2014 ndi – Pre Camp Natural Gas Negative
Download 1.07 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- GOP Pushing for Offshore Drilling Now
- Oil has an army of lobbyist and a mountain of cash
- Democrats don’t like exports – environment
- No need for a definitive link – politicians are split and the debate is contentious – it will drain capital
- Democrats will backlash – pricing concern
- Manufacturing lobby link – A. Manufacturers hate the plan
- Dems hate the plan – lack of environmental review and linked to fracking
- Plan Saps Political Capital
Midterm Politics DAEnergy is a dividing factor for the GOPSchor and Juliano, 2014 (Elana and Nick, E and E publishing news, 6/12/2014 “Contenders for GOP leadership balance different energy interests at home -- though agendas are largely the same” http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060001179) The House leadership battles launched by the fall of departing Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) could exert unexpected influence over the GOP's approach to energy, pitting red states against blue states and coal-burners against natural gas users. To be sure, much can change in the seven days before Republicans are set to choose their next majority leader and majority whip. But for now, the energy-policy dynamic among the quintet of likely leadership contenders is subtle, going beyond the anti-U.S. EPA, pro-drilling unity of the Republican conference to touch on personalities as well as the fuel profiles of individual districts. Sitting Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), whose state has no coal mining and gets two-thirds of its electricity from natural gas, is facing possible challenges for majority leader from Reps. Jeb Hensarling and Pete Sessions of Texas, where coal provides nearly one-third of power generation. The whip's race is poised to become a face-off between Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), a champion of his state's offshore drilling industry, and Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.), an anti-subsidy conservative from a purple district. The stated policy differences among the candidates jockeying for place in a shaken-up Republican conference -- where the anticipated exit of Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) within less than three years means that Cantor's successor could soon be third in line for the presidency -- are "very minimal," as Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) put it in an interview yesterday. But what Franks termed the "significant irony" of scant policy daylight between McCarthy and the Texans, as well as between Scalise and Roskam, also highlights what the Arizonan called the value of "personality" and "emphasis." On that score, Hensarling or Sessions could emerge as a more muscular pro-fossil fuel alternative to McCarthy. The majority leader's race opens up "a pretty big conversation about who's been tougher on EPA," said one GOP lobbyist close to leadership, speaking candidly on condition of anonymity. McCarthy, the lobbyist added, is "consistently a fly in the ointment when it comes time to peck at EPA or do something on [energy] subsidies, something on" riders blocking the Obama administration from considering the social cost of carbon emissions when crafting future regulations. Of the five most prominent leadership candidates, McCarthy is the only one whose district is home to a substantial amount of renewable energy generation. Before Cantor's Capitol-quaking loss Tuesday to conservative challenger David Brat, a college professor and open skeptic of human-caused climate change, House Republicans already had made expansion of oil and gas drilling and the Keystone XL pipeline into essential planks of their political foundation. Neither Democrats nor Republicans see that reality changing. "The message that we need more energy is so strong that I don't think any Republican leader is going to downplay that, no matter where they're from," Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) said in an interview yesterday. But if Republicans decide to add more oil-patch, red-state flavor to a leadership slate that previously hailed from Ohio, Virginia, California and Washington, the degree to which domestic fossil fuels dominate the party's agenda ultimately could shift even further away from renewable-energy goals that are supported in both parties. Even if a plum slot goes to Roskam, whose district President Obama won in 2008, the GOP lobbyist close to leadership predicted that challenging the White House's environmental priorities would rise even higher on the agenda. "It's easy to be pro-production and hard on EPA if you're from Texas or Louisiana -- it's a lot harder if you're from suburban Chicago," the GOP lobbyist said of Roskam. "That doesn't go unnoticed." Ahead of next week's GOP leadership elections, which must be restaged in January, E&E Daily has compiled profiles of the energy makeup in each likely candidate's home district. Majority leader McCarthy's district includes a slice of the San Joaquin Basin -- the state's most prolific oil reserve -- and a cluster of wells. The district features more than a dozen natural gas plants, with a total capacity exceeding 2,400 megawatts. The largest is a 965 MW facility owned by La Paloma Generating Co. LLC. On the border of McCarthy's district are two coal plants with a total 66 MW capacity. Hundreds of wind turbines spin across the Tehachapi Pass and elsewhere in the district, including the Alta Wind Energy Center, one of the nation's largest wind farms with a capacity exceeding 1,500 MW. A handful of solar projects also pepper the area, with a capacity of more than 130 MW. The district contains at least 152 MW of hydropower and a 42 MW wood power plant. Clusters of oil and gas wells dot Hensarling's district, which overlies part of the East Texas Basin. But activity is not as intense as elsewhere in the state, which led the nation in oil and gas production last year. The district includes no renewable installations aside from a 3 MW biomass plant on its border near the Dallas suburbs. Its largest power plant is the 1,760 MW Forney Energy Center outside Dallas, and a few other large gas plants dot its borders. The district is home to at least four natural gas processing plants but no oil refineries. Sessions' Dallas-area district borders a piece of Hensarling's much more sprawling territory, and it lacks much energy activity. Luminant Generation's 907 MW Lake Hubbard natural gas-fired power plant, which sits on the border of Sessions' and Hensarling's districts, is the only major piece of energy infrastructure in Sessions' backyard, according to an analysis of Energy Information Administration maps. Majority whip Among those vying for a leadership post, Roskam's suburban Chicago district has perhaps the least amount of energy production. It contains no major power plants, aside from a few small natural gas facilities and one small biomass facility, and no resource extraction or renewable energy production is conducted within its boundaries, according to EIA. Scalise represents Louisiana's Gulf Coast, and his energy views are heavily influenced by his state's large offshore drilling industry. Hundreds of oil and gas wells stretch from the district's shores hundreds miles out into the Gulf of Mexico. The district is also home to three large oil refineries, which together have a capacity to process more than a half a million barrels per day, and it is home to three natural gas processing plants with a total capacity of nearly 2.5 billion cubic feet per day. The few power plants in the district run mostly on natural gas, with one oil-fired plant, but none is larger than 75 MW. No renewable energy is generated there. GOP Pushing for Offshore Drilling NowGOP pushing for offshore drilling nowCama, 6/20/2014 (Timothy, The Hill, “GOP seeks to expand oil and gas offshore and on public land” http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/210096-gop-seeks-to-expand-oil-and-gas-offshore-and-on-public-land) Thirteen House Republicans introduced a bill to expand oil and natural gas drilling offshore and on publicly owned land, moves they say would lower gasoline and other energy prices in the United States. The bill would force the Obama administration to move toward offshore drilling on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, conduct lease sales off Virginia’s coast, establish revenue sharing for offshore drilling, reform the permitting process for federal land and other changes. “In order for America to prosper, we need access to reliable and affordable energy,” Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, said in a Thursday statement. “The best way to create jobs and help address rising prices is to develop the American energy resources we have right here at home.” The sponsors said the legislation aims to remove “roadblocks” to energy production. Those roadblocks from the Obama administration have led to drops in oil and gas production both offshore and on federal land. Eighty-seven percent of offshore area is off limits to oil and gas drilling, and Obama’s plans do not include opening more areas for production, they said. Oil Drilling PopularOil has an army of lobbyist and a mountain of cashFroomkin ’11 [4/6/11, Dan Froomkin is contributing editor of Nieman Reports, and the former senior Washington correspondent for the Huffington Post, “How The Oil Lobby Greases Washington's Wheels”, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/06/how-the-oil-lobby-greases_n_845720.html] ENERGY GIANTS ANTE UP With so much public opposition, why do subsidies remain? You might as well ask why there is no carbon tax, or why there was no significant reform legislation passed after the BP oil spill. The answer is that one of the many things the industry can do with its fat pocketbook is hire a veritable army of sharp lobbyists and back them up with big wads of cash in the form of campaign donations and spending. The end result is that the industry has a remarkable ability to get its way on Capitol Hill. According to the Center for Responsive Politics' website, the oil and gas industry has spent more than $1 billion on lobbying since 1998, including a jaw-dropping $147 million just last year. For comparison's sake, $147 million is about equivalent to the total budget of 100 congressional offices. That's more than the $103 million spent in 2010 by the financial service industry, another potent lobbying force -- but considerably less than the $240 million spent by the pharmaceutical industry. Among major industries, Opensecrets.org ranked Big Oil fifth in terms of lobbying dollars spent, behind only Big Pharma, electric utilities, business associations and insurance. The oil and gas industry used its $147 million to employ 788 individual lobbyists in 2010 -- some 500 (or almost two thirds) of whom, according to Opensecrets.org, are former federal employees who came through the revolving door particularly well versed in the ways of government. All told, that's well more than one oil and gas lobbyist per member of Congress out there on the Hill arming allies with talking points and briefing books, spinning the undecided and pressuring the opposition. And there's more of them every year. Consider the trendlines. As recently as 2004, the oil and gas industry spent about $52 million a year in lobbying; by 2009, that figure was up to $175 million -- or a 300 percent increase in just five years. The industry backs up its extraordinary lobbying effort with lavish spending on political campaigns. Candidates associated with oil and gas companies made about $15 million in direct campaign donations during the 2010 mid-term election cycle ($26 million during the 2008 presidential cycle). The industry was also responsible for more than $10 million in donations through its political action committees, or PACs, in the 2010 cycle. The trendlines are notable here, as well. In the early ’90s, oil and gas campaign spending favored Republicans over Democrats by about a 2 to 1 margin: For every $1 the industry gave to Democrats, it gave Republicans $1.78. But starting in the 1996 election cycle (think Al Gore), that changed dramatically. Now, for every $1 the industry gives Democrats, it gives Republicans about $3.35. Among the top oil and gas industry donors in the 2010 cycle, Koch Industries and ExxonMobil head the list. And Opensecrets.org's top 20 list of oil and gas money recipients is 4 to 1 Republican. In addition to contributions to individuals and PACs, there's the whole new world of spending opportunities opened up by recent Supreme Court rulings that essentially blew a hole through the post-Watergate campaign finance laws. Super PACs are groups that can now accept unlimited contributions, though they must disclose their contributors. Opensecrets.org calculates that companies with interests in the energy sector combined to give more than $5.6 million to Super PACs in the 2010 cycle. Former Bush political guru Karl Rove's American Crossroads group, for one such Super PAC. Itspent $21 million on political advertising in the 2010 cycle; oil and gas interests contributed just over $3 million of that amount. The recent court rulings also opened the way for nonprofit groups to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns -- and unlike the Super PACs, they don't have to disclose their donors. All they have to do is report how much they spent. These groups, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, reported $140 million in campaign spending in the 2010 cycle, the vast majority of which went to support conservative causes. There's no way to know how much of that money came from Big Oil. Adding yet more firepower to its lobbyists’ arsenal, API announced last month that it will start funding political campaigns directly through a new PAC of its own -- in addition to what its member organizations give already. "API is very focused on making sure that we have a voice in policy debates," said its spokesman, Durbin. "We're always looking at ways to improve the way we do our jobs here. This just adds one more tool to leverage our ability to get the point across about the critical nature of this industry." Plan Unpopular – OldDemocrats don’t like exports – environmentThe New Mexican 9/28/12 (“Go slow on allowing natural gas exports” http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Opinion/092812FRIedit) So successful is natural gas production that a new debate is bubbling up — whether to allow the export of liquefied natural gas overseas. That can’t happen without approval from the U.S. Department of Energy, with a decision on applications for export unlikely until after the presidential election. The decision is shaping up to be a big political issue — a group of 20 Democrats recently petitioned DOE to do an environmental study before approving the exports. Much of the gas is being extracted through fracking, which injects a cocktail of water, sand and chemicals to unlock natural gas from underground rock. Its long-term effects are unknown and hotly debated. Republicans, and other Democrats (including Senate candidate U.S. Rep. Martin Heinrich) want the DOE to speed up the export process, citing the need for jobs. No need for a definitive link – politicians are split and the debate is contentious – it will drain capitalRascoe 9/17/12 (Ayesha, “Energy Dept delays release of LNG export report http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/17/us-usa-lng-report-idUSBRE88G1E120120917?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Reuters%2FPoliticsNews+%28Reuters+Politics+News%29 But manufacturers and some lawmakers have raised concerns that exports could increase energy costs at home and undercut U.S. industries. "For members of Congress seeking reelection, LNG exports may be an issue with two wrong sides," ClearView Energy Partners said in research note on Monday. Support for exports could leave politicians open to accusations of raising natural gas prices, while opposition could lead to charges of failing to support oil and gas jobs, the research note said. Democrats will backlash – pricing concernColman 9/24/12 (Zack, staff writer, “Republicans charge Obama not serious about natural gas” http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/251421-republicans-charge-obama-with-slow-walking-sales-of-natural-gas) Democrats fear that selling more natural gas abroad would raise costs at home, and they cite an Energy Information Administration (EIA) report that found increased exports would raise electricity bills by an average of 1 to 3 percent annually between 2015 and 2035. They also say it could cause environmental and health hazards by ramping up exploration through hydraulic fracturing, a process that injects a mixture of chemicals, water and sand into tight rock formations to release natural gas. Rep. Edward Markey (Mass.), the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, has been an outspoken opponent of selling more liquefied natural gas to other countries. “[Rep. Markey] believes that if we export large quantities of natural gas that we will also export jobs in manufacturing, and threaten our economic and national security advantages from this abundant, low-cost source of domestic energy,” committee spokesman Eben Burnham-Snyder told The Hill in a statement. Manufacturing lobby link – A. Manufacturers hate the planColman 9/24/12 (Zack, staff writer, “Republicans charge Obama not serious about natural gas” http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/251421-republicans-charge-obama-with-slow-walking-sales-of-natural-gas) The EIA report concluded that the divide between low U.S. natural gas prices and higher-priced international markets would likely narrow in the coming years. It also said investment in LNG terminals would be costly. The manufacturing sector, which consumes large amounts of electricity, could feel the price pinch from exporting natural gas. The American Chemistry Council told The Hill it plans to "monitor the policy and regulatory landscape carefully" on LNG exports, stressed the importance of the energy source to U.S. manufacturers and noted that it has not asserted LNG exports will raise prices. Dems hate the plan – lack of environmental review and linked to frackingColman 9/26/12 (Zack, staffwriter, “Dems push DOE for environmental analysis of natural gas exports” http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/258771-dems-push-doe-for-natural-gas-export-environmental-analysis-) A group of 20 Democrats told the Energy Department on Wednesday that it should complete environmental tests before approving liquefied natural gas (LNG) export deals. In a letter to Energy Secretary Steven Chu, the signatories expressed concern about the amount of hydraulic fracturing, known as fracking, needed to meet demand for natural gas exports. Led by Democratic Reps. Jared Polis (Colo.) and Maurice Hinchey (N.Y.), the lawmakers called on DOE to conduct an environmental impact statement, as outlined under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), before approving more export deals or LNG terminal permits. “We are concerned that exporting more LNG would lead to greater hydraulic fracturing, or ‘fracking,’ activity thus threatening the health of local residents and jobs,” the letter said. “For instance, increased natural gas production in communities across the nation could negatively impact farmers, residents and local property values.” Fracking is the process of injecting a high-pressure mixture of water, sand and chemicals into tight rock formations to unlock natural gas. It has been linked to groundwater contamination and seismic activity. Plan Saps Political CapitalPlan costs political capitalMART, 2008 Mergers and Acquisitions Round Table, This section includes quotes from Andrew Spitzer, Founder of the Energy and Power Group at Harris and Williams Co., and Douglas Korn of Irving Place Partners. “Combustible; The volatility of the energy sector has turned the industry upside down. Top players in the space discuss what this means for investors and how dealmakers can capitalize.,” Dec 1, Lexis But it's also important to remember that oil is a fungible commodity and the price is set on a worldwide basis. Ultimately, we have to focus on domestic production to help with the supply issue, and, internationally, see if we can't encourage the national oil companies to open up more acreage for competition. This is a worldwide problem; not just a US problem.¶ Mergers & Acquisitions: Is it even possible, though, to completely eliminate demand for foreign oil? Is this something that could happen in our lifetime?¶ Spitzer: The economics certainly make it extremely challenging, and frankly, without the political willpower to put in a variety of reforms - whether it's CAFE standards or relieving offshore drilling inhibitors - it's not something that would get done without some form of government intervention.¶ Korn: That being said, the recent turmoil in the market and the government's response have created a very difficult fiscal situation going into 2009. You have the normal cyclical impacts of a downturn in government receipts and that overlays all of the government support to shore up the markets.¶ You have to go back to the question of whether or not there will there be the political will. There are important reasons behind why we have to become less reliant on foreign energy; from a geopolitical point of view, from a carbon emissions point of view. But how now you have to ask, "How do we make that happen in an environment where the government will be under some severe fiscal constraints." That's going to be the real challenge.¶ Spitzer: And regulation is effectively a silent taxation policy. So instituting that in the face of the pocketbook issues that people are dealing with is going to be tough. Any administration would have to burn a lot of political capital to push through an energy policy that tries to accomplish what either candidate proposed. Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2014 2014 -> For want of a nail 2014 -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014 2014 -> Ihbb asian Championships 2014 middle school bowl Round 4 First Quarter 2014 -> Ihbb european Championships 2014 Bowl Round 4 First Quarter 2014 -> International History Bee and Bowl 2013-14 Asian Division Question Set Bowl Round Six 2014 -> United states patent and trademark office 2014 -> Coffs harbour eisteddfod vocal syllabus 2014 -> Listen News Programs Schedule pledge now 2014 -> Slow club announce third album complete surrender Download 1.07 Mb. Share with your friends:
|