Senate Backs Regulators on Energy Plan

[maddezmom]

WASHINGTON - The Senate agreed Wednesday to give federal regulators clear authority to override state objections to the siting of liquefied natural gas import facilities, rejecting a proposal that would have allowed governors to block a project because of public health or environmental concerns.

Supporters for increased federal authority over LNG import facilities argued that the country will require huge increases of natural gas imports in coming years and that state-imposed roadblocks could hamstring needed import projects. They argued states will continue to have a say in siting decisions because of various local and state requirements for local permits.

The Senate rejected, 52-45, a proposed amendment to a sweeping energy bill that would have allowed governors to veto a final LNG siting decision by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The Senate was expected to finish the energy bill this week.

The chamber was also taking up a proposal to require automakers to increase their vehicles' fuel economy and another amendment that would address climate change by requiring industry to reduce heat-trapping "greenhouse" pollution.

~snip~
more:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050622/ap_on_go_co/senate_energy;_

[ananda]

1. This is bad..

.. very bad.

Sue

[cyberpj]

2. Very very bad - see this LNG site

http://timrileylaw.com/LNG.htm

[cyberpj]

3. do you know how I can find out the amendment # to see how indivs voted?

not sure how to locate that info.

[MaineDem]

5. Here...

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00146

[MaineDem]

6. Self deleted

Replied to wrong post.

Sorry.

[cyberpj]

9. Tx very much.

[MaineDem]

4. :Senate OKs federal override states on LNG facilities "

I like this headline better.

I was going to post this as a separate news item because I didn't think the original headline was the same story.

This is really important! I can't believe this happened. People in Maine have already voted to not allow an LNG terminal. Now the Feds can come in and estblish one over the residents' opposition?

Where's the states' rights issue?

[cyberpj]

10. How about this one in GDPolitics? Comment there to keep it going...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1876400

[MaineDem]

7. I'm really glad the Senators from OH, OK, NM, MT all voted for this

And there are more. For example, TN, WY, UT, NE, KY.

Like an LNG tanker will sail up to their coastline!

Bastards!

[bemildred]

8. Senate says: "Screw local autonomy, screw local control".

So we need to un-elect all these Bozos and hire someone that listens.

[wakeme2008]

11. Senate RollCall Gas Terminals (Boxer lost.... :(

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Senate-RollCall-Gas-Terminals.html

June 22, 2005
Senate RollCall Gas Terminals
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 9:23 p.m. ET

The 52-45 roll call by which the Senate agreed to give the federal government authority to override states' objections to the location of liquefied natural gas terminals.

On this vote, a ''yes'' vote was a vote to give Washington the authority and a ''no'' vote was a vote not to give Washington the authority.

Voting ''yes'' were 8 Democrats and 44 Republicans.

Voting ''no'' were 34 Democrats, 10 Republicans and 1 independent.

..list of votes at link....

We shot ourselves in the foot.....

OH,,,,,,, Well this IS AP

Lincoln (D) Yes; Pryor (D) Yes. California

Boxer (D) No; Feinstein (D) No. Colorado

.... Boxer from Colorado... LOL....

[Oversea Visitor]

12. Oh well

Harlibuton waitng to rubber stamp all the construction contract.
Chimp busy signing away puff puff its hardwork its hardwork

[Gregorian]

13. Something really stinks.

The pipelines are already in. And so are the "deals".
I live near a brand new pipeline. I don't think it even goes anywhere. And it's the "anywhere" that this bill would provide.
These companies have made deals with the counties they are in, to provide them with things like repaved roads, and who knows what else.

The scariest part about this is that it reaffirms "For the corporations; By the corporations; Of the corporations.

Then again, I could be totally wrong.