ELECTION 2008 :

Titus backs renewables; Porter says, ‘drill, baby’

With few exceptions, positions on energy reflect party lines

Sat, Oct 11, 2008 (2 a.m.)

3rd Congressional District race

Election 2008: Candidates, issues, voting information

Following their party platforms, 3rd Congressional District opponents Jon Porter and Dina Titus largely disagree on what course the nation should take toward energy independence, with Porter embracing coal and nuclear power and Titus emphasizing development of renewable energy.

Porter, the incumbent, is a “drill baby, drill” Republican with an “all of the above” approach to solving high gas prices, dependence on foreign oil and rising electric bills.

Democrat Titus, a state senator and UNLV professor, supports offshore drilling with states’ consent, but unlike Porter would require oil companies to invest a percentage of profits in renewable energy.

Titus also supports drawing on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, cracking down on speculation in the oil market by empowering the Commodities Futures Trading Commission to investigate and punish speculators, and removing tariffs on Brazilian ethanol.

The Titus campaign notes that the reserve — intended to protect the nation during an energy emergency — holds far more than its intended 90-day supply, and that when President George H.W. Bush tapped the reserve in 1990 the price of oil dropped $8 a barrel.

Porter has supported fast-tracking new U.S. oil refineries and opening military installations for siting those refineries.

Porter also supports drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. A U.S. Department of Energy report said drilling in Alaska would reduce oil prices by about 75 cents per barrel.

And he proposes using oil shale, tar sands and coal-to-liquid fuels technology — a process that turns coal into liquid fuel — to meet U.S. oil demand, all measures opposed by environmental groups.

Titus has criticized Porter for voting against increasing automobile fuel efficiency standards to 33 miles per gallon in 2005.

Porter spokesman Matt Leffingwell said the “legislation would have killed the domestic auto industry. There were no provisions in the legislation to protect American jobs.”

Porter voted in 2007 to increase fuel efficiency standards to 35 miles per gallon. That bill had “provisions ... that would prevent the displacement of more jobs.”

Energy economists doubt whether U.S. government policy can have much effect on the price of gasoline, at least in the short term. The price of oil has been driven up in recent years by rising demand in Asia and the falling dollar, which has had safety-seeking investors buying oil futures instead of dollars.

And, sure enough, the price of oil has collapsed in recent weeks, not because of any government policy, but because of a slumping economy that will almost certainly mean less demand for oil in the near future.

Porter’s campaign also says he supports development of renewable energy, a claim the Titus campaign disputes.

Titus has supported tax incentives for green businesses to locate here and a state law requiring utilities to buy renewable power, Titus spokesman Andrew Stoddard said.

Stoddard said Porter has voted against bills that would extend tax incentives for renewable energy companies when those rebates were paid for by cutting tax incentives to oil companies. Porter did vote for the renewable energy tax credits when they were part of the recent financial sector bailout bill.

Titus has supported repealing tax incentives for oil companies to pay for tax credits for renewable energy developers.

Titus and Porter support a law requiring utilities nationwide to buy a percentage of their electricity from renewable sources.

Although the Titus campaign says the votes show Porter “has sided with big oil,” Leffingwell said Porter knew oil companies would compensate for any loss of tax incentives by increasing prices at the pump.

Porter also supports new nuclear power; Titus does not.

And Porter supports new coal plants to meet growing energy demand in the Southwest. He supports renewable energy, too, Leffingwell said, pointing to a 64 megawatt solar plant in Boulder City built on land the City Council set aside when Porter was mayor.

Leffingwell pointed out that the Boulder City solar plant, despite being the third largest of its kind in the world, meets only a tiny fraction of Las Vegas’ power needs.

“Our economy is not at a point where we will be able to meet future demand based on the availability of renewable power right now,” he said.

Discussion: 13 comments so far…

By neiman1

10/11/08 at 5:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

Our national and now worldwide meltdown economically can be directly traced to the increase in the cost of energy. Get it all. Keep our money in our economy and not overseas. Its the only way to cure America's financial mess.
By Future2012

10/11/08 at 5:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

We are in a recession and Titus does not want shift the oil and gas part of our economy from $700 billion per year foreign sources to domestic source, which mean domestic jobs.

Gas car are not gong away in the near future
By Thomas1000

10/11/08 at 7:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

Consider what if our USA went to war with another country such as russia.
What drives the aircraft,the ships,and ground transportation. Oil of course! Do you think we would stand a chance of winning a war if all our oil tankers were sank. Wake up America and always be prepared for the worst. This what led to Germanys fall and losing the war. And ask yourself how many countries are sending any aid to help us with our failing economy?
By 2zero

10/11/08 at 8:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

In the coming months Israel will attack and bomb nuclear facilities in Iraq.

Good thing that house next door is empty you are going to need the wood to burn to keep you warm this winter.
By Gordon

10/11/08 at 8:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

The 700 billion a year in petroleum dollars going overseas statement is outdated and wrong. During 1 month when oil reached $147 per barrel the annualized figure reached 700 billion in foreign oil. Problem is that $147 per barrel price lasted a few days and the price of oil has fallen as quickly as it rose. Currently the barrel price of oil is $77 which makes the foreign oil purchased total (annualized) 385 billion.

Now break it down further; when Bush took office in January 2001 the barrel price was $21, which annualized equals 105 billion. Of the total in foreign oil purchases, 43% comes from OPEC nations (see list of where our foreign oil comes from here http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_mo... ). Go through the list of nations and you will see the vast majority are our allies.

America consumes 25% of world oil supplies, yet our nation only has 3% of the total oil supply domestically. Unless we start changing our use of oil to things we can supply ourselves domestically (ie. Natural gas for automobiles until other renewable energies are viable), we will continue to be dependent on foreign oil supply.
By Oh_Please

10/11/08 at 11:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

Dina Titus has the right approach. She advocates an energy mix. She is reasonable and will be an effective leader in The United States Congress. No more sending flops to represent our state. Vote for Dina Titus!
By Johnathan_Abbinett

10/11/08 at 12:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Porter has voted with Bush the vast majority of the time and has been little more than a political puppet and Bush bag-boy!

Porter has voted AGAINST the needs of Our Troops, Military Families and Veterans time and time again!

DINA TITUS '08!
By jfnance32

10/11/08 at 12:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Oh Please!!!! Ms. Taxus was against drilling but now is for it...kinda of for it....when she is for drilling but with 1,0000,0000x conditions and only if we really really really need to.

Ms. Taxus will be a Pelosi Puppy.

Pelosi will ask Ms. Taxus to raise taxes and Ms. Taxus will reply, "How high?".
By KeepNVStrong

10/11/08 at 7:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

JOBS BABY JOBS vs DRILL BABY DRILL

I don't get it. OK, "Country First" and all that great sloganeering, but WHAT ABOUT NEVADA'S ECONOMY?

Last I checked there are going to be ZERO jobs in Nevada, except a few at Yucca Mountain and one coal plant, under the Porter/Bush/McCain plan. Ain't no gas/coal/oil to be drillin' in the Silver State.

Titus' plan supports the industries that are preparing to create TENS OF THOUSANDS OF GOOD CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS JOBS IN NEVADA. McCain voted "no" 9 times on getting the industry started. REPUBLICANS TO NEVADA: "DROP DEAD." Sorry the casino and housing market sucks, tough luck, here's some nuclear waste, have a nice day.

I like the Reid/Obama/Titus "let private industry that's trying to build $50B of solar power and wind projects in NV" a WHOLE lot better.

But then I don't own 7 houses.
By jfnance32

10/11/08 at 8:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Lets also talk about the numbers of jobs that have been destroyed this past year in Las Vegas by the "No Drill" crowd.

Of course, spending billions of dollars will create jobs.

I have never seen or heard anybody say 10,000 of thousands of jobs in Nevada.

The brand new state-of-art Solar One Plant generates power at 2.45x the current market rate for energy.

Yes lets spend billions in taxpayer money to create jobs so that our power bill goes up by 2.45x. Also, that will mean all goods and services will go up in prices too. Most, likely some people will lose jobs because the price of utility energy will double.

It sounds like a dufus Democratic liberal plan.

Lets spend billions of taxpayer money to generate energy at 2.45x the current cost. It probably will create 1 job for each $1,000,000 in taxpayer money and make the people who donate money to Democrats very rich just like the sub-prime bomb that went off lately.

Yep...sounds exactly like a liberal Demcoratic plan.

Of course, when it blows up like the "lets get minorities into homes and push for sub-prime loans", the Democrats walk around and say, "Who me?"
By car_1

10/12/08 at 3:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

jfnance32:

Need not worry about that electric bill the Reid/Obama/Titus plan will provide subsidies for the folks who can't afford the bill. At taxpayer expense of coarse.

End this nonsense and start drilling. Thanks Reid/Obama/Titus for trying to continue this mess.
By KeepNVStrong

10/12/08 at 8:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

"jfnance32"'s comments about price of electricity are complete nonsense.

Our fastest growing need for power is summertime peak power -- annually it's growing twice as fast as our night-time/average power use. It's all gas-fired; coal plants have to run all the time, they're irrelevant to the "peaking problem."

Electricity generation is the fastest rising use of natural gas in the US; Boone Pickens is right about that. Analysts are projecting rapid rises in the cost of natural gas as a result.

Nevada Solar One is *very close* to the price of peaking power now. If gas rises some, if we get carbon costs, it'll be the cheapest peaker we have in the state.

It was great policy to build NVS1. Look at Arizona, where APS is right now building a 280MW plant with the same technology at Nevada Solar One. That was driven not by renewable energy mandates, but by the requirement to find the cheapest source of power for Arizona.

Power plants that never use fuel that last forever. And, by the way, they return 4x the in state revenues and provide 4x the construction jobs versus the same power output conventional plants. At a time when analysts are talking about doubled prices of natural gas within 2 years, it's a hell of a deal. Certainty on electricity supply will bring other business to our state.

You have to be completely blinded by ideology and willing to ignore the facts on the ground right here in Nevada to talk about drilling. Me, I'd rather have the jobs and construction jobs right here in state so we can balance the damn state budget.
By Johnathan_Abbinett

10/13/08 at 12:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

If anyone knows who "jfnance" is - for all our sakes get that person to a Mental Health professional ASAP!