News - American Energy Alliance

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

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