Tag: Energy Policies

Dems Wanna Drill?

House Democrats, some chanting “drill, drill,” embraced a plan to open the door for more oil and natural-gas exploration along the entire U.S. coastline, in a shift showing the power of the energy issue in this election.

The Democrats’ turnabout marks a victory for the oil industry and Republicans, who have seized on the drilling issue in recent months. With gasoline prices still high at the pump, polls show Americans in favor of expanded oil production at home, and Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain has made the issue central to his campaign, as have congressional Republicans.

Even Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic Party’s presidential standard-bearer, has endorsed expanded drilling as part of a comprehensive bill boosting conservation and renewable energy, such as wind and solar power.

The decision to push the more aggressive plan in part reflects the leverage the White House has to shape the agenda. Bush aides have signaled that the president might not support a spending bill needed to finance basic government operations beyond Sept. 30 unless Democrats allow a longstanding moratorium on offshore drilling to expire. It isn’t clear if the new House bill will ever become law. But given the sensitivity of the issue — and the White House’s leverage — the measure unveiled Wednesday can be seen as an opening bid in negotiations over details of the end-of-year spending bill.

The Democratic bill is designed to boost production and conservation, while putting the oil industry and its Republican allies in an uncomfortable position: choosing between much-coveted drilling rights in unexplored areas along the coast or the guaranteed benefit of tax breaks, which the bill would scale back under a provision that extends new tax preferences in support of renewable energy.

California’s Better Plan?

California is poised to pass the first law in the nation linking greenhouse gas emissions to urban planning, a departure from the growth approach that spawned the state’s car culture and urban sprawl.

The measure, known as SB375, aims to give existing and new high-density centers where people live, work and shop top priority in receiving local, state and federal transportation funds. The idea is that such developments check sprawl and ease commutes, in turn cutting the car pollution wafting through the Golden State.

Authored by Sen. Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), the bill reflects California’s push to slash its greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020. Sponsors say the measure is part of a much-needed growth policy for a state whose population is expected to swell to 50 million from the current 38 million in two decades.

The state’s legislature recently green-lighted the measure, and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), who aims to make California a trendsetter in fighting global warming, is expected to sign it into law once the state balances its long-overdue budget.

If he does, the state’s Air Resources Board will set emission-reduction targets for 17 major metropolitan planning organizations responsible for housing and transportation projects. A separate bill, also expected to be signed by the governor, would designate financial resources to these organizations.

Exerpts of an article written by Ashley Surdin in the WaPo.

Wind Power Does Have Its Downside

Bats are at risk from wind turbines, researchers have found, because the rotating blades produce a change in air pressure that can kill the mammals.

Bats use echo-location to avoid hitting the blades but cannot detect the sharp pressure changes around the turbine.

The scientists say wind farms are more of an issue for bats than for birds.

“An atmospheric pressure drop at wind turbine blades is an undetectable – and potentially unforseeable – hazard for bats, thus partially explaining the large number of bat fatalities at these specific structures,” said Erin Baerwald, who led the research team at the University of Calgary

The idea is that the pressure around a rotating turbine blade is lower than in the surrounding air. A bat flying into the low-pressure zone finds its lungs suddenly expanding, bursting capillaries in the surrounding tissue which then becomes flooded with blood.

Birds, which have more rigid and robust lungs, do not undergo the same trauma from a sudden drop in pressure.

Some research groups are investigating ways to keep bats away from wind farms, and a University of Aberdeen group recently suggested radar emissions might act as a “bat-scarer”.

Will There Be A Vote On Drilling?

The energy issue is at or near the top of the agenda in competitive contests across the country. Many Republican candidates have taken to focusing on energy at the expense of nearly every other issue. And polls continue to show solid majorities of the public favoring more offshore drilling.

Moderate and conservative Democratic incumbents have been pushing their leaders for weeks to allow a vote on drilling. Pelosi, who represents one of the most liberal districts in the country, is a strong ally of environmentalists but has felt pressure to help her party’s most vulnerable members.

Democrats will use the comprehensive plan Pelosi discussed Saturday as a defense against charges that they won’t allow a vote on drilling. But the measure may contain enough unpalatable items for the GOP — particularly on taxes — that most members of the minority will vote against it, and Senate Republicans could decide to block it altogether.

So it still appears unlikely that the House and Senate will be able to agree on an energy package that would pass with bipartisan support and be signed by President Bush. Democratic leaders may prefer to wait until next year, when they expect to have bigger majorities on the Hill and, they hope, Obama in the White House.

House To Rethink Drilling

Dropping her opposition to a vote on coastal oil exploration, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Saturday that the House would consider expanded offshore drilling as part of broad energy legislation when Congress returns next month.

In the weekly Democratic radio address, Ms. Pelosi criticized Republicans as focusing too narrowly on offshore drilling as a solution to high gasoline prices, but said she would bow to demands that the House revisit a drilling ban that has been imposed annually since the 1980s.

She said legislation being assembled by Democrats “will consider opening portions of the Outer Continental Shelf for drilling, with appropriate safeguards, and without taxpayer subsidies to big oil.”

The decision came after growing anxiety among Democrats that Republicans were scoring politically with their call for a vote on offshore drilling. Though Congress is on its August break, a rotating group of House Republicans has rallied daily on the House floor, demanding that Ms. Pelosi call lawmakers back for a vote to allow oil companies to pursue offshore resources.

While Ms. Pelosi is relenting despite her longtime opposition to drilling off the coast of California, her home state, Republicans may not get the vote they wanted. Expanded coastal drilling would be just one element of a broader bill that would also contain provisions opposed by Republicans, including a requirement that utilities produce a certain amount of electricity through renewable fuels. Democrats could also impose rules denying Republicans a chance to offer changes to the measure.

JUst a way to protect themselves in the upcoming election.  It is NOT about what is the best course of action, just who will be re-elected.

Nukes: A Risky Technology

An opposing view of the latest hot button issue that McCain is pushing.

For several years, the nuclear industry has been touting nuclear power as a major solution for global warming. In fact, an increase in U.S. nuclear capacity could help reduce global warming — but it could increase threats to public safety and security at the same time.

Nuclear power is an unforgiving technology that requires vigilance by reactor operators and federal regulators. A large-scale release of radioactive material — triggered by an accident or terrorist attack — could kill thousands of people from radiation poisoning within weeks and tens of thousands from cancer within decades, and cause hundreds of billions of dollars in damages.

U.S. nuclear power already is riskier than it should, and could, be. While there has not been a serious U.S. accident since the partial fuel meltdown at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979, there have been some close calls. In 2002, for example, the Davis-Besse plant in Ohio came within months of a major accident when plant owners and federal inspectors looked the other way while corrosion nearly ate through the steel vessel housing the radioactive fuel, leaving only a thin metal layer to prevent cooling water from leaking.

U.S. nuclear plants also are vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Lax federal standards only require reactor owners to protect their plants from a relatively small team of attackers using unsophisticated weapons.

Certain new reactor designs appear to be safer and less vulnerable to attack but likely will be more expensive to build. And spiraling costs for raw materials and labor already have pushed the estimated price tag for new U.S. reactors as high as $12 billion.

Because the federal government does not require new reactors to be safer and more secure than current ones, there is little incentive for utilities to opt for more expensive, safer models. Thus, increasing the number of U.S. reactors would also increase the overall risk to the public — unless U.S. regulations are strengthened to require safer reactors.

Whether or not U.S. utilities build new power plants, the industry and its federal regulators must make safety and security their top priority.

As published in the USA Today.

A Vote Or Not

Reversing course, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is planning energy legislation that may allow oil and gas drilling in new areas off the U. S. coast, according to a House Democratic leadership aide.

Pelosi, D-Calif., is open to considering energy exploration on the outer continental shelf as part of a broader package of measures to address rising energy costs, the aide said, speaking on condition of anonymity. Details haven’t been worked out, the aide said.

Pelosi rejected holding a vote on drilling before the House adjourned for its five-week recess on Aug. 1. In a CNN “Larry King Live” interview Monday night, she said “we can have a vote” on offshore drilling, “but it has to be part of something that says we want to bring immediate relief to the public and not just a hoax on them.”

Among other provisions, Pelosi said she would like a requirement that electricity be produced from renewable sources such as wind and solar energy and the release of some oil from the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve as an immediate brake on prices.

Democrats have been under increasing pressure to allow offshore drilling as gasoline prices have risen over $4 a gallon.

Americans are famous for a lack of concern on some issues.  Now that the price of gas is sliding downward, will the vote be necessary?  Or wanted at all?

Wanted: Better Energy Policies

The WaPo is reporting that it is one of the most pressing of issues during this election season.

A new national poll shows broad public support for government action in the face of $4-a-gallon gas and other energy concerns, giving Republicans a rare opening to go on the offensive against congressional Democrats and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

Nearly two-thirds of Americans now put a priority on “finding new sources of energy” over improving conservation — a significant shift since 2001 — and majorities support all of the five potential federal initiatives tested in a new ABC News poll.

There is overwhelming backing for stricter fuel efficiency standards, as large majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents alike line up behind the idea. There is also widespread support across party lines for a more controversial proposal in the battle over energy policy: offshore oil drilling.

Overall, 63 percent want the federal government to lift its embargo on new drilling in U.S. coastal waters. Nearly eight in 10 Republicans and seven in 10 independents back the idea, as do just over half of Democrats in the poll conducted in partnership with Stanford University and Planet Green.

The new poll holds welcome news for Republicans’ approach in a campaign season that has otherwise left McCain and the GOP with few opportunities to trump Democrats.

In addition to offshore drilling, most voters support an expansion of drilling in wilderness areas where it is currently banned, although Democrats and independents are about evenly split on that concept. By contrast, Republicans are divided 50 to 49 percent on whether to increase taxes on oil company profits, something that nearly two-thirds of Democrats and 54 percent of independents favor. Overall, 55 percent support these new taxes.

Nuclear power, which McCain has trumpeted as a cleaner energy source than oil, fares the worst in terms of public support, with 44 percent supporting the construction of more nuclear power plants. But that is up 10 percentage points from three years ago, reaching its highest level in polls going back to 1980.

What to do–what to do?

Candidates Butt Heads On Nuclear Energy

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee toured the Fermi 2 nuclear power plant, a 1,100-megawatt boiling water reactor on the shores of Lake Erie.

The site seemed an odd choice for a campaign event intended to promote the safety of nuclear power. A nearby reactor was decommissioned in 1975 after a partial fuel meltdown that caused no injuries.

Speaking to reporters after his tour, with the two cooling towers puffing over his shoulder, McCain launched a fresh attack on Obama, the presumed Democratic nominee.

“Sen. Obama has said expanding our nuclear power plants, quote, doesn’t make sense for America, unquote,” McCain said. “He also says no to nuclear storage and no to nuclear processing. I could not disagree more.”

Obama’s campaign has said that McCain is distorting the Democrat’s position. In a statement issued before McCain toured the power plant, campaign spokesman Bill Burton said Obama “supports safe and secure nuclear energy. . . . However, before an expansion of nuclear power is considered, Obama thinks key issues must be addressed, including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation.”

The two candidates disagree on how to treat and store the radioactive waste created during nuclear generation. McCain supports entombing spent fuel at Yucca Mountain, in the Nevada desert, while Obama opposes using the mountain facility.

McCain also has called for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, as is widely done in France and other countries. Obama says experts must first solve safety and security concerns.

The Energy Department on Tuesday released a report that concluded it would cost $96.2 billion to research, build and operate Yucca Mountain until it closes in 2133, a 38% increase from a 2001 estimate. Part of that increase is based on a projection that it would need to store 30% more nuclear waste, requiring a major expansion of the planned facility.

In his remarks to reporters, McCain again pledged to build 45 new nuclear plants by 2030, a sharp increase over the nation’s 104 operating commercial reactors.

McCain has not explained how he would achieve that goal. Although the federal government already provides generous tax incentives and loan guarantees, no utility has begun construction on a new nuclear plant since the Three Mile Island nuclear disaster in western Pennsylvania in 1979 led to more federal regulations and local opposition.

A CLOSING NOTE:  As much as I dislike the Summer Olympics, I am almost thankful for them this time.  Maybe the constant barrage of he said, they said will be given a rest, at least for 10 days or so.

Democrats Scramble To Find A Policy On Oil

With 70% of the American people now supporting a policy of drilling offshore, the Dems have got to find a way to include it in their schtick.

With the politics of energy shifting as rapidly as gasoline prices, Democrats, led by Barack Obama, are retreating from long-held positions and scrambling to offer distressed voters more immediate relief from spiraling costs.

The change has been most striking on the campaign trail, where Obama said in a speech yesterday that he would abandon his past position and support tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to quickly cut prices at the gasoline pump.

His presidential campaign later released a statement warning that the “doubling of oil prices in the past year is a crisis for millions of Americans.”

Obama’s reversal on tapping the national stockpile of crude oil comes just days after he said, for the first time, that he would agree to some offshore drilling as part of a broader energy-policy compromise with Republicans, including John McCain, who has supported additional drilling.

Those shifts by Obama are indicative of the pressure politicians of both parties – but especially Democrats – are under to develop specific, short-term energy proposals in the face of rising costs. Against that backdrop, politicians risk looking insensitive if they put forth only solutions that could take years to hit the pump.

That jockeying reflects a shift in public opinion that has upended policy debates as gas prices have soared and the economy has soured. In California, where opposition to offshore drilling is widespread, a poll last month by the Public Policy Institute of California showed 51 percent of respondents favoring more drilling – up 10 percentage points since July 2007, and the first time since the question was first posed in 2003 that more Californians favor offshore drilling than oppose it.

But the reality, there is no way that the US would become oil independent with either of these plans.