Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Congress divided on energy plan

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The weather sucks in Seattle
    Posts
    4,899

    Congress divided on energy plan

    Congress divided on energy plan
    May 12, 4:10 AM (ET)

    WASHINGTON (AP) - As millions of people approach the summer vacation season under the threat of $4-per-gallon gasoline, Congress is scrambling to respond. But don't wait for anything that will drive down prices at the pump.

    A Senate vote on a GOP plan is scheduled for Tuesday, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has promised to bring up a Democratic package before the Memorial Day congressional recess. Except for halting the flow of oil into the government's Strategic Petroleum Reserve, neither plan is likely to go very far. Both will be challenged by filibusters by opponents, meaning they would require 60 votes to advance.

    Here is a rundown:

    THE DEMOCRATIC PROPOSALS.

    _Enact a windfall profits tax on oil companies.

    SPIN: Oil companies are making too much money, earning $123 billion last year while motorists faced soaring gasoline costs. Imposing a 25 percent windfall profits tax on the five largest oil companies and repealing $17 billion in tax breaks could help the shift away from fossil fuels toward alternatives. Taxes could be avoided if profits are used for refinery expansion or development of wind, solar or biomass projects.

    FACT: Profits are large because the companies are huge, and oil now sells for well over $120 a barrel. The taxes could spur some new alternative energy projects, but economists say they also could reduce investments in oil and gas exploration, and are unlikely to affect prices. They could do more harm than good, says Robert Hansen, senior associate dean at Dartmouth's Tuck School of Business. "Anytime you put in a tax you create an incentive to avoid it," says Hansen.
    ---
    _Create a law against energy price gouging and new rules to stem energy market speculation.

    SPIN: The government must police the energy markets with a federal law against price gouging and new rules against market speculation. The proposal creates a federal price gouging law with civil penalties of up to $5 million during a presidentially declared energy emergency. The law would prohibit refiners, wholesalers and retailers from charging an "unconscionably excessive price." Traders would be required to put up more cash collateral in the energy futures markets to curb speculation.

    FACT: Energy price gouging laws now in 28 states are uneven and inadequate to deal with energy market abuses. Congress has considered a gouging law since 2005. Separate versions have passed both the House and Senate, but never gained final approval. Critics say gouging is ill defined and the law amounts to price controls. Bush has threatened a veto.
    A former Federal Trade Commission chairman argued such a law could do consumers more harm than good and may result in higher prices if providers, fearing stiff penalties, avoid selling fuel when prices soar.

    Increasing cash collateral, or margins, in energy futures trading could curb speculation, but there might be unintended consequences. Such new requirements, said a spokesman for the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, which would enforce the new rules, "may drive traders to unregulated trading or overseas" without reducing market abuses.
    ---
    _Take on the OPEC oil cartel.

    SPIN: We need to stand up to the OPEC oil cartel. The Justice Department would be given authority to bring antitrust cases against countries that collude to fix prices as part of OPEC.

    FACT: While politically popular, such a measure would probably not change OPEC production decisions and could provoke retaliation. Similar proposals have been debated in Congress since 2005. "It's a catchy phrase, but it doesn't have any substance," says energy consultant Robert Ebel of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

    THE REPUBLICAN PROPOSALS.

    _Pump oil from Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, now off limits.
    SPIN: The coastal strip of ANWR, as the refuge is called, probably has 11 billion barrels of oil. At the rate of 1 million barrels a day, it would add to domestic production, reduce U.S. reliance on imports, lower prices and produce jobs. With modern technology wildlife and the environment can be protected.

    FACT: Drilling in ANWR has been debated for 28 years and remains one of the most contentious environmental issues. Several times the House, under GOP control, has approved development; it passed Congress in 1995 only to be vetoed by President Clinton. Drilling supporters repeatedly have been unable to get the 60 votes needed to overcome filibusters and are unlikely to do so this time.

    While ANWR has substantial oil, none would flow for 10 years. Even then, its impact on global production of 87 billion barrels a day will be minimal, energy experts say, as OPEC could adjust to compensate.
    ---
    _Develop vast amounts of oil and natural gas in offshore waters now off limits.

    SPIN: For a quarter century, energy development has been blocked in more than 80 percent of U.S. coastal waters, depriving the country of vast oil and gas resources. States should be allowed waivers to the moratoria and get some of the revenues from development.

    FACT: Most areas of federal offshore waters outside the western Gulf of Mexico and off much of Alaska have been placed off limits to drilling by a succession of presidential orders and congressional action to protect tourist industries and avoid the risk of spills and environmental damage. The House has twice approved giving states the right to opt out of the federal ban.
    ---
    _Ease permitting for new refineries.
    SPIN: A shortage of refineries is fueling high gasoline and diesel prices. There has not been a new one built in 30 years, with environmental and other permitting problems contributing to the reluctance of oil companies to build new refineries.

    FACT: The lack of new refinery construction has been more an issue of economics, not government regulations. While the oil industry has complained about permitting and environmental regulations, oil company executives also have said the permitting issue has not been a deciding factor over refinery expansion or construction. Refinery investments are based in expectations of increased demand.

    Oil company executives, asked recently if they wanted to build new refineries, said no. In part, this is because of the growth of ethanol as a substitute for gasoline. The industry prefers to expand existing refineries.
    ---
    _Allow coal-based diesel be used as motor fuel.

    SPIN: Coal is the country's most abundant energy resource, and technology exists to produce diesel fuel from coal. A mandate to produce 6 billion gallons a year of coal-derived motor fuel by 2022 would contribute to greater energy independence and spur the industry's development.

    FACT: The process requires large amounts of energy and results in greenhouse gas emissions, running counter to efforts to combat global warming.
    The problem with socialism is that you eventually,
    run out of other people’s money.
    ” - Margaret Thatcher

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    300

    Re: Congress divided on energy plan

    Hey Mike,

    Why don't you provide a link to those sources?

    Here's my take:

    Democrat Proposals:

    Windfall tax
    I actually think it's a bad idea too. Big Oil will just raise the prices more to compensate. But the thing is that these companies are making billions with these tax breaks (which were essentially given so they could invest in other energies or more refineries) and they refuse to invest in new refineries or other alternative resources. Instead, they massively buy back their shares with these profits to boost stock prices. I think these tax breaks should remain only if they invest in new refineries or invest in alternative energy. However, they probably won't do that and will milk this oil crisis as long as they can. With record profits, they have no incentive to change things. We basically screwed ourselves by giving them control of our energy policy.

    Law Against Price Gouging and Speculation
    Actually, this would work. Something very similar happened with the silver trade in the late 70's when the Hunt brothers tried to corner the market, dramatically boosting the price of Silver. The Feds changed the COMEX laws at the time and the price of silver fell like a piece of ****. The Feds can do the same thing in NYMEX and the price of oil will go down and speculation will decrease. Not saying there won't be any, but less incentive to try it. The only major downside is trading going overseas to London, HK, Dubai or Singapore. We actually lost out to London as the financial capital of the world because of regulation like this (i.e. Sarbanes-Oxley).

    Take on OPEC
    Nothing we can do here. We're basically ****ed up the ass by not having a smart energy policy where we could encourage the creation of alternative fuels and instead of letting these oil barons get richer and have more clout.

    Republican Proposals:

    Drill in Alaska
    How long will it take to get the oil on the market? Probably at least five years (some say ten). Won't make any difference in the short-term.

    Drilling Offshore
    States have the right to do so if they choose and they won't.

    New Refineries
    Oil companies have the freedom to do this, but they won't because it would kill their record profits. They like constraining supply because it's more profitable for them to do so. Like I mentioned above, why not take those tax incentives away if they refuse to invest? They certainly can afford to.

    Coal
    China is now the most polluted country in the world because most of their energy comes from coal. 'Nuff said.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The weather sucks in Seattle
    Posts
    4,899

    Re: Congress divided on energy plan

    Quote Originally Posted by bonanzabucks
    Hey Mike,

    Why don't you provide a link to those sources?
    Well, since you asked so nicely :mrgreen:


    http://apnews.excite.com/article/200805 ... VOFO0.html
    The problem with socialism is that you eventually,
    run out of other people’s money.
    ” - Margaret Thatcher

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •