Here's this post's link to reddit if you are so inclined.

http://science.reddit.com/info/2c0np/comments

For any staffers out there, lets get real.

Ever heard of the "davis equation" used by the rail industry?

http://www.uwm.edu/~horowitz/PropulsionResistance.html

A similar equation can be found for road vehicles. There are 3 terms, a constant, a speed term and a speed squared term. The speed squared term is the aerodynamic component, and for single vehicles, that tends to be more important. Aerodynamic drag becomes important at speeds above about 45 mph, which is way below the speed most people drive on today's Interstates. Until the latest revision in the EPA emissions tests, the highway portion of the test was run at a simulated highway speed which averaged below 50 mph. Even the latest test tells little about the 70-80 mph fuel economy often seen. And, the average shopper has no clue about this aspect of the vehicle when making a purchase decision. Any discussion about changing the CAFE standards should begin by improving the emissions tests to better reflect real world driving conditions. That should include a requirement for realistic representation of vehicle aerodynamics.

Efforts to gut the effectiveness of present CAFE standards are seen in Rep. Barton's amendment #62, which appears to be similar to the Administration's proposal to take the CAFE tests away from the EPA and set standards for light trucks based on vehicle wheelbase. Look at the link above and you will see that there is no term in the equations for "wheelbase". Instead, standards based on GVWR would make more sense, as the rolling resistance term is a function of weight. And, when trucks are used for hauling or towing in a work situation, GVWR is of prime importance. Such a standard would prevent manufacturers choosing to lengthen a vehicle to move into a lower CAFE bracket, just to get around the requirement.

With Peak Oil staring us in the face, we better get the next step done right. We may not get another chance at it, if the serious doomers are correct.

E. Swanson

About the "tax" on federal offshore leases.

I'm a petroleum landman, I negotiate oil and gas leases on a contract basis, so I have a little expertise in this area.

All oil and gas leases except these federal leases have a royalty-a percentage payment of the production payable to the landowners. Until about 1950, the standard was 1/8th, or 12.5%. Royalties have risen over the years, and some onshore in good producing areas are as high as 30%, although most average around 3/16ths, or 18.375%.

In order to stimulate offshore drilling, the US Minerals Management Service waived the royalties due the goverment on certain offshore leases in the Gulf, but neglected to put in a clause to escalate the royalties when the leases became profitable to the operators. I opposed this when they were granted, because I thought that the Federal Government should not give away the people's interest, and I thought that it subsidised offshore gas at the expense of onshore gas prospects.

I still think its unreasonable and unfair to give away the gas of the people to a group of operators. I support Speaker Pelosi's efforts to change the leases , and collect back royalties. At a minimum, the operators should pay at the minimum Federal lease royalty rate of 1/6th, plus interest for all the gas produced since they reached pay-out on each lease. And if they refuse to pay, the operators should not be allowed to purchase new leases or participate in wells in or on federal waters and lands.
Bob Ebersole

Some general thoughts:

1) A plea to consider amendments from a broad energy systems perspective of the types, sources and uses of energy. Food is a special form of chemical energy that has the essential requirements of productive soil and fresh water to produce. Soils are depleted very quickly by improper practices but restoration of productivity takes decades at best. Natural supplies of fresh water supply are critically limited, particularly in the form of underground aquifers. Depleting soil and exhausting fresh water aquifers to produce energy for uses such as transportation that could be produced from other sources and in other forms is likely a very foolish choice in the long run.

2) Incorporates means to ameliorate the market distorting effects of policy such as subsidies after the initial benefit of the policy is obtained, such as tapered reductions of subsidies after jump starting an industry or advancing a technology to some level. Otherwise producers and consumers cannot make sound choices on the basis of clear price signals. An economic environment with little such distortion in price signals will lead to better decisions and faster changes in a sustainable direction, economically, socially and environmentally, than most anything else.

3) Incorporate means of detecting and preventing unintended consequences that occur when tweaking components of a complex system having positive and negative feedbacks with various lagged effects.

Herman Daly writes that we should measure our economy by three standards: 1) allocation, 2) distribution and 3) scale. Scale is our overall use of resources, throughput and sinks - the most important being energy obtained from oil resources and reduced to carbon typically in atmospheric or oceanic sinks. We've (arguably) passed Peak Oil. We have way too much carbon for the sinks - CO2 in the atmosphere is warming the planet and CO2 in the oceans dissolving spiny creatures like plankton.

The first problem is scale. Our economic scale relative to what the environment can support is too big. It's not a matter of replacing energy sources, but of dramatically reducing our footprint. As a planner in Oregon Energy Office put it: LESS, LESS and LESS. One of the ideas might be hard, nationally based, annually decreasing, carbon caps zeroing out by mid century - soon enough, I don't know - but the concept is roughly right.

The second problem is distribution; it has to work for everyone. If we will have LESS - and we can only have that - then the distribution has to be transparent and fair.

The third problem is allocation - typically the market. The market will only function for the benefit of society if scale is determined and distribution rules are laid out in advance.

...just like the 2005 Energy Policy Act.... Part of the reason for the piecemeal approach to energy is the deliberate cloaking of the most vital fact about energy - that we are running out of it much faster than most people realize. [Kelpie Wilson at Truthout]

A bill that dealt well with LESS - esp with respect to scale and distribution - would make for a nice change of pace.

cfm in never-never land.

Top things I'd like to see from an energy debate:

#1 -- I'd like to see the concept of peak oil mentioned by law makers. There is zero recognition of this as an issue in media, public consciousness, or in our leadership.

#2 -- A recognition that Peak oil and Global warming are two separate issues, both pushing us in different directions. For example we might delay peak oil by gasifying coal, but that does little for global warming.

#3 -- A recognition by the environmental community that we might have to make tradeoffs. It is impossible to maintain our standard of living AND (prevent wind farms because they harm birds, prevent dams because they harm fish, prevent nuclear because of the waste, prevent oil drilling because of wildlife).

#4 -- A recongition by our national corporations (auto/energy/etc) that whether they like it or not big changes are coming. They can either get on board, and help drive the solution. Or get steam-rolled when government mandated "crisis legislation" forces them out of business.

America used to be a place where people with different ideas worked together. They didn't just state their opinion, and tried to wait out the opposition. Let's see some of that "working together" spirit. Who knows. We may surprise ourselves.

Mike

I have skimmed HR 2776, and read parts of it in detail.  My impressions:

1. There appears to be no tax credit for infrastructure for charging electric vehicles (though it might be hidden in one of the sections which only modifies existing language).  This should be promoted strongly, and tax deductions for new construction should be curtailed if it doesn't have it.  A large fraction of the US population lives in multi-unit dwellings, and there's no point in having a PHEV if you don't have a place to plug it in.
2. Mortgage deductions should be DENIED for developments which restrict or prohibit domestic solar PV, domestic solar hot water, or EV/PHEV wiring.  Individual owners should have a right of private action against homeowners and condominium associations which maintain such restrictions.
3. Landlords should be able to depreciate solar DHW and solar A/C systems at a rate sufficient to make them attractive, perhaps with other incentives.  I'm low on sleep and have no time to make better suggestions.
4. The biofuels section appears to be limited to promotion of liquid motor fuels.  This is a mistake; liquid fuels are perhaps the most expensive and least efficient products which can be made from biomass.  It is much more efficient to make electricity, and the byproducts can be much better for agriculture.  I would suggest this:
   • A tax credit for electric power generated from biomass equal to the wind-power tax credit.
   • A tax credit for charcoal generated from crop or green wastes (of perhaps $15/ton) if permanently sequestered by use as a soil amendment.
5. The tax credit for PHEV's phases out much too fast.  No US manufacturer can get started with a market that might taper way off after only 60K vehicles; the number should be at least 4 times that (250,000) and perhap 10 times (600,000).

That's all I've got off the top of my head.  I'm sorry that I got to this so late (I should have been involved from last April), but I got out of the loop.

I have been incredibly busy this week, but I hope that someone can help fill me in on 2 things. I understand what the RPS is attempting to do, but mandates sometimes have unforeseen effects that quickly make them unpopular. Therefore, I think measures need to be in place to make sure that solar and wind technologies are cost-competitive with coal-fired electricity. I am tired of seeing uncertainty over the tax credit for wind. I know that even though wind power has developed quickly, the uncertainty of whether that tax credit would be extended has delayed projects.

My ideal would be adoption of some kind of fossil-fuel tax, as this would level the playing field for all alternative technologies. Even though I think wind, solar, and biomass gasification will be technology winners, I would rather raise the price of the fossil fuel alternative and then level the playing field for all comers. I don't know how many conversations I have had with people like the butanol proponents, who aren't sure whether they qualify for the same benefits as the ethanol producers. It should not be that way. Either broadly define the criteria for who can get credits, or raise fossil fuel taxes. The latter would have the added advantage of spurring conservation steps. But we can't keep putting promising technologies at a disadvantage because their particular biomass route is not specifically identified in the legislation.

We may curse higher fuel taxes here in Europe but over the last 20 years they have resulted in

1. Redistribution of this tax wealth amongst the European community rather than it all going overseas to the Middle East or other exporters.
2. Europeans use roughly 50% of the energy of Americans; admittedly this is not all due to the higher fuel costs but it has modified our behaviour and led to efficiencies.
3. A cushion against raw oil-price rises

New taxation is likely to be unpopular so its introduction would have to be carefully framed in the context of the longer term benefits. It could also be framed in shorter term immediate improvement contexts to transport infrastructure such as freeways, etc. The alternative would seem to be growing trade imbalances and eventual demand destruction by price.

Rather than a straight oil tax, we need a tax of at least $5.00/ bbl. placed on imported crude oil and natural gas liquids and called a National Energy Security Tax. This would:

1. pay for financing the Biofuels and Wind and Solar subsidies and tax credits. It would raise $20.375 Billion a year at current import rates of approximately 15 million barrels of oil per day.

2. encourage the production of domestic oil and natural gas by raising the base price above that of foreign crude

3. raise the base price of substitutes for oil such as ethanol, biobutanol and biodiesel in a way that allows competition between the various technologies in the market economy.

4. encourage more energy efficency in the transportation energy

Bob Ebersole

I have posted before, but to repeat some simple, last minute changes.

1) The positive impact of the Wind Tax Credit is diluted by the on-off nature of it. THIS HAS SLOWED BUILDING WIND TURBINE FACTORIES IN THE USA. Reducing the impact of a tax credit is not a good thing.

Add a proviso that whenever the tax credit expires, it will be phased out by 2% per month. Result, when Congress does not renew tax credit, developer will still put in new wind farm 2 months after expiration of the tax credit since s/he can still get 96%. Secondary result, More wind turbine factories will be built, since layoffs and sudden shutdowns are unlikely.

2) Continue and enlarge the tax credit for insulation and tankless gas hot water heaters and raise the $500/household limit ! ($2,500 would be my suggestion)

Expand coverage from just homeowners to renters (long term renters might do this), landlords and commercial property owners. It does not matter WHO is saving energy, just that it is saved.

Go from 10% of the cost of the insulation, door, etc, to 20% will stimulate industries that are going to suffer in housing downturn AND add multi-decade benefits to the economy & environment, Insulation does not wear out !

And add at least $100 to the tankless hot water heaters. I have talked at least ten people rebuilding homes in New Orleans into putting in tankless gas hot water heaters, and the tax credit swayed a number of them !

Summer gas bills of 1 to 3 ccf (3 ccf is about $1 + cost of service) have been reported back to me. VERY pleased.

Best Hopes,

Alan

We do need an energy bill that makes sense.

However as a member of the working class in the rural farming area of this country and having owned and operated a farm/s for many years I protest ANY attempt to impose a tax on fuel that is designed to cause a reduction in the usage of that fuel. Demand destruction some call it.

This will be a very 'regressive' tax and will cause the farm workers and the working class of the USA very much harm. It will result in a further reduced standard of living for them.

It must be noted that it is not the members of the above group who are responsible for the outrageous lifestlye that results in waste of the fossil fuels that are now starting to be felt in prices at the gas pump.

Here in the rural areas of the farming communities we do not engage in frivolous usage of fuels. We need them to continue to engage in work that produces the food stuffs of this country. Many farm workers live substandard lifestyles to make that happen. Taxing them brings an added burden that will be heinous and burdensome. For those who are living in the rural areas and are of non-working age the costs will be even more burdensome as it affects their ability to travel to obtain medical services and other activities that are necessary to life in areas where distances are greater. We don't have hospitals right at hand. We don't have shopping malls on every street corner. All that has been moved from our areas. Our small towns are barely surviving. We must therefore travel further than those in who live in or near metropolitian areas.

Our city and suburban cousins are the ones more likely to be wasting the resources of this country rather than the ones here who will be paying for this regressive tax burden and can afford is far less.

It is an idea that needs to die on the vine. I submit that those who propose it are the very ones who it will not affect to any great degree and are the very ones who need to practice more conservation in their lifestyles.

On selecting technologies.

Question:

Should the government be involved in selecting technologies? Picking winners? Or should it establish standards and policies and allow consumer preference and market technologies to reach the government mandated objectives.

There are pro's and cons to each. A poorly defined goal will have loopholes, and may result in unintended consequences. Objective-based regulation is difficult to enforce, and may be misinterpreted.

When the government picks a technology, often we are stuck with that technology a long time. Improvements become difficult, or impossible. Large corporate interests influence the chosen technology.

Like all policy decisions ultimately we may need a little bit of both. Ideally, I think the following principles would be helpful.

1) Establish usage goals -- Focus on goals for energy usage and efficiency. For example CAFE standards for cars, or Lumens/Watt for light bulbs. Heating costs / square foot for industrial or residential construction.

2) Invest in a variety of technologies to reduce the cost/energy used. For example, investments in solar cell research to reduce the $/watt installed, or new drilling technology to reduce the cost of extracting oil from difficult to extract places. These can be direct investments or tax credits.

3) Create a market for alternative technologies. Government fleets should be the most efficient in the nation. Government buildings the most insulated. How can we expect private citizens to take energy usage seriously if the government doesn't.

4) National infrastructure -- Ultimately we will need to site new plants for generating electricity in places where power lines don't exist. Direct investment in creating new long-distance power lines will be required no matter what we do. Imagine a world where everyone buys plug-in hybrids, but no juice flows out of the electric socket because we can't get the electricity there.

5) Regulatory Support -- A smoother regulatory framework for siting new power plants, new oil refineries, alternative energy (e.g. consistent net metering)

I think tax credits for things like plug-in hybrids are a great idea, but does it really make sense to subsidize a plug-in hybrid SUV, that gets 50 miles to the gallon, while providing no subsidies for a compact diesel hybrid that gets 100 mpg?

Why not provide tax credits on vehicles getting more than 20% of the Current Cafe standards. So if CAFE is 35 mpg, and you purchase a car that is 50mpg, you get (perhaps on a sliding scale) a tax credit.

There is a compelling national interest for us to use less energy (less oil, electricity, etc). Even if I can afford $100/barrel oil, does that mean I should go out an purchase a hummer H2?

Our government should provide consumption incentives (both positive and negative) that encourage energy efficiency, and avoid trying to funnel us into specific technologies.

Mike