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

Rep. Pompeo’s Ratepayer Protection Amendment Promotes Transparency

September 30, 2015 by Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON — The American Energy Alliance applauds Rep. Mike Pompeo’s Ratepayer Subsidization Protection Amendment, which was adopted today into H.R. 8, the North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2015. This amendment promotes transparency by requiring utility regulators to study the effects that certain electricity-related subsidies have on ratepayers.

AEA President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement:

“We applaud Rep. Pompeo for recognizing and highlighting the problem of increasing subsidies for electricity. Many of these subsidies, such as net metering, enrich wealthy homeowners at the expense of middle and low-income families.

“As state regulators consider allowing special programs that shift the costs between ratepayers, the general public has a right to know how these programs work, who really pays the bills, and any potential downsides. Transparency should be an important bipartisan issue. As President Obama said, ‘Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their government is doing.’”

###

Filed Under: Press Releases Tagged With: , , , ,

It’s Time for a House Energy and Natural Resources Committee

September 29, 2015 by Leave a Comment

Last week, Speaker of the House John Boehner announced that he would resign at the end of October. As a result, many in Congress are calling for new leadership to implement procedural changes to the House. For example, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes suggested that a new leadership team should implement new conference rules that would make the chamber more functional. And in a letter to House Republican Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Rep. Peter Roskam issued words of caution about the forthcoming leadership elections:

“If we launch headfirst into leadership elections like this is a typical succession, without ever taking the time to diagnose our current ailments, we won’t heal the fractures in a conference that has thus far proved unleadable. In fact, we will find ourselves right back where we are now — stymied by dysfunction and disunity.”

The House should heed these words of advice and start by revisiting the jurisdiction of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. While this committee is one of the most respected and most influential in Congress, it is no longer functional as it relates to the policy priorities of today. This is in large part due to the breadth of its jurisdiction, which includes energy, telecommunications, technology, healthcare, sports related issues, and more. The committee also oversees the Departments of Energy, Health and Human Services, Commerce, and Transportation, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Trade Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Federal Communications Commission.

This laundry list of responsibilities makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the committee to devote sufficient time and resources to one of the most important and growing policy areas—energy. Despite having the word “energy” in its title, the committee has failed to take on our country’s most serious energy challenges.

One need not look further for proof than the committee’s “comprehensive” energy bill, the Architecture of Abundance. The name of this legislation implies that the committee is promoting policies that embrace the use of America’s abundant natural resources—which would lower energy costs, enhance our nation’s energy security, and create jobs. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. While there are some aspects of this bill that embrace the free market and commonsense energy policies, it shrinks from taking on the most meaningful and challenging issues. For example, the bill fails to adequately address the regulatory reform needed to rein in the EPA or find a real solution to the nation’s costly federal ethanol mandate.

This is not necessarily a reflection of Chairman Fred Upton or the other committee members, but rather of the committee’s unwieldy and wide-ranging jurisdiction, which inhibits its ability to focus on these crucial issues. Regardless, it is a wasted opportunity to make significant progress towards more affordable and reliable energy for American families.

Meanwhile, our country faces a relentless and unprecedented level of hostility from the Obama administration towards American energy. Take, for example, oil and gas production, which has lagged on federal lands under this administration’s direction, even as production on non-federal lands has broken records.

Additionally, President Obama is doing his best to live up to his promise to make electricity prices “skyrocket.” His EPA has led a regulatory onslaught on our nation’s energy sources with regulations like the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard, carbon dioxide regulations, and the impending ozone regulation. These policies raise the cost of energy and kill jobs in what is already a fragile economy.

Despite these blatant attacks on American energy, the Commerce Committee has missed numerous opportunities to take meaningful action. For example, energy policy in the United States should be guided by its ability to enhance economic growth and create more opportunities for American families. Instead, it is being driven by the Obama administration’s obsession with regulating carbon dioxide, which EPA is using to grab more and more control over Americans’ lives and energy choices.

The committee wrote the laws that the Supreme Court says give EPA flexibility to regulate carbon dioxide, but even John Dingell, the longtime Democratic Chairman, says the committee never intended that carbon dioxide be controlled under the Clean Air Act. Despite this admission, the committee has not attempted to correct the record by fixing the law, even though there is bipartisan consensus that the Clean Air Act is being misinterpreted. Rather than stepping up to the plate and building a record of support for updating these laws, the committee has merely showcased the harm of Obama’s executive abuse. While worthwhile, it is simply not enough. This type of approach is what has led to increased frustration among American voters.

Fortunately, there is a path forward for the next House leadership to remedy this problem. It begins by shifting jurisdiction over energy policy to the House Committee on Natural Resources, creating a House Energy and Natural Resources Committee. This Natural Resources Committee already has jurisdiction over offshore energy production, coal production, water quality, some natural gas production, and shares jurisdiction on almost every other energy issue with Energy and Commerce. Unlike Energy and Commerce, however, the Natural Resources Committee has a clear and defined focus—how to effectively manage and promote the vast resources of the United States. It does not concern itself with telecommunications policy, or consumer safety, or healthcare.

The focus of an Energy and Natural Resources Committee would be on America’s vast natural resources and the energy that powers our economy. With this more centered approach, the House can begin tackling today’s most pressing energy challenges and push back on the Obama administration’s anti-energy agenda. This change will also lighten the load for a Commerce and Health Committee by allowing it to focus on the other important issues it faces.

The change in House leadership presents a unique opportunity for serious reforms that would make the House run more efficiently and effectively. A new Energy and Natural Resources Committee would be an important step in that direction. Such a committee would provide accountability, and perhaps more importantly, clarity for those who seek to understand and truly reform federal energy policy.

Filed Under: Energy Development Tagged With: , , ,

AEA & Coalition Applaud NC Legislature for Taking Action Against Costly Subsidies

September 23, 2015 by Leave a Comment

Budget Agreement Sunsets Energy Tax Credits; More Work to be Done on REPS

WASHINGTON — The North Carolina legislature recently reached an ​agreement on a budget that phases out tax credits for industrial solar and other forms of more expensive, less reliable energy production. Known as the Renewable Energy Tax Credit, this subsidy harms North Carolina jobs and economic growth. In recent weeks, AEA led a coalition of local leaders and business owners to shine a light on the harmful effects of government subsidies and mandates for expensive energy.

American Energy Alliance President Tom Pyle issued the following statement:

“By striking down taxpayer-funded subsidies for the wind and solar industry, North Carolina lawmakers have taken an important step toward getting the state’s economy back on track. North Carolina’s agriculture and manufacturing sectors rely on affordable energy, and this bill will help lower those costs—leaving North Carolinians with more money in their wallets and enabling local businesses to create more jobs.

“But there is more work to be done. North Carolina’s renewable energy mandate, which forces families and businesses to buy more expensive energy from wind and solar, remains an impediment to the state’s economic growth. I encourage North Carolina’s principled leaders to continue to fight for their citizens by taking steps to repeal this costly mandate.”

North Carolina House Majority Leader Mike Hager said:

“If you really, truly want to see the best for North Carolinians, if you truly want to see the economy boom, then we’ve got to reduce energy prices or hold the line – and that’s why our recent budget eliminated harmful renewable energy tax credits.

“If we’re looking at where the state needs to go, and we look at all the other states, all the countries around the world, and find me a place where we’ve implemented solar energy, wind energy, green energy policies and the price of energy actually went down or is where we are right now – you don’t see it anywhere. That’s why North Carolina needs to freeze our runaway mandates and develop a long-term, low-cost energy plan for the future.”

Bob Luddy, Owner of CaptiveAire Systems in Raleigh, said:

“In many cases, efforts toward sustainability increase capital costs that might otherwise be used for innovation, and efficient manufacturing cannot flourish in states that subsidize inefficiency and punish productive manufacturers.

“As the owner of the largest privately held manufacturer of kitchen ventilation systems in the United States, our cost of doing business is already high enough. I am happy to see the North Carolina General Assembly take a step toward requiring solar and other sources of alternative energy to stand on their own, rather than propping them up with taxpayer dollars. The money manufacturers will save on taxes will allow us to employ more individuals and create more products. It is my hope that North Carolina lawmakers will take further action to address the renewable energy mandate currently spiraling out of control.”

The budget provisions that phase-out tax credits for industrial solar and other forms of less affordable, more expensive energy come shortly after AEA launched a paid media and grassroots initiative targeting North Carolina’s costly Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard, which currently mandates that 12.5 percent of the state’s electricity come from costly renewable energy resources by the year 2021.

As part of its advocacy campaign, AEA, along with a coalition of public officials, policy experts, and members of the business community, convened for a roundtable forum to raise awareness of lawmakers’ responsibility to their constituents in providing affordable, reliable energy.

###

Filed Under: Press Releases Tagged With: , , ,

Clinton Panders to Enviros With Keystone Position

September 22, 2015 by Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON — American Energy Alliance President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement after Hillary Clinton came out against the Keystone XL Pipeline:

“Hillary Clinton’s statement on the Keystone pipeline gives us a rare window into how she would lead as our nation’s chief executive. It took Hillary six years, eight months, and a struggling presidential campaign to declare what we already knew–that she and her boss were never going to approve this routine infrastructure project that would create jobs, enhance our energy security, and strengthen our diplomatic ties with Canada. First, she dawdled as Secretary of State and now she panders to the national environmental lobby in her quest for the Democratic nomination. Fortunately, it will take much less time for voters to decide whether to put a panderer and dawdler in the Oval Office.”

###

Filed Under: Keystone XL, Press Releases Tagged With: , ,

Congress Should Lift Oil Export Ban; Reject Green Subsidies

September 21, 2015 by Leave a Comment

As Congress begins to tackle a plethora of legislative issues this fall, one particular issue has garnered broad support on both sides of the aisle: lifting the decades-old ban on oil exports. Representatives across the country have realized that the ban not only inhibits economic growth, but also prevents free trade and does nothing to advance energy security both at home and abroad. Rep. Barton has introduced H.R 702, which would end the ban on oil exports, and other measures are being considered as well. Lifting this outdated law is something Congress can, and should, do.

However, some politicians have floated the idea of using the export ban as a bargaining chip for other legislative prerogatives, such as reviving and extending the wind Production Tax Credit and solar Investment Tax Credit. This should not happen: American energy prosperity and security should not be a part of Congress’ political games. Lifting the oil export ban should be passed as a stand-alone measure, not subject to congressional horse trading.

Lifting the Ban will Benefit Americans

When the current restrictions on oil exports were initially introduced in the 1970s, lawmakers were concerned that the U.S. might run out of oil and natural gas. Over 40 years later, that fear has been disproven, and the U.S. is now experiencing a dramatic boom in oil and natural gas production from shale reserves. What is left is a distortionary federal policy that is holding back further industry development and economic benefits for American families and businesses.

As Institute for Energy Research Senior Economist Dr. Robert Murphy has explained, allowing American producers to export oil is good economic policy that would benefit the country, while keeping the ban in place would harm consumers. Further, as a society that values free trade and open markets, we should allow producers and consumers to trade oil on the global market. As a basic principle, American goods and services should be able to compete with foreign companies, thus benefitting U.S. businesses and lowering prices for consumers. Average Americans don’t purchase oil, but they often buy gasoline. When more oil is put onto the global market, it pushes down prices both for oil and gasoline.

Studies Confirm Benefits

A number of credible analyses have demonstrated the practical benefits of lifting the oil export ban. A study by IHS concluded that a free trade policy toward oil would result in increased average oil production of 1.2 to 2.3 million barrels per day, an average decrease in gas prices by 8 to 12 cents per gallon, and total fuel cost savings of $265 to $418 billion during the 2016–2030 time period.

The Brookings Institution also conducted a report that supports oil exports, estimating that oil production in the Gulf Coast could increase by 1.1 to 1.5 million barrels a day and gas prices could decline by 9 cents per gallon in 2015. They also found that lifting the ban would greatly enhance national energy security and establish the U.S. as a global leader in energy distribution and trade.

The independent U.S. Energy Information Administration recently released an analysis of the impacts of repealing restrictions on oil exports. In their two cases that assume high oil and gas resources, U.S. oil production would rise and gasoline prices would either be unchanged or fall slightly. Various other studies—including reports from ICF International, Columbia University, the American Petroleum Institute—have also concluded that removing the ban on oil exports would be beneficial not only for the U.S., but for the global economic community as well.

Conclusion

Even though there is substantial evidence supporting an end to the oil exports ban, some lawmakers are attempting to use the issue as a bargaining chip to pass other initiatives. Unfortunately, some of these policies, such as renewing or extending the wind Production Tax Credit and the solar Investment Tax Credit, are harmful for Americans. Studies have demonstrated that wind power is an expensive energy source and undermines the reliability of the electricity grid. Congress should consider the merits of oil exports and realize that removing the ban is positive in and of itself. Rather than tying passage to harmful subsidies, the ban should be lifted on its own or as part of a legislative package that excludes controversial energy subsidies.

Filed Under: Energy Development Tagged With: , , , , ,

Clinton’s Ethanol Plan Harms Rural America

September 21, 2015 by Leave a Comment

Last month, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton released her “Plan for a Vibrant Rural America.” Despite Clinton’s claims, her plan will harm rural families. Moreover, by mandating expensive transportation fuels, Clinton’s plan amounts to a national gas tax.

Clinton Flip-Flopped on Ethanol “Gas Tax”

As a Senator, Clinton once adamantly opposed an early version of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which requires refiners to blend rising amounts of biofuel into gasoline. At the time, she said a renewable fuel mandate would raise gasoline prices at the pump. In a 2002 letter penned with three other senators, she even went as far as to call it “the equivalent of a new gasoline tax.” However, during her 2008 presidential run, Clinton flip-flopped and began supporting ethanol mandates—quite possibly in an attempt to curry favor with Iowans.

Clinton had it right the first time. The RFS functions as a tax on gasoline by mandating the use of expensive fuels, such as cellulosic ethanol. Her so-called “improvements” to the RFS will only make the mandate worse, hitting poor families hardest. Ultimately, it’s Americans that are paying for Clinton’s politically convenient “change of heart.”

Low Carbon, High Cost Fuel Standards

The ethanol portion of Clinton’s “Rural America” plan is summarized on her website:

“Strengthen the Renewable Fuel Standard so that it drives the development of advanced cellulosic and other advanced biofuels, protects consumers, improves access to E15, E85, and biodiesel blends, and provides investment certainty.”

This plan is backwards. The RFS already requires the use of cellulosic ethanol. Congress thought that cellulosic would be cost-effective by now and mandated the use of billions of gallons of it, but reality has proven Congress wrong. Clinton wants to double down on Congress’ inability to predict the future.

For example, in 2010 and 2011 no cellulosic biofuel was produced, despite Congress’s mandate. In 2012, only 20,069 RINs [a RIN is a “Renewable Identification Number” and is equivalent to a gallon of ethanol] cellulosic were produced and in 2013, 422,740 RINs were produced. While that sounds like a lot, it pales in comparison to the 1.75 billion RINs mandated by the RFS. Worse, cellulosic production crashed in 2014 back to 44,168 RINs. For 2015, the RFS calls for the use of 3 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol, but so far, only 1.6 billion gallons of cellulosic biofuel have been produced and 227,000 gallons of cellulosic diesel.[1]

With cellulosic biofuel, there is a clear history of failure. This is an expensive fuel, but Clinton wants to further require the use of it. This is a recipe for higher fuel prices.

Clinton also extolls the virtues of E15 and E85 (E15 is fuel that is 15 percent ethanol and E85 is fuel that is 85 percent ethanol). The problem is that most cars on the road are not certified by the automakers as being able to safely use E15 and the majority of the time, E85 is more expensive (on an energy equivalent basis) compared to regular gasoline. Sometimes, E85 makes economic sense to use in a flex-fuel vehicle, but not all of the time. It is simple economics—if there was demand for E85, the federal government would not need to subsidize it as Clinton wants.

By favoring costly, non-existent cellulosic biofuels over corn-based ethanol, Clinton’s fuel mandate would resemble California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). This would impose enormous costs on American motorists. As AEA previously explained:

Not only is an LCFS another inefficient and political mandate, but it is costly as well. According to a study by Boston Consulting Group on California’s LCFS, the program could increase the price of gasoline by more than $2.50 a gallon. SAIC looked at a possible Northeast/Mid-Atlantic LCFS and found that it would cost 147,000 jobs and reduce GDP by $27 billion. Moving from an RFS to an LCFS means that American motorists will pay more for fuel and suffer job losses and slower economic growth.[2]

Clinton’s Plan Would Hurt Rural Americans

Ironically, Clinton’s proposal could actually hurt many rural farmers by shifting the mandate from corn-based ethanol to advanced biofuels that aren’t derived from corn. Essentially, Clinton’s plan will disadvantage corn farmers and raise gasoline prices across the board, hitting rural Americans the hardest, especially those who log the most miles in their vehicles. In a way, this option is the worst of both worlds. Not only will it increase fuel prices, but her plan will hurt many of the “rural Americans” she claims to help.

Clinton’s proposal is similar to efforts in Congress aimed at repealing the corn-portion of the RFS. As discussed above, this would establish a LCFS that props up expensive, non-existent biofuels at the expense of corn farmers while burdening all Americans with gas prices that look like California’s—among the highest in the nation. This is why Congress should reject current partial-repeal proposals and eliminate the RFS entirely.

Conclusion

Clinton’s plan is framed as a boon to rural America, but one of its key facets—a modification to the RFS—will harm many rural families. Before she flip-flopped to pander to voters, Clinton was right to label renewable fuel mandates as a gas tax.

The economic realities are still the same. Mandating ethanol and advanced biofuels will lead to higher gasoline prices for motorists. In addition, the Clinton plan will turn the RFS into a California-style Low Carbon Fuel Standard, resulting in even more economic harm. In the end, the RFS is broken beyond repair and Clinton’s plan will only make it worse. Only a full repeal of the law will truly improve the lives of all Americans.

[1] See EPA, 2015 RFS2 Data, http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/rfsdata/2015emts.htm. Note, last year EPA changed the definition of cellulosic biofuel to include renewable CNG and renewable LNG as cellulosic biofuel. We are not counting those volumes in this because this isn’t the fuel Congress contemplated when it created the updated the RFS.

[2] Daniel Simmons, “Why Congress Should Fully Repeal the RFS,” American Energy Alliance, May 27, 2015, https://www.americanenergyalliance.org/2015/05/27/corn-ethanol-only-repeal-makes-the-rfs-worse/.

Filed Under: Renewable Fuel Standard Tagged With: , , , ,

Game Changer: The Federal Land Freedom Act

September 18, 2015 by Leave a Comment

Thanks to developments in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, America is experiencing a modern energy renaissance. Oil production is at its highest levels in nearly twenty years, and natural gas continues to surge at a near-record pace. America currently produces more petroleum and natural gas than any other nation.

Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of this innovation is taking place on non-federal lands. Since 2010, oil and natural gas production on non-federal lands has increased 89 percent and 37 percent, respectively. Meanwhile, over the same period of time, production on federal lands decreased 10 percent and 31 percent, respectively. Further, overall fossil fuel production on federal lands has declined 16 percent since 2008. This is largely the result of a federal permitting process that takes much longer than on private lands: average wait time for the Bureau of Land Management to approve a drilling permit was 292 days from FY 2009-2013, compared to just a few months – even days – at the non-federal level.

Clearly, the federal government is holding America back from fully unleashing its energy potential. Fortunately, two pieces of legislation seek to undo this trend: Rep. Diane Black introduced H.R. 866 and Sen. Jim Inhofe introduced S. 490, both titled the Federal Land Freedom Act of 2015.

These identical bills have several strong provisions that would promote American energy growth, security, and independence. First, they allow states with pre-existing natural gas and oil permitting and leasing programs to assume federal duties for the processing of applications and the regulation of drilling activities. This would not only expedite the approval process, but would return regulatory responsibilities to the states, as they should be. States have a better knowledge of the lands within their borders and should be responsible for administering the energy production process within their borders.

Second, the bills protect states from federal overreach, exempting states from specific federal regulations that would otherwise be used to undermine or usurp state control over the natural gas and oil exploration and development process.

Finally, the legislation ensures the fair distribution of royalties and fees. Royalties that are collected from the leases and permits and are deposited in the same federal account as they would have been under a federally-administered lease or permit. However, states are entitled to collect lease and permit fees, allowing fair compensation to both state and local and federal entities. Since the legislation would increase the number of approved leases, these changes would likely result in significant increases in royalty payments to the federal government.

Rep. Black and Sen. Inhofe should be commended for authoring these important pieces of legislation. All Members of Congress should consider supporting the Federal Land Freedom Act of 2015.

Filed Under: Energy Development Tagged With: , ,

States Show Best Path to Reject Obama’s Carbon Rule

September 17, 2015 by Leave a Comment

President Obama recently announced the EPA’s final “Clean Power Plan,” the cornerstone of his radical climate agenda. The plan forces states to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by closing down coal-fired power plants and generating electricity from more expensive sources. The administration has called on states to submit implementation plans indicating how they intend to meet emission targets, while many states plan to sue on the basis that federal bureaucrats have no right to dictate state energy choices.

Now, states are faced with the choice of whether or not to submit a plan to the EPA that will raise the price of electricity, increase job losses, and transfer authority over the energy grid from states to the federal government. Six governors have already indicated they do not intend to submit a plan, while more than 25 states have introduced bills creating legislative hurdles.

Obama wants states to believe the choice is between submitting a state plan or having a federal plan imposed on you. This is false. The real choice is whether to prematurely implement this costly regulation before the courts decide its fate. States that take the “wait-and-see” approach protect their citizens from federal overreach, while those who rush to help Obama implement the regulation are handing over control to the federal government.

The Danger of Premature Implementation

Rather than helping the Obama administration implement this costly regulation, states should exercise their right not to submit a plan until the legal challenges are resolved. This is well within a state’s right under the Clean Air Act—EPA does not even dispute this point. Recently, the heads of three state think tanks—Brett Healy at the MacIver Institute (Wisconsin), Rea Hederman at the Buckeye Institute (Ohio), and Kevin Kane at the Pelican Institute (Louisiana)—emphasized this point in an op-ed titled “A State Plan to Defeat Obama’s Climate Agenda”:

“Given the shaky legal ground on which the rule rests, President Obama knows that success or failure hinges on whether states submit plans or wait. To that end, in its final rule EPA promises to “reward” states that submit early plans with emission credits they can bank or sell in a cap-and-trade system… [this] will also commit states to costly investments that cannot be reversed, even if the courts invalidate the rule down the road…

…In the coming months, states will face pressure from EPA and special interests to sign on the dotted line, as if they have no other choice. But it doesn’t have to be this way. As our leaders have shown, refusing to submit a plan until the courts weigh in is a state’s legal right under the Clean Air Act. Divided the states fall, but united in opposition to Obama’s costly carbon agenda, the states can protect their citizens from federal overreach and higher utility bills.”

The Obama administration knows that states have the option to submit a plan at any point in the process, even after courts have made a decision. The administration’s hope is that rather than adopting a “wait-and-see” approach, states will develop plans early and begin implementing them before courts have had a chance to issue a ruling. This would render any legal victory meaningless, as was the case in the recent ruling on mercury regulations.

Michigan: A Case Study of How to Help Obama

Recently, Governor Snyder (R-MI) directed the state environmental agency to develop an implementation plan for Michigan. Snyder called the decision the “best way” to ensure Michigan “retains control of its energy future.” In fact, this rush to regulate will cede control to federal regulators and put Michigan families at risk for dramatically higher energy bills. As Professor Christopher Douglas of the University of Michigan-Flint highlights in an op-ed for The Detroit News, implementing Obama’s carbon regulation prematurely “invites a federal energy takeover”:

“Beyond its legal infirmities, the rule is an economic disaster. Implementing it will require Michigan to uproot our electricity system, replacing low-cost coal that comprises almost half of our power with more expensive sources. An economic analysis of the proposed rule found it would raise electric rates on Michigan households by 12 percent, or about $140 per year. The final rule is even more severe, so costs will likely be higher.

By rushing to help Obama implement his rule, Michigan has little to gain but much to lose. It will ensure Obama’s EPA gets to mandate its favored energy sources while inflicting huge economic costs on Michiganians that cannot be undone if the courts later invalidate the rule.”

Conclusion

Now that the carbon regulation is final, states are facing pressure from EPA to submit plans by Sept. 2016. States should resist this temptation—acting now comes with definite costs, but there is no penalty for waiting. Michigan’s rush to help Obama implement his carbon regulation invites federal bureaucrats into state affairs, while the actions of states like Ohio, Wisconsin, and Louisiana to reject premature implementation preserve state sovereignty. Instead of offering support to EPA by submitting state implementation plans prematurely, state leaders should join with those who oppose Obama’s costly carbon regulation and refuse to submit a plan until all legal challenges are resolved.

For more information on what state leaders are doing to protect your interests, click here.

Filed Under: Emissions Standards Tagged With: , , , ,

Scorecard Groups Urge End to Wind PTC

September 16, 2015 by Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON — Today, the American Energy Alliance joined with Heritage Action for America, Club for Growth, and Americans for Prosperity in opposition to the Wind Production Tax Credit (PTC). In a letter to the House Ways and Means Committee, the groups urge against extending this taxpayer-funded subsidy and explain that the PTC will be an important factor as the groups consider whether to include final passage of the extenders package in their respective legislative scorecards.

Below is the text of the letter:

In advance of your upcoming consideration of tax extenders legislation, we, the undersigned organizations with legislative scorecards, would urge you not to extend the Wind Production Tax Credit (PTC).

For decades, wind subsidy proponents have claimed that the wind industry is on the cusp of competitiveness and that it would only need federal support for a few more years. Yet each time the subsidy faces expiration, the wind lobby clamors for yet another extension. Since the wind PTC was enacted in 1992, it has been extended 9 times. This is unnecessary given the wind industry’s repeated claims that wind energy is booming and is currently cost competitive. It is time for this subsidy for a large, mature, multi-national industry to come to an orderly end.

Ending this subsidy is more important now than ever. While not immediately apparent, the wind PTC is critical to President Obama’s recently finalized carbon regulation. One of the “building blocks” used to determine state targets includes significant increased installation of renewable energy—especially wind. In fact, EPA assumes the wind industry will more than double its total capacity in just eight years. Without taxpayer subsidies like the PTC, the President will be unable to achieve his arbitrary renewable energy target.

By hiding the true cost of wind energy, the PTC makes the President’s carbon agenda appear less costly than it actually is. Wind energy is one of the most expensive sources of electricity: power from new wind resources is nearly four times more expensive than from existing nuclear and nearly three times more expensive than from existing coal. Perhaps the most significant thing this Congress can do to protect ratepayers and taxpayers from the damage of the President’s carbon regulation is preventing another extension of the wind PTC.

Further, if the committee is serious about tax reform, ending the PTC would send a strong signal to the public that Congress is ready to tackle this important challenge. For years, this committee has touted the economic benefits of reforming and condensing our bloated tax system. The economic benefits of ending the wind PTC are apparent, as wind energy raises electricity costs compared to existing sources. We recommend the committee stand up for American taxpayers by letting the subsidy remain expired.

Your colleagues in the Senate have already passed a tax extenders package that includes the wind PTC for another two years. The House now has a chance to take a different path by rejecting corporate welfare and business-as-usual tax policy that is hurting our country. The committee’s treatment of the wind PTC will be an important factor as we consider whether to include final passage of tax extenders on the House floor as part of our organizations key-votes for our collective scorecards.

Click here to view the full letter.

###

 

Filed Under: Press Releases, Wind Tagged With: , , ,

Survey: Americans Don’t Want to Pay for Neighbor’s EV

September 15, 2015 by 1 Comment

WASHINGTON – Today, the American Energy Alliance released a new survey examining voters’ attitudes toward transportation policy, specifically government support for electric vehicles. The results show that Americans are deeply skeptical of government making decisions for them with respect to vehicles or fuels—for example, when it comes to using tax dollars to subsidize electric vehicles. MWR Strategies conducted the nationwide survey with a sample of 1013 likely voters (margin of error, 3.1%).

The survey found:

  • 76 percent of respondents said those making $150,000 a year or more should not receive a $7,500 federal tax credit when purchasing an electric vehicle.
  • 74 percent of respondents said that electricity ratepayers should not be compelled to pay for charging stations used by owners of electric vehicles.
  • 83 percent of respondents said they do not trust the federal government to decide what kind of cars should be subsidized or mandated.
  • 83 percent of respondents said utility ratepayers should not pay for the electricity used by the owners of electric cars.

“Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to government involvement in their energy and transportation choices, and electric vehicles are no exception,” said AEA President Tom Pyle.

“While subsidies for electric vehicles benefit a privileged few, they come at the expense of taxpayers everywhere. The message from the public is clear: it is time to end these regressive policies and let the electric-vehicle industry compete on its own merits.”

MWR Strategies President Mike McKenna issued the following statement:

“The most striking finding to me is that despite being aware of potentially positive aspects of electric vehicles, voters are steadfastly unwilling to pay for electric vehicles purchased by others. Almost 7 in 10 said they would be unwilling to pay anything to support the development of electric vehicles. You have to think that that intensity of sentiment is eventually going to be reflected in government policy.”

The results of this survey are especially relevant as states like California face backlash for lavishing huge subsidies on wealthy electric-vehicle owners. They also cast doubt on public support for policies designed to finance EV charging stations on the backs of taxpayers and ratepayers.

Click here to view the results of the survey.

Click here to read a summary of the survey.

###

Filed Under: Electric Vehicles, Press Releases Tagged With: , , , , ,
Previous
Next