Results tagged “energy policy”

Members of the Oil and Natural Gas Industry Labor-Management Committee, which includes API along with fifteen labor unions, have written to senior members of Congress encouraging them to support tax policies that will protect and encourage the development of quality U.S. jobs, while at the same time fortifying our nation's energy and economic security.

The Committee on Natural Resources in the U.S. House of Representatives held a hearing today on a proposal called the Consolidated Land, Energy and Aquatic Resources Act of 2009. While it's often referred to as an energy bill, it's actually an Un-Energy bill.

If passed, this bill would consolidate the leasing functions of the Minerals Management Service (MMS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) into a single office at the Interior Department. At present, the MMS manages the leasing of offshore land for energy development, and the BLM manages a similar process for onshore leasing.

In this blog, I've discussed a Heritage Foundation study that finds gasoline prices would increase significantly in order to meet emissions limits imposed by the Waxman-Markey legislation.

Now, Heritage has developed an interactive map that demonstrates Waxman-Markey's effect on gas prices in your state. It lists current prices as well as projections for 2012 and 2035 should this legislation be enacted.

An editorial from today's Oil & Gas Journal makes an important observation at a time when Congress is poised to enact wide-ranging energy and climate change laws. The editorial notes, "...affiliation with the oil and gas industry discredits whatever a person might say on the subject of energy." The author argues that this tactic muffles the industry's political voice and expertise and exposes the United States to costly mistakes on energy.

More evidence has surfaced indicating that the U.S. House of Representatives cap-and-trade legislation could do more harm than good.

On July 8, U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report warning that the bill could lead to an international trade war. The study points out that the bill's provisions designed to protect particularly energy-intensive industries from overseas competition could "motivate retaliatory actions, undermine efforts to secure multilateral consensus, and...could lead [other countries] to implement restrictions against U.S. exports."

This week, the Senate began discussions on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, climate legislation that narrowly passed in the House last month. As a recent New York Times article mentions, this week and the remainder of the month will be a busy time on the Hill with a number of hearings taking place before the weeks of July 27-31 and Aug. 3-7--weeks Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) set aside for the bill's mark up. To follow the discussion, you can watch yesterday's Environment & Public Works Committee hearing.

In a post last month, I talked about columnist Robert Samuelson's view on an Obama administration anti-oil bias. And in a recent Las Vegas Review-Journal op-ed, it seems that former Oklahoma Congressman J.C. Watts shares a similar perspective.

Today, newspapers all over America have published editorials and op-eds on the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill. Here's a sample:

"We're not ignorant of political realities, and we don't believe the perfect should become the enemy of the good. Congress should deliver a bill to Mr. Obama this year. But given that congressional action could set a template for years or decades, we think it's too soon to settle for something that falls so far short of ideal." - The Washington Post, June 26

API shares President Obama's well-intentioned goal of having a comprehensive energy policy that grows the economy, creates jobs, promotes energy security and addresses climate change.

But independent analysis shows that the Waxman-Markey climate bill would burden American consumers and businesses with substantially higher energy costs. This is more than "a few postage stamps."

The media are handicapping the upcoming vote on the Waxman-Markey bill as though it were The Kentucky Derby. In today's 24-hour-a-day news cycle, reporters, anchors and pundits are asking whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has the votes for passage, whether the bill could be more costly than previously anticipated by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and they are dissecting President Obama's comments delivered in the Rose Garden this afternoon.

No one likes the prospect of paying $4 for a gallon of gasoline, but API economists who analyzed the bill say $4 gasoline easily could become a reality. They based on their calculations on two recent studies--the Heritage Foundation analysis of the Waxman-Markey bill, and two Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports.

The most recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) calculations for the Waxman-Markey climate bill give new meaning to the term "rosy scenario."

CBO pegs the annual household cost of Waxman-Markey at $175 per household, yet its own report suggests gasoline could rise 77 cents a gallon. That's $800 more a year just for gasoline, assuming a family uses 20 gallons a week. CBO claims that free emission allowances will offset this, but these go to businesses and government--not consumers.

This Friday, the U.S. House of Representatives is expected to take up the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, or the Waxman-Markey bill. The American Petroleum Institute (API) strongly opposes the bill, and today sent a letter to every member of Congress explaining why this bill should be rejected by the House.

As studies by the Heritage Foundation and the National Black Chamber of Commerce show, this bill will cut jobs by more than two million a year and raise the price of gasoline by an estimated 77 cents a gallon over the next decade.

Did you know that Congress is about to consider massive taxes and fees on the U.S. energy sector?

A new Institute for 21st Century Energy report argues that these taxes and fees, specifically on the oil and natural gas industry, could harm the U.S. economy at precisely the wrong time--during a deep recession. According to the report, the Obama administration's tax proposal and House Natural Resources Committee's proposed energy bill would jeopardize U.S. jobs, erode the nation's economic competitiveness, and do nothing to help U.S. energy security.

Today, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and labor unions announced the historic creation of the Oil and Natural Gas Industry Labor-Management Committee, which will work to preserve and create jobs by promoting domestic oil and natural gas production. Currently, the industry employs more than 1.8 million American workers and supports another 4 million workers.

Gasoline prices have risen to an average of $2.67 a gallon, the highest price in the past eight months. API's Chief Economist John Felmy and Statistics Manager Ron Planting attribute the price rise largely to what they call "market fundamentals"--the basic law of supply and demand.

When asked to summarize her trip to Washington last week, one of the women from the oil and natural gas industry offered two words--"extremely enlightening." She was one of 29 women from energy companies who fanned out across Capitol Hill to meet with members and staffers from the U.S. Senate and House and to challenge the misperceptions about the oil and natural gas industry.

In this week's episode, I talk with Tim Sampson, manager for exploration and production at API, and Roland Goodman, manager of upstream standards at API, about how the oil and natural gas industry prepares for storms during hurricane season. Use the audio player below to listen, and follow along with the show notes. I hope you find it informative.

Feel free to leave a question in the comments section of this post.

In a conference call with reporters today, API President and CEO Jack Gerard said the Waxman-Markey bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is "unacceptable as drafted." He said the bill's potential economic impact cannot be overstated and called on Congress to conduct a thorough analysis.

Members of Congress trying to hammer out a bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have reached agreement on the distribution of valuable carbon dioxide permits. As reported in the San Francisco Chronicle, more than 50 percent of the emission allowances will be donated to electric-power distributors, automakers and other industries. Only 2 percent of allowances will go to refiners.