Bush signs landmark energy bill

[one...two...tree 2,762]

By Richard Simon and Johanna Neuman, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers

WASHINGTON -- President Bush today signed a landmark energy bill designed to cut U.S. dependence on overseas oil by imposing the greatest fuel efficiency standards in more than three decades and mandating a fivefold increase in the use of biofuels.

"Today we make a major step toward reducing our dependence on oil, confronting global climate change, expanding the production of renewable fuels and giving future generations of our country a nation that is stronger, cleaner and more secure," Bush said in a signing ceremony at the Department of Energy.

Flanked by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and other congressional leaders, Bush thanked them for "your wisdom" in imposing the new standards and called on Congress to double the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and expand nuclear power.

Congress on Tuesday gave final approval to the 822-page measure, sending it up Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House in a Toyota Prius hybrid.

Although the tougher vehicle miles-per-gallon rules have grabbed the headlines, the bill includes a number of lower-profile measures aimed at reducing U.S. dependence on oil and cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

"In this bill, we ban by 2012 the famously inefficient 100-watt incandescent bulb," said Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice), who co-sponsored that provision.

The House gave final approval to the measure by a 314-100 vote. The Senate approved it last week, 86 to 8. In addition to the 40% increase in fuel efficiency for new cars and light trucks by 2020, for a fleetwide average of 35 mpg, the bill requires a fivefold increase -- to 36 billion gallons -- in the amount of alternative homegrown fuels, such as ethanol, that must be added to the nation's gasoline supply by 2022.

Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said the bill would improve the energy efficiency of "almost every significant product and tool and appliance that we use, from light bulbs to light trucks."

The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy has projected that the bill will reduce energy use by 7% and carbon dioxide emissions by 9% in 2030. The Washington think tank also has estimated it will save consumers and businesses more than $400 billion between now and 2030, "accounting for both energy cost savings and the moderately higher price of energy-efficient products."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...=la-home-center

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

Woohoo. Time to buy a diesel.

[mawilson 2,133]

Didn't he say he was gonna veto it?

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

Didn't he say he was gonna veto it?

He implied that he may veto it if they left in all of the huge taxes on the petroleum industry, which were a TERRIBLE idea to begin with. These companies are not going to lose profit, so those taxes would have been passed down to consumers.

[mawilson 2,133]

Didn't he say he was gonna veto it?

These companies are not going to lose profit, so those taxes would have been passed down to consumers.

Not really. There's only so much you can pass on to the consumer.

Gas prices go up and down all the time. According to you, they would never ever go down, only up.

[almaty 19]

sounds like a good start..

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

Didn't he say he was gonna veto it?

These companies are not going to lose profit, so those taxes would have been passed down to consumers.

Not really. There's only so much you can pass on to the consumer.

Gas prices go up and down all the time. According to you, they would never ever go down, only up.

Who says there is only so much you can pass on to the consumer? Do you have any working knowledge of the oil and gas industry? This is what I do for a living, and I spend a LOT of time in energy conferences, including many oil and gas industry panels. They WILL pass the cost onto consumers. Not only in gasoline. The cost of anything containing plastics would increase significantly. The cost of heating oil will increase while we hear that people can't pay their heating bills already. They have many different ways to pass those incurred costs along.

As far as gas prices going up and down, they will still fluctuate, but the median cost will be significantly higher. Instead of watching pump price bounce between $3.00 and $3.50, they would probably bounce around $3.50 and $4.00.

Edited December 19, 2007 by AnewKINDofFEELIN

[mawilson 2,133]

Who says there is only so much you can pass on to the consumer?

If there wasn't, we'd be seeing $6/gallon at the pump today instead of $3.

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

Who says there is only so much you can pass on to the consumer?

If there wasn't, we'd be seeing $6/gallon at the pump today instead of $3.

Is that right? Why is that?

The US petroleum industry still functions as a free market. However, because of obvious reasons, it is a supply driven economy. Supply is what drives the price, as you see when OPEC and other cartels set their price. The gas price is not directly tied to crude prices, however, as it depends heavily on the demand for and production of petroleum derivatives. Whether you want to believe it or not, most "big oil" executives understand that they cannot force prices unnaturally high, as it would destabilize the market and could cause another problem like we saw in the early 80s.

[mawilson 2,133]

Who says there is only so much you can pass on to the consumer?

If there wasn't, we'd be seeing $6/gallon at the pump today instead of $3.

Is that right? Why is that?

The US petroleum industry still functions as a free market. However, because of obvious reasons, it is a supply driven economy. Supply is what drives the price, as you see when OPEC and other cartels set their price. The gas price is not directly tied to crude prices, however, as it depends heavily on the demand for and production of petroleum derivatives. Whether you want to believe it or not, most "big oil" executives understand that they cannot force prices unnaturally high, as it would destabilize the market and could cause another problem like we saw in the early 80s.

I don't see the difference between

1) having to pay extra taxes and wanting to keep your profits high by passing the tax costs on to the consumer, and

2) not having to pay extra taxes and wanting to increase your profits by increasing the costs to the consumer.

You're saying 1) is possible, whereas 2) is not.

Explain.

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

Who says there is only so much you can pass on to the consumer?

If there wasn't, we'd be seeing $6/gallon at the pump today instead of $3.

Is that right? Why is that?

The US petroleum industry still functions as a free market. However, because of obvious reasons, it is a supply driven economy. Supply is what drives the price, as you see when OPEC and other cartels set their price. The gas price is not directly tied to crude prices, however, as it depends heavily on the demand for and production of petroleum derivatives. Whether you want to believe it or not, most "big oil" executives understand that they cannot force prices unnaturally high, as it would destabilize the market and could cause another problem like we saw in the early 80s.

I don't see the difference between

1) having to pay extra taxes and wanting to keep your profits high by passing the tax costs on to the consumer, and

2) not having to pay extra taxes and wanting to increase your profits by increasing the costs to the consumer.

You're saying 1) is possible, whereas 2) is not.

Explain.

They are both possible. However, #1 is pretty much forced by being a publicly held corporation.

If the taxes went up and revenue stayed the same, profit would drop and the stock price would suffer. Because of this, corporations will try to keep their profit at the very least steady. A drop in profit would probably trigger a sell-off, which would reduce the overall capital of the corporation. They could no longer afford to make new investments, which would pretty quickly cause a price surge.

If the taxes go up, then the price will go up and it could VERY easily be justified by the corporations. On the other hand, price fixing, like you propose in #2 would cause a market revolt and government intervention.