Atlasia National Energy Act

[The Duke]

Over all I think this is a very good bill.  This bill definately contains some measures that will lead to lower gas prices.  However there are some pieces of the bill I would like to see removed.

Section 3 would take away regional rights to regulate gasoline formulas and may disrupt regional economies as most regions will have to adhere to stricter quality regulations than they do currently.

I strongly oppose Section 5 of this bill.  Any across-the-board increases in fuel efficiency standards will likely lead to deaths on the road as car manufacturers are forced to produce lighter, and therefore less safe cars to meet the standards.

The rest of this bill is absolutely stellar.

The administration supports this bill and both the President and I were integral to authoring it.

As to section 3, the regulations in question are not regional regulations.  They are regulations set by the Federal Government under the Clean Air Act.

[The Duke]

This bill is an ecological and financial nightmare.

Please elaborate.

[The Duke]

Senator hughento,

As to your concerns.

Regarding Section 2, the reason we want to ease these regulations is that the US hasn't built a new oil refinery in 28 years.  We have old refineries operating at 96% capacity, when the average factory only operates at about 75% capacity.  We need new refineries, and industry experts tend to agree that the reason new refineries aren't being built is that the red tape and environmental regulations are too stringent.  The lack of refineries has created a bottleneck on getting oil to the market in gasoline form.

Regarding Section 4, our effort to reclassify SUVs is an attempt to make the vehicle fleet more efficient.  People are buying more and more SUVs and it is driving up demand for gasoline.  I am open to amending the bill to create a new SUV category, but it should require more efficiency than the current light truck category.

Regarding Section 5, CAFÉ is the US fuel efficiency standard at the Federal level.  As to your proposal, I can't foresee it being possible for automakers to adjust so dramatically every five years into perpetuity.  It would put a tremendous burden on them.

Regarding Section 6, the tax in question is a Federal only tax, the states already have their own gas taxes, so I don't think placing new requirements on states to conform to a new federal mandate is a good idea.  As to the reason the gas tax should be cut.  The consumer is being squeezed by high gas prices, which result from the $63 a barrel oil, and this would help offset the new cost on their end of things.  It will also offset the cost they would otherwise pay for the new more stringent fuel quality standards.

Senator Akno,

Under the division of labor Ernest, Niles, and I talked about, there is a consensus that the role normally played by the Department of Energy is played by the Department of Treasury here in Atlasia.  This is why DoT would get responsibility for the refinery approval process, since they have the biggest hand in energy policy.

I think if you look again at the bill, you will also see provisions for energy conservation (new CAFE standards) and environmental protection (new fuel quality) featured prominently.  Also are the long-term provisions for new energy infrastructure like new refineries.

Senator StevenNick,

I understand your concern about vehicle safety, but at the same time we must find ways to conserve energy.  Since cars account for most of our country's oil consumption, we felt we had no choice but to directly address this issue head on.



Senators generally,

There will be things in this bill you don't like.  That is inevitable.  But this bill has solutions that are liberal and conservative, some that are short term and some that are long term, some that are supply oriented and some that are demand oriented.  No one will be 100% happy with this bill, but it does directly address in a comprehensive way the energy crisis we now face.  I urge the Senate to pass this bill.

[The Duke]

I think numbers 3,5,7, and 8 are good.  

However, the basic problem I have with the bill is the general idea that we need to make oil easier for people to get and cheaper for them to get. What we need to do is get people off oil. Not just middle eastern oil, but oil in general. There is not enough oil to go around, and soon we will realize this the hard way.

This is why we have the ethanol tax credit expansion and research for hydrogen fuel.

Whether anyone likes it or not the world is dependent on oil for now.  We better make sure that its price doesn't cripple our economy or we'll never be prosperous enough to develop new ways of doing things.

[The Duke]

I think numbers 3,5,7, and 8 are good.  

However, the basic problem I have with the bill is the general idea that we need to make oil easier for people to get and cheaper for them to get. What we need to do is get people off oil. Not just middle eastern oil, but oil in general. There is not enough oil to go around, and soon we will realize this the hard way.

This is why we have the ethanol tax credit expansion and research for hydrogen fuel.

Whether anyone likes it or not the world is dependent on oil for now.  We better make sure that its price doesn't cripple our economy or we'll never be prosperous enough to develop new ways of doing things.

Western European countries live and prosper with oil at $5.00 per gallon, why can't we?

We can't keep adjusting our laws to make it easier and cheaper to get gasoline just because it may be a little expensive at this time, eventually the oil will run out, and then our economy will suffer a huge blow. When that time will be, no one can say for sure, except that it will come soon, and it will come.

Europeans live a different style of life than we do.  They have more condensed communites, for starters, making auto travel less necessary.  How would someone in Los Angeles make a living with gas at $5 a gallon?  There is no meaningful public transit, and even if there was busses run on gasoline and rising gas costs will drive up bus fare.  In Europe, and even on some East coast cities, subways and walking are reasonable.  However, in the suburb heavy sunbelt, this is impossible.  Cars are a necessity.

There is nothing that a reasonable person could say beyond that point.  I have allocated over a billion dollars for alternative fuel research and tax credits.  25% of this bill is provisions for weaning us off oil in the future (ethanol and hydrogen) and another 25% (the CAFE provisions) is a conservation effort.

What would assuage your concerns?  Subsidies to companies or localities that build windfarms?  Tax credits for individuals that install solar panels on their houses to heat their homes?  Name something we can add to get your vote, because I think a bill with either of those amendments would easily get signed.  But this bill does no good if it doesn't give consumers direct relief (in the form of the gas tax cut) and long term relief (in the form of new regulations) for high gas prices.

[The Duke]

Here is a version of the bill with your suggestions on CAFE included, and with another provision for reducing fossil fuel use, and a softening of the gas tax question.

This bill, like the other, will lower energy prices, improve environmental protection, and lessen use of fossil fuel.

I'd wonder if anyone is open to including a provision to open up national parks for exploration?

National Energy Act

1. The responsibility for the approval of oil refinery construction shall be taken away from the Environmental Protection Association and given to the Department of Treasury.

2. The environmental regulations shall be eased to allow for easier approval of refineries.

3. Gasoline formulation requirements shall be altered to abolish regional differences in gasoline formulas, thus establishing a Uniform Gasoline Standard equal to the more stringent quality regulations.

4. Sport Utility Vehicles shall not longer be classified as light trucks for purposes of CAFÉ standards.  They shall be classified as a sedan.

5. CAFÉ standards shall be altered to strengthen fuel efficiency by 2 mpg in 2005.

6. The Federal Gasoline Tax shall be reduced from 18 cents per gallon to 12 cents per gallon.

7. The ethanol tax credit shall be doubled.

8. $1 billion per year shall be allotted for research on hydrogen fuel cells.

9. There shall be a tax credit of $500 per year to an individual who installs solar panels to provide energy to their own home, or to an individual who purchases a hybrid car.  The solar panels must be able to provide enough heat to warm an Olympic regulation size swimming pool.

[The Duke]

Ernest,

I disagree with your analysis on oil refineries.  There is a reason that refineries operate at 96% today, but at 76% twenty-eight years ago.  The reason is we need more refineries.  Improvements to current refineries can only go so far and has a diminishing marginal return, since many of the old refineries have had to shut down they're so old.

Good catch on climate and altitude chagning the gas standard.

I agree we should add a biodiesel component to the tax credit.

We ought to keep the gas tax going down and find another way to fund road construction.  We need to get gas prices down, and this does it.

[The Duke]

I think numbers 3,5,7, and 8 are good.  

However, the basic problem I have with the bill is the general idea that we need to make oil easier for people to get and cheaper for them to get. What we need to do is get people off oil. Not just middle eastern oil, but oil in general. There is not enough oil to go around, and soon we will realize this the hard way.

This is why we have the ethanol tax credit expansion and research for hydrogen fuel.

Whether anyone likes it or not the world is dependent on oil for now.  We better make sure that its price doesn't cripple our economy or we'll never be prosperous enough to develop new ways of doing things.

Western European countries live and prosper with oil at $5.00 per gallon, why can't we?

We can't keep adjusting our laws to make it easier and cheaper to get gasoline just because it may be a little expensive at this time, eventually the oil will run out, and then our economy will suffer a huge blow. When that time will be, no one can say for sure, except that it will come soon, and it will come.

Europeans live a different style of life than we do.  They have more condensed communites, for starters, making auto travel less necessary.  How would someone in Los Angeles make a living with gas at $5 a gallon?  There is no meaningful public transit, and even if there was busses run on gasoline and rising gas costs will drive up bus fare.  In Europe, and even on some East coast cities, subways and walking are reasonable.  However, in the suburb heavy sunbelt, this is impossible.  Cars are a necessity.

There is nothing that a reasonable person could say beyond that point.  I have allocated over a billion dollars for alternative fuel research and tax credits.  25% of this bill is provisions for weaning us off oil in the future (ethanol and hydrogen) and another 25% (the CAFE provisions) is a conservation effort.

What would assuage your concerns?  Subsidies to companies or localities that build windfarms?  Tax credits for individuals that install solar panels on their houses to heat their homes?  Name something we can add to get your vote, because I think a bill with either of those amendments would easily get signed.  But this bill does no good if it doesn't give consumers direct relief (in the form of the gas tax cut) and long term relief (in the form of new regulations) for high gas prices.

In area, Melbourne Australia is thw eorlds' fifth largest city; a sprawl of suburbs that houses 5 million people. In Australia, petrol is expensive-about $A1.00 a litre-i'm not sure how that equates to gallons, but I know it is more expensive then in the US.

But this doesn't cause any problems, because despitrem ourm huge size, we have an efficient public transport system of trains, trams and buses, as does Sydney, Perth, Brisbane and all the other major Australian cities.

Petrol (gas) can be expensive and not cause major problems, as long as you use some of the money from petrol taxes etc. on tings like public transportation; one of the few areas the federal government legisltaes where money must be spent is on public transport (state governments can spend above this of course, however). Because Melbournes' system is now privatised, we get less ederal funding, but the fact is that the federal funding set up the system that can get me from my house in the inner south of the city to the outer west in 40 minutes; the outer northeast in an hour and a quarter, and my school in 45 minutes, all by cheap bus, tram or train-$A3.00 for a daily ticket.

Considering the size of Melbourne, and the price of petrol, I'd have to say your arguments don't fully fit, John. The 'car culture' isn't only around because of the sprawls in cities like LA; it's around because nobody does anything to change it like they did here.

I did the conversion, and australian gasoline is about $2.50 a gallon.  When I bought gasoline today, in west LA, it was $2.09 a gallon.  That means in San Diego where I'm originally from it was probably $2.15 a gallon.  In Australian terms, it would be about 55 cents per liter or so for American gas.

I don't think we should pretend that there is a huge difference between Australian petrol and American.  Its more costly in Australia, sure.  But its not like the difference between the US and the European countries where gas is $5 a gallon, or more than $1 per liter.  America could get by with $2.50 a gallon, but we're used to paying $1.70 a gallon.  Its better for our economy to pay less, so I'm inclined to say "I don't just want to get by at the bare minimum, I want to do really well because my workers and small business owners depend on exactly that."

$2.50 a gallon is what Atlasia is apying right now basically for gasoline with the current oil crunch.  Yeah, we could probably make due.  But truckers would be hurt, and that isn't something public transit can fix.  That means that shipping things is more expensive.  That means all goods become more expensive.  You get inflation and the purchasing power of the dollar erodes.  There are a lot of problems like that that subways don't fix.

We've put a lot of provisions in this bill to get us using less oil, and to make cars more efficient.  But the reality is, and I'm not saying you're right or wrong about public transit although there is something to be said for expanding it and there really isn't much of an argument more less public transit, but the reality is that there is no infrastructure to support it in America and there is no demand for it if it ever did get put together.  When they built the new AMTRAK commuter train from New York to Boston they hoped they'd reduce highway traffic on the East Coast.  They just ended up with an empty commuter train instead.  Americans, right or wrong, aren't all ready for a more public transportation sytem.

We can have a debate about public transit, and I think I'll agree with you more often than I disagree, but the reality is that America as a country isn't ready for the same conversation you and I are.  That's the core of my bias towards cheapening gasoline over building subways, is I know that in America all you get is emtpy subways.  The last time the used the LA subway was for the ending scene in Speed with Keanu Reeves and Dennis Hopper.

[The Duke]

But hydrogen isn‘t even a fuel！！！ It’s only a way of STORING fuel。 You need electricity to make the hydrogen， so there。

Most of what you wrote is illegible, but I think what you're saying is that hydrogen is only a way to store energy and you want to know where the energy it will store is coming from.

If this is your beef, then fine.  The energy will come from the same place your home's heat comes from--power plants.  Hopefully, these will be nuclear or solar plants, but as is, what kind of plant we build is going to be determined by the market and what kind of plant is cheapest to build and maintain.

[The Duke]

Are we ready for a vote?

[The Duke]

Are we ready for a vote?

A vote should have been called on the 22nd, it is now the 24th.

Does that mean it has to be re-introduced?

Or can we just ignore that rule because of the "solar flares"?

[The Duke]

Nay. It might have become unfashionable to care about air quality, but I'm still fond of breathing. To me, there is no reason to weaken air standards so that SUVs can become more common. It doesn't take Sigmund Freud to realize that half the men who drive them do so to psychologically compensate for a rather inexpressible deficiency. I would suggest to use public transportation of walk. It's really not that difficult to do either.

Do you actually follow what goes on in this? The whole oil crisis with crude at over 60$ a barrel?

Not to mention an increase in the gasoline standard and billions of tax credits and subsidies for cleaner fuels.

Never mind migrendel, he's just an unreformable communist.

[The Duke]

Aye
Hughento
King
Nation

Nay
migrendel
IrishDemocrat
Harry
texasgurl

Not voted
StevenNick
StatesRights
Akno

[The Duke]

Sorry.  I can't take sections 1 and 6.
Nay.

The rest was so good.

If we pulled section 1, would you vote aye?

[The Duke]

Sorry.  I can't take sections 1 and 6.
Nay.

The rest was so good.

If we pulled section 1, would you vote aye?

If you'd pulled 1 and 6, then definitely.  I think the gas tax should remain at 18c to provide sufficient revenue for transportation matters, such as road repair.

Same goes for me.

We cna get that money from the general revenue fund.  No cuts have to be made for road repair.

[The Duke]

Everyone has to make compromises to get us out of the energy crisis.  You give us the gas tax cut (actually, we even backed off from a 9 cent cut to a 6 cent cut), you get to keep the EPA in charge of power plant construction.

Hughento voted aye when we gave him a little bit in terms of compromise.

[The Duke]

Aye
Hughento
King
Nation

Nay
migrendel
IrishDemocrat
Harry
texasgurl

Not voted
StevenNick
StatesRights
Akno

[The Duke]

Bump, just in case it affects anyone's thinking on Nym90s bill to see what our past actions have been.