Since a question was asked down below, and the weather outside is, well, not nice, I thought I would start an energy bill thread, and see what gets kicked up. Here's an article from the Des Moines Register.

COPYRIGHT 2007, DES MOINES REGISTER AND TRIBUNE COMPANY

Washington, D.C. - Congressional Democrats are negotiating a new energy bill that would require higher use of ethanol and biodiesel, ensuring a growing market for the two crop-derived fuels.

Details of the legislation were still being worked out Wednesday, but a proposal under discussion would require use of 20.5 billion gallons of biofuels by 2015, including 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol and a billion gallons of biodiesel, according to lobbyists familiar with the talks. The rest of the fuel needed to meet the mandate would come from advanced biofuels distilled from non-food sources, including crop residue and wood.
Advertisement

Ethanol and biodiesel producers have been pushing for passage of the new mandate to ensure their profitability. A potential glut of ethanol has lowered prices and caused some producers to shelve plans for ethanol plants in Iowa and elsewhere.

Ethanol production is growing so fast that it will soon outstrip the nation's mandate set in 2005 that requires 7.5 billion gallons of annual biofuel production by 2012. The biodiesel industry is being hammered by soaring soybean oil prices, which exceed the levels that producers can afford to pay, and those producers want a special usage mandate.

"We're pleased with what we're hearing as far as what the speculation is," Jon Doggett, a lobbyist for the National Corn Growers Association, said Wednesday. "We're anxious to see what the final package will look like."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she would like to have a compromise energy bill on the House floor next week. She said the bill would "reduce our dependence on foreign fuels and promote energy efficiency."

Along with the biofuels mandate, the legislation also would increase fuel efficiency standards for automobiles. Both the ethanol mandate and the increase in automobile mileage were in a version of the energy bill that passed the Senate in June but not the House.

Another provision of the biofuels mandate that is under discussion, and drawing fire from the oil industry, would require refiners to pay the government if they cannot acquire sufficient ethanol to meet the mandate.

Refiners have sided with livestock producer groups in fighting the higher production target. Livestock groups worry that requiring more ethanol will push commodity prices higher and further increase feed costs.

Oil companies say that requiring biofuel production discourages the expansion of gasoline refining capacity.

Congress isn't fully considering the impact of the legislation, Bill Holbrook, a spokesman for the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, said Wednesday.

"The trouble is now that there is such a rush to try to complete all kinds of legislation before the holidays and a presidential election cycle kicks off next year, that there isn't a whole lot of time for full deliberation," he said.

Iowa's Jan. 3 presidential caucuses have added urgency to passage of an energy bill, said Jay Truitt of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, which has objected to increasing the ethanol mandate.

"Everyone understands that this is obviously a huge discussion in Iowa," he said.

A compromise energy bill is not expected to include a series of biofuels tax incentives that were included in the House-passed energy bill. Similar measures are now contained in a farm bill that the Senate is considering.

I suppose here are my thoughts.

#1  In passing these mandates, they aren't giving any thoughts to price.  They are proposing a mandate that is over twice what we currently produce.  What happens if we get oil at $70 a barrell, or $60?  Without some huge increases in corn production, something is going to have to give. What about inputs?  Is the quantity available and deliverable to make this happen?  The madates of 5 billion gallons from "alternative sources"  in a little over 10 years ignores that fact that we don't even have any PILOT plants running yet for those products.  What if it don't work out?  I guess what I'm saying is I'd like to see some realistic numbers.

#2  Imposing mileage restriction on automobiles is only going to drive up the cost, and probably decrease safety.  You want a car that puts nothing but water out the tailpipe, gets 50 MPG, and goes 0-60 in 6 seconds.  That's some tough standards. 

#3  What other technologies are coming down the pipeline.  Efficient hydrogen?  Superefficient capacitors?  Lithium ion batteries for automobiles?  Lower cost hybrids?

I suppose, in short, I sure hate to see legislation that imposes something 12 years down the road, when, 12 years down the road, this may no longer be the best answer.  Legislators are always passing bills to solve the problem they created yesterday.