Gary Peters on Energy & Oil

AdWatch: Yes, I own petcoke stock, but I can still speak out

VOICEOVER: Whose side is Congressman Gary Peters on?
Peters says "yes" to petcoke, and has a $20,000 investment in a company that produces petcoke.
Peters says "no" to petcoke, and his campaign is receiving $2.5 million in help from billionaire environmentalist, Tom Steyer.
Steyer wants to block American energy projects like Keystone Pipeline, and is spending millions to attack Terri Lynn Land on--you guessed it--petcoke. Peters wants to make money with a petcoke producer, and take money from a petcoke opponent. Now, he claims it's no big deal:
PETERS: "Even though I own a little bit of stock in a company, that doesn't stop me from speaking out."
VOICEOVER: For Congressman Peters $20,000 is a little bit of stock--and more than a little hypocrisy.

Proudly voted to invest in renewable energy sources

Steyer, a former hedge fund manager turned green evangelist, says he plans to raise up to $100 million during the midterm elections for candidates who stand strong on climate change. Steyer's NextGen Climate Action is pouring $2.6 million to support Gary Peters.

Studies show that cap and trade would have killed Michigan jobs. In supporting cap and trade, Peters "proudly" stands by what would have been the biggest tax in American history: his congressional website says he "proudly voted for" the Waxman-Markey bill, more commonly referred to as cap and trade legislation. "In 2009, I proudly voted for the American Clean Energy and Security Act to invest in renewable energy sources, reduce America's greenhouse gas emissions and lay the groundwork for a clean energy economy."

Cap and trade is an option we need to look at

HOST [of a radio call-in show in August]: "Congressman, are you a cap and trade fan?"

PETERS: "I think cap and trade is an option we need to look at. It has been successful in other areas. We saw that in acid rain, when we had to mitigate acid rain, a cap and trade program actually reduced acid rain emissions while doing it in a very cost effective way. You've seen some programs similar to that in New England now, actually when it comes to carbon emissions, that have reduced carbon emissions while the New England economy is doing very well. So it's certainly something on the table that we have to take a look at as we reduce carbon emissions. But there is not a specific proposal before us right now to comment, but I think it's important to make sure we are looking at all of the market based solutions."

FactCheck: Mich. gets back more in gas tax than it collects

That sure makes it seem like Michigan is getting back less in highway funding than its residents pay in gasoline taxes. But in 2012, Michigan received $1.03 in highway funding for every $1 in federal highway gasoline taxes collected in the state. Michigan's return on investment was even better in 2010, when the state received $1.30 in highway funding for every $1 it collected; and $1.20 for every $1 in 2011.

There is a caveat, however. The federal dollars "cannot be used for routine maintenance such as filling potholes or removing snow." Land's ad specifically shows images of potholes, and it's true that the state cannot spend federal money to fix them. Every state tacks on its own gasoline tax, which can be used on routine maintenance.