Senators Who Voted To Protect Oil Tax Breaks Received $23,582,500 From Big Oil

[ProSense]

Senators Who Voted To Protect Oil Tax Breaks Received $23,582,500 From Big Oil

By Rebecca Leber

In a 51-47 vote, 43 Senate Republicans and four Democrats filibustered to protect $24 billion in tax breaks for Big Oil. Although a majority voted for Sen. Robert Menendez’s (D-NJ) bill, it fell short of the 60 needed. The only two Republicans to break rank were Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) and retiring Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME).

A Think Progress Green analysis shows how oil and gas companies have funneled cash to the same senators who protected its handouts:

– The 47 senators voting against the bill have received $23,582,500 in career contributions from oil and gas. The 51 senators voting to repeal oil tax breaks have received $5,873,600.

– The senators who voted for Big Oil’s handouts received on average over four times as much career oil cash as those who voted to end them.

– Overall, Senate Republicans have taken $23.2 million in oil and gas contributions. Democrats received $6.66 million.

– Since 2011, Senate Republicans have voted seven times for pro-Big Oil interests and against clean energy three times.

Democrats who joined the Republicans in defeating the bill include Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Mark Begich (D-AK), and Jim Webb (D-VA). Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) and retiring Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) broke ranks and voted to cut the tax breaks. Two senators, Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) didn’t vote.

Republicans have taken an overwhelming 88 percent of oil and gas contributions this election cycle. While showering politicans with cash, the oil industry also spent over $146,000,000 on lobbying last year.

Although 55 percent of Americans want to see Big Oil welfare end, the GOP once again largely acted in-line with their Big Oil donors.

The full list of oil contributions for the Senate is listed below, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics:

- more -

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/03/29/454853/senators-who-voted-to-protect-oil-tax-breaks-received-23582500-from-big-oil/

Interesting numbers from the list, received since 2006:

Baucus - $193,800, voted to yes.

Cornyn - $1,197,275, voted no.

Landrieu - $492,030, voted no.

McCain - $2,622,764, voted no. (This high number could likely be attributed to running for President; lifetime is only about $250K more)

McConnell - $759,450, voted no.

Webb - $26,006 , voted no.


With two years in the Senate, Scott Brown received $198,660, voted to no.

[Stan Smith]

1. No surprise.

Big Oil has been bribing politicians for years. After we win in November, Big Oil's days are numbered. With Democrats controlling the house, the senate, and the White House, we will finally make the leap to alternative energy that we so desperately need. In ten years or so when we are all using clean, renewable, and cheap energy the right wingers will thank us.

[badtoworse]

3. "Clean, renewable and cheap energy"?

Renewable energy is not cheap; it's not without its own environmental impacts and we will not have an electric grid that can accept large amounts of renewables and remain stable anytime soon. Even the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration is projecting we will still be generating 35% or so of our electricity with coal in 2035. IIRC, the projection for renewables was about 15%. Personally, I think they are wrong about that, but not because renewables are going to solve our problems or gain greater market share. Natural gas is getting so cheap that renewables won't be able to compete.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's not going to happen regardless of who gets elected.

[Stan Smith]

6. Well, other than start up costs sunshine and wind is free.

And as solar and wind gains popularity the price of solar panels and windmills will go down. Same with electric and hybrid cars the costs will come down. Maybe it is just a dream, but I envision a world in the next decade or so where we can have cheap renewable energy fulfilling our every need. Even if we don't get there at least we have a President who wants the same thing as I do.

[badtoworse]

7. It's actually more complicated than that

The initial cost of renewables is high - about double what a combined cycle gas turbine plant costs and they do require maintenance. Things like power conditioning systems, inverters, gearboxes, etc, do wear out and need to be replaced. Keep in mind that natural gas prices are currently very low and are projected to stay that way for the foreseeable future. That means that a gas plant can turn out some pretty cheap megawatt-hours. At current prices, a gas plant could probably generate electricity for about $30 - $35 per megawatt-hour. Even with substantial tax credits, wind energy is still probably north of $50 and solar is more expensive than that

Aside from cost, the biggest problem with wind and solar is the inability to match the generation to the load. With conventional generation, system operators raise and lower the output of the generation to match changes in the load. This keeps the power grid stable. Wind and solar cannot be controlled that way which becomes a big problem as the amount of wind and solar on the grid increases.. If only a little is online and the wind stops blowing, it's not a big deal - operators can easily increase the output of conventional generators to make up for it. Same thing for a little solar on the grid when the sun goes behind a cloud. It's very different if the renewable energy is supplying say 40% or 50% of the load and it suddenly drops to only supplying say 15% or 20%. The operators will need to have a lot of spinning reserve (immediately available generating capacity) to make up for the loss. That is expensive and must be factored into the cost of using renewable energy.

In a similar way, you also have to deal with situations where the sun is not shining (nightime) or when the wind is not blowing at all. That means you need a method of storing the renewable energy for use at that time or you need to bring conventional generation online or you need to shed load. There is a substantial cost associated with all of those approaches.

There is a lot of work being done to deal with these issues - battery storage technologies, compressed air energy storage, pumped hydro , flywheels and other technologies are in development that will help address these problems, but they will not be cheap and implementation might take decades.

Personally, I believe it makes more sense to maximize our use of natural gas for power generation and to move our heavy trucks and buses. Directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing have opened up vast reserves of natural gas. We need to improve the extraction methods to extract the gas safely, but I believe that can be done.

[Jack Sprat]

5. In any rational world

with representatives of the people acting with such unbridled greed and without a shred of integrity, the people would demand new governance and revolt.

[spanone]

2. k&r...

[politicasista]

4. We should be going after them, rather than trashing a Dem because he is rich

like Rmoney.

Just sayin.