Bush Plan To Reduce Prices At The Pump

April 25, 2006 President Bush released a plan intended to lower escalating gas prices. The President's Four-Part Plan To Confront High Gasoline Prices Includes:
1. Ensuring That American Consumers Are Treated Fairly At The Gas Pump.
2. Promoting Greater Fuel Efficiency.
3. Boosting Our Supplies Of Crude Oil And Gasoline.

• The President Is Directing EPA Administrator Steve Johnson To Use All His Available Authority To Grant Waivers That Would Relieve Critical Fuel Supply Shortages - As He Did After Last Year's Hurricanes. Under Federal air quality laws, some areas of the country are required to use a fuel blend called reformulated gasoline. This year, we are undergoing a rapid transition in the primary ingredient in reformulated gas - from MTBE to ethanol. State and local officials in the Northeast and in Texas worry that supplies could run low. To ensure that there are not needless restrictions to get gasoline to the pump, the EPA should be able to meet the request of officials seeking to waive local fuel requirements on a temporary basis.
• The President Is Also Directing Administrator Johnson To Bring Together Governors To Form A New Task Force To Confront The Larger Problem Of Too Many Localized Fuel Blends (Boutique Fuels).
• The President Calls On Congress To Allow Refiners To Make Minor Modifications To Their Refineries Without Having To Endure Years Of Delays In The Approval Process, And The President Also Calls On Congress To Simplify And Speed Up The Permitting Process For Refinery Construction And Expansion.
• Congress Needs To Send The President A Bill This Year Authorizing Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) Exploration.

4. Investing In Alternatives To Oil, So That We Can Dramatically Reduce Our Demand For Gasoline. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060425-2.html)

I fully support investigating corporate malfeasance, but why relax hard-won environmental standards? Why are Boutique Fuels threatening? Oh, I suppose they are intimidating to the dominating big fuel companies. But I thought our democracy was based in our full embrace of capitalism, and isn’t competition the foundation of all good capitalistic democracies? Uh oh, look-out, here comes the all too familiar “cut bureaucratic red-tape” and “ANWR” debate.

Why the bureaucracy surrounding fuel formulations and refineries? I don’t know anything about these topics, but I can only imagine how greedy business owners would take advantage of lax policies. Do you really want to be breathing the exhaust of vehicles pumped up on rarely tested fuels?

And now, let’s discuss the infamous ANWR. Why do we need to spoil Alaska’s Arctic Refuge for oil that will not solve our current or future energy problems? Senator Leahy asks you to consider the following:

• Recent assessments indicate that the 1002 area of ANWR probably holds roughly 3.2 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil (at ~$22/barrel) (USGS, 1998). By contrast, the United States uses more than 19 million barrels per day (DOE, 2000a), which is about 7 billion barrels per year. Spread over many years of production, ANWR oil would not significantly increase available oil resources, nor would it greatly reduce the need for imported oil.
• Oil production from ANWR would not begin until 7-12 years after Congressional approval (DOE, 2000b), so it would have no effect on current supplies and prices of oil and gasoline.
  The price of oil is determined by the global market. The U.S. produces 9% of the world's oil (DOE, 1999) and holds less than 3% of the world's oil reserves (DOE, 2000c). A small increase in domestic production would not significantly affect the price of oil on the global market, nor would it decrease the price of gasoline or heating oil in the U.S.
• Alaskan oil does not make its way to the Northeast United States. Instead, it is mostly transported to the West Coast or exported to Asia (GAO, 1999). ANWR oil would have no effect on the supply and price of home heating oil in Northeast states like Vermont.
  California generates less than 1% of its electricity from oil (DOE, 2000d). The corresponding number for the Unites States is only 3% (DOE, 2000a). ANWR oil would have no effect on California's ongoing electricity crisis, nor would it significantly affect electricity supplies elsewhere in the U.S.
• The United States uses roughly two-thirds of its petroleum for transportation, primarily in motor vehicles (DOE, 2000a). In the long term, a modest increase in vehicle fuel efficiency could save far more oil than ANWR could ever produce (NRDC, 2001). (http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/environment/anwr.html)