Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Energy Policy per American Petroleum Institute
Gail the Actuary, The Oil Drum
The American Petroleum Institute (API) held a conference call with bloggers on Tuesday, July 31, to answer questions about API’s position on energy legislation.
A link to a recording of the conference call (or most of it–the recording was cut off due to technical difficulties) can be found here. A transcript can be found here.
The API is not at all happy with the House legislation. One of the bloggers asked if there was anything in the 800 pages of legislation the API could support.
Gerald Kerry (of Platts): It doesn’t look like there is much of anything you could support.
Jim Ford: That’s right. This is Jim Ford with Government Affairs at API. And basically, you look at the provisions that are in the House bill, and it has a negative impact on current and future domestic production. It has limitations on expanding refining capacity. . . . So it has an extremely negative impact. It just far outweighs anything else that you might consider positive.
The purpose of this discussion is to better understand the position of the API. It is possible that this will also give us a better understanding of the position of George W. Bush, since he is from the oil and gas industry
…We have talked on The Oil Drum about the possibility of using higher taxes on gasoline and other petroleum products so as to encourage conservation. If the higher taxes on the oil industry could be passed through to the customer, it seems like the impact would be somewhat similar to higher taxes on the end products, since the higher cost would act to encourage conservation. If the oil companies can really pass the cost on, this might be a more palatable way of discouraging consumption than a direct tax. If the higher taxes cannot be passed on, they become problematic — the oil and gas industry has a huge need for investment in the future, and removing profit which could be used for this investment seems counterproductive.
(6 August 2007)
Energy Bill Adopted by House Requires Utilities to Use Renewable Power Sources
John M. Broder, New York Times
The House passed a wide-ranging energy bill on Saturday that will require most utilities to produce 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources like wind and solar power. President Bush has vowed to veto the bill because it does nothing to encourage increased domestic production of oil and gas.
“It’s a big, big deal,” said Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts and a longtime member of the energy committee. “There has been no legislation like this for a generation.”
The energy measure passed by a vote of 241-172, with 26 Republicans voting in favor and 9 Democrats opposed. Speaker Nancy Pelosi had made the bill one of her top legislative priorities for her first year as leader of the House Democrats.
The bill allots money for the development of alternative fuels and for increased efficiency of appliances and buildings. It is also meant to spur research on methods to capture the carbon dioxide emissions that scientists say are largely responsible for global warming.
The House also passed a bill to repeal roughly $16 billion in tax breaks for the oil industry enacted in 2005. Some of the money would be used to pay for the research grants and renewable-fuel projects in the energy bill.
(5 August 2007)
Dodd on the Record
Amanda Griscom Little, Grist
An interview with Chris Dodd about his presidential platform on energy and the environment
This is part of a series of interviews with presidential candidates produced jointly by Grist and Outside.
Chris Dodd hasn’t been out front on environmental issues during his 32 years in Congress, but he’s clearly aiming to out-green his competitors in the 2008 presidential campaign. He has earned props in enviro circles for being the only candidate with the political cojones to call for a corporate carbon tax as a way to fight global warming, and for endorsing a strict fuel-economy standard that would require new cars and trucks to get 50 miles per gallon by 2017. Dodd even ran what was billed as the first presidential-candidate ad focused on global warming.
This senator from Connecticut isn’t gaining a big boost in popularity from his aggressive environmental stances; he’s hovering at 1 to 2 percent in the polls. But will he raise the bar for a strong green agenda in the 2008 presidential race? I called Dodd at his Senate office to find out how much substance there is behind his bold proposals.
(3 August 2007)
UPDATE (Aug 7): Fixed link to article about the various candidates.
