News - American Energy Alliance

Wind PTC Inextricably Linked to EPA Power Plant Rules

November 11, 2014 by Thomas Pyle Leave a Comment

An earlier article explained that for President Obama, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), and the national environmental lobby, the wind Production Tax Credit (PTC) is at the top of the to-do list for the lame-duck session that will close out the 113^th Congress. While lawmakers debate the PTC, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing its first regulation on carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants—the foundation of President Obama’s broader “climate” agenda. These two policies—the wind PTC and the most recent EPA regulations on power plants—not only independently support the administration’s climate agenda, but also reinforce each other in important ways. Therefore, if Republicans in Congress truly want to rein in the EPA, they must reject any attempt to revive the wind PTC.

The EPA’s Regulation of CO2 Emissions from Existing Power Plants

As we detailed in a recent report, EPA regulations will close a staggering amount of affordable and reliable power plants—upwards of 72 gigawatts in total. That is enough to reliably power over 44 million homes. These closures will do very little for the climate, but will impose staggering new costs on American families and businesses.

The latest of these regulations, EPA’s regulation of carbon dioxide emissions from existing natural gas and coal power plants, attempts to “address” climate change by imposing state-specific mandates for reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Specifically, it requires states to develop and submit their own implementation plans to the EPA to reduce global carbon dioxide levels by 1.5 percent by 2050.[1]

EPA’s regulation of carbon dioxide emissions from natural gas and coal plants will cost upwards of $366 billion and raise electricity rates for many electricity consumers by double digits. In terms of climate benefits, the regulation is designed to reduce global temperatures by a paltry 0.018 degrees Celsius by the year 2100.

To establish its state-by-state carbon dioxide mandates, EPA applied a four-part formula to each state’s electricity sector and assumed that, if each state could implement the required changes, the result would be an overall 30 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions (individual states have varying targets). EPA refers to the four parts of its formula as “building blocks.” Each state must do the following to meet EPA’s mandates:

Building block 1: Increase fuel efficiency at existing coal plants by 6 percent

Building block 2: Increase capacity factor of natural gas plants to 70 percent

Building block 3: Increase use of renewables, such as wind and solar power

Building block 4: Reduce total demand for electricity by 1.5 percent per year

EPA’s Plan Supports the Wind Industry

Building block 3 essentially imposes a renewable electricity mandate on all states, even states that have not implemented their own. To put it bluntly, this would be a massive handout from the EPA to the wind industry. The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), the lobbying arm of the multi-billion-dollar wind industry in the U.S., is licking its lips at the prospect. AWEA’s CEO Tom Kiernan proclaimed, “Wind energy is one of the biggest, fastest, cheapest ways states can comply with the forthcoming EPA rule limiting carbon pollution from existing power plants.”

The Department of Energy agrees that the EPA is inflating the wind industry. In its recent Wind Technologies Market Report, the Department wrote: “Although the lack of long-term federal incentives for wind energy has been a drag on the industry, the prospective impacts of more-stringent EPA environmental regulations on fossil plant retirements and energy costs may create new markets for wind energy.”

According to AWEA, however, the EPA should go even further to support the wind industry. In recent Congressional testimony, Tom Vinson, AWEA’s Senior Director of Federal Regulatory Affairs, stated: “While AWEA supports the draft rule, we believe the details of the proposed building block 3 significantly underestimate the amount of cost-effective reductions that are available now and in the immediate future from renewable energy sources; and, as such, that the final rule can and should require emissions reductions that go further….”

National environmental groups echo the same message. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released a report that complements AWEA’s position and suggests the renewable energy targets in the EPA regulation are too modest. The UCS report calls for an increase in carbon dioxide emissions from 30 percent to approximately 40 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. Perhaps incidentally, the Department of Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz’s Chief of Staff, Kevin Knobloch, is the past president of the UCS. The Sierra Club’s “Beyond Coal” campaign supports the PTC, as does the League of Conservation Voters’ scorecard.

In other words, wind industry advocates say the EPA mandates are absolutely necessary to sustain the wind industry. Again, according to Vinson: “This rule is behind only the production tax credit and state renewables mandates as a potential market driver for wind energy.”

The Wind PTC Supports EPA’s Existing Source Rule

The PTC hides the cost of mandating unrealistic amounts of renewables (building block 3) and encourages states to implement renewable power mandates—that is why the Administration wants Congress to extend it. It is no accident that the same groups who advocate for President Obama’s climate plan are pushing aggressively to revive the PTC. They know EPA regulations will simply be too costly without big subsidies to wind power.

With the PTC in place, states that mandate increasing amounts of generation from renewables will get some help from taxpayers (you and me). The crucial link between the wind PTC and the EPA rule is that the PTC makes “building block 3” appear to be affordable on our electricity bills when, in reality, it merely jacks up our tax bill.

The PTC is also a “foot in the door” in the power shift from the states to the federal government. Much like a federal mandate for renewables, the PTC favors wind power above reliable sources even when the grid rejects intermittent wind-generated electricity. Unfortunately for the President and his agenda to increase the cost of electricity, most voters don’t trust the federal government to run the power grid, and most are pretty confident that the states—who have been regulating the electricity system for more than a hundred years—should keep doing that job.

Conclusion

There is no getting around the massive costs and miniscule benefits of the EPA’s new regulations on natural gas and coal-fired power plants. However, the wind PTC hides those costs from consumers and enables the Administration to claim that its “building blocks” are affordable. At the same time, the EPA regulations are a huge boon to the wind industry, which struggles in the absence of subsidies and mandates. The back-scratching taking place between the wind industry and the Administration on these policies is obvious once all the facts are considered. Stay tuned to Energy Townhall to learn how rejecting the wind PTC is the only meaningful vote this Congress will have against the Administration’s energy agenda.

[1] EPA’s plan will reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the U.S. electric power sector by about 30 percent. But carbon dioxide is a well-mixed gas and what matter is global levels, not merely U.S. emissions. According to the assumption here, if the world follows the IPCC’s RCP 6.0, the reduction caused by EPA’s plan will be 1.5 percent by 2050.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: AWEA, CO2 emissions, EPA, power plant rule, PTC, wind production tax credit

The Wind PTC: What It Is And Why Congress Should Reject It

November 10, 2014 by Thomas Pyle 3 Comments

When Congress returns for the start of the lame duck session this week, they will discuss whether to approve a retroactive extension of the expired Production Tax Credit (PTC), which primarily benefits foreign and domestic wind companies. For a host of reasons, they shouldn’t. Most importantly, they shouldn’t because the PTC is inextricably linked to the proposed EPA regulation of carbon dioxide on existing power providers, and therefore a vote in favor of reinstating the PTC is a vote in favor of President Obama’s climate agenda. I will explain why this is the case in subsequent blog posts, but first a brief review of the history and function of the PTC is in order.

In April, the Senate Finance Committee approved an $84 billion extension of roughly 60 expired tax provisions. The measure contains no offsets and includes a retroactive extension of the wind PTC, which expired at the end of 2013. The House has taken a piecemeal approach to the expired tax provisions, and it has not put forward an extension of the PTC.

The most vocal and active proponents of an extension of the wind PTC include wind industry lobbyists at the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) and national environmental organizations like the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters. The PTC’s opponents include the American Energy Alliance (my organization and the publisher of this blog), a growing group of think tanks, and many power grid experts and utility CEOs.

Background and History of the PTC

The PTC was initially enacted through the Energy Policy Act of 1992 as a temporary measure that expired in July 1999. Since the credit’s establishment, the measure has been temporarily extended seven times by subsequent pieces of legislation: the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999; the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002; the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004; the Energy Policy Act of 2005; the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006; the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009; and the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.^[1]

Senator Chuck Grassley, the original author of the PTC language, has repeatedly said the PTC is a temporary subsidy to get the wind industry on its own two feet. In 2003, when the subsidy was already 11 years old, he predicted, “we’re going to have to [subsidize wind] for at least another five years, maybe for 10 years. Sometime we’re going to reach that point where it’s competitive.” Now, another 11 years later, he’s asking for more subsidies because wind still can’t compete.

Who receives the PTC? The credit goes to owners of wind turbines for the first ten years of operation of any qualifying wind facility. For the first twenty years of the PTC’s existence, facility had to be operating before the PTC expired in order to qualify to receive the credit. However, in the most recent extension (through the 2013 calendar year), Senator Grassley expanded the qualification language to include facilities that had started “construction” before the PTC’s expiration.

In response to the language change, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released guidelines that defined “construction” in terms of financing as well as physical work. As a result, a developer can circumvent the need to physically start construction of a project and instead rely on mere financing in order to qualify for the PTC. Going one step further, the IRS also said a wind facility would qualify if it is placed in service before January 1, 2016, which amounts to a two-year extension of the PTC (through calendar years 2014 and 2015) under the original terms of the legislation.

Basic Function and Purpose of the PTC

Wind is an expensive way to generate electricity. Without the support of the PTC and other subsidies, wind turbines cannot compete with conventional sources. Some wind facilities would have been built without these subsidies, but nowhere near as many facilities as have actually been constructed.

The PTC is not a subsidy to consumers. Rather, it is a business subsidy that goes to developers of industrial wind turbine facilities and works through the mechanism of project finance. It lowers the cost of industrial financing and offers big investors like Warren Buffett a convenient way to lower their tax rate. As Buffett recently commented, wind turbines “don’t make sense without the tax credit.”

The PTC functions by providing a tax credit on a per-kilowatt-hour basis to businesses that operate qualified wind facilities. Originally, the credit was disbursed at a rate of 1.5 cents per kWh (in 1993 dollars), but it has been increased in order to keep up with inflation. When it expired in 2013, the PTC had been raised to 2.3 cents per kWh for wind technologies.

To put the size of the subsidy in context, the PTC offers the equivalent of 30% to 50% of the average wholesale price of power, depending on the region, for the entirety of a ten-year period. This subsidy is so substantial that wind producers can afford to pay the grid to take their unwanted power and still make money. This phenomenon is known as negative pricing, and it threatens the long-term reliability of the power grid.

It is no surprise that a subsidy so large would drive businesses to build wind turbines, and the data reflects the wind industry’s reliance on the PTC. When the PTC has been available, installations have jumped. When it has expired, as it did in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2013, installations fell off sharply. For instance, between 2012 and 2013, installations of new wind capacity fell from 13,000 MW (2012) to only 1,100 MW (2013).

Source: American Wind Energy Association

In essence, the PTC is a catalyst that gets uneconomic wind power projects built. It is particularly effective at financing projects that would not otherwise be built.

Conclusion

Congress should reject any attempt to revive the wind PTC. Since 1992, this taxpayer-funded subsidy has been extended seven times, yet wind energy remains scarce and expensive. While it lines the pockets of wealthy investors, the wind PTC raises energy prices on American families and threatens grid reliability. Much worse, the PTC is integral to the success or failure of even worse public policy, namely the EPA’s power plant rule. Stay tuned to Energy TownHall to learn how.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: AWEA, production tax credit, wind energy, wind ptc

U.S. Electricity Grid Overseer Concerned EPA Regulations Harm Reliability

November 10, 2014 by Daniel Simmons Leave a Comment

Will EPA’s regulations on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants result in reduced reliability of the electricity grid? Yes, according to the national electricity grid overseer—the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC).

NERC recently released an initial reliability review of the potential risks to reliability. Using the assumptions in EPA’s report, NERC found that “Essential Reliability Services may be strained” and that “more time for CPP [EPA’s regulation] may be needed to accommodate reliability enhancements.”

In terms of Essential Reliability Services (ERS), NERC explains:

“ERSs are the key services and characteristics that comprise the following basic reliability services needed to maintain BPS reliability: (1) load and resource balance; (2) voltage support; and (3) frequency support. New reliability challenges may arise with the integration of generation resources that have different ERS characteristics than the units that are projected to retire. The changing resource mix introduces changes to operations and expected behaviors of the system; therefore, more transmission and new operating procedures may be needed to maintain reliability.”

Regarding accommodating reliability enhancements, NERC points out:

“State and regional plans must be approved by the EPA, which is anticipated to require up to one year, leaving as little as six months to two years to implement the approved plan. Areas that experience a large shift in their resource mix are expected to require transmission enhancements to maintain reliability. Constructing the resource additions, as well as the expected transmission enhancements, may represent a significant reliability challenge given the constrained time period for implementation. While the EPA provides flexibility for meeting compliance requirements within the proposed time frame, there appears to be less flexibility in providing reliability assurance beyond the compliance period.”

NERC did not examine the costs of all of these additional features required to maintain reliability after EPA regulations come into effect. The costs will be substantial. EPA regulations cause reliable and affordable power plants to close, and they will require the building of newer and more expensive plants. Since EPA is providing incentives to build non-reliable sources of generation, such as wind and solar, the electric grid will require, as NERC points out, more transmissions, more resources for voltage support, and more resources for load and resource balancing. Cumulatively, implementing these necessary features will lead to higher costs than EPA originally suggested.

What does EPA have to say about this report? It implied that it knows more about grid reliability than NERC does, even though NERC is the recognized expert in grid reliability. EPA’s spokeswoman Liz Purchia said, “Our analysis finds that the proposal would not raise significant concerns over regional resource adequacy or raise the potential for interregional grid problems…Any remaining local issues would be managed, as they are today, through standard reliability planning processes.”

Who are you going to trust when it comes to grid reliability: NERC—an organization devoted to grid reliability—or EPA—an organization that (when viewed in the most favorable light) is supposed to protect the environment? EPA should take heed of NERC’s evaluation and seriously consider the negative impacts of its environmental regulations on grid reliability.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: carbon dioxide emissions, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, Liz Purchia, NERC, power plant rule

Hope for Keystone XL in Montana

November 7, 2014 by AEA 9 Comments

Radical environmentalists and the Democrats they support consistently and opportunistically denounce the Keystone Pipeline as a harbinger of environmental harm. Frankly, their claims are patently false. Even worse, the wait for Keystone’s approval has caused a great deal of economic instability in the regions dotting its proposed path. Montana’s floundering economy best exemplifies the consequences of the Obama Administration and State Department’s political posturing over the past six years.

Aside from a small increase in 2013, Montana’s oil production has dipped significantly every year since 2005. Small towns close to neighboring North Dakota, a state that epitomizes the positive effects of America’s oil boom, are suffering from rising taxes and housing costs without the higher income to pay for them. And in struggling towns like Glasgow, schools in desperate need of renovations wait for better times, moving money around just to get by.

According to Dan Bucks, the director of Montana’s Department of Revenue, Keystone XL would be an immediate remedy for many of these problems.

“…TransCanada will pay about $80.3 million in total Montana property taxes in its first year of operation, of which $16.3 million will go to the school equalization fund and $1 million will go to the university system. The rest (about $63 million) will be divided among the counties and school districts within the counties, and other tax districts such as fire, cemetery and soil conservation districts. In McCone County, Montana, TransCanada would be paying an expected $10,403 in revenue for each of McCone County’s 1,734 residents.”

—IER, 7/8/14

For these reasons and many more, Keystone XL should be a no brainer; for Montana, it is. Widespread and visible energy production is nothing new for a state sitting on a veritable goldmine of natural resources – and Montanans are ready to use them. Communities like Baker have seen firsthand the numerous economic benefits of oil production in North Dakota. Yet as long as Keystone XL remains unapproved, they’re forced to sit idly by as ghost towns spring up and dilapidated schools begin to fall apart. If there is anything positive to be taken from the suffering of these small towns, it is the unification of their citizens.

And since 2014’s red wave gave Republicans the Senate Majority, that unity might finally be paying off. Politico reports:

“Republicans will command a filibuster-proof Senate majority in favor of the Keystone XL pipeline after Tuesday’s election victories — and they could be within striking distance of assembling a veto-proof bloc for the project, increasing their leverage over President Barack Obama. The GOP says Keystone will be the subject of one of the first votes in the newly GOP-controlled Senate, when Republicans will be able to join forces with several Democrats who have already publicly backed the Alberta-to-Texas oil pipeline.”

—Politico (11/5/14)

This doesn’t mean that Keystone XL will definitely be approved in the coming months, nor does it mean that our fight for American energy has gotten any easier. It does, however, give Montanans a new hope. And that is something to be thankful for.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: Keystone XL, Montana, Obama Administration, oil production

Empty Handed

November 7, 2014 by Mike Morrison Leave a Comment

It turns out, $85 million just isn’t enough to buy an election. Tom Steyer and his group NextGen Climate Action lost nearly every race they played in. As the Wall Street Journal reported:

This year’s environmental debate boiled down to Democratic support for Mr. Obama’s climate rules and green subsidies against full-throated Republican support for energy production of all sorts, including coal, oil and natural-gas fracking, more pipelines and greater fossil-fuel exports. These GOP candidates won nearly everywhere.

Future candidates and the newly elected class Congressman would do well to remember these results. Those who choose to block domestic energy production, increase electricity prices via mandates, and drown expensive and unreliable sources of energy in subsidies and tax credits will be held accountable for their choices.

Filed Under: Blog, Cartoons Tagged With: cartoon, Democrats, Empty Handed, green, loss, spending, Tom Steyer, wave

An Energy Policy Preview for the Next Congress

November 6, 2014 by Daniel Simmons Leave a Comment

On Tuesday, the American people rejected not only President Obama’s energy policies, but also the energy policies of Senate Democrats. While this bodes well for America, expectations should be tempered by two realities. The first is that it remains to be seen how hard a Republican-controlled Senate will fight for free market energy policies. Energy issues are contentious and the Republican Senate leadership has not indicated they will fight hard for free market energy policies. Of course, there will be some low-hanging fruit, like the Keystone pipeline, but the more difficult challenges, like the President’s climate agenda and upcoming ozone regulations, will be much harder to upend. President Obama will not back from his goal of making electricity prices “necessarily skyrocket” and will veto any bill that seeks to roll back his agenda.

The upcoming Congress must and will hold many hearings and conduct oversight to shine a light on President Obama’s policies. This will show clear contrasts between the President and Congress on energy issues. Furthermore, Republicans will pass some bills to make marginal improvements. But until the Senate Republican leadership proves they are committed to rolling back President Obama’s energy policies, and with a much less than 60 vote majority, only marginal improvements will likely be made.

Winners and Losers

Even with the outcome of the Virginia, Alaska, and Louisiana contests still not official, the Republicans have already gained enough seats to control the Senate next year. The most impressive Senate wins on Tuesday were Cory Gardner’s win in Colorado and Jodi Ernst’s win in Iowa. Both results were a surprise given how these races looked months ago. Sen. Mark Udall should have cruised to an easy re-election and Rep. Bruce Braley was widely thought to win the senate seat of the retiring Democrat Tom Harkin.

Sen. Udall hurt his reelection chances by admitting late in the campaign that he favored a “price on carbon.”

Another impressive result, though not official yet, is the expected victory of Dan Sullivan over Sen. Mark Begich for the senate seat in Alaska. Begich, like Udall, also expressed support for “pricing carbon” even though Alaska is a major energy producing state. The American Energy Alliance also ran ads early in the contest to explain to Alaskans that Begich supported increasing the cost of producing oil and natural gas.

The House will remain in Republican hands, which is a good thing because they have actually racked up an impressive number of bills that would begin to unravel the Obama energy agenda. When all the outstanding races are certified, the GOP majority will land somewhere between 248 and 250 seats, making it the largest Republican governing margin since the 1928 election.

The biggest loser in last night’s results was San Francisco hedge fund billionaire Tom Steyer. He spent $74 million to raise “climate change” as an election issue and support candidates like Udall, Braley, and Begich. But in the end, the money was wasted. Not only did his biggest targets lose, but many of the ads that Steyer and his allies ended up running had nothing to do with climate, but were instead about abortion, taxes, and the Koch brothers. The American people are far more concerned about growing the economy and jobs than the job-killing carbon regulations that people like Steyer support.

Energy did play an important role in many of the races. Besides playing a role in Udall and Begich’s loss, Sen. McConnell used President Obama’s war on affordable energy as an important theme of his reelection campaign as did a number of other candidates, including Senator-elect Shelly Moore Capito in West Virginia. President Obama avoided campaigning for Senators in key battleground states—showing that even members of his own party do not wish to be associated with his policies.

What does this mean for the Obama administration’s policies?

While the American people roundly rejected President Obama’s policies, this rejection will do little to slow down President Obama’s harmful energy policies. Four years ago President Obama faced a similar rejection. In 2010, cap-and-trade was a major election theme after the House passed a terrible bill (Waxman-Markey’s “cap and tax bill” that died in an overwhelmingly Democratic Senate). The day after the election a reporter asked President Obama about the failure of cap-and-trade. President Obama responded saying, “Cap and trade was just one way of skinning the cat. It was a means, not an end. I’m going to be looking for other means to address this problem.” Instead of listening to the desires of the American people, he rejected them and doubled down on this plan to increase the regulation of energy.

President Obama found his “other means” and instructed EPA to stretch environmental laws to the breaking point to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. These regulations are currently making their way through the regulatory process, and while they are not final, they constitute a clear threat to affordable, reliable coal and natural gas fired electricity generation. As a result, 72 gigawatts of electricity generating capacity will close in the coming years. To put 72 GW in perspective, that is enough electrical generation capacity to reliably power 44.7 million homes—or every home in every state west of the Mississippi River, excluding Texas.

Besides the attack on power plants, President Obama will continue to make it difficult to produce natural gas and oil on federal lands, and he will continue squeeze the life out of the American economy through ever-more-stringent regulations. For example, at the end of November he will announce new regulations on ozone, which will likely be the most expensive regulation in the history of the United States. It is an old saying that “he who controls the fire controls the cooking” and President Obama wants everyone dependent upon the government for their supper. His choice of Washington insider and progressive policy guru, John Podesta, as his lead for his energy and climate policies further affirmed that Obama means business in his anti-energy agenda.

There is some talk that President Obama might finally approve the Keystone XL pipeline. Seventy percent of the American people think that TransCanada should be able to build the pipeline to bring more Canadian oil to the U.S. If he does, it will be a political calculation he decides will help make him look reasonable and willing to compromise so he need not compromise on the real things he cares about, such as grasping control of the U.S. economy through regulation of carbon dioxide, all the while using climate change as his justification. Major Democratic donor and hedge fund billionaire, Tom Steyer, has made it known that he believes the Keystone XL should not be allowed to be built. As indicated in his post-election press conference, there is no sign that President Obama is listening to the American people, but there is a track record of him listening to the desires of Wall Street progressives like Steyer.

What will a Republican Congress do?

Energy issues will be important for the new Republican Congress, but the question is what will the Republican Senate leadership fight for? The House of Representatives has passed a number of good energy bills the last couple of years, but Majority Leader Harry Reid sent them to the legislative graveyard. This will change with Republican leadership. But given the fact that it will take 60 votes for most Senate actions, it will be difficult to move legislation that actually matters in this upcoming Congress. And if they do move forward with a comprehensive energy bill, it will likely include several measures being pushed by Obama’s progressive Senate allies, like newly reelected Senator Jean Shaheen. The House will continue to pass good bills that open up more federal lands for energy production, that permit the Keystone XL pipeline, and that move toward more free market energy policies, but many of these bills will be difficult to garner 60 votes in the Senate. Many will argue that they should not even try to push difficult to do, but important measures, because the Senate cannot pass them or Obama would not sign them.

One of the opportunities for better energy policies is that both the Senate and the House will hold a large number of oversight hearings. Done correctly, these can show the clear shortcomings of Obama’s positions on energy. They will also demonstrate how out-of-touch with Americans President Obama’s energy policies are.

One area where the Republican can have some success reining in the President’s agenda is in the budget and appropriations processes. Congress controls spending and has the ability to limit the administration’s actions, but it is questionable that Republican leadership in the Senate will stomach a fight serious enough to stop spending by the administration on the regulations of power plants. We will urge actions that curtail the expenditure of funds on those things not authorized by Congress that are harmful to the nation and destructive of free markets.

Congress will attack the President’s carbon dioxide regulations of power plants through the use of the Congressional Review Act (CRA). Because the CRA only requires a majority vote, both the House and the Senate will likely pass a resolution of disapproval to disapprove the administration’s regulation on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. But in order for the CRA to go into effect, President Obama would need to sign the bill. President Obama has shown time and time again that he does not care about the will of the American people and will certainly veto a CRA resolution. This means that Congress would have to override the veto and it does not appear there are sufficient votes in the Senate for that.

Conclusion

The new Republican-controlled Senate and larger majorities in the House means that Republicans can show a clear distinction between their policies and President Obama’s policies. But hope of major changes should be tempered. It will be difficult for Senate Republican leadership to get the necessary 60 votes for major changes and it appears they do not have the stomach for the tough battles necessary for real changes. Furthermore, the American people have rejected President Obama’s policies, but the President has demonstrated time and time again that he cares little for what the American people would like when it comes to energy policies. President Obama is not going to change course now. He will continue to work even harder to make energy prices “necessarily skyrocket.”

Filed Under: Blog

Nationwide Coalition Urges Congress to End Wind Welfare

November 6, 2014 by AEA 3 Comments

The American Energy Alliance has joined today with 65 other organizations from across the nation in opposition to the wind production tax credit (PTC). The coalition released a letter today ahead of the upcoming lame duck session, urging Speaker Boehner and Senate Minority Leader McConnell to reject any attempt to revive the wind PTC, specifically in any tax extenders package. The letter reads:

During the lame duck session, one of the top priorities for President Obama and Majority Leader Reid is the passage of a tax extenders package that includes a retroactive extension of the decades old wind production tax credit (PTC). The PTC is a key part of President Obama and Majority Leader Reid’s attack on affordable energy from natural gas, coal, and nuclear. We urge you to reject any attempt to revive the PTC.

First, it makes no sense for the Republicans to give away any leverage they may have with respect to tax reform in the 114th Congress. Calls to “clear the decks” for the new Congress are nonsensical; why would the newly elected Senate and House members (from either party) want to reward Senator Harry Reid for his legacy of dysfunction by allowing him the opportunity to advance his pet priority—the wind PTC—during a lame duck session?

Second, extending the PTC restricts Americans’ access to affordable and reliable energy. The PTC harms Americans in two important ways: it hides the true cost of wind power and encourages states to keep expensive wind power mandates. This makes it easier for the President to promote his restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants because the PTC hides the true costs from ratepayers.

Third, the PTC enables wind operators to use the tax code to engage in predatory pricing against reliable and affordable nuclear, coal, and natural gas power plants. The PTC is such a large subsidy that industrial wind facilities can actually pay the electrical grid to take their electricity and still make money. This predatory pricing is designed to drive nuclear, coal, and natural gas generators out of business and it is only profitable because of the PTC.

If you favor substantive, meaningful tax reform, you should oppose the inclusion of the PTC in any lame duck tax extenders package. Rejecting efforts to extend the PTC is a meaningful way for this Congress to oppose the President’s climate plan. A vote for extending the PTC is a vote for the President and the Majority Leader’s agenda.

Click here to see the full letter.

Filed Under: Blog, Press Releases Tagged With: harry reid, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Obama, tax extenders, wind energy, wind production tax credit, wind ptc

AEA Statement on Election Results

November 5, 2014 by AEA 1 Comment

WASHINGTON — American Energy Alliance President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement on last night’s election results:

“This election was a referendum on the policies of President Obama and his allies in Congress. This includes their policies that are designed to make energy more expensive for Americans.

“In states where energy is a key issue like Colorado, West Virginia, Alaska, and North Carolina, our initiatives have been aimed at holding lawmakers accountable for their anti-energy policies such as support for a carbon tax or opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline. And despite the tens of millions of dollars poured into these states to elect anti-energy candidates, the American people agree with us: they are fed up with Washington’s attack on affordable and reliable energy.

“While much of the focus has been on the Senate, it’s important to note the significant victories for common sense in many of the gubernatorial races. The Obama administration’s climate agenda is aimed at stripping states of their rights and establishing control over the economy from Washington, and many of these governors will be on the front lines fighting back. For starters, governors need to stand up against EPA’s carbon dioxide mandates, which are just another way for Washington to boss the states around, control our energy resources, and make electricity prices skyrocket for Americans.

“Make no mistake, we still face an uphill battle in the fight for free markets and commonsense energy policies. And it is those policies that will lead to abundant, affordable, and reliable energy for American families. Last night’s election is by no means the solution, but it is a step in the right direction towards meaningful change. It is up to the newly elected officials across the country to live up to their promises and answer the American people’s call for change. Rest assured, regardless of party, it is our mission to hold our lawmakers accountable.”

###

Filed Under: Blog, Press Releases Tagged With: Election, energy policy, EPA, Obama

It’s Still the Economy, Stupid: Why Green Groups’ Millions Can’t Change Voters’ Priorities

November 4, 2014 by AEA Leave a Comment

Despite $85 million from national environmental PACs and billionaires like Tom Steyer in this election cycle, voters still prioritize the economy over environmental issues. Even the left-wing magazine Slate had the good sense to point out the realities of voter priorities:

“What has all that green gotten these green groups? Not a whole heck of a lot. Steyer and his like-minded allies opened their checkbooks with the hopes of making climate change a front-burner issue. But as the most expensive midterm election in American history wraps up, it’s clear that environmentalists will fall far short of that goal…you find an electorate that’s much more likely to pick a candidate based on the economy, Obamacare, and terrorism than her views on the environment.” [Emphasis added]

Green groups’ money on changing voter priorities has mostly been wasted. Hedge fund billionaire Tom Steyer has shelled out $57 million of his own personal funds, and the League of Conservation voters spent almost $25 million. Steyer’s PAC, NextGen Climate, doled out some of its money on advertisements that only tangentially had to do with climate issues, like this video attacking Cory Gardner’s positions on abortion and same-sex marriage:

Or else, advertisements that seem unrelated to any policy issue, like this “Bananas” video:

Wait, you mean that last one didn’t resonate with most would-be voters? Shocker.

As AEA pointed out last week, polling supports the conclusion that Americans don’t see climate change or environmental issues as their most important concerns. A Pew survey conducted in September revealed that the economy, health care, and terrorism are voters’ top three most important issues, with the environment trailing at 8th out of 11 concerns:

These results square with a poll AEA conducted, which revealed that economic and fiscal issues still reign supreme over environmental and climate issues. AEA found:

“Economy, Fiscal Issues Still Reign Supreme: As voters look toward the new year,four out of five (79 percent) said that Congress and the President should makejobs and the economy one of their top priorities for 2014. Other top priorities included health care (60 percent) and federal spending (59 percent). Less than half of votersthought attention should be on national security (41percent), immigration reform (39 percent), energy independence (35 percent), or environmental issues (31 percent).”

Steyer and his well-funded network of green “shadow organizations” should recognize that their money can’t make voters care about issues that are fundamentally unimportant to them.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: 2014, Election, NextGen, Tom Steyer

Coal Brings People Out of Energy Poverty

November 3, 2014 by Daniel Simmons Leave a Comment

For years we have explained the benefits of affordable energy including coal. Coal provides affordable, reliable energy in a world where 1.3 billion people do not have access to electricity and 2.4 billion people do not have clean cooking facilities. This means that coal is critical to helping billions of people have access to the energy that will make their lives better.

Some people think coal is a fuel of the past, but it turns out that since the early 1970s, coal use has outpaced all other sources of energy. And it will continue to do so through at least 2040, as Robert Bryce reports:

“Since 1973, coal consumption has grown faster than any other form of energy. Growth in coal consumption has been critical in providing electricity access in developing countries.

“Based on the results of three different estimates, this paper finds that between 1990 and 2010, about 830 million people—the vast majority in developing countries—gained access to electricity due to coal-fired generation…

“…Coal-fired-generation capacity continues to grow in wealthy countries, too. For electricity production, no other energy source can currently match the black fuel when it comes to cost, scale, and reliability. In all, more than 500 gigawatts of new coal-fired capacity will likely be built worldwide by 2040…”

Billions of people need clean, affordable, and reliable electricity and coal fits the bill. Too bad that people like President Obama and anti-coal activists are working to make it harder for the world’s poor to have access to clean, affordable, and reliable electricity.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: coal, electricity, Energy Poverty