ICYMI: It’s Time for the Wind PTC to Blow Away

American Energy Alliance President Thomas Pyle published an op-ed today for the Las Vegas Review-Journal titled “It’s time for wind tax credit to get blown away.” The text of the op-ed follows:

Lame-duck Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid soon will lose control of a chamber he has helmed for eight years. As the sun sets on his reign, one question remains: will Reid, D-Nev., go out with bang or a whimper?

The answer to that question could depend on what Congress decides to do about one of Reid’s favorite corporate subsidies: the wind production tax credit.

First, the backstory: Congress enacted the wind tax credit in 1992 as a temporary kick-start for the renewable energy industry, especially wind power. Since its inception, however, the credit has been extended seven times, costing Nevada taxpayers more than $12 million in 2012 alone.

The wind tax credit is one of the most contentious issues on the legislative agenda during the lame-duck session. And for good reason: it is integral to President Barack Obama’s climate change agenda, which will destroy jobs and raise energy prices on Nevada families.

The foundation of the president’s climate plan is the Environmental Protection Agency’s greenhouse gas emissions rule for existing power plants — the president’s attempt to shut down America’s coal industry. A recent analysis finds that residents in 43 states, including Nevada, will face double-digit power bill increases under the rule. For all that pain, the rule would reduce global carbon dioxide emissions by just 1.5 percent by 2050.

One of the central building blocks of the EPA’s power plant rule is increased use of wind and solar for electricity generation. But wind and solar are uncompetitive without massive taxpayer subsidies and mandated renewable portfolio standards. For wind, that takes the form of the production tax credit.

Thus, a vote for the tax credit is a vote for Obama’s climate change agend

But there’s another important reason to reject the wind production tax credit: America’s largest and wealthiest corporations exploit the subsidy at taxpayers’ expense.

In recent years, the credit has become one of Wall Street’s favorite tax loopholes. Take billionaire investor Warren Buffett. His company, Berkshire Hathaway, has heavily invested in wind power in recent years, including the purchase of Nevada’s dominant power company, NV Energy. However, Buffett admits he never would have invested in wind if taxpayers weren’t picking up the tab. According to Buffet, the production tax credit is “the only reason to build” wind facilities.

His isn’t the only company to figure out that taxpayers can fund a corporate windfall. GE, one of the largest companies in the country and with deep ties to the Obama administration, is a major wind turbine manufacturer. And T. Boone Pickens, who made his billions in the oil patch, peddled wind energy as part of his “Pickens Plan” before losing $150 million on failed wind projects.

It’s no wonder the production tax credit is a prized subsidy for Wall Street. The credit can be so lucrative that wind producers often turn a profit while paying utilities to take their electricity.

These perverse financial incentives explain why corporate America is flocking to the wind industry, Pickens’ failures notwithstanding. Such abuse has drastically spiked the cost of the production tax credit to taxpayers. In the past seven years, taxpayers have forked over more than $7 billion, including nearly $3 billion alone in 2012, according to government estimates.

Congress should reject any attempt by Reid to revive the wind production tax credit in the lame-duck session. It’s clearly a bad deal for Nevadans, enriching out-of-state billionaires at the expense of working families.

When Reid rides off into the sunset, he should take the wind production tax credit with him.

Click here to read the original post.

Stupid voters

APEC China

STUDY: EPA Regs. Will Send Energy Prices Soaring

Americans are facing an onslaught of costly regulations under President Obama’s radical energy agenda. A new study sheds further light on the extent of the carnage.

The study, conducted by Energy Ventures Analysis, finds that a suite of proposed EPA air rules will drive up energy prices for American families. By 2020, households can expect to pay 27 percent more for electricity and 50 percent more for gas for heating and cooking. Regulations included in the analysis include the carbon dioxide emission rule for existing power plants, the Mercury Air Toxics Standards (MATS), and Regional Haze.

Naturally, some states are hit harder than others. Texas households will see 48 percent higher electric bills and 75 percent higher gas bills. Illinoisans will be forced to endure cold Midwest winters with 82 percent higher heating bills. Click here to see how your state fares.

The Energy Venture Analysis study adds to a growing body of research that shows the disastrous impacts of EPA’s regulatory agenda. A recent study by NERA Economic Consulting, for instance, finds that Americans in 43 states will see double-digit electricity rate increases under EPA’s CO2 rule for existing power plants. And an IER analysis shows that EPA rules will shutter more than 72 gigawatts of electrical generating capacity—mostly coal-fired power plants—which is equivalent to shutting off the capacity to power every home in 20 states.

NYC’s Climate Goal: Symbolism Over Science

The City Council of New York recently approved—unanimously—the bill introduced in September to reduce NYC’s carbon dioxide emissions 80 percent by the year 2050. The vote and accompanying commentary from political officials showcases just how much symbolism has triumphed over science in the climate policy debates. Even if every word Al Gore had ever uttered about climate change were true—which they’re not—the following news story would still be utterly nonsensical:

The City Council overwhelmingly passed a bill today mandating that New York City slash its greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050…

“While rising sea levels and extreme weather events are likely to be a part of the city’s future, we can still prevent the worst outcomes,” [Council Speaker] Ms. Mark-Viverito told reporters before the vote.…

In 2006, under former Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the City Council passed a law requiring a 30 percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. [District 22 Council member and author of the new bill] Mr. Constantinides, however, said the projected rising sea levels and more unpredictable storms resulting from climate change meant the Council and Mr. de Blasio needed to take more dramatic action….

“There’s probably no greater threat to our global civilization than climate change,” Mr. Constantinides said. “There is undisputable links between our carbon emissions and reducing ice sheets, extreme sea rise and overall warming climates worldwide.”

“If we don’t act now, future generations of New Yorkers will be condemned to a future of blistering summers, mass extinctions and seas that threaten to engulf low-lying areas around the globe,” he added.

A spokeswoman for Mr. de Blasio praised the Council for passing the legislation.

“We are very pleased to partner with the Council as we work to dramatically reduce our contributions to climate change, and the Mayor looks forward to signing this legislation,” said the spokeswoman, Amy Spitalnick. “The city will lead by example by retrofitting every public building with any real energy use within the next ten years, while partnering with the private sector to further reduce emissions and improve efficiency–generating billions in savings and creating thousands of jobs.”

To repeat, even if one took the most alarmist projections of human-caused climate change at face value, the above commentary is sheer nonsense. New York City’s emissions are utterly insignificant when it comes to the issue of global climate change. When Council member Constantinides warns what will happen “if we don’t act now,” that statement only makes sense if by “we” he means “the entire United States, Europe, China, and India.” If instead, by “we” he means “the people of New York City”—which in context he clearly does mean—then his statement is absurd.

Even if the entire United States and Europe agreed to a significant reduction in emissions, this would be largely symbolic without reciprocal action from China and India. Indeed, using a standard climate model and estimates of key parameters, even if the United States stopped all carbon dioxide emissions immediately and forever, the global temperature in the year 2100 would be a mere 0.2 degrees Celsius cooler than under the status quo baseline. If that’s true for the United States collectively, it should be clear that the efforts of New York City to merely reduce emissions by mid-century are completely irrelevant.

Finally, the commentary about “job creation” is likewise absurd. Even if we thought that New York City’s carbon dioxide emissions had a measurable impact on climate change—which they don’t—it still wouldn’t make sense to laud the crackdown on emissions for “creating jobs.” If that made sense, then New York City could likewise pass a mandate cutting down on the use of bricks or steel or asphalt 80 percent by 2050. As businesses scrambled to change their operations in light of the arbitrary regulation, we could see “job creation” in certain areas that were now artificially favored. Of course, the economy as a whole would suffer, because you don’t make society richer by taking away options from businesses. At best we would see an equal number of jobs “destroyed” by the new regulations, with consumers being made poorer on average.

In conclusion, when it comes to New York City’s bill to cut emissions, we don’t need to get into the details of the climate models to assess the plausibility of their assumptions. Even if the apocalyptic vision painted by Al Gore and others is perfectly true—which it’s not—measures limiting the emissions from individual cities are utterly absurd. They epitomize the prevalence of symbolism over science in our climate change policy debates.

AEA Statement on Keystone Vote

WASHINGTON — AEA President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement on tonight’s vote in the U.S. Senate on the Keystone XL pipeline:

“Harry Reid’s infamous tenure as Senate Majority Leader will die as it lived—in dysfunction. The Keystone XL pipeline is an economic no-brainer that will create thousands of jobs and lower gasoline prices. Yet under Harry Reid’s leadership the U.S. Senate seems incapable of advancing even a routine infrastructure project.

“Keystone XL enjoys wide support among the American people and a majority of their elected leaders. Only the national environmentalists and their Democratic allies in the U.S. Senate stand in the way of forcing the President to finally decide whether or not to veto an infrastructure project that everyone else in the country believes is long overdue.

“We look forward to the new leadership in Congress charting a course that departs from the Obama-Reid agenda and instead promotes commonsense energy polices.”

###

Book Review: “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels”

On November 13, energy analyst Alex Epstein’s book, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, made its debut. Epstein makes a convincing case for using more natural gas, coal, and oil on moral grounds. Check out the trailer for the book here.

Here are the top 3 takeaways from The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels:

1. The Focus is on Human Well-Being

It’s clear that Epstein’s focus is on how best to reliably and affordably power the lives of billions of people, a drum that AEA has been beating since its inception. As IER has pointed out before, because of fossil fuels (natural gas, coal, and oil), people live longer, healthier lives. That’s because people use modern energy to power hospitals, to keep food and medicines from spoiling with refrigeration, and to purify water, among other vital uses.

In some ways, Moral Case reminds us a little bit of this Louis C.K. gem:

Using reliable energy has improved life in the last century. As long as human progress is the lens through which we judge natural gas, coal, and oil use, it’s clear that these energy sources have been hugely beneficial.

2. Looking at All the Costs and All the Benefits of Fossil Fuel Use

Environmentalists have a tendency to exaggerate the costs of natural gas, coal, and oil while understating the benefits. Moral Case, however, reminds us that deciding whether these energy sources are moral involves looking at all the costs of their use and all the benefits. When we look at it holistically, the benefits outweigh the costs.

To demonstrate one of the important benefits of reliable energy, here’s one of our favorite graphs from the book — as people have used more natural gas, coal, and oil and emitted more carbon dioxide, fewer people have died from climate-related causes:

Even though climate activists claim that using more CO2 will make the climate less livable, the opposite has been true over time. Reliable energy has allowed us to build a civilization that’s capable of withstanding extreme weather, so that fewer people today are dying from hurricanes, storms, and other climate-related causes.

3. Telling the Stories of People Whose Lives Have been Affected by the Need for Reliable Energy

AEA has always been a fan of telling the stories of people whose lives are affected by the the government’s energy decisions, like this story of a Craig, Colorado couple whose business was seriously threatened because of coal plant closures.

To that effect, we’re moved by the stories Epstein tells in Moral Case about people to whom energy means a lot. The book shares one particularly gut-wrenching story about a woman whose child died prematurely, because the hospital couldn’t power incubators to keep that infant alive. That’s one meaningful example, among many others, of how energy access can make or break peoples’ lives.

All in all, our hats go off to Epstein for taking on the challenge of writing such a bold book, and we’re excited to see it take off.

 

President Obama, Ugly American? 

President Obama, while meeting in Myanmar, which consumes a total of about 45,000 barrels of oil per day and is working to produce and consume more energy to lift its millions out of poverty, trash talks the Keystone XL, which would deliver about 800,000 barrels of oil per day to the US.

In his speech, President Obama stated:

“Understand what this project is: It is providing the ability of Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land, down to the Gulf [Coast], where it will be sold everywhere else. It doesn’t have an impact on U.S. gas prices.”

Is this what the modern intelligentsia…the smart people…the sensitive people…look like?  He looks much more like the proverbial “Ugly American.” Clueless.

 

Myanmar energy analysis: http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=BM

Myanmar oil consumption by year: http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=mm&product=oil&graph=consumption

The Tom SteyeR Street Institute

The Washington D.C. based think-tank, R Street, bills itself as a free market organization who takes a “pragmatic approach to public policy challenges” and favors “consumer choice; low, flat taxes; …and systems that rely on price signals rather than central planning.”[i] So why this group would back a terrible policy like the carbon tax, then, is baffling.

Or maybe not.

You see, in just the last 18 months, R Street has accepted over $580,000 from the Energy Foundation to “advance policy solutions for a stable climate.”[ii] The Energy Foundation is a “partnership of philanthropic investors promoting clean energy technology [with the goal of building] a new energy future by advancing energy efficiency and renewable energy.”[iii] And guess who a major “philanthropic investor” would be? That’s right, the billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer.[iv]

It seems that, at least with respect to R Street’s support for a carbon tax, the old adage is true, “You get what you pay for.”SteyerStreetcropped

As we’ve highlighted in the past, there is nothing free-market about the all economic pain, no environmental gain carbon tax.  It will stifle growth, harm the economy, and kill jobs.[v]

That’s why it is unfortunate that the folks at R Street have joined forces with the Energy Foundation, an organization that has financed the effort to advance costly government mandates and subsidies (like the wind PTC) for energy sources that would never be able to compete on their own in the marketplace, while at the same time encouraging the adoption of policies like the carbon tax that undermine our proven energy resources.

So, R Street, by teaming up with the Energy Foundation, you may think you are “coalition building”, “finding bipartisan answers”, or “working across the aisle,” but with respect to the carbon tax, it seems you’re just another sword-for-hire in the climate activists’ battle against American families and small businesses.

I’d hold it against you, but it is a free market. Right?


[i]http://www.rstreet.org/about/why-r-street/

[ii]http://www.ef.org/grants-database/#!/keywords=r%20street

[iii]http://www.ef.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/2012_EF_Annual_Report.pdf

[iv]http://capitalresearch.org/2014/08/tom-steyer-the-new-paladin-of-the-left/

[v]http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/conservatives-shouldnt-trust-stelzer-carbon-tax/

Progressives’ Reaction to China Deal Shows How to Solve the Climate Debate

Not surprisingly, progressives who have long favored a federal crackdown on U.S. carbon dioxide emissions jumped for joy over the announced deal between President Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping. They are arguing that this is a huge rhetorical blow to the critics of U.S. action. But as I’ll show, I can use their own arguments against them, to “prove” that we don’t need Uncle Sam involved in the climate debate at all.

To set the stage, let’s quote from two progressive advocates of aggressive U.S. action. Here’s Paul Krugman’s reaction to the U.S./China deal:

I wish that I believed that logic and reason played any role in the politics of climate change. Because if I did, the news of the US-China deal on carbon emissions would be a moment for sudden new optimism.

After all, one of the main arguments the usual suspects make against action…is that nothing the US does can matter, because China will just keep on emitting…

So you could say that a major prop of the anti-climate-action campaign has just been knocked away. But as I said, it probably won’t matter; they’ll just come up with another excuse.

Or consider James West at Mother Jones, who links to a YouTube video showing Republicans citing China as a reason to refrain from unilateral U.S. cuts. West then writes:

The shock announcement of an ambitious and wide-ranging climate deal between the United States and China is leaving one vociferous group of politicians red-faced: those that have always used China as an excuse for delaying climate action.

The announcement between the two biggest emitters deals a blow to the oft-stated rhetoric that the US must wait for China before bringing domestic climate legislation. And vice versa: China has long used US inaction as an excuse too.

Not anymore.

Believe it or not, this is actually great news. Now that I understand where people like Paul Krugman and the folks at Mother Jones are coming from, I can resolve the whole debate over climate change and State action quite easily.

As the above remarks make clear, Krugman and the other interventionists are perfectly content to take it as gospel that the Chinese will follow through on their non-binding promise to have their emissions peak in the year 2030. The agreement itself says, “China intends to achieve the peaking of CO2 emissions around 2030 and to make best efforts to peak early and intends to increase the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 20% by 2030” (emphasis added). In the meantime, of course, U.S. industry and consumers will get smacked with the immediate damage of U.S.-imposed limits on emissions.

Well if that’s how these cats roll, then here’s my proposal: Rather than having the U.S. government impose taxes or mandates, instead we’ll just get the verbal agreement from various power plant owners that they promise to switch to totally renewable energy sources by the year 2030. To quote the climate deal, let’s just get them to say that they “intend” to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. They don’t have to do anything in the meantime, showing their progress toward that goal; we just want their word. And if 2030 rolls around, with a different group of shareholders and CEOs running these companies, they can ignore the previous “intention” of somebody sixteen years earlier with no penalties whatsoever.

I think today’s private-sector executives would be willing to go on record with such a pledge, if it meant that Paul Krugman et al. would be satisfied that the global climate threat had been solved once and for all and thus would leave them alone.

Is that a deal, guys? I would hate to think you apply one set of standards when evaluating a pledge from the head of communist China, versus analogous pledges from U.S. business leaders.

Fowl Weather

For the Birds 600 AEA