Search anytime by typing below

Thanks for joining the AEA efforts to help combat rising energy prices. We don’t want to bug you that often, so let us know what energy issues interest you, and we’ll keep your inbox happy.

*Please fill in all items

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

October 9, 2019 by 19 Comments

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.

Filed Under: Blog, Electric Vehicles Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

AEA to Senate: Highway Bill is Highway Robbery

July 30, 2019 by Leave a Comment

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

Filed Under: Press Releases Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

The Unregulated Podcast #225: Blast From the Past

April 14, 2025 by Leave a Comment

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss tariffs, budgetary prospects, and what’s next for the Republican controlled Congress.

Links:

Stay Connected With The Show:

Filed Under: Podcast

Trump Takes Action To Unleash America’s Coal Potential

April 11, 2025 by Leave a Comment

President Donald Trump has signed executive orders to boost the nation’s coal industry. The orders include efforts to save coal plants that were likely to be retired, drawing on existing emergency authority from the Federal Power Act that allows the Energy Secretary to direct any power plant to keep operating. Other emergency statutes enable the federal government to waive environmental rules implemented by states and direct the U.S. attorney general to identify and take action against state laws that address climate change, ESG initiatives, environmental justice, and carbon emissions. The executive orders also direct Energy Secretary Chris Wright to determine whether coal used in steel production is a “critical mineral,” and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum to acknowledge the end of a moratorium that paused new coal leasing on federal lands and to prioritize the leasing. The coal industry would like to open up Western land, including the Powder River Basin closed by the Biden administration, for more mining, reestablish the National Coal Council, and make metallurgical coal a critical mineral, which would bolster funding and permitting. These Trump orders use coal’s massive reserve base to bolster baseload generation capacity in light of surging demand and reliability problems stemming from intermittent power sources.

Onerous regulations by the Obama and Biden administrations helped to set the decline of coal-fired power plants. The Obama administration invoked the “Clean Power Plan” in 2015, setting off a wave of coal plant retirements that continued through the first Trump presidency and into the Biden administration. The nation’s coal fleet had been the backbone of the  U.S. electricity sector, supplying more than 50% of the nation’s electricity in 2000. But onerous regulation, competition from low-cost natural gas following the fracking revolution, and massive federal subsidies for wind and solar power made it difficult for coal to compete and forced many existing coal plants to retire. About 40% of the existing U.S. coal fleet in 2015 had been retired by the end of 2024, as coal plant generating capacity of 286,000 megawatts in 2015 had dropped to 172,000 megawatts in January 2025. More than 120 coal-fired generating units are expected to close within the next five years.

Source: Blackmon Substack

Even before the executive orders were signed, Trump’s EPA had created an avenue for coal-fired power plants to seek regulatory exemptions. One of the nation’s largest coal plants used that process — the coal-fired Colstrip power plant in Montana. Operators of the Colstrip power plant want a two-year exemption from compliance with an update to EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule.

Existing U.S. coal plants only provide power to the grid about 40% of the time due to wind and solar plants being dispatched first. That number can be increased through deregulation and other measures as coal plants are capable of operating for double that amount of time. Longer times of operation would reduce their costs as more operating time spreads those costs over more hours.

A number of blue states have laws that are onerous to fossil fuels, including coal. President Trump cited laws in New York and Vermont that fine fossil fuel companies for their carbon dioxide emissions, California’s cap-and-trade policy, and lawsuits by states that have sought to hold energy companies accountable for global warming, which have been found to be unjustified, but divert energy companies from their mission to fight the lawsuits.

After Trump signed the orders, Wright’s energy department made $200 billion in financing available for its loan programs office including for new coal technologies.

Electricity Demand is Increasing

U.S. electricity demand is rising for the first time in two decades due to growth in artificial intelligence (AI) data centers, electric vehicles, and cryptocurrencies. The president’s vow to make America the world leader in energy-intensive AI technology is also a reason to keep coal plants online. According to the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, data centers’ power demands could increase from 4.4 percent of the nation’s electricity output in 2023 to between 6 and 12 percent by 2028.

Grid Reliability

The reliability of the nation’s electrical grid is also in question, with large amounts of wind and solar power causing instability. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) has warned that retirements of coal- and natural gas-plants could create power shortages, particularly in winter when wind and solar power output is poor. While solar power installations have soared due to massive subsidies in the Democrat-passed Inflation Reduction Act and state mandates for renewable power, many projects have been waiting for years to connect to the power grid as grid operators are proceeding with caution to maintain reliability.

NERC’s long-range reliability report estimated that up to 115,000 megawatts of fossil fuel power plant capacity could retire between now and 2034, pushing power reserves below safe limits in most of the country. That compares to its estimates that power demand, at the winter peak level, could grow by up to 149,000 megawatts in this decade, due primarily to demand from data centers.

Conclusion

President Trump has signed executive orders to boost the coal industry, which once was the backbone of the U.S. generating system. Despite coal’s ability to provide reliable baseload power, massive subsidies and state mandates have resulted in significant solar and wind power additions that are causing grid instability. To protect the grid and to help meet rising electricity demand from AI data centers, electric vehicles, and cryptocurrency, President Trump is using emergency powers to keep existing coal plants online. He is also reopening western lands to coal leasing, looking to name metallurgical coal as a critical mineral, and ordering the attorney general to investigate states that have implemented laws against fossil fuel use so that the federal government could waive those rules.

President Donald Trump has signed executive orders to boost the nation’s coal industry. The orders include efforts to save coal plants that were likely to be retired, drawing on existing emergency authority from the Federal Power Act that allows the Energy Secretary to direct any power plant to keep operating. Other emergency statutes enable the federal government to waive environmental rules implemented by states and direct the U.S. attorney general to identify and take action against state laws that address climate change, ESG initiatives, environmental justice, and carbon emissions. The executive orders also direct Energy Secretary Chris Wright to determine whether coal used in steel production is a “critical mineral,” and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum to acknowledge the end of a moratorium that paused new coal leasing on federal lands and to prioritize the leasing. The coal industry would like to open up Western land, including the Powder River Basin closed by the Biden administration, for more mining, reestablish the National Coal Council, and make metallurgical coal a critical mineral, which would bolster funding and permitting. These Trump orders use coal’s massive reserve base to bolster baseload generation capacity in light of surging demand and reliability problems stemming from intermittent power sources.

Onerous regulations by the Obama and Biden administrations helped to set the decline of coal-fired power plants. The Obama administration invoked the “Clean Power Plan” in 2015, setting off a wave of coal plant retirements that continued through the first Trump presidency and into the Biden administration. The nation’s coal fleet had been the backbone of the  U.S. electricity sector, supplying more than 50% of the nation’s electricity in 2000. But onerous regulation, competition from low-cost natural gas following the fracking revolution, and massive federal subsidies for wind and solar power made it difficult for coal to compete and forced many existing coal plants to retire. About 40% of the existing U.S. coal fleet in 2015 had been retired by the end of 2024, as coal plant generating capacity of 286,000 megawatts in 2015 had dropped to 172,000 megawatts in January 2025. More than 120 coal-fired generating units are expected to close within the next five years.

Source: Blackmon Substack

Even before the executive orders were signed, Trump’s EPA had created an avenue for coal-fired power plants to seek regulatory exemptions. One of the nation’s largest coal plants used that process — the coal-fired Colstrip power plant in Montana. Operators of the Colstrip power plant want a two-year exemption from compliance with an update to EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule.

Existing U.S. coal plants only provide power to the grid about 40% of the time due to wind and solar plants being dispatched first. That number can be increased through deregulation and other measures as coal plants are capable of operating for double that amount of time. Longer times of operation would reduce their costs as more operating time spreads those costs over more hours.

A number of blue states have laws that are onerous to fossil fuels, including coal. President Trump cited laws in New York and Vermont that fine fossil fuel companies for their carbon dioxide emissions, California’s cap-and-trade policy, and lawsuits by states that have sought to hold energy companies accountable for global warming, which have been found to be unjustified, but divert energy companies from their mission to fight the lawsuits.

After Trump signed the orders, Wright’s energy department made $200 billion in financing available for its loan programs office including for new coal technologies.

Electricity Demand is Increasing

U.S. electricity demand is rising for the first time in two decades due to growth in artificial intelligence (AI) data centers, electric vehicles, and cryptocurrencies. The president’s vow to make America the world leader in energy-intensive AI technology is also a reason to keep coal plants online. According to the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, data centers’ power demands could increase from 4.4 percent of the nation’s electricity output in 2023 to between 6 and 12 percent by 2028.

Grid Reliability

The reliability of the nation’s electrical grid is also in question, with large amounts of wind and solar power causing instability. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) has warned that retirements of coal- and natural gas-plants could create power shortages, particularly in winter when wind and solar power output is poor. While solar power installations have soared due to massive subsidies in the Democrat-passed Inflation Reduction Act and state mandates for renewable power, many projects have been waiting for years to connect to the power grid as grid operators are proceeding with caution to maintain reliability.

NERC’s long-range reliability report estimated that up to 115,000 megawatts of fossil fuel power plant capacity could retire between now and 2034, pushing power reserves below safe limits in most of the country. That compares to its estimates that power demand, at the winter peak level, could grow by up to 149,000 megawatts in this decade, due primarily to demand from data centers.

Conclusion

President Trump has signed executive orders to boost the coal industry, which once was the backbone of the U.S. generating system. Despite coal’s ability to provide reliable baseload power, massive subsidies and state mandates have resulted in significant solar and wind power additions that are causing grid instability. To protect the grid and to help meet rising electricity demand from AI data centers, electric vehicles, and cryptocurrency, President Trump is using emergency powers to keep existing coal plants online. He is also reopening western lands to coal leasing, looking to name metallurgical coal as a critical mineral, and ordering the attorney general to investigate states that have implemented laws against fossil fuel use so that the federal government could waive those rules.

*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , ,

AEA Statement on Committee Approval of Kate MacGregor and James Danly

April 9, 2025 by Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON DC (4/9/25) –  The Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources held a vote today to consider the nominations of Kate MacGregor to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior and James Danly to be Deputy Secretary of Energy. Both nominees were approved by the committee, and their nominations now move to the Senate floor for a final vote. 

Tom Pyle, President of the American Energy Alliance, issued the following statement:

“Congratulations to Kate and James on their nominations and passage out of committee. They are both exceptionally qualified for these positions, and our country will be well served by their confirmations.

“We are looking forward to working with Kate at the Department of Interior. She is a proven expert when it comes to public lands issues, natural resource development, and the need for efficiency and bringing regulations in line with the law. She knows how to get things done, and we are pleased to see her return for this important role.

“As former Commissioner of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, James Danley was committed to FERC’s mission of ensuring reliable, safe, and secure electricity at just and reasonable rates. Mr. Danley also fought hard against attempts by the Biden administration to halt the approval of natural gas pipelines. 

“Both Kate and James are excellent additions to President Trump’s energy team. We look forward to seeing the Senate confirm their nominations and working with them for the good of America’s energy future.”

AEA Experts Available For Interview On This Topic:

For media inquiries please contact: 

[email protected]

Filed Under: Press Releases Tagged With: , , ,

Inflation Fueling Subsidies Must Be Cut To Save Taxpayers

April 7, 2025 by Leave a Comment

President Biden’s signature climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), provided green energy with huge subsidies costing taxpayers well over $1 trillion, despite being estimated to cost $369 billion by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). One reason is that there is essentially no cap on the freebies awarded to green energy because the national emissions test used to sunset the law’s tax credits is unlikely to be reached. No matter how many windmills and solar plants are built, they will continue receiving tax credits, despite those technologies being around for decades. Congress can remove those freebies, but some members are advocating for keeping them or phasing them out, despite their increasing distortion on energy markets. The IRA was passed as a budget reconciliation package on a straight party-line vote in August 2022.

Congress established the wind production tax credit in 1992 and the solar investment tax credit in 2005 to support these industries and to help them grow. These technologies now represent 16% of the electricity market, while supplying less than 3% of total U.S. energy needs. According to the Cato Institute, the two subsidies could cost $130 billion annually by 2034, and all green subsidies could cost taxpayers $4.7 trillion through 2050. The original CBO 10-year score significantly underestimated the subsidy payments authorized by the IRA. Third-party estimates of the IRA’s 10-year budget score, such as the Goldman Sachs estimate of $1.2 trillion, fall comfortably between Cato’s lower- and upper-bound estimates for the upcoming 10-year budget window. It is important to note that the cost is 3 times more than the estimated cost of the IRA at the time of its passage by the CBO.

Source: Cato

Besides costing taxpayers bundles of money, these subsidies have also destabilized the electric grid, as the technologies they fund are intermittent and weather-driven. Other technologies (coal and gas generators) are being used as back-up power, hurting their economics because their costs spread over far fewer hours of operation, as grid operators dispatch wind and solar plants with no fuel costs first. Some states are supplementing their wind and solar plants with very expensive storage batteries that can store excess power until needed. The result is higher electricity prices for consumers, which have increased 25% since Biden became president and favored green technologies. Heavily subsidized intermittent sources, therefore, add costs to ratepayers by distorting the market, producing a “double whammy” for prices overall.

The grid distortion caused by the wind production tax credit can sometimes make wholesale power prices negative, which means other generators would need to pay the grid for their power. Wind producers can still make money when wholesale prices fall below zero because of the value of the production tax credit, but other power plants lose money. Due to the distortions, many fossil fuel and nuclear power plants have had to shutter despite electricity demand increasing from artificial intelligence (AI) data centers and manufacturing. The loss of these potential baseload generating units is wreaking havoc with available supplies in light of the surging demand, leaving large consumers scrambling to secure dedicated generation.

The IRA also provided a slush fund for green projects totaling in the billions. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin found $20 billion in “Greenhouse Gas Reduction Funds” that he wants to reclaim. The Biden administration had given the grant money to Citibank for holding before dispersal to a number of green non-governmental organizations, some of which had been formed very recently specifically to receive the funds. President Biden and his administration chose to do so because they could not finish all the paperwork to distribute the money before Biden had to exit the presidency. According to Zeldin, “This scheme…was purposefully designed to obligate all of the money in a rush job with reduced oversight.” The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) is a large spending program designed to provide money to coalitions of green groups that theoretically use the funds to finance green technology and other similar projects. While the eight funding recipients have only tapped into a small amount so far, the arrangement used by Biden personnel restricts the Trump administration’s ability to get the funds back.

As an example of the absurdity of the slush fund, in April 2024, Biden’s EPA awarded Power Forward Communities a $2 billion grant as part of the agency’s GGRF program. Power Forward Communities was founded in October 2023 as a coalition of groups led by Rewiring America, a left-wing group that advocates for electrification policies and a transition from fossil fuels. Stacey Abrams serves as Rewiring America’s senior counsel. According to tax filings, the absurdity of the award is that Power Forward Communities reportedly managed just $100 in total revenue during its first three months in operation. The example raises the issue that if the GGRF projects were viable, they should have been able to acquire financing from the private sector and not need massive handouts from the federal government. The funds appeared to be awarded more to political allies than to those specializing in energy projects.

Conclusion

Congress has the opportunity to benefit the American taxpayer by removing IRA subsidies for green technologies that were passed solely by Democrats in 2022. While the CBO estimated the IRA subsidies at $369 billion, actual costs will likely be at least 3 times as much to support technologies that have been around for decades and should be viable without federal government support. Wind and solar power also distort the grid because they cannot operate 24/7, meaning they must have back-up power from expensive storage batteries or other technologies that may not operate long enough to recover their costs, so many are forced to shutter. Congress could slow the rate of electricity price increases and save taxpayers huge sums by stopping the counterproductive subsidies lavished upon intermittent wind and solar in the IRA. The IRA’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund of $20 billion is another source of wasteful spending. The projects the fund covers should have been viable with private funding if they could truly add value to the energy transition. Stacey Abrams’ NGO’s $2 billion grant is an example of the absurdity of the fund.

*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , , , ,

The Unregulated Podcast #224: Hello, Captain Obvious

April 4, 2025 by Leave a Comment

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss Liberation Day and what it means for energy markets, the latest from Capitol Hill, and run down the ways Team Trump is working to unleash American energy.

Links:

Stay Connected With The Show:

Filed Under: Podcast Tagged With: , , , ,

Key Vote: H.J. Res. 24

April 2, 2025 by Leave a Comment

The American Energy Alliance supports H.J. Res. 24, providing for congressional disapproval of Department of Energy energy efficiency standards for walk-in coolers and freezers.

Energy efficiency standards were created 50 years ago when politicians feared we were running out of domestic energy sources and dangerously reliant on the Middle East. That world is long past and the U.S. is the world’s leading natural gas, as well as leading oil, producer. Continued aggressive use of this outdated authority is not about saving consumers money, indeed standards in many cases have past the point of diminishing returns where the cost of new products cancels out theoretical cost savings. Under the previous administration energy efficiency rules were wielded not to save consumers money, but rather to try to force customers to stop using the energy sources that the previous administration disliked. Congress should take every opportunity to reject the abuse of this outdated authority.

A YES vote on H.J. Res. 24 is a vote in support of free markets and affordable energy. AEA will include this vote in its American Energy Scorecard.

Filed Under: Blog, Scorecard Tagged With: , , ,

Key Vote YES on S.J. Res. 4

April 2, 2025 by Leave a Comment

The American Energy Alliance supports S.J. Res. 4 providing for congressional disapproval of the Department of Energy rules on gas-fired tankless water heaters.

The Dept. of Energy water heater rule is an obsolete relic of another time. Energy efficiency standards were created 50 years ago when politicians feared we were running out of domestic energy sources and dangerously reliant on the Middle East. That world is long past and the U.S. is the world leading natural gas, as well as leading oil, producer. Additionally, technology development has made appliances enormously efficient in energy use, so efficient that these current rules, as restrictive and destructive as they are, would only theoretically save customers a few dollars a year. Such meager supposed savings, at the cost of convenience and consumer choice, in pursuit of obsolete goals expose the pointless destructiveness of this rule. Indeed, the rule isn’t about saving customers money, it is about trying to force customers to stop using the energy sources that the previous administration disliked. It was an inappropriate and unnecessary rule to pursue.

A YES vote on S.J. Res 4 is a vote in support of free markets and affordable energy.  AEA will include this vote in its American Energy Scorecard.

Filed Under: Blog, Scorecard Tagged With: , ,

Team Trump Liberates Alaska From Biden’s Restrictions

April 1, 2025 by Leave a Comment

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum is complying with President Trump’s executive order to remove barriers to energy development in Alaska. Secretary Burgum is implementing plans to open up more acreage for oil and gas leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and lift restrictions on building a liquified natural gas (LNG) pipeline and the Ambler mining road. Interior plans to reopen 82% of the NPR-A for leasing for development and reopen the 1.56-million-acre Coastal Plain of ANWR for oil and gas leasing. Interior will also revoke restrictions on land along the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Corridor and Dalton Highway north of the Yukon River and convey the land to the State of Alaska. This will affect the development of the Ambler Road and the Alaska LNG Pipeline project.

President Biden’s war on Alaskan energy development was rampant as he pledged during his campaign to “end fossil fuels.” Upon assuming office, Biden:

  • Canceled the nine ANWR leases obtained in the ANWR lease sale held during the first Trump administration, with Biden’s Bureau of Land Management and the Fish and Wildlife Service claiming that the Trump lease sale was “seriously flawed and based on a number of fundamental legal deficiencies.” That sale drew little interest from oil companies because the lease sale occurred after Biden had been certified as president.
  • Closed off 13 million acres of the NPR-A, roughly the size of Indiana, which Congress established in 1923 as a petroleum reserve. The Biden administration, however, did approve ConocoPhillips’ $8 billion Willow oil and gas project in the NPR-A, but in a scaled-down form compared to the initial proposal.
  • Denied a permit by the state for the Ambler Road mining project, which sought a right of way to access a mining district rich in copper and other minerals. Despite guarantees to access under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, the Biden administration suspended the necessary water and wetlands permits for the road, effectively disregarding a law in place for over 40 years that mandates the Secretary of the Interior issue permits for the project.
  • Restricted 28 million acres of public lands in Alaska — nearly 7% of the state’s total land area — from oil, gas, or mineral extraction.
  • Extended the oil and gas leasing ban to the entire Northern Bering Sea. Biden invoked his authority under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to withdraw 44 million acres of the Northern Bering Sea and other federal offshore areas, totaling 625 million acres, from the Department of the Interior’s oil and gas leasing program.
  • Held an ANWR lease sale mandated by Congress in January 2025, just before leaving office, that received no bids because his administration wrote the environmental impact statement and conditions for the sale to draw the fewest and lowest possible bids, for which the State of Alaska sued the Biden administration. The oil industry is hesitant to rush into developing Alaskan resources given its high-risk environment and the possibility of a return to Biden policies in four years that could put Alaskan resources off limits again.

ANWR holds an estimated 4.3 to 11.8 billion barrels of oil and vast natural gas resources. The 23-million-acre NPR-A is estimated to hold 895 million barrels of oil, although the estimates have changed over time depending on the management regime in place at the time of the assessment. There is also believed to be $44 billion worth of natural gas in the Alaska reserve area. A 1976 law requires the Interior Department to continue leasing in the NPR-A while protecting portions of the reserve with wildlife, scenic or historical value, or areas used for subsistence. The Biden administration used these provisions to expand protected areas, but the Trump administration plans to “balance the secretary’s responsibilities” while protecting surface resources. It also intends to work more closely with the local Native people, who sued the Biden administration for cutting off their future access to economic opportunity by placing significant portions of the prospective areas for drilling off limits.

Burgum’s actions provide opportunities for more investment and jobs in Alaska. They would also benefit the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) — a pipeline system that President Biden voted against in 1973 during his first year as a Senator — which is running at minimum flow levels.

Oil production in Alaska peaked at 2 million barrels per day in 1988 when TAPS was running full and has been declining since due to production declines in the mature fields of Prudhoe Bay, high exploration and production costs, and limited leasing activity. In 2024, Alaskan oil production averaged 421 thousand barrels per day — the bare minimum of adequate flow for TAPS.

Conclusion

Secretary Burgum is taking action to implement President Trump’s executive order to increase energy and mineral development in Alaska. It includes opening ANWR and the NPR-A to oil and gas drilling and lifting restrictions on the Ambler Road easement and the LNG pipeline. President Biden had restricted oil and gas development in Alaska, except for the Willow project in the NPR-A, though he reduced that project in size. Alaska welcomes the new direction since it provides for job growth and economic development, which are very much needed in the state. Oil production in Alaska has been declining since its peak in 1988, and the TAPS system needs more oil flow. Alaska’s Governor and Congressional Delegation have committed to working with the Trump Administration to ensure these policies progress.

*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , , , ,

The Unregulated Podcast #223: Hopeless Frodo

March 28, 2025 by Leave a Comment

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss the latest news from the White House and the flailing response from the Democrats.

Links:

Stay Connected With The Show:

Filed Under: Podcast Tagged With: , ,

Save America’s Refrigerators

March 26, 2025 by Leave a Comment

Congress is considering legislation that would end Biden era regulatory overreach designed to make refrigerators unaffordable for American families all in the name of stoping climate change.

Sign up for the campaign below and send a message directly to your congressional delegation demanding the stop these regulations using our one-click tool.

Filed Under: Uncategorized
Next