I wait, chomping at the bit, ...for everyone who will come in to nitpick and bellyache because this potential progress (still has to get through Senate and possible veto) isn't 100% up to their standards!

Please let the complaining commence...

Why don’t they split this 1000 page law up in less extensive laws and get them through one by one. With such a big law package it is too likely that it will never make it into law. I could be wrong but I think this law is already a long time overdue and changing the strategy on how to pass it may be the only thing that will work. Or maybe the only thing that can get it through is a new US president that actually cares for the well being of future generations.

What about the tax hikes? The news has mentioned tax hikes.

It's going to be tough to get anything to pass with Bush around, but if the Democratic congress can get this to pass, veto-proof, under a Republican president, then it's going to send a strong signal worldwide that the time has come to change.

Once renewables and electrics are common it's going to help democracy all over the world, maybe eventually in the middle east and Russia. Look up "Resource Curse" and "Rentier State" (even on wikipedia) to learn more about how oil undermines freedom. Basically, those who don't pay much in taxes in their countries are less entitled to question what the government is doing. If most of the state's revenue comes from oil then the state can ignore the people's demands, pacify them with social programs, and use a police force to silence dissent. This is part of the reason Russia has been backsliding on democracy lately, Putin is exercising more control over the energy sector and $90/barrel oil is part of the problem.

"highly controversial 15% requirement for renewable electricity (which is impossible to achieve in specified time period)"

By far the single best provision of this bill, sorely needed, only "controversial" to fossil fuel executives and their hack spokesmen at EPRI and such places.

"sharp reversal of incentives to domestic oil production"

what domestic oil production? Texas? Alaska? The oil in these places disappears as we read. Treating oil as our future is not going to save us.

"unrealistic provision for cellulosic ethanol"

The White House officially maintains they oppose the ethanol provisions because they "don't go far or fast enough". The best political move the Democratic leadership could make right now would be to sever this out as a separate item and force it to Bush's desk. His saying he's for ethanol is about as believable as when he said America was "addicted to oil".

No matter what is done, there will be forces ready to try to block it. We should support this because it's the best we can expect to come out of our political system.

This is horrible news. Everyone will declare victory, and nothing will have been done about the real problem. The Democrats in charge of Congress are so misguided. At the same time, Bush will veto for the wrong reasons altogether.

The only way to have a real effect on our oil consumption is to have a national gas tax, as proposed by Dingell (D-MI). Tax $0.50 a gallon, use the extra revenue to fund alt fuel research or infrastructure maintenance (or if you're concerned about the burden on lower-middle classes, turn the revenue into a tax break for them). In addition, a minimum price must be set on each barrel of crude. Lots of research and investment is being made in alt fuels and fuel saving technologies. All the Saudis have to do is boost output (or drop prices) and all that work and investment will disappear. (Look at history - we had alt fuel research going on in the late 70s and when oil dropped - poof, it's gone). A price floor would protect this work and investment. Unfortunately, a political backbone is necessary for this to be done, and save for a handful of Congressmen, no one has any.

If the CAFE standards are raised, consumers will continue to buy vehicles that consume more petroleum than necessary, and drive more. Again, look at history: after the CAFE standards were first implemented in the early 80s, vehicle miles travelled (VMT) doubled. If gas is taxed (ie, made more expensive), people will change their driving habits (ie, drive less) and eventually begin to move closer to their work (and not drive 100 miles a day), or get into smaller cars.

All this bill will do is create burden on automakers (who have been scapegoated big time on this one). The OEMs were complying with the laws the Congress created (and it is the Congress who failed to act all those years). Now we dump a huge job on them (don't believe anyone who tells you the automakers can do this overnight for $1 a car), right in the middle of a market downturn. Good move.

John, I like your examples, yet nobody seems to take this "negative" viewpoint seriously. It only makes sense though, if I am currently spending $X on gas and living comfortably, and my mileage doubles, I can now drive twice as much with no effect on my life.

People do not consider externalities, the only way to make them change is to hit them in the wallet. Good thing the Flex Fuel loophole has been extended, that should ensure no changes until 2019.

In the US, to get any legislation passed, you need 60-67 votes in the Senate, or nothing happens. That's just how this system was structured. This task of bringing useful renewables policy is made next to impossible given that there is a large base of Republican voters who don't believe in global warming, and our campaign finance laws are very weak, leaving corporations with the bulk of the influence. If you are holding out for an ideal, something better than this, you will be disappointed. It's not perfect, but at least the Democrats have been trying to do something. 15% of electricity from renewables would be an enormous gain. The alternative, from the Republicans, is to drill in Alaska and to subsidize coal mining, handing money to refining companies, etc. That's just so much worse.

Exactly how would 15% RES be impossible?

Certainly you haven't been following the fact that new coal plants have been tripling and soon seventupling in price?

Or the fact that the price of natural gas has gone WAY up since 2005.

Or the gains in industrial-scale renewables like geothermal, baseload wind, and solarthermal.

I doubt anything truly productive will come from federal government on this issue, all change is going to have to start in the private sector and from the consumer. We need to see more companies that are profitable, well funded, and sustainable tackle the problem of energy. Government mandated change is going to have to come from a state level, hopefully with more states following California's lead. Lobbying is just as big of a problem as global warming and foreign energy dependence.

If only the market were as predictable as the commentors here.

Let us see something here:

Who gets average 20mpg here? Okay, how many miles do you drive in a year? Maybe 10,000 maybe 15,000...do you honestly expect us to believe that if you were suddenly getting 40mpg (in the same vehicle with same driving style) with gas at the same price as today you will suddenly do 20,000 to 30,000 miles per year...and the rest of the US would do the same?

Did we maybe forget the time component here...okay fuel goes further for me now so I can live further away from home and drive on the same amount of gas but double the distance, gee: how many people really want to turn their .75 hour to 1.5 hour commute into a 1.25 hour to 2.5 hour commute (assuming that the further reaches would not double commute time due to less traffic but that would be very optimistic if everyone follows suit in driving twice the distance as the naysayers to increased cafe contend).

Talking one-way travel times here.

* commute times pulled from average commute times in the Pacific NW during rush hour from anecdotal evidence (those I talk to) and data from the traffic management system in place on www.wsdot.wa.gov where many people are driving from Puyallup (or further south) up to Bellevue/Redmond or Seattle and to Seattle or Bellevue/Redmond from Everett and further north.

It seems that the Senate Republicans blocked the bill. Add this one to a long list.

I see no reason that the Democrats can't start impeachment proceedings. It isn't like they can get anything done with these O*&(&* obstructionist Republican Senators.