Posts tagged “politics”
As regular readers of this column are aware from time to time I will host provocative perspectives on the energy industry. The failed nomination of Ron Binz to be the Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which was formalized with his withdrawal from consideration on late Monday night, was unprecedented in Washington. The role of FERC has never been the subject of public of political interest – and I’d argue that few people (in Congress or otherwise can actually explain what FERC does) – so the sudden acute interest that resulted in no confirmation vote and Binz’s eventual withdrawal is well worth examining.
My friends at Operation Free (a campaign of the Truman National Security Project and Center for National Policy, is a coalition of over 5,000 veterans and national security experts advocating for securing America with clean energy) have been watching the FERC nomination process, and have expounded the view of many energy insiders that Binz’s failed confirmation represents an important and troubling development in the evolution of America’s energy industry.
Ron Binz, the once leading nominee to be the next Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, announced Monday evening that he had formally withdrawn his name from future consideration for the post.
To be sure, Binz is a highly qualified candidate who has spent his entire career working on energy regulatory issues, and he would have brought needed vision and leadership to a post that is critical for diversifying our energy portfolio and strengthening our national security.
Unfortunately, members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee resorted to bitter partisanship, dooming his confirmation based on a fear and misguided assumption he would encourage prioritization of renewable resources over legacy coal and oil sources of energy.
Their excuses not only illustrated a lack of understanding of FERC’s authority, but also they were inaccurate and pose a serious threat to America’s energy future.
As citizens from Ohio, Michigan, and West Virginia, we know the benefits that traditional energy sources have provided to the growth of our nation and states’ economies. While we acknowledge these sources – like coal- will continue to play an important part of our nation’s energy mix, in order to strengthen our national and economic security, it is critical that we continue to find ways to diversify our energy options and reduce our carbon emissions
The military has been a leader in the development of biofuels – for good reason. As I’ve written before, the military’s single-source dependence on petroleum for fuel is a strategic vulnerability. Oil has a monopoly on energy supply for 80% of our military’s energy needs, including virtually all of the non-nuclear transportation. To simply accept that oil is going to remain as the sole source of liquid fuel that the US military relies on for its transportation, operations, and training is to say that we should accept the long-term strategic risks of price volatility and dependence upon uncertain foreign countries.
We should remember that, even if the military uses oil solely from the United States and its allies, the price that the Defense Logistics Agency pays for oil is largely set by global market conditions – and saying that those are highly vulnerable to conflict and unrest in the Middle East is an understatement.
Last year, in an attempt to address this threat, the Department of Defense, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Energy were authorized under the Defense Production Act (DPA) to support the development of an alternative source of fuel. The funding agreed in a joint memorandum, and appropriated by Congress, each agency will invest $170 million over three years in helping to build a domestic biofuel industry (read more about the DoD’s biofuels policy here). This funding will be matched by investment from the private sector. Over the past several months, the agencies have been deliberating over which companies will partner with the government.
Mike is a true clean energy entrepreneur, starting way back with a fuel cell start-up in the late 1990s, he’s run a venture capital firm, been an executive at a solar company and founded another solar company… and he’s voting for Mitt Romney.
As the presidential election draws near, gasoline prices are again in the news. In the summer they were rising, and Obama’s opponents were pointing fingers in his directions. Now that prices are falling, what does that mean for the Obama and Romney campaigns? In this week’s episode of R-Squared Energy TV, I answer a reader’s question on how falling gasoline prices might impact the Obama campaign for reelection.
Falling gas prices around the country have motorists breathing a sigh of relief, but a Mitt Romney campaign that has used rising fuel costs as a weapon during the lead-up to the presidential election may not be so happy to see pump prices dropping.
After relatively small drops over the first half of October, residents of some states are seeing prices as low as $3.20 per gallon, a major decrease from the $3.84 many drivers were paying only a few short weeks ago. While acknowledging that the cost of fuel is difficult to predict over the long-term, analysts remain optimistic that prices will continue to fall, potentially as low as a national average of only $3 per gallon, a rate not seen since 2010.
With sustainability and clean energy both hot topics nearing the end of the presidential campaign, pollsters are hitting up citizens from around the United States in order to see where the general population stands on those subjects and their relation to climate change.
The results show that Americans overwhelmingly support political efforts to reduce the effects of greenhouse gases, with most agreeing that climate change is an important issue that needs immediate attention.
Koch Brothers fund campaign aimed at highlighting the rise in gas prices since President Barack Obama was inaugurated
With gas selling for more than $4 per gallon in some parts of the country leading up to the presidential election, one political activist group is looking to sway voters by offering them fuel at less than half that price.
Drivers lined up by the hundreds outside of Rainbow Markets in Reno, Nevada earlier this week to take advantage of gas priced at only $1.84 per gallon — the same price that was found on fuel pumps across the country when President Barack Obama took office in January 2009. (See also: How High Have Gas Prices Risen Over the Years?)
Organized by a group known as Gas Can Man and funded by the PAC Morning in America radio show and billionaire brothers David and Charles Koch, leaders of the Americans for Prosperity organization, the exclusive fuel deal was offered in order to highlight what those groups see as President Obama’s failed energy policies, policies they say have lead to untenable gas prices.
The following article was written by Andrew Holland for Energy Trends Insider, a free subscriber-only newsletter published by Consumer Energy Report that identifies financial trends in the energy sector. Get you free subscription today.
The ethanol industry has seen its position in Washington severely weakened over the last year. The modern ethanol industry is a creation of Congress; the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS), the ethanol tax credit, and a tariff on imported ethanol were all responsible for creating the ethanol industry we see today. We should note that this industry has seen some remarkable successes: it has replaced almost 10% of the country’s gasoline fuel supply, with an impact on prices that is marginal at best.
It is important to note that more advanced biofuels still receive tax support: cellulosic ethanol receives $1.01 per gallon in tax credits, but that is set to expire at the end of this year. A Senate bill would extend that credit for a year, as well as retroactively re-instate the $1 per gallon biodiesel tax credit that expired at the end of last year. The fate of these credits is up in the air, as Congress will have to consider a broad range of tax policy questions before the ‘fiscal cliff’ coming this year.
In Issue #7 of Energy Trends Insider, a reader asked about the potential implications of the Obama Administration’s recent announcement that they were considering a release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). My view is that since it is an election season and gasoline prices have remained stubbornly high, the chance of a release from the SPR is high. Having a Democrat in the White House also increases the odds, as illustrated by this post.
If the Obama Administration orders a release, it would be the 2nd time the administration had tapped the SPR. In 2011 the Obama Administration ordered a release of 30 million barrels of oil in conjunction with a 30 million barrel release from other members of the International Energy Agency. At that time, oil prices were already well off their highs, and the impact was short-lived.
With the 2011 release, the price of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) dropped by 4% on the day the release was announced, but one week later the price was higher than it was before the release was announced. If you look at the data from the EIA, you can see the fleeting impact of that 30 million barrel release (the announcement was on June 23, 2011 when the price of WTI was $94.96). The price dipped, climbed back up, dipped again as summer driving season ended, but by year-end was back above $100/bbl.
President Barack Obama has been given an important vote of confidence from within the energy sector, with Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers telling news network CNN that the country is better off now when it comes to energy than it was before Obama’s election.
The statement comes just as the Democratic National Convention gets set to open in Charlotte, North Carolina, with Rogers acting as co-chairman of the event’s host committee. While the words come from within his own camp, Obama appears to be gaining ground on rival Mitt Romney with voters across the country where energy policy is concerned.