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

USA Today Tears Into Flawed RFS

March 18, 2015 by 3 Comments

The barrage of criticism targeting the Renewable Fuel Standard is showing no signs of stopping. Just last week, the The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal took aim at the costly and flawed federal biofuel mandate.

Now, on the heels of the recent Iowa Ag Summit, where numerous prominent Republican presidential candidates kowtowed to the powerful ethanol lobby, USA Today has weighed in on the government’s ethanol directive. Their take? End the ethanol mandate. Here’s an excerpt from the piece:

The RFS, which requires retailers to sell a 10% ethanol blend or pay into a convoluted subsidy system, imposes major burdens on consumers. A gallon of ethanol is more expensive than a gallon of gasoline ($2.43 vs. $1.73 wholesale) and gets only about two-thirds the mileage.

This forces motorists to pay $10 billion a year more at the pump, according to Robert Bryce of the Manhattan Institute. That’s more than a quarter of the $38 billion raised by the federal gasoline tax. Then consumers get hit a second time at the supermarket, where rising corn prices drive up the cost of everything from beef to cereal.

Meanwhile, the argument that energy security demands a home-grown, “renewable” fuel is no longer viable thanks to new oil and gas drilling techniques and advances in wind and solar. In fact, the ethanol makers who once wrapped themselves in the flag are now shipping their product overseas.

Another rational — ethanol’s status as a “clean” fuel — was always a farce. While a gallon of ethanol emits fewer greenhouse gases than a gallon of gasoline, it is far dirtier after accounting for the energy used to till and fertilize the land used to produce it.

If these weren’t enough reasons to revisit the mandate, consider this: Fuel use has been dropping thanks to more efficient cars and other factors. That has made it hard to unload mandated ethanol quotas without going above a 10% blend, something Detroit says its cars can’t handle.

The solution is obvious: Just end the mandate — notwithstanding the kowtowing of politicians traipsing through Iowa.

You can read the rest of USA Today’s editorial here.

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

Former Obama Law Professor Eviscerates EPA

March 18, 2015 by 1 Comment

Laurence Tribe is a Harvard Law Professor who has described President Obama as “the best student I ever had” and donated to his political campaigns. It might come as a surprise, then, to learn that Professor Tribe also believes the foundation of the Obama administration’s anti-coal agenda is unconstitutional.

Testifying before Congress this week, Tribe condemned the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed carbon dioxide rule for existing power plants as a “constitutionally reckless mission” and a “power grab.” In written testimony, Tribe explains how the EPA’s proposal “offends democratic principles” in favor of regulatory fiat:

EPA’s plan represents an unprecedented attempt to change how electricity is generated, transmitted, and consumed throughout the United States…EPA’s plan will force States to adopt policies that will raise energy costs and prove deeply unpopular, while cloaking those policies in the Emperor’s garb of state “choice” – even though in fact the polices are compelled by EPA. Such sleight-of-hand offends democratic principles by avoiding political transparency and accountability.

Tribe’s oral testimony was even more pointed. He said EPA’s plan would make states “marionettes dancing to the tune of a federal puppeteer.” Tribe believes EPA’s plan runs afoul of the Fifth and Tenth Amendments and the Clean Air Act.

Tribe’s testimony echoes earlier comments submitted to EPA. In those comments, Tribe describes the proposed rule as “remarkable example of executive overreach” and called on EPA to withdraw the rule. As Tribe explains, EPA is misinterpreting a key section of the Clean Air Act to seize authority it does not have under the law.

Essentially, Tribe explains EPA does not have the authority to regulate power plants under both Section 112 and 111(d) of the Clean Air Act—the agency must choose one, and it’s already regulating mercury emissions under Section 112. Thus, EPA’s proposal to also regulate carbon dioxide emissions from those same power plants under Section 111(d) would violate the Clean Air Act. Even if EPA’s proposal didn’t violate the Clean Air Act, Tribe contends the courts will invalidate the rule on constitutional grounds.

Tribe concludes his written testimony:

EPA is attempting an unconstitutional trifecta: usurping the prerogatives of the States, Congress and the Federal Courts – all at once. Burning the Constitution should not become part of our national energy policy.

Click here to read Tribe’s full testimony.

Filed Under: Emissions Standards Tagged With: , , ,

On House Budget: Don’t Bail Out HTF w/ Gas Tax Hike

March 17, 2015 by 5 Comments

WASHINGTON — American Energy Alliance President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement on the House’s FY2016 budget:

“The House budget is a step in the right direction toward encouraging more domestic energy development and winding down the Obama administration’s reckless green energy spending. The U.S. is the number one oil and gas producer in the world despite the administration’s policies aimed at blocking energy production on federal lands and propping up expensive renewable energy schemes.

“Whatever ‘sensible reforms’ Congress is planning to fix the Highway Trust Fund, lawmakers should avoid raising the federal gasoline tax to finance this broken system. The Highway Trust Fund shouldn’t get a bailout on the backs of American families.

“This budget proposal is a good start, but Congress must follow through on its promises—not simply pay lip service to sensible energy policy.”

###

Filed Under: Press Releases Tagged With: , ,

WSJ Op-Ed: Fossil Fuels Will Save the World

March 17, 2015 by Leave a Comment

Energy poverty is a foreign concept for the majority of Americans. But it is a stark reality for the 1.3 billion people around the world living without electricity.

In a recent opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal, Matt Ridley expands on the global problem of energy poverty—and how fossil fuels can begin to solve it. The following excerpt illustrates energy’s ability to improve our lives:

The more energy you have, the more intricate, powerful and complex you can make a system. Just as human bodies need energy to be ordered and functional, so do societies. In that sense, fossil fuels were a unique advance because they allowed human beings to create extraordinary patterns of order and complexity—machines and buildings—with which to improve their lives.

The result of this great boost in energy is what the economic historian and philosopher Deirdre McCloskey calls the Great Enrichment. In the case of the U.S., there has been a roughly 9,000% increase in the value of goods and services available to the average American since 1800, almost all of which are made with, made of, powered by or propelled by fossil fuels.

Still, more than a billion people on the planet have yet to get access to electricity and to experience the leap in living standards that abundant energy brings. This is not just an inconvenience for them: Indoor air pollution from wood fires kills four million people a year. The next time that somebody at a rally against fossil fuels lectures you about her concern for the fate of her grandchildren, show her a picture of an African child dying today from inhaling the dense muck of a smoky fire.

Fossil fuels met 87% of the world’s energy needs in 2013, and are projected to meet 81% in 2035. That’s because natural gas, oil, and coal are affordable, abundant, and reliable. By contrast, renewable sources like wind and solar – which environmentalists prefer – represent just a fraction of our energy use because they are expensive, scarce, and unreliable. In other words, if we want to solve energy poverty, we need fossil fuels. As Ridley concludes:

The one thing that will not work is the one thing that the environmental movement insists upon: subsidizing wealthy crony capitalists to build low-density, low-output, capital-intensive, land-hungry renewable energy schemes, while telling the poor to give up the dream of getting richer through fossil fuels.

You can read the rest of Ridley’s piece here.

Filed Under: Energy Development Tagged With: , , ,

DOE vs. EIA: Who Should You Trust on Wind Energy?

March 16, 2015 by 1 Comment

Last week, the U.S. Energy Department released a report on the future of America’s wind industry. The report, Wind Vision, offers a lofty goal: wind energy could supply 35 percent of U.S. electricity by 2050 (for context, wind currently supplies 4.5 percent and coal is our largest electricity source at 39 percent).

At nearly 300 pages, this report makes a lot of claims. One thing worth pointing out is that Wind Vision’s findings, written by DOE’s Wind and Water Power Technologies Office, are at odds with more realistic models of the Energy Information Administration (EIA), DOE’s independent statistical office. More specifically, DOE’s wind office highlights its highly aspirational and unlikely model, while burying EIA’s more modest and realistic model of wind’s likely growth potential. Therefore, Wind Vision should be treated more as a press release for the wind industry than a realistic assessment of future energy trends.

DOE vs. EIA 

DOE’s Wind Vision report made headlines for its bold claim that wind energy could supply 35 percent of U.S. electricity by 2050. That means wind would likely displace coal and natural gas as the leading sources of electricity generation. DOE’s wind office claims this goal is “ambitious but credible” and was reached “after conducting a series of exploratory scenario modeling runs.”

The problem: EIA, an independent office within DOE, reaches dramatically different conclusions about wind energy’s likely potential. As the statistical arm of DOE that operates independently of the agency’s policy agenda, EIA produces DOE’s Annual Energy Outlook (AEO). EIA’s most recent AEO shows that Wind Vision is likely overly optimistic about wind’s growth potential over the next several decades.

Consider the following chart buried on page 34 of the Wind Vision report. DOE’s wind office reproduced EIA’s AEO data which predict that all renewables—including hydro, wind, solar, biomass, and other sources—will account for just 16 percent of U.S. electricity generation by 2040. Wind comprises just 4.8 percent of total electricity generation in 2040, according to EIA.[1] That stands in stark contrast to the 35 percent figure in 2050 claimed by DOE’s wind office.

Electricity Generation AEO

The figures above reflect EIA’s Reference Case, which is “a business-as usual trend estimate, given known technology and technological and demographic trends.” In other words, EIA’s model is a realistic scenario informed by facts and experience from an office that is not beholden to the administration’s political agenda. By contrast, DOE’s Wind Vision report is more of an aspirational rallying cry than a realistic assessment of wind’s future growth. Consider how DOE describes the methodology used in Wind Vision:

Although the Study Scenario does not precisely replicate the prior BAU or related sensitivity outcomes, aggressive wind cost reductions (land-based wind LCOE reduction of 24% by 2020, 33% by 2030, and 37% by 2050 and offshore wind LCOE reduction of 22% by 2020, 43% by 2030, 51% by 2050), high fossil fuel prices (e.g., $3/MMBtu coal price and $7/MMBtu electric sector natural gas price), or various combinations of the two could support the level of wind penetration achieved in the Study Scenario.

There’s nothing wrong with using statistical models to make predictions. But the only way DOE can come anywhere close to its 35 percent wind figure is by assuming “aggressive wind cost reductions” and “high fossil fuel prices.” That is purely an aspiration. It flies in the face of over a hundred years of historical precedent in which wind has been prohibitively expensive compared to fossil fuels. It also contradicts EIA’s realistic assessment of future energy trends.

Conclusion

DOE’s Wind Vision report highlights its aspirational model and buries EIA’s more realistic model. Unlike EIA’s model, Wind Vision is informed by the aspirational political goals of the Obama administration, not by a realistic assessment of future energy trends. DOE’s Wind Vision should be treated more as a press release for the wind industry than “credible scenario” for wind energy’s growth potential.

[1] See Table A8 and Table A16 for generation data. EIA projects wind will generate 250 billion kilowatt-hours out of 5,219 total billion kWh in 2040.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , ,

Ozo the Clown

March 13, 2015 by 3 Comments

Ozone Land 600 AEA

By EPA’s own conservative estimates, their ozone proposal would be the single costliest regulation in U.S. history. Besides carrying a $90 billion a year price tag, EPA’s proposed rule would also put pristine national parks like Big Bend, Texas out of compliance. If national parks like Big Bend and Yellowstone can’t comply with EPA’s new rule, who can?

Filed Under: Cartoons Tagged With: , ,

Harry Reid Reaps Subsidies for Green Energy Companies

March 13, 2015 by 1 Comment

A new report raises questions about dealings between Sen. Harry Reid and green energy companies seeking federal subsidies. These companies received billions in taxpayer dollars after donating to an organization run by Reid allies, according to The Washington Free Beacon.

Reid, who was Senate Majority Leader from 2007–2015, has bragged about steering federal grants and loans to green energy companies in Nevada. Each of these companies happened to receive subsidies after donating to a nonprofit group founded by former Reid staffers, the Clean Energy Project (CEP).

Below is a partial list of the companies that donated to the Reid-tied CEP and also received preferential treatment from Sen. Reid and the Obama administration:

  • Fulcrum BioEnergy received a $105 million grant from the Agriculture Department and $70 million grant from the Defense Department after donating to the CEP in 2013 and 2014.
  • Abengoa, a CEP donor, received fast-tracked approval for a solar project after Sen. Reid pressured the Interior Department. The company also received a $1.2 billion loan guarantee in 2011.
  • First Solar, a CEP donor, received similar fast-track treatment by Sen. Reid for its solar permit application. Moreover, in 2011, the Export-Import bank awarded the company a $455.7 million loan guarantee to sell solar panels to itself, according to an investigation by the Washington Examiner.
  • SolarReserve, a CEP donor, received a $737 million loan guarantee after Reid sent a letter urging President Obama to expedite approval.
  • SolarCity, a CEP donor, benefited from an extension of federal solar tax credits, which Reid pushed for as Senate Majority Leader.
  • Amonix, whose lobbyist is a CEP board member, received $6 million in solar tax credits—Sen. Reid said he “made sure” Amonix secured the subsidies. The company also received a $15.6 million grant during the Bush administration. In 2012, Amonix closed its solar manufacturing plant in Las Vegas after just 14 months of operation.
  • NV Energy, a CEP donor, received a $138 million grant after Sen. Reid boasted, “I advocated for this funding.”
  • Ormat Geothermal received a $350 million loan guarantee after the company donated to the CEP and its president gave money to Sen. Reid’s political campaign.
  • Nevada Geothermal has received more than $100 million in grants and loan guarantees. The company lists Ormat as a contractor.

Sen. Reid exploited the gusher of taxpayer funds made available by the federal stimulus in 2009. The stimulus funneled billions of dollars to green energy companies, many of which went bankrupt after receiving federal support.

Some of the biggest green-energy failures have come from the biofuel industry. For example, one of Reid’s favored solar companies, Spanish-based Abengoa, also received $132 million in subsidies for a biofuel facility in Kansas. That plant was supposed to open in 2013 with an annual capacity of 25 million gallons of cellulosic biofuel. However, the plant didn’t open until October 2014 and hasn’t come anywhere close to meeting production targets. In fact, all of the cellulosic biofuel facilities in the country produced just 728,509 gallons of biofuel last year, according to EPA data, despite a federal Renewable Fuel Standard mandating millions of gallons per year.

Abengoa’s woes pale in comparison to those of KiOR, another politically-connected biofuel company. KiOR was founded by Vinod Khosla, a billionaire investor and Obama donor. The company received a $75 million loan from the state of Mississippi to build a biofuel facility in Columbus. In November, KiOR filed for bankruptcy after years of cost overruns and missed production targets. Court papers show KiOR’s revenue totaled just $2.25 million compared to $629.3 million in losses, leaving creditors, including Mississippi taxpayers, on the hook. KiOR is also facing a class-action lawsuit for allegedly making “false and misleading statements” to investors about the “timing of projected production levels” at its Columbus facility.

The government can’t simply subsidize or mandate a product to be cost effective. Despite lavish subsidies and mandates, the cellulosic biofuel industry has failed to get off the ground, with troubled companies like Abengoa and KiOR securing billions of dollars in federal and state subsidies to build production facilities that often fail to live up to the hype. These companies also benefit from the RFS, a federal mandate that requires refiners to purchase and blend millions of gallons of biofuels into gasoline each year.

The solution is to let Americans – not politicians – make their own energy choices. While Sen. Reid brags about giving preferential treatment to companies that support his political allies, American families suffer the consequences. This system of cronyism creates inefficiencies by propping up failing companies at the expense of successful ones. As a result, the public ends up paying higher energy costs and taxpayers are left picking up the tab. The success or failure of energy sources shouldn’t depend on their ability to trade donations for handouts, but rather on their ability to provide a valuable product to American families.

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

WSJ and NY Times Join Chorus Against RFS

March 11, 2015 by 2 Comments

The case against the federal biofuel mandate, the Renewable Fuel Standard, is mounting. In the last two days, both The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal have run opinion pieces criticizing the costly RFS and its proponents. The New York Times op-ed focused on how forcing Americans to blend ethanol with gasoline is really a hidden tax:

Since 1982, the price of an energy-equivalent amount of ethanol has, on average, been about 2.4 times the price of gasoline. Furthermore, for eight full years between 1986 and 1998, ethanol cost at least three times more than an energy-equivalent amount of gasoline. In fact, since 1982, ethanol has always been more expensive than gasoline.

The same energy-equivalent prices allow us to estimate the annual cost of the ethanol tax. Between 2007 and 2014, about 92.5 billion gallons of ethanol were mixed into domestic gasoline supplies. Over that eight-year period, the energy-equivalent cost of ethanol averaged about 90 cents per gallon more than gasoline.

Motorists thus incurred about $83 billion — roughly $10 billion annually — in additional fuel costs over and above what they would have paid for gasoline alone.

Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal editorial board eviscerated Republican presidential candidates for going to Iowa and toeing the pro-ethanol line:

Political cynics will say we’re, well, tilting at windmills by expecting politicians to swear off energy subsidies, but that merely proves our point about the Iowa caucuses. If they were thinking bigger, Republicans would understand that they’ll have more credibility to reform social welfare if they oppose corporate welfare.

You can read the rest of The Wall Street Journal editorial here.

You can also find the rest of The New York Times op-ed here.

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

STUDY: Kansans Paying Hefty Price for RPS

March 11, 2015 by 1 Comment

Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) require states to generate a certain percentage of electricity from renewable sources. Currently 29 states and the District of Columbia have an RPS program. A new study shows that Americans in these states are paying a hefty price for their RPS.

The study from Utah State University and Strata Policy looks at Kansas’ RPS and the costs incurred by Kansans since the Sunflower State adopted the mandate in 2009. Key findings include the following:

  • Ratepayers in Kansas will pay $171 million more than they would in the absence of RPS.
  • Kansas received an estimated $4.85 billion less in real personal income in one year than they would have without RPS in place.
  • An average family in Kansas made $4,367 less in a single year due to RPS mandates.
  • RPS states have seen a drop in industrial electricity sales of almost 14 percent. 
  • RPS states have experienced an average overall increase of almost 10 percent to their state’s unemployment rate. This means there were 5,500 fewer jobs in Kansas at the end of 2014 than there would have been without RPS mandates.

The authors of the study also project that these costs will continue to rise as Kansas’ RPS requires more electricity generation to come from renewable energy sources. The RPS is an unnecessary, costly mandate that Kansans and all Americans simply can’t afford.

Web

Filed Under: Threats Tagged With: , , ,

Calculating the Carbon Cost of Clinton’s 55,000 pages of Emails

March 10, 2015 by Leave a Comment

Printing Hillary Clinton’s 55,000 pages of emails emitted nearly 40,000 pounds of greenhouse gases, about as much as the average American produces in one year. Clinton’s extravagant print job comes less than six months after her stump speech to national environmentalist groups about the urgent need for reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, following in the long line of Obama Administration transparency issues, has finally released at least a partial record of her emails to the State Department. Clinton had previously kept the emails on a homebrew email server, thus avoiding both government email security measures and FOIA requests. This may also violate federal law if any matters that were deemed “Classified” or “Sensitive But Unclassified” were sent to her email – or if she sent any sensitive emails.

Unfortunately, the incomplete emails the Clinton camp released were actually physically printed, using over 55,000 pieces of paper and making it more difficult for investigators to search through them. Though many older politicians may find modern technology like PDFs, email, and flash drives befuddling, we imagine leftist politicos like Hillary Clinton would at least understand the environmental consequences of their actions. To that end, we’ve done a rough calculation of just how much CO2 the Clintons’ released by printing out tens of thousands of emails.

A study from Print Greener, a software company that strives to eliminate wasted paper, ink, and energy, estimated the GHG emissions of printing in a 2008 study:

Based on the pilot results, Savills could significantly reduce its carbon footprint by using GreenPrint. In one year it would save over 259 million pages. The equivalent environmental impact is shown in Figure 832:

Screen Shot 2015-03-09 at 4.48.35 PM

Using this ratio of 186 million pounds of GHG’s for 259 million pages (about 0.71 lbs per page), Hillary’s “disclosure” of her emails created nearly 38,824 pounds of greenhouse gasses (according to Print Greener’s assumptions) or 17.6 metric tons, compared to the average American’s 17.6 metric tons.

It is difficult to take claims by Hillary that greenhouse gas emissions are a priority very seriously when she prints emails instead of just making them into PDFs or other electronic formats.

Filed Under: Can't Make This Up, GHG Tagged With: , , , , ,
Previous
Next