and, most importantly, cars (including tax credits of $400 to $2,400 for purchases of gas-electric hybrid vehicles).

The Senate's failure to include mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions is a major disappointment. Sen. John McCain and Sen. Joe Lieberman's Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act would have imposed mandatory emissions reductions through a cap-and-trade strategy, but the measure was defeated, in part, because many Democrats had reservations about its incentives for building new U.S. nuclear power plants.

Yet for the first time, a majority of senators approved a resolution acknowledging the science of climate change and recognizing that "mandatory steps will be required to slow or stop the growth of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere." The Senate has come a long way since 1997, when it voted 95-0 for a resolution assailing the Kyoto treaty.

The new resolution raises hopes that the Senate could soon take up the issue of mandatory limits. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., the most influential Republican on energy matters, was reportedly ready to do just that as part of the current energy bill but backed off after he was lobbied by Vice President Dick Cheney. Still, Domenici has indicated he plans to conduct hearings on how Congress can address climate change.

In contrast, the House energy bill is unredeemably loaded with breaks for the oil and gas industries and rollbacks of environmental protections. In addition to opening ANWR to drilling, it would allow an extensive survey of sensitive coastal waters for oil and gas deposits.

Given the disparities between the Senate and House bills, it's not certain that any measure will become law. Although lawmakers from both parties - and the president - say that a national energy policy is an urgent priority, Congress has been unable to pass legislation out of conference in each of the past two years.

Republican leaders in the House are particularly adamant that any final bill shield makers of the fuel additive MTBE, which has been linked to groundwater pollution, from lawsuits, while the Senate version properly omits liability protection. The issue was a deal-breaker in the past, and could be again.

Senate leaders must hold firm in negotiations with the House. If necessary, they should walk away without a final bill. Perhaps the next Congress can do a better job of coming up with the energy policy that Americans deserve - one that decreases this country's reliance on fossil fuels, that limits global warming emissions and that doesn't regard the energy industry as a depository for the national treasury.