Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Senate Energy Bill Would Increase Gas Prices ($6.40 by 2016)
heritage foundation ^ | 6/18/07 | William W. Beach

Posted on 06/19/2007 7:57:50 AM PDT by finnman69

The Senate is currently debating energy policy legislation that could result in significantly higher prices for gasoline consumers. A review of S. 1419, including the just-completed section on tax changes, reveals that the bill could increase the price of regular unleaded gasoline from $3.14 per gallon (the early May national average) to $6.40 in 2016--a 104 percent increase.

The Senate bill aims to slow and ultimately reverse the growth of carbon emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles, mainly through provisions requiring higher Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for cars and more biofuel content in retail gasoline. The bill does not, however, contain significant funding or organizational plans for increasing the country's supply of petroleum. In addition, the bill contains a section directed at "price gouging." The bill proposes paying for the new mandates and programs with a series of tax increases, most of which would be paid by producers of gasoline. The combined effects of these policy changes would cause retail gasoline prices to increase.

Click to View Estimated Gas Prices by State

Biofuel Content. The requirement to increase the biofuel content of retail gasoline would reduce flexibility in the nation's gasoline supply and add to the production costs--the latter stemming primarily from the higher costs of producing ethanol. Both trends would begin in the short term as the structure of gasoline production changed to conform to the bill's requirements.

Increasing CAFE Standards. If the nation's automobile and truck fleet achieves the higher fuel efficiency targets, demand for gasoline will fall, exerting a downward pressure on gas prices. However, that pressure offsets only about a fourth of the increased costs resulting from biofuel requirements. Some analysts might argue that the downward pressure will be greater; however, recent history has demonstrated that higher fuel efficiency standards have a modest effect on price.

Price Controls. The Senate's least environmental initiative is the one most likely to increase prices. Many times over the past 100 years, well-meaning efforts to cap prices in order to protect U.S. consumers resulted in unintended reductions in supply and higher prices. A simple economic truth is that high prices spur producers to increase supply, which ultimately lowers prices for consumers. When policymakers set price caps to combat "price gouging," the result is the opposite of the one intended. Consumers increase their demand as a result of the capped price, but producers do not face any incentive to meet that demand. Supply fails to keep pace with demand, resulting in rationing or supply "brown outs."

Increased Taxes. The Senate bill contains a number of tax law changes that would also contribute to gasoline prices. Among the most prominent are:

a tax on finished gasoline as it leaves the production facility;
a tax on gasoline produced in the United States and sold abroad;
a decrease in the tax credit offered to producers of ethanol; and,
major changes in the tax credits and deductions afforded to gasoline producers under current tax law. The loss of current gasoline company tax credits is particularly dangerous to consumers, since it is a large loss (about $13 billion over 10 years). Taxpaying corporations tend to recoup increased tax payments in the form of higher retail prices.

Taken together, the four factors will raise the price of gasoline by the following estimated amounts:

The national average per gallon price of gasoline in May 2007 was $3.14.[1] However, state-by-state monthly averages are not available, so the data is based on the average state gas price on May 15, 2007, which was $3.11.[2] This average is the basis for the national and state-by-state increases in pump prices over the next several years. Heritage analysts projected estimates of gasoline prices for 2008 by first adjusting the mid-May 2007 rate for 1% inflation[3] and then adding 28 cents[4] to each state's average cost. Similarly, state-level estimates for 2010 through 2016 were calculated by adding the projected cost of S. 1419 to consumers to the previous year's inflation-adjusted pump prices. Gas consumers can expect to pay between $3.16 and $3.79 a gallon for gas in 2008 after adding in the estimated impact of the Senate energy bill. By 2016, all states can expect gas prices in excess of $6. As a result of S. 1419, consumers would spend an average of $1445 more per year on gasoline in 2016 than in 2008.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: energy; gasoline; gasprices; s1419; tax

1 posted on 06/19/2007 7:57:53 AM PDT by finnman69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: finnman69

2 posted on 06/19/2007 7:59:30 AM PDT by finnman69 (May Paris Hilton’s plane crash into Britney Spears house while Lindsey Lohan is over)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: finnman69

The opposite of “Progress” is “Congress.”


3 posted on 06/19/2007 8:03:06 AM PDT by sionnsar (trad-anglican.faithweb.com |Iran Azadi| 5yst3m 0wn3d - it's N0t Y0ur5 (SONY) | UN: Useless Nations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: finnman69

Bad politics backed by bad science = disaster


4 posted on 06/19/2007 8:03:49 AM PDT by Edgerunner (If leftists don't like it, I do. Keep your powder dry...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar

I fully agree


5 posted on 06/19/2007 8:04:55 AM PDT by wastedyears (Check my profile for links to anti-illegal immigration T-shirts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: finnman69

Congress will use this excuse to get more tax money......not to impact the use of gas. Congress needs to allow the American people to decide what they want to do, not tell the American people what they should do. This will be the ultimate control of our daily lives. Imagine how much control the government will have over you if you can’t afford to purchase gas and travel the way you desire. If you were living on Social Security, you couldn’t even afford to go grocery shopping.


6 posted on 06/19/2007 8:07:14 AM PDT by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: finnman69

What is supposed to happen to Diesel fuel prices?


7 posted on 06/19/2007 8:13:31 AM PDT by Paladin2 (Islam is the religion of violins, NOT peas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
We would be better off to get rid of the senate and not pass anymore bills for anything. Leave well enough alone and enforce the laws we already have. Sheesh...
8 posted on 06/19/2007 8:32:58 AM PDT by Moleman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Moleman

We need to repeal the 17th Amendment.


9 posted on 06/19/2007 9:27:49 AM PDT by sionnsar (trad-anglican.faithweb.com |Iran Azadi| 5yst3m 0wn3d - it's N0t Y0ur5 (SONY) | UN: Useless Nations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: finnman69

ping


10 posted on 06/19/2007 9:39:27 AM PDT by Para-Ord.45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
BTTT.

Congressional Budget Office Estimates for S. 1419

Based on a preliminary review of S. 1419, the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007, as introduced on May 17, 2007, CBO estimates that enacting this legislation would increase direct spending by $1.8 billion over the 2008-2012 period and by $2.5 billion over the 2008-2017 period. In addition, CBO estimates that the legislation would reduce revenues by $0.4 billion over the 2008-2012 period and by $2.7 billion over the 2008-2017 period. Increased federal outlays and revenue losses from enacting S. 1419 would total $2.2 billion and $5.2 billion, respectively, over those periods (see enclosed table).

CBO has not completed an estimate of the bill’s estimated impact on discretionary spending, but we estimate that implementing the legislation would have additional costs of at least $7 billion over the 2008-2012 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary funds. The bulk of that spending would be for energy research and development activities related to increasing energy efficiency, reducing carbon emissions, and advancing renewable energy technology.

Pursuant to section 203 of S. Con. Res. 21, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2008, CBO estimates that, under S. 1419, on-budget deficits would be increased (or surpluses would be reduced) by at least $5 billion in at least one of the four 10-year periods beginning in 2018.

S. 1419 also contains several private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA. While the aggregate cost of all the private-sector mandates contained in the bill is uncertain, CBO expects that the total cost of those mandates would be well in excess of the annual threshold established in UMRA ($131 million in 2007, adjusted annually for inflation).
11 posted on 06/19/2007 11:13:25 AM PDT by gpapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson