Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
House OKs new taxes on big oil companies
H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press
The House approved $18 billion in new taxes on the largest oil companies Wednesday as Democrats cited record oil prices and rising gasoline costs in a time of economic troubles.
The money collected over 10 years would provide tax breaks for wind, solar and other alternative energy sources and for energy conservation. The legislation, approved 236-182, would cost the five largest oil companies an average of $1.8 billion a year over that period, according an analysis by the House Ways and Means Committee.
…The bill would roll back two lucrative tax breaks for the five largest U.S. oil companies. One helps manufacturers compete against foreign companies; the other gives American companies a tax credit related to oil and gas extraction outside the country.
(28 February 2008)
More coverage:
New York Times
Washington Post
Politics at the pump (video)
Brian Todd, CNN
CNN’s Brian Todd takes a look at how rising oil prices provide political fodder for politicians.
Length: 7:12
(27 February 2008)
Contributor John wasn’t impressed with the level of analysis.
It’s true that energy journalist Brian Todd didn’t mention peak oil as a cause for rising prices. However, he did try to explain some of the complexities — hard to do in the manic news format.
The anchorperson kept talking about new taxes on the oil companies, and Todd rightly pointed out that these aren’t new taxes, but a taking back of tax breaks.
The basic problem, I thought, was framing the issue as Democrats vs Republican partisanship: “X says this, Y says that — who knows what the truth is?” Good news analysis will go beyond the talking heads.
-BA
Speaker Pelosi Speaks On Renewable Energy Act (video)
Rep. Nancy Pelosi, US House of Representatives via Energy Policy TV
Pelosi debates the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008 (H.R. 5351), which will end subsidies to oil companies and invest in clean, renewable energy and energy efficiency.
It will extend and expand tax incentives for renewable electricity, energy and fuel, as well as for plug-in hybrid cars, and energy efficient homes, buildings, and appliances.
These provisions are critical to creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. And the preservation of existing jobs relies on them too: a recent study showed that allowing the
renewable energy incentives to expire would lead to about 116,000 jobs being lost in the wind and solar industries through the end of 2009.
(27 February 2008)
Clinton’s Efforts on Ethanol Overlap Her Husband’s Interests
Mike McIntire, New York Times
To big rounds of applause, three of the world’s richest men – Richard Branson, Ronald W. Burkle and Vinod Khosla – trooped onto a New York ballroom stage with former President Bill Clinton to pledge support for renewable energy projects to combat global warming and create jobs.
It was September 2006, and the Clinton Global Initiative, the annual star-studded networking event for philanthropists and investors, had generated commitments to spend billions on ethanol and other alternative fuels. Cast as good works, many were also investments by businessmen hoping for a profit.
And sitting in the audience was an influential public official who had also taken an active interest in renewable sources of fuel: Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Several months earlier, Mrs. Clinton had sponsored legislation to provide billions in new federal incentives for ethanol, and, especially in her home state of New York, she has worked to foster a business climate that favors the sort of ethanol investments pursued by her husband’s friends and her political supporters.
… Certainly Mrs. Clinton is doing what would be expected of a senator trying to stimulate a sagging rural economy in her home state, not to mention a presidential candidate mindful of the importance of ethanol in corn-producing places like Iowa. But her actions take on an added dimension when they intersect with Mr. Clinton’s philanthropic and profit-making endeavors, which have periodically raised questions as Mrs. Clinton seeks the Democratic nomination for president.
(28 February 2008)
Suggested by contributor J.
It’s good to know about possible conflicts of interest, but this particular one seems of underwhelming importance. Lots of people are supporting biofuels, lots of people are investing in them. In all likelihood, Clinton’s support of biofuels is much more likely to be due to its political populatity.
More to the point is the question of whether biofuels (especially corn ethanol) make any sense. -BA
DOE Not Backing Down On Strategic Reserve Fill
E&E via Rigzone
The Bush administration yesterday defended its policy to withdraw oil from a tight market to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve while at the same time asking other countries to boost oil production.
Katharine Fredriksen, principal deputy assistant secretary in the Energy Department’s Office of Policy and International Affairs, said taking less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the 85 million barrels of crude consumed per day around the world for the SPR does not affect consumer prices.
… But Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) said filling the reserve at prices of $100 per barrel was “nuts.” He has authored legislation to freeze DOE oil acquisitions for a year or until oil prices fall to $50 per barrel or less.
(27 February 2008)
