Energy Policy Reform Act

[Democratic Hawk]

Aye

'Hawk'

[Yates]

Aye.

Secretary Bono,

Nuclear energy yields great benefits.  Producing a safer form of it will take years, if not decades, but the research must begin now.

Yates

[frenger]

Aye.

Secretary Bono,

Nuclear energy yields great benefits.  Producing a safer form of it will take years, if not decades, but the research must begin now.

Yates

Nuclear power already is safe. THere were only ever two accidents, and they were both human error.
And I don't see how from "research must begin now" can follow that atlasian taxpayers must pay for insurance for existing plants.

[CheeseWhiz]

Nay

Secretary Bono,

Nuclear energy yields great benefits.  Producing a safer form of it will take years, if not decades, but the research must begin now.

Yates

Senator Yates, this amendment has nothing to do with the research portion of the bill; it is about removing the section that would repeal the Price-Anderson Act.

[Peter]

If the senators won't read it, at least consider this--if nuclear power is really as safe as it is claimed to be--which I believe it is--what is the need for this federal scheme? It would seem that nuclear companies would easily find in the market place insurance politices to fit their needs.
If it's not really that secure, then why are we protecting it in the first place?

This is a red herring - the Price-Anderson Act already requires nuclear operators to purchase as much liability insurance as is available on the market. Thing is that a nuclear accident might well cause damage that exceeds the amount insured, and this is an occurence that would affect many, many people - we have to insure that they would have protection in the event that a nuclear accident totally wipes out an operator (financially, as opposed to physically).

You point to the fact that incidents have only been caused by human error in the past - I have to ask: So what? Do you have any evidence to suggest that humans have a lesser ability to make mistakes than they used to?

Aye on the Amendment

[frenger]

You point to the fact that incidents have only been caused by human error in the past - I have to ask: So what? Do you have any evidence to suggest that humans have a lesser ability to make mistakes than they used to?

Price-Anderson act only covers "no fault" scenarios. It was't used on Three Mile Island.

[MasterJedi]

This amendment has passed.

[MasterJedi]

If nobody has any other amendments or debate before 4pm CST I'll open the final vote.

[Peter]

Question to the Secretary regarding Section 3:

Obviously selling the SPR is going to have an impact on the price of oil - you dump some 700 million barrels of oil onto the market, its going to have an effect on oil prices and therefore I have inflationary concerns as people move to buy up oil quickly at a cheap price.

My questions are:
1. Do you share my concerns?
2. If you do, what do you intend to do about them?

[frenger]

Question to the Secretary regarding Section 3:

Obviously selling the SPR is going to have an impact on the price of oil - you dump some 700 million barrels of oil onto the market, its going to have an effect on oil prices and therefore I have inflationary concerns as people move to buy up oil quickly at a cheap price.

My questions are:
1. Do you share my concerns?
2. If you do, what do you intend to do about them?

Who's to say we're going to sell it at a cheap price?
I plan on a phased out sale, at market prices.

[Peter]

You of all people should understand the principles of supply and demand - even if you were going to sell at the present oil price, the rest of the oil market would react to the increased supply by cutting their prices so as to allow them to continue selling the volumes that they need to.

What time period do you plan to sell over?

[frenger]

You of all people should understand the principles of supply and demand - even if you were going to sell at the present oil price, the rest of the oil market would react to the increased supply by cutting their prices so as to allow them to continue selling the volumes that they need to.

What time period do you plan to sell over?

I don't see how a little downwards fluctuation is significant. THe oil stored away only is enough for 56 days of US imports. A drop in the bucket of the global oil market.

About 4 to 6 months.

[Peter]

I don't see how a little downwards fluctuation is significant. THe oil stored away only is enough for 56 days of US imports. A drop in the bucket of the global oil market.

Given that the world drinks an average of 84 million barrels a day, making just over 30 billion barrels a year, I would hardly call 700 million barrels or 2.5% of the global oil demand a "drop in the bucket" - it is going to have consequences.

In an effort to contain the inflationary pressure of this move, I propose the following amendment which will add a new clause to Section 3:

2. In selling oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the Secretary of the Treasury shall sell no more than 50 million barrels in any 28 day period.

[The Duke]

I hardly ever interject here these days, but I would suggest that not only won't this move be inflationary, it will actually prevent higher inflation.  As oil prices rise the cost of producing and selling goods rises.  This forces prices upwards.  This is called cost-push inflation, the cost of input goods rises pushing the cost of consumer goods upwards.  A move to release the SPR would depress oil prices, holding down the cost of producing and moving goods.  By not releasing the SPR, oil and gas prices will keep rising.  By releasing the SPR, oil prices will stay stable or perhaps even drop a bit in the short run.  Far from causing more inflation, it's more likely that this move would prevent cost-push inflation this summer.

[frenger]

I hardly ever interject here these days, but I would suggest that not only won't this move be inflationary, it will actually prevent higher inflation.  As oil prices rise the cost of producing and selling goods rises.  This forces prices upwards.  This is called cost-push inflation, the cost of input goods rises pushing the cost of consumer goods upwards.  A move to release the SPR would depress oil prices, holding down the cost of producing and moving goods.  By not releasing the SPR, oil and gas prices will keep rising.  By releasing the SPR, oil prices will stay stable or perhaps even drop a bit in the short run.  Far from causing more inflation, it's more likely that this move would prevent cost-push inflation this summer.

Exactly.

[CheeseWhiz]

I hardly ever interject here these days, but I would suggest that not only won't this move be inflationary, it will actually prevent higher inflation.  As oil prices rise the cost of producing and selling goods rises.  This forces prices upwards.  This is called cost-push inflation, the cost of input goods rises pushing the cost of consumer goods upwards.  A move to release the SPR would depress oil prices, holding down the cost of producing and moving goods.  By not releasing the SPR, oil and gas prices will keep rising.  By releasing the SPR, oil prices will stay stable or perhaps even drop a bit in the short run.  Far from causing more inflation, it's more likely that this move would prevent cost-push inflation this summer.

That's what I thought, but I've never been very good at economics, so I kept quiet

[MasterJedi]

I hereby open up the vote on this amendment. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

In an effort to contain the inflationary pressure of this move, I propose the following amendment which will add a new clause to Section 3:

2. In selling oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the Secretary of the Treasury shall sell no more than 50 million barrels in any 28 day period.

[MasterJedi]

Aye

[Keystone Phil]

We need to keep a check on the Secretary when it comes to selling our oil - Aye.

[CheeseWhiz]

Since Ford has already pointed out that this won’t inflate prices, I don’t really see why we need this.  I could be convinced to change my vote if someone wants to try, but for now I’m voting Nay.

[WMS]

Aye on the previous amendment, for the record.

Currently Abstain on the current amendment, due to my good friend John Ford's commentary.

[Hatman]

Aye

[Democratic Hawk]

On the one hand, I agree with Senator Phil when he says we need to keep checks on the Secretary regarding the selling of our oil yet, on the other, John Ford's commentary has resonated with me too

Therefore, I abstain on this amendment but I'm still weighing up the pros and cons as to how I'll vote on this Bill's final passage

'Hawk'

[Peter]

aye

[MasterJedi]

Vote Tally

4 Aye (MasterJedi, Keystone Phil, EarlAW, Peter Bell)
1 Nay (CheeseWhiz)
2 Abstain (WMS, Dave Hawk)