What's the Issue?
If you want to be a serious contender for the U.S. Presidency, you’ve got to have a robust collection of energy policy ideas. Energy use is a major contributor to climate change, it complicates our relationship to countries linked to terrorism, and energy prices have a huge effect on the economy. However, while energy policy has already gotten a fair amount of attention in the 2008 political season, most people don’t know that energy policy is really about two largely separate types of energy: that used for transportation and that used for electricity.


Transportation Fuels

Most transportation fuels come from refining crude oil into different products. Crude oil can be refined into gasoline for automobiles, jet fuel for airplanes, kerosene, and other products. Most of the controversy about these fuels revolves around the Location of the crude oil and the refineries that process it. There is also controversy about what Alternative Fuels should be pursued. Finally, there is a question of what Efficiency Mandates should be introduced to reduce the use of transportation fuels.


Location

A major problem with transportation fuels is that the Earth’s largest reserves of crude oil are located in politically unstable regions. Many argue that the money Americans spend on gasoline supports unsavory political regimes, including terrorists. Some argue that we should use our own oil reserves, even if they are located on federally protected and/or fragile lands such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and the Outer Continental Shelf.  Conservationists argue that the environmental costs of drilling outweigh the small benefit that this limited supply would provide, and that public policy should focus on conservation instead (see below).
 

In addition to the supply of crude oil, some people say that there is also a shortage of oil refineries, which limits the amount of crude oil that can be converted into usable gasoline. Building an oil refinery requires a fairly complicated series of permits and environmental reviews. Some candidates want to streamline this process and eliminate environmental regulations because they believe that it will increase supply and suppress gas prices.


Alternatives

Corn-based ethanol has received a lot of press as an alternative to gasoline, in no small part because Iowa, a major corn farming state, has a lot of clout in the presidential primary season. However, corn is among the least efficient crops that can be converted into transportation fuels and may actually result in a net energy loss (more energy goes into growing the corn and converting it into ethanol than comes from its use as a fuel). Other crops, particularly sugarcane, are much more efficient but receive less attention as biofuels. Cars that can run on either ethanol or gasoline are called “flex-fuel” vehicles. Other alternatives are electric vehicles, which are maturing rapidly, and fuel cell vehicles, which are much further from economic viability. Neither of these technologies has been discussed much this political season.


Coal-to-liquid fuel is an emerging technology that involves converting coal into a liquid form so that it can be used as a transportation fuel. The U.S. has an ample supply of coal, so this kind of fuel is attractive because it doesn’t involve supporting foreign regimes. However, coal as a transportation fuel emits far more greenhouse gases than conventional gasoline.


Efficiency Mandates

Efficiency is also a major political issue. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards have been in place since 1975, but haven’t changed in twenty years. Some candidates advocate raising the standards—basically increasing the miles/gallon a car is required to have—to reduce dependence on imported and polluting sources of fuels. Others argue that raising standards will hurt the already ailing U.S. auto companies that have relied on sales of large trucks and S.U.V.’s in recent years. The U.S. Senate recently voted to increase standards, but that bill has not yet become law.


Electricity

The majority of electrical energy is produced using domestic fuels, primarily coal, but also nuclear energy, natural gas, hydro, and renewable energies like wind and solar power. If the U.S. wanted to achieve “energy independence” tomorrow with regard to electrical power, that wouldn’t be too difficult because little of today’s electrical energy is produced using imported fuels.

The states are traditionally responsible for regulating electricity—not the federal government. The main controversies on the federal level are environmental. Nuclear energy does not contribute to climate change and has a perfect safety record in the United States; however, the question of what to do with the waste products has yet to be solved and some are concerned that nuclear power plants could be used by terrorists to create a dirty bomb. Coal is cheap and plentiful in the United States but contributes heavily to climate change. The term “clean coal” is misleading; there are no current economically viable technologies that can produce electricity from coal without significant emissions of greenhouse gases.

Most of the candidates for the President in 2008 advocate the use of renewable electricity in some form; the controversy is largely how to encourage its use. One popular tool is a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) that would require utilities companies to purchase a certain percentage of their electricity from renewable sources. Many states already have standards, but there is no federal standard. Some candidates advocate creating a national standard, but some utilities argue that an RPS would increase electricity prices.


Why Do I Care?

With energy and the environment being a hot topic these days, changes are bound to happen. And their effects will be felt in U.S. foreign relations, security policy, and by consumers at both the pumps and car dealerships. Our generation in particular will likely see major changes in the way we procure and use energy-- and where we go from here has the remarkable potential to re-shape the political, environmental, and economic landscape.


What are the Candidates Saying?


Biden’s energy policy stresses conservation and the exploration of alternative fuels. He recently voted for a large increase in CAFE standards for cars and trucks, but he also opposed such increases twice in the last five years. While he supports the production of ethanol, he acknowledges that corn isn’t the most efficient form. He would require all cars to run, and all gas stations to offer, alternative fuels by 2016. He is no friend to the oil industry, having opposed drilling in ANWR and in the Gulf of Mexico, and because he seeks to repeal tax breaks and subsidies for oil companies. As for electricity, he supports nuclear energy and research into renewables. While he supported a 10% RPS in 2005, he historically has opposed national standards. He hasn’t taken a clear position on coal, but as he advocates a carbon cap-and-trade system, coal is unlikely to come out as a major ally.  He co-sponsored (with 19 others) S. 309, the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2007, which would require reducing emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.  This bill has not left committee. 

Sam Brownback (no longer a candidate)
Brownback would subsidize research and production and eliminate regulatory hurdles in pursuit of energy independence and lowered gas prices. With regard to transportation fuels, he has consistently opposed increasing CAFE standards and voted in 2002 to eliminate CAFE standards altogether. However, he recently introduced a bill that would provide tax benefits for fuel efficient vehicles and for research. He supports drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and in ANWR and advocates increasing the availability of domestic oil wherever possible. He cosponsored an amendment to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that requires an increase in the ethanol and biodiesel content of gasoline by 2012. As for electricity, he supports nuclear energy and the exploration of carbon sequestration technologies for coal power plants. He opposes caps on carbon emission.

Hillary Clinton
Clinton would increase production, mandate conservation, and subsidize new technologies. She has consistently voted to increase CAFE standards and recently became a supporter of ethanol after having opposed it in 2002. She would double tax breaks for hybrid and clean diesel vehicles and compensate carmakers for the costs of achieving higher fuel economy standards. Through taxes on oil companies’ profits, she would create a strategic energy fund that would fund research into alternative energy. She has not championed nuclear energy but would allocate $3.5 billion towards R&D for clean coal, and she supports an RPS of 20% by 2020. The oil and gas industries contributed nearly $80,000 in political donations by April 2007, second only to Bill Richardson in the field of Democrats.  She co-sponsored (with 11 others) the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007 (S. 280) which would require a 30% reduction of carbon emissions from 2000 levels by 2050.

Senator Dodd’s energy plan is among the most comprehensive of those released thus far by presidential candidates. He would provide incentives for clean technologies while mandating efficiency increases and taxing carbon emissions. With regard to transportation fuels, he proposed a 50 MPG CAFE standard by 2017. He would provide incentives for fuel-cells, gas stations that provide biofuels, and high efficiency vehicles, and has specified that biofuels like ethanol should only be supported if producing it reduces carbon emissions. With regard to electricity, he would increase efficiency standards for consumer products and supports a 20% RPS by 2020. He would require that all new coal plants capture and sequester carbon dioxide and, though not a supporter of nuclear energy, says it should remain on the table. He proposes a corporate carbon tax, the revenues of which would fund research and implementation of renewable technologies.


John Edwards
Edwards’ energy plan is also among the most developed of the presidential candidates. Edwards stresses regulation and the development of alternative sources of energy. He would create an energy fund by selling permits for greenhouse gas emissions and by eliminating subsidies and tax exemptions for oil and gas companies. The fund would then subsidize home efficiency, R&D for alternative transportation fuels and renewable energy, and economic assistance for carbon-intensive industries forced into transition. He opposes drilling in ANWR, preferring instead to mandate the availability of ethanol and increase CAFE standards to 40 MPG by 2016. As for electricity, he would introduce a 25% RPS by 2025. He says nuclear energy is off the table until the waste issue is resolved.

Rudy Giuliani
Of the most prominent candidates, Giuliani has said the least about his energy goals. He would emphasize production of domestic fuels by expediting permitting for oil refineries and allowing increased exploration off the coasts. He supports ethanol as an alternative fuel and would subsidize hybrid vehicles. He has not taken a clear position on drilling in ANWR, increasing fuel economy standards, or conservation measures, but has said that he supports clean coal and thinks wind and solar energy technology is not ready for widespread implementation. His position on energy issues is complicated by his business interests; a law firm in which he is a partner, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, has served as lobbyist and legal defense for many coal and energy companies. As of April 2007, he accepted more than twice the amount of campaign money from oil and gas companies than any other candidate. He does not mention climate change or offer an energy policy on his website.

Mike Gravel
Gravel’s approach to energy policy stresses conservation and environmentally sensitive technology. He advocates adopting the European fuel economy standard, which is approximately 40 MPG, and would build a nationwide high speed rail system. As US Senator of Alaska in the 1970’s, however, he pushed through the construction of the Alaska Oil Pipeline and opposed the creation of several protected refuges in Alaska, including ANWR. Today he does not advocate opening the refuge for oil drilling. He has not taken a clear position on ethanol or clean coal. With regard to electricity, he was an early and vocal opponent of nuclear energy. He believes that his proposed cap on carbon emissions would automatically provide incentives for renewable energy and does not advocate adding taxes (on carbon or anything else).

Mike Huckabee
Although Huckabee’s website says that his first act as President will be to send Congress a plan for energy independence, he hasn’t said how he would go about achieving it. His statements suggest vague general support for energy conservation, clean coal, renewable energy, and ethanol. He has come out in support of nuclear energy, drilling offshore and in ANWR, and government funding to develop domestic energy supplies. He has not articulated a position on fuel economy standard or carbon caps, but supports voluntary partnerships to reduce carbon emissions.

Duncan Hunter
Hunter stresses domestic oil drilling and the reduction of government regulation. He voted against raising fuel economy standards in 2005 and against the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007. His voting history has been friendly to the energy industry, having voted to streamline the permitting process for oil refineries, to protect oil and gas exploration subsidies, and to allow drilling offshore and in ANWR. On the environmental side, he supports incentives for alternative fuels (although he hasn’t articulated specifics). As for electrical energy, he supports nuclear energy and eliminating all taxes on alternative energy sources. He hasn’t yet articulated a position on clean coal or carbon caps, but voted against starting implementation of the Kyoto Protocol . He doesn’t discuss energy policy on his campaign website.

Dennis Kucinich
Rep. Kucinich’s approach to energy policy stresses environmentally sensitive ways of producing and using energy. He has consistently voted for increases in CAFE standards and incentives for renewable fuels. He also has voted against subsidies for oil & gas companies and drilling in protected areas such as offshore or in ANWR. He opposes nuclear energy. He advocates a 20% RPS by 2010 and would repeal current incentives for non-renewable fuels. He supports the Kyoto Protocol and co-sponsored legislation which would achieve 15% reductions in greenhouse gasses by 2020 and 80% reductions by 2050.

John McCain
While Sen. McCain has introduced climate change legislation, he also has stressed diversification of fuel resources, including carbon-intensive fuels. He calls for increased exploration for domestic oil reserves and for research into coal gasification, and recently became a supporter of corn ethanol. He has a split record on increasing CAFE standards, voting for smaller increases but against more ambitious ones. His statements suggest support for fuel cells, biodiesel from waste, natural gas, and plug-in hybrids. He supports nuclear energy and clean coal but hasn’t thrown his weight behind renewable energy, having voted to defund R&D in 1999 and against nationwide RPS goals in 2002 and 2005. He voted against implementing the Kyoto Protocol but was lead sponsor of the Climate Stewardship Act, which would reduce emissions by 15% by 2020 and 65% by 2050.

Barack Obama
Senator Obama focuses on energy conservation, diversifying energy sources, and tax incentives to ease the cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. He would increase fuel economy standards 4% each year, implement a renewable diesel standard, and provide tax breaks for users of clean transportation fuels. He would require that all cars be flex-fuel within a decade and that oil companies reduce the carbon content of their fuels by 10% by 2020. He supports clean coal, nuclear energy, and a strong national RPS. He would establish a cap and trade system for greenhouse gases, the revenue of which would be used for R&D and to help industries and individuals who are hurt by the limits.


Ron Paul
Representative Paul opposes nearly all energy regulation and called for the end to all subsidies and special benefits for energy companies. However, he voted against terminating oil and gas exploration subsidies in 2007. Generally he is a free-market believer, having voted for expediting permitting of refineries and drilling offshore and in ANWR. Similarly, he voted against raising fuel economy standards, incentives for alternative fuels, implementing the Kyoto Protocol, and the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007. He supports nuclear energy and has called for the repeal of the gas tax. He does not offer a position on climate change and doesn’t discuss energy policy on his campaign website.

Bill Richardson
Richardson served as Energy Secretary in the Clinton Administration and enters the current race with an energy policy that aims to reduce both greenhouse gas emissions and imports of oil. He advocates a 50 MPG fuel economy standard as well as a 30% reduction in the carbon content of gasoline, both by 2020. Unlike most Democrats, he supports drilling in ANWR. As for electricity, he proposes strict building efficiency measures, and increasing production using nuclear energy, clean coal, and renewable energy. His climate plan would reduce emissions 90% by 2050 through the sale of carbon permits and other government mandates. He has taken more donations from the oil and gas industry than any other Democratic candidate.

Mitt Romney
Romney’s statements on energy policy are quite friendly to the oil and gas industry, and those industries have rewarded him with more campaign contributions than any other candidate except Rudy Giuliani. He has called for energy independence and would achieve it by drilling in protected areas such as ANWR and the outer continental shelf, subsidizing ethanol, and supporting the development of Coal-to-Liquid fuels. He opposes increasing CAFE standards unless it is part of a broader energy bill. He has offered vague statements in support of developing alternative energy and promotes the idea of efficiency through technology in homes and automobiles. As governor of Massachusetts he elected to not have the state participate in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and has not articulated a climate policy.

Tom Tancredo
Tancredo’s energy proposals are very friendly to the oil and gas industry. He has voted to expedite permitting for new oil refineries, to allow drilling in protected areas such as offshore and in ANWR, and voted against removing oil and gas exploration subsidies. He voted against raising fuel economy standards in 2001, against implementing the Kyoto Protocol, and against incentives for alternative fuels. He supports Coal-to-Liquid fuels and has offered vague support for ethanol. He does not offer a climate policy and suggests that climate change might be a natural phenomenon. He does not address energy, climate change or the environment on his campaign website.

Fred Thompson
Though Thompson hasn’t yet put forward an energy platform, his voting record as a former U.S. Senate casts some light on his philosophy towards energy policy. Thompson supported drilling in ANWR and voted to terminate CAFE standards. He hasn’t made any campaign statements about alternative transportation fuels, energy independence, or gas prices. As for electricity, he voted to defund wind and solar R&D in 1999. He hasn’t taken a position on coal or energy efficiency. He suggests that global warming is a natural phenomenon and not a cause for concern.