News - American Energy Alliance

Congress Fails the American People with Spending Bill

December 16, 2015 by AEA 1 Comment

WASHINGTON – American Energy Alliance President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement on the omnibus spending bill:

“This lopsided deal is an enormous giveaway to big business and special interests. Eliminating the ban on oil exports is an important policy that will benefit the economy in the long run, but Republican leadership paid too high a price, capitulating on nearly every demand from the Left. Extending corporate handouts to the wind and solar industry will cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars and hike electricity prices on middle class Americans, all while putting a down payment on Obama’s climate agenda.

“Despite promises to deny money for the green climate slush fund, Republican leaders have presented a spending bill that fails to prohibit the president from diverting hundreds of millions of dollars to the fund. Whether by negligence or design, this deal strengthens Obama’s climate agenda at the expense of poor and middle class families. Republicans didn’t hand Obama the keys to the bank vault, but they left them under the mat.

“Speaker Ryan promised to change the way the House does business, but this bill is just more of the same backroom deals, out-of-control spending, and special interest handouts we’ve come to expect from Washington. This deal is a terrible beginning for Speaker Ryan and is a tacit admission that comprehensive tax reform is dead, deader, deadest.”

###

Filed Under: Press Releases Tagged With: climate, congress, Obama, oil exports, Republicans

Extenders Deal an Insult to the American People

December 15, 2015 by AEA Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON – American Energy Alliance President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement on the potential tax extenders deal:

“This tax extenders deal is another example of the worst of Washington politics. It’s no wonder Congress’ approval rating is at an all time low. Lifting the oil export ban in exchange for the wind PTC, the solar ITC, and potentially allowing the administration to reprogram money for the UN’s green energy slush fund would be one step forward and several steps backward for American families.

“The Republicans are right to fight for lifting the oil export ban, as it would reduce gasoline prices for families and enhance U.S. energy security. But not at any price. Extending the wind PTC sends billions of tax dollars to large corporations like GE while advancing the Obama administration’s climate agenda and fulfilling the president’s promise to make electricity prices skyrocket.

“The fact that Republicans would even consider a deal that funds the Green Climate Fund is breathtakingly foolish. Just this week, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell criticized President Obama over the Paris agreement stating that the president ‘is making promises he can’t keep’ and ‘writing checks he can’t cash.’

“This reported deal is an insult to the American people, especially the poor and middle class who can least afford higher energy prices. The American Energy Alliance will score against any deal that extends the PTC or supports in any way the president’s climate slush fund.”

Click here to read a blog post from AEA President Tom Pyle on the potential extenders deal.
###

Filed Under: Can't Make This Up, Wind Tagged With: Extenders, production tax credit, PTC, Tax Extension

On Tax Extenders, Republican Promises Ring Hollow

December 15, 2015 by Thomas Pyle 1 Comment

When Paul Ryan accepted the gavel as Speaker of the House, he stated:

“Neither the members nor the people are satisfied with how things are going. We need to make some changes, starting with how the House does business.”

Yet it didn’t take long for those words to ring hollow, as the Republicans are again in the midst of a backroom deal that will benefit those with the least amount of power in Washington.

Republican leadership is reportedly on the verge of giving Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid a deal to revive and extend the wind Production Tax Credit (PTC), among other expired tax provisions, for five years in exchange for lifting the 1970s-era ban on most crude-oil exports.

This is a terrible deal for the American people. Republicans are right to fight for oil exports, but would be foolish to accept a deal that delivers one good policy—lifting the oil export ban—in exchange for a number of bad ones, including the PTC; and possibly, the President’s $3 billion Green Climate Fund.

The oil-export ban is a relic of a bygone era that should end. Numerous studies show that allowing oil exports would lower gasoline prices for families, boost domestic oil production, and enhance U.S. energy security.

Meanwhile, the wind PTC is corporate welfare for the wind industry and a crown jewel for Reid and Obama. In fact, just this morning Sen. Reid issued an ultimatum to Republicans: “take yes for an answer” on the PTC or lose oil exports.

Republican leadership and the oil industry, spearheaded by API, seem to have blinders on when it comes to lifting the oil export ban. If their goal is to ensure that Americans have access to reliable and affordable energy, then this deal would be a major failure.

The benefits of lifting the oil export ban are not worth the price tag. Proponents of lifting the export ban should have condemned this horse-trading from the beginning. Instead, the Republicans are now faced with a laundry list of demands from the Obama administration and the Democrats that would increase the size of government.

Unfortunately, Republicans appear ready to give Democrats just about anything they want. For example, Sens. Carper and Markey are trying to add a tax credit for northeastern refiners, which the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers rejected as “a proposal that pits one segment of the refining industry against another.” You heard that right—Senator Ed Markey is shilling for northeastern oil refiners. There are even talks of Congress authorizing $3 billion for Obama’s “Green Climate Fund,” the slush fund of the Paris climate summit that Republicans previously vowed to block.

Republicans should reject these strong-arm tactics and remember the promises they made to their constituents to fight the Democrats’ and the Obama administration’s anti-energy agenda. The wind PTC is a massive wealth transfer from taxpayers to large corporations like General Electric, who lobbied hard for a PTC extension. It also advances the Obama administration’s carbon regulation, which, as the president promised, will make electricity prices skyrocket. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell vowed he would, “keep doing everything I can to fight them [the administration]” over this regulation.

Oil exports would reduce gasoline prices for families and increase U.S. energy security, while the wind PTC raises energy prices and makes our power grid less dependable. Lifting the ban is sensible policy that deserves to pass on its own merits, instead of being traded in a backroom deal with Democrat leadership—especially not for the wind PTC.

Swapping oil exports for tax extenders and giving in to other demands from the green lobby would be one step forward and several steps backward. Republicans should not let their support for oil exports blind them to the harm of corporate wind welfare.

Filed Under: Oil Exports, Wind Tagged With: congress, Democrats, Green Climate Fund, Obama, oil exports, Republicans, wind ptc, wind welfare

Solar CEO Calls for Phaseout of Subsidies

December 14, 2015 by AEA Leave a Comment

The upcoming expiration of the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) is leading to a record number of solar panel installations as companies rush to exploit the subsidy. The ITC, along with a favorable depreciable tax basis, allows companies to write off as much as 60 percent of the property’s value at taxpayers’ expense. However, not all solar companies wish to take advantage of subsidies, and some are now arguing that the expiration of the ITC may ultimately benefit the industry.

In a letter to Congress last month, Sunnova CEO John Berger wrote that “[w]e do not believe an extension of this credit is necessary for the continued health of the solar industry. In fact, quite the opposite is true. If the credit is allowed to step down as planned, the industry will remain more robust in both the long- and short-term.”

By the Department of Energy’s own admission, the cost of distributed solar is down nearly 50 percent since 2008—nearly double the benefit of the ITC.

The solar industry has been subsidized by the ITC for nearly four decades, and the 30 percent tax deduction is scheduled to drop to a 10 percent rate in January 2017. “Yet,” Berger explains, “there has been an organized effort by many in the solar industry to convince legislators that the need for a five-year, or even permanent, extension of the ITC is necessary to the continued functioning of the industry.”

Elon Musk’s SolarCity is one such company that has benefitted immensely at taxpayer expense. The company has received $497.5 million in federal grants, according to an investigation by The Los Angeles Times, in addition to $750 million in state tax breaks to build a factory in New York. In all, SolarCity has received $2.5 billion in government subsidies. Despite this, the company is the swamped in debt—hitting $2.3 billion in 3Q 2015, or nearly $1 billion higher than December 2014.

Solar companies have been accused of abusing federal grant and loan programs, and have been the subject of numerous lawsuits and probes in recent years. Several companies, including SolarCity, are currently being investigated by the Department of Justice for potentially defrauding taxpayers by misrepresenting the value of their solar properties in order to receive more money from the government’s grant program.

These aggressive sales tactics are the result of solar companies fighting to take advantage of the billions made available by the government’s ITC and other programs. The industry has received nearly $18 billion to subsidize otherwise unprofitable solar properties since 2009. As Sunnova’s CEO said, “[t]he industry made a deal with Congress in 2008 that it needed the ITC’s support until 2016 and then it would be able to operate and, indeed, flourish without it.” Congress should listen to Sunnova’s CEO and allow the tax credit to expire.

Filed Under: solar Tagged With: ITC, solar, SolarCity, subsidy

Paris Climate Deal is Another Paper Tiger

December 12, 2015 by AEA Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON — American Energy Alliance President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement on the Paris climate deal:

“Just like each one before it, this climate agreement is unenforceable, underfunded, and non-binding. There is nothing historic about this deal. The Obama administration clearly doesn’t have the support of Congress or the American people—making the agreement nothing more than a paper tiger.

“Unfortunately, this won’t stop the president from pursuing a domestic climate agenda that will raise energy prices on American families, but will have no impact on the climate. As the sun sets on his presidency, Obama’s obsession with energy rationing will cement his legacy, not as the climate change president, but as the most out of touch president in modern history. Now that this climate confab is over, leaders at the both the federal and state level should return their focus to stopping the administration’s unlawful carbon regulations.”

###

Filed Under: Blog, Press Releases Tagged With: carbon regulations, Climate deal, Paris, President Obama

Public’s Collective ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ on Climate Change

December 8, 2015 by AEA Leave a Comment

President Obama and the leaders of nearly 200 countries are meeting in Paris to discuss an agreement on climate change. Despite the president’s focus on climate policy, three recent polls show the public isn’t especially concerned about climate change and that any concern they do have is waning.

Recent polls by GlobeScan, Langer Research Associates, and Sky Data (the survey arm of Sky News) all show that over the past several years public concern about global warming and public support for government action on climate change has decreased. Despite a lack of public support, the Obama administration is in Paris trying to strike a deal that will raise energy costs on the poor and middle class while denying affordable energy to developing countries. These polls come as Democratic presidential candidates and Secretary of State John Kerry claim climate change is a bigger national security threat than ISIS, while the public sees terrorism and the economy as by far the most important issues facing the country.

Climate Change? Meh.

One poll, published by the research group GlobeScan, found that less than half respondents view climate change as a “very serious” issue, despite strong rhetoric from world leaders to the contrary. As the following chart shows, the GlobeScan poll, which surveyed 1,000 people in 20 different countries, found that in most countries people want their world leaders to play less of a “leadership role” in Paris than they did during the Copenhagen climate summit of 2009.

Although sizeable majorities of people wanted their elected leaders to take a leadership role at the 2009 summit, the Copenhagen summit is widely regarded as a failure. Now, world leaders are once again attempting to strike a climate deal with much less public support than they had six years ago.

Similar polls by Langer Research Associates (LRA) and Sky Data looked at public support in the U.S. and U.K., respectively, and drew similar conclusions. Public support for climate change policy has declined over the past few years, and fewer people believe the government should be doing more to address climate change.

According to the Langer poll, which was produced for ABC News and the Washington Post, less than half of those surveyed think the government should be doing more to address climate change. By contrast, under the Bush administration, the poll revealed that a high of 70 percent of respondents thought the government should be more actively addressing climate change.

Source: Langer Research Associates

In the U.K., the public is less worried about climate change and doesn’t support policies that raise energy prices. The Sky Data poll shows that one in five British citizens believes that global warming is caused by natural processes rather than human activity, a jump from just one in fourteen people two years ago.

The public also opposes government policies that raise energy prices to address climate change. According to the Sky Data poll, 54 percent of Brits oppose taxes on oil and electricity that would raise utility bills, and only one-third “would back extra taxes on products with a high carbon footprint.”

In other words, people don’t want to pay more taxes to address an issue they aren’t really concerned about.

Conclusion

At a time when the Obama administration is pushing an aggressive climate agenda in Paris, public concerns about the economy and terrorism far outpace anxieties about climate change. Rather than forcing more costly climate policies on the public, world leaders should focus their attention on the economic and national security issues that matter most to people.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: climate change, electricity bills, Paris

Congress Must Reject Attempts to Revive PTC

December 3, 2015 by AEA Leave a Comment

Plan to Extend PTC will Cost Billions of Dollars; Hike Electricity Bills

WASHINGTON – Congress is reportedly working on a tax extenders plan that includes a five-year extension of the wind Production Tax Credit (PTC). Some have called this deal a “phase out”—resembling the plan proposed by and lobbied for by GE just last year—but make no mistake, this is a five-year extension. The PTC, which expired last year, is a massive handout to large corporations to build and operate industrial wind facilities. The subsidy is so large that a two-year extension alone could transfer $10 billion over the next decade from taxpayers to the companies who get the credit.

“We cannot continue to prop up this industry on the backs of hardworking Americans,” said American Energy Alliance Thomas Pyle. “If Congress extends the PTC, they are handing out checks to large corporate welfare queens, advancing Obama’s climate agenda, and sticking consumers with higher electricity bills and less dependable electricity.”

Extending the PTC is a special interest giveaway to an industry that depends on government handouts to survive. A study by the Institute for Energy Research found electricity produced from new wind facilities is up to four times more expensive than from existing traditional sources, including nuclear and coal.

These two facts — that it’s corporate welfare and that wind produces unaffordable energy — should be reason enough for Congress to oppose the PTC. But it’s more than just another subsidy — it’s also central to President Obama’s climate agenda.

The centerpiece of this agenda is the Obama Administration’s new regulation on existing power plants, which would force states to fundamentally restructure their electricity sector. New wind and solar are so crucial to the mandate that the regulation establishes a coercive scheme that “rewards” states that agree to offer more subsidies for wind and solar.

By hiding wind power’s true cost, the PTC makes wind power seem more appealing to states that may need to comply with the Administration’s carbon regulation. This is how the PTC and Obama’s carbon agenda are mutually supportive and inseparable.

Simply put, Congress has an opportunity to take a principled stand against corporate welfare and the president’s climate agenda by rejecting an extension of the PTC.

The American Energy Alliance will score against any deal that includes a PTC extension.

Click here to read more on why Congress should reject a PTC extension.

Click here to see which representatives oppose the PTC.

###

Filed Under: Wind Tagged With: carbon, climate, Obama, solar, wind, wind ptc, wind welfare

Time to Halt Big Wind’s Gravy Train

December 3, 2015 by Thomas Pyle 5 Comments

Congress is reportedly considering a deal to revive a package of expired tax provisions known as tax extenders. While it contains a number of popular items, the deal would also extend corporate welfare central to President Obama’s climate agenda: the wind Production Tax Credit (PTC). Speaker Ryan should protect American families from the impacts of the President’s plan to make electricity prices skyrocket by rejecting a PTC extension.

The PTC is a wealth transfer from working families to the wind industry. As Republican Study Committee Chair Representative Bill Flores put it, the PTC a “special interest giveaway.” A recent study by my organization, the Institute for Energy Research, found that taxpayers in 30 states and D.C. are net losers on the PTC—they pay more to support wind subsides than wind companies in their states receive in handouts.

These handouts transfer billions of dollars from taxpayers to large corporations. Many of the largest PTC recipients are foreign-owned energy conglomerates that have grown accustomed to handouts. But with subsidies drying up abroad, they’re turning to U.S. taxpayers to keep the spigot open.

The Senate Finance Committee estimated a two-year extension would cost taxpayers more than $10 billion over the next decade, but the deal Congress is considering would be even more costly, extending the PTC for five years. It should come as no surprise that the rumored deal is being referred to by some as a “phase out”—resembling the plan proposed by and lobbied for by GE just last year.

But make no mistake—this is a five-year extension. Should Congress move forward with this deal, it will come as an early Christmas present to large, multinational corporations like GE at the expense of taxpayers everywhere.

PTC Extension is More Than a Handout to Big Wind

Congress’ PTC deal isn’t just a handout to Big Wind. It also gives a helping hand to President Obama.

As world leaders gather in Paris for yet another climate summit, the president is touting new EPA regulations as a “historic step” to address climate change. Those regulations, the so-called “Clean Power Plan,” will cost $292 billion, hike electricity prices by double digits in 40 states, and achieve zero climate benefits.

Obama’s carbon regulation depends on rapid wind-power growth, as our analysts have pointed out. Since wind power is expensive, it needs government support to compete. That’s where the PTC comes in.

The PTC plays a key role in propping up expensive, unreliable wind power. As Warren Buffett has said, “On wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”

Congress can’t seem to decide whether it supports the American people or Obama’s climate agenda. On the one hand, the House and Senate passed CRA resolutions striking down the president’s new carbon regulation. On the other, they may revive corporate handouts that Obama is banking on to make his carbon regulations succeed.

Wind power, driven by handouts like the PTC, is Obama’s best hope for salvaging a climate legacy that has been marred by green stimulus failures like Solyndra and failed legislative initiatives like national cap-and-trade, RPS, and carbon taxes.

If the Senate votes to revive and extend the PTC yet again, the House, under Speaker Ryan’s leadership, will have to decide whether to stand on principle, and with the American people, or with industrial wind lobbyists and President Obama.

Filed Under: Wind Tagged With: EPA, GE, Obama, Paul Ryan, tax extenders, wind, wind ptc

Obama Makes Empty Commitments in Paris

December 1, 2015 by AEA Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON – In a speech today at the Paris climate summit, President Obama made two claims that do not stand up to scrutiny: 1) That a deal reached in Paris would be “legally binding,” at least in part, and 2) That the U.S. would meet the president’s commitment to contribute $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund.

American Energy Alliance President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement:

“President Obama can ‘commit’ to anything he wants, but because he also committed to following the laws and Constitution of the United States, the president cannot waste taxpayer resources on the UN’s climate slush fund without the consent of the American people. Since it is highly unlikely that the Senate will ratify a treaty or Congress will appropriate funds, any agreement reached in Paris won’t be worth the paper it’s written on. The president is clearly out of touch as he gives undivided attention to climate change when the world faces immense challenges, such as terrorism and global poverty. At a time when we need real leadership, all President Obama has to offer is empty rhetoric.”

Below is more background information on the Paris climate summit

Any Paris agreement will be non-binding. As Secretary of State John Kerry told the Financial Times, any Paris deal is “definitively not going to be a treaty.” This is almost certain because a legally binding treaty would have to be submitted to the U.S. Senate under the Advice and Consent clause of the Constitution (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2). If the deal isn’t a treaty, then it is non-binding and unenforceable, plain and simple. Since the Obama administration can’t commit to a treaty, either a deal won’t be reached at all or it will be non-binding. Without a legally binding agreement, there is no way to enforce reduction targets or any other part of a deal.

Obama can’t deliver on Green Climate Fund promises. The Green Climate Fund is the piggy bank for the Paris agreement, with a goal of raising $100 billion per year by 2020. The GCF hinges on the U.S. paying the lion’s share. However, Congress, which must appropriate the money, has shown no intention of providing the funds. And despite Obama’s claims, he cannot simply repurpose the funds from other programs. Other countries should be wary of contributing to the GCF since Obama cannot fulfill his promise. Without funding, any climate deal is a house of cards.

Any climate deal will be non-binding and unenforceable, yet Obama uses hope for a deal to justify destructive domestic carbon regulations. We already know that EPA’s so-called “Clean Power Plan” will have virtually no impact on global temperatures, averting just 0.02 degrees Celsius by 2100. To distract from this point, the administration claims the value of this regulation is symbolic, as it will pave the way for a global agreement. But as we’ve noted, a deal in Paris will likely be non-binding, underfunded, and unenforceable. Essentially, Americans will be left with higher electricity rates, fewer jobs, and a wrecked economy for a meaningless and “symbolic” gesture. Once again, this shows that the president cares more about his climate legacy than the well-being of the American people.

###

Filed Under: Emissions Standards Tagged With: climate, EPA, Green Climate Fund, Obama, Paris

Key Vote: Yes on Amendments to H.R. 8

December 1, 2015 by AEA 2 Comments

This week, Congress will consider H.R. 8, the House energy bill. Known as the “Architecture of Abundance,” this legislation aims to tackle numerous energy-related issues. Two amendments to this bill could significantly help American families. An amendment offered by Reps. Barton, Cuellar, McCaul, and Flores would lift the current ban on oil exports. Another amendment by Reps. DeSantis, Walker, Bridenstine, and Duncan (SC) would repeal the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). Both amendments would repeal costly, outdated government programs and promote affordable and reliable energy. The American Energy Alliance urges all Representatives to vote yes on the Barton oil exports amendment and the DeSantis RFS repeal amendment, if made in order.

The oil export ban is an outdated and economically damaging policy. Innovations in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling have created an American energy renaissance driven by production increases on state and private lands. Since 2008, U.S. oil production has increased more than 80 percent, according to the Energy Information Administration. In 2014, domestic oil production hit a 30-year high. Increased domestic production has resulted in lower gasoline prices for American families, with prices falling to $2.04 per gallon nationally.

Studies show that ending the oil export ban would reduce domestic oil prices. U.S. oil exports on the world market would increase the overall supply of oil in the world, thereby decreasing global and domestic oil prices. The Brookings Institution found a potential 9 cents per gallon drop in gas prices. IHS estimates lifting the ban could lower gas prices by 8 cents per gallon, and an industry study estimates removing the export ban could result in up to $5.8 billion in reduced consumer fuel costs from 2015-2035.

The RFS is another stale policy that Congress should repeal. The RFS mandates refiners to blend ever-increasing amounts of biofuel into gasoline, raising prices for motorists. The RFS has been a complete failure, costing American motorists at the pump. Furthermore, the problem it originally intended to resolve–dependence on foreign oil–has been solved due to the domestic energy boom. What the RFS has accomplished is market distortion, higher gasoline prices, and benefiting a limited few (biofuel lobbyists) at the expense of all Americans. Rep. DeSantis’ amendment would fully repeal the RFS, rather than just the corn-ethanol mandate. As noted before, half-measures to repeal only parts of the RFS would do more harm than good.

These amendments seek to improve the American energy economy by lifting restrictions and damaging policies that harm American families. If made in order, the American Energy Alliance urges all Representatives to vote YES on the Barton, Cuellar, McCaul, and Flores oil exports amendment and the DeSantis, Walker, Bridenstine, and Duncan RFS amendment to H.R. 8.

Filed Under: Oil Exports, Renewable Fuel Standard Tagged With: biofuel, EPA, ethanol, oil, oil exports, rfs