posted on May 17, 2001 01:32:00 PM new
1999: World Oil Said Bush Would Be the Perfect Presidential Candidate to Deal With
Low Oil Prices.
In 1999, World Oil wrote that Bush "would be well aware of the fact that oil prices have collapsed"
and "would seem to be the perfect individual to lead the charge in doing something about the [low]
price of oil." The editorial said one possibility was that Bush and his father could persuade the Middle
East to hold production, increasing prices, and that if Bush was successful in increasing the price of
oil, "he could parlay his actions into substantial contributions." [World Oil, 2/99]
1999: Cheney Praised OPEC Production Cuts That Raised Oil Prices.
According to the Associated Press in March 1999, "OPEC members agreed today to cut crude oil
production by 2.1 million barrels a day and maintain lower levels of output for a full year starting April
1, oil ministers said. The group of 11 oil producing nations approved the cuts in an effort to strengthen
prices and end a global oil glut." Then-Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney praised OPEC's decision. "I've
been struck by the extent OPEC seems to have gotten its act together," said Cheney. [Dow Jones,
4/12/99; Mickey Kaus, Slate, 7/28/00; AP Online, 3/23/99]
1999: Bush Seeks to Bail Out Oil Industry, Declares Tax Break "Emergency," to Deal
With Low Oil Prices.
On February 2, 1999, Bush designated a temporary $45 million tax break to low-production oil wells
as an "emergency" so that it could be taken up without delay by in the state legislature. Due to
plummeting oil prices, the bill was targeted to keep "small, semi-productive wells open." However, the
Texas Railroad Commission released statistics showing that "the largest 34 well operators make up
less than one percent of the state's oil producers but control 25 percent of wells eligible for the tax
exemption." [Dallas Morning News, 2/3/99; Dallas Morning News, 3/12/99]
1992: Bush Wrote Letter to His Father's Chief of Staff to Try to Remove Tax to Boost
Oil Prices.
In 1992, Bush wrote a letter to the chief-of-staff for his then-President father on behalf of oil producers
when they were trying to get a tax on drilling removed to help boost sagging prices. [Associated
Press, 6/24/00; letter from George W. Bush to Sam Skinner, 1/10/92]
1987: Cheney Fought on Behalf of Oil Companies to Raise Oil Prices.
In 1987, Cheney introduced the Energy Security Policy Act and fought on behalf of oil companies to
"raise [oil] prices now." The bill imposed a fee on oil imports in an effort to stimulate domestic oil
exploration and production. On the floor of the House, Cheney said, "Low world oil prices... have
made the United States much reliant on imported supplies.... Unless we take action to raise prices
now, through the action of an oil import fee, it will be too late to do so when prices rise.... To restore
ability to oil pricing, I introduce today the Energy Security Policy Act. It would impose a variable fee
on imported oil and petroleum products, which would be triggered whenever the price of oil drops
below $24 a barrel. [Congressional Record, 2/10/87, 3273-74]
posted on May 17, 2001 01:42:43 PM new
What I found very interesting is today on Foxnews there was a report that if gas prices continue to go up as predicted it will cost Americans 130 billion next year, but the real kicker is the Bush taxcut only gives Americans 100 billion next year. SO in a very clever way the oil companies are sucking the surplus dry. Talks of investigations are beginning to occur.
posted on May 17, 2001 02:06:01 PM new
From the Democratic (You got a problem with that? Tough) National Committee:
The Bush energy strategy released on Thursday, May 17 is a special-interest protection plan, which
does nothing to help working families cope with rising gas prices.
A Pipeline of Profits: George Bush's answer to high prices at the pump? Use the money saved in
his tax cut to pay for them. So George Bush admits that his tax cut plan is nothing more than a
pipeline of profits from the White House to the wealthy oil companies that put him in office. In effect,
George Bush is cutting a $100 billion check from the U.S. Treasury to big oil.
The $100 billion stimulus was the only part of Bush's tax cut plan that was targeted to the
middle class. So not only are the wealthy oil executives getting their own trillion dollar tax
cut…now they're getting your tax cut too.
And as it turns out, the $100 billion stimulus won't even be enough to pay for higher gas
prices. Higher gas prices are expected to cost American consumers $130 billion. So that's
another $30 billion coming out of the hide of working families and into the pockets of big oil.
Grand Old Petroleum: It's no surprise that the Bush Administration should come up with such a
plan. Look who's sitting at the Cabinet table and making the key decisions. Vice President Cheney,
Secretary of Energy Abraham, three other Cabinet members and several sub-Cabinet officials all have
close ties to the energy industry, as did nearly two-thirds of the Bush transition's Energy Advisory
Team.
The energy task force that came up with Bush's plan - which met in secret, without any public
meetings or open dialogue - also included several oil executives. GOP truly stands for Grand
Old Petroleum.
Bush to California: Drop Dead: California is ground zero of the energy crisis. And Bush has
essentially told California to drop dead. He has not lifted a finger to help Californians, who face a long
summer of rolling blackouts. Californians are sending out an all-points bulletin: where is George
Bush? 117 days into his Administration, he has yet to visit the state even once.
If the lights go out in California, it will be lights out for George Bush and the Grand Old
Petroleum Party when they face voters at the polls.
Conservation: Rhetoric v. Reality: Just a few weeks after dismissing as "naïve" the notion that
conservation could be an effective part of a national energy strategy, the Bush Administration is now
trying to reinvent itself as a champion of energy efficiency.
Which George Bush should we believe? Let's believe the one that put together his budget, a
budget that slashed funding for the very conservation steps he's embracing today. The Bush
budget calls for:
a 49.9% cut in hydropower research
a 53.7 % cut in solar energy research
a 48.2% cut in wind energy research
a 76% cut in federal grants to help localities deploy existing renewable technologies
The Bush Energy Plan: It's for the Special Interests…but It Just Isn't for Us.
posted on May 17, 2001 02:12:08 PM new
Republicans are worried and it's about time:
GOP CONGRESS MEMBERS, GOVERNORS, SUPPORT WHOLESALE PRICE CAPS,
WHICH ADMINISTRATION OPPOSES
Eight Out of 11 Western Governors, Including 5 Republicans, Supported Wholesale Price
Caps on Electricity; Abraham Rejected Proposal. On February 2, 2001, at a meeting of the
Western Governors' Association, eight out of 11 Western governors, including 5 Republicans and
Democrat Gray Davis from California, said they wanted wholesale prices for electricity capped
throughout the region. Attendees said they supported a cap that would reimburse suppliers for
operating costs and permit profits of 15% to 25% above that amount, according to the Wall Street
Journal. The cap would be lifted when enough power was available to create a truly competitive
market among the 11 Western states that are electrically interconnected. In the meeting, Energy
Secretary Spencer Abraham rejected their requests for caps on wholesale energy prices. [Wall St.
Journal, 2/5/01; Associated Press, 2/3/01]
California's Republican Congress Members Have Pushed for Price Controls, Republican
Congressman Said "We're in a Crisis Situation." On May 5, 2001, Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-CA),
said, in a letter to Vice President Cheney, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham and FERC Chair Curt
Hebert Jr., "with anything less than these measures [capping wholesale energy price], the state of
California cannot meet the short-term energy needs of its citizens." Gallegly later added, "We're in a
crisis situation, which is only going to get worse if we don't act very aggressively." Rep. Duncan
Hunter (R-CA), added, "there is an anti-free market mechanism in play here," and noted that natural
gas costs one-third in New Mexico what it costs in California. [AP, 4/20/01; Sacramento Bee, 5/5/01;
Los Angeles Times, 5/10/01]
Bipartisan Senate Bill Would Impose Price Caps on the Western Market. Sen. Smith (R-OR),
Sen. Feinstein (D-CA) have sponsored a bill to impose price caps on the western market. "'This bill
holds the promise of bringing an end to the electricity roller coaster ride of the past several months,'
said Smith. 'As the bill is written, California will need to keep its retail rates in line with market
demands, encourage energy conservation, and pay its overdue bills, including those to BPA, in order
to take advantage of short-term wholesale price caps. Most importantly, Oregonians will benefit from
stable, more predictable prices that will help to mitigate some of the economic fallout from this crisis.'
If passed, the price caps will remain in effect until March 1, 2003. The states affected by the price
caps include Oregon, California, Washington, Idaho, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Montana,
Nevada, and Wyoming. The bill also gives flexibility to state utility commissions in setting prices and
protects utilities, such as BPA, from being ordered to sell electricity without a guarantee of
payment," according to a press release by Sen. Smith's office. [Sen. Smith Press Release, 4/24/01]
White House is Worried About Political Impact of Bush's Ignorance of California
Crisis, is Seeking "Attention Getting Measures," But is Still Opposed to Price Caps.
"The White House, which has steadfastly resisted California's pleas to impose firm caps on
runaway electricity prices, is also worried about the political impact if the administration is
seen as ignoring the state's crisis, [White House] advisers said. As part of a general push to
show that the Bush team cares about California, Vice President Dick Cheney and Spencer
Abraham, the secretary of energy, have briefed industry executives and California politicians
on what the federal government can and cannot do to help resolve the situation. The
administration is also exploring some potentially attention- getting measures to address the
crisis. Under one proposal, Mr. Bush would order a nuclear-powered submarine to help provide
peak power supplies for the state's grid. Administration officials have also considered turning
on the generators on mothballed Navy ships in San Francisco Bay. Imposing tough price
caps, the most pressing concern for most California Democrats, is off the table, said people
who have participated in the discussions. Federal regulators imposed some caps last week,
but California has pushed for broader and stricter limits. The administration has said it is
opposed to caps of any kind," according to the New York Times. [New York Times, 5/3/01]
[ edited by skip555 on May 17, 2001 06:13 PM ]
[ edited by skip555 on May 17, 2001 06:15 PM ]
[ edited by skip555 on May 17, 2001 06:17 PM ]
[ edited by skip555 on May 17, 2001 06:19 PM ]
[ edited by skip555 on May 17, 2001 07:25 PM ]
posted on May 17, 2001 09:01:51 PM new
Key Points of Bush's Energy Policy released today (San Diego Union Tribune)the Power Cartel's dream come true
Energy Production
1). Consider greater oil and gas development on public lands.
2). Open a portion of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.
Power Plants
3). Allow government to take property through eminent domain for power lines.
4). Streamline process for siting and licensing plants.
5). Provide tax breaks for developing clean cola technologies.
6). Ease regulatory barriers including clean air rules.
Nuclear Energy
7). Speed up relicensing of plants and licensing of new plants; ensure disposal of nuclear waste. where? prolly Nevada of course
8). Give tax breaks for purchases of nuclear plants.
9). Limit liability from a nuclear accidentoh great
Renewable Energy
10). Provide new tax credits for power plants that use organic waste; continue tax credits for wind energy.
11). Give 15 percent tax credit to homeowners who purchase solar panels. shades of 1970's
Conservation
12). Give tax credit for high mileage hybrid gas-electric vehicles. gee, there's alot of dealerships for THOSE IF you could afford to buy one.
13). Provide tax benefits for co-generation plants that produce heat and electricity.
posted on May 18, 2001 08:14:07 AM new
I guess rather than argue who's fault the energy crisis is, I'd like to understand how posters here think it should/could be solved.
Obviously no one wants these outragious energy prices. But when I read the list of suggestions to deal with the crisis (like those in KatyDs newspaper article) it seems few want to accept these as a way to do so.
posted on May 18, 2001 08:45:35 AM new
The problem is that these proposals will not solve any crisis. They are essentially the same solutions proposed by daddy bush in 1991, and they won't work any better now because any increase in production will overload all of the delivery systems now in place, right down to the tankers on the road. You cannot squeeze more through a slender pipe.
This time, little boy has made many provisions of his plan by presidential decree, exempting them from congressional review. He's handing the world to producers long term, and offering very little to the consumer short term. In other words, prices will go up a lot, like it or not. No matter how much is produced here, this country will never be independent from others for fuel. So bushie, knowing that, is just enabling his partners and contributors, allowing them a bigger piece of pie while giving nothing to you and me.
There are tens of millions of gallons stored in a strategic reserve. A simple short term running solution to periodic shortages (by the way, without bush intervention that's all this is--he's making the crisis) is to bleed from that reserve to get the country over the humps and back in the valleys of oil supplies. It's what Bill Clinton did, and it worked like a charm.
I know, here comes the refrain "BILL CLINTON DID NOTHING AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THIS PROBLEM!!. Wrong. This 'problem' is only the rise and fall of world supplies caused by the fluctuation of world pricing and production. It existed as a 'problem' long before Clinton ever came around, even before he was born.
Republicans MAKE it a problem like clockwork each and every time they hold an administration because it feeds their biggest donors and supporters. They SIEZE on the world slowdowns and MAKE it into a major domestic issue by manipulating the situation as presented to the little poor old voter. Don't you remember when the supposed crisis of 1973 ended? The price reached what must have been a satisfactory level for the oil companies, and suddenly there was more oil than anyone could use. The price didn't drop back though, did it? How anyone can deny that is beyond me. Ignorance or blind faith are the only reasons that otherwise reasonable people lose their reason. Those, or some perverse hero worship.
posted on May 18, 2001 08:49:08 AM new
How could I forget?
THERE IS NO ENERGY CRISIS!!
As soon as everyone is used to paying upwards of 30% more for fuel this whole thing will dissipate. Bush will crow loudly about how he solved the crisis, but he won't acknowledge that there never was one in the first place except for the crisis in profits by the oil companies of Texas.
posted on May 18, 2001 09:30:26 AM new
If there is a crude oil shortage why haven't OPEC prices reflected that. Mr.B and his klan realize that they must lay the blame else where to further obfuscate the issue. Claiming, the problem is the vast array of exotic blends of gas required to satisfy different regulations at the state level across the country. Causing a overload on the refineries, which has led to a price increase. So why doesn't Mr.B just nullify those regulations to ease the price, he and his father have no problem doing this for the Oil Companies. Just price gouging!
posted on May 18, 2001 10:16:10 AM new
krs - I don't pretend to know all that goes on behind the scenes where any politician and their party's manipulation is involved. They *all* owe their backers. Few act in the general publics best interest.
But as far as the CA. energy crisis goes I lived there for more than 45 years and I know for a fact that anytime an energy issue was up for a vote (in the last 20 years), the voters of CA were against it, for one reason or another.
As previously stated in other threads no one wants the power plants in their back yard. No one wants nuclear plants. No one wants to disturb the carabu in Alaska. No one wants the levels of air quality to get worse by running the power plants that are old and polute. No one wants to pay to build new energy plants. No one wants oil drilling off the coast...etc. etc... etc.
And I don't agree with continuing to tap into our national reserves. It's there for emergencies, not to use because we didn't deal with these issues when they should have been dealt with.
posted on May 18, 2001 10:35:02 AM new"As previously stated in other threads no one wants the power plants in their back yard. No one wants nuclear plants. No one wants to disturb the carabu in Alaska. No one wants the levels of air quality to get worse by running the power plants that are old and polute. No one wants to pay to build new energy plants. No one wants oil drilling off the coast...etc. etc... etc."LindaK
But EVERYBODY wants lower energy prices.
Go hug a tree and deal with it.
Misqoute....My Bad.
[ edited by jlpiece on May 18, 2001 10:45 AM ]
posted on May 18, 2001 10:40:44 AM new
Well I guess you don't consider "this" an "emergency" since you don't live "here" (California) anymore. But I can tell you, LindaK, the people here DO consider it an emergency. This so-called Bush Energy Policy gives the "power" away to the energy companies. They certainly are getting repaid handsomely aren't they? Even the Republican legislators here in California are disgusted with Bush and his "let em eat cake" attitude.
By the way, howdja like a nuclear power plant in your little town? Did you know the life of one is less than 30 years? Did you know it costs as much to "decommission" one as to build one? Got one in San Onofre that is undergoing "decommissioning" right now, and I get billed for it every month on my power bill. One of those "stranded costs" nobody can figure out when they're looking at their bills.
I think they ought to build nuclear power plants in little podunk towns in states like Missouri. After all, they were the ones who voted republican and have so much confidence in Big Oil running the country, no doubt limited liability in case of a nuclear accident would not bother them in the least.
posted on May 18, 2001 10:58:28 AM new"But as far as the CA. energy crisis goes I lived there for more than 45 years and I know for a fact that anytime an energy issue was up for a vote (in the last 20 years), the voters of CA were against it, for one reason or another"
Amazing to feel qualified to speak for all voters in a place you once lived, isn't it?
In fact the voters of California approved the deregulation measures which has now allowed the power companies to run rampant over the state. There were many assurances that such a thing would never happen and that the only result would be lower prices for all by generalizing the supply across several states. California was actually giving away some energy at that time so as to assure a cooperative supply in case of periodic shortfalls.
Now you say that CA voters were against energy bills over the last 20 years? How could you have overlooked this single most important approval by those same disapproving voters that you speak of with such authority?
posted on May 18, 2001 11:33:17 AM new
jlpiece - Think you read my post wrong. I'm not a tree hugger, far from it. If anything I lean in the opposite direction. I have long disagreed with the environmentalists who feel owls, fish, etc should take precident over humans and their ability to earn a living. Years ago I was totally against those you fought and won to not allow people to build on their own land because it was too close to the coast. ETC, ETC, ETC!
What I tried to state was that the position CA now finds itself in is a result, IMO, of not dealing with these issues before a crisis occurred. We were warned a crisis might happen, but those warnings were ignored. So...now it's catch-up time.
posted on May 18, 2001 11:46:49 AM new
Hello KatyD - Please know that I do sympathize with all who are paying bills that have doubled and in some cases tripled. We have many friends (and family) who live in both SoCA. and NoCA. and we do understand how this is hurting them. I'm sorry if I have given the impression, via my posts, that since I'm no longer living there it doesn't matter to me.
As I stated, the voters and those in control have had years to prevent this from happening, but chose not to.
And as far as building a nuclear power plant in my area, I did vote for such being built when we lived in both So. CA and the San Jose, CA., area. A lot of our friends did to. Just more voters felt differently and are nowing paying the price.
posted on May 18, 2001 12:10:19 PM new
Waned your home to have it's own Three Mile Island, eh?
I don't know why the Navy seems able to safely operate nuclear power plants and public utilities are not, but maybe they just feel that the loss of a ship and crew are acceptable risks for the gain realized. Is that an acceptable risk to take in a populated area? When the construction failings that were exposed in the Diablo reactor here in CA are the norm I'd say that the risks outweigh the benefits.
posted on May 18, 2001 12:19:03 PM new"Now you say that CA voters were against energy bills over the last 20 years? How could you have overlooked this single most important approval by those same disapproving voters that you speak of with such authority?"krs
posted on May 18, 2001 12:27:25 PM new
krs - I don't pretend to speak for anyone other than myself. I'm saying this probably could have been prevented. But I'm also saying rather than blaming and just being angry...there are things that can be done to improve the situation CA now finds itself in.
Yes, I think the voters of CA thought deregulation was going to be a cure-all. Didn't work out that way so they have to work to find solutions.
I'm posting a URL of a site that speaks to many of the reasons this crisis has occurred, and offers suggestions as to what can be done now.
posted on May 18, 2001 04:01:58 PM new"How could you have overlooked this single most important approval by those same disapproving voters that you speak of with such authority?"krs
And then "It's the previous republican governor's fault, THEN it's bush's fault"krs
Well kenny, its apparent that you just don't know where to lay blame now, do you?
