Senate Republicans recently unveiled the “Domestic Energy and Jobs Act,” an energy bill intended “To approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, to provide for the development of a plan to increase oil and gas exploration, development, and production under oil and gas leases of Federal land, and for other purposes.” Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND), who drafted the bill, has said that Romney would offer similar legislation if elected.
Provisions of the bill would:
- Suspend U.S. EPA rules on refineries, pending a gas prices study
- Impose a minimum threshold on the amount of oil and gas leasing each year
- Reverse a Bureau of Land Management permitting reforms established under Obama
- Exempt certain offshore wind development from environmental planning requirements
- Open the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska and the Virginia coastline to drilling
- Increase the amount of revenue states eventually will receive per year from drilling off their coasts to $750 million
- Allow TransCanada to build the northern leg of the Keystone XL Alberta-Texas crude pipeline
The bill closely resembles another by the same name that passed through the House in June. E&E News reports “The Senate bill includes virtually all pieces of the House companion, except for a provision requiring that new lands or waters be opened to drilling if the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is tapped.”
Is this bill good policy? What elements of the bill do you support or oppose?
How in the world can senators in Washington DC that are responding to lobbyists come up with these knee-jerk “energy policies” when they have no plan, no direction, no idea where we are going (“Winning the Energy Wars”)?? Crazy to say the least!! Let’s put our heads together and design a plan to transition from our finite energy resources to infinite resources so that our country and our kids have a future.[img]www.usa-sep.com[/img]
While not as egregiously ideological as HR 4480, this proposed legislation is nonetheless one more energy bill drafted by staffers with little or no knowledge of the particulars of energy cost. It is directed primarily to ideological ends. Consider its attempt to reign in the costs of the EPA.
The chief elements of the pump price for gasoline are the cost of the feedstock barrel, national and state taxes, transportation and ethanol, not necessarily in that order. The first is beyond governmental control, as is transportation. Taxes and ethanol are there by legislative demands. Any additional costs added by various EPA dicta are marginal. Beating on the EPA might wring a few pennies out of the pump price, but only a few. This part is pointless, ideological cant.
Those staffers have gotten ample help from lobbyists, whose fingerprints abound. Several clauses seem highly specific to individual situations. The Coal Lobby has obviously written a sizable part. And it’s of interest to see that the wind and solar lobbies have come of age, having dipped their oars deeply into this bill.
The attempts to limit the impact of NIMBYism are once again burdened with the question of congress’ ability to tell the Judicial Branch how to run its business. Title V, Subtitle D is a constitutional non-starter. The drafters must realize that fact. It’s just posturing.
There are two dominate mind sets regarding energy in Washington. The first, illustrated by much of this document and almost all of Hr 4480 is to develop as much energy supply as possible with little or no regard to environmental issues. The other is to obstruct exactly that event, justifying the obstructionism via environmental iconography. Why is there no mindset of problem solving?
Pingback: Science Starting to Win Climate Change Debate | Winning Progressive