US+Energy+Policies

“Why PV is important”, __U.S. Department of Energy__, Solar Energy Technologies Program, 1/5/06, www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pv_important.html

Photovoltaics is the topic of this article. Photovoltaics (PV) is a solar energy source which reportedly is a newer, environmentally safe technology. This article presents PV as affordable and safe. It does not require gaseous fuels to be transported or combusted. The cost to produce it is lowering through production.-M.Garmon

“Energy Policy Act”, Coalition for Affordable and Reliable Energy, [|www.careenergy.com/issues/issue.asp?pageAction=overview&actID=12] The Clean Energy Act of 2007 was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in 2007, and is being reviewed by the U.S. Senate. This site provides a link to the Bill which went before the House.-M.Garmon

“Kyoto Treaty Takes Effect Today”, Washington Post, 2/16/05, Shankar Vedantam, [|www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27318-2005Feb15.html]

This is a 2005 article which indicates President Bush’s refusal to participate in the Kyoto Treaty. Russia and Australia did not participate either. The author explains why the United States did not participate in terms of its economic concerns. There is a historical overview of the Kyoto Protocol as well as some political history and minor introductions of proposals by Sen. McCain and Sen. Lieberman.-M.Garmon

“Harvesting the Potential of Biomass”, __Environmental Health Perspectives__, Vol. 113, No. 11, (Nov. 2005) pp. A750-A753, Tenenbaum, David J. According to the US DOE, 67% of fuel consumption in America goes toward transportation. “Biomass as feedstock for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry” is a report which was published by the DOE concerning this subject. (2005) Biomass constitutes 3% of the energy supply in the US. This article speaks to the difficulties of converting biomass into the hydrocarbons which are needed for fuel.-M. GarmonOil and Fossile Fuel Supply Policies

__Todd Roberson__

“Fact Sheet: Twenty in Ten: Strengthening Energy Security and Addressing Climate Change.” The White House Website: Office of the Press Secretary. 14 May 2007. 16 June 2007. 

(Note: I believe this source could fall under independence, sustainability, and mandates)

The President has directed government agencies to take the first steps toward regulations that would cut gasoline consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles, using as a starting point his "Twenty in Ten" plan to reduce U.S. gasoline consumption by 20 percent over the next 10 years. The Administration has sent Congress legislative proposals to achieve "Twenty In Ten" with two steps: 1) Increasing the Supply of Renewable and Other Alternative Fuels by setting a mandatory fuels standard to require the equivalent of 35 billion gallons of renewable and other alternative fuels in 2017 - nearly five times the 2012 target now in law. In 2017, this will displace 15 percent of projected annual gasoline use. 2) Reforming and Modernizing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for cars and extending the current light truck rule. In 2017, this will reduce projected annual gasoline use by up to 8.5 billion gallons, a further 5 percent reduction that, in combination with increasing the supply of renewable and other alternative fuels, will bring the total reduction in projected annual gasoline use to 20 percent.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Goldberg, Marshall. “Federal Energy Subsidies: Not all Technologies Are Created Equal.” __Renewable Energy Policy Project__. July 2000. 18 June 2007. 

(Independence, incentives, sustainability) This report provides a historical accounting of federal government subsidies to nuclear, wind, photovoltaic, and solar thermal electricity generating technologies. The main message is that it takes a substantial amount of money, invested over several years, to bring an electricity generation technology to maturity. The report concludes that federal support for nuclear power has far surpassed support for renewables, and that over the long term this public investment correlates with increasing electricity generation by the nuclear sector.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 * //(Mandates)//**
 * Aspin, Les. “A Solution to the Energy Crisis: The Case for Increased Competition.” __Annals of__ __the American Academy of Political and Social Science__ 410 (November 1973): 154-168.**

Aspin asserts that “Monopoly practices and concentration of power … [by] major oil companies have caused … [shortages] of fuel oil and gasoline supplies and the increase in prices of such fuels in the United States” (p. 154). The then-Congressman goes on to say that “These practices are found at four levels in the petroleum industry: production, refinement, transportation and marketing” (p. 154). Also, “the petroleum industry has undertaken horizontal expansion into other energy areas, such as coal and uranium; this suggests that the American consumer of energy will face … more problems, unless remedial action is taken” (p. 154). Aspen concludes by recommending that “Legislation designed to break apart the developing horizontal integration of petroleum companies and those in other energy areas should be seriously considered” (p. 154). This article highlights the effect the energy industry can have to exacerbate the problems of energy supply and price, caused in part by instability in oil producing regions of the world. Further, Aspin advocates that the federal government should play an activist role in regulating the energy industry. **(Hilary Straus)**

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

//**(Covers Incentives & Mandates)**//
 * Barkenbus, Jack N. “Federal Energy Policy Paradigms and State Energy Roles.” __Public__ __Administration Review__ 42, no. 5 (September-October 1982): 410-418.**

Barkenbus presents “four … paradigms or models of government-market interaction with respect to energy. The article concludes that no one model for government involvement in energy policy has prevailed, changing from one presidential administration to another. This article, written in 1982, shortly after Regan took office, reflects the continued focus but lack of national consensus on energy policy as “The change from … Carter to … Regan … produced a striking shift in official perceptions of what constitutes legitimate government involvement in energy” (p. 416). **(Hilary Straus)**

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

//**(Mandates)**//
 * Brannon, Gerard M. “U.S. Taxes on Energy Resources.” __The American Economic Review__ 65, no. 2 (May 1975): 397-404.**

Brannon analyzes the impacts on the energy industry of several different tax measures, including: income taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, semi-taxes (import quotas, pro-rationing, environmental controls and natural gas price regulations). His analysis includes opinions from several researchers on each tax. Brannon then discusses what were at the time of the article, present tax issues. The researcher asserts that “With the current [high] oil prices, there is no need to protect a high-cost U.S. industry from the rigors of competition.” Brannon argues against the effectiveness of government-imposed price ceilings as they artificially keep demand high, and have the unintended affect of keeping world market prices high. The article concludes with an exploration of Project Independence’s energy policy recommendations, including “zero level of imports,” … [maintaining] reserves adequate to cover imports reduced by a feasible level of reduced consumption” (p. 402). **(Hilary Straus)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++**


 * //(Mandates)//**
 * Kunce, Mitch, Shelby Gerking and William Morgan. “Effects of Environmental and Land Use Regulation in the Oil and Gas Industry Using the Wyoming Checkerboard as an Experimental Design.” __The American Economic Review__ 92, no. 5 (December 2002): 1588-1593.**

Kunce, Gerking and Morgan “[estimate] the extra costs for drilling for oil and gas on federal land as compared to private land in Wyoming” near Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way (p. 1588). The researchers’ data “suggest that average drilling costs per well are about $200,000 higher on federal property than on private property. This difference is attributable to more stringent enforcement of environmental and land use regulations on federal land” (p. 1588). The researchers state that their cost estimates “have several implications for both public policy and future research. One policy issue is whether drilling regulations should be more stringently enforced on federal land than on other types of land” (p. 1593). Kunce, Gerking and Morgan state that the “A second issue relates to possible reductions in output of oil and gas due to more stringent enforcement of regulations on federal property. Reduced output from currently reserves may add incentives to explore in the most environmentally sensitive areas (i.e., national parks and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) sooner than otherwise” (p. 1593). In addition, the researchers state that “A third issue is concerned with effects on production tax revenue in states that apply these types of taxes. Federal policies that restrict output [could] force such states to cut back on public service expenditures or fund public services from other revenue sources. Thus, it is easy to see why public officials in states such as Wyoming, New Mexico and Alaska with large amounts of federal property rely that rely heavily on mineral production tax revenue to finance public services [would] be vocal opponents of more stringent environmental and land use regulation” (p. 1593). This article provides a good analysis of the impact of environmental and land use regulations on energy politics and intergovernmental relations. **(Hilary Straus)**

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


 * //(Covers Independence, Sustainability, Incentives & Mandates)//**
 * Orr, David W. “U.S. Energy Policy and the Political Economy of Participation.” __The Journal of__ __Politics__ 41, no. 4 (November 1979): 1027-1056.**

In this essay, Orr asserts that “energy policy most directly involves politics and ethics” (p. 1027). Orr “[discusses:] what is meant by the energy transition, … three broad perspectives on energy policy, …. [and] an argument for extending participation in both policy-making and policy implementation” (p. 1027). The researcher “[argues] that greater public involvement in the energy sector [will] broaden the public interest, promote equity in the distribution of payoffs, increase public accountability, and improve social resilience” to technological innovation in energy production and distribution (pp. 1027-1028). Orr concludes by saying that “issues of energy policy and the technological choices entailed present more of a challenge to our political creativity than to our technical genius” (p. 1028). This essay highlights the challenges the public sector has faced historically (and continues to face) in developing a national consensus on the promotion of various environmentally sensitive energy generating sources. **(Hilary Straus)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

//(Mandates)//**
 * Rosapepe, James Carew and Joseph S. Nye, Jr. “Letters.” __Foreign Policy__ 41 (Winter 1980-1981): 188-190.**

This article includes a letter to the editor from James Carew Rosapepe, a public member of the Emergency Preparedness Committee at the National Petroleum Council, critiquing Nye’s article in __Foreign Policy__, entitled “Energy Nightmares,” and Nye’s rebuttal of Rosapepe’s critique. Rosapepe disagrees with Nye’s assertion that an increased gas tax will address short-term supply problems should the country experience another acute gas shortage. Instead, Rosapepe argues that developing a workable gas rationing plan is a better approach. In response, Nye asserts that there are different ways that a gas tax can be applied to address some of the specific concerns Rosapepe raises. Nye concedes that the researcher “agrees with Rosapepe that we should try to improve the efficiency and equity of rationing plans because we may be forced to use them” (p. 190). This article provides a window into the debate over short-term solutions to the energy crisis in the 1970s, solutions, which could be relevant today should the United States face another acute gas shortage. **(Hilary Straus)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ M. Garmon 7/10/07**

“Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief Act of 1995”, __Energy__ __Information Administration__, 1/7/05 www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publications/ngmajorleg/continental.html

The intent of this law is promote interest in deep water. It provides for relief on lease royalties. To be eligible for relief, the lease must be located in the Gulf of Mexico. The Minerals Management Service defines the term “deep water”. Since the incentives were put into place in 2000, deep water drilling has increased.

Peterson, Thomas D., Rose, Adam Z. “Reducing Conflicts Between Climate Policy and Energy Policy in the US: The Important Role of the States,” __Energy Policy__ 34 (2006): 619–631. http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.usc.edu/10.1016/j.enpol.2005.11.014 According to the authors, some states have begun to take on larger roles in climate policy because the current President’s Administration has not been very involved in the issue. It is argued that developing climate policy within states is more manageable and provides the opportunity for working to meet a diverse set of needs, rather than the needs of the nation as a whole. The pros and cons for using states to develop climate policy are outlined. There are ideas presented for dealing with policy and conflicts of interest between climate and energy policy, which includes ideas for incentive-based policy and collaboration. A helpful background of climate actions at the state and local level is also provided. It is concluded that climate and energy policy are not mutually exclusive and is supported by recent state accomplishments in regards to these issues. --Kristine