News - American Energy Alliance

EPA Bureaucrats Bungle the RFS…Again

November 30, 2015 by AEA 3 Comments

Agency’s Mismanagement Highlights Need to Repeal the Mandate

WASHINGTON — American Energy Alliance President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement on EPA’s 2014-2016 volume requirements for the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS):

“EPA bureaucrats continue to prove they are incapable of managing the RFS. The agency consistently misses deadlines and sets unrealistic levels for cellulosic ethanol, which is expensive and not commercially viable. This gross mismanagement is just one more reason to scrap the entire mandate, and why anything short of full repeal would just make the RFS worse.

“The RFS was ill-conceived from the get-go. The mandate distorts markets, raises gasoline prices, and benefits a limited few at the expense of all Americans. Partial repeal would only make the mandate worse by moving it closer to a California-style Low Carbon Fuel Standard, causing Americans to pay more at the pump. Full repeal is the only option for those concerned about the interests of all Americans, and not just the self-interests of the biofuel industry and its lobbyists.”

Click here to read why full repeal is the only way to fix the RFS.

###

Filed Under: Press Releases, Renewable Fuel Standard Tagged With: biofuels, EPA, ethanol, gas prices, rfs

Key Vote: YES on S.J. Res. 23 & 24

November 30, 2015 by AEA 4 Comments

The House of Representatives will consider two Senate-passed Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions that disapprove of President Obama’s regulation of carbon dioxide from power plants. S.J. Res. 23, targeting regulations for new power plants, and S.J. Res. 24, targeting regulations for existing power plants, will spearhead the House’s action against these harmful regulations. The American Energy Alliance urges all Representatives to vote in favor of these CRA resolutions.

Obama’s carbon dioxide regulations for both new and existing power plants will cause significant harm by eliminating thousands of jobs and raising electricity prices for families and businesses across the country. These regulations will unduly harm minorities and the poor, who spend a greater percentage of their income on utility bills. Further, Obama’s carbon dioxide regulations are so expensive that the regulations could result in thousands of premature deaths, as people are forced to spend more on energy and have less money to protect their health. These regulations are supposed to be about climate change, but the benefits come nowhere close to the outrageous costs: using the EPA’s own climate model, the rules will change global temperatures by a mere 0.02 degrees Celsius.

The CRA allows Congress to review and vote to disapprove what are considered “major” rules. A rule is considered a major rule if:

1) It is projected to have an annual economic effect of $100 million or more;

2) It would cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, industries, government agencies, or specific geographic regions; or

3) It could result in lost jobs, harm competition (both domestically and abroad), and/or deter investment, or productivity.

If the CRA is successful, Congress will strike a significant blow to Obama’s anti-energy regulatory agenda by sending a strong message that Congress disagrees with Obama’s carbon dioxide regulations. Further, it will show the world, ahead of the Paris climate summit, that America’s co-equal branch of government does not support the President’s unilateral climate agenda and should not count on the U.S.’s financial support toward its ends.

The American Energy Alliance strongly urges all Representatives to vote YES on both S.J. Res. 23 and S.J. Res. 24. YES is the pro-taxpayer, pro-energy, and pro-consumer vote.

Filed Under: Blog

Wind Subsidies Won’t Make America Great Again

November 20, 2015 by AEA Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON — American Energy Alliance President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement after presidential candidate Donald Trump came out in support of wind subsidies:

“Donald Trump’s new position in support of wind subsidies is an obvious pander to Big Wind and their lobbyists. Mr. Trump seems to know that wind power doesn’t make sense, and won’t be built without subsidies and handouts. As he stated while in Iowa, ‘It needs subsidy, otherwise they’re not going to get built,’ and ‘They’re very expensive to build and they’re very expensive to maintain.’ What he may not understand is that electricity from new wind sources costs three times as much as electricity from existing coal plants.

“We hope Mr. Trump will come back to his senses and remember that in a country with a $19 trillion national debt, paying Big Wind billions of dollars in taxpayer cash makes no sense, especially since wind energy only works when the wind blows and leads to higher electricity bills to pay for backup generation that other reliable sources don’t require. We can’t make America great again running it on wind turbines and handouts to Big Wind.”

Click here to view AEA’s presidential candidate tracker.

###

Filed Under: Wind Tagged With: Donald Trump, wind energy, wind subsidies

CRA Votes Could Undermine UN Climate Talks

November 18, 2015 by AEA 1 Comment

WASHINGTON — American Energy Alliance President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement after the Senate voted 52-46 to block EPA’s carbon regulations and the House Energy and Commerce Committee advanced two resolutions to block the regulations:

“Congress is sending a clear message to countries around the world that there is significant opposition to President Obama’s unlawful carbon regulations. World leaders who are banking on the U.S., and our resources, being a part of a global agreement should take note of this opposition.

“Those who voted to block the carbon regulations should be applauded for their effort. The Obama administration’s agenda will unavoidably damage the economy, kill jobs, and raise energy costs–hurting America’s poor and middle class families the most. The president’s promise to veto this resolution proves once again that he cares more about preserving his climate legacy than the interests of the American people.”

Click here to read AEA’s key vote alert on the Senate resolutions.

###

Filed Under: Emissions Standards Tagged With: energy costs, EPA, Obama

ICYMI: Carbon Doesn’t Kill — Poverty Does

November 17, 2015 by AEA Leave a Comment

This week, Dr. Jane Orient penned an op-ed in the Investor’s Business Daily which shows how EPA’s carbon regulations will harm public health. Orient, a general internist from Arizona, illustrates how despite EPA’s claims, the regulations actually make Americans poorer and sicker. Below is an excerpt from the piece:

As a physician with decades of experience treating thousands of patients, I believe the EPA’s “carbon” regulation would do tremendous harm to no benefit. EPA’s purported health benefits are purely speculative, and ignore the fact that making people poorer also makes them sicker.

Obviously, low-income communities are hurt the most by rising energy costs. Government data indicate that households in the lowest quintile spend more than 10% of their after-tax income on electricity, on average, compared with less than 3% for all households.

To keep the lights on, or to heat the baby’s bedroom, people may decide to skip a doctor visit, not fill their prescriptions, or forgo new tires for the car or other items needed for safety.

Dr. Orient also explains how EPA’s health claims are based on shoddy science that conflicts with the every day experience of practicing physicians:

Based on a few studies of differing death rates in areas with different levels of particulates, which could result from many other factors, the EPA just extrapolates to large populations, claiming that a small increase in particle levels can cause thousands to die or have an asthma attack.

Physicians simply do not observe this to happen. We also do not expect to see fewer asthma attacks, strokes or heart attacks if our already clean air becomes slightly cleaner.

In fact, a growing body of research suggests that EPA air regulations have reached a point of diminishing returns. A study published in the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology concluded that toxicological data on particulate matter “strongly suggest that current ambient concentrations in the U.S. are too small to cause significant disease or death.”

Ultimately, Dr. Orient concludes that from a public health perspective, EPA’s carbon regulations do more harm than good:

A doctor would not prescribe a medicine that frequently sickened patients in order to treat a cold. But the EPA is trying to force states to adopt a remedy certain to cause unemployment and deeper poverty, based on dubious theoretical calculations that it might possibly prevent an asthma attack.

In the end, by increasing poverty, EPA’s “carbon” rule would hurt people more than it cleans up the air.

Click here to read the rest of the op-ed.

Filed Under: Emissions Standards Tagged With: carbon dioxide, EPA, Obama

EPA’s Carbon Regulation Harms Coloradans

November 16, 2015 by AEA Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON — Today, the EPA began public hearings in Denver to fulfill the agency’s public engagement and outreach obligations for their carbon regulation. The American Energy Alliance is providing the below background information to demonstrate how the Obama administration’s carbon regulation stands to impact energy costs, jobs, and the economy in Colorado. In fact, the latest study from NERA Economic Analysis released this month reports that under this regulation, electricity prices in the Colorado could increase by an average of 31 percent from 2022-2033.

American Energy Alliance President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement:

“The Obama administration’s anti-energy agenda will hurt those with the least power in Washington, including poor and middle class Coloradans. By shutting down affordable and reliable coal power plants, the EPA’s carbon regulation will raise electricity prices and drive jobs out of Colorado. Governor Hickenlooper has refused to put up a fight to protect Coloradans and instead is helping the administration advance their agenda. Fortunately, AG Coffman is taking a stand for Colorado families by joining with 26 other states in a lawsuit against the EPA. Coloradans can help fight back by urging Governor Hickenlooper and other state leaders to resist implementing the rule until the legal challenges are resolved.”

###

Filed Under: Emissions Standards Tagged With: colorado, electricity prices, EPA, Obama

Rep. Palmer Stands Up to EPA Overreach

November 16, 2015 by AEA Leave a Comment

Rep. Gary Palmer has introduced legislation aimed at combatting the EPA’s aggressive and controversial regulation of greenhouse gasses. H.R. 3880, the Stopping EPA Overreach Act of 2015, has already garnered significant Congressional support with 107 original cosponsors. Rep. Palmer’s bill is the latest in a series of Congressional attempts to fight the Obama Administration’s attempt at a federal takeover of the electrical grid.

Obama’s carbon regulation will require states to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. Energy bills will skyrocket from the ensuing loss of affordable and reliable electricity. While Obama’s carbon rule will hurt all Americans, it will especially affect minorities and the poor, who spend a higher percentage of their income on utility bills. The carbon rule could result in thousands of premature deaths because regulatory costs reduce people’s ability to protect their health by forcing people to spend money on complying with the regulation and less on things that protect their health. All of this pain will be for naught, as the regulation does nothing to impact the climate: using the EPA’s own climate model, the rule would produce a mere 0.02 degrees Celsius change in global temperatures.

Further, the carbon rule amounts to a federal takeover of the electricity grid. Under the current system, states are in charge of regulating electricity markets. They choose what mix of electricity generation works best for their unique situation, and respond to market factors when producing electricity. Thus, Americans enjoy some of the most affordable and reliable electricity in the developed world. Obama’s carbon rule will undermine the electrical system that Americans have come to enjoy and depend on for affordable, reliable power. As the 24 states that sued EPA explained (26 states counting those that filed separate suits), the regulation “unlawfully expands the federal government’s regulatory power over electricity production and consumption in nearly every State.” Attempting to take over the electric grid under the auspices of greenhouse gas regulations is an affront to state sovereignty and the Constitution.

While the courts have determined that EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, there is considerable debate regarding whether that was ever the intent of Congress. In fact, former Energy & Commerce Committee chairman Congressman John Dingell (who helped write the Clean Air Act) said that “the Supreme Court came up with an erroneous decision on whether the Clean Air Act covers greenhouse gases. Like many of the members of this committee I was present when we wrote that legislation, and we thought it was clear enough that…we didn’t clarify it, thinking that even the Supreme Court was not stupid enough to make that finding.”

Citing the EPA’s lack of explicit statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gases, Rep. Palmer’s bill confronts Obama’s carbon regulations head on. The bill explicitly looks to nullify both the EPA’s proposed carbon rules for new sources and for existing sources, both of which will have enormous negative impacts for all Americans. Additionally, Rep. Palmer prescribes limitations on future rules promulgated by the EPA, requiring the EPA to consider any impacts their rules will have on employment. If the rule has a negative impact on jobs it cannot be implemented, unless approved by Congress and the President.

Rep. Palmer’s bill also seeks to prevent the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. Under current law, the EPA has virtually unfettered authority in determining what exactly constitutes an ‘air pollutant,’ and thus can be regulated by the EPA. Rep. Palmer’s bill includes language that tightens the EPA’s authority by excluding carbon dioxide, and other greenhouse gases, from being considered air pollutants and thus not subject to EPA regulation. This will help rein in the EPA from its continued abuse of power, and protect Americans from further job-killing and costly rule-making.

Rep. Palmer has taken a strong stand against the EPA and its abusive regulatory agenda by introducing H.R. 3880. The strong support behind this bill sends a strong message that the U.S. Congress is not supportive of Obama’s climate agenda and will not capitulate to the Administration’s demands leading up to and resulting from the Paris climate talks.

Filed Under: Emissions Standards Tagged With: air pollutants, climate, electricity, EPA, greenhouse gases, Obama

How EPA’s Carbon Regulations Harm Pennsylvanians

November 12, 2015 by AEA Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON — Today the EPA will hold a public hearing in Pittsburgh as part of the EPA’s public engagement and outreach obligation. The American Energy Alliance is providing the below background information to demonstrate how the Obama administration’s carbon regulation stands to impact energy costs, jobs, and the economy in Pennsylvania. In fact, the latest study from NERA Economic Analysis released just last week reports that under this regulation, electricity prices in the Keystone State will increase by an average of 17 percent from 2022-2033.

American Energy Alliance President Tom Pyle issued the following statement:

“The Obama administration’s carbon regulations will undoubtedly increase electricity costs for Pennsylvanians. Higher costs will hurt poor and middle class families the most, and will drive away Pennsylvania’s thriving manufacturing industry. Pennsylvania state leaders have an obligation to their citizens to resist implementation of this federal takeover until the courts have weighed in.”

###

Filed Under: Emissions Standards Tagged With: electricity prices, EPA, Obama, Pennsylvania

Ethanol Group Misses Mark on Energy Scorecard

November 12, 2015 by AEA 4 Comments

Throughout the presidential campaign thus far, several candidates have made energy issues key aspects of their platforms. In Iowa, the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) has been of particular import due to the heavy influence of the ethanol lobby. One group, America’s Renewable Future, is looking to pressure candidates to support its position by releasing a scorecard tracking where each of the candidates stand on the RFS. Yet ARF has it backwards: to protect American families, the RFS should be fully repealed.

ARF’s message to the candidates is simple: support the RFS, or lose Iowa. The RFS is a federal policy that mandates ethanol in gasoline and raises gas prices. It is no coincidence that the group is heavily backed by ethanol lobbying groups who stand to gain from the status quo. The Iowa Corn Growers Association, the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, and Growth Energy are among the groups that finance this latest pressure campaign.

ARF’s scorecard simply rates candidates on their positions on the RFS, giving those willing to keep the mandate a “good rating,” those with unclear records a “needs work” rating, and those indicating they will get rid of the RFS and protect American families and businesses a “bad rating.”

Of course, ARF is interested in protecting the RFS mandate, which guarantees a market for corn ethanol. In reality, the RFS is bad policy that increases costs for all Americans: the energy-adjusted average price of ethanol is nearly 40 cents more than standard gasoline. While the RFS was initially mandated to address America’s dependence on foreign oil and declining domestic oil production, the U.S. has since become a global leader in energy production. Thanks to hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, oil and natural gas production increased by 3.1 million barrels per day and roughly 4.7 trillion cubic feet, respectively, since 2010. And that was accomplished with no mandates from Washington.

Candidates who support the RFS should be held accountable for supporting an outdated, harmful policy. For example, Gov. Christie has struggled to make sense of the RFS and seems to blindly support the mandate without fully understanding its impacts. Even worse, Hillary Clinton’s ethanol plan will not only ramp up subsidies for ethanol, but also increase the mandate for the production of costly cellulosic and advanced biofuels, of which production has failed to materialize even with generous government handouts.

Candidates should oppose the RFS and support free market energy policies that protect American families. The American Energy Alliance’s 2016 Presidential Candidates Energy Scorecard tracks each candidate’s position on energy issues, including the RFS, so voters can hold the candidates accountable. Unlike ARF, the AEA scorecard provides extensive quotes, vote histories, and policy platforms for each candidate, allowing voters to make informed decisions on energy in the 2016 presidential race.

Rather than rely on ARF’s scorecard, tailored to the special interests of entrenched lobbyists, see where candidates stand on a wide variety of energy issues by visiting the AEA 2016 Presidential Candidates Energy Scorecard.

Filed Under: Renewable Fuel Standard Tagged With: biofuels, energy scorecard, ethanol, Renewable Fuel Standard

Energy Questions for the 2016 Candidates

November 10, 2015 by AEA Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON – Ahead of tonight’s GOP debate in Milwaukee, the American Energy Alliance has compiled a list of questions for each of the candidates. The questions relate to the findings of AEA’s newly released 2016 Presidential Candidates Energy Scorecard:

	Donald Trump Will you release a detailed energy plan like other candidates so the American people understand what your administration might do in this policy area?
	Marco Rubio Will you oppose efforts to revive the Wind Production Tax Credit in the Senate this fall?During the campaign you have not provided a clear explanation on the Renewable Fuel Standard. Would you favor repeal of this mandate?
	Ben Carson Will you release a detailed energy plan like other candidates so the American people understand what your administration might do in this policy area?
	Carly Fiorina Can you explain why you would not be willing to address the Renewable Fuel Standard before 2022 when it will be responsible for increasing gas prices for American consumers in the near term?
	Ted Cruz Will you oppose efforts to revive the Wind Production Tax Credit in the Senate this fall?
	Jeb Bush Can you explain why you would not be willing to address the Renewable Fuel Standard before 2022 when it will be responsible for increasing gas prices for American consumers in the near term? With the release of your energy plan you made clear that states like Alaska should be allowed to develop their own energy resources, but earlier you gave a tepid response in regard to the development of ANWR in Alaska. Would your administration support the development of energy in ANWR?
	Rand Paul Will you oppose efforts to revive the Wind Production Tax Credit in the Senate this fall?During the campaign you have not provided a clear position on the Renewable Fuel Standard. Would you favor repeal of this mandate?
	John Kasich You and your administration have been vocal critics of President Obama’s power plant regulations. Will your state of Ohio follow other states like IN, WI, OK, and TX that have signaled they will follow a “do no harm” approach by not submitting a state plan until legal resolution?
	Mike Huckabee The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the RFS will cause gas prices to increase by 13 to 26 cents by the year 2017. Since you have vocally defended the RFS during your campaign, how high would gas prices have to be increased due to the RFS before you would change your opinion of it? There is video evidence of the fact that you supported cap and trade in 2007, yet later you vocally denied that you said it. Are you prepared to admit that you made a mistake in supporting cap and trade and pledge to undo the President’s regulations if elected?
	Chris Christie You have been vocally critical of President Obama’s power plant regulations, which threaten to pull New Jersey back into a cap and trade system you rejected. Will your state of New Jersey follow other states like IN, WI, OK, and TX that have signaled they will follow a “do no harm” approach by not submitting a state plan until legal resolution?
	Rick Santorum The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated the RFS will cause gas prices to increase by 13 to 26 cents by the year 2017. Since you have vocally defended the RFS during your campaign, how high would gas prices have to be increased due to the RFS before you would change your opinion of it?
	Bobby Jindal You have said that you support a phase out of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), but you have not provided specifics on how soon that should occur. How soon would you seek to completely phase out this mandate?

Question for all candidates:

President Obama intends to use the carbon rule as the basis for US support of an international agreement at the Paris Climate Conference. Do you plan on being bound to this agreement if he does not receive approval from the US Senate? Would such an agreement developed outside the Senate’s approval influence your promise to withdraw the carbon rule?

Click here to view AEA’s 2016 Candidate Scorecard.

###

Filed Under: Press Releases Tagged With: energy, Obama, Renewable Fuel Standard, rfs, wind ptc