Search anytime by typing below

Thanks for joining the AEA efforts to help combat rising energy prices. We don’t want to bug you that often, so let us know what energy issues interest you, and we’ll keep your inbox happy.

*Please fill in all items

AEA Targets Nick Rahall Carbon Tax Vote

December 4, 2013 by Leave a Comment
WASHINGTON — The American Energy Alliance (AEA) began today airing two weeks of cable and network television commercial advertisements targeting Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va) for his controversial support for carbon tax measures that would harm his own constituents and his state’s economy if enacted. Beginning Dec. 4 and continuing throughDec. 18, AEA will run the “These Days” advertisement in West Virginia’s four largest television markets.

Rahall, the 19-term Democrat representing West Virginia’s 3rd Congressional District, has often walked the fine line between advancing policies supportive of the Mountain State’s vital coal industry and the anti-coal policies of his party’s senior leadership. Currently, West Virginia is among the nation’s top three coal producing states, and supplies more than one-third of all the coal produced east of the Mississippi River. Moreover, West Virginia’s electricity needs are met almost entirely by coal-fired power plants, which are under regulatory assault due to the anti-coal bias of current administration polices. Despite the harmful impacts of carbon tax measures, Rahall has supported legislation that would cost West Virginia as much as 40,000 jobs.

AEA president Thomas Pyle released the following statement:

“To the detriment of West Virginia families, Congressman Rahall has perfected the art of saying one thing at home and voting the other way in Washington. His vote for the progressive budget, which includes an economically devastating carbon tax, is another example of this. With his support for the carbon tax, Congressman Rahall has enlisted in President Obama’s war on coal, a war whose first victims include the coal mining families of West Virginia’s third Congressional District.”

The ad buy represents AEA’s latest effort to spotlight the voting records of Members of Congress that warrant further public scrutiny. Earlier this year, AEA released a series of advertisements highlighting the pro-carbon tax votes of Senators Begich (D-Alaska) and Hagan (D-N.C.), as well as numerous House members.

To read the fact sheet supporting AEA’s “These Days” ad, click here.

To view AEA’s “These Days” ad, click here.

###

Filed Under: Press Releases Tagged With: , , ,

AEA Launches Initiative Targeting Wind Subsidies

December 3, 2013 by Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON — The American Energy Alliance launched today a week-long initiative targeting federal subsidies for the wind industry. The initiative includes a $40,000 digital and print ad buy promoting a new report from AEA’s parent organization, the Institute for Energy Research. The report, titled “Estimating the State-Level Impact of Federal Wind Energy Subsidies”, provides a state by state and region by region assessment of the distributional impacts of federal wind subsidies. The ad buy includes placements in theDecember 2nd issue of the Washington Examiner magazine, the December 3rd-5th editions of the National Journal daily, and a series of digital ads on www.WashingtonExaminer.comand www.WeeklyStandard.com.

In addition to the ad buy, AEA is flying in a group of advocates from states that are negatively impacted by federal wind subsidies to brief Congressional staff. The Institute for Energy Research will also host a policy summit consisting of a panel of experts on Tuesday, December 3rd at noon.

Upon announcement of the initiative, AEA and IER President Thomas Pyle released the following statement:

“The Institute for Energy Research has taken a comprehensive look at the state by state impacts of federal wind subsidies, confirming what many have suspected all along. The majority of states are shouldering an unfair tax burden, shifting millions of dollars from their states’ economies to line the pockets of wind producers in states with mandates for renewable energy.

“Studies like this are essential for the American public to understand what happens when government takes their money to fund expensive programs that benefit boutique industries.

“The present administration has picked wind as its favorite energy source and as a result, every American taxpayer loses.

“The American Energy Alliance intends to broadly disseminate this data to underscore the need for sound energy policies and put an end to wasteful wind subsidies. We will be making an aggressive push to help policymakers understand the real world impacts of wind subsidies on their constituents.”

For an interactive map on the distributional impact of federal wind subsidies, click here.

To read IER’s study, “Estimating the State-Level Impact of Federal Wind Energy Subsidies”, click here.

To register for IER’s policy summit, click here.

###

Filed Under: Press Releases Tagged With: , ,

Baucus’ Energy Plan is a Train Wreck

November 22, 2013 by Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON — Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) released yesterday a federal tax reform discussion draft that includes a number of energy provisions. American Energy Alliance Senior Vice President Dan Kish released the following statement in response to the Senator’s plan:

“Senator Baucus’ energy tax plan should serve as a reminder that he was Obamacare’s chief author and then later distanced himself from his work by calling it a “train wreck”. Americans should be getting wise to career politicians who feign surprise when their “solutions to problems” end up blowing up in Americans’ faces.  The Baucus energy plan is just another train wreck waiting to happen, and in this case, it’s just another hidden tax on Americans who are struggling to work and pay their bills.  Montanans and Americans don’t need fewer jobs and higher energy prices – the logical result of Baucus’ latest train wreck proposal. It’s just proof his decision to retire is long overdue.”

###

Filed Under: Press Releases Tagged With: ,

Big Ethanol Running Empty On Rhetoric

November 22, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Last week was unkind to the ethanol lobby. The EPA proposed a reduction in the biofuel mandate, and a scathing AP investigation undermined the environmental case for ethanol support. To gauge just how serious the situation is, we need only look at the weak arguments put forth by the ethanol lobby in rebuttal.

First let’s review what happened: The EPA proposed rolling back the 2014 amount of ethanol to be included in the nation’s fuel mix. According to the schedule passed by Congress in 2007, the 2014 mandate would have been 18.15 billion gallons. Yet now EPA is proposing a 16 percent reduction (citing a new range of 15 billion to 15.52 billion gallons), which would pull the 2014 level even below the existing 2013 mandate. Thus, for the first time since the Renewable Fuel Standard was put in place, the mandated level of ethanol would fall.

The primary reason for the rollback was simple common sense: Gasoline consumption had not grown as quickly as forecasted (because of the recession and advances in fuel economy), and so the original mandate for 2014 would have pushed the ethanol content above the E10 “blend wall.” This would have risked actual damage to engines.

The other backbreaking development last week was the release of an AP investigation showing that even environmental activists are now recognizing that federal support for corn-based ethanol is having environmental impacts, leading to soil erosion, higher food prices, and even increased CO2 emissions. Thus the policy is a failure on any dimension.

The pro-ethanol lobby was not happy with EPA’s announcement:

“EPA is proposing to place the nation’s renewable energy policy in the hands of the oil companies,” said Bob Dinneen, CEO of the Renewable Fuels Association, a major ethanol industry group. “That would be the death of innovation and evolution in our motor fuel markets, thus increasing consumer costs at the pump and the environmental cost of energy production. This proposal cannot stand.”

Dinneen’s complaints are misplaced. It’s not placing policy “in the hands of the oil companies” for the government to simply move in the direction of consumer and business choice. In reality, policy is still in the hands of the ethanol companies, because the government is literally forcing refiners to use more ethanol in the fuel mix than they would voluntarily choose to do.

This also shows the flaw in Dinneen’s claim that cutting back on the mandate will increase “consumer costs at the pump.” If it really were the case that ethanol made it cheaper to drive—after accounting for the lower mileage because ethanol has a lower energy content per volume than gasoline, and also accounting for the various hidden costs borne by refiners because of the mandate—then why would the government have to force refiners to use it? (Also note that the “econometric” tests of ethanol’s impact on prices contain design problems that bias the results.)

Finally, it doesn’t make sense to encourage “innovation” in economically inefficient areas. If the government mandated that fast food restaurants serve rising amounts of Brussels sprouts with every meal, that would “spur innovation” in the industry as well, but it would hardly be what consumers wanted.

It was years in the making, but at long last there has been just a smidgen of common sense in federal ethanol policy. The response from the pro-ethanol forces shows just how weak their position is.

IER Senior Economist Robert P. Murphy authored this post.

Filed Under: Facts, News, Products and Power, Renewable Fuel Standard, Threats Tagged With: , , ,

EPA's 2014 Ethanol Mandate Ignores Reality

November 18, 2013 by Leave a Comment

The proposed 2014 mandate for the Renewable Fuel Standard Program demonstrates that the RFS is irreparably broken and should be scrapped. Until Congress repeals the entire RFS, EPA should lower the total ethanol mandate and set the advanced ethanol and cellulosic ethanol mandate to zero. Despite years of trying, EPA has proven incapable of setting ethanol volumes that correspond in any way to reality, especially cellulosic ethanol. Furthermore, in the name of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, keeping the advanced biofuel standard leads to the environmentally and economically absurd practice of importing Brazilian sugarcane ethanol and then exporting U.S. corn ethanol back to Brazil to replace the sugarcane ethanol.  This is what happens when government tries central planning, and that is what the RFS is.

The RFS is fundamentally flawed because it is based on the belief that the White House or Congress or EPA can accurately project overall gasoline and diesel demand years in advance, as well as ethanol production and demand. After their projections have proven woefully wrong year after year, it is time to end the RFS and empower everyday Americans to make food and fuel choices, instead of bureaucrats and politicians.

The 2014 ethanol mandates are flawed

While it is good to see EPA acknowledge a little bit of reality and reduce the overall ethanol mandate with their proposed 2014 rule, EPA continues to ignore reality by failing to further reduce the “advanced biofuel mandate” and the “cellulosic mandate.”

The proposed rule sets the total ethanol mandate at 15.21 billion gallons. This is down from the total Congress specified in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 of 18.15 billion gallons. EPA’s reduction is an acknowledgement of the simple reality that there was not enough gasoline being used in America to blend 18.15 billion gallons of ethanol. Through September the U.S. motorists are on pace to use 134 billion gallons of gasoline in 2013. If the mandate remained at 18.15 billion gallons, then gasoline would average 14 percent ethanol—more than almost all cars can currently safely use.

EPA Continues to Promote Cellulosic Ethanol

While EPA recognizes there was nowhere for 18.15 billion gallons of ethanol to go, they continue to promote “advanced” and cellulosic ethanol to the detriment of Americans. Congress and the Bush Administration were so convinced that more ethanol was the way forward in 2007, they mandated 36 billion gallons must be sold by 2022, comprised of 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol with the remainder being cellulosic or advanced ethanol.  Biofuels lobbyists convinced them that it would be commercially available, but they were wrong.  As a safety valve, EPA was given the authority to adjust the numbers should the numerical mandates be unachievable.  EPA, however, has a track record of grossly overestimating cellulosic ethanol volumes, and has done so repeatedly. Despite the D.C. Circuit chastising EPA for “let[ting] its aspirations for a self-fulfilling prophecy divert it from a neutral methodology”, EPA continues to promote cellulosic production instead of using a neutral methodology and projecting realistic cellulosic volumes.

EPACellulosicGraph

For 2013, EPA mandated 6 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol, so far this year 217,569 “gallons”[1] of cellulosic ethanol have been produced. This is ten times as much cellulosic ethanol as was produced in 2012, but there is no reason to believe that cellulosic production will suddenly increase by nearly 80 times to the 17 million gallons that EPA is mandating in the proposed rule. This is especially true because KiOR, one of the only cellulosic producers, missed its 2nd quarter forecast by 75 percent and is now involved in a lawsuit because of alleged misleading statements.

Advanced Ethanol is not “advanced”—it’s just another name for sugar cane ethanol from Brazil

Another problem with the 2014 RFS volumes is the mandate for advanced biofuel. EPA’s 2014 proposed ethanol mandate sets the advanced ethanol mandate 2.2 billion gallons. While it is good that EPA gives a nod to reality by reducing the amount of advanced ethanol required by EISA, it is important to understand what “advanced” biofuels are and why this requirement leads to environmentally and economically absurd results.

Advanced biofuels are biofuel other than ethanol derived from corn starch (ie. corn kernels) which EPA deems to have 50 percent lower lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions relative to gasoline. Sugarcane ethanol is the only mass-produced product[2] which EPA has certified to meet the definition of “advanced” biofuel. As a result, we have the absurd situation were the U.S. imports sugarcane ethanol from Brazil and exports corn ethanol to Brazil as this chart from EIA shows:

Untitled2

As EIA explains, “U.S. obligated parties [ie. U.S. refiners] prefer sugarcane ethanol over corn ethanol” because “sugarcane ethanol counts toward the RFS advanced requirement.” Brazilian ethanol users are indifferent between corn ethanol and sugarcane ethanol.

This situation is completely absurd. First, sugarcane ethanol is not “advanced.” Sugarcane has been used to make ethanol in Brazil since the late 1920s.[3] The only reason sugarcane is deemed to be “advanced” is because EPA believes it has 50 percent lower lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions than gasoline. The Renewable Fuels Association does not agree with EPA’s assessment of 50 percent lower lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from sugarcane ethanol.

Second, while sugarcane ethanol may have lower lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, any reductions are wiped out by what happens with sugarcane ethanol in the real world. The preference that EISA sets up for sugarcane ethanol means that not only is sugarcane ethanol imported to the U.S., increasing its lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, but corn ethanol is then exported to Brazil further increasing the true lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of sugarcane ethanol. When EPA deems sugarcane ethanol an advanced biofuel, they have to consider its true lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions not only the greenhouse gas emissions required to get the sugarcane ethanol to the U.S., but also what replaces that ethanol in Brazil. Swapping Brazilian sugarcane ethanol with U.S. corn ethanol actually results in overall higher greenhouse gas emissions—not lower emissions, which was supposed to be the point of the advanced ethanol provision in EISA.

Worse, swapping Brazilian sugarcane ethanol with U.S.-produced corn ethanol is completely economically wasteful. This swap does nothing, except increase costs and energy use required to swap Brazilian for U.S. ethanol.

EIA believes that this absurd trade in ethanol will continue for the next 30 years, with imported ethanol expected to play a much more important role than cellulosic ethanol.

Untitled3

The free market would use billions of gallons of ethanol a year—just let the market work

Ending the RFS does not mean that ethanol would not be used. What it does mean is that the absurd and inefficient Brazilian-U.S. ethanol swaps would end, that research dollars would be spent on projects that make economic sense, and that the American people would balance the competing uses of corn instead of the federal government dictating a certain amount of ethanol.

If the RFS were repealed, the reality is that billions of gallons of corn ethanol would still be used in transportation fuel. One of the most important, and free market, uses of ethanol in the United States today is ethanol’s use as cost-effective way for refiners to increase octane in gasoline.

While repealing the RFS would still mean that billions of gallons of ethanol are used, it would end the absurd and economically inefficient swapping of corn for sugarcane ethanol. Without the RFS, the only reason sugarcane ethanol would be imported to the U.S. is because it makes economic sense and the only exports of ethanol to Brazil would occur because it makes economic sense.

One of the arguments for the advanced and cellulosic provisions in EISA was to create increased demand for alternative fuels. This argument however, overlooks a simple fact of the size of the liquid fuel market. The global market for gasoline and diesel is literally worth trillions of dollars. Products that economically replace conventional oil production in that market do not need subsidies and mandates from the federal government.

The obvious example is shale oil production. Shale oil did not need billions of dollars of subsidies or a mandate that compels refiners to blend shale oil with conventionally-produced oil and consumers to buy it. Shale oil producers saw a huge market opportunity and developed the technology to compete. Because of shale oil, the U.S. energy picture has completely changed since 2007, when the law was passed to reflect that year’s energy picture. The U.S.’s oil production is rapidly increasing because of shale oil production—something a law like EISA did not foresee or take into account.

Cost effective ethanol products will find a place in the market, but only if, like shale oil, they are cost competitive. The government can mandate the use of billions of gallons of cellulosic ethanol, for example, but that has not made it economic.

Lastly, corn ethanol has been implicated with increasing the price of food by reducing the amount of corn available for uses other than ethanol. The problem with the RFS is the law essentially requires turning billions of bushels of corn into ethanol. In a free society, the federal bureaucrats should not be deciding how much corn to use for fuel; the American public should be making those decisions based on their free choices. Repealing the RFS would empower everyday Americans to make these important financial choices, just as they choose what kind of cell phone or computer to buy. When each of us makes decisions, we live with the consequences, whereas when the government makes decisions for us, no one has the freedom to escape a bad decision.

Conclusion

EPA continues to promote environmental and economically absurd practices by mandating artificially higher levels of ethanol production, especially advanced and cellulosic production. There is however, a simple fix—repeal the RFS and thereby empower everyday Americans to make the important choices about what fuel to use and how to balance food and fuel conflicts.

[1] Technically, 145,042 gallons of cellulosic ethanol have been produced, but that translates to 217,569 RINs.

[2] See U.S. Biofuel Policy, http://sugarcane.org/global-policies/policies-in-the-united-states/us-biofuel-policy.

[3] USGA: Em 1927, O Primeiro Grande Empreendimento Brasileiro em Alcool Combustivel,http://web.archive.org/web/20080319112800/http://www.aondevamos.eng.br/boletins/edicao07.htm.

Filed Under: Facts, News, Products and Power, Renewable Fuel Standard, Threats Tagged With: , , ,

PYLE: EPA’s Biofuel Fix is Only a Band-Aid

November 15, 2013 by Leave a Comment
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released today its 2014 requirements for the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). The proposed rule scales back the ethanol mandate to the 2012 level of 15.2 billion gallons, down from 16.55 billion gallons in 2013. American Energy Alliance President Thomas Pyle released the following statement in response to the announcement:

“The American Energy Alliance welcomes today’s better-late-than-never announcement that the EPA will scale back the ethanol mandate for next year. With this ruling, even the EPA now recognizes that this program is flawed and fails to take into account existing market realities. Today’s action by the EPA, however, does not take away the need for Congress to act quickly to repeal the law. With this ruling, the “blend wall” may not immediately be hit, but the real problems for consumers have not gone away.

“With this RPS ruling, the EPA is still requiring the production of millions of gallons of phantom cellulosic biofuel, an 800 percent increase from the 2013 levels that were actually produced. Further, the 2.2 billion gallon mandate for “advanced biofuel” is especially absurd considering the practical result is we are merely swapping Brazilian sugarcane ethanol with U.S corn based ethanol in the marketplace.

“If the purpose of the RFS was to to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, it is certainly no longer necessary to worry about that given we are poised to become the world’s number one producer of oil. If the purpose of the RFS was to help the environment, we also know that is doing quite the opposite. In fact, the only ones benefiting from this program are lobbyists for the corn and biofuels industries who falsely claim they are fighting for rural states, farmers, and a cleaner energy source when in reality they are merely lining their pockets with Americans’ tax dollars.  The renewable fuels standard has driven up the cost of both food and fuels, and distorted energy markets to the disadvantage of American consumers.

“The EPA decision today is not a fix, but a band-aid. Congress must work immediately to fully repeal this bad law.”

For an analysis on the 2014 RFS proposal, click here.

Filed Under: Press Releases Tagged With: , , ,

PYLE: EPA's Biofuel Fix Is Only a Band-Aid

November 15, 2013 by Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released today its 2014 requirements for the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). The proposed rule scales back the ethanol mandate to the 2012 level of 15.2 billion gallons, down from 16.55 billion gallons in 2013. American Energy Alliance President Thomas Pyle released the following statement in response to the announcement:

“The American Energy Alliance welcomes today’s better-late-than-never announcement that the EPA will scale back the ethanol mandate for next year. With this ruling, even the EPA now recognizes that this program is flawed and fails to take into account existing market realities. Today’s action by the EPA, however, does not take away the need for Congress to act quickly to repeal the law. With this ruling, the “blend wall” may not immediately be hit, but the real problems for consumers have not gone away.

“With this RPS ruling, the EPA is still requiring the production of millions of gallons of phantom cellulosic biofuel, an 800 percent increase from the 2013 levels that were actually produced. Further, the 2.2 billion gallon mandate for “advanced biofuel” is especially absurd considering the practical result is we are merely swapping Brazilian sugarcane ethanol with U.S corn based ethanol in the marketplace.

“If the purpose of the RFS was to to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, it is certainly no longer necessary to worry about that given we are poised to become the world’s number one producer of oil. If the purpose of the RFS was to help the environment, we also know that is doing quite the opposite. In fact, the only ones benefiting from this program are lobbyists for the corn and biofuels industries who falsely claim they are fighting for rural states, farmers, and a cleaner energy source when in reality they are merely lining their pockets with Americans’ tax dollars.  The renewable fuels standard has driven up the cost of both food and fuels, and distorted energy markets to the disadvantage of American consumers.

“The EPA decision today is not a fix, but a band-aid. Congress must work immediately to fully repeal this bad law.”

For an analysis on the 2014 RFS proposal, click here.

Filed Under: Facts, News, Products and Power, Renewable Fuel Standard Tagged With: , , , ,

RFS: Windfall for Ethanol, Burden on American Families

November 15, 2013 by Leave a Comment

As we have explained on these pages before, the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) amounts to a massive subsidy for the ethanol industry. By forcing refiners to purchase and blend rising volumes of biofuels, regardless of whether it makes economic sense, the RFS provides ethanol producers guaranteed demand for their product.

To protect their mandate, the ethanol industry tries to blame oil companies and refiners to deflect the public away from the fact that the RFS forces the public to buy ethanol—whether the public wants it or not.  For example, Renewable Fuels Association President Bob Dinneen put forward the latest deflection:

Who stands to gain from higher gasoline prices and more gasoline volume? Oil refiners, of course. That’s what this is really all about—Big Oil wants to shut out competition and put more money in its already-stuffed pockets.

Dineen doesn’t talk about the people who really lose under the RFS—American motorists who are forced to buy Dineen’s product, whether they like it or not. Refiners would buy billions of gallons of ethanol, regardless of the RFS, because ethanol can be a cost-effective way to increase octane in gasoline.

As the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) explain in a letter to the White House, ethanol producers—not refiners—make gasoline more expensive and limit consumer choice by supporting a mandate that forces Americans to consume more biofuel than the market demands and their vehicles are equipped to handle.

Despite the ethanol industry’s claims, there are physical limitations to the amount of ethanol that can be safely added to the nation’s fuel supply. For instance, 95 percent of vehicles on the road today are certified to run on E10, gasoline that contains up to 10 percent ethanol. Ethanol producers want more cars to use E15, but as AAA points out, running cars not designed for higher ethanol blends on E15 would likely cause “consumer confusion and the potential for voided warranties and vehicle damage.” This physical constraint on increased ethanol use is known as the E10 blend wall.

If left unchanged, as the ethanol industry demands, the RFS would likely require refiners next year to blend more than 10 percent ethanol into the U.S. fuel supply. As the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) explained in the 2013 RFS, while biofuel volumes as set forth in federal statute rise to 18.15 billion gallons in 2014, the “maximum volume of ethanol that could be consumed as E10 in 2014 is projected to be just 13.2 bill[ion] gal[lons].” Recognizing the “infrastructure- and market-related factors” that constrain consumption of higher ethanol blends, EPA has signaled a willingness to reduce the RFS next year, noting that “in 2014 compliance is expected to become significantly more difficult.”

In addition to damaging vehicle engines, higher ethanol blends also make gasoline more expensive. A gallon of ethanol contains less energy than a gallon of gasoline. This means that as the ethanol content of gasoline rises, fuel economy decreases. Indeed, the BTU-adjusted price of E85 (gasoline with up to 85 percent ethanol) on November 11 was nearly 30 cents higher than regular gasoline, according to AAA’s Daily Fuel Gauge Report.

With public support evaporating and opposition in Congress growing, the ethanol industry is resorting to increasingly desperate attacks to justify their lavish mandate. The RFS is misguided policy that enriches the ethanol industry at the expense of everyone else, while hurting American families by damaging vehicle engines and raising gasoline prices. It is time to repeal the RFS.

IER Policy Associate Alex Fitzsimmons authored this post.

Filed Under: Facts, News, Products and Power, Renewable Fuel Standard, Threats Tagged With: , , , , ,

Congressional Members Call for an End to the Wind PTC

November 14, 2013 by Leave a Comment
WASHINGTON – Congressman Mike Pompeo (R-KS) and 51 other Members of Congress have joined today in opposition to another extension of the wasteful wind production tax credit (PTC). In a letter sent to Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) of the House Committee on Ways and Means, the Congressional signatories call for the permanent expiration of the wind PTC. AEA President Thomas Pyle released the following statement:

“The American Energy Alliance welcomes Congressman Pompeo’s renewed efforts to end this special interest giveaway to the wind lobby. It is now time for the rest Congress to follow suit and allow the wind PTC to expire at the end of the year. The expiration of this decades old government giveaway is long overdue, yet the wind industry continues to rake in federal dollars and distort energy markets at great cost to American consumers. Last year’s extension of the wind PTC expanded the program and fleeced taxpayers to the tune of $12.1 billion. Another one-year extension would add another $6 billon to the tab. The wind industry is no longer the infant that it professes to be and no longer needs the wind PTC. The Pompeo effort comes at an important moment as Congress finally begins to consider tax reform. Powerful and well-financed lobbyists are working overtime to push Chairman Camp to bury another wind giveaway in any reform proposal. Growing bipartisan opposition to the wind PTC signals that the time has come to finally allow Big Wind to stand or fall on its own.”

To read the full Pompeo letter, click here.

For more information on wind energy and the wind PTC, click here.

To help end the wind giveaway, click here.

###

Filed Under: Press Releases Tagged With: , ,

Aussie PM Moves to Repeal Carbon Tax

November 13, 2013 by Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON — Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott followed through today on a major campaign promise and introduced a bill to repeal Australia’s controversial carbon tax. The carbon tax was a key issue leading up to Australia’s Sept. 7 election in which Abbot defeated Labor Party candidate Kevin Rudd. AEA President Thomas Pyle released the following statement in response to Prime Minister Abbot’s move:

“The American Energy Alliance welcomes Prime Minister Abbott’s effort to end Australia’s carbon tax and begin restoring sanity to that nation’s energy policies. Weeks before Prime Minister Abbot’s election, the Institute for Energy Research released a study demonstrating the disastrous economic and environmental consequences of Australia’s carbon tax, including increased electricity prices and higher unemployment. Not only that, but this failed policy had the reverse effect of increasing carbon dioxide emissions, proving again that bureaucratic tinkering with energy markets leads to unintended consequences that undermine carbon tax advocates’ chief claims.  Australia’s experience should serve as a warning to policymakers in the United States who seek to implement similar policies here at home. Past supporters of a U.S. carbon tax — like Senator Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), Senator Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Congressman Bruce Braley (D-Iowa), among others — would be wise to observe the Australian experiment very closely and publicly reject all efforts to institute a carbon tax on American consumers.”

To read IER’s study, “Australia’s Carbon Tax: An Economic Evaluation”, click here.

###

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