There seems to have been some short term federal policies here and there but do we have a strategic, long-term energy policy in this country?

Con_Alma;1454727 wrote:There seems to have been some short term federal policies here and there but do we have a strategic, long-term energy policy in this country?

We've had about 30 over the past few decades. The only one that has worked has been relying on Mr. Market: higher prices encourage conservation and bring more supply online.

Con_Alma;1454727 wrote:There seems to have been some short term federal policies here and there but do we have a strategic, long-term energy policy in this country?

Nope.

Then again it is impossible to really have one because we have a free market economy.

We are drilling at record rates and it hasn't dented energy prices because the Chi-coms are willing to pay more for it than we are. Most people don't even realize we export gasoline even though prices at home at $3.50+ nationally.

We let big oil close down refineries to whittle down spare capacity so that prices can remain high, which is really no different than what OPEC does.

America is not a centrally planned economy, so the idea of a national energy policy is not really realistic.

Our policy is we sell to the highest bidder. Period.

Everything else is just window dressing.

fan_from_texas;1454734 wrote:We've had about 30 over the past few decades. The only one that has worked has been relying on Mr. Market: higher prices encourage conservation and bring more supply online.

?????

Really.

Do we have one in place now? ...a long term comprehensive energy policy?

IggyPride00;1454739 wrote:Nope.

Then again it is impossible to really have one because we have a free market economy.

We are drilling at record rates and it hasn't dented energy prices because the Chi-coms are willing to pay more for it than we are. Most people don't even realize we export gasoline even though prices at home at $3.50+ nationally.

We let big oil close down refineries to whittle down spare capacity so that prices can remain high, which is really no different than what OPEC does.

America is not a centrally planned economy, so the idea of a national energy policy is not really realistic.

Our policy is we sell to the highest bidder. Period.

Everything else is just window dressing.

That's what I thought. We are but one piece of the world market.

Con_Alma;1454742 wrote:?????

Really.

Do we have one in place now? ...a long term comprehensive energy policy?

I'm on my phone so can't type a missive right now. But every president since Nixon has rolled out a "comprehensive" energy plan, which generally, rather than come to brass tacks with reality, rely on some sort of Apollo program technological panacea to provide low-cost energy independence. So far, those policies have all failed.

I'm not sure why we need a national energy policy or even what it would look like.

IggyPride00;1454739 wrote:Nope.

Then again it is impossible to really have one because we have a free market economy.

We are drilling at record rates and it hasn't dented energy prices because the Chi-coms are willing to pay more for it than we are. Most people don't even realize we export gasoline even though prices at home at $3.50+ nationally.

we export very little of our finished supply. About 1/3 of one refinery's daily production per day. The majority of petroleum exports are other products.

We let big oil close down refineries to whittle down spare capacity so that prices can remain high, which is really no different than what OPEC does.

the majority have shut down due to either union labor disputes or government fines. These refineries either have to shut down for a long period of time to upgrade to meet regulations, constantly pay fines, or close up shop. The government will NOT permit the building a new refinery even if it is just replacing

Our policy is we sell to the highest bidder. Period.

we? No, private companies sell to the highest bidder

fan_from_texas;1454779 wrote:I'm on my phone so can't type a missive right now. But every president since Nixon has rolled out a "comprehensive" energy plan, which generally, rather than come to brass tacks with reality, rely on some sort of Apollo program technological panacea to provide low-cost energy independence. So far, those policies have all failed.

I'm not sure why we need a national energy policy or even what it would look like.

Sorry. I took your post as if we have had several national energy policies.

We may not need one but I would suggest it's worth discussing that a true long-term throttle of energy could be a national security issue. I don't know what it might look like either which is why I asked if we had one. I would imagine it would be pretty invasive of functioning in the free market....not that the fed regs in place now don't impact such activities.

Con_Alma;1454788 wrote:Sorry. I took your post as if we have had several national energy policies.

We may not need one but I would suggest it's worth discussing that a true long-term throttle of energy could be a national security issue. I don't know what it might look like either which is why I asked if we had one. I would imagine it would be pretty invasive of functioning in the free market....not that the fed regs in place now don't impact such activities.

Every administration since Nixon has rolled out its plan for energy independence. I'm not sure what a comprehensive plan would look like beyond what we currently have.

fan_from_texas;1454813 wrote:Every administration since Nixon has rolled out its plan for energy independence. I'm not sure what a comprehensive plan would look like beyond what we currently have.

Do we do or don't we have a comprehensive plan? ...one that steers current activities for long term viability with respects to energy availability?

You say that every administration has rolled one out but that you don't know what one might even look like.

Con_Alma;1454817 wrote:Do we do or don't we have a comprehensive plan? ...one that steers current activities for long term viability with respects to energy availability?

You say that every administration has rolled one out but that you don't know what one might even look like.

We have plans in place that are intended to steer current activities for long term viability with respect to energy availability. We've had dozens of those plans articulated since the 1970s, and myriad legislation passed to implement them.

I guess it depends on what you mean by a comprehensive plan. I mean, to the extent we're a market economy, it's not particularly accurate to say that we have a comprehensive plan for anything. To the extent we do have plans termed by politicians to be comprehensive, those plans result in legislation that is passed by Congress. With a change of Congress or administration, we get a "new" comprehensive plan that adds to everything already existing. There have been perhaps 100 or more energy laws passed in the last few decades, many of them quite significant, all of which are argued by the sitting President to be a comprehensive plan. Off the top of my head, from Project Independence to PURPA, NGPA, NEPA, CAA, PUHCA, EPAct, EISA, the stimulus package . . . the list goes on.

I guess my point is that it's not entirely clear everyone agrees on the problem, nor is it clear what the range of solutions would be. There are a lot of definitional problems before even beginning to come up with a solution. E.g., when you say, "comprehensive plan," what do you mean by comprehensive? Wide-ranging? Honored from administration to administration? Relating to every aspect of the energy industry? Are you thinking primarily with regard to oil and gas, or to electricity as well? Do you mean something that would start over from scratch, or something that builds on our hundreds of energy laws currently around? Are you including "effective" within your definition of comprehensive?

Further, when you talk about national security concerns, what specifically do you have in mind? What's the problem that you propose we discuss a bunch of additional legislation to solve?

I am aware that we have plans. They tend to be reactive, peice part legislative actions.

I understand that a true comprehensive plan ensuring energery viability would drastically impact the free market.

My question was is therer a clear comprehensive plan existing that lays out the efforts of seeking energy security inclusive of what we have in place and what we may be in need of.

fan_from_texas;1454840 wrote:...

Further, when you talk about national security concerns, what specifically do you have in mind? What's the problem that you propose we discuss a bunch of additional legislation to solve?

I have not suggested we are in need of a bunch of legislation to address this.

I have stated a lack of energy could be a national security issue and asked if we had a comprehensive energy plan.

Con_Alma;1454851 wrote:I am aware that we have plans. They tend to be reactive, peice part legislative actions.

I guess I'm not clear on what you mean by comprehensive then. Certainly, the politicians who proposed their piece-part legislative actions did so as part of what they perceived to be a comprehensive energy plan. E.g., look at the headers in 1978 Carter legislation, or in Nixon's "Project Independence," or in the first Bush's EPAct, or in W's EPAct/PUHCA '05. All of them argued that they were passing comprehensive energy legislation that would resolve these problems into the future.

My question was is therer a clear comprehensive plan existing that lays out the efforts of seeking energy security inclusive of what we have in place and what we may be in need of.

Not in a single piece of legislation. It's spread throughout a number of places.

Con_Alma;1454857 wrote:I have not suggested we are in need of a bunch of legislation to address this.

I have stated a lack of energy could be a national security issue and asked if we had a comprehensive energy plan.

I didn't say that you suggested we are in need of a bunch of legislation. I asked what the problem was that you were proposing we discussing a bunch of additional legislation to solve. Presumably, our discussions could result in no additional legislation being proposed.

A lack of energy could be a national security issue, as could a lack of water, or a lack of oxygen, or a lack of pretty much anything. Our energy costs in general have been very low for a very long time, and our energy supplies, in general, are currently huge.

When you say energy, are you referring specifically to oil? Or do you mean something broader? On the broader front, we have plenty of energy reserves. On the oil front, we have some reserves, but the market itself is doing a good job reducing consumption and bringing more supply online. It's not clear that there is anything that could possibly be done economically that would remove our need for oil.

I have said, in agreement with you, that I don't know what a comprehensive plan might look like. One possibility might be similar to a corporate rolling marketing plan whereby the potential needs and availibility of the future are defined along with the current national activites inclusive of it creation of potential deficiencies and wyas of moving towards full availibility.

A plan does not need to be legislation. Legislation may or may not be the result.

I think through your posts you have kind of let me know that we do not have a comprehnsive energy policy or plan that we are functioning from.

Con_Alma;1454874 wrote:I have said, in agreement with you, that I don't know what a comprehensive plan might look like. One possibility might be similar to a corporate rolling marketing plan whereby the potential needs and availibility of the future are defined along with the current national activites inclusive of it creation of potential deficiencies and wyas of moving towards full availibility.

I believe the DOE already does this through the EIA.

fan_from_texas;1454870 wrote:I didn't say that you suggested we are in need of a bunch of legislation. ..

I didn't say you did.

fan_from_texas;1454870 wrote:... I asked what the problem was that you were proposing we discussing a bunch of additional legislation to solve. ...

I stated I am not necessarily proposing a bunch of additional legislation

fan_from_texas;1454870 wrote:...Presumably, our discussions could result in no additional legislation being proposed. ...

Agreed.

fan_from_texas;1454870 wrote:...A lack of energy could be a national security issue, as could a lack of water, or a lack of oxygen, or a lack of pretty much anything. ...

Agree. It was but one reason I asked if we had a comprehensive energy plan.

fan_from_texas;1454870 wrote:...Our energy costs in general have been very low for a very long time, and our energy supplies, in general, are currently huge. ...

That's great so long as price is the only influence on supply. Aren't there other factors??? ...geopolitical factors?

fan_from_texas;1454870 wrote:...When you say energy, are you referring specifically to oil? Or do you mean something broader? ...

Comprehensive would imply everything reasonable.

fan_from_texas;1454877 wrote:I believe the DOE already does this through the EIA.

That's my question in a nutshell.

Con_Alma;1454886 wrote:That's my question in a nutshell.

Great. In that case, yes, we have a comprehensive energy plan.

fan_from_texas;1454888 wrote:Great. In that case, yes, we have a comprehensive energy plan.

See, that was simple!

LJ has the correct handle on all of this...the current price run up is a local issue. Two large refineries that provide gasoline for this area were shut down last week for maintainance. The real problem we are having is not supply of oil, but lack of refining capacity.....and LJ is right, the problem is government regulation that prevents new refineries from being built.

the problem is government regulation that prevents new refineries from being built.

That's an easy excuse, but the fact is they have been closing them more because it is financially beneficial from a price standpoint than anything having to do with government regulation.

Fact is by keeping the supply capacity so razor tight they guarantee themselves an inevitable windfall a few times a year.

Start adding more capacity, and the price and margins go down.

There is nothing illegal about it, but it sucks for consumers.

we export very little of our finished supply. About 1/3 of one refinery's daily production per day. The majority of petroleum exports are other products.

If cars are getting more fuel efficient, shouldn’t that lower demand and push prices lower?

Higher-mileage cars have indeed reduced the amount of gasoline consumed in the U.S., which peaked in 2007 and is expected to continue falling, even as the economy improves. The economic recovery is further cutting demand as consumers return to auto showrooms and trade in their gas guzzling clunkers for high-efficiency models.
If all the gasoline produced in the U.S. stayed here, the “surplus” should push prices lower. But it doesn’t. U.S. refiners are increasingly exporting gasoline and diesel fuel to Central and South America, where demand from those developing economies continues to rise.
Last year, U.S. refiners exported more than 15 percent of overall production, more than triple the amount shipped overseas in 2007.

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/whats-behind-spike-pump-prices-where-you-are-6C10245348

You might want to re-check your facts, we are exporting far far more than 1/3 of one refiner's production daily.

Unless you can point me to a refinery capable of doing 10 million barrels a day, in which case I apologize.

People do need to get more diligent though, because as we speak the big oil lobby is pressuring Congress to change the laws on exporting more natural gas (through liquifying it). That way we can see the price rise a good bit here at home and throw away the savings Americans have seen on their energy/heating bills the past few years.

Lower gas and energy prices would spark an economic boom in this country because the rest of the world can't compete with our resources. Instead we are negating the positive effects of the boom by exporting away what would be lower prices.

Not sure what it's going to take to be the wake up call, but the world needs to get off of gasoline.