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

Obama Makes Empty Commitments in Paris

December 1, 2015 by 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: , , , ,

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

December 1, 2015 by 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: , , , , ,

EPA Bureaucrats Bungle the RFS…Again

November 30, 2015 by 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: , , , ,

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

November 30, 2015 by 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 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: , ,

CRA Votes Could Undermine UN Climate Talks

November 18, 2015 by 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: , ,

ICYMI: Carbon Doesn’t Kill — Poverty Does

November 17, 2015 by 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: , ,

EPA’s Carbon Regulation Harms Coloradans

November 16, 2015 by 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: , , ,

Rep. Palmer Stands Up to EPA Overreach

November 16, 2015 by 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: , , , , ,

How EPA’s Carbon Regulations Harm Pennsylvanians

November 12, 2015 by 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: , , ,
Previous
Next