Elizabeth Crum

President Obama’s re-election campaign is up with its first round of TV ads in Nevada this week after being hammered by the American Energy Alliance on gas prices.

Anjeanette Damon has the scoop on the small ad buy in Reno and Las Vegas.

Energy will be one of the issues on which voters are bombarded on the airwaves from now ’til November.

But who is to blame for rising gas prices, really? And what can be done about it?

Currently, 75-80% of the cost of gasoline is driven by petroleum prices while the other 20-25% lies in refining and distribution. The latter can be influenced by U.S. policy to some degree. The former cannot, at least not much (and hardly at all in the short term) because the influencing factors are things outside our control such as OPEC supply decisions, tensions in the Middle East and seasonal variants.

Policy leverage may be possible in the long run as U.S. demand declines and supply increases, but our influence lies more on the demand side (23 percent of world total consumption) than the supply side (9 percent of world production). Policies that reduce demand (like pushing alternative fuels or the construction and use of mass transportation) or increase supply (drill, baby, drill) or some dual front (“all of the above”) effort are where we must head if we really want to influence oil prices in the long run.

Disagreements about these things tend to be more about degree than any all-or-nothing stance (except by the extremists on both ends, but who listens to them?)

Where policy makers seem to differ the most in the national argument on energy is re: the environmental consequences of energy production and use. Energy exploration and production generates high-paying employment but also generates environmental costs that are not always obvious in the price system.

Conservatives say the economic advantages of more/faster/better fossil fuel energy far outweigh concerns about carbon emissions or occasional oil spills, and anyhow India and China are building new coal-fired energy plants every 5 minutes so it’s futile to fight that battle even if one believed in it.

Liberals and greenies say it’s a moral imperative to wean the nation off carbon, even if it costs us all a little (or a lot) more.

And never the twain shall meet. Or so it seems right now. The energy ad wars shall wage on, in Nevada and nationally, and the best narrative will win in November while voters will no doubt continue to lose at the gas pump no matter who is president.

Apparently NV Energy’s wind rebate program is going really well. Because it doesn’t require the production of any actual, you know, energy.

Hey, accountability is for suckers.

My favorite part of AD’s great story:

A more catastrophic failure occurred on a farm in rural Nevada, when a large turbine spun apart only days after it was installed. No one was injured, largely because it was in a remote locale.

“It was very spectacular,” said Matt Newberry, who runs NV Energy’s wind program. “It was only up for a matter of days. We’re relieved we haven’t had any more of those.”

I bet.

Decapitation lawsuit, anyone?

Um…  It is 6:07 a.m. and I am still on my first cup of coffee so I had to read parts of this KansasCity.com story twice before I would accept what Red State pointed out in a post in their morning brief.

The state of Missouri is on the verge of charging consumers a hefty fee for the energy they don’t use. Missouri governor Jay Nixon explains, “To save power is the equivalent of making power.”

(Hm.  Where have I heard this “saved” equals  “created” claim before?  Oh yes!  President Obama has repeatedly claimed that the actions of his administration have “saved or created” hundreds of thousands of American jobs.  Got it.)

Anyhoo, here’s the AP reporter’s sum-up of the MO policy in a nutshell:

Though it might seem illogical, the new energy efficiency charge has support from utilities, most lawmakers, the governor, environmentalists and even the state’s official utility consumer advocate. The charge covers the cost of utilities’ efforts to promote energy efficiency and cut power use.

The assumption is that charging consumers for those initiatives ultimately will cost less than charging them to build the new power plants that will be needed if electricity use isn’t curtailed.

May seem illogical?  How about inherently unfair?  Anti-free market?  How about downright criminal?

How about:  if a new power plant is needed based on consumer demand, then you build it and charge for energy accordingly, and if it ain’t, you don’t?  And how about:  if people find ways to use less electricity, you let them keep and enjoy their savings?  Or is that all way too simple and sensible for the MO governor and his pals?

Missouri’s state motto is “Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto,” which means, “Let the welfare of the people be the supreme law.” If this energy policy passes, they ought to change the word “people” to “energy companies and their bureaucrat friends.”

(And don’t miss the part of the story where one of Missouri’s “popular” energy initiatives was for KCP&L to give consumers “free” thermostats – that can be remotely controlled:

One of the company’s more popular energy-saving initiatives has provided free programmable thermostats to about 34,000 residential customers in Missouri and Kansas. KCP&L can remotely control the devices to reduce the frequency at which air conditioners run during peak demand times. The power company overrode customers’ air conditioners four times last year and twice so far this summer, Caisley said.

Yup.)

A little Hill bird just emailed me to hurry up and flip on CSPAN.  Which I can’t do from my present location.  But if I could, I am told I would see/hear House Republican Leader John Boehner reading aloud.  The text?

A 300-page amendment to the Waxman-Markey energy bill that was dropped in at 3 a.m. this morning.  So…here we have Democrats trying to rush through what amounts to the largest tax in American history (Cap and Trade!) AND then slip in giant last minute amendments in the middle of the night.

Really, I’m surprised they didn’t think to slip a mickey in all the GOP drinks to make sure everyone slept through the financial rape of the American taxpayer.

Keep it classy, guys!

Update: If you want to call your congressman and urge him/her to vote against the “Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade Legislation, H.R. 2454,” you can go here to get his/her phone number.  If you live in my district, which many of E!!’s Nevada readers do, your rep is Rep. Shelley Berkley.  Her office number in D.C. is (202)225-5965.

Update 2: If you don’t know why you should be against Cap and Trade, read this fact sheet by the Heritage Foundation.

Update 3: Read what newspapers around the country have said about it (page has  pithy quotes from major publications).

Update 4: Um, it passed.  By 8 votes.  As my friend Doug Busselman said on his blog:  “The forces of greater government control and those who favor destroying what’s left of our economy have won — 219-212. Thank goodness we have Senator Harry Reid to protect us — oh, nevermind!”

Update 5: The eight House Republicans who voted for the bill are:

Mary Bono Mack R (CA)
Mike Castle R (DW)
Mark Steven Eirk R (IL)
Leonard Lance R (NJ)
Frank LoBiondo R (NJ)
John McHugh R (NY)
Dave Reichert R (WA)
Chris Smith R (NJ)

Additionally, the following two Republicans ABSTAINED from the vote.

Jeff Flake R (AZ)
John Sullivan R (OK)

Update 6:  Campaign for Liberty has a list of all the Democrats who voted against.

Harry Reid said the following in a newsletter to his constituents yesterday:

“In his budget request for 2010, President Obama will announce plans to devise a new strategy to find another solution to deal with the nation’s nuclear waste that does not include storing it in Nevada.”

This is a shame if so.  The Yucca Mountain project currently employs hundreds of people and stands to employ thousands more, not to mention the nearly $100 billion it would bring into the hurting state economy.

The operation of nuclear energy plants and the transportation, recycling, and storage of spent nuclear fuel can be done quite safely these days - in fact is done safely all over Europe - but apparently Harry Reid is not going to let the facts get in the way of politics-per-usual and a Wednesday press release.  (More on the latest with Yucca here.)

This is the second time in less than three weeks an Obama agenda item has dealt a heavy blow to Nevada’s economy.  What was the first, you ask?  This offhand comment recently made at a townhall meeting:

“You are not going to be able to give out these big bonuses until you’ve paid taxpayers back, you can’t get corporate jets, you can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayers dime.”

Rich Becker wrote an excellent piece on the fallout of that comment, which summed up is this:

Companies are now scrambling to avoid the “stigma” of holding company functions in Las Vegas and millions of dollars have been lost due to cancelled rooms and convention events.  (These organizations aren’t really cancelling the events; they’re just relocating them.  To sunny California, mostly.)  And the tremendous loss of room revenue, convention business, enertainment dollars, and gaming revenue is going to lead to even more layoffs than Nevada’s already seen.

So where are Harry Reid (and Dina Titus) with their outrage and big press releases when Nevada’s economy really needs them?  Busy rubbing elbows with a president who clearly doesn’t give a damn about the what’s best for the Silver State.

I guess Nevada is now “blue” in more ways than one.

But don’t just stand there and cry, good citizens.  You can do something:

http://dumpreid.com/

I just dropped in to The Conservative Muse for some much-needed cheering up and was not disappointed.  If the hypocrisy of Hollywood on the issue of conservation ever irks, this poem’s for you!  Here’s a taste:

Although he became a legitimate actor,

It’s hard to ignore the hypocrisy factor

Of Leo’s campaign to reduce all consumption – 

From Hollywood types it’s the height of presumption! 

Just look at Babs Streisand, who lately observed

That water and energy must be conserved

To stave off the crisis of warming we’ve made;

For curbing our usage she’s on a crusade.

We guess from these strictures she’s gotten a pardon:

She spends twenty grand just to water her garden!

Blood Pressure Threat Level:  Extreme

On the heels of the financial and credit market bailout and the approval of federally backed loans for U.S. auto makers, the already heavily subsidized ethanol industry – yes, I said ETHANOL – may soon be receiving a bailout as well.

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer said the feds are considering payouts of as much as $25M to help ethanol plants.  Seems they are struggling since the price of corn has spiked

I agree with NM Congressman J. Flake:  Not only should we not give them money, all tax breaks and credits for ethanol producers should be repealed.

Using crops for fuel on any sort of large scale is a bad, BAD idea.

H/T:  Iain Murray on The Corner