News - American Energy Alliance

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

Celebrity Hot Air Cannot Mask Realities of Climate Debate

November 3, 2014 by AEA 1 Comment

Celebrity support for a questionable cause is no substitute for facts and real analysis.

Billionaire Tom Steyer’s newest 30-second ad buy is the latest effort to draw on celebrity support to elect anti-energy candidates. The ad is narrated by actor Woody Harrelson and directed by Black Swan’s Darren Aronofsky. Harrelson claims in the ad, “They told us the world was flat and insisted it was the center of the universe…Now they tell us climate change is a hoax. But the truth is undeniable; this is a fight we will win.”

Steyer’s ad follows an aggressive climate push by Leonardo DiCaprio, who delivered an address at the recent U.N. Climate Summit in New York and just released a third video from his radical environmentalist project Green World Rising.

The glamour of celebrity support, though, cannot mask the realities of the climate policy debate. Although the climate movement touts expert opinion, it is worth remembering that Harrelson, Aronofsky, and DiCaprio are not experts on climate science, economics, or public policy.

These wealthy celebrities gloss over the struggles of people in the developing world who still need more access to energy and electricity from affordable sources such as natural gas, coal and oil.

For example, when Leonardo DiCaprio declared at the U.N. summit that the world needs to make collective efforts to address CO2 emissions, he ignored the fact that over 30 percent of clinics and hospitals in Sub-Saharan Africa still lack electricity. Even when health clinics do have power, it is inconsistent and unreliable—outages in Kenya, for example, can last 4.5 hours at a time. The pressing challenge for people who don’t currently have reliable power at hospitals isn’t climate change—it’s access to consistent and affordable electricity.

We should stop taking the word of Hollywood celebrities on complicated policy issues and examine real facts and analyses.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: climate change, leonardo dicaprio, Tom Steyer, UN climate summit

Hydraulic Fracturing is Saving You at the Pump

October 31, 2014 by AEA Leave a Comment

A recent study conducted by the American Petroleum Institute (API) showed Americans are saving nearly a dollar per gallon when they fill up for gas because of the innovative horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing techniques that gave us access to significantly more domestic oil and natural gas reserves.

This development has gas prices as low at $2.29 per gallon in some communities and AAA reported nationwide gasoline prices are set to drop below $3.00 per gallon on November 1^st. Prices this low would have been unimaginable just a few years before the boom in American energy production.

API Vice President Kyle Isakower explained what policymakers should learn from this boom in a statement, “It’s important for policymakers to recognize that the U.S. energy revolution was not a lucky accident, but the result of decades of American innovation aimed at unlocking our resources here at home.”

In other words, the dramatic changes natural gas and oil have undergone is the ultimate example of free-market—not government mandated—innovation, and the results speak for themselves. For example, the study found that U.S. oil production that utilizes horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing jumped from 11 percent of U.S. production in 2008 to 48 percent of U.S. production in 2013. According to the Energy Information Administration this dramatically increased overall U.S. oil production too from around 158 thousand barrels a month in 2008 to over 268 barrels this August, which has helped to lower prices.

Most importantly this makes a huge difference for middle class and lower class Americans who have been struggling to make ends meat in a stagnant economy. For instance, the Consumer Expenditure Survey shows that the lowest quintile of income earners spends twice as much as the highest quintile of income earners on gas as a portion of their income. Having access to affordable transportation not only gives Americans freedom to go where they choose, but also dramatically expands job and housing opportunities too.

In addition to direct benefits to consumers, more oil production in the United States makes us more secure and less dependent on unstable regions for oil imports. The best way to continue to increase energy security is to responsibly unleash the power of markets in order to incentivize further innovation and productive use of our national natural resources.

API’s Isakower explained that government policies threaten continued prosperity and safety, “To build that momentum and strengthen our position as an energy superpower, it’s critical that policymakers turn aside duplicative regulations on hydraulic fracturing and ensure that U.S. consumers can benefit from energy production on federal lands that remain off-limits.” Lets make sure that we continue to benefit from innovative technologies like horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing and support free-market energy policy.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: AAA, American Petroleum Institute, gasoline prices, horizontal drilling, hydraulic fracturing