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

In the Pipeline: 8/7/13

August 7, 2013 by Leave a Comment

These suckers are floating around London’s sewers and they’re spun up about fracking? I’m not a betting man, but I’m willing to wager that burning “fatbergs” is much dirtier and less efficient than hydrocarbons.

Newsy (8/5/13) reports: “Workers at a water company in London have made a historic and disgusting find — a so-called ‘fatberg.’ It’s a combination of fat poured down drains along with flushed wet wipes. The two coupled together to create a massive clump of waste. The International Business Times reports this ‘fatberg’ weighs 15 tons and blocked about 95 percent of the sewer. For comparison, it’s as large as a double-decker bus. Workers found the clump of fat — reported to be the largest in British history — after nearby residents complained they weren’t able to flush their toilets. The good news is workers found the large blockage just in the nick of time. According to MSN, if the ‘fatberg’ wasn’t found soon, it could have caused sewage to come out of several manholes nearby. The fat deposits have been a problem in the past, but they have never been this bad. Water company leaders have continued to ask residents to avoid flushing wet wipes and fat because of the unappealing result. But what’s being done with the fat now? Apparently it’s already being put to good use. KCPQ notes the fat will be burned to create power. Before, fat used to be sent to waste plants and was simply tossed out. The large fatberg, along with much smaller fatbergs, could create enough energy to power 39,000 homes.”

Memo to Obama Motors executives: You cannot sell a product people don’t want and expect to make a profit. 

The Wall Street Journal (8/6/13) reports: “General Motors Co. cut the starting price of its latest Chevrolet Volt electric car by 13%, expanding a price war among makers of plug-in vehicles in response to sluggish demand. The price cut is yet another sign of the difficulties GM has faced trying to establish a market for plug-ins. Overall, plug-in vehicle sales are rising, driven by offerings such as the Tesla Model S from startup Tesla Motors Inc. But despite government subsidies, they remain a niche market. Limited driving range is an obstacle for most all-electric cars. Volt, which uses a gasoline motor to extend its range to 380 miles, has to compete with fuel- efficient Chevrolets that sell for as little as half its sticker price.”

Huh, turns out adding pipelines does help prices at the pump.

The Energy Information Agency (8/6/13) reports: “The discount of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil to Brent crude oil, which averaged $18 per barrel in 2012 and increased to a monthly average of $21 per barrel in February 2013, closed below $1.50 per barrel on July 19, 2013, and averaged $3 per barrel for the month. The strong demand for light, sweet crude oil in the Midwest and new pipeline capacity to deliver production from the West Texas Permian Basin directly to the Gulf Coast contributed to the price of WTI rising relative to Brent crude oil. EIA expects the WTI discount to widen to $6 per barrel by the end of 2013 as crude oil production in Alberta, Canada, recovers following the heavy June flooding and as midcontinent production continues to grow.”

Even Don Draper can’t save this guy.

The Daily Caller (8/6/13) reports: “Green groups are gearing up for a fight with free-market organizations and the coal industry over President Obama’s pick to head the Federal Energy Regulation Commission. In June, Obama announced he was nominating Ron Binz to head up FERC, which regulates electric grids, gas pipelines, natural gas export terminals and hydroelectric power plants. Yet Binz’s tenure as the head of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission from 2007 to 2011 was controversial…Green groups are pushing Binz’s nomination, taking unusual steps to ensure that it goes through. Green Tech Action Fund hired the public relations firm VennSquared Communications to support Binz’s nomination. Support for Binz among environmentalists has mainly focused on his advocacy for renewable energy and energy efficiency, but free-market groups are critical of his activism while serving as Colorado’s top regulator.”

Doubling down on mandates for fuel that doesn’t exist and jacking up food and fuel prices for all Americans. All in day’s work for the EPA.

The Institute for Energy Research (8/6/13) reports: “The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced today its final 2013 rule for the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. The rule now requires refiners to blend 16.55 billion gallons of biofuel into the U.S. fuel supply. Institute for Energy Research President Thomas Pyle released the following statement in response to the announcement: ‘Today’s announcement by the EPA that federal regulators will increase the requirement on refiners this year to blend a staggering 16.55 billion gallons of biofuel is the latest example of how Washington bureaucracies don’t understand the real world or how energy mandates affect real people. The continued push to mandate phantom fuels like cellulosic biofuel is driving up the cost of energy and food for everyone, disproportionately hurting middle class and lower income families.'”

Filed Under: Blog, In the Pipeline Tagged With: , , , , ,

Congress Takes First Step in Stopping a Carbon Tax

August 5, 2013 by Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON — American Energy Alliance President Thomas Pyle released a statement today following the passage of H.R. 367, the Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2013 (REINS Act). This bill includes Rep. Steve Scalise’s (R-La.) amendment which would require any tax or fee on carbon dioxide to be approved by Congress. Pyle’s statement follows:

“This reaffirms what we suspected all along. When put to a vote, Congress would side with the American people who overwhelmingly reject a carbon tax.

“Today’s vote should serve as a wake up call for those across the ideological spectrum who are working behind the scenes to impose a carbon tax on the American people. This is an important first step in putting a carbon tax in the grave alongside its close relative, the cap and trade bill.”

To read AEA’s letter on Rep. Scalise’s anti-carbon tax amendment, click here (PDF).

###

Filed Under: Press Releases Tagged With: , ,

In the Pipeline: 8/5/13

August 5, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Actions speak louder than words. 

The Washington Times (8/4/13) reports: “If the Obama administration is indeed waging a “war on coal,” as its critics contend, then newly minted Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz aims to build a bridge between the opposing camps. Since joining the administration about 10 weeks ago, Mr. Moniz — a Massachusetts Institute of Technology scholar who is considered to have one of the nation’s brightest minds on energy issues — has offered an olive branch to the besieged American coal industry, widely viewed as the mortal enemy of a White House bent on drastically reducing carbon emissions and doubling down on investments in renewable fuels such as wind and solar power, at the direct expense of coal. ‘There is no war on coal,’ Mr. Moniz insisted last week at a breakfast hosted by The Christian Science Monitor. ‘We start by saying we must control CO2 emissions. So then, after many years of talking the talk, the issue is walking the walk in terms of developing the technology to control those emissions.’”

The last Republican governor to show this much love to wind and solar? Bob McDonnell.

Master Resource (8/2/13) reports: “‘What Governor McCrory has now acknowledged to an audience of advocates for forced utilization of wind and solar power is that, behind the scenes, he was using his influence with Republican lawmakers to block this reversal of one of the most egregious forms of crony capitalism on the books in North Carolina.’ Gov. Pat McCrory, speaking recently to the Appalachian Energy Summit in Boone, North Carolina, subtly and without fanfare dropped what has to be considered a bombshell. According to the Watauga Democrat, “‘McCrory drew applause from summit attendees when he said he stepped in to stop a legislative effort this year to end state subsidies for renewable energy development.’ McCrory is referring to legislation that was introduced early in the session to repeal substantial portions of 2007’s Senate Bill 3, which mandates that at least 7.5 percent of the electricity used by North Carolinians must come from renewable energy sources like solar and wind power. Another 5 percent can come from reductions in energy usage, falsely referred to as energy efficiency. The mandates are a massive subsidy to these industries.”

Not familiar with North Carolina’s energy portfolio? IER has you covered.

The Institute for Energy Research (8/1/13) reports: “North Carolina does not produce oil and natural gas, even though there are potential offshore natural gas plays and the potential for onshore shale gas plays. Instead of producing some of its own energy resources, North Carolina imports oil and gas supplies from other states and overseas. The same is true for the coal that supplies the state’s coal-fired generating units. North Carolina primarily uses coal from West Virginia and Kentucky. The state’s electricity generation is mainly produced by coal, followed by nuclear power and natural gas. The residential and transportation sectors lead the state’s energy consumption, followed equally by the commercial and industrial sectors.”

Clarity would be good. Looking for clarity from this Administration is a fool’s errand.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources (PDF) (8/2/13) reports: “Recent developments regarding the approval of new export facilities have generally met with praise from both supporter and skeptics of LNG exports. DOE claims the authority to modify or rescind prior approvals under two provisions of the Natural Gas Act (NGA): section 3(a) and section 16. Section 3(a) authorizes DOE to issue ‘supplemental orders’ that it finds ‘necessary or appropriate’ after providing an opportunity for hearing. Such orders must be ‘for good cause shown.’”

You might have missed this. But we did not.

The Capital Research Center (8/1/13) reports: “Some argue that a carbon tax would be a less harmful alternative to ever-greater environmental regulation, but the idea has such strong drawbacks that few conservatives are willing to support it. Still, non-conservative donors continue to push the scheme among conservatives. Is the carbon tax genuinely popular with conservatives and Republicans?  For over a year, reports have been cropping up in the media about the supposed growth of conservative and Republican support for a carbon tax.  A former congressman, Bob Inglis (R-S.C.), seems to be devoting himself to the project.  The Christian Coalition, often identified as part of the ‘religious right,’ and some economists at the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank associated with the Republican establishment, have spoken kindly about the idea.”

Filed Under: Blog, In the Pipeline Tagged With: , , , , ,

In the Pipeline: 8/2/13

August 2, 2013 by Leave a Comment

About that growing “conservative” coalition for a carbon tax…

The Washington Times (7/31/13) reports: “House Republicans launched an all-out attack Wednesday on what they say are the secretive, pseudo-scientific ‘cost of carbon’ metrics that the Obama administration is using to justify increasingly harsh environmental regulations. At least three pieces of legislation to dismantle the metric, or at least greatly limit how it can be used, are moving through Congress. The measures represent the latest Republican attempt to slow the ambitious climate change agenda laid out by President Obama last month. Critics say the cost of carbon figures represent, at best, pseudo-science used to further a crackdown on fossil fuels. At worst, some argue, they are a back door to an eventual carbon tax on American businesses.”

Divide et impera.

National Journal (7/1/13) reports: “To really cut down on greenhouse-gas emissions, natural gas must eventually follow in the footsteps of the coal industry by adopting technology to capture its carbon emissions, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz saidThursday. ‘Eventually, if we’re going to get really low carbon emissions, natural gas, just like coal, would need to have carbon capture to be part of that,’ Moniz said to reporters at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast. ‘But that looks to be quite a ways off. In the meantime, gas will be part of the solution.’ Moniz’s comments are significant because he explicitly states what many energy and environment experts have routinely said: Natural gas, which burns half as many carbon emissions as coal and is thus heralded as a cleaner fossil fuel, must eventually also reduce its carbon emissions in a world committed to combating global warming. After all, half as many carbon emissions is still more than no carbon emissions, which is what nuclear power and renewable energy sources provide the country.”

When you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

The BBC (7/2/13) reports: “US scientists found that even small changes in temperature or rainfall correlated with a rise in assaults, rapes and murders, as well as group conflicts and war. The team says with the current projected levels of climate change, the world is likely to become a more violent place. Marshall Burke, from the University of California, Berkeley, said: ‘This is a relationship we observe across time and across all major continents around the world. The relationship we find between these climate variables and conflict outcomes are often very large.’ The researchers looked at 60 studies from around the world, with data spanning hundreds of years. They report a ‘substantial’ correlation between climate and conflict.”

Do you think Sanders and Ma’am Boxer will drag CAP, the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation voters to the Hill and harangue them for their foreign, “dark money” funding? We don’t think so either.

The Washington Free Beacon (7/1/13) reports: “A major left-wing foundation has received tens of millions of dollars from a shadowy Bermudan company with ties to wealthy American hedge fund managers and distributed those funds to prominent liberal nonprofit groups. A sizable portion of the Sea Change Foundation’s revenue since 2011 has come from a single company, incorporated in Bermuda, called Klein Ltd. The company’s only officers are employees of a Bermuda law firm, and neither provided information on what Klein actually does. Documents filed with the Bermudan government suggest that the company exists only on paper.The money Klein has donated to Sea Change has been passed on to some of the largest liberal and environmentalist groups in the United States, including the Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters, and the Center for American Progress (CAP).”

If they want to try a carbon tax, they’d better do so in the light of day.

The American Energy Alliance (PDF) (8/1/13) reports: “The last thing the American people need is a new tax, especially a carbon tax. A carbon tax would hurt American families by driving up the cost of energy as well as reducing economic growth. According to a study of one popular carbon tax proposal, a carbon tax would reduce the income of a family of four by $1,000 a year, cost the economy over 400,000 jobs by 2016, and increase the price of gasoline by 30 cents a gallon by 2030. Not only would a carbon tax harm the economy, it would have no substantive impact on global temperature. If we would reduce America’s carbon dioxide emissions to zero, global temperature would only be 0.052°C lower by 2050 and 0.137°C by 2100—not enough to have any substantive impact on climate. A carbon tax would not reduce U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to zero and would therefore have even less of a climate impact.”

Filed Under: Blog, In the Pipeline

In the Pipeline: 8/1/13

August 2, 2013 by Leave a Comment

You RFS advocates keep saying those words “free market.” I do not think it means what you think it means.

The National Journal (7/31/13) reports:  “Washington can clearly find agreement on the RFS. The answer is to repeal this harmful mandate. The biofuel industry should compete on the merits of their product, not because Washington mandates the use of those products. Furthermore, the RFS proponents fail to show the benefit to Americans of keeping the mandate in place. The lack of benefits promoted by ethanol advocates is glaring.”

Just come out and say it. You’re slow walking, blocking, and denying anything that doesn’t fit your little paradigm. Don’t worry, we already knew. It’s obvious.

The Providence Journal (7/31/13) reports: “Deepwater Wind has won both leases up for grabs in a federal auction for the rights to develop offshore wind power in a 257-square-mile area of waters off Rhode Island and Massachusetts. The Providence company emerged from the nation’s first competitive sale of offshore renewable energy leases on Wednesday as the sole winner, with a total bid for the two leases of $3.8 million. Deepwater beat out Sea Breeze Energy and U.S. Wind for the two leases. Nine companies had met the technical, legal and financial qualifications to participate in the auction, but Deepwater, U.S. Wind and Sea Breeze Energy were the only ones that lodged bids. The other potential bidders included Energy Management, the Boston company planning the 130-turbine Cape Wind project in Nantucket Sound.”

Next Step…Senators float bill to name post office After Keystone XL Pipeline. It will do about as much good.

UPI.com (7/31/13) reports: “Two U.S. senators Wednesday introduced a non-binding resolution declaring the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline to be in the U.S. national interest. The resolution would call on the Obama administration to move quickly to grant the necessary permits to build the line, which would pump crude from Canadian oil-sands fields to refineries in the Houston area. The permit needed to build the line, which would run down the length of the Great Plains, is under review by the U.S. Department of State. Environmentalists say the risk of leaks coupled with increased greenhouse gas emissions from oil sands was too great. Supporters, however, contend the pipeline would create jobs and help keep a lid on gasoline prices.”

Sally Jewell steps right into Ken Salazar’s shoes as the self righteous bully at the helm of the Department of Interior.

GlobalWarming.org (7/31/13) reports: “DOI Secretary Sally Jewell told employees today that combatting climate change is a ‘privilege’ and ‘moral imperative,’ adding: ‘I hope there are no climate change deniers in the Department of Interior,’ E&E News PM reports. Such moralizing would be funny were it not for the chilling effect it is bound to have in an agency already mired in group think. What does she mean by ‘denier’ anyway? Is it literally someone who denies that greenhouse gas emissions have a greenhouse (warming) effect? Or is a ‘denier’ merely someone who thinks climate change is not a ‘crisis,’ or who regards the usual panoply of climate policies — carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, other market-rigging interventions – as a ‘cure’ worse than the alleged disease?”

Keeping the President honest is not an easy job. That’s why we leave it to this guy.

Arbitrary, broad, and destructive? Just the kind of thing this administration loves.

The American Energy Alliance (PDF) (7/31/13) reports: “We write to express our strong support for the Murphy amendment to HR 1582, The Energy Consumers Relief Act of 2013. This amendment furthers the interests of Americans and the purposes of the underlying legislation by ensuring that the Environmental Protection Agency does not use a ‘social cost of carbon’ (SCC) metric to justify any significant regulation until they follow procedures which are public and transparent. If Congress does not act to rein in the administration’s continued use of the “social cost of carbon” to justify ever-more-expensive energy regulations, Americans may soon find their energy and regulatory costs skyrocketing and consequently, their way of life destroyed.”
Filed Under: Blog, In the Pipeline

Coalition Supports Scalise Anti-Carbon Tax Amendment

August 1, 2013 by Leave a Comment
WASHINGTON — The American Energy Alliance was joined today by 18 other organizations in support of Rep. Steve Scalise’s (R-La.) amendment to H.R. 367, the Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2013. The Scalise amendment would explicitly require any tax or fee on carbon to be approved by Congress. The letter states:

“…A carbon tax would hurt American families by driving up the cost of energy as well as reducing economic growth. According to a study of one popular carbon tax proposal, a carbon tax would reduce the income of a family of four by $1,000 a year, cost the economy over 400,000 jobs by 2016, and increase the price of gasoline by 30 cents a gallon by 2030.

“Not only would a carbon tax harm the economy, it would have no substantive impact on global temperature. If we would reduce America’s carbon dioxide emissions to zero, global temperature would only be 0.052°C lower by 2050 and 0.137°C by 2100—not enough to have any substantive impact on climate. A carbon tax would not reduce U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to zero and would therefore have even less of a climate impact.

“There are no arguments for a carbon tax that make sense. Some argue that implementing a carbon tax could actually make the tax code more efficient. This claim is not supported by the economics literature. The best literature on the topic explains that a revenue-neutral carbon tax swap would make the tax code more inefficient and would hinder economic growth.  Some estimates suggest that this ‘tax interaction effect’ is so powerful that the theoretical size of a new carbon tax should be cut almost in half, once extra damage to the economy is taken into account…”

The other signatories of the letter are:

60 Plus Association
American Commitment
Americans for Limited Government
Americans for Prosperity
Americans for Tax Reform
American Tradition Institute
Citizens Against Government Waste
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Congress of Racial Equality
Freedom Action
FreedomWorks
Heritage Action for America
High Impact Leadership Coalition
Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles
National Black Chamber of Commerce
Positive Growth Alliance
Taxpayers Protection Alliance
Tea Party Nation

 

To read the full letter, click here.

###

Filed Under: Press Releases Tagged With: , , ,

In the Pipeline: 7/31/13

July 31, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Here’s what passes for Presidential logic: A $7 billion infrastructure project (ie. Keystone XL) financed privately is “not a jobs plan”, but spending $50 billion in taxpayer dollars on bridges is “putting people immediately to work.”

E&E News (7/30/13) reports: “On the latest stop of his new jobs tour, President Obama visited an Amazon.com distribution center in Chattanooga, Tenn., to propose a new “grand bargain for the middle class” that would lower business tax rates in exchange for new transportation and infrastructure investments. Obama also mentioned several other proposals today that he said would support middle-class job growth, such as new investments in the energy sector including the wind, solar and natural gas fields. But one energy-related project that Obama panned this afternoon was the Keystone XL pipeline. In recent days, Obama has caught flak from pipeline supporters for his low estimates of the number of jobs that would be created by the project. ‘They keep talking about this oil pipeline coming down from Canada that’s estimated to create about 50 permanent jobs,’ Obama said today. ‘That’s not a jobs plan.’”

For all the PR hype, subsidies, and political fanfare, you’d think renewables would generate more than this. If you’ve been reading anything from IER, you already know better.

The Institute for Energy Research (7/29/13) reports: “The Energy Information Administration (EIA) released its International Energy Outlook 2013 on July 25, reporting that global energy demand will grow by 56 percent between 2010 and 2040. According to EIA, most of this growth will come from the developing countries where strong economic growth is driving additional energy demand. EIA estimates that China and India will account for half of the world’s increase in energy consumption through 2040.  China, for example, used 3.4 percent more energy than the United States in 2010, but is expected to double U.S. energy demand by 2040. Further, while nuclear and renewable energy are projected to be the fasting growing sources of supply, fossil fuels are still expected to supply almost 80 percent of that demand in 2040. As a result, based on current policies and regulations, energy-related carbon dioxide emissions are projected to increase by 46 percent between 2010 and 2040, with almost 70 percent of the increase coming from countries in developing Asia.”

IEOGraph6

Huh, what a funny little coincidence.

The Washington Free Beacon (7/30/13) reports: “A former top Energy Department official has taken a position on the board of a company that received millions in taxpayer money from the department through a stimulus program that has come under criticism from Congress and independent watchdogs. San Francisco-based ECOtality announced in a July 9 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that it has appointed Brandon Hurlbut, former chief of staff for recently departed Energy Secretary Steven Chu, to its board. Hurlbut led DOE’s transition from Chu to current Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz. He also served as the White House’s deputy director of cabinet affairs and worked for President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign.”

No word on the 3 light bulbs powered by this wind turbine, but odds are they weren’t on much anyways.

The Industrial Wind Action Group (6/1/13) reports: “Shocking images of tornado damage in the Oklahoma City area. ABC News meteorologist Ginger Zee reports a wind turbine blade slammed into the child care facility at Canadian Valley Technology Center. No one was hurt.”

TurbineBlade_OklahomaTornado

This is one to watch late tonight on CSPAN.

The American Energy Alliance (7/30/13) reports: “The American Energy Alliance was joined today by eight other free market organizations in support of Rep. Tim Murphy’s (R-Pa.) amendment to H.R. 1582, The Energy Consumers Relief Act of 2013. The Murphy amendment protects Americans by requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to follow public and transparent procedures when utilizing a ‘social cost of carbon’ (SCC) metric to justify any significant regulation.”

Filed Under: Blog, In the Pipeline Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

In the Pipeline: 7/30/13

July 31, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Skittishly dancing around the issue is unbecoming and childish. Fred Upton is right.
E&E News (07/29/13) reports: “The prospect of a House vote on a carbon tax turns Rep. Fred Upton, chairman of the House Energy Committee to thoughts of, well, love. He grasped a reporter by both shoulders last week and, when asked about the prospect of a vote, poured out his heart: ‘I would love to vote on it,’ he exclaimed. ‘I would love to vote on it, because the House would send a very strong signal against imposing a carbon tax.’ Upton, a Michigan Republican, believes the House would approve a pending House resolution against a carbon tax, a move he thinks would scuttle discussions among Democrats, and some Republican policy groups, who think tucking what would amount to a lucrative emission tax into a broader tax reform package that Congress seems to be striving toward might just work. The notion that taxing carbon is acceptable to conservatives, as long as it’s used to lower rates on income and business, is an idea that some Republicans would like to swat down.”

We’d be more impressed if McKibben & company divested from fossil fuels in their personal lives first. Living like a caveman doesn’t leave much time for professional activism.
National Review (7/30/13) reports: “Comparing the anti-fossil-fuel movement to the anti-apartheid movement is shameful. The anti-apartheid movement fought to free oppressed South Africans from their racist government. The fossil-fuel-divestment movement, in contrast, isn’t fighting political oppression or racism. It’s fighting the energy Americans rely on to live their lives. It’s crucial to note that over the last decade, petroleum, natural gas, and coal provided 87 percent of our energy. Data from 2011 show that wind and solar power contributed less than 2 percent of our energy. We should call the fossil-fuel-divestment movement by its true name — the energy-divestment movement.”

Commissioner Binz is a disaster waiting to happen. Senator Landrieu needs to start paying attention.
The Wall Street Journal (7/29/13) reports: “President Obama’s rule-makers have amped up major regulators like the Environmental Protection Agency and now they’re turning to more obscure outposts. Take the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, which oversees electric transmission and interstate pipelines. Or used to. Now FERC has deputized itself as a Wall Street regulator. This month the commission squeezed Barclays for $435 million for alleged energy-market manipulation, the largest penalty in FERC’s history and more than all of its previous fines combined. Another $410 million fine will soon hit J.P. Morgan, according to a Journal scoop. Yet that will seem minor if the next FERC chairman is Ron Binz—the most important and radical Obama nominee you’ve never heard of. An electric regulator in Colorado from 2007 to 2011, Mr. Binz is the latest Presidential nominee who doesn’t understand the difference between making laws and enforcing them.”

Usually we hate to say, “I told you so.” But this time, we kind of enjoy it.
The Miami Herald (7/29/13) reports: “After two years with low enrollment, New Hampshire’s largest electric utility is phasing out a program that allows customers to pay more to support renewable energy. Utilities are required by law to offer customers the opportunity to support renewable energy by paying a higher rate — usually about 30 percent. But if not enough customers sign up, a utility can get permission from the state Public Utilities Commission to pull the plug. That’s what happened with Public Service Company of New Hampshire’s EarthSmart Green program, reports New Hampshire Public Radio. The company says it would take just 1 percent of its total customers signing up to keep the program alive, but after two years, only 148 customers were enrolled, or about .04 percent.”

Not in my backyard, or in anyone else’s.
The Boulder Daily Camera (7/25/13) reports: “For U.S. Rep. Jared Polis, the battle over fracking just turned personal. Polis, a Boulder Democrat who represents Colorado’s 2nd Congressional District, was shocked to see a fracking operation start up last week on land just across the street from a rural getaway he owns in Weld County near Berthoud. Through the holding company that has title to the congressman’s 50-acre property, Polis this week filed a complaint in Denver District Court seeking a temporary restraining order. His goal is to shut the drilling down.”

Did anyone tell Henry Waxman (D-Riyadh) this news?
The Financial Times (7/29/13) reports: “Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, the billionaire Saudi Arabian investor, has warned that his country’s oil-dependent economy is increasingly vulnerable to competition from the US shale revolution, setting him at odds with his country’s oil ministry and Opec officials. In an open letter addressed to Ali Naimi, the Saudi oil minister, the prince called on the government to accelerate plans to diversify the economy.”

Do as I say, not as I do.
The Washington Free Beacon (7/29/13) reports: “Secretary of State John Kerry and his advisers have emitted more than 35.4 metric tons of carbon dioxide into the environment during their ill-fated attempts to restart the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, according to aWashington Free Beacon environmental impact study. After taking six trips to the region since February, Kerry and his crew have expended almost twice the amount of carbon that the average American emits yearly, according to an analysis based on statistics from the U.S Energy Information Administration.

Filed Under: Blog, In the Pipeline Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Free Market Coalition Supports Murphy Amendment

July 30, 2013 by Leave a Comment
WASHINGTON — The American Energy Alliance was joined today by eight other free market organizations in support of Rep. Tim Murphy’s (R-Pa.) amendment to H.R. 1582, The Energy Consumers Relief Act of 2013.
The Murphy amendment protects Americans by requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to follow public and transparent procedures when utilizing a “social cost of carbon” (SCC) metric to justify any significant regulation. The letter states:

“…If Congress does not act to rein in the administration’s continued use of the ‘social cost of carbon’ to justify ever-more-expensive energy regulations, Americans may soon find their energy and regulation costs skyrocketing and consequently, their way of life destroyed.

“This amendment is made necessary by the potential for abuse. For example, in May, in a little-noticed rule regulating the energy efficiency of microwaves in standby mode, the Department of Energy mentioned that they were dramatically increasing their earlier estimates of the ‘social cost of carbon.’ They did so without public comment, without public participation, and in violation of Office and Management and Budget guidelines. The effect of this unprecedented move was to make it easier to justify ever-more-costly energy regulations and potentially, to provide a baseline level for a carbon tax.  All of this is being done without the consent of Congress or public input.

“The Murphy amendment is a common-sense approach to the administration’s actions. Until the administration explains their actions to Congress and the American people in an open and transparent public process, it should not be allowed to insinuate this concept into every action. This is consistent with President Obama’s statement that climate regulations should be developed ‘in an open and transparent way.’

“In addition to failing to present the ‘social cost of carbon’ to the American public in an open and transparent way, there are many problems with it. First, Congress has not authorized the Executive Branch to use ‘social cost of carbon’ as a mechanism to justify regulatory costs. In practice, the estimate of the ‘social costs of carbon’ has dramatically increased in just a few years—just as the administration needed to justify expensive new rules on energy. In 2009, the Department of Energy estimated the domestic impact of the ‘social cost of carbon’ at $2 a ton. The 2013 update calculated the ‘social cost of carbon’ at $12 to $129 a ton for the year 2020…”

The other signatories of the letter are:

60 Plus Association
American Commitment
American Tradition Institute
George C. Marshall Institute
Independent Women’s Voice
National Center for Public Policy Research
National Taxpayer’s Union
Positive Growth Alliance

To read the full letter, click here.

###

Filed Under: Press Releases Tagged With: , , ,

REINing in Obama’s Regulatory Train Wreck

July 30, 2013 by 1 Comment

The House this week is considering two pieces of legislation designed to increase congressional oversight of the Obama administration’s jobs-killing regulatory agenda. One of the bills specifically targets the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) energy-related rules and mandates.

H.R. 1582, the Energy Consumers Relief Act, requires the EPA to submit to Congress a detailed analysis of the economic impacts of all energy-related rules costing more than $1 billion. The bill, introduced by Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), would require the EPA to report the estimated impacts on jobs and energy prices before promulgating a final rule.

The Energy Consumers Relief Act also adds a layer of inter-agency review to the rulemaking process. The bill allows the Department of Energy (DOE) to prohibit EPA from promulgating costly rules if the agency determines the rule would have significant adverse effects on jobs and the economy.

Such oversight is long overdue, as the EPA has more regulatory actions pending review by the Office of Management and Budget than any other federal agency. The proposed Tier 3 rule, for example, increases gasoline costs for minimal environmental benefits, putting additional upward pressure on already high gas prices. Overall, federal regulations are estimated to cost $1.75 trillion per year.

The House may also vote soon on H.R. 367, the REINS Act (Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act), which increases transparency by requiring an up-or-down vote in Congress on any rule with an annual economic impact of $100 million or more. The House passed the REINS Act in 2011 by a vote of 241-184.

With the recent confirmation of Gina McCarthy as EPA Administrator, President Obama is expected to move forward with his recently announced “climate action plan” to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from new and existing power plants. These regulations will further distort energy markets, bankrupt coal-fired power plants, and impose higher energy prices on the American people. The Energy Consumers Relief Act and the REINS Act would go a long way toward protecting consumers from the EPA’s regulatory overreach.

Policy Intern Portia Conant authored this post.

 

 

Filed Under: News, Products and Power Tagged With: , , , , ,
Previous
Next