AEA Responds to EPA Rejection of Renewable Fuel Standards Waiver
WASHINGTON D.C. — The American Energy Alliance President Thomas Pyle responded today to the decision of the Environmental Protection Agency to deny a waiver request by seven state governors seeking relief from the federal Renewable Fuel Standard.
“President Obama famously promised Vladimir Putin more flexibility after his re-election, but he’s offered no such flexibility to governors seeking relief from rising consumer prices in their states. Congress specifically authorized the EPA to grant RFS waivers when adverse circumstances made compliance difficult or impossible.The Obama EPA shows little concern for the hardships being faced by American consumers, and the denial of the governors’ request signals four more years of regulatory burdens, bureaucratic indifference, and politicized rule-making from this administration. As long as government mandates trump the free market, Americans will continue to suffer. Congress should repeal the mandate altogether and begin restoring sanity to our nation’s energy policy.
Although the U.S. Department of Agriculture forecasted the smallest corn crop in six years, thanks to this summer’s severe drought, the EPA is unfazed in its support of a policy that diverts nearly 40 percent of the nation’s corn crop into fuel. In addition to artificially inflating food and feed prices, RFS will continue to cost consumers at the gas pump. This is because ethanol has a lower energy content than traditional gasoline, requiring more frequent, $60+ fill-ups at the gas station.
Perhaps the greatest irony is that the RFS was borne from the need to reduce imported oil and on the assumption that we would soon deplete our domestic supply. However, just this week the International Energy Agency forecasted that the U.S. is on the brink of becoming the world’s largest oil producer by 2020. We are within reach of energy self-sufficiency, but fundamentally flawed policies like the RFS will get us no closer to realizing it.”
###
Is American Energy Independence Finally in the Cards?
The International Energy Agency (IEA) released its 2012 edition of the World Energy Outlook (WEO) this week and proclaims “North America leads shift in global energy balance.” This should come as no surprise to many familiar with the vast amount of natural resource potential that Americans are blessed with and the new energy revolution that is taking place with shale oil and natural gas.
According to the IEA, the United States will become a net exporter of natural gas by 2020 and almost self-sufficient in energy, in net terms, by 2035. Furthermore, by 2035 North America is projected to emerge as a net oil exporter. Oil and natural gas production has been increasing the past few years, but surprisingly, to those who don’t follow the Obama administration’s policies, the increase has all been on private and state lands. Oil and natural gas production has been decreasing on federal lands yearly and accelerated under the Obama administration. Energy took the national spotlight in this year’s Presidential election, including the topic of energy independence. If President Obama wants to bring Americans closer to energy independence during his second term, he needs to drastically change his administration’s permitting process in order to speed up the energy production that IEA predicts.
Another big factor in achieving energy independence is smarter regulations on the coal production on use. America has the world’s largest coal reserves and coal produces nearly forty percent of the electricity in the U.S. The administration appears to be doing everything they can to keep good on the President’s promise of “bankrupting” the coal industry. If America is to reach energy independence in an affordable, reliable, and practical way, then coal should be part of that plan.
The IEA report also estimates renewables having the potential of becoming the world’s second-largest source of power generation by 2015 and closing in on coal by 2035. Not surprisingly though, the increased usage of renewable production is highly contingent on continued amounts of subsidies for these industries. Due to the fact that these industries have to rely on subsidies to be viable, it shows that they are not the most affordable and reliable paths to energy independence.
If the United States is to realize its energy potential and become energy independent in a cost effective manner, it will have to be pursued through the increased production of oil, coal, and natural gas. With the vast supplies of these resources, it is not a question of if we can achieve energy independence; it is a question of when. The question of when can be accelerated once the Obama Administration embraces the vast natural resources this country possesses and increases access to these resources on federal lands. Sensible public policy and market forces, not legislation and bureaucracies will achieve energy independence affordably.
In the Pipeline: 11/16/12
Or, Nissan’s CEO realizes that trolling for taxpayer cash is a whole lot different than putting an attractive product on the road. Detroit News (11/15/12) reports: “As recently as October, Andy Palmer, Nissan’s executive vice president of product planning, said the automaker is not giving up on its plan to double electric vehicle sales, but that sales are not meeting expectations.”
So the good news is that the National Academy of Sciences got 350 million and the Fish and Wildlife Foundation got 2.4 billion. I guess they couldn’t figure out a way to funnel some of the money to unions or trial lawyers. Politico (11/15/12) reports: “BP will pay a record $4.5 billion in fines and plead guilty to a dozen felony counts under a deal with the U.S. government to settle criminal charges stemming from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon accident that killed 11 workers and spilled nearly 5 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.”
These wise words are certainly chicken soup for my soul. Orange County Register (11/14/12) reports: “The temperature after imposition of cap-and-trade, the Kyoto Protocol or a carbon tax will be whatever it would have been without any of them. So, while a new energy tax may be chicken soup for the wealthy world’s environmental guilt, as a substantive matter, it is a futile gesture.”
So, I guess the message here is that the mandate is not a particularly good idea. Beacon Hill Institute (November 2012) reports: “Over the period of 2013 to 2021, the [renewable energy standard] will cost Missourians an additional $4.47 billion over conventional power, within a range of $2.06 billion and $6.87 billion… Missouri’s electricity prices will increase by an average of 1.27 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh), or by 14.8 percent, in 2021, within a range of 46 cents per kWh, or by 5.3 percent, and 1.97 cents per kWh, or by 23 percent. Costs for customers of investor-owned utilities, such as Ameren, will be higher… By 2021 Missouri will lose an average of 6,065 jobs, within a range of between 2,185 jobs under the low-cost scenario and 9,450 jobs under the high-cost scenario… In 2021 the RES will reduce disposable income by $675 million, within a range of $245 million and $1.055 billion… and Investment in the state will decrease in 2021 by $75 million, within a range of $27 million and $116 million.”
More battery failures are coming. Alt Energy Stocks (11/15/12) reports: “Exide is closing certain facilities for the sake of reducing costs. The company has been historically profitable, although it did report a net loss of $106.5 million on $693.4 million in sales in the June 2012 quarter, after establishing a valuation allowance for future tax allowances of $87.6 million. Exide has produced positive operating cash flow in each of the last five fiscal years at a rate averaging 3.4% of total sales.”
Does anybody really think that a carbon tax is going to be an alternative to regulation? Does anybody really think that a carbon tax is going to be revenue neutral? Renewable Energy World(11/15/12) reports: “Exxon Mobil Corp. is part of a growing coalition backing a carbon tax as an alternative to costly regulation, giving newfound prominence to an idea once anathema in Washington.”
What great news! 35 billion in savings, taken right off the top of a trillion dollar monstrosity. Because nothing says fiscal sanity more than limiting deductions for taxpayers while loading up the goodies for “farmers”. Politico (11/15/12) reports: “House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas said Thursday that he had been assured by Speaker John Boehner that the farm bill remains part of the year-end “big picture” for Republicans and the promise of $35 billion in 10-year savings “has gotten somebody’s attention.””
The following think tank chiefs are opposed to a carbon tax. The list to date follows. If your guy is not on the list, it is because he either favors a carbon tax, wants to retain the option of favoring a carbon tax at some point in the future, or has yet to contact us.
Tom Pyle, American Energy Alliance / Institute for Energy Research
Myron Ebell, Freedom Action
Phil Kerpen, American Commitment
Fred Smith, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Andrew Quinlan, Center for Freedom and Prosperity
Tim Phillips, Americans for Prosperity
Joe Bast, Heartland Institute
David Ridenour, National Center for Public Policy Research
Michael Needham, Heritage Action for America
In the Pipeline: 11/14/12
After decades of government interference, capitulation, inaction, stupidity, and outright lies, the U.S. will soon return to its rightful place as the number one energy producer in the world. Man, I want to be a fly on the wall at the Sierra Club, CAP, NRDC, Defenders, 350, and Al Gore’s private jet and/or mansion on that very special day. Bloomberg (11/12/12) reports: “U.S. oil output is poised to surpass Saudi Arabia’s in the next decade, making the world’s biggest fuel consumer almost self-reliant and putting it on track to become a net exporter, the International Energy Agency said.”
Try to remember that the President talked about running the most transparent Administration in history. Of course, Secretary Geithner also had trouble with his taxes, so, not everything works out like it should. Washington Examiner (11/12/12) reports: “A conservative Washington think tank will file suit Tuesday seeking to force Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to make public more than 7,300 internal emails circulated in recent months among senior executives in his department about a carbon tax proposal officials say taxpayers don’t need to know about.”
The author of this document was Terry Dinan. She spent yesterday with her pals at AEI trying to figure out how to sell this disastrous idea. Congressional Budget Office (November 2012) Working Paper: “For example, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that a policy that set a price of $28 per metric ton on CO2 emissions (roughly $103 per ton of carbon) would impose a cost of $425 dollars per year on the average household in the lowest income quintile and a cost of $1,380 per year on the average household in the highest income quintile (note that those annual costs were measured based on the size of the economy in 2010). That cost would account for 2.5 percent of after-tax income for the average household in the lowest income quintile, compared with less than 1 percent of after-tax income for the average household in the highest quintile.”
The automobile mandate will not save money, not reduce oil consumption, and not reduce carbon dioxide emissions. What it will do is increase the cost of a car by an average of $3200 (according to EPA), result in more deaths, price six or seven million people out of the new car markets, and expand the scope and power of a rapacious government. NYTimes (11/11/12) reports: “For the United States, some of the best recent steps serve to save money, promote energy security and reduce air pollution. A good model is provided by rules from the Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency, widely supported by the automobile industry, which will increase the fuel economy of cars to more than 54 miles per gallon by 2025.”
Norquist: ‘No conceivable way’ carbon tax matches pledge. Politico(11/13/12) reports: “Don’t even think about supporting a carbon tax, Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist told congressional Republicans on Tuesday. Norquist blasted out a statement saying a carbon tax would almost certainly violate the pledge many Republicans took at his group’s behest not to raise taxes.”
Hurricane Sandy and Gas Lines: Regulations Lead to More Problems
In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, government officials in New Jersey and New York interfered with the energy sector and made a bad situation much worse. By threatening to crack down on “price gouging,” the authorities crippled the ability of the market to respond to the emergency shortage of gasoline. Now, faced with the disastrous consequences of their initial policy, the authorities are upping the ante by cracking down all the harder. The whole sordid episode is a textbook example of the problems of government regulations on the energy sector.
Elsewhere I have explained in comprehensive detail why price controls are hurting the residents of New Jersey and New York. In a nutshell: When the hurricane struck, the supply of gasoline was severely curtailed. Because bridges and ports were damaged, it was hard to cart in additional supplies, and even much of the gasoline physically in the region couldn’t be accessed, because the power was out at many of the gas stations.
At the same time, the demand for gasoline went up. This was because of the natural human desire to hoard in the wake of the storm, but also because the subways and trains were knocked out. (This meant more people had to drive to work than before the storm hit.) Put the two together: The supply went down, while the demand went up. Thus, the market-clearing price should have risen significantly.
Alas, the wise authorities in New Jersey and New York didn’t want to let market prices do their job. They warned retailers not to “price gouge.” The consequence was predictable—and I’m not bluffing when I say that, because I literally in my economics textbook (Chapter 17) talked about shortages resulting from price controls after a hurricane—that people would have to line up at the pump. This underscores the basic economics point that it’s not Hurricane Sandy per se causing gas lines. No, it was the government response with price controls causing the lines.
As with most government regulations, once the authorities decided to prevent market prices from rationing the available supply among the motorists who wanted to buy it, they needed to deal with the undesirable consequences. For example, both in New Jersey and then New York City, the government instituted license plate restrictions, where only half of the motorists on a given day are eligible to buy gas. This just added insult to injury; imagine all of the thousands of people who may have needed to get gas on a Wednesday (for example) but now were legally forbidden from doing so.
To magnify the absurdity even more, now the New York State Attorney General is investigating individuals posting ads on Craigslist offering to sell gasoline at “unconscionable” prices. Thus, the very people who are alleviating the shortage—by driving to outer regions and bringing in new gas, or by giving up some of the gasoline that they may have stockpiled before the storm hit—are being punished by the authorities.
The lessons from this episode should be clear. Government intervention in the energy sector achieves the exact opposite of its intended effect. Thinking they were helping with the gasoline shortage, government officials actually exacerbated the problem. Then, seeing the long lines that their own policies had created, the officials introduced yet more arbitrary rules (the license plate rationing). And a final lesson: Fans of the free-market must not blame everything on “liberal Democrats.” In this case, it was the allegedly conservative New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, as well as the allegedly pro-business Mayor Bloomberg, leading the charge against the free market.
In the Pipeline: 11/13/12
Join The Hill and AEA for breakfast tomorrow at the Hyatt Regency for a discussion on the fate of the Wind PTC. RSVP here.
IER STUDY: CARBON TAX PLAGUED BY THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL PROBLEMS. IER (11/13/12) reports: “The Institute for Energy Research released today a new study exposing the fallacies of so-called revenue-neutral carbon tax swaps, an idea that has gained some support among even conservative pundits and politicians despite numerous theoretical and practical problems with the scheme. IER Senior Economist Robert P. Murphy reveals in the study, entitled “Carbon ‘Tax Swap’ Deals: A Review and Critique,” that pro-carbon tax discussions currently underway inside Washington may offer a ‘cure worse than the disease,’ robbing global economies of growth potential and disproportionately affecting the world’s poor.”
Yes, if only Mitt had come out for the carbon tax, the professional elites vote would have shown up in droves. This guy should go have a beer with Bob Shrum and compare notes. Nuclear Townhall (11/1/12) reports: “Three weeks before the election I submitted a story to my journalistic home, The American Spectator, arguing that Mitt Romney should support a carbon tax. I argued that it would solidify his support with the professional elites in Virginia, North Carolina and Ohio that were concerned about the economy but put off by the social conservatism of the Republican Party.”
How much longer do we have to listen to this? Malthus was wrong. Ehrlich was wrong. Holdren was wrong. The Club of Rome was wrong. And now this dude is wrong. Say it with me – rich societies are environmentally responsible societies. E&ENews (11/8/12) reports: “Western societies — and, increasingly, much of the rest of the world — tend to place far more value on the economy than the environment, he said. That philosophy, he said, could lead humanity to an untimely end… “We’ve come to a place where we have to decide whether our species will live into the next century.”
It’s Dan Kish’s world. The rest of us just live in it. E&ENews (11/9/12) reports: “This is very disturbing,” Kish said. “Coloradans may not be able to get jobs that may have been available from oil shale development, thanks to Salazar. But because of the vote this week, maybe they’ll be able to sit around and smoke weed.”
Frontier fuels for the future: “Alaska ice tested as possible new energy source”. USAToday (11/11/12) reports: “A half mile below the ground at Prudhoe Bay, above the vast oil field that helped trigger construction of the trans-Alaska pipeline, a drill rig has tapped what might one day be the next big energy source… The Department of Energy and industry partners over two winters drilled into a reservoir of methane hydrate, which looks like ice but burns like a candle if a match warms its molecules.”
David Vitter is going to be a great ranking member on EPW. Senator Vitter(11/9/12) reports: “U.S. Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) today sent a letter to U.S. Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar asking him to explain the administration’s economic reasoning in allowing an offshore lease sale for wind energy in the Atlantic Ocean. The senators’ letter notes that that the agency will not allow offshore oil and gas leasing in the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), and requests data on the economics of the wind lease sale, to compare with “the value of a similar lease for oil and gas on equivalent acreage.””
Well now, we are supposed to believe it when his staff says it now, even though the explanation itself allows for the interpretation that misdirection is part of the Senator’s toolbox. The Hill (11/9/12) reports: “Advocates of taxing carbon emissions shouldn’t look to Sen.-elect Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) as an ally, despite the congressman’s past introduction of carbon tax legislation.”
Which do you figure more people are going to want, solar panels on the roof, or a standby generator in the backyard? NYTimes (11/10/12) reports: “It’s all part of what you might call the Mad Max Economy, a multibillion-dollar-a-year collection of industries that thrive when things get really, really bad. Weather radios, kerosene heaters, D batteries, candles, industrial fans for drying soggy homes — all are scarce and coveted in the gloomy aftermath of Hurricane Sandy and her ilk.”
Of course the White House won’t propose a carbon tax. They need a Republican to propose it. I predict that some dim-witted moderate is going to accommodate them. The Hill (11/9/12) reports: “President Obama has no plans to propose a tax on carbon emissions, a White House official said… “The Administration has not proposed nor is planning to propose a carbon tax,” the official said.”
Grover, just butch it up and oppose this lousy idea directly. This word-smithing is giving us all headaches. National Journal (11/12/12) reports: “But Norquist made clear he himself doesn’t like the policy. “It would infuriate taxpayers,” he said. He also opined that politically, it’s beyond a long shot. While supporters might now be talking about how to structure the tax swap in such a way that it could win political support, “It’s a conversation about what color unicorn you’d like,” Norquist said. “If the Democrats thought it was a good idea and the country wouldn’t hate them for it they would have done it in 2009,” when their party held majorities in both chambers of Congress, he said.”
So, despite all the talk about climate change, even the EU has decided that it is more important to keep rich Americans happy. BusinessWeek(11/12/12) reports: “The European Commission on Monday proposed freezing the imposition of carbon emission charges on non-EU flights for a year, a move that could prevent an international airline dispute from turning into a global trade war.”
Where is Kanye West when you need him? Reuters (11/8/12) reports: “Damage from Superstorm Sandy to the electricity system in the U.S. Northeast exposed deep flaws in the structure and regulation of power utilities that will require a complete redesign, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said on Thursday… But at least some members of one utility oversight panel later fired back, saying it was the governor who should take responsibility.”
In the Pipeline: 11/9/12
Dear Incoming Science Committee Chairman: Listen to Ralph Hall. His is a wise man. The Hill (11/1/12) reports: “The scientific enterprise at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is broken, contrary to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s assertions that “science is the backbone of everything we do at EPA,” or that major regulations are based on the recommendations of EPA’s “independent” science advisors. As Americans face a fragile economy and skyrocketing energy prices fueled by President Obama’s agenda, it is important to pull back the curtain on the ideologically-driven processes EPA is using to justify an avalanche of costly rules.”
“Suddenly”? “Suddenly”? Treasury has been talking about this for years. We’ve been talking about it for months. AEI has planned for it over the course of five secret meetings. The only people not paying attention are the wizards who staff the Congress. Reuters (11/8/12) reports: “Long-shot carbon tax suddenly part of fiscal cliff debate… A potential tax on big polluters, a taboo subject in the United States in recent years, has come back into the spotlight as some sense potential for a revenue windfall at a time lawmakers look for ways to the so-called “fiscal cliff” of tax rises and spending cuts due in early 2013.”
Meanwhile, in the real world… WSJ (11/8/12) reports: “America’s oil boom is pumping up exports and driving down the trade deficit… The U.S. trade gap narrowed by $2.3 billion in September, to $41.5 billion, the Commerce Department said Thursday. Oil accounted for more than three quarters of the change, with a $2.2 billion surge in oil exports easily offsetting a small increase in imports.”
This is a bold-faced admission by the greenies that mandated and subsidized renewables are bad for the economy. Otherwise, wouldn’t they be talking about how ‘investments’ in green energy could pull us back from the edge of the fiscal cliff? Energy Guardian (11/9/12) reports: “Urgent discussions about averting the cliff, shorthand for the automatic spending and tax cuts on Jan. 1, have renewable energy groups wondering if they should act now to press for more government support of green energy, beyond extension of the wind Production Tax Credit.”
I have no clue what this means. Maybe our friend Loren Smith can figure it out; he is wicked smart. Washington Examiner (11/7/12) reports: “How, then, should we address climate change? Adaptation is probably a better strategy than prevention. Large-scale, top-down solutions are unlikely to work, so the best way to proceed might be to recognize some of the key insights of 2009 Nobel laureate Elinor Ostrom. Her work focused on how “bottom-up” solutions to resource management problems evolve. To translate it into the language of a bumper sticker you might have seen, “Think globally, act locally.” Let’s look for ways to devolve authority and to develop markets for goods and for risks that are not currently priced. Let’s trust the initiative of innovative economic, social and cultural entrepreneurs rather than politicians.”
We are informally keeping track of which think tank chiefs are opposed to a carbon tax. The list to date follows. If your guy is not on the list, it is because he either favors a carbon tax, wants to retain the option of favoring a carbon tax at some point in the future, or has yet to contact us.
Tom Pyle, American Energy Alliance / Institute for Energy Research
Myron Ebell, Freedom Action
Phil Kerpen, American Committment
Fred Smith, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Andrew Quinlan, Center for Freedom and Prosperity
Tim Phillips, Americans for Prosperity
Joe Bast, Heartland Institute
David Ridenour, National Center for Public Policy Research
Michael Needham, Heritage Action for America
In the Pipeline: 11/7/12
We wonder if President Obama has any sense of how difficult (or impossible) it is to simultaneously destroy affordable energy and grow an economy. Fox Business (11/7/12) reports: “Energy companies likely will see more regulation in President Barack Obama’s second term, with less access to federal lands and water even as the administration promotes energy independence.”
It’s really just sad to see these guys fighting for policies that actually do more harm to the environment. Kind of takes the fun out of the fight. The Hill (11/7/12) reports: “Environmentalists are planning a demonstration on Nov. 18 to put fresh pressure on President Obama, the projected winner of a second term, to reject the proposed Keystone XL oil sands pipeline.”
Crying over YouTube videos to distract people from the truth? Sounds like something else that happened recently. Washington Times (11/6/12) reports: “This isn’t the first time Mr. Mann has turned to the judiciary to silence critics. In 2010, Minnesotans for Global Warming produced a viral YouTube video entitled “Hide the Decline.” Over 600,000 people viewed the animated likeness of Mr. Mann singing lines such as, “Michael Mann thinks he’s so smart, totally inventing the hockey stick chart.” The popular video was pulled after the group received a cease-and-desist letter. “My first reaction was, ‘Wow, I guess I hit a nerve,’” Elmer Beauregard, the video’s creator, told The Washington Times.”
Does anyone else see the irony here? Detroit News (11/6/12) reports: “Michigan voters pulled the plug on a proposed constitutional amendment that would have required Michigan’s utilities to provide 25 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025.”
In the Pipeline: 11/6/12
The battle has ended, but the war is far from over. AEA (11/5/12) reports: “The American Energy Alliance will conclude its three-month “American Products. American Power.” bus tour today by delivering 14,444 petitions to lawmakers and regulators in Washington. The 18,000 mile, 17 state bus tour connected with thousands of Americans at over 50 events. The message of these concerned citizens is clear: this country needs policies that treat our reliable and affordable energy resources as assets, not liabilities. In a letter sent to the leaders in Washington, AEA President Thomas Pyle had the following to say:”
Speaking of which, this family has something to say about the war on coal:
Seriously? Ray LaHood was a lousy Congressman and has been worse as Secretary of DOT. Here’s another news flash: he is not really that “well-liked”. E&ENews (11/5/12) reports: “I’m afraid if Romney wins, he’ll stop all of that new stuff that’s been under way and switch it all back, and we’ll be right back putting all the money into more roads and drilling oil everywhere, and not at all planning for the big changes that we have to do. And it will actually set the nation back quite a bit,” said Andy Kunz, president of the U.S. High Speed Rail Association.”
Interesting. John Hanger (10/11/12) reports: “Natural Gas Generation Projected By EIA To Decline 10% But Coal To Rise 7% In 2013… With gas prices rising, 2013 will see rising coal generation and coal recapturing some of its lost market share. 2013 will also end a run of annually increasing gas-fired electricity generation and will be the first year since 2008 that America will get less of its electricity from natural gas than in the year before.”
Well now, I wonder how this is all going to turn out. Daily Caller (11/3/12) reports: “I’ve previously noted that conservatives worry Romney transition chief Mike Leavitt will pack a future Romney administration with moderates and personal loyalists — and Connaughton is a prime example of the kind of appointment conservatives would attempt to derail. Of course, blocking Romney (and Leavitt’s) more moderate picks won’t prove easy. At the upper echelons of the Republican world lies an incestuous network. Consider this: Romney consultant Ron Kaufman is married to the sister of former Bush Chief of Staff Andy Card. Card was replaced as Chief of Staff by Josh Bolton — whose sister married … James Connaughton.”
