Tom Udall on Energy & Oil Democratic Jr Senator; previously Representative (NM-3)

Do it all, do it right

Doing it all will allow us to take control of our energy security and spur job growth through a clean energy economy. A sustainable American energy future requires a diverse portfolio, including more renewable sources like wind and solar, efficiency and conservation, along with traditional energy sources like natural gas, domestic oil, and nuclear power.

It also means facing the threat of global warming. As a member of the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works, Tom supported creating a system of clean energy incentives and limits on pollution--policies that can reduce foreign oil imports and greenhouse gas emissions, while creating nearly two million jobs and billions of dollars in energy savings.

Supports solar energy with heart & soul

But Pearce later brought up an example that he said showed Udall declining to work in a bipartisan manner. He said he sent a letter to Udall, who supports solar energy, asking him to sign on to a bill that would set aside 6.4 million acres of public land in New Mexico for solar panels. Pearce said Udall refused to support it. “You couldn’t find it in your heart to sign on to that,” Pearce said.

Udall said he was not aware of the bill and criticized its timing. “Many bills he’s introduced are only in the Senate campaign, they don’t have anything to do with what he legislated in the previous five years. To me that really isn’t a bill to drop it in the middle of a Senate campaign. Show that your heart and soul is in it,” he told his rival.

Supports renewable electricity standard for public utilities

Udall said he helped pass legislation in the House for a renewable electricity standard on public utilities of 20 percent by 2020, but it failed in the Senate by one vote. “One vote can make a difference,” he said.

Voted NO on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases.

1. Water vapor
2. Carbon dioxide
3. Methane
4. Nitrous oxide
5. Sulfur hexafluoride
6. Hydrofluorocarbons
7. Perfluorocarbons
8. Any other substance subject to, or proposed to be subject to regulation to address climate change.

Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:
[Sen. McConnell, R-KY]: The White House is trying to impose a backdoor national energy tax through the EPA. It is a strange way to respond to rising gas prices. But it is perfectly consistent with the current Energy Secretary's previously stated desire to get gas prices in the US up to where they are in Europe.

Opponent's Argument for voting No:
[Sen. Lautenberg, D-NJ]:We hear the message that has been going around: Let's get rid of the EPA's ability to regulate. Who are they to tell us what businesses can do? Thank goodness that in this democratic society in which we live, there are rules and regulations to keep us as a civilized nation. The Supreme Court and scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency agreed that the Clean Air Act is a tool we must use to stop dangerous pollution. This amendment, it is very clear, favors one group--the business community. The Republican tea party politicians say: "Just ignore the Supreme Court. Ignore the scientists. We know better." They want to reward the polluters by crippling EPA's ability to enforce the Clean Air Act.
Status: Failed 50-50 (3/5 required)

Voted NO on protecting middle-income taxpayers from a national energy tax.

Congressional Summary:
• On budget resolutions, it shall not be in order in the Senate to consider any bill or amendment that includes a National energy tax increase which would have widespread applicability on middle-income taxpayers.
• The term "middle-income" taxpayers means single individuals with $200,000 or less in adjusted gross income and married couples filing jointly with $250,000 or less.
• The term "widespread applicability" includes the definition with respect to individual income taxpayers.
• The term "National energy tax increase" means any legislation that the Congressional Budget Office would score as leading to an increase in the costs of producing, generating or consuming energy.

  Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Sen. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R, SC): The climate change proposal that was in the President's budget would create a massive tax increase on anybody who uses energy, and that would be every American middle-class family, which already has a tough time getting by. This [amendment creates a procedure to block] any bill that would raise the cost of energy on our middle-class families who are struggling to get by. I ask the Senate to rally around this concept. We can deal with climate change without passing a $3,000-per-household energy tax on the families of America who are having a hard time paying their bills.

  Opponent's argument to vote No:No senators spoke against the amendment.

  Reference: Graham Amendment; Bill S.Amdt.910 to S.Con.Res.13 ; vote number 2009-S135 on Apr 2, 2009

  Voted NO on requiring full Senate debate and vote on cap-and-trade.

  Congressional Summary:AMENDMENT PURPOSE: To prohibit the use of reconciliation in the Senate for climate change legislation involving a cap and trade system.

  Sec. 202 is amended by inserting at the end the following: "The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget shall not revise the allocations in this resolution if the legislation is reported from any committee pursuant to sec. 310 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974."

  Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Sen. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R, SC): This idea to most people of a debate about reconciliation probably is mind-numbing and not very interesting. But there is a process in the Congress where you can take legislation and basically put it on a fast track. It is subject to 50 votes.

  The whole idea of the Senate kind of cooling things down has served the country well. In that regard, to end debate you need 60 votes. If 41 Senators are opposed to a piece of legislation, strongly enough to come to the floor every day and talk about it, that legislation doesn't go anywhere. If you took climate change and health care, two very controversial, big-ticket items, and put them on the reconciliation track, you would basically be doing a lot of damage to the role of the Senate in a constitutional democracy.

  Senator Byrd, who is one of the smartest people to ever serve in the Senate about rules and parliamentary aspects of the Senate, said that to put climate change and health care reform in reconciliation is like "a freight train through Congress" and is "an outrage that must be resisted." Senator Conrad said: "I don't believe reconciliation was ever intended for this purpose."

  I think both of them are right. Under the law, you cannot put Social Security into reconciliation because we know how controversial and difficult that is. I come here in support of the Johanns amendment that rejects that idea.

  Opponent's argument to vote No:No senators spoke against the amendment.

  Reference: Johanns Amendment; Bill S.Amdt.735 to S.Con.Res.13 ; vote number 2009-S126 on Apr 1, 2009

  Voted YES on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets.

  Congressional Summary:Extends the tax credit for producing electricity from renewable resources:
  • (1) through 2009 for wind facilities; and
  • (2) through FY2011 for closed and open-loop biomass, geothermal, small irrigation power, landfill gas, trash combustion, and hydropower facilities.
  • Includes marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy as a renewable resource for purposes of such tax credit.
  • Includes cellulosic biofuel within the definition of "biomass ethanol plant property" for purposes of bonus depreciation.
  • Allows a new tax credit for the production of qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicles.

  Proponent's argument to vote Yes: Rep. RICHARD NEAL (D, MA-2): This bill contains extensions of popular tax incentives that expired at the end of last year. This needs to get under way. The R&D tax credit is important. This bill includes a number of popular and forward-thinking incentives for energy efficiency. This is a very balanced bill which does no harm to the Federal Treasury. It asks that hedge fund managers pay a bit more, and it delays an international tax break that hasn't gone into effect yet. It is responsible legislation.

  Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. DAVE CAMP (R, MI-4): We are conducting another purely political exercise on a tax bill that is doomed in the other body because of our House majority's insistence on adhering to the misguided PAYGO rules. The Senate acted on a bipartisan basis to find common ground on this issue. They approved a comprehensive tax relief package containing extenders provisions that are not fully offset, as many Democrats would prefer, but contain more offsets than Republicans would like. Why is this our only option? Because the Senate, which has labored long and hard to develop that compromise, has indicated in no uncertain terms that it is not going to reconsider these issues again this year.

  [The bill was killed in the Senate].

  Reference: Renewable Energy and Job Creation Tax Act; Bill H.R.7060 ; vote number 2008-H649 on Sep 26, 2008

  Voted YES on tax incentives for energy production and conservation.

  OnTheIssues.org Explanation: This bill passed the House but was killed in the Senate on a rejected Cloture Motion, Senate rollcall #150

  Congressional Summary: A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide Tax incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, and to provide individual income tax relief.

  • TITLE I--ENERGY TAX INCENTIVES
  • Sec. 102. Production credit for electricity produced from marine renewables.
  • Sec. 104. Credit for residential energy efficient property.
  • Sec. 106. New clean renewable energy bonds.
  • Part II--Carbon Mitigation Provisions
  • Sec. 112. Expansion and modification of coal gasification investment credit.
  • Sec. 115. Carbon audit of the tax code.
  • Sec. 121. Inclusion of cellulosic biofuel in bonus depreciation for biomass ethanol plant property.
  • Sec. 122. Credits for biodiesel and renewable diesel.
  • Sec. 124. Credit for new qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicles.
  • Sec. 127. Transportation fringe benefit to bicycle commuters.
  • Sec. 146. Qualified green building and sustainable design projects.

    Opponents argument for voting NAY: Sen. SPECTER: H.R. 6049 would revive important tax provisions that expired at the end of 2007 and extend provisions that are set to expire at the end of 2008. I support extension of the R&D tax credit, the renewable energy tax incentives, and many other important provisions in this package.

    Despite the positive elements of this legislation, the main sticking point is whether temporary extensions of tax relief should be offset with permanent tax increases elsewhere. The White House issued a statement recommending a Presidential veto of this bill in its current form. [Vote NAY to] allow the Senate to work its will and pass legislation that can be quickly signed by the President.

    Reference: Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act; Bill HR6049 ; vote number 2008-344 on May 21, 2008

    Voted YES on tax incentives for renewable energy.

    CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008:
    • Production Incentives: Extends through 2011 the tax credit for the production of electricity from renewable resources (e.g., wind, biomass, geothermal, and hydropower).
    • Extends through 2016 the energy tax credit for investment in solar energy and fuel cell property.
    • Allows a new tax credit for the production of plug-in hybrid vehicles.
    • Extends through 2010 the tax credits for biodiesel (including agri-biodiesel)
    • Allows an alcohol fuels tax credit for the production of qualified cellulosic alcohol fuel.
    • Denies the tax deduction for income attributable to domestic production of oil, gas, or any related products.

    SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Rep. MATSUI: Today's debate is about investing in renewable energy, which will chart a new direction for our country's energy policy. This bill restores balance to our energy policy after years of a tax structure that favors huge oil companies. Today's legislation will transfer some of the massive profits enjoyed by these oil companies and invest them in renewable resources that will power our economy in the future.

    OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO:Rep. SMITH of Texas: I oppose H.R. 5351. While it is well and good to encourage alternative energy development, Congress should not do so by damaging our domestic oil and gas industry. In 2006 all renewable energy sources provided only 6% of the US domestic energy supply. In contrast, oil and natural gas provided 58% of our domestic energy supply. The numbers don't lie. Oil and natural gas fuel our economy and sustain our way of life.

    Furthermore, almost 2 million Americans are directly employed in the oil and natural gas industry. Punishing one of our Nation's most important industries does not constitute a national energy policy.

    LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Bill passed House, 236-182

    Reference: Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act; Bill H.R.5351 ; vote number 08-HR5351 on Feb 12, 2008

    Voted YES on investing in homegrown biofuel.

    H.R.3221: New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act: Moving toward greater energy independence and security, developing innovative new technologies, reducing carbon emissions, creating green jobs, protecting consumers, increasing clean renewable energy production, modernizing our energy infrastructure, and providing tax incentives for the production of renewable energy and energy conservation.

    Proponents support voting YES because:

    Rep. PELOSI: This bill makes the largest investment in homegrown biofuels in history. We know that America's farmers will fuel America's independence. We will send our energy dollars to middle America, not to the Middle East.

    Rep. TIERNEY: This bill incorporates the Green Jobs Act, which will make $120 million a year available to begin training workers in the clean energy sector. 35,000 people per year can benefit from vocational education for "green-collar jobs" that can provide living wages & upward mobility.

    Opponents recommend voting NO because:

    Rep. SHIMKUS: I'm upset about the bill because it has no coal provisions. What about coal-to-liquid jobs? Those are real jobs with great wages. Energy security? We have our soldiers deployed in the Middle East because it's an important national security interest. Why? We know why. Crude oil. How do we decrease that importance of the Persian Gulf region? We move to coal-to-liquid technologies. What is wrong with this bill? Everything. No soy diesel. No ethanol. No coal. Nothing on nuclear energy. No expansion. There is no supply in this bill. Defeat this bill.

    Rep. RAHALL: [This bill omits a] framework to sequester carbon dioxide to ensure the future use of coal in an environmentally responsible fashion. We can talk about biofuels all we want, but the fact is that coal produces half of our electricity for the foreseeable future. We must aggressively pursue technologies to capture and store the carbon dioxide.

    Reference: New Direction for Energy Independence; Bill HR3221 ; vote number 2007-0832 on Aug 4, 2007

    Voted YES on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC.

    Amends the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to declare it to be illegal for any foreign states to act collectively to limit the US price or distribution of oil, natural gas, or any other petroleum product. Denies a foreign state engaged in such conduct sovereign immunity from the jurisdiction of US courts

    Proponents support voting YES because:

    Gas prices have now reached an all-time record high, $3.27 a gallon, topping even the 1981 spike. This won't be the end of these skyrocketing price hikes either.

    OPEC oil exports represent 70% of all the oil traded internationally. For years now, OPEC's price-fixing conspiracy has unfairly driven up the price and cost of imported crude oil to satisfy the greed of oil exporters. We have long decried OPEC, but have done little or nothing to stop this. The time has come.

    This bill makes fixing oil prices or illegal under US law, just as it would be for any company engaging in the same conduct. It attempts to break up this cartel and subject these colluders and their anticompetitive practices to the antitrust scrutiny that they so richly deserve.

    Opponents support voting NO because:

    • We can only affect OPEC subsidiaries in the US. So the result of this bill would be to hurt US companies while not affecting OPEC itself.
    • OPEC is a cartel, but we have to deal with it diplomatically. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act was designed for US monopolies, not international state-run cartels.
    • We should focus on domestic policies to affect gas prices. We cannot respond to a short-term crisis with a long-term response.
    Reference: No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act (NOPEC); Bill H R 2264 ; vote number 2007-398 on May 22, 2007

    Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies.

    Creating Long-term Energy Alternatives for the Nation (CLEAN) Act
    • Title I: Ending Subsidies for Big Oil Act--denying a deduction for income attributable to domestic production of oil, natural gas, or their related primary products.
    • Title II: Royalty Relief for American Consumers Act--to incorporate specified price thresholds for royalties on oil & gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico.
    • Title III: Strategic Energy Efficiency And Renewables Reserve--makes the Reserve available to accelerate the use of clean domestic renewable energy resources and alternative fuels.

    Proponents support voting YES because:

    This legislation seeks to end the unwarranted tax breaks & subsidies which have been lavished on Big Oil over the last several years, at a time of record prices at the gas pump and record oil industry profits. Big Oil is hitting the American taxpayer not once, not twice, but three times. They are hitting them at the pump, they are hitting them through the Tax Code, and they are hitting them with royalty holidays put into oil in 1995 and again in 2005.

    It is time to vote for the integrity of America's resources, to vote for the end of corporate welfare, to vote for a new era in the management of our public energy resources.

    Opponents support voting NO because:

    I am wearing this red shirt today, because this shirt is the color of the bill that we are debating, communist red. It is a taking. It will go to court, and it should be decided in court.

    This bill will increase the competitive edge of foreign oil imported to this country. If the problem is foreign oil, why increase taxes and make it harder to produce American oil and gas? That makes no sense. We should insert taxes on all foreign oil imported. That would raise your money for renewable resources. But what we are doing here today is taxing our domestic oil. We are raising dollars supposedly for renewable resources, yet we are still burning fossil fuels.

    Reference: Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation(CLEAN); Bill HR 6 ("First 100 hours") ; vote number 2007-040 on Jan 18, 2007

    Voted YES on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore.

    Vote to amend a bill providing for exploration & production of mineral resources on the outer Continental Shelf. The underlying bill revises the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act's guidelines for natural gas lease administration. Voting YES on the amendment would maintain the 25-year moratorium on oil and gas drilling in environmentally sensitive areas offshore. Voting NO on the amendment would lift the 25-year moratorium, and establish incentives to renegotiate existing leases that fail to include market-based price caps.

    Proponents support voting YES because:

    This amendment would preserve the longstanding moratorium so important to coastal States. The amendment would also preserve the underlying bill's one redeeming feature, the renegotiating of the cash-cow leases now pouring billions of dollars into already stuffed oil industry coffers.

    We have only 5% of the world's population, but 30% of the world's automobiles, and we produce 45% of the world's automotive carbon dioxide emissions. This addiction harms our environment, our economy and our national security. This underlying bill attempts to bribe coastal States into drilling off their shores by promising them a lot more money.

    Opponents support voting NO because:

    For 30 years, opponents of American energy have cloaked their arguments in an environmental apocalypse. They have tried to make the argument that no matter what we do, it will destroy the environment.

    This amendment takes out all of the energy production. It is a callous disregard for the jobs that have been lost over the last 30 years of following an anti-energy policy. The people who work in oil and gas, their jobs are in the Middle East or Canada. We have exported their jobs. If this amendment passes, we are going to send the rest of them. We should know how important it is to create jobs in this country, to create clean natural gas in this country, so that it can be the bridge to the future.

    Reference: Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act; Bill H R 4761 ; vote number 2006-354 on Jun 29, 2006

    Voted NO on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries.

    Voting YES would allow floor debate on H.R.5254, the Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act, which provides for the following:
    • The EPA, upon the request of a state governor, shall provide scheduling and financial assistance relevant to consideration of federal refinery authorizations.
    • The President shall designate at least three closed military installations as potentially suitable for the construction of a refinery.
    • Requires that at least one such site be designated as potentially suitable for construction of a refinery to refine biomass in order to produce biofuel.
    Proponents of the resolution say:
    • Over the last several years, we have seen gasoline prices increase steadily
    • In the last 24 years, our refinery capacity has dropped from 19 million barrels a day to less than 17 million barrels a day.
    • We must make build new refineries to meet our current demand and to prevent a loss of capacity due to another hurricane, or a terrorist attack
    Opponents of the resolution say:
    • $3 a gallon gas is a problem, but so is global warming, and so is our dependence on fossil fuels.
    • Unfortunately, this bill represents another missed opportunity for strategic long-term national energy policy.
    • There have been no new refineries built in the US since 1976, but there has not been one convincing example of a situation where the permitting process prevented construction of a refinery.
    • We should reduce demand by promoting energy conservation and fuel efficient forms of transportation, and work to develop renewable sources of fuel.
    • Taken together, these will help America move towards energy independence. And we are going to stop providing subsidies to companies that are making record profits.
    Reference: Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act; Bill HR 5254 resolution H RES 842 ; vote number 2006-228 on Jun 7, 2006

    Voted NO on authorizing construction of new oil refineries.

    To expedite the construction of new refining capacity in the United States, to provide reliable and affordable energy for the American people, and for other purposes including:
    • Authorizing the President to designate sites on Federal land for construction of new oil refineries, including at least three on closed military bases
    • Allowing the Secretary of Energy to enter into contracts with non-Federal entities to construct or restore new refineries that use crude oil or coal to produce gasoline or other fuel
    • Establishing a program to encourage carpools by giving grants to states and to evaluate the use of the Internet to link riders with carpools, assist employers establish carpool programs, and market existing programs
    • Authorizing any facility to use biomass debris as fuel if it meets certain standards, such as resulting from a major disaster
    • $2.5 million to create an education campaign about gasoline conservation
    Reference: Gasoline for Americas Security Act; Bill HR 3893 ; vote number 2005-519 on Oct 7, 2005

    Voted NO on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy.

    Vote to pass a bill that would put into practice a comprehensive national policy for energy conservation, research and development. The bill would authorize o $25.7 billion tax break over a 10-year period. The tax breaks would include $11.9 billion to promote oil and gas production, $2.5 billion for "clean coal" programs, $2.2 billion in incentives for alternative motor vehicles, and $1.8 billion for the electric power industry and other businesses. A natural gas pipeline from Alaska would be authorized an $18 billion loan guarantee. It would add to the requirement that gasoline sold in the United States contain a specified volume of ethanol. Makers of the gasoline additive MTBE would be protected from liability. They would be required though to cease production of the additive by 2015. Reliability standards would be imposed for electricity transmissions networks, through this bill. The bill would also ease the restrictions on utility ownership and mergers. Reference: Energy Policy Act of 2004; Bill HR 4503 ; vote number 2004-241 on Jun 15, 2004

    Voted NO on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy.

    Energy Omnibus bill: Vote to adopt the conference report on the bill that would put into practice a comprehensive national policy for energy conservation, research and development. The bill would authorize a $25.7 billion tax break over a 10-year period. The tax breaks would include $11.9 billion to promote oil and gas production, $2.5 billion for "clean coal" programs, $2.2 billion in incentives for alternative motor vehicles, and $1.8 billion for the electric power industry and other businesses. A natural gas pipeline from Alaska would be authorized an $18 billion loan guarantee. The bill would call for producers of Ethanol to double their output. Makers of the gasoline additive MTBE would be protected from liability. They would be required though to cease production of the additive by 2015. Reliability standards would be imposed for electricity transmissions networks, through this bill. The bill would also ease the restrictions on utility ownership and mergers. Reference: Bill sponsored by Tauzin, R-LA; Bill HR.6 ; vote number 2003-630 on Nov 18, 2003

    Voted YES on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels.

    Require a combined corporate average fuel efficiency [CAFE] standard for passenger automobiles and light trucks, including sport utility vehicles, of 26 mpg in 2005 and of 27.5 mpg in 2007. It also would offer incentives for alternative fuel vehicles. Bill HR 4 ; vote number 2001-311 on Aug 1, 2001

    Voted YES on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR.

    Amendment to maintain the current prohibition on oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge by striking language opening the reserve up to development. Bill HR 4 ; vote number 2001-317 on Aug 1, 2001

    Voted YES on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol.

    Vote on an amendment that would allow the implementation of the portions of the Kyoto climate change treaty that are already allowed under law. The Kyoto protocol of 1997, which aims to reduce emissions of certain greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, has not been ratified by the United States. The amendment would allow federal agencies, particularly the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] to implement procedures already allowed under law that are also part of the Kyoto accord before the treaty is ratified by Congress. Reference: Amendment sponsored by Olver, D-MA; Bill HR 4690 ; vote number 2000-323 on Jun 26, 2000

    Supports tradable emissions permits for greenhouse gases.

    Udall adopted the manifesto, "A New Agenda for the New Decade":

    Modernize Environmental Policies
    National environmental policies, mostly developed in the 1970s, have been remarkably successful in improving the quality of our air and water. But we face a new set of environmental challenges for which the old strategy of centralized, command-and-control regulation is no longer effective.

    The old regime of prohibitions and fines levied on polluters is not well equipped to tackle problems such as climate change, contamination of water from such sources as farm and suburban runoff, loss of open lands, and sprawl. Without relaxing our determination to maintain and enforce mandatory national standards for environmental quality, it is time to create more effective, efficient, and flexible ways of achieving those standards.

    For example, a system of tradable emissions permits would give factories, power plants, and other sources of air pollution and greenhouse gases a powerful incentive not only to meet but to exceed environmental standards. Decisions about solving local environmental problems should be shifted from Washington to communities, without weakening national standards. Finally, to empower citizens and communities to make sound decisions, government should invest in improving the quality and availability of information about environmental conditions.

    Goals for 2010
    • Create a domestic emissions trading system to reduce greenhouse gases by 10 percent.
    • Promote innovative agreements for community and regional partnerships to achieve national environmental goals and standards through local strategies.
    • End government subsidies for sprawl.
    Source: The Hyde Park Declaration 00-DLC10 on Aug 1, 2000

    Regulate wholesale electricity & gas prices.

    Udall adopted the Progressive Caucus Position Paper:

    The Problem

    Escalating energy costs have almost no correlation with supply and demand. Adequate capacity to supply our current energy needs is and has always been plentiful within the energy markets. Newly formed deregulated energy companies are creating an artificial shortage and reaping tremendous profits while doing so.

    The Progressive Caucus Solution: Wholesale Cost-based Pricing with Refunds

    In the 1930s, wholesale electricity prices and wholesale natural gas prices were regulated, and the regulations provided for refunds if unjust or unreasonable rates were found. Since the late 1970s, these laws have been methodically dismantled leaving little federal price regulations to protect consumers. However, energy prices are easily manipulated as production and delivery systems are complex. Cost-based rates for wholesale electricity, natural gas, heating oil should be established to protect consumers from unjust and unfair prices. Cost based rates allow utilities to recover the cost of their investment and operations while also allowing a reasonable profit. This is not a price cap— FERC sets prices based on a specific, professional rationale. Establishing cost-based rates ensure adequate supply is available and removes the profit incentive from shorting the market. The rates should be set retroactively to the beginning of 2000. Refunds will be issued to families and businesses who have racked up incredible debt in 2000 and 2001, paying the unreasonable and unjust charges that the energy producers, generators and wholesalers inflicted.

    The Progressive Caucus advocates:

    • Implement wholesale cost-based pricing of electricity & natural gas to ensure consumers are not gouged. Require refunds when necessary.
    • Grant FERC new powers to regulate heating oil prices at the wholesale level. Cost-based pricing of heating oil will ensure consumers are protected from heating oil price spikes.
    Source: Progressive Caucus' Consumer Energy Rate Relief Act 01-CPC1 on Mar 16, 2001

    Preserve Alaska's ANWR instead of drilling it.

    Udall co-sponsored the Morris K. Udall Arctic Wilderness Act:

    Title: To preserve the Arctic coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, as wilderness in recognition of its extraordinary natural ecosystems and for the permanent good of present and future generations of Americans.

    Summary: Designates specified lands within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness and components of the National Wilderness Preservation System [which would preclude oil exploration and drilling].

    Source: House Resolution Sponsorship 01-HR770 on Feb 28, 2001

    Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence.

    Udall scores 100% by CAF on energy issues

    OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 CAF scores as follows:

    • 0% - 30%: opposition of energy independence (approx. 206 members)
    • 30% - 70%: mixed record on energy independence (approx. 77 members)
    • 70%-100%: support for energy independence (approx. 183 members)
    About the CAF (from their website, www.ourfuture.org):

    The Campaign for America's Future (CAF) is a center for ideas and action that works to build an enduring majority for progressive change. The Campaign advances a progressive economic agenda and a vision of the future that works for the many, not simply the few. The Campaign is leading the fight for America's priorities--against privatization of Social Security, for investment in energy independence, good jobs and a sustainable economy, for an ethical and accountable Congress and for high quality public education.

    About the CAF report, "Energy Independence: Record vs. Rhetoric":

    Energy independence has surfaced as a defining issue in the current elections. Are most candidates and both parties truly committed? To help distinguish the demonstrated level of support for homegrown, clean energy alternatives, we examined the voting records of current U.S. Representatives and Senators on bills vital to promoting those interests. Key pieces of legislation included goals for independence, and subsidies for the development of alternatives compared to subsidies for drilling and digging. We then compared votes on these issues with campaign contributions from major oil interests. The results show strong inverse correlations between political contributions from big oil and votes for energy independence.

    Source: CAF "Energy Independence" Report 06n-CAF on Dec 31, 2006

    50% clean and carbon free electricity by 2030.

    Udall co-sponsored H.Res.637/S.Res.386

    Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should establish a national goal of more than 50 percent clean and carbon free electricity by 2030 for the purposes of avoiding the worst impacts of climate change, growing our economy, increasing our shared prosperity, improving public health, and preserving our national security.

    • Whereas failing to act on climate change will have a devastating impact on our Nation's economy, costing us billions of dollars in lost GDP;
    • Whereas extreme weather, intensified by climate change, has already cost taxpayers billions of dollars each year in recovery efforts, and this will only continue if climate change is left unaddressed;
    • Whereas climate change will have devastating public health implications, including increased asthma attacks and exacerbation of other respiratory diseases, especially in vulnerable populations;
    • Whereas inaction on climate change will disproportionately impact communities of color and exacerbate existing economic inequalities;
    • Whereas the transition to a clean energy economy is feasible with existing technology;
    • Whereas the transition to clean energy will create millions of jobs and will increase our country's GDP and increase disposable household income;
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States should--
    1. Establish a national goal of more than 50 percent clean and carbon free electricity by 2030; and
    2. Enact legislation to accelerate the transition to clean energy to meet this goal.
    Source: Resolution for 50% Carbon-Free Electricity by 2030 16-SRes386 on Mar 3, 2016

    Green New Deal: 10-year national mobilization.

    Udall signed the Resolution on Green New Deal

    This resolution calls for the creation of a Green New Deal with the goals of:

    • achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions;
    • establishing millions of high-wage jobs and ensuring economic security for all;
    • investing in infrastructure and industry;
    • securing clean air and water, climate and community resiliency, healthy food, access to nature, and a sustainable environment for all; and
    • promoting justice and equality.
    The resolution calls for accomplishment of these goals through a 10-year national mobilization effort. The resolution also enumerates the goals and projects of the mobilization effort, including:
  • building smart power grids (i.e., power grids that enable customers to reduce their power use during peak demand periods);
  • upgrading all existing buildings and constructing new buildings to achieve maximum energy and water efficiency;
  • removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation and agricultural sectors;
  • cleaning up existing hazardous waste and abandoned sites;
  • ensuring businesspersons are free from unfair competition; and
  • providing higher education, high-quality health care, and affordable, safe, and adequate housing to all.

  Opposing argument from the Cato Institute, 2/24/2019: While reasonable people can disagree on some aspects of the Green New Deal's proposals, one fact is uncontroversial: the US cannot afford them. The Green New Deal would likely cost upwards of $6.6 trillion per year. The federal government should look for cheaper ways to address problems like climate change. Instead of the Green New Deal, the federal government could adopt a revenue??neutral carbon tax to decrease emissions without exacerbating the fiscal imbalance. Economists from across the political spectrum support carbon taxation as the most cost??effective way to address climate change. And a carbon tax would be most effective if uniformly adopted by other countries, too.

  Source: H.Res.109/S.Res.59 19-HR0109 on Feb 7, 2019

  Click here for definitions & background information on Energy & Oil. Click here for HouseMatch answers by Tom Udall. Click here for a summary of Tom Udall's positions on all issues. Click here for a summary of Tom Udall's positions on the AmericansElect.org quiz. Click here for contact information for Tom Udall. Click here for a Wikipedia profile of Tom Udall. Click here for a Ballotpedia profile of Tom Udall. Click here for other NM politicians. Click here for NM primary archives. Click here for NM secondary archives.
  2017-18 Governor, House and Senate candidates on Energy & Oil:			Tom Udall on other issues:
  NM Gubernatorial: Gary Johnson Gary King Jeff Apodaca Joe Cervantes John Sanchez Michelle Lujan-Grisham Steve Pearce Susana Martinez NM Senatorial: Ben Ray Lujan Gary Johnson Gavin Clarkson Maggie Toulouse Oliver Martin Heinrich Mick Rich Freshman class of 2019: "Freshman class" means "not in Congress in January 2017", with exceptions: * Special election, so sworn in other than Jan. 2019 ** Served in Congress in a previous term *** Lost recount or general election	Freshman class of January 2019 (Republicans): AZ-8*:Lesko CA-39***:Kim FL-6:Waltz ; FL-15:Spano ; FL-17:Steube GA-7:Woodall ID-1**:Fulcher IN-4:Baird IN-6:Pence KS-2:Watkins MN-1:Hagedorn ; MN-8:Stauber MS-3:Guest MT-0*:Gianforte NC-9***:Harris ND-a:Armstrong NM-2***:Herrell OH-12*:Balderson ; OH-16:Gonzalez OK-1:Hern PA-9:Meuser ; PA-11**:Smucker ; PA-12*:Keller ; PA-13:Joyce ; PA-14:Reschenthaler SC-4:Timmons SD-0:Johnson TN-2:Burchett ; TN-6:Rose ; TN-7:Green TX-2:Crenshaw ; TX-3:Taylor ; TX-5:Gooden ; TX-6:Wright ; TX-21:Roy ; TX-27*:Cloud VA-5:Riggleman ; VA-6:Cline WI-1:Steil WV-3:Miller	Freshman class of January 2019 (Democrats): AZ-2**:Kirkpatrick ; AZ-9:Stanton CA-49:Levin ; CA-10:Harder ; CA-21:Cox ; CA-25:Hill ; CA-39:Cisneros ; CA-45:Porter ; CA-48:Rouda CO-2:Neguse ; CO-6:Crow CT-5:Hayes FL-26:Mucarsel-Powell ; FL-27:Shalala GA-6:McBath HI-1**:Case IA-1:Finkenauer ; IA-3:Axne IL-4:Garcia ; IL-6:Casten ; IL-14:Underwood KS-3:Davids KY-6***:McGrath MA-3:Trahan ; MA-7:Pressley MD-6:Trone ME-2:Golden MI-8:Slotkin ; MI-9:Levin ; MI-13:Tlaib ; MI-13*:Jones ; MI-11:Stevens MN-2:Craig ; MN-3:Phillips ; MN-5:Omar NC-9***:McCready NH-1:Pappas NJ-2:Van Drew ; NJ-3:Kim ; NJ-7:Malinowski ; NJ-11:Sherrill NM-1:Haaland ; NM-2:Torres Small NV-3:Lee ; NV-4**:Horsford NY-14:Ocasio-Cortez ; NY-11:Rose ; NY-19:Delgado ; NY-22:Brindisi ; NY-25:Morelle OK-5:Horn PA-4:Dean ; PA-5:Scanlon ; PA-6:Houlahan ; PA-7:Wild ; PA-17*:Lamb SC-1:Cunningham TX-7:Fletcher ; TX-16:Escobar ; TX-29:Garcia ; TX-32:Allred UT-4:McAdams VA-2:Luria ; VA-7:Spanberger ; VA-10:Wexton WA-8:Schrier	Abortion Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Jobs Principles Social Security Tax Reform Technology War/Peace Welfare/Poverty Candidate Information: Main Page Profile NM politicians Contact info: Email Contact Form Phone number: (202) 224-6621

  
  
  
  
  
  Page last updated: Jun 18, 2020