Court’s Decision Reaffirms that States Should Stop Work on Carbon Rule

In an unexpected turn of events, the DC Circuit independently decided that the entire circuit court panel (11 judges) should hear the challenge to Obama’s carbon rule. The practical effect is that oral argument will delayed from June 2 until late September. For all intents and purposes, this is positive news for the challengers and should encourage states to safely put their pencils down if they haven’t already.

Initially, both sides had viewed expedited review of the case positively. The petitioners saw it as a backup in the event they did not receive the stay, effectively trying to minimize any harm done while the courts were reviewing the regulation. The EPA likely viewed the expedited process as a “free consolation prize” to the states in exchange for the court denying the stay request. Once the Supreme Court granted the stay, however, the challengers’ reason for seeking expedited review no longer existed.

Of course proponents of the rule argue that this “streamlines the path to the Supreme Court” since there was the potential for en banc review in addition to the three judge panel. Given the heavily Democratic composition of the DC Circuit and favorable panel EPA drew with the three-judge panel, it is just as likely that the case would have been appealed straight to the Supreme Court anyway.

EPA might have lost six months or more

The new timeline for resolution is likely slowed down by a few months and potentially even six or more months depending on the losing party’s appeals strategy. Instead of a likely petition for Supreme Court review in the Fall with oral arguments and decision in the late Spring, the request for Supreme Court review may not arrive until Spring 2017. This could easily push oral arguments to the Fall 2017 with a decision not issued until 2018.

DC Circuit presents more opportunity for dispute

The road also got more difficult for the EPA. No one doubted the favorability of the three-judge panel to EPA’s position. Now, it must convince five DC Circuit judges of their regulation’s legal merits, rather than two. True, both panels would possess a majority of Democratic appointees. The larger panel, however, will not be as favorable to EPA as they might have hoped with two liberal judges recusing themselves – one of which is currently nominated by the President to fill Justice Scalia’s vacancy (EPA proponent Merrick Garland). This leaves a delicate 5-4 balance of Democratic and Republican appointees hearing the full court challenge.

More than a case of agency deference

The court’s sua sponte decision to move immediately to en banc review also indicates the court’s assessment that the case is not a simple matter of agency deference. As the court of first appeal for Clean Air Act challenges, the DC Circuit is traditionally keen on adherence to established administrative procedure. Yet, the EPA’s unusual (and last-minute) revised interpretation of a key Clean Air Act provision – whether their mercury rule under Section 112 prevents them from regulating the same power plants under Section 111 – is an obvious vulnerability for the agency. The abnormal litigation strategy raises questions of arbitrary and capricious agency action and outcome-oriented interpretation.

Signal to states: Wait and see

The takeaway for states is even clearer than before. Resolution of this case will not occur until later 2017 at the earliest, when a full Supreme Court is able to hear the case. The November election will certainly influence the Court’s composition but even assuming the rule is upheld by a Clinton Supreme Court, states will not face any obligations until well into 2018. Additionally, as is customary with litigation on complex regulations, further agency action on the rule such as revising timelines, updating underlying assumptions, and even modifying state requirements is quite likely even if upheld. This means states continuing work now face tremendous uncertainty. The wise course of action would be to stop work until more clarity is provided. Perhaps they could even focus on prioritizing affordable energy in the meantime.

RFS Levels Are Detached From Reality

WASHINGTON – American Energy Alliance President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement on the proposed 2017 volume requirements for the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS):

“The EPA’s RFS proposal is once again detached from reality. The agency is forcing unsafe levels of biofuel into our nation’s fuel supply.

“The RFS is a broken program. It was based off false assumptions and as a result, Americans are stuck with a program that doesn’t line up with the world we live in today. The RFS is not a ‘success story’, as EPA official Janet McCabe puts it. Rather, it is a lesson on why the federal government should get out of the energy business and let the markets work the way they’re supposed to.

“This program can’t be fixed by tinkering with the blending levels or reforming parts of the mandate. The only way to truly fix the RFS is to dismantle it entirely.”

###

Key Vote: Two Amendments To NDAA

As the House considers the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2017, two amendments look to ensure national defense funds are actually spent on critical defense activities, not the administration’s climate agenda. The American Energy Alliance urges all Members to vote YES on the Fleming climate change amendment and the Buck alternative energy amendment.

Rep. Fleming’s amendment will block the Department of Defense (DoD) from obligating funds to be used to carry out two executive orders that direct agencies to implement a host of policies under the guise of preventing climate change. For the Department of Defense, this means increased costs, further complication of the acquisition process, and additional burdens in logistics, planning, and execution of critical missions. Ultimately, these executive orders detract from the DoD’s ability to protect our country by introducing even more unnecessary bureaucracy to the Pentagon. Rep. Fleming’s amendment allows DoD to continue to protect Americans by using the most efficient and capable means necessary. This means allowing our military to use the most reliable and cost effective energy resources—a priority for the world’s largest single energy consumer.

The Danger of Deferring to the Bureaucrats

In 1984, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that would fundamentally change the balance of power in American government by the Court giving wide deference to regulatory agencies in the interpretation of ambiguous statutes. In Chevron v. NRDC, the Court prescribed guidelines for administrative interpretation regarding vague or ambiguous statutes. The opinion states:

When a court reviews an agency’s construction of the statute which it administers, it is confronted with two questions. First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. If, however, the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute, as would be necessary in the absence of an administrative interpretation. Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.

The power of an administrative agency to administer a congressionally created . . . program necessarily requires the formulation of policy and the making of rules to fill any gap left, implicitly or explicitly, by Congress.

This edict is known as “Chevron deference.” Essentially, the Court decided that executive agencies have the power to interpret ambiguous statutes and that courts should defer to agency evaluation. In the decades since, Chevron deference has become a hallmark of administrative rulemaking and a crucial tool in implementing top down policy agendas, particularly in the energy and environment space.

Fundamentally, Chevron deference raises serious separation-of-powers questions, as Justice Thomas noted in a recent concurrence in last year’s Michigan v. EPA decision. “Chevron deference precludes judges from exercising that judgment [to interpret federal statutes], forcing them to abandon what they believe is ‘the best reading of an ambiguous statute’ in favor of an agency’s construction. It thus wrests from the Courts the ultimate interpretive authority to ‘say what the law is,’ and hands it over to the Executive.”

This delegation of power has permitted federal agencies to use Chevron to justify an ever-expanding interpretation of its regulatory powers. Justice Thomas’ Michigan concurrence again captures the need for reform: “Although we hold today that EPA exceeded even the extremely permissive limits on agency power set by our precedents, we should be alarmed that it felt sufficiently emboldened by those precedents to make the bid for deference that it did here.” Thomas was referring to the EPA’s claim that imposing billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits was somehow rational and appropriate under the statute. The Court disagreed.

Yet the EPA continues forward on its crusade against affordable, reliable energy. The Clean Power Plan is perhaps the agency’s most expansive power grab under the auspice of Chevron deference. In that regulation, the EPA has re-interpreted its ability to impose a “system of emission reduction” to extend beyond the traditional “source,” or power plant. Their new interpretation would allow them to regulate the entire electricity grid as one “system.” Legal challenges to the rule are numerous and involve several claims of Chevron deference by EPA.

By manipulating vast and complicated statutes such as the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, agencies have imposed their will on countless issues ranging from ozone emissions to water regulations to energy tax credits. Through it all, Congress has been mostly helpless in pushing back.

Fortunately, Rep. Ratcliffe (TX-4) has introduced the Separation of Powers Restoration Act, H.R. 4768, in an effort to fight against continued executive branch overreach. Simply, the bills change a mere eight words of U.S. Code (section 706 of title 5), changing “all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions” to “de novo all relevant questions of law, including the interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions and rules.” This means that courts must evaluate issues surrounding agency interpretation on their own basis, not according to how an agency views a statute.

Rep. Ratcliffe’s bill, as well as the Senate companion S. 2724, chip away at the executive branch’s skewed power in cases of statutory interpretation. By requiring courts to assess cases de novo, agencies can no longer claim deference and interpret vague language to fit their political agenda. This strikes a balance of power between the branches and marks a crucial step in halting the continuous onslaught of executive overreach in all policy areas, including the energy and environment sector.

The Separation of Powers Restoration Act is a long overdue policy initiative. In order to promote good governance, executive branch agencies must be held in check. This bill does just that. All Members of Congress should support this legislation as a necessary path towards a balance of of powers and the promotion of constitutional values.

Groups to Congress: Don’t Use Military to Subsidize Pet Energy Projects

AEA & CVA Send Letter Supporting Rep. Fleming’s Amendment to NDAA

WASHINGTON — Today the American Energy Alliance and Concerned Veterans for America sent a letter to Congress in support of Rep. John Fleming’s proposed amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2017. To protect our national interest and ensure the military remains as effective and efficient as possible, Congress should reject the Obama Administration’s attempt to promote its green energy agenda on the backs of our armed forces. Below is an excerpt from the letter:

We join together in voicing our strong support for Congressman John Fleming’s proposed amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2017 (NDAA). Our military should be focused on protecting our national security, not subsidizing pet energy projects.

Congressman Fleming’s amendment prohibits funds from being used to carry out parts of Executive Orders 13653 and 13693. These executive orders direct agencies to implement a host of policies under the guise of preventing climate change. For the Department of Defense (DoD), this means increased costs, further complication of the acquisition process, and additional burdens in logistics, planning, and execution of critical missions. Ultimately, these executive orders detract from the DoD’s ability to protect our country by introducing even more unnecessary bureaucracy to the Pentagon.

By restricting funds from being used to carry out these executive orders, Congressman Fleming’s amendment accomplishes several goals. It allows DoD to continue to protect Americans by using the most efficient and capable means necessary. This means allowing our military to use the most reliable and cost effective energy resources—a priority for the world’s largest single energy consumer.

The NDAA should authorize taxpayer dollars to be spent on defense activities in the interest of promoting national security. Implementing these executive orders requires additional funds, whether it is for acquiring more expensive fuel sources, such as biofuels or solar panels, or committing more resources to the already bloated Pentagon bureaucracy to oversee the implementation of these executive orders. Forcing the DoD to rely on more expensive energy sources for no actual tactical or strategic advantage is unnecessary, especially given the abundance of domestic energy supplies. The funds authorized in the NDAA should be spent in areas directly related to DoD’s mission – not to implement President Obama’s green energy agenda.

Click here to read the full coalition letter.

###

States Continue to Stop Work on Carbon Rule, But Utilities See “Investment Opportunity”

Litigation over the EPA’s carbon rule for power plants is continuing with oral arguments set for early June. In the meantime, several states have sought to codify the Supreme Court’s stay with a “stop work order” inserted into state appropriations bills. Last Friday, Kansas became the latest state to protect their residents. These bills are critical to protecting scarce state resources while legal uncertainty remains. Where possible, they should also be extended to cover utility regulators.

One of the most important reasons for states to pass these kinds of bills is to protect electricity ratepayers from premature rate hikes as a result of these regulations. Utilities have every incentive to quickly comply with future regulations and pass on the costs of compliance to ratepayers.

To prepare for the future, including compliance with possible regulations, utilities prepare plans known as Integrated Resource Plans (IRPs). These are long, dense documents that detail the many investments the utilities currently have or would like to make to ensure affordable, reliable power is available to their customers. IRPs also must take into account existing laws such as Renewable Portfolio Standards or other mandates that require energy to be bought and sold from specific sources that may not otherwise be economical or beneficial to the grid. Accounting for these mandates can be fairly straightforward, as the laws are established by the state legislatures.

These IRPs get much more complicated, however, when utilities attempt to anticipate future regulatory burdens imposed by the EPA (or other federal agencies) before the regulations are finalized or withstand legal scrutiny (e.g., MATS, carbon rule). Miscalculation on what the rule might require or whether it passes legal muster can result in costly increases for consumers and premature closures of power plants. This was a main reason 28 states sought a stay of the carbon rule and arguably one of the reasons the Supreme Court granted the request. The goal is to prevent unnecessary and irreparable harm before EPA successfully defends the rule in court. Fortunately, many state agencies have “put their pencils down”, as West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton recommended.

Unfortunately, this is not the case with many utilities, who see the carbon rule as an “investment opportunity…[that they] plan to take full advantage of”. A recent IRP submitted by Dominion Resources covering North Carolina and Virginia demonstrates this point in two ways. First, Dominion betrays its preference for the CPP by presenting five scenarios with different policies in place and investments made – four of which assume the carbon rule is in place.  Second, their models project electricity rate increases in every scenario when compared to the baseline of no carbon rule.

Res-Monthly-Bill-Increase-Compared-to-No-Carbon-Rule

Simply put, the carbon rule will raise electricity rates, whatever way you slice it. Even worse, the most expensive scenario for consumers – a mass-based approach covering existing and new units (e.g., cap and trade) – is the one most often recommended by carbon rule proponents as the most cost effective method of compliance! In reality, this scenario likely allows the greatest “investment” to occur.

grid-map-full-legend

Yet many utilities see profit to be made and have aligned with environmental pressure groups in ignoring the stay for planning purposes. State policymakers and utility regulators should beware the consequences of costly, premature action, and deny any attempt to prematurely force this rule on their constituents.

House Bill Signals New Life for Nuclear Energy

Nuclear energy has provided Americans with safe, reliable power for decades. In recent years, new technologies have opened the door to more advanced reactors. However, the current licensing process for nuclear facilities remains burdensome and lengthy, and there is currently no path for advanced nuclear technologies to gain approval at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Fortunately, Congress is taking steps to address this impasse for advanced nuclear technology. Reps. Latta and McNearny introduced H.R. 4979, the Advanced Nuclear Technology Development Act, to reform policies surrounding the licensing process by asking the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to coordinate efforts and map out a path forward for advanced nuclear technology. This bill provides a good first step in improving the regulatory framework for nuclear power and improving access to reliable, low-emission power for decades to come.

Nuclear power has long supplied the U.S. with dependable baseload electricity. However, the current fleet is aging and facing a number of retirements due to license expiration. Currently, 99 units operate in 31 states across the country. These reactors provide 20 percent of the nation’s electricity and 8.5 percent of our total energy. Yet nearly one third of the fleet could be retired in the next 15-20 years.

nuke

There is no question that the future is darker without nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is distinctly advantageous due to its dispatchability, reliability, safety, and lack of emissions. New reactor designs not only provide baseload power, as current designs do, but may also be able to follow load and actively balance power demand and supply. Yet building a new plant requires extensive licensing and regulatory approval, often making such endeavors uncertain and cost-prohibitive. Thus, as the nation requires more and more reliable power–especially to replace the dozens of gigawatts of coal-fired capacity that have retired in recent years–nuclear energy faces the dim prospect of being left out of the generation mix.

H.R. 4979 recognizes the benefits of nuclear power in America’s energy future and seeks to ensure that it is not left behind due to regulatory inefficiencies. First, the bill notes the importance of nuclear energy, including advanced reactors, to America’s power mix. This affirmation by Congress is important, given the recent mischaracterization of nuclear energy by some in the energy sector. Take the case of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, which closed in 2014. The plant provided New England with reliable, emissions-free energy for over four decades. Attempting to replace the 604 megawatts of energy lost from Vermont Yankee with new wind and solar will be impossible, as nuclear energy is fully dispatchable: wind and solar are not. Congress understands this reality and says as much in the bill.

Most importantly, the bill begins the process of reworking the framework for advanced nuclear reactor licensing. It requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to formulate a plan for “developing an efficient, risk-informed, technology-neutral framework for advanced reactor licensing.” This would set the U.S. on a path of regulatory reform that should result in streamlined and more efficient licensing for advanced nuclear reactors. Further, the bill will allow for increased cooperation between the nuclear energy industry and regulators, thus increasing stakeholder input in the hopes of establishing a coherent and agreeable licensing framework for the next generation of nuclear power.

There is still a long road ahead for nuclear regulatory reform. While H.R. 4979 does not immediately remedy issues in the current licensing and approval process, the bill is an important step forward and gets the ball rolling towards much needed regulatory reform in nuclear energy.

Earth Day: Continuing a Storied Tradition of Misleading Claims and Outrageous Predictions

Today, millions of people around the world are celebrating Earth Day. Since its inception in 1970, Earth Day, and the environmental movement in general, has been plagued by incorrect predictions and factually wrong claims.

Earth Day’s Legacy of Inaccuracy

In their 1970 Earth Day edition, Life Magazine stated, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”.

The reality is that air quality was already improving in major cities around the United States and air quality continued to improve after 1970 through today.

Similarly, in the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, Harvard biologist and alarmist Paul Ehrlich laid out a doomsday scenario where between 1980 and 1989, 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in what he termed the “Great Die-Off.” Instead, global population grew by over 800 million during the 1980s.

And let’s not forget failed presidential candidate turned millionaire environmental activist Al Gore, who in January of 2006 claimed that if we didn’t take “drastic measures” to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, that we would reach a “point of no return” in ten years. For those keeping track, this June marks the ten-year anniversary of Gore’s climate alarmist documentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” whose dire predictions look flimsier and more absurd every year.

As time has passed, we’ve seen just how absurd these predictions really were. However, the environmental movement and Earth Day activists continue to make misleading claims about the environment and particularly our use of natural gas, oil and coal. For a group that celebrates “consensus science” at every opportunity, the environmentalist movement’s predictions seem closer to science fiction than reality.

A Model for Our Kids?

On Earth Day 2015, in a conversation with mechanical engineer and children’s entertainer Bill Nye, President Obama stated, “I have the capacity to look at facts and base my conclusions on evidence… Part of shifting our political culture, I think, is we’ve got to model for our kids that facts matter.”

We agree with the president: facts matter. That’s why this Earth Day, we should pay attention to the facts about energy and the environment, instead of the alarmist rhetoric of the environmental movement.

Here are some of the top myths we continue to hear from the environmental movement:

MYTH: The environment is getting worse.

If you listen to the rhetoric from the national environmental movement, you would think the quality of our air and the environment was in pretty poor shape and only getting worse. The American Lung Association, one of the biggest advocates for overreaching EPA regulations like the so-called “Clean Power Plan,” tells us that over half of Americans are breathing in polluted air. Groups like the Sierra Club say we have to move beyond resources like natural gas, oil, and coal because they pollute our air.

But the data tell us that air quality in the United States is actually improving. According to the following chart from the EPA, emissions from the six criteria pollutants declined by 70 percent since the 1970’s even as we’ve consumed more energy, increased our population, and driven more miles in our vehicles:

y80_14

But it’s not just air quality that has improved. America’s water is also cleaner. As Strata Policy points out:

“Water quality today is far better than it was a century ago…In 1900, 35 Americans per 100,000 died of typhoid and paratyphoid, 8 per 100,000 died of malaria, and 12 per 100,000 died of dysentery. By 1970, four years before the passage of the Safe Drinking Water Act, all those death rates had fallen virtually to zero.”

The 2007 Cato Institute publication The Improving State of the World, written by Indur Goklany, chronicled the myriad ways in which human beings are thriving today beyond what was even imaginable for previous generations. As the press release states, “Goklany confronts foes of globalization and demonstrates that economic growth, technological change and free trade helped power a ‘cycle of progress’ that in the last two centuries enabled unprecedented improvements in every objective measurement of human well-being.”

For the environmentalist movement, the obvious progress of modern civilization–including cleaner and safer air and water than ever before–falls on deaf ears.

MYTH: CO2 is dirty and bad for your health.

Faced with the reality that the air is actually getting cleaner, the environmental movement has shifted their focus to what they call “carbon pollution.” In reality, what they’re referring to is the emission of carbon dioxide or the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Al Gore has referred to carbon dioxide as sewage. In an interview with Ezra Klein, Gore said, “[I]n spite of the continued released [sic] of 90 million tons of global warming pollution every day into the atmosphere, as if it’s an open sewer, we are now seeing the approach of a global political tipping point.”

Environmental groups like the Sierra Club claim that carbon dioxide is “linked to life-threatening air pollution—such as the smog that can trigger asthma attacks,” and that establishing regulations for carbon dioxide will “ensure that our kids, our communities and America’s workforce are healthier…”

But when asked by FactCheck.org back in 2011 about connections between carbon dioxide and asthma, Dr. David Bernstein, professor of medicine at the University of Cincinnati stated:

“To my knowledge, there is no convincing evidence in the medical literature indicating that CO2 and methane directly affect asthma symptoms, asthma morbidity or asthma mortality. This would be considered misinformation. We’re more concerned about ozone, particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide.”

Carbon dioxide is not dirty, and is not poisonous to humans in concentrations we observe in the atmosphere. In fact, carbon dioxide is the natural product of combustion–whether that combustion occurs within our cells (which is why humans exhale carbon dioxide), or whether carbon dioxide results from the combustion of natural gas. Carbon dioxide is essential to life on Earth because vegetation requires carbon dioxide to survive and thrive.

However, the point about asthma and respiratory illnesses remains. It’s true that cases of asthma have increased in recent years, but with emissions of the six criteria pollutants decreasing and CO2 not linked to respiratory problems, what’s to blame?

A study from Johns Hopkins University found that asthma was more closely linked to poverty; and specifically, indoor air pollution linked to poverty. The policies that environmental activists advocate for, such as shutting down our nation’s affordable and reliable coal power plants, will make energy more expensive. And as we have seen in countries that have made electricity a luxury good through ill-advised energy policy–like Germany–higher energy costs exacerbate poverty and the negative health impacts associated with it.

MYTH: We must use less natural gas, oil, and coal.

Environmental campaigners tells us that we must move away from the use of natural gas, oil, and coal to avoid environmental disaster and climate change. This sentiment–that we need to “break up” with fossil fuels–is embodied in the keep it in the ground campaign, which is an effort to stop all production of natural gas, oil, and coal. As Greenpeace claims on its website, “To avoid the worst impacts of climate change, we need to keep the world’s remaining fossil fuels in the ground. That means moving away from coal, oil, and natural gas, and towards a renewable energy future.”

First of all, it’s important to note that even if we were to completely eliminate carbon dioxide emissions here in the U.S., such a dramatic move would only reduce average global temperatures by 0.17 degrees Celsius by 2100.

Second of all, using affordable, reliable energy improves our lives. Some of the most affordable and reliable energy is natural gas, oil, and coal. These three sources make up over 80 percent of the energy Americans use because they are abundant, affordable, and reliable. They’re the sources that keep our lights on – no matter the weather – and our vehicles moving forward.

Not only are these important energy sources, but natural gas, oil, and coal are essential building blocks to many of the products that we use every day. For example, oil is used to create everything from plastics used in life-saving equipment at hospitals to the Kevlar that keeps our police officers and military personnel safe. Simply put, the use of natural gas, oil, and coal makes modern life possible.

MYTH: We can and should transition to 100 percent renewables (and it’s easy).

Environmental campaigners claims that we can transition to 100 percent renewable energy by using politically correct technologies such as wind and solar. In fact, it’s in vogue right now for companies like Apple, Google, and Procter & Gamble to claim they’re transitioning toward powering their operations with 100 percent renewable energy. These claims range from completely misleading to downright lying, as IER explains:

“…members of the “100 percent renewable” club are, in reality, not powered exclusively by renewables. Rather, they are connected to the power grid, which is nowhere near 100 percent renewable. In fact, it’s 86 percent powered by coal, natural gas, and nuclear power. And there’s good reason for that—these technologies offer low-cost, reliable power when and where it is needed. By contrast, wind and solar power combined to produce between only 5 and 6 percent of the electricity in the U.S., and their supply is intermittent and often too far away from population centers to be economic.”

So how do these companies claim to be powered by 100 percent renewables? By purchasing Renewable Energy Credits (RECs). As IER goes on to explain:

“RECs amount to a piece of paper saying the company has ‘offset’ some of the electricity the company buys from conventional sources on the grid—the credits themselves can be bought and sold independent of the renewable energy itself.”

In reality, these companies are playing a paper-trading game for PR purposes. Moving toward 100 percent renewable energy is neither feasible nor desirable. Wind and solar power are expensive and unreliable sources of electricity. In fact, electricity from new wind resources is about three times as expensive as electricity from existing coal and nuclear sources.

Additionally, wind and solar are unreliable sources of energy, which means cost comparisons between reliable sources and wind or solar power are intrinsically misleading. They only operate when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing. You can’t reliably run a power grid when the sources are intermittent, which–combined with the overwhelming cost effectiveness of reliable sources over wind and solar power–is why we get most of our electricity from sources like natural gas, nuclear, and coal.

Conclusion

Over the years, Earth Day and the broader environmental movement have produced many outlandish predictions that have been proven false. And while some of the arguments have changed in recent years, the strategy of spreading false and misleading information has not. Today, the environmental movement warns us of the impending disaster that awaits us if we do not stop using energy from natural gas, oil, and coal. However, the evidence simply does not support their claims. In fact, using abundant, reliable energy resources greatly improves life on Earth.

Key Vote: Energy Appropriations Amendments

The Senate is set to vote on several amendments to the FY2017 Energy & Water Development Appropriations bill. Two amendments look to rein in federal overreach and spending. Sen. Hoeven is offering an amendment blocking funds from being used to implement the administration’s Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule. Another amendment, offered by Sen. Coats, would look to rein in federal spending in the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) loan program. The American Energy Alliance urges all Senators to vote YES on the Hoeven WOTUS amendment and the Coats ATVM amendment.

The Two Faces of Coal Opposition

Candidate Obama promised that his policies would bankrupt the coal industry. Fast-forward eight years, and that is exactly what has happened. This week’s news about Peabody Energy becoming the latest and final publicly-traded coal company to declare bankruptcy put an exclamation point on this devastating era for the coal industry. The industry’s losses are quite staggering – losing a combined $30 billion in stock-market value since 2010 and shedding 31,000 jobs since 2009, according to the Mine Safety and Health Administration.

Of course, like any sector’s demise, there are several contributing factors. The rise of natural gas as a cheap alternative is clearly one of them. A decline in steel production is cited as another. Yet, even some of natural gas’ success is due to the political and regulatory assault on coal being orchestrated by the Obama Administration and its allies. This has not stopped opponents of coal from trying to have it both ways.

Senator Inhofe’s heated Environment and Public Works Committee hearing, held this week, showcased one aspect. Senator Markey (D-MA) appeared gleeful as he spoke of Peabody’s bankruptcy saying, “we’ve finally begun to win,” completely failing to acknowledge the human toll associated with job losses caused by the company’s dramatic fall.

Thankfully, this terribly inappropriate response by a U.S. Senator was not lost on some of the members of the committee, namely Senator Capito (R-WV), who gave a reminder about the impact of the Administration’s policies:

“This isn’t something to cheer about. This is a human tragedy that I’m living in my state of West Virginia. And they may get tired of hearing about the ten thousand jobs that we’ve lost in WV. The county school systems that are now cutting 30 and 40 and 50 teachers because of the loss of population. The pessimistic downtrodden pockets of poverty that have been created in certain areas of our country … because of these policies. You can say free market all you want. This is the policies that have been promulgated by this Administration … one of the major causes of poverty creation in our country. And I can’t even talk about it hardly without expressing the disdain for the glee that I hear when poverty is being created, people are losing their jobs, and families are being devastated.”

The other face of the anti-coal movement was also on full display this week at the state environmental regulators semi-annual conference (Environmental Council of the States). EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy declared that there was “not one single bit of evidence that [the EPA has] destroyed an industry or significantly impacted jobs other than in a positive way.”

This statement is clearly contradicted by reality and credible studies. For example, the economic consulting firm NERA found that the cost of EPA’s so-called “Clean Power Plan” could total nearly $300 billion.[1] Nearly $300 billion in compliance costs will significantly impact jobs.

The retreat by EPA to the argument that its actions are merely complementary to a market-driven shift has become a regular refrain as job losses pile up in coal country. But this argument ignores the massive compliance costs – not only of EPA’s regulation of carbon dioxide from power plants, but an additional tens of billions of dollars in compliance costs from MATS.[2]

McCarthy’s “market forces” misdirection is of course belied by her boss’ promise in 2007 to put the coal industry out of business. While McCarthy and her colleagues in the Obama Administration have so effectively made good on this promise, her attempt to shift in blame to the market has often carried the day when reported by the media. This argument should be consistently rebutted and exposed for the lie that it is. For every now and again, our opponents such as Senator Markey show their true happiness in the face of America’s misery. We can only hope the devastating nature of their policies is not lost on the American people.


[1] NERA, Energy and Consumer Impacts of EPA’s Clean Power Plan, Nov. 7, 2015, http://www.americaspower.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/NERA-CPP-Final-Nov-7.pdf.

[2] NERA, An Economic Impact Analysis of EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards Rule, http://www.rff.org/files/sharepoint/Documents/Events/Workshops%20and%20Conferences/120719_Regulatory_Impacts_Electricity_Sector/NERA_Presentation.pdf