Rep. Barton has given his initial reactions to the scope and timetable for the proposed energy bill:

“[Y]our timetable is to say the least, ambitious. In previous Congresses, energy packages of similar scope took years of discussion, dozens of hearings, numerous markups by subcommittee and full committee, complete with false starts, and work with the other body before they became law. Your discussion draft, for example, on the fuels and vehicle part alone would be one of the biggest changes in the history of the Clean Air Act. “It is also very complicated. I spent two hours yesterday with some very smart people discussing it and trying to figure out exactly what it means and how it would work in practice and what the implications of it are. I am certainly not the smartest guy on energy policy, but I know a little bit about it and I am having trouble just digesting the thesis of some of those titles. I have numerous questions that I want to ask later today in the hearing. “The discussion draft would require monumental changes in the automotive and refining industries. We need to know what the costs and the benefits of those changes might be. Although the provisions to expand the renewable fuels standard and set the market to include other types of alternative fuels such as natural gas and coal-to-liquid have real merits, no one yet knows how these fuels would actually be used, and if and when they would be assimilated into some sort of carbon cap under the low carbon fuels standard in proposed Section 102. “We simply have to understand the practical effects of these proposals, and especially how much we are going to add to the cost of transportation fuels for American drivers. Gasoline prices are high enough already and it would appear that if this proposal were to become law, gas prices would easily go up at least $1, perhaps a $1.50 a gallon. I hope I am wrong about that. “Section 301 does grant NHTSA the authority to set CAFE standards, similar to a bill that this committee reported last year, but it is unclear whether it would allow the fuel economy standards to be greater than 36 miles per gallon by 2021. At the same time, it sets an aggressive carbon cap on refineries and fuel providers, most of them on top of the many other environmental requirements that are already mandated under the Clean Air Act to control the existing criteria pollutants. “I had difficulty trying to understand what kind of a CO2 baseline the bill would envision. I also had trouble understanding the totality of CO2 that the bill would attempt to regulate or monitor. There are just some technical questions that I am having trouble with. “In several places the bill authorizes federal spending including ‘such sums as are necessary.’ I think I speak for most Republicans when I say that we are opposed to ‘such sums as are necessary.’ That is a blank check. I don’t even know how the CBO would score such a phrase. I also don’t know whether it would square with the House rules against unfunded mandates. I also don’t know how it would square against the new rule on paygo that the new majority has instigated in this congress.” “There are many, many possible unintended consequences in these kinds of provisions. I think it would normally take months to tease these out and understand them. Apparently, we are going to have to get it done in the next three to four weeks. That seems to me to be a little bit ambitious.”

The way it is shaping up, energy legislation in this country is going to be several layers of bureaucracy – the individual industry mandates like CAFE, a further layer of carbon trading and the quite possibly a carbon tax on top as well – all of which together are just going to make life a lot more expensive for the average American to no discernable change in the climate. Pace Rep. Barton, ambitious isn’t the word.