Let's Discuss: H.R. 6107, the American Energy Independence and Price Reduction Act
Posted by Prof. Goose on May 23, 2008 - 8:00am
Topic: Policy/Politics
Tags: don young, energy, energy policy, H.R. 6017, peak oil, roscoe bartlett [list all tags]
This is an excerpted letter from Members of Congress Don Young and Roscoe Bartlett asking for other MoC's to support and/or co-sponsor H.R. 6107, an Important Step to American Energy Independence and Price Reductions for Consumers.
It would seem to me that it contains policy options we should discuss...more under the fold.
If you wish to find your Representative's number or email to express your support or contempt for this legislation, go to http://house.gov. To learn more about the details of the legislation, look it up at http://thomas.loc.gov .
We must act now and illustrate that we are serious about bringing down the high cost of energy and generating good paying jobs in our communities. Abundant, affordable, and secure supplies of energy are essential to this Nation's economic and national security.
Unfortunately, our energy supplies are neither secure nor affordable, and much of the reserves of untapped energy we have right here at home has been placed off-limits by the federal government. As a result of our failure to provide access to our own energy supplies, we now depend on foreign nations for two-thirds of the energy we need to keep America’s economy running. And at today’s prices, the cost of our failure to produce is $1.85 billion per day. This is our energy reality.
We simply cannot afford to ignore this reality any longer. The only real solution to our energy crisis is to increase the domestic production of all available forms of energy with an emphasis on renewable and alternative energies and enhanced conservation and efficiency. We need aggressive federal support for technological advances in efficiency and all domestic sources of energy including coal, oil, and natural gas, nuclear solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, hydroelectric, and ocean energy.
For these reasons, we have introduced H.R. 6107, the American Energy Independence and Price Reduction Act.
Through this legislation, 0.01% of the northern coastal plain of the 19.6 million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, an area specifically set aside by a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress for the purpose of future energy exploration and development, will be brought online to help alleviate the burden on American families. At the same time, all of the federal revenues from this bill will fund efforts to boost efficiency, production, research, development, and demonstration of already authorized cleaner, renewable and alternative energy technologies essential to completing the puzzle – and it will do so at zero cost to the American taxpayer.
H.R. 6107 will:
• Allow for the environmentally responsible development of ANWR's 30 year, 1 million barrel/day supply.
• Bring online ANWR's additional supply of 1 million barrels per day – the equivalent of what Texas produces daily – in less than five years.
• Deliver more than $200 billion in corporate tax income and royalty revenue to the federal government.
• Bring in $3.5 billion in bonus bids alone.
• Create 250,000-750,000 well paid American jobs; and
• Fund a comprehensive range of renewable and alternative energy provisions authorized – but not fully funded – under current law (EPACT 2005 and EISA 2007).
While there has been significant talk on what to do about energy prices, there has been little action. By increasing domestic supplies of oil by 1 Million barrels per day, H.R. 6107 will increase domestic oil production by 20 percent and fully fund 18 authorized alternative and renewable energy provisions in the process at zero cost to taxpayers.
We need all the domestic energy we can get, folks. Under H.R. 6107, we can produce ANWR's 10.4 billion barrels of American oil and boost efficiency and alternative and renewable energy production at the same time.
Go home this Memorial Day with a REAL Energy Plan in your pocket. Get your representatives to Support or Cosponsor H.R. 6107 today.
We look forward to working with you on this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Don Young, Member of Congress
Roscoe Bartlett, Member of Congress
I'll support this just as soon as CAFE is set to 80mpg by 2020. Why 80 mpg? This is the mileage GM, Ford, and Chrysler were achieving in 2001 before they asked the Bush Administration to kill the program because they were making too much money selling SUVs.
I couldn't agree more...but I thought this whole piece of legislation was worth discussing...
Realpolitik. It's fun!
The program I was referring to was the Partnership for a New Generation Vehicle (PNGV), where the Big 3 and the US entered into a public-private partnership to bring 80 mpg family cars to production in the 2005 timeframe. The Clinton Administration chose this path instead of raising CAFE, wanting to work with Detroit instead of just regulating it. Of course, the Big 3 worked against America's energy security by having the program killed by their funded Presidential appointee.
And then the Big 3 complained last year during Energy Policy deliberations that they couldn't possibly raise their vehicle fleet mpg average up to 40 mpg in 12 years. http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/06/auto_industry_s.html
But then they couldn't explain how Toyota could be in the 6th year of producing a 50 mpg family car. And how 300 mpg 2-seaters like the Aptera will be coming out in 2010.
But additional lobbying by the American Petroleum Institute helped sway just enough Senators to threaten a filibuster against a 40 mpg CAFE.
You're absolutely right, of course, to bring this to everyone's attention for discussion. Much as I like Rep. Bartlett's attention to Peak Oil, I can say that there are mitigations that are far and away more effective than opening up ANWR, which should be held out as the last possible step after all others have been put into place.
ANWR is an environmental preserve for sensitive arctic ecosystem. Since we are not making much progress on limiting CO2 emissions, the ANWR land will not be arctic in a few years. I think we should not drill there until it is no longer an arctic ecosystem. It will only be a few years delay in getting the oil.
I spent 3 years as an Arctic Light Infantryman, a lot of the time near the Alaska pipeline. It is possible to tap ANWR without damage. It is a much better alternative to oil sands.
But drilling in ANWR should be tied to allowing privately financed transportation networks that can achieve 5X CAFE; exceed efficiencies of 5 times current CAFE Standards or about 100 miles per gallon.
Here is a draft resolution provided to John Darnell in Congressman Bartlett's office and Bill Richard in Congressman Oberstar's office.
In a great example of the law of unintended consequences, the PNGV was one of Toyota's major motivations to develop the Prius. They were convinced that, unless they acted immediately, they'd be left behind when Detroit introduced its line of fuel-efficient vehicles.
Links please? I don't doubt that the Big 3 could be doing *much* better, but 80 mpg is above even the best foreign hybrid & subcompact models today.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bestworst.shtml
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2000/03/35335
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3012/is_1_180/ai_59035635
And google "PNGV 80 mpg GM Ford Chrysler" to find many dozens of other links.
Thanks!
There was an outstanding series written about the rise and fall of the PNGV (SuperCar) by Sam Roe and the Chigaco Tribune. It is a quite long and detailed piece which explores in depth the project from start to sad end. Warning, if you don't already have dim view of The Big Three Automakers and US Gov't., you might adopt one after reading what went down on this farce.
It is a quite interesting read. The Chicago Prius Group has it archived in .pdf form on the bottom of the page at
http://www.chicagopriusgroup.com/links/resources.htm
When you start off with "get 80 miles per gallon from a family sized car" isn't it kind of obvious that they don't expect to achieve anything? No wonder it was killed. Little superlight 2 seat 3 cylinder hybrid cars don't get close to 80 miles per gallon.
But it does sound plausible that they would start with that premise since "family sized car" is the one car that Detroit can sell versus Japanese competition. Or maybe that should be that Detroit sells them, Japan doesn't.
If the US increased mileage efficiency to to 80 MPG we would probably use about a 2/3 less oil. (These are rough numbers) If China and India increased their car ownership from 1 or 2 percent to just thirty percent we'd still be in the same boat--as that would increase the car fleet by roughly 650 million. The 2/3 gain would get burned by China and India. Add in oil production declines. And what is going to happen faster? Oil depletion, China/India car growth, or American adoption of 80 MPH cars?
Electrification is the only long term way of getting around.
Certainly any oil conservation we do will be "used up" by the developing world. That is NO reason not to do it anyway. The big damage that is being done to our economy via the imbalance of payments is hurting us severely. But you are correct that electrification looks to be the obvious route to take.
The VW Polo with latest diesel BlueTech engine gets 72mpg. It is for sale now in Europe. Look for it coming to the USA soon... More info here:
http://www.egmcartech.com/2007/02/01/report-volkswagen-polo-coming-to-un...
Now imagine if you couple this engine with a hybrid regenerative system and over 100mpg seems very achievable. If fuel prices double I bet you could jam together VW and Toyota components to get it to market much faster.
Right, that and when they at least mention the word conservation and bring back the 55mph speed limit.
Drop (ANWR), meet ocean (PO).
As oil production goes into declines no one could deny, it is a certainty the ANWR will be developed. So why not get serious investment in alternative energies and efficiency as the price for ANWR?
As long as they are linked, this is worth doing.
I have long proposed some sort of compromise, that reduced drilling restrictions be linked to serious efforts in conservation and alternate energy. There are of course two ways of obtaining linkage. The most obvious is the earmarking of royalties from ANWR and such to renewables and efficiency etc. The second is legislative tit-for-tat. We need both.
I've heard Mr. Bartlett speak on the floor of the House and I cannot believe that he would think that this stop gap measure is going to have any real effect on the price of petroleum.
He probably doesn't. But, being a practical-minded and skilled politician, he also knows that Joe 6pack is ignorant, clueless, and/or in-denial about P.O. So... he has to advocate pissing-in-the-wind measures like this to appear like he's "doing something" about $4+/gal gas. Plus, it gives him the opportunity to defelect any blame on his "Lib-uh-ral" tree-hugging opponents come election time --especially if the measure gets defeated.
Never bet against the stupidity, narcissism and willful ignorance of the average Amerikan voter. You'll lose every time.
If there was a time when politics should not be played with an issue it is now. I have a fear...one day everyone will acknowledge the reality of peak oil and the need to transition to a fossil fuel free sustainable economy, but by the time they do the world will be well past the point of no return.
A "fossil fuel free sustainable economy" is not going to support 7 billion rapacious homo sapiens devouring 40% of the biomass production of the planet each year.
Our species is wildly out of balance with its natural ecological niche. Until that core problem is resolved, everything else is pissing in the wind.
Yeah, & pointing out that fact gets you labeled as a "doomer." You're supposed to offer some bandaid techno-fix idea or you aren't being "helpful." If you can offer up some colorful graph in support of your pipedream, so much the better. We're all supposed to be looking for the lost keys under the lamppost - even tho that isn't where we lost them - otherwise, what's the point of the website? It's some version of "Business As Usual" (BAU) or bust. No ICEs perhaps, but electric trains or railbikes or something.. is supposed to be the vision. It's not that anyone will argue against population collapse or deny its possibility, it's that we're all supposed to assume the diedown is a bad thing & can be potentially averted so long as we all advocate whatever our pet techno-fix may be. The mores are: closest to BAU the better, if there's $$ to be made during the diedown so much the better, if the "landing" is "soft" so much the better, and the more who survive it the better. We're apes & staying in the good graces of the ape group is of hardwired importance. Just so you'd know...
Not to worry, the decline of oil will likely kill off a couple billion of us, don't you think? I mean, considering the importance of oil to agriculture, a lot of starvation will ensue and the world will be powerless to stop it.
He doesn't.
Bartlett's a Peak Oil hypocite.
He's teaming up with Big Oil's favorite, Don Young of Alaska(hint hint) on drilling in ANWR.
Don Young Under Federal Criminal Investigation
By Laura McGann - July 24, 2007, 9:09PM
The Wall Street Journal reports that 18-term Rep. Don Young (R-AK) is under criminal investigation for his dealings with Alaska oil services company Veco Corp.
While the investigation into Sen. Ted Stevens' (R-AK) ties to Veco, including the remodeling of his Girdwood home, has been widely reported, this is the first time Young has been implicated in the scandal.
It looks like an annual pig-roast fundraiser snared the congressman known for huge pork projects, including the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere."
From The Journal:
For a decade, former VECO Chief Executive Bill Allen has held fund-raisers for Mr. Young in Anchorage every August, known as "The Pig Roast," participants said. Public records show contributions to Mr. Young of at least $157,000 from VECO employees and its political-action committee between 1996 and 2006, the last year the event was held.
Mr. Young amended his campaign-finance filings in January to reflect $38,000 in payments to Mr. Allen, the former VECO chief. The refunds, which haven't previously been reported, were labeled "fund-raising costs" in documents filed with the Federal Election Commission.
Veco has been the recipient of a variety of federal contracts, but it's still not clear what the company would have received in exchange for all of its alleged bribes.
And yes, I do judge people by the friends they keep.
Well that's a disappointment.
ANWR is a bargaining chip - we will get into it and fairly soon - so we must get frightful concessions when this time comes.
I'd like to see a $1,000/liter tax every time a vehicle changes hands with the first liter being free - that would do much to clean up the stock of low mileage clunkers we've got out there.
I'm surprised to see Bartlett's name attached to this. I mean, he had previously opposed drilling in ANWR, quite vigourously as I recall; didn't he threaten to "vote to kill the entire energy bill if it allows drilling in ANWR" or something like this, just last year?
Antoinetta III
A bargaining chip for what? We need hundreds of billions of dollars invested annually to come up with a solution to this problem, not half assed measures like this.
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a refuge set aside for the future. It is faithless to suggest drilling there. The topic must be dropped before any serious discussion can take place. Now, most of Florida is going away so why not drill there once it is submerged? Surely with the market in contango, it is better to wait to exploit any resources? Let others sell their oil cheap now and we'll still be able to produce when it is going for $2000 a barrel from wells off the former coast of Florida. Even Jeb Bush couldn't object to that.
Chris
What is depressing is the lack of understanding of the size of the problem.
Dear < insert congressperson/senator here>
While I appreciate your concern in increasing gasoline and oil prices, I think you fail to understand the magnitude of the problem. There are a number of important points I think would be useful in considering while attempting to work out the solution to this problem.
- Worldwide production is 86 million barrels per day.
- Established wells are falling at a rate of 4% per year
- Worldwide demand is increasing at 1% per year.
- That means we need net 5% per year increase in production flow (or about 4 million barrels per day)
- The U.S. uses 25% of the world's oil supply, so that means we should find about a million barrels per day to meet this. IF we assume 50% from domestic production, and 50% from imports, we need to increase domestic production from new wells by 500,000 barrels per day per year just to stay even with growth.
- If we want to use "free markets" to solve this problem we have to be respectful of both extreme profits, as well as extreme costs. $12 per gallon gasoline is just an incentive for people to figure out another way. Billions of dollars in profits for oil companies is an incentive to find the next oil well or develop an alternative.
- We can't say we are against high gas prices and high profits and be for "free market solutions" to our "energy crisis".
In working through your solutions, please consider:
- Both development of traditional as well as alternative supply-side solutions -- Maybe drilling in ANWR is worth it. But get something for it!
- Reduction in demand
- Higher CAFE standards
- more incentives for switching domestic automobile production from SUV/Truck to smaller vehicle.
- How about a miles-driven tax, or a gas-guzzler tax. Combined with a "fuel rebate" for efficient use, this would be effective is helping move people towards purchasing more efficient cars without driving up the price of gasoline.
- Support for mass transportation and energy efficient transportation technologies.
- Don't try to "pick" a solution. For example, offering rebates on $50,000 hybrid trucks that get 5mpg better than gas equivalent, while allowing rebates to expire on 50mpg vehicles because they are too "popular." If your goal is to use the tax code to create incentives for the purchasing of efficient vehicles, then make it do just that. Offer rebates for high mileage diesel, electric, or regular gasoline engines.
Finally, in this election season:
- Don't pander to us. Gas tax "holidays" and other gimmicks are obvious. While we may sometimes act stupid, we really aren't.
- Do speak to us about the truth. Educate your constituents on what the immediate future is likely to hold. Lead us, don't scare us, and don't reassure us with false promises.
Mike
Well done! If you don't mind, I think I'll forward that on to my congress-critter!
Do it! But remember, only send it to yours. They only listen to THEIR constituents...look at house.gov with your zip code to find out yours if you have any doubts.
I think Roscoe is just smoking out the real do-nothings in Congress. If they were to vote on this measure, it would reveal who in Congress the real culprits are. I don't believe for a minute that he really believes ANWR would contribute anything to delaying peak oil.
Do nothing is right, the Dems. and Reps. are both Do Nothing's as far as PO is concerned. I think that soon (within a few years) a PO realization will hit them and almost certain sense of personal panic will follow when they realize that they've done nothing to lessen the calamity that will be upon us.
Assuming that it is possible to simply slip something into Representative Barlett's inbox and be sure he sees it, what, if anything, would this august body care to say?
I imagine this is a canard of some sort - posturing on this point in order to get something else into play ... that is just my take on the man and his methods.
10.4 billion/bbls? What's the EROI on that?
It's even worse. They're assuming that they're going to get all of the oil in place out. BAsed on this report from the USGS, there are only 10.3 billion bbl of oil in place. An average extraction rate of 1 million bbl/day would use all of that and more over 30 years. This doesn't even take into account the USGS's incredible record of accurate oil estimates.
No, that is 10.3 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil, not oil in place.
Chris
If one wanted to do something nationalistic for the USA (which, admittedly, I don't find that compelling in principle), it'd make more sense to heavily tax all domestic oil production and run the nation on imported oil as long as possible. M.K. Hubbert said as much. Accelerating domestic production - which current price signals do - is a silly way to achieve "independence".
ANWR will certainly be drilled; but if so it should probably be matched, barrel-for-barrel, by reserves NOT extracted in the lower 48, a super strategic reserve.
Then again, we get the leaders we deserve, and the USA has arguably had more than it deserves of the energy pie already. So despite my previous statements, I recommend that ANWR be left in the ground against the advent of needing to divert an asteroid or something in 2000 years rather than p*ssing it away now during the SUV-owning peak-entitlement years. Untapped oilfields will be endangered species at that point.
On the other hand, when taken alongside the votes to stop filling the SPR and to sue Opec in US courts, this proposal fits right in. It's what I'd hve expected from Young of Alaska, but alas - Roscoe - apparently we hardly knew ye.
I concur with your statement, however, the electorate is looking for an instant 1+1 solution in the face of rising oil prices i.e. we need more oil, there's oil in our backyard, lets get it.
Thus, for those representatives who take a stand against drilling in ANWR for environmental reasons (or as you suggest, strategic ones) their position will become less and less tenable.
When true shortages kick in -when ELM starts to bite- you can kiss ANWR and every other continental drilling exclusion zone good-bye.
I think we need to look at the pipeline situation closely. I suspect that because of pipeline considerations, it is really now or never for drilling in ANWR.
We currently have the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) that is transporting Prudhoe Bay oil. It is currently not being used to capacity. I do not know what the pipeline minimum operating level is, but at some point we will reach it, and production will have to stop, since a pipeline is needed for transport. If we add ANWR production to TAPS, we will be able to run the pipeline longer, before it has to be closed for lack of sufficient oil to transport.
I don't think there is an option of letting the pipeline sit empty for a few years and reopening it. I also don't think we have the luxury of planning to build a new pipeline for ANWR, if/when we decide later to drill for oil in ANWR. Cost/timing/resources would all be issues.