Senator Crapo

From your 2008 presentation to the Senate on energy, we in Salmon devised a solution to the energy, environment, and jobs problems for all rural towns in Idaho and in the nation. We in Salmon can be the model that helps other small towns.

We ask to:

This is the first message to you in preparation for our October 22 at 12:30 PM MT video conference.

Because our ideas are multi-faceted, you may want to appoint a staff member to coordinate this process with us. We thank you and look forward to communicating with you and with your staff.

You also show that commodities markets of other resources are increasing, because of supply and demand.

· America's Greatest Energy Resource, Energy Efficiency and Conservation Improvements Since 1973

· NYMEX Crude Oil Futures & Options, Net positions of Commercials & Non-Commercials June 6, 2006 to June 17, 2008

· US OCS Resources, Current US offshore oil resources could displace almost 50 years of OPEC Imports

· US Oil Shale Reserves & Resources, US Oil Shale resources exceed current world oil reserves

· US Onshore Resources, Current US onshore oil resources could displace over 15 years of OPEC Imports

· US Coal To Liquids Resources, US CTL resources rival current world oil reserves

· How energy efficiency and conservation are part of a solution to our energy problem. Fluorescent light bulbs, home insulation, etc.

· About the large amount of oil on the out continental shelf and our on-shore resources

· That the oil and gas in ANWR can help in the transition from oil to alternative energy

We have the capacity, resources, ingenuity and the ability to become energy independent.

We appreciate that you are working on our transition from foreign oil, to domestic oil, to alternative fuel.

We in Salmon have the capacity, resources, ingenuity and the ability to become energy independent.

Did you know that the government subsidized fossil fuel industries more than the government subsidized alternative energy companies? $72 billion to $29 billion in fiscal years 2002 to 2008.

Government support for oil is probably too much now. The government should increase support for alternative energy and fix the tax law that helps fossil fuel companies to avoid tax.

A recent study by the Environmental Law Institute found that government support for fossil fuel was $72 billion and for alternative fuel $29 billion, for Fiscal Years 2002-2008. Fossil fuel tax support is hard-wired and alternative energy support is time-limited. Of particular concern to us in Idaho is this:

Almost none of this money went to Idaho. The Burley Plant manager for Pacific Ethanol, a Sacramento, CA company, Ken Wilson told the Burley City Council last February that low gasoline prices make biofuels too expensive to compete.

Our plan for rural towns is not subject to the price pressure or costs that caused this out-of-state company to close. We need to compete only with the price of gasoline that the oil companies charge in Salmon. Other small towns must meet the same competition.

Currently we send $10.5 million each year out of the Lemhi Valley for gasoline. This is based on the part 8000 people in the Lemhi valley are of the $140 billion gallons of gasoline used nationwide. We don't know how much of our $10.5 million went for foreign oil. We see that U.S. Spent Over $25 Billion (355 million barrels, $70.42 per barrel) on Imported Oil in August (Reuters September 10). What part of this expenditure stays in the town?

Gas Station owners get about three cents per gallon, which accounts for $109,824 of the $10,506,496. The remainder ($10,396,672) of this expenditure goes for imported oil.

• The vast majority of federal subsidies for fossil fuels and renewable energy supported

• The federal government provided substantially larger subsidies to fossil fuels than to

renewables. Subsidies to fossil fuels—a mature, developed industry that has enjoyed

government support for many years—totaled approximately $72 billion over the study

• Subsidies for renewable fuels, a relatively young and developing industry, totaled $29

• Subsidies to fossil fuels generally increased over the study period (though they decreased

in 2008), while funding for renewables increased but saw a precipitous drop in 2006-07

• Most of the largest subsidies to fossil fuels were written into the U.S. Tax Code as permanent provisions. By comparison, many subsidies for renewables are time-limited initiatives implemented through energy bills, with expiration dates that limit their usefulness to the renewables industry.

• The vast majority of subsidy dollars to fossil fuels can be attributed to just a handful of tax breaks, such as the Foreign Tax Credit ($15.3 billion) and the Credit for Production of Nonconventional Fuels ($14.1 billion). The largest of these, the Foreign Tax Credit, applies to the overseas production of oil through an obscure provision of the Tax Code, which allows energy companies to claim a tax credit for payments that would normally receive less-beneficial tax treatment.

• Almost half of the subsidies for renewables are attributable to corn-based ethanol, the use of which, while decreasing American reliance on foreign oil, raises considerable questions about effects on climate.

September 20, 2009

Foreign oil receives highest U.S. tax breaks: ELI

Washington, D.C. - Foreign oil production receives the largest U.S. tax breaks, and fossil fuels receive more than renewable fuels, according to a new study by the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

The study, which reviewed fossil fuel and energy subsidies for fiscal years 2002 to 2008, found that the largest share of energy subsidies supported energy sources that emit high levels of greenhouse gases.

Fossil fuels received the benefit of approximately US$72 billion over the seven-year period, while subsidies for renewal fuels were only $29 billion. Of the renewable subsidies, $16.8 billion went to corn-based ethanol, which the study said is hotly disputed with regard to its effects on climate. Of the fossil fuel subsidies, $70.2 billion went to traditional sources such as oil and coal, while $2.3 billion went to carbon capture and storage, which is designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants. The market for traditional energy sources is shaped by policies such as royalty relief, tax incentives, direct payments and other forms of support to the non-renewable energy industry, ELI said.

“The combination of subsidies, or ‘perverse incentives’, to develop fossil fuel energy sources, and a lack of sufficient incentives to develop renewable energy and promote energy efficiency, distorts energy policy in ways that have helped cause, and continue to exacerbate, our climate change problems,” said John Pendergrass, senior attorney at ELI. “With climate change and energy legislation pending on Capitol Hill, our research suggests that more attention needs to be given to the existing perverse incentives for ‘dirty’ fuels in the U.S. Tax Code.”

The subsidies examined fall roughly into two categories: foregone revenues, mostly in the form of tax breaks, which change the tax code to reduce the tax liabilities of particular entities; and direct spending, in the forms of expenditures on research and development and other programs. The report said that $15.3 billion in subsidies was attributed to the Foreign Tax Credit, which applies to the overseas production of oil through an obscure provision of the U.S. Tax Code, and allows energy companies to claim a tax credit for payments that would normally receive less-beneficial treatment under the tax code.

The ELI researchers considered fossil fuels to include petroleum, natural gas and coal products, while renewable fuels were defined as wind, solar, biofuels, biomass, hydropower, and geothermal energy production. Nuclear energy was not included in the study.

If each town makes its own fuel, then the oil companies must compete with local fuel production, which does not have the transportation costs the oil companies have. Right now the oil companies pass that transportation cost on to us, at the rate of 8 cents or more a gallon in this isolated town.

The oil companies will try to hold their monopoly. When we make our own fuel, then the oil companies will have to compete with us.

Next is how the oil companies plan to hold their monopoly.

Big Oil Goes Green for Real

Remember back in 2001 when BP went "Beyond Petroleum"? It was a brilliant marketing campaign, but it had less to do with changing the company's business model than positioning Lord John Browne as the Teflon oil executive. All but a tiny fraction of BP's revenue came, and still comes, from oil. So how should we take the spate of new green announcements from the world's major oil firms? In July, ExxonMobil announced big plans to grow green algae to fuel cars; last week, Chevron unveiled the world's largest carbon-sequestration project in Australia; and in recent months, Valero, Marathon, and Sunoco carried out a series of acquisitions that resulted in Big Oil controlling 7 percent of the U.S. ethanol business. http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5800

This message sent on September 23, 2009 at 6:00 PM MT to Senator Crapo from his website by Calvin Leman. We invite him to view this page.