A little over a month ago, I wrote here about the debate on oil speculation.

One of the commenters on S. 3268, The Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act of 2008 had pointed to a Web site called Stop Oil Speculation Now. I speculated (ahem) that this commenter might be a spinmeister for that campaign.

Whatever the case, now there’s a Web site on the other side. The Airline Oil Spin is its name, and it says:

The U.S. Airline Industry is wracked with problems. And the airline industry is working hard to pin all of those problems on “oil speculators,” by creating pseudo-grassroots campaigns like their recent effort to push legislation to stop some kinds of oil speculation.

The airlines “are currently engaged in the buying and selling of ‘paper contracts’ for jet fuel through their extensive fuel hedging programs,” this site says. Airlines are speculators themselves.

Now, The Airline Oil Spin links to a site called How Was Your Flight? that highlights problems with the airlines. How Was Your Flight? is a project of the Reaching Higher Coalition, which is “a coalition of community groups, clergy, elected leaders, and airport workers represented by Service Employees International Union (SEIU) United Service Workers West.”

Well, we have quite a selection of Web sites to root through, and we’re better off for having them, even if they’re all trying to spin us. Through the spin and counter-spin, we’ll learn a little bit and be in a better position to decide what we think.

I, for one, remain convinced that “oil speculation” is a bugaboo that we really shouldn’t be worried by. Buying and selling of futures contracts in commodities like oil helps to spread risk and smooth out supply and demand. Fast recent rises in the price of oil reflect uncertainty about where oil is going to come from, uncertainty caused by war and political instability in places like Iraq and Venezuela. And it’s caused by increasing consumption in countries with growing economies like China and India. Going after “speculators” is sort of shooting the messenger. (This is an opinion I concealed oh-so-cleverly in my earlier post.)

The debate continues. Here’s the vote on S. 3268, The Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act of 2008. Click to vote, comment, learn more, or edit the wiki article about the bill.

Yeah, I had never heard of him either, but the American Trucking Associations today announced its support for H.R. 6709, the National Conservation, Environment, and Energy Independence Act – and they brought along professional truck driver Tony Sifford!

Tony is a driver for FedEx Ground out of Hillsville, Virginia, and he’s involved in various good causes around trucking (most of which appear to be sponsored by the ATA). Tony looks like a nice guy.

And he joined Rep. Nick Lampson (D-Texas) at ATA’s National Truck Driving Championships in Houston, Texas – now that’s a good time! – to say good things about the bill.

According to the ATA, it calls for domestic oil drilling, tax incentives, and alternative energy research to bring down the price of fuel.

Tony Sifford is for it. How could you not be?

It’s an interesting commentary on policymaking that having a truck driver endorse a bill is supposed to tell us that the bill is good. I look to truck drivers for knowing how to drive a rig, where to get good grub on the road, and the trucking business, but – no disrespect to all the solid, professional truck drivers – I have no idea what this truck driver can contribute to our knowledge of the economics, science, or business of energy. (Though I might hear it from all the drivers debating the proposed TRUCC Act.)

Here’s the current vote on H.R. 6709, the National Conservation, Environment, and Energy Independence Act. Click to vote, comment, learn more, or edit the wiki article about the bill.

One of the most visited bills on WashingtonWatch.com this week is H.R. 2774, The Solar Energy Research and Advancement Act of 2007. It has been reported from committee, which means that it is ready for the full House of Representatives to debate. The bill would establish a group of programs and subsidies to advance solar energy and its commercialization, at a cost of about $2.50 per U.S. family.

As always, there are at least two sides to the story. On the one hand, technological progress is a good thing, and solar power is a wonderfully renewable resource – that’s for sure. Using more of it would lower energy prices, reduce pollution, and perhaps lessen our reliance on unstable foreign sources of energy.

On the other hand, economists will tell you that it’s a mistake to try to make any product “viable” through subsidies – and that’s what we’re talking about here: subsidies. There is a point in the future when solar will be viable simply because it’s a more efficient way of producing energy than others. And we will get there without any government spending because private capital can be drawn to the problem by the profit motive. Let the sun rise on its own, and let taxpayers keep their dollars.

Where do you come down on all this? Can a bill like this bring sunshine to our energy portfolio? Or is it another government program feeling along in the dark?

Here’s the current vote on H.R. 2774, The Solar Energy Research and Advancement Act of 2007. Click to vote, comment, learn more, and edit the wiki article about the bill.

I wrote about the campaigning on S. 3268, the Stop Energy Speculation Act of 2008, here a few days ago.

The debate has taken a new twist as Republicans have pushed to expand domestic oil production as the preferred way of controlling energy prices.

Well, the World Wildlife Fund wants you to know that oil drilling is a big no-no. They’ve put an ad in the New York Times, and they want you to know about it. According to a release they’ve got out on the wires:

While more drilling would have virtually no impact on gas prices, the ad says, it could have a profoundly negative impact on America’s wilderness and waters and could jeopardize the nation’s billion dollar fisheries industry. WWF, which has a team of scientists and experts based in Alaska, notes in the ad that a major oil spill in Alaskan waters – where approximately half of all U.S. seafood is caught – could have a devastating impact on both the economy and the environment. It further states that oil companies have no proven method for cleaning up major oil spills in Arctic waters, further exacerbating the risk to protected areas.

Ah, the push and pull of legislative debate. To stop energy speculation? Drill for more oil? Fair-minded people can see both sides in both sides. And it looks like Congress will go to its August recess like Hamlet, without deciding.

What do you think? Here’s the vote on the Stop Energy Speculation Act of 2008. Click to vote, comment, learn more, or edit the wiki article.

A staple of modern lobbying is the self-identified consumer group. Claiming to represent the interests of consumers, these groups send letters to Congress and issue press releases to create the appearance that a large cross-section of people actually feel strongly about an issue. They often front for different interests than actual consumers, such as owners of corporations. (Owners of corporations are also consumers, of course, but their advocacy tends to be motivated by their special interests as owners, not their general interests as consumers).

Here’s a case in point, discovered through their release this morning about the anti-speculation legislation coming to the Senate floor this week: Consumers for Competitive Choice.

I never heard of “C4CC” before, so I went looking to see who they are – or, it turns out, who he is. “About” pages aren’t much good for this, but here’s an excerpt from theirs/his:

Consumers for Competitive Choice (formerly Consumers for Cable Choice) is an alliance of consumer organizations with one million members throughout the United States who are committed to the development of a competitive, vibrant consumer market in the communications, energy, financial and health sectors. Our goal is the creation of an open, diverse, pro-consumer market that will stimulate price, expand choice and improve service. Our group members provide invaluable counsel and support in this endeavor.

Consumers for Cable Choice, huh?

Researching a bit further, we find that the Web domain name of this organization was registered to a lawyer in Indianapolis named Robert Johnson, who speaks for the organization in the press release. Mr. Johnson’s client list includes a number of telecommunications companies. It appears that he’s been advocating their policy interests in the name “Consumers for Cable Choice,” and is branching out into other fields like energy, health care, and financial services.

Now, there’s nothing wrong with this. Companies and their owners are entitled to advocate for their interests. But we can discount the idea that there are a million consumers behind this effort. There’s probably something like ten or twenty companies behind it.

The C4CC letter and release are focused on favoring S. 3268, the Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act of 2008, which will get consideration in the Senate this week, and H.R. 6330, the Prevent Unfair Manipulation of Prices (PUMP) Act, which is very cleverly named, and so almost certainly will pass with unanimous support. (Just kidding.)

Here’s the voting on S. 3268, the Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act of 2008. Click to vote, comment, learn more, or edit the wiki article about the bill.


And here’s the same for H.R. 6330, the Prevent Unfair Manipulation of Prices (PUMP) Act:

We’re back on energy issues, with the introduction of a bill to solve every last problem with one fell swoop. And we’ll all get a pony.

According to its statement of intent, H.R. 6529 would “greatly enhance the Nation’s environmental, energy, economic, and national security by terminating long-standing Federal prohibitions on the domestic production of abundant offshore supplies of oil and natural gas.” All that, all at once.

Last week, President Bush lifted an executive ban on producing oil from the Outer Continental Shelf. He encouraged Congress to lift its ban so that there could be more drilling.

Now, this much is true: If there were more drilling for oil, there would be more oil. When supply rises, prices tend to fall, or at least rise less quickly. There’s been talk, of course, that this wouldn’t happen quickly enough to get us any benefit. And lower prices would reduce pressure to move to other energy sources, meaning that we would continue to burn carbon-based fuel, with the environmental problems that carries.

But not with H.R. 6529. It would not just enhance, but “greatly enhance” all of our interests – environmental, energy, economic, and national security.

And wait a minute – national security? There’s a connection between oil and national security, of course. We need oil and other energy sources to maintain our military. BUT, the concern with high energy prices today is about driving our big cars for long distances, not about whether we’ll be able to muster tanks to fend off attacking Canadians. The national security dimension of oil is over-played, and over-played in this bill.

Its promise to fix everything with a snap of the fingers gets H.R. 6529 membership in the “. . . and a pony” club.

Here’s the current vote on the bill. Click to vote, comment, learn more, and edit the wiki article for the bill:

This coming week, the Senate is scheduled to debate S. 3268, The Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act of 2008. It’s intended to prevent excessive price speculation in energy commodities like oil and natural gas, hoping that this would bring prices down. The debate has already begun on WashingtonWatch.com

One commenter on the bill makes the case against:

Speculation helps moderate supply and demand. Speculators, hoping for higher prices at a later date purchase present supplies. This increases the current price and slows current consumption. Later, if the speculator is correct, this prevents shortages and even higher prices. If the speculator is wrong, he loses big bucks and the future price will decline.

Commenter the second says:

This bill is not against all speculation, just the speculation that has no intention of using the product. The speculators having no interest in using the product are ripping everyone off by abusing loopholes in the system. If this bill does what they say, it should restrict speculation and hedging to the ones with a true physical interest in the product. The public should see immediate results.

Now, the second commenter also throws a link to a Web site called Stop Oil Speculation Now. That’s a campaign put together by a bunch of energy-using companies. So maybe commenter number two is just working for that campaign.

In this battle royal of trading policy experts, who comes up short? Who’s got nothing but smoke and mirrors? Judge for yourself. I have my own opinion, but I don’t want to force it down your throat, so I have cleverly concealed the identity of the loser somewhere on this page. (RSS reader? You may have to click.) Search around and you might learn who’s the weak link in this debate.

Here’s the latest voting on S. 3268, The Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act of 2008. Click to vote, comment, learn more, or edit the wiki article about the bill:

I can’t really remember the days when a national speed limit was established. Something about President Carter sitting in front of a fire with a sweater on? I do remember when the national speed limit went away. “Leadfoot Harper,” they called me! (That’s not actually true.)

Obviously, we’ve had energy issues in the past, and we’ve got ‘em now. One of the ideas for getting things under control is limiting the speed at which people can drive. Most cars and trucks use less fuel at lower speeds. So I was interested to see the introduction this week of a national speed limit bill.

H.R. 6458 would establish a national maximum speed limit of 60 miles per hour on highways and 65 miles per hour on parts of the National Highway System outside of urban areas. The bill would withhold highway funds from states that don’t establish and enforce federal maximum speed laws.

Interestingly, the bill requires states to submit data to the Secretary of Transportation, who can ding them for failing to enforce the speed limits they set. So it’s the speed limits of the past, plus monitoring to make sure states aren’t winking at their lead-footed motorists.

What do you say about going back to the future with a national speed limit? Here’s the current vote tally on H.R. 6458. Click to vote, comment, learn more, and edit the wiki article for the bill:

Commenter Nezumi has done a little picking apart of the Pickens Plan.

I would be surprised if Pickens hadn’t thought through the tax implications of his proposal in a way that some would regard as “gaming the system.” But who would begrudge someone for following the incentives set up by the tax system? They are slightly Rube Goldberg, don’tchya know.

So, is the picture to the right a T. Boone Pickens wind farm or his tax strategy?

There are dozens more bills with energy-related tax incentives out there. The Geothermal Heat Pump Development Act of 2007 (Senate version) has been the subject of some intelligent commentary. There two related bills in the House.

Geothermal is pretty cool. We’re not talking about tapping geysers, but making use of the relatively constant temperaturs of earth just a few tens of feet below the surface. What’s the right answer? Should alternative energy stand on its own two economic feet? Or should tax policy promote it?

Here’s the current vote on the Senate version of the Geothermal Heat Pump Development Act of 2007. Click to vote, comment, learn more, and edit the wiki article about the bill:

Politically conservative oil prospector T. Boone Pickens is making a big (ahem . . .) splash with his proposal to generate 20 percent of the country’s electricity by building wind farms from the Canadian border to West Texas.

In a public statement yesterday, he said:

I am calling on the next President and Congress to take immediate action in the first 100 days of the new Administration to do whatever is necessary to make this plan a reality. . . . We are asking the American public to get behind this plan and to help us reduce our dangerous dependency on foreign oil.

The bills in Congress currently that deal with wind power are listed here and they include House and Senate versions of a bill called the Rural Wind Energy Development Act. It’s among several bills that would offer tax credits for wind energy and other renewables.

It’s unknown what legislative changes might be needed to move the Pickens Plan forward, but it may not be much. According to at least one report, he proposes that the private sector finance the investment.

The Pickens Plan Web site features the entertaining(ish), well-produced video embedded above, and the site has lots of social networking features on it.

It’s just one of many, but here’s a look at the voting on the House version of the Rural Wind Energy Development Act. Click to vote, comment, learn more, and edit the wiki article: