Another fleecing of America

Again, your arguments circumvent the problems we are facing, and add fuel to the cause (pun intended). It's true we have large reserves of coal and the current coal burning processes are much cleaner, thanks to the facts that 1) the coals burned in the US generally contain low to modest concentrations of potentially toxic trace elements and sulfur, and 2) many coal-burning utilities use sophisticated pollution-control systems that efficiently reduce the emission of hazardous wastes. However, this resource is not unlimited. What your optimistically (lets put it that way) estimated 200 years of supply may not actually last that long, since we can never underestimate the insatiable appetite of this nation. Consumers are known to buy whatever crap manufacturers put out on the market.

Sure there are provisions in this bill that encourage energy conservation, such as the one-time $500 tax credit for money consumers spend on energy improvements in their homes. However, the House bill dropped language in Senate bill requiring the federal government to find ways to cut US oil demand, or to require better fuel mileage on new SUVs and other gas-guzzlers. Since 70 percent of the oil the US consumes goes directly in gasoline tanks, the failure to address the principal reason for America’s increasing dependence on oil (mostly foreign imported) does not bode well in many regards, domestically and internationally. Probably you can answer this, what is it so taboo for the House to mandate auto makers to produce more fuel efficient vehicles?

While a mandate in the bill on refiners to double the amount of plant-based ethanol in blended fuels brings some payoff to the Midwest corn growers, and offers an environmentally friendly alternative, the benefits are undercut by inducements in the bill to produce cars that can run either on gasoline or ethanol blends, thus lifting pressure on service stations to offer the alternative. In addition, this mandate only serves to worsen the high price gasoline situation in the Southwest, West, and New England regions.

Among other things, the bill also struck down an amendment to remove language which gives the federal government exclusive jurisdiction, and forbids states from having an adequate say over LNG permitting and siting. So much for state rights, I guess.

Oh, here is another gem. The bill repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA), an essential consumer protection that ensures that electric utilities exist to serve the people, not the profit interests of large corporations. Section 1263 of the bill would force the roughly 30 states which have not deregulated their electric utility industry to do so, thus eliminating the already weakened federal law to protect consumers from market manipulation, fraud, and abuse in the electricity sector. PUHCA places ownership restrictions on giant electricity companies and restricts the ability of companies to make investments that divert resources away from their primary responsibility: serving electricity customers. Way to foster another Enron, House of Representatives! Also, Section 1221 of the bill would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the power to condemn land for building power transmission lines and distribution facilities.

If this bill suits you, more power to you.

 

You glaringly ignored that the uncompetitive practices by oil companies are one of the major reasons for high gasoline prices. From mid 1990s to early 2000s, there have been several mega mergers of some of the world's largest oil companies. These vertically integrated companies own significant market shares of exploration, production, refining, and marketing of oil and gas. Oil companies have not built any new refineries because tight refinery capacity leads to higher gasoline prices, meaning the industry has made record profits off the lack of adequate refineries and therefore has no economic incentive to build new refineries. FTC concluded in March 2001 that oil companies had intentionally withheld supplies of gasoline from the market as a tactic to drive up prices - all as a "profit-maximizing strategy". A congressional investigation uncovered internal memos written by major oil companies operating in the U.S. discussing their successful strategies to maximize profits by forcing independent refineries out of business, resulting in tighter refinery capacity. From 1995-2002, 97% of the more than 920,000 barrels of oil per day of capacity that has been shut down were owned by smaller, independent refiners. Despite the language in this energy bill (TITLE III OIL AND GAS, Subtitle H - Refinery Revitalization, SEC.391. FINDINGS AND DEFINITIONS., (a) FINDINGS., (5) & (6)) that disingenuously claims that environmental regulations have been a leading cause why no new refineries have been built in the U.S. (for nearly 3 decades), it is these uncompetitive actions - not environmental regulations - that have led to refinery shortages.

I don't give a damn about whether it's the Republicans or the Democrats who voted for this bill. You may be unwilling to believe (or admit) that politicians in both Congress and the White House are sold out to the big oil, but the lack of investigations into domineering practices by these large companies is very telling. More than $67 million the oil industry has contributed to federal politicians since 1999 - with 79% of that amount going to Republicans. The oil industry also spends an additional $50 million every year lobbying Congress and the White House. These investments into buying support of Congress and the administration is paltry compared to the largest five oil companies' $125 billion in after-tax profits since 2001 (as reported in March 2004). I dare to say it will be a colossal shock if there is less than 95% overlap between the recipients (in Capitol and the White House) of the campaign contributions by the oil companies and the those who approved this bill.

 

May I say the above are vastly gross understatements.

In the wake of the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear plant accident in Pennsylvania, the federally-funded Sandia National Laboratory prepared a report on behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission known as "CRAC-2". This 1982 study estimated that damages from a severe nuclear accident could run as high as $314 billion – or more than $560 billion in 2000 dollars. This does not even include such economic costs as the cost of providing health care to the affected population, litigation costs, direct and indirect costs of health effects. The 1987 Chernobyl catastrophe in former Soviet Union has cost the nations of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus $358 billion.

The energy bill extends Price-Anderson Act to December 31, 2025. Price-Anderson Act was enacted in 1957 (not that young if Trader_Jorge claims "PUHCA is a fossil") to promise taxpayer-backed indemnity for extraordinary nuclear incidents while providing for limited compensation to victims and capping damage awards and punitive judgements. This legislation was initially intended to provide investor confidence in what was viewed as a new and risky industry. However, almost 50 years later, this mature industry still enjoys a massive subsidy that skews the true cost of nuclear power and potentially leaves taxpayers on the hook for damages from a severe nuclear accident or terrorist attack. Indeed, the unwillingnesses of the nuclear power industry to stand behind their own technology, undertake the true risks in an open and free energy market (laissez-faire, huh?), and accept more financial responsibilities in case of major accident and attact are very telling. In light of the 9/11 attacks, security limitations at nuclear power plants are all the more serious. In his State of the Union address, President Bush said that diagrams of American nuclear power plants were found in Al Qaeda camps.

While the costs estimated by CRAC-2 are pertaining to a major nuclear disaster in somewhat a worst case scenario, and American nuclear plants have containment buildings, and do not use unstable RBMKs like those in the Chernobyl reactors, handling over billions of tax dollars to an extremely risky industry is not a wise and prudent energy policy. Given our tight budget, the money should be instead spent on research and development of more renewable energy.

 

Yes it costs automakers (particularly in Detroit) more to build hybrid cars than traditional gasoline driven cars, and it would certainly take years of concerted efforts from auto manufacturers, parts suppliers/wholesalers/retailers, service stations, and consumers as a whole to embrace new generations of automobiles that are less dependent on gasoline and more fuel efficient.

From what I have read on Clutch BBS, I venture to say if you and bigtexxx ever differed on a few things nontrivial, one of them is probably your attitudes on alternative energy driven (hybrid) vehicles. I recall in a car related thread in Hangout not long ago bigtexxx rightly pointed out that one of the main reasons that consumers are still reluctant to buy hybrid cars is because it does not yet make economic sense -- the excess money one pays for a hybrid car is not likely to be recuperated by the savings on gasoline in a short period of time. I want to add it is also more expensive to service a hybrid car, considering the "odd" parts you need to repair and replace, than an equivalent gasoline driven counterpart, in the current climate.

If there is a place for federal government to invest with tax money, this is it. It is simply a travesty to blindly classify gas guzzling SUVs into the same category as light trucks that are really needed by farmers and folks in the small business. To provide tax breaks for people to take advantage of loopholes in the SUV sales is plainly wrong -- fiscally irresponsible and morally corrupt on the part of government. I know someone who recently bought a huge SUV said he really didn't need that monster for everyday commute (to work). To him, it just makes more sense financially to get this SUV because of the tax refund he's gonna receive from Uncle Sam. Consumers would undoubtedly love to buy the much more fuel efficient hybrid cars if "the price is right". It's insane for anyone to believe otherwise.

Detroit automakers need tough love. It's up to the federal government to give them a good ass whip, while handing out incentives to help the kind of transitions urgently needed to produce better fuel efficient vehicles. Unfortunately this is not given a serious consideration in the current energy bill, thanks to the domineering influence of big oil companies. It sure makes all the tax breaks for other energy saving efforts even more ostensible.