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.

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.)

There’s one in every crowd.  Or in this case, five…Republicans, that is, who are muddying the waters of the clearest issue facing the GOP this fall:  energy and offshore drilling.  In response to voter discontent over high gas prices and polling near 80% in favor of offshore drilling, the majority of GOP has (wisely) gone after the Dem anti-drillers in the House.  Enthusiasm for the cause has given new life to conservative candidates who were losing oxygen in tight races.

Enter Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), John Thune (R-SD), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Bob Corker (R-TN) and John Isakson (R-GA) who, along with five Senate Democrats, have announced that their ”Gang of 10″ wants a “sweeping” and “bipartisan” energy plan to break the ”stalemate.”  Sounds good, right? 

Not really.  The bill says new production on offshore federal lands would be left to the state legislatures, and then in only four coastal states. The regulatory hoops and hurdles are huge.  The bill prohibits drilling within 50 miles of the coast — keeping some of our most potentially productive areas closed.  ANWR would still be  a no-go. AND the plan contains $84 billion in tax credits, subsidies and handouts for alternative fuels and renewables…to be paid for (drum roll) by raising taxes on oil companies!

Boys, we’ve been over this umpteen times:  we need to open up all lands in all coastal states, keep the red tape to a minimum, drill wherever the oil is, tap ANWR, and get it straight that raising taxes on oil companies means raising the price of gas for consumers, because Big Oil will just pass the hikes down to the man at the pump.

These five Republicans need to re-think their agenda and quick, before November voters hit the ballot booths.  If you wish to express your thoughts and feelings to any of the senators, here are links to their contact pages:

Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)
John Thune (R-S.D.)
Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.)
Mary Landrieu (D-La.)
Johnny Isakson (R-Ga)
Bob Corker (R-Tenn.)
Mark Pryor (D-Ark.)
Ben Nelson (D-Neb.)

I’m glad Chuck Muth keeps talking about Yucca Mountain.  Harry Reid says the debate is “over” and that the Yucca Repository will “never happen.”  The thing is, Yucca never enjoyed the benefit of a full, open debate.  It was quashed by Reid and Friends as “bad for Nevada” and that was That.

Here’s a flashback to some of my thoughts in early June:

“The United States Department of Energy submitted its license application for the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission on June 3,” wrote Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez-Masto in an op/ed in the Nevada Appeal. “Nevada’s experts reviewed the application and quickly concluded that it is neither viable nor complete.”

I’m wondering who these “Nevada experts” were. If there’s one thing I’ve learned in my short stint on NV’s political airwaves and especially in re: to Yucca Mountain, it’s that the word “expert” gets bandied around like nobody’s business and due diligence and follow-up questions are key to uncovering the truth.  Very often, the so-called “expert” is some underqualified PR hack who is being paid to have the opinion he has.

I’d be willing to bet that some of these “Nevada experts” are people who have already come down against Yucca in the past.  And shall we ask how they managed to sift through the 8,600 page application in less than a week in order to render their “expert” verdict…?

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is expected to take three to four years to evaluate all the information before reaching its decision on whether or not to license the Repository…so who were these speed-reading geniuses that managed to do it in 4 days???

We keep seeing what looks an awful lot like co-ordinated, biased knee-jerk opposition over Yucca Mountain.