Waxman Dethrones Dingell as Chairman

[HuskyCaucasian]

The latter example you give would not. It could raise CONSUMER prices, but not energy costs. In fact, that would end up lowering energy costs.

I'm really more talking about passing along the costs of the buildout onto the consumer. "Fine, you want solar power, you're gonna pay more". Now once it is all installed and they are payed for, the cost may go now. In the long run, it'll be cheaper.

 

I'm not saying this WILL happen, but it could.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm really more talking about passing along the costs of the buildout onto the consumer. "Fine, you want solar power, you're gonna pay more". Now once it is all installed and they are payed for, the cost may go now. In the long run, it'll be cheaper.

 

I'm not saying this WILL happen, but it could.

Yes, that's why I said consumer prices, not energy prices.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

Yes, that's why I said consumer prices, not energy prices.

I guess I didnt see what you meant. I see them as bing the same. Consumer Energy Prices.

 

What did you mean?

[lostfan]

Prices the company pays to get the energy vs. what the company actually charges the consumer.

 

edit: In my experience the average person seems to think that oil companies randomly choose to charge 4 dollars a gallon at the pump, and people who are really dumb think that the manager at the local gas station is gouging, they don't realize that it's the price of crude that affects everything else and the oil companies have to pay higher prices like everyone else. So if a person needs to be to be pissed at someone, be pissed at suppliers of crude.

Edited November 20, 2008 by lostfan

[bmags]

I AM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[StrangeSox]

My numbers are based off a class on energy production I took two years ago, but coal-fired power plants are ridiculously cheap ($/kW) compared to just about anything else. If they regulate them to the point that they either jack up the prices to compensate or are replaced with more expensive alternatives, we'll see higher costs.

 

I just fear that Democrats are going to regulate the energy sector and set energy policy without really analyzing the consequences beyond the current "green" buzzword.

Edited November 20, 2008 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

My numbers are based off a class on energy production I took two years ago, but coal-fired power plants are ridiculously cheap ($/kW) compared to just about anything else. If they regulate them to the point that they either jack up the prices to compensate or are replaced with more expensive alternatives, we'll see higher costs.

 

I just fear that Democrats are going to regulate the energy sector and set energy policy without really analyzing the consequences beyond the current "green" buzzword.

They're ridiculously cheap because of the fact that they don't have to bear the external costs associated with the production of that electricity. Most notably, it's ridiculously cheap because they can release enormous amounts of pollution in to the air without having to pay for that externality. Furthermore, they don't have to pay to deal with most of the issues related to the mining itself, i.e. you can destroy a whole mountaintop in West Virginia to get to a thin coal seam, dump that mountaintop in a river and thus dramatically pollute that river, and you don't have to pay for the cleanup. There are also huge indirect subsidies paid for with coal by the government, things like the funding of railroads, ports, and electric transmission lines, that keep the current ones running.

 

Even without taking in to account the huge environmental costs of coal, depending on who's estimate you read, the reality is that renewables (Wind and Solar) are RAPIDLY catching up to coal on a kwh basis when you factor in the full lifetime of the panel/turbine (most of the costs of those are borne out at the time of installation, whereas coal most of the costs are taken up gradually with time). Depending on who's estimate you read, and frankly how much money we put in to subsidizing the startup costs of a solar construction and installation industry (The more solar you buy, the cheaper it gets), you pretty much hit that tipping point within the next 10 years guaranteed. Even without an appropriate carbon tax.

[southsider2k5]

Prices the company pays to get the energy vs. what the company actually charges the consumer.

 

edit: In my experience the average person seems to think that oil companies randomly choose to charge 4 dollars a gallon at the pump, and people who are really dumb think that the manager at the local gas station is gouging, they don't realize that it's the price of crude that affects everything else and the oil companies have to pay higher prices like everyone else. So if a person needs to be to be pissed at someone, be pissed at suppliers of crude.

 

If people want to pissed at someone, they need to be pissed at themselves. We are the ones who have supported this system for decades now. All the oil companies are doing is feeding our addiction. We are the addicts.

[lostfan]

If people want to pissed at someone, they need to be pissed at themselves. We are the ones who have supported this system for decades now. All the oil companies are doing is feeding our addiction. We are the addicts.

You're preaching to the choir. I chose my words carefully.

[BigSqwert]

If people want to pissed at someone, they need to be pissed at themselves. We are the ones who have supported this system for decades now. All the oil companies are doing is feeding our addiction. We are the addicts.

 

I'm honestly trying to do my part. Ditched the car a couple of years ago and make a strong effort to purchase locally sourced food and goods.

[Cknolls]

You could argue carbon caps would. Also, if there was some sort of an "renewable energy" mandate, it might force companies to invest money in solar or wind. And to afford that, they may have to raise prices.

 

 

Yeah mandates work real well in the health insurance industry, I'm sure they'll be as effective here too.

[BigSqwert]

Yeah mandates work real well in the health insurance industry, I'm sure they'll be as effective here too.

 

What proposals would you like to see with regards to energy policy?

[lostfan]

I'm honestly trying to do my part. Ditched the car a couple of years ago and make a strong effort to purchase locally sourced food and goods.

I wish I could ditch my car but it wouldn't be practical.

[kapkomet]

What proposals would you like to see with regards to energy policy?

DRILL BABY DRILL.

 

 

Not really, but it's funny.

[Cknolls]

What proposals would you like to see with regards to energy policy?

 

 

I like the idea of nat. gas. But the enviro freaks will tie up the development of any substantial deposits; i.e Marcellus Shale deposits. And I'm doing just fine with my gas powered car too thank you.

[southsider2k5]

I'm honestly trying to do my part. Ditched the car a couple of years ago and make a strong effort to purchase locally sourced food and goods.

 

That was definately a generic "we" as in, we as a country, versus pointing the finger at an individual/s here. Hell I am just as guilty as anyone else.

[BigSqwert]

And I'm doing just fine with my gas powered car too thank you.

 

There were a lot of people in the business world in the early 80s that said the same thing about their typewriters.

[EvilMonkey]

There were a lot of people in the business world in the early 80s that said the same thing about their typewriters.

And in the early 80's, if typewriters and the ribbons were suddenly to go up is cost by 500% or more because of government regulations, it wouldhave hurt business in the short and mid term. Would it have hastened the coming of computers? Probably not, as they came about pretty damn fast without government intervention. It's not all or nothing. Drill, AND create new sources. And don't kill coal before you have the new souces online, either.

Edited November 20, 2008 by Alpha Dog

[Balta1701]

Harold Myerson on the Waxman of old times...

Fundamentally, there are two reasons Waxman would be the better chairman of Energy and Commerce. First, he is probably the House's most accomplished legislator in three issue areas that are high on the agendas of the nation and President-elect Barack Obama: universal health care, global warming and enhanced consumer protections (no small matter with a steadily rising percentage of our food and medication ingredients coming from China). On environmental questions, Waxman offers a sharp contrast to Dingell, who has long been the primary opponent of stricter standards for auto emissions and fuel efficiency.

ad_icon

 

Second, Waxman is a legislative genius. Most of his legislative accomplishments came before the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress, when he chaired the health and environment subcommittee of Energy and Commerce. Progressive legislating has been pretty much off the table since then, which is why he shifted focus to Congress's chief investigative committee. Those who have served in Congress for fewer than 14 years weren't around when Waxman greatly strengthened the Clean Air Act and authored the legislation that expanded Medicaid coverage to the poorest children (enlisting Republican abortion-foe Henry Hyde as his partner in the effort). They didn't see Waxman steer to passage the bills that gave rise to the generic drug industry, required uniform nutrition labels on food, heightened standards of care at nursing homes, created screening programs for breast and cervical cancer, provided health care for people with HIV/AIDS, or expanded Medicaid coverage to the working poor.

 

In the midst of the Reagan era's cutbacks, Waxman expanded the number of working poor eligible for Medicaid a stunning 24 times. He consistently won key Republican backing for these regulatory and programmatic expansions. In fact, the Wall Street Journal's editorial page ran a series of articles complaining of "the Waxman state," in which, horror of horrors, businesses were compelled to meet environmental and consumer protection standards. Wyoming Republican Sen. Alan Simpson once emerged from a marathon conference committee meeting and noted, "Henry Waxman is tougher than a boiled owl."

 

Some of Waxman's achievements were to keep bad things from happening. For virtually the entire 1980s, Waxman blocked Dingell and the Reagan administration from weakening auto emission standards. At one point, he blocked a key vote on a bill to debilitate the Clean Air Act by introducing 600 amendments, which he had wheeled into the room in shopping carts. Waxman also led the war on secondhand cigarette smoke. He publicized an obscure EPA report that established secondhand smoke as a carcinogen, uncovered the onetime Philip Morris lab director who had determined that nicotine was addictive, and publicly grilled tobacco company CEOs about their failure to share that fact with the public.

 

By 1994, Robert Greenstein, then, as now, director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, noted: "Waxman elevates to high art the blend of substantive policy knowledge, advocacy of policy improvements and excellence in strategic execution."

[EvilMonkey]

Funny how a secret ballot rtoo remove Dingall is good enough for the dems, but they want so bad to do away with the secret ballot for workers regarding unions. Just sayin.

[Balta1701]

Funny how a secret ballot rtoo remove Dingall is good enough for the dems, but they want so bad to do away with the secret ballot for workers regarding unions. Just sayin.

Yeah, because there were so many people threatening to expel Democrats from the caucus and leave them unemployed if they didn't vote a certain way...totally comparable.

[EvilMonkey]

Yeah, because there were so many people threatening to expel Democrats from the caucus and leave them unemployed if they didn't vote a certain way...totally comparable.

You do realize that you just made my point. Unless there WAS a threat to those that voted the wrong way on Waxman, why the need for a secret vote? Whereas with unionization, there is a very real threat to those that don't vote the right way so they NEED the secret vote. yet dems don't want them to have that. I guess 'do as I say, not as I do' applies here.

[mr_genius]

You do realize that you just made my point. Unless there WAS a threat to those that voted the wrong way on Waxman, why the need for a secret vote? Whereas with unionization, there is a very real threat to those that don't vote the right way so they NEED the secret vote. yet dems don't want them to have that. I guess 'do as I say, not as I do' applies here.

 

The only reason the Unions want a open ballot is so they an use threats and intimidation to get their way. Retribution.

Edited November 21, 2008 by mr_genius

[southsider2k5]

Yeah, because there were so many people threatening to expel Democrats from the caucus and leave them unemployed if they didn't vote a certain way...totally comparable.

 

Because we all know Democrats don't threaten to expell people from their caucus if they don't vote their way...

[Balta1701]

Because we all know Democrats don't threaten to expell people from their caucus if they don't vote their way...

Please, name one who was threatened with expulsion.