Bill Richardson on Energy & Oil Democratic Governor (NM)

About time we got Saudis to increase production

A: Well, it’s about time. You know, the Bush administration has waited eight years to pressure OPEC and their great friends, the Saudis. When Pres. Bush came in, he said he was going to [persuade] OPEC to increase production. Well, it’s finally happened. It’s going to help a little bit. But what is needed is a comprehensive strategy of fuel efficiency, 50-mpg vehicles, and mass transit.

Q: But Governor, in the short term, if the Saudis do increase their oil production, that will increase supply and will have an impact on the price per barrel, which right now what is about $135 a barrel.

A: Well you know, it will go down a little bit. It won’t be significant and that is welcome. But you know, at the same time, the head of the Russian natural gas agency Gazprom is predicting that oil will go to $250 per barrel within a year. So you’ve got these conflicting views.

Windfall profit tax to shift obscene profits from Exxon

A: Well, I think that’s a false premise, what was advocated in the Bush administration was giv special preferences to oil, coal and nuclear. [We should] shift those enormous tax breaks for oil companies that are making billions and shift them over to solar, to wind, to green technology. So it’s not taxes, it’s basically shifting the burden and hav a level playing field.

Q: But do you support a windfall profits tax on Exxon Mobil, Chevron, the other big oil companies?

A: Yes, yes to shift them to solar and wind. They got this tax break five years ago in the energy bill that they didn’t deserve. $20 billion for Exxon in one or two months in terms of profits. I mean, that is obscene. That money should go to refineries. That money should go to research into renewable energy. It should go into drilling here in the United States.

New oil refineries and nuclear plants ok, if done right

A: No, but it should be done in an environmentally-sensitive way. So the answer is no.

Q: But where would you do it?

A: Well, with proper environmental permitting, Louisiana, Texas, many other places. But also on nuclear power, we’ve got to deal with the problem of waste from nuclear waste. But it doesn’t omit greenhouse gas emission. They should be an option. So should carbon clean coal technology, carbon sequestration, natural gas. There are many options. But the only options that the Bush administration & John McCain seem to have is drill, drill, drill, fossil fuels.

Q: What about nuclear power? To ease the pressure on importing oil?

A: If they abide by environmental standards and if we have a solution to the problem of waste. In Nevada, they don’t want to take that waste. We can’t do it in regional sites. We need to develop a technologically safe way to store this waste. But we should proceed with nuclear power as an option.

FactCheck: No, NH gas prices are not highest ever

FactCheck: Reducing GHGs by 90% costs households $800/yr

What Richardson didn’t say is that he isn’t promising to achieve that 90% reduction until 2050, a detail we found on his Web site. Richardson didn’t specify what his plan would do to the prices of electricity, manufactured goods and so on, saying only that he would be “asking the American people to sacrifice a little bit.” But according to one recent estimate, a less ambitious plan now pending in the Senate could cost the average household the equivalent of $800 to $1,300 a year in today’s dollars by 2015. That’s just one guess, of course. But there’s little doubt it would require more than “a little bit” of sacrifice to accomplish a 90% cut.

30% renewable sources in our electricity by 2020

Recommends 90% GHG reduction to IPCC

Richardson proudly identified his green policy to be the most aggressive of any candidate--with John Edwards and Chris Dodd close seconds--saying, “we need it much faster and more boldly than people are suggesting.“

The UN-affiliated Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommends an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 in order to hold global warming to two degrees Celsius. The top House and Senate bills both go for 80%. Gore says 90%. Richardson says 90%, too.

Richardson’s plan also reflects the newest iteration of this issue among scientists, pols, and activists: energy policy and climate change policy are now the same thing.

Served on boards of three large oil companies

He sat on the boards of directors of three large oil companies--San Antonio-based Valero Energy Corp, Houston-based Diamond Offshore Drilling, and Denver-based Venoco. Diamond Drilling, the offshore exploration firm with deep Republican ties on whose board Richardson served in 2001 and 2002, is engaged in offshore drilling. Venoco is an oil producer with a first-of-its-kind controversial horizontal drilling project in a state sanctuary off the coast near Santa Barbara.

He sold all of his [oil company] stock only in May 2007, saying it had become a “distraction” in his campaign and “because I was getting questions, I just felt it was best to divest myself.”

Need an energy revolution in the US

Supernova of clean energy policy in New Mexico

1. Energy efficiency: a new law in 2004 that finally required the utilities to start planning for energy efficiency.
2. Green building: requiring state agencies to use green building practices that cost a little more but save money and energy in the long run.
3. Renewable energy: a requirement for utilities to use renewable power, now requiring 20% renewables by 2020.
4. Transportation: a new commuter rail line that will soon connect Albuquerque and Santa Fe. We eliminated the sales tax on hybrid cars.
5. Renewable fuels: increased the biodiesel percentage in diesel fuel.
6. Incentives: more than matched the federal incentives for installing solar collectors & solar hot water heating.
7. Overarching climate change action: I adopted strict targets to reduce greenhouse gas pollution.

2020 Vision: An energy revolution in 5 simple steps

• Goal 1: Reduce oil dependence by as much as 50%
  2020 Vision (oil):
  1. Plug-in cars
  2. Fuel-economy standard for conventional cars all the way to 50 mpg
  3. A 30% reduction in the carbon impact of our liquid fuels
  4. Smart growth and transportation
• Goal 2: Efficiency and renewables in our electricity and natural gas markets
  2020 Vision (gas & electric):
  1. 30% renewable electricity by 2020
  2. Improve energy efficiency by 20%
  3. Require carbon-clean investments for new power generation
• Goal 3: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions at least 20% by 2020, and 90% by 2090 by implementing a market-based cap-and-trade system
• Goal 4: Nurture & invest in science and technology [by ramping up energy research]
• Goal 5: Lead by example [by breaking our oil addiction in negotiation with the world].

States have addressed global warming; now feds should too

The American people do not need or deserve scolding. They are ready to change. They want a better future. And they see possibility and opportunity--not the grim and fearful scenarios painted by people who do not accept the idea that we need to change.

Hydrogen cars only in 30 years; need plug-ins & hybrids now

In 1997, for most Americans, the idea of hybrid electric cars or hydrogen cars, seemed about as likely to catch on as jet packs or personal space ships. Yet, ten years later, Americans have accepted hybrid technology with open arms. Tax incentives have helped, but the largest incentive has been the rising price of gasoline.

Opposes gas tax: it burdens everyday people

Regulated utilities can profit by “selling efficiency”

Utilities that are regulated aren’t concerned about protecting coal as long as they make money. With decoupling, a policy that allows companies to sell efficiency and price electricity so that pricing encourages conservation, the utilities make money by being efficient & selling energy. That is the basic distinction that separates the utilities from the coal companies: while the utility market can be restructured to allow utilities to profit from conservation, coal companies can profit only when they sell coal.

Those governors who are most responsive to coal companies are most threatened by efficiency carbon-clean technology, & renewables. A similar dynamic occurs when we talk about using coal to produce transportation fuel substitutes by a process called “coal to liquid” that would almost double climate-changing carbon emissions from liquid fuels.

Iran & Russia are exploring natural gas control like OPEC

OPEC leaders applied an oil embargo against the US that plunged our economy into a recession, created inflation throughout the economy, created hours-and miles-long gas lines. That was in the winter of 1973-74. A second oil price hike later the same decade had similar effects.

So, discussions about a natural gas cartel should cause concern. The growth of liquefied natural gas technology has the potential to turn a mosaic of regional natural gas markets into a single global market. If the creation of an international gas cartel succeeds, the world could be subject to price and supply disruptions and the leverage of natural gas toward politically divisive projects.

Energy incentives are just anti-government ideology

Industry and investors have little or no reason to buy or produce more efficient technology without the power of mandates. To announce a global warming strategy based on technology and incentives is no more than a dream.

Climate change cynics don’t consider cost of inaction

Americans pay the price of inaction every day at gas pumps. As sea levels change, droughts extend, and famine and disease spread, they will pay the price of inaction sometime in the future. Sadly, future generations will pay the price for that cynicism so characteristic of the President’s policies. These cynics ignore the value of a healthy environment, a diverse and competitive energy economy, and converting petrodollars to jobs & energy. They ignore the value of energy efficiency, both in saving money and energy today and in protecting against price spikes.

Worse, they cynically advance policies that are at best half-measures, and at worst diversions from the real change we need.

50-mpg cars by 2020 even if it costs $6000 per car

Even if it did cost $6,000 more for the car, and then $6,000 less for gas, that would mean extra money going to American auto workers instead of the oil-controlling nations and companies. All Americans need to start thinking that way. You can call it sacrifice, or investment, or robbing Osama to pay Paul, but it’s the mindset we have to have. We can invest in ourselves instead of the oil industry and oil despots.

Carbon auction: use market to make emitter pay for emissions

Now, carbon emissions have no economic consequences except to benefit the individual emitter who gets to sell a produce or service. In that sense society is subsidizing not only climate change, but the emitter’s individual business decision.

The formula needs to be reversed. Carbon emissions must cost the emitter. Once this step is taken, there will be a different type of economic race--no longer a race to the bottom, a race to produce and sell more products regardless of their carbon impacts, but instead a race to the best, most affordable options that reduce carbon emissions.

I propose the concept of a “carbon auction.” The tents are simple: it will cost to emit carbon, and the aggregate amount of carbon pollution rights will diminish year-to-year.

Bush won’t follow the Kyoto treaty, but my state does

In his typical fashion, after years of refusing to admit that global warming exists, the president has started lecturing developing nations and telling them to clean up their act. Now, Mr. President, we don’t need half-hearted measures like the European agreement that just came out of the G-8 summit. The Kyoto treaty has been sitting on your desk for six and a half years. You might as well sign it now because in a year and a half, if you haven’t, I will.

Buying carbon offsets not enough; sacrifice for common good

My wife Barbara and I both use a hybrid and flex-fuel vehicle. We’ve made New Mexico’s governor’s mansion a lot more energy efficient, including compact fluorescent lighting, low water use irrigation and ceiling fans to cut down on air conditioning. Let me tell you, on a 95-degree day in New Mexico, that is a sacrifice.

But I know we can do more, and I’ll bet that a lot of you could too. We all, when we have an Apollo program to reduce our dependence on imported oil, we have to sacrifice for the common good. We have to get rid of that dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

Claimed too early that secrets were safe at nuclear labs

A: It’s probably true. But I believe I had a good record as secretary of energy. We had significant advances in our nuclear proliferation initiatives with Russia and loose nuclear weapons.

Q: You said in 1999, “I can assure the American people that their nuclear secrets are now safe at the labs.“ Many said it just wasn’t true.

A: There were problems, and there have been ongoing problems, too, with nuclear secrets at the national laboratories. But I took action. I increased funding for cybersecurity. I ordered polygraph tests. It was very unpopular.

Q: And you should not have said that?

A: I should not have said that. But I believe with the actions I took that we had secured significantly some of those secrets

Supports nuclear energy, but not waste storage at Yucca Mt

A: I believe it should be part of the mix. I think the future for Americans’ energy independence, and there I believe we need an Apollo program. And I believe I’m the greenest governor in this country.

Q: What would you do with the nuclear waste?

A: Technology is the answer. I would not put it in Yucca Mountain, because when I was secretary it was obvious that it had environmental problems. It had water problems, there were issues relating to transporting that waste to Nevada. I don’t believe there’s another solution that has been advanced, and that is to store some of the waste at existing sites or in regional sites. I believe the answer is technology. What I would do is get our national laboratories to come up with a technological solution to dispose of this waste.

Cap-and-trade CO2 emissions, including 50-mpg cars by 2020

A: That’s wrong. We must do it. Here in Washington, all you hear about is this is not possible, it won’t pass the Congress. We must become energy independent because it affects our national security. We must have fuel standards, and I believe it’s realistic with a 100 mpg flex-fuel vehicle. I’d also require, by that same year, that 30% of America’s electricity be renewable energy. We have got to address global climate change by 2020, a reduction of 20% greenhouse gas emissions. I would launch a major diplomatic initiative to say to China and India and developing countries that America is going to be a leader in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, a cap and trade system that is mandatory. We have to do these things on a mandatory basis.

Sacrifice for Apollo-like program for renewable fuel

A: The 1st day I would get us out of Iraq with diplomacy. The 2nd day, I would plan a huge initiative on making America energy independent, with an Apollo-like program to become more reliant on renewable fuels. I’d ask the American people to sacrifice in so doing. 3rd, I would have a major initiative on climate change. 90% reduced emissions by 2050. The 4th day, I would take off

Mandatory emissions reductions to make US energy-independent

50 mpg efficiency and 30% renewable electricity

Oppose carbon tax, favor a cap-and-trade system

Oversaw Dept. of Energy during nuclear lab security breach

The People’s Republic of China was especially interested in W-88, a miniature nuclear warhead. In March 1999, the New York Times published a report entitled “Breach at Los Alamos,” describing the theft of nuclear secrets by Wen Ho Lee. Two days later, I fired Lee, and ordered that DOE begin a series of polygraph examinations (lie-detector tests) of lab employees. Scientists at the labs went nuts.

The rest of 1999 was a nightmare of reports and revelations about sloppy security. We were moving fast to address these shortcomings even as the Cox Committee recommended changes

Tapped Strategic Oil Reserve to pierce bubble in oil prices

An energy secretary can also order test sales of up to 5 million barrels any time he or she wants.

I had originally argued for the release of up to 60 million barrels, but Clinton did not want to go that far. We released 30 million barrels and SPR eventually got 33 million barrels from refiners.

There had been a bubble in the oil market, and our policy had pierced it. But we still get most of our crude oil from abroad, which means that we lack the leverage to do much about prices.

$6M for energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies

Develop alternative energy, including wind & solar

Today, I am proposing a five-point plan, which I call “Renew New Mexico.”
1. I will set a goal - that NM generate 10% of its energy by 2010 through renewable sources.
2. I want NM to be recognized as one of the top three states in wind energy production.
3. I will encourage NM businesses to generate more of their own power to sell back to the utilities by increasing the ability to net-meter;
4. I want NM to lead the way with its use of renewable energies by solar-powering schools, state government buildings, & the Governor’s residence.
5. I want to encourage the use of alternative fuels in our vehicles to show the practical applications of alternative energy and set the example for other states to follow by reducing air pollution and encouraging utilization of advanced technologies.

Set goal of 25% renewable energy by 2025.

A resolution that it is the goal of the United States that, not later than January 1, 2025, the agricultural, forestry, and working land of the US should provide from renewable resources not less than 25% of the total energy consumed and continue to produce safe, abundant, and affordable food, feed, and fiber. [Governors also signed letters of endorsement at www.25x25.org]

Rep. SALAZAR: "Our resolution establishes a national goal of producing 25% of America's energy from renewable sources--like solar, wind and biofuels--by 2025. The "25x'25" vision is widely endorsed, bold, and fully attainable. If implemented, it would dramatically improve our energy security, our economy, and our ability to protect the environment.

"I am pleased that more than 20 of my colleagues in the Senate, from both sides of the aisle, are cosponsoring this resolution. In addition, the "25x'25" vision has been endorsed by 22 current and former governors and several State legislatures across the country. The Big Three automobile manufacturers--Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors--are all behind "25x'25" So are many agricultural organizations, environmental groups, scientists, and businesses, ranging from the Natural Resources Defense Council to John Deere.

"These Americans understand that we cannot continue to import 60% of our oil from foreign countries, many of which are hostile to the US, if we aim to be strong and secure in the world. They know that we will have to build a clean energy economy if we are to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It is time for Congress to take a more active role in our clean energy future. Establishing a national goal--"25x'25" is the first step."