Federal EV tax credit: unnecessary, inefficient, unpopular, costly, and unfair

In April, Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) introduced the Drive America Forward Act, a bill that would expand the tax credit for new plug-in electric vehicles (EVs) by allowing an additional 400,000 vehicles per manufacturer to be eligible for a credit of up to $7,000. Currently, the tax credit is worth up to$7,500 until a manufacturer sells more than 200,000 vehicles. In late September, groups that stand to benefit from the extension of the federal tax credits wrote to Senator McConnell and other leaders in Congress, encouraging them to support on the Drive America Forward Act. As IER has documented in the past, lawmakers should not extend the EV tax credit as the policy is unnecessary, inefficient, unpopular, costly, and unfair.

Unnecessary and inefficient

The EV tax credit is not necessary to support an electric vehicle market in the U.S. as one group estimates that 70 percent of EV owners would have purchased their vehicle without receiving a subsidy, which is reasonable seeing as 78 percent of credits go to households making more than $100,000 a year.  Furthermore, the federal tax credit overlaps with a number of other government privileges for EVs, including:

  • State rebates and/or other favors (reduced registration fees, carpool-lane access, etc.) in California, as well as in 44 other states and the District of Columbia.
  • Tax credits for infrastructure investment, a federal program that began in 2005 and, after six extensions, expired in 2017.
  • Federal R&D for “sustainable transportation,” mainly to reduce battery costs, averaging almost $700 million per year.
  • Credit for EV sales for automakers to meet their corporate fuel economy (CAFE) obligations.
  • Mandates in California and a dozen other states for automakers to sell Zero-Emission Vehicles—a quota in addition to subsidies.

Even if the federal tax credits were needed to support demand for EVs, the extension of the tax credit would be an absurdly inefficient means of achieving the stated goal of the policy, which is ostensibly to lower carbon emissions. The Manhattan Institute found that electric vehicles will reduce energy-related U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by less than 1 percent by 2050.

Unpopular

Lawmakers should be aware that the vast majority of people do not support subsidizing electric vehicle purchases. The American Energy Alliance recently released the results of surveys that examine the sentiments of likely voters about tax credits for electric vehicles. The surveys were administered to 800 likely voters statewide in each of three states (ME, MI and ND). The margin of error for the results in each state is 3.5 percent.

The findings include:

  • Voters don’t think they should pay for other people’s car purchases. In every state, overwhelming majorities (70 percent or more) said that while electric cars might be a good choice for some, those purchases should not be paid for by other consumers.
  • As always, few voters (less than 1/5 in all three states) trust the federal government to make decisions about what kinds of cars should be subsidized or mandated.
  • Voters’ sentiments about paying for others’ electric vehicles are especially sharp when they learn that those who purchase electric vehicles are, for the most part, wealthy and/or from California.
  • There is almost no willingness to pay for electric vehicle car purchases. When asked how much they would be willing to pay each year to support the purchase of electric vehicles by other consumers, the most popular answer in each state (by 70 percent or more) was “nothing.”

The full details of the survey can be found here.

Costly and unfair

Most importantly, an extension of the federal EV tax credit is unfair as the policy concentrates and directs benefits to wealthy individuals that are predominantly located in one geographic area, namely California. A breakdown of each state’s share of the EV tax credit is displayed in the map below:

In 2018, over 46 percent of new electric vehicle sales were made in California alone. Given that California represents only about 12 percent of the U.S. car market, this disparity means that the other 49 states are subsidizing expensive cars for Californians.  However, in order to understand the full extent of the benefits that people in California are receiving, some further explanation is in order.

When governments enact tax credit programs that favor special businesses without reducing spending, the overall impact is parallel to a direct subsidy as the costs of covering the tax liability shift to the American taxpayer or are subsumed in the national debt (future taxpayers). California offers a number of additional incentives on top of the federal tax credit for electric vehicles that are also driving demand for EVs in the state. These incentives include an additional purchase rebate of up to $7,000 through the Clean Vehicle Rebate Project, privileged access to high-occupancy vehicle lanes, and significant public spending on the infrastructure needed to support EVs. Therefore, the additional incentives that California (and other states) offer to promote EVs have broader impacts as these policies incentivize more people to make use of the federal tax credit, passing their costs on to American taxpayers. In other words, you’re not avoiding the costs of California’s EV policies by not living in California.

This problem is made even worse when we consider the impact of zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) regulations, which require manufacturers to offer for sale specific numbers of zero-emission vehicles. As recently as 2017, auto producers have been producing EVs at a loss in order to meet these standards, and they have been passing the costs on to their other consumers. This was made apparent in 2015 by Bob Lutz, the former Executive Vice President of Chrysler and former Vice-Chairman of GM, said:

“I don’t know if anybody noticed, but full-size sport-utilities used to be — just a few years ago used to be $42,000, all in, fully equipped. You can’t touch a Chevy Tahoe for under about $65,000 now. Yukons are in the $70,000. The Escalade comfortably hits $100,000. Three or four years ago they were about $60,000. What this is, is companies trying to recover what they’re losing at the other end with what I call compliance vehicles, which are Chevy Volts, Bolts, plug-in Cadillacs and fuel cell vehicles.”

Fiat Chrysler paid $600 million for ZEV compliance credits in 2015 (plus an unknown amount of losses on their EV sales), and sold 2.2 million vehicles, indicating Fiat Chrysler internal combustion engine (ICE) buyers paid a hidden tax of approximately $272 per vehicle to subsidize wealthy EV byers. ICE buyers were 99.3 percent of U.S. vehicle purchases in 2015. So, even if half the credits purchased were for hybrids, each EV sold in 2015 was subsidized by more than $13,000 in ZEV credit sales, in addition to all of the other federal, state, and local subsidies.

As is typical with most policies that benefit a politically privileged group, the plan to extend the federal tax credit program comes with tremendous costs, which are likely being compounded by people abusing the policy.  One estimate found that the overall costs of the Drive America Forward Act would be roughly $15.7 billion over 10 years and would range from $23,000 to $33,900 for each additional EV purchase under the expanded tax credit. Seeing as the costs of monitoring and enforcing the eligibility requirements of the EV tax credit program are not zero, it should surprise no one that the program has been abused as it has recently come to light that thousands of auto buyers may have improperly claimed more than $70 million in tax credits for purchases of new plug-in EVs. Finally, additional concerns arise over the equity of the federal EV tax credit due to the fact that half of EV tax credits are claimed by corporations, not individuals

End this charade

When the tax credit was first adopted, politicians assured us that the purpose of the program was to help launch the EV market in the U.S. and that the tax credit would remain capped at the current limit of 200,000 vehicles. At that time, we warned that once this program was in place, politicians would continue to extend the cap in order to appease the demands of manufacturers and other political constituencies that were created by the program. A decade later, we find ourselves in that exact situation. At this point, it should be clear that Congress should not expand the federal EV tax credit as the program is nothing more than an extension of special privileges to wealthy individuals and corporations that are mostly located in California. If Congress can’t find the courage to put an end to such an unfair and inefficient policy, President Trump should not hesitate to veto any legislation that extends the federal EV tax credit, as doing so would be consistent with his approach to other energy issues such as CAFE reform.


AEA to Senate: Highway Bill is Highway Robbery

WASHINGTON DC (July 30, 2019) – Today, Thomas Pyle, President of the American Energy Alliance, issued a letter to Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman John Barrasso highlighting concerns about the recently introduced America’s Transportation Infrastructure Act. Included in the legislation is an unjustified, $1 billion handout to special interests in the form of charging stations for electric vehicles.  AEA maintains that provisions like this are nearly impossible to reverse in the future and create a regressive, unnecessary, and duplicative giveaway program to the wealthiest vehicle owners in the United States. 
 
Read the text of the letter below:
 

Chairman Barrasso,

The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works is scheduled to consider the reauthorization of the highway bill and the Highway Trust Fund today.  At least some part of this consideration will include provisions that provide for $1 billion in federal grants for electric vehicle charging infrastructure.  This is among $10 billion in new spending included in a “climate change” subtitle.  All of this new spending is to be siphoned away from the Highway Trust Fund (HTF), meant to provide funding for the construction and maintenance of our nation’s roads and bridges.  The HTF already consistently runs out of money, a situation that will only be exacerbated by these new spending programs.

We oppose this new federal program for EV infrastructure for a number of reasons, including, but not limited to the following:

  • The grant program, once established in the HTF, will never be removed.  Our experience with other, non-highway spending in the trust fund (transit, bicycles, etc.) is that once it is given access to the trust fund, the access is never revoked.  Our nation’s highway infrastructure already rates poorly in significant part due to the diversion of highway funds to non-highway spending.
  • As we have noted elsewhere, federal support for electric vehicles provides economic advantages to upper income individuals at the expense of those in middle and lower income quintiles.  This grant program would exacerbate that problem.
  • This program will result in taxpayers in States with few electric vehicles or little desire for electric vehicles having their tax dollars redirected from the roads they actually use to subsidize electric vehicle owners in States like California and New York.
  • This program is duplicative.  There is already a loan program within DOE that allows companies and States to get taxpayer dollars to subsidize wealthy electric vehicle owners.

For these and other reasons, we oppose the provisions that would create a regressive, unnecessary, and duplicative giveaway program to wealthy, mostly coastal electric vehicle owners.  This giveaway not only redirects taxpayer money from the many States to the few, in looting the Highway Trust Fund it also leaves those many States, including Wyoming, with less money to maintain their own extensive road networks.


Sincerely,

Thomas J. Pyle

The Unregulated Podcast #31: Tom and Mike Discuss Rob Manfred’s All-Star Error

The Unregulated Podcast #30: Tom and Mike Discuss Biden’s First Press Conference and the Infrastructure Bill

Tom and Mike sit down to discuss President Biden’s first press conference and the infrastructure bill. They also discuss problems with the Jones Act and the future of the filibuster.

Ban North Face. Wait, Strike that. Reverse It.

Sometimes it feels impossible not to get frustrated during this pandemic. 

If you work in the American oil and gas industry and went from a president who is an energy hero to one that’s an energy zero, those times are increasing in frequency. 

According to the 5th annual Global Energy Talent Index (GETI) report, 78 percent of oil and gas employees feel less secure in their jobs than they did a year ago.  Gee, I wonder why.

But ask many of them, knowing what they know now, would they still enter the oil and gas industry for a career if they all had to do it all over again and the answer is a resounding yes. 

So, they feel insecure about their industry but love what they do for a living, even among these challenging times, what are their concerns or frustrations?  

An informal survey of oil and gas industry employees we at AEA conducted points to hypocrisy among the climate elite as one of the most frustrating issues of all. 

Put aside the open hostility of President Biden’s executive orders, they say; it’s the aloof comments from people like White House climate czar John Kerry about the need for the U.S. to cut emissions and for oil and gas workers to get re-educated and relocate to build solar panel as he steps on to his private jet – which is built by and powered by oil – that seems to aggravate them the most.

And it isn’t just politicians, current or former, like Kerry, they find fault with when it comes to hypocrisy, or irony for that matter.  For years, the industry has highlighted environmental protesters who flip on their microphones and loudspeakers (powered by oil and gas), organize their rallies through mobile phone technology and social media (powered by oil and gas), and travel by the busload (powered by oil and gas) to challenge the very industry that got them there (literally.)

The blatant hypocrisy against oil and gas has gone corporate, too.  For years, companies like New Belgium, maker of delicious craft beers such as Fat Tire (at a minimum are delivered by oil and gas), or trendy clothing companies like Patagonia (literally made from petroleum products) have also taken a page from the John Kerry virtue signaling playbook.

North Face, an outdoor recreation clothing maker, delivered a high-profile rejection to Innovex, a Texas-based oilfield service company, when it denied the company the rights to put their logo on an order of four hundred North Face jackets—an employee gift Innovex planned on issuing.  Innovex CEO Steve Rendle fired back at North Face via LinkedIn.

One might think the industry would call for a universal ban of North Face, right?

Instead, one brilliant oil and gas company flipped the script and praised North Face, going so far as to issue them an award. 

Do tell, right?

Chris Wright, President and CEO of Liberty Oilfield, and outdoor enthusiast, took the time to dig through North Face’s online catalogue to discover every product the company sells includes nylon, polyester and polyurethane, all of which come from petroleum. That means North Face is a huge customer of the oil and gas industry, so Wright, along with the Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA), issued North Face an “Extraordinary Customer Award” via a safe, social-distanced press conference. Kudos to Shaun Boyd at CBS Denver, one of the largest television news outlets in Colorado, who covered the award and ceremony. 

But petroleum’s lack of appreciation doesn’t stop with the outdoor gear and recreation like North Face or Patagonia, or New Belgium.

The Institute for Energy Research joined Chris Wright and COGA to highlight the enormous contribution oil and gas has made in addressing the coronavirus pandemic. These miracle vaccines would not be possible without the huge contributions of America’s first-in-the-world supplies of oil and natural gas, which are the basis of organic chemistry which in turn makes plastics that are used in the production of vials, screening and protective gear, and thousands of other applications throughout the medical logistics chain.

Hospitals are loaded with protective equipment, syringes, tubing, polypropylene masks, gowns and goggles all made with hydrocarbons. And each item is aimed at helping protect our first responders and patients. Or think about the cooling and filtering of air to keep our doctors and nurses healthy, and to help patients heal. The power for our hospitals is also critical. Hydrocarbons provide 63 percent of electricity nationwide, including power for emergency rooms, urgent care centers, and pharmaceutical production facilities.  The two most common types of back-up generators used for hospitals are natural gas powered and diesel fueled combustion engines.  A full tank of diesel fuel can maintain power for an entire hospital for about 8 hours.  Depending on the size of the hospital and the amount of fuel stored on site, these types of generators can maintain power for at least 24 hours.  

Can you imagine if Pfizer and Moderna could not rely on that power?  Or, if they could not keep their vaccines stored at the necessary cold temperatures to ensure their effectiveness?

Our care providers and patients require ready and reliable access to power the life-saving machines supporting our most vulnerable, regardless of the weather conditions happening outside. 

Lastly, reliable access to affordable transportation is also critical. 95 percent of our transportation fuels – gasoline, diesel and jet fuel – transport all the personnel, component parts and eventually the vaccines themselves.

In short, we’re fortunate as a country to have access to these important fuels to support our life saving medical care and preventative opportunities. 

With their value higher than ever, you’d expect oil and gas workers to be celebrated. Instead, their facing all-time high contempt from the hypocritical climate elite. It’s a frustrating time indeed, but it’s refreshing to see someone like Chris Wright and COGA come in with a new take to a longstanding problem.

For more in depth information, consider listening — The Plugged In Podcast #72: Tom Pyle Speaks to the Colorado Oil and Gas Association.

A Tax on Carbon is a Tax On Everyone


Call it whatever you like, it’s still the most regressive tax imaginable.


WASHINGTON DC (March 26, 2021) – Today, the American Energy Alliance (AEA), the country’s premier pro-consumer, pro-taxpayer, and free-market energy organization, reiterated its opposition to a carbon tax – in any form – in reaction to the news that the American Petroleum Institute has endorsed a “price on carbon.”

AEA President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement:

“Let’s be clear. A price on carbon is a tax on energy. A national energy tax is an easy position for big, multi-national companies to embrace because it gives the federal government what it wants (more tax revenue); attempts to appease the greens (it won’t); and compels customers to pay more in taxes to the federal government in the false hope of avoiding additional future regulations (the progressives have already ruled this out).

“Those who are left out of the conversation are consumers, small businesses, the poor, seniors, and those on fixed incomes – basically everyone.

“I have been advocating for years that the House and Senate should debate and vote on a clean bill to create a federal carbon tax so that the American people can clearly see where their elected representatives stand on this issue. I look forward to a robust public discussion about how the Biden Administration, Congressional Democrats, and big business, including some integrated oil companies, are united in support of imposing the most regressive tax imaginable on American voters.”


Additional Resources:

For media inquiries please contact:
[email protected]

The Unregulated Podcast #29 Tom and Mike Discuss the Early Days of the Biden Administration with Mandy Gunasekara

WSJ Outlines Biden Admin’s Backdoor Climate Agenda

The Wall Street Journal published an editorial March 18 discussing the Biden administration’s “backdoor” plan to advance climate regulations. As the editorial outlines, it appears that the Biden EPA plans to use the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to move forward with climate regulations in order to avoid the political costs of voting on any such regulations in congress. 

Some history

In Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) the Supreme Court ruled that the law’s general definition of the term “pollutant” covered greenhouse gases, but the Court didn’t tell the EPA how to regulate carbon dioxide under the law. This set the stage for the Obama EPA’s endangerment finding, which declared greenhouse gases a threat to public health and welfare. 

In the wake of the endangerment finding, green groups pressured the Obama EPA to include carbon dioxide as a criteria pollutant and to set National Air Ambient Quality Standards for it. Because carbon dioxide doesn’t produce any direct negative effects on public health, Obama EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson advised against the idea of regulating it as a criteria pollutant. Instead, the Obama EPA used its Clean Power Plan to try to force states to reduce emissions from power plants. However, the Clean Power Plan was eventually blocked by the Supreme Court. 

The New Plan

The climate lobby now appears to have a scheme underway by which it will use a replacement ozone rule to regulate carbon dioxide. The Biden administration has tapped Joe Goffman, a former Obama EPA official, to oversee NAAQS as principal deputy assistant administrator of the Office of Air and Radiation. As the Wall Street Journal’s editorial explains:

“Emails obtained by Chris Horner at Energy Policy Advocates, which were shared with us, show Democratic AGs in 2019 consulted Mr. Goffman, then at Harvard Law School, on using the NAAQS to regulate CO2. Mr. Goffman connected the AGs to former EPA officials and environmental attorneys. As his new EPA profile slyly explains, Mr. Goffman at Harvard ‘led a team of attorneys and communications specialists providing information and analysis to stakeholders, government decision-makers and the media.’

Consultants referred by Mr. Goffman told the AGs that regulating CO2 as a criteria pollutant wouldn’t fly. But they proposed using ozone NAAQS as what one called a ‘backdoor.’ Fossil fuel combustion, motor vehicle exhaust and industrial emissions contribute to ozone. So the EPA could make states reduce CO2 emissions by tightening ozone standards. States might have to outlaw natural gas-powered appliances, gas stations and internal combustion engines to meet stricter ozone standards.”

On January 19th, sixteen Democratic AGs challenged the EPA’s current ozone NAAQS in a one paragraph lawsuit that says the current standards are “unlawful, arbitrary and capricious and therefore must be vacated.” With Joe Goffman now in place in Biden’s EPA, it appears their goal is to construct a replacement ozone rule that would provide de facto regulation of carbon dioxide emissions. 

In short, it appears as though Democratic AGs, green groups, and a top EPA official are working in unison to impose the Green New Deal on states through the backdoor because, as the Wall Street Journal puts it, “they know they can’t pass it through the front in Congress.”

CLEAN Future Act Puts Ratepayers On The Hook For EV Infrastructure

In early March, the House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee Chairman Paul Tonko (D-NY) and Energy Subcommittee Chairman Bobby L. Rush (D-IL) introduced the Climate Leadership and Environmental Action for our Nation’s (CLEAN) Future Act. The bill aims to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, with an interim target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent from 2005 levels no later than 2030.  

Taken as a whole, the bill would impose overbearing regulations on the production of our most reliable energy sources, which would raise costs on energy consumers and destroy jobs in the energy industry. Here, I want to focus on one particular section of the bill that aims at encouraging the deployment of electric vehicle charging stations in the name of environmental justice. Here is the summary language for the relevant section of the CLEAN Future Act:

“Sec. 435. STATE CONSIDERATION OF ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING.

Amends PURPA section 111(d) to require states consider authorizing measures encouraging deployment of electric vehicle charging stations; allowing utilities to recover from ratepayers’ investments that further deployment of electric vehicle charging networks; and excluding from regulation as electric utilities entities selling electricity to the public solely through electric vehicle chargers.”

Under rate-of-return regulation, utilities are allowed to recover their cost to do business and earn a guaranteed return on invested capital. Under this system, there is little incentive for the utility to reduce operating costs. As long as the rate-of-return is above the cost of debt, the rate base can be inflated by spending more capital than is necessary. If passed, the CLEAN Future Act would allow utilities to rate base the construction of electric vehicle charging stations, meaning that the cost of these charging stations will be passed on to utility customers as a whole. 

As we have noted elsewhere, EVs are already heavily subsidized and those subsidies are costly, unnecessary, and unfair. Electric vehicles are mainly subsidized through tax credits, which are the result of the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 (H.R. 6049) and The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). These provide federal income tax credits for new qualified electric vehicles of up to $7,500. 

According to a report by the Congressional Research Service, the majority of people who claim the electric vehicle tax credit earn a much higher income than the national average. As the report notes:

“In 2016, 57,066 individual taxpayers claimed $375 million in plug-in EV tax credits. EV tax credits are disproportionately claimed by higher-income taxpayers. Most of the tax credits (78%) are claimed by filers with adjusted gross income (AGI) of $100,000 or more, and those filers receive an even higher proportion (83%) of the amount of credits claimed. About 7% of credits claimed, and 8% of the total amount of credits, were on returns where the taxpayer’s AGI exceeded $1 million.”

That same report found, based on estimates provided by the Joint Committee on Taxation, that under current law tax expenditure (forgone revenue) for the plug-in EV tax credit would be $7.5 billion between 2018 and 2022. 

In other words, American taxpayers are already spending billions of dollars to subsidize electric vehicles that are mostly being purchased by high-income earners. On top of that, this new bill would ensure that the costs of building out EV infrastructure will be paid by utility ratepayers in the form of higher electricity prices. This follows a familiar pattern where policies that are enacted in the name of ‘environmental justice’ disproportionately benefit wealthier individuals while the costs are passed on to everyone else.

The Unregulated #28: Tom and Mike Discuss Biden’s Remarks on the American Rescue Plan

AEA Issues Energy Scorecard Vote Alert for DOI Nominee Deb Haaland


Senators casting votes in support of Rep. Haaland for Interior Secretary will earn a negative mark on AEA’s Energy Scorecard.



WASHINGTON DC (March 15, 2021) – Today, the American Energy Alliance (AEA), the country’s premier pro-consumer, pro-taxpayer, and free-market energy organization, issued a vote alert to members of the U.S. Senate that the organization would be scoring the confirmation vote of Rep. Deb Haaland (D-NM) as the next Secretary of Interior. AEA’s Energy Scorecard has two primary audiences – voters and lawmakers – and its purpose is to highlight activity around the most important energy-related votes and legislation in Congress.

Last month, AEA issued a series of questions exposing poor judgment and actions by Haaland and a history of unscientific commentary on climate change and opposition to domestic energy production. Tapping America’s vast energy resources on federal lands has proven to keep energy prices affordable and increased our nation’s energy security.

A vote in support of Haaland, who opposes safe and responsible domestic energy development, will result in a negative mark on a Senator’s Energy Scorecards.

AEA President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement ahead of the vote:

“While Biden’s nominees for various energy and economic positions have been awful, Rep. Haaland may be the most extreme. Her wholehearted opposition to the invaluable practice of hydraulic fracturing (fracking), her advocacy for the “30×30” movement, which would exclude most of the federal lands from productive use, and her endorsement of the Green New Deal make her unfit to lead the department.

“Haaland hails from New Mexico, the epicenter of America’s thriving oil and gas production, and earned a 0% as a member of Congress on our Energy Scorecard. That means she actively opposes domestic energy production and seeks to drive up energy prices while inhibiting America’s energy security. Supporting her in this role should be political suicide and we’re making that crystal clear with today’s vote alert. These aren’t threats, these are facts.

“Any Senator who casts a vote in support of Haaland is voting against American energy and will be forced to explain to their own constituents that they are directly responsible for rising energy prices and why foreign nations like China, who controls the rare earth mineral market required for renewable energy manufacturing, is in control of our energy future, not us.”


Federal policies impacting energy production on America’s public lands hit Haaland’s home state of New Mexico particularly hard, where $2.8 billion in revenue is derived from oil and gas production. At least half of New Mexico’s oil and gas production occurs on federal lands, and the revenue generated from oil and gas funds almost 40% of the state’s budget. Furthermore, President Biden’s Interior Department initiated a 60-day suspension of new oil and gas drilling permits on Jan. 21, which if remained permanent is estimated to result in 72,818 fewer jobs annually. Lost wages would total $19.6 billion, economic activity would decline $43.8 billion, and tax revenues would drop $10.8 billion by the end of Biden’s first term. Western governors, including Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-NM), have voiced concern about federal decisions that overwhelmingly impact western states.

On Friday, AEA urged U.S. citizens who support affordable energy to contact their senators and urge a No vote on Haaland. After votes are cast, AEA will use its Energy Scorecard to highlight those that vote for and against Haaland. Americans deserve an Interior Secretary who has a record of seeking a balanced approach to federal lands activities and who supports energy security.


Additional Resources:


For media inquiries please email AEA’s Press Office: [email protected]

The Unregulated Podcast #27: Tom and Mike discuss environmental justice with Dr. David Kreutzer