AEA President Responds to President Obama’s DNC Speech

“The United States must not embrace the failed policies of the last three years that have led to higher energy prices, more restrictions on domestic energy production, and reward the president’s political cronies with lucrative loan guarantees at the expense of hardworking Americans who deserve a better use of their tax dollars.”

WASHINGTON D.C. — American Energy Alliance President Thomas Pyle released the following statement in response to President Obama’s speech tonight before the Democratic National Convention meeting in Charlotte, NC:

“On the eve of the one-year anniversary of Solyndra’s bankruptcy, Barack Obama made the latest in a four year string of empty promises about his plan to achieve American energy independence. Despite his pledge to create 600,000 jobs in the energy sector and 1 million new manufacturing jobs, President Obama has presided over the worst economic recovery in a generation.

He has refused to permit the Keystone XL pipeline, which would create tens of thousands of jobs, and he has instituted a de facto embargo on offshore energy development that has left the Gulf coast economy struggling to recover. At every turn, President Obama has denied access to taxpayer owned energy resources on federal lands, including more than a trillion barrels of oil shale.

President Obama has a record, and he cannot run from it. He’s waged a three year war on coal, directed a federal regulatory assault on the hydraulic fracturing technologies that are responsible for our natural gas boom, and enacted numerous policies that prohibit American job creators from unlocking more than 200 years of oil supply that lies under our feet and off our coastlines.

Meanwhile, he’s spent the country into the poor house by pumping billions of taxpayer money into Solyndra-style renewable ventures, in some instances increasing the handouts by as much as 1700 percent.

America indeed has a choice. The United States must not embrace the failed policies of the past three years that have led to higher energy prices, more restrictions on domestic energy production, and reward the president’s political cronies with lucrative loan guarantees at the expense of hardworking Americans who deserve a better use of their tax dollars.

America’s energy future is less secure, less independent, and more expensive because of Barack Obama’s policies. It is unlikely that the next four years would offer a different course under his continued leadership.”

###

Let the Wind Production Tax Credit Expire

WASHINGTON D.C. — American Energy Alliance President Thomas Pyle joined the leaders of 63 other organizations to oppose extension of the wind Production Tax Credit (PTC), which is schedule to expire at the end of this year.

“Whenever the government protects a particular industry, as it has with wind energy production, the industry tends to remain dependent on it. As Nobel laureate Milton Friedman noted, ‘the infant industry argument is a smoke screen. The so-called infants never grow up.'” The wind PTC, like other green energy incentives, is a prime case in point,” the letter notes.

“The PTC was created in 1992 to get the wind industry off the ground. Yet 20 years later, we have little to show for it. We’re still providing a $5 billion special tax break each year for an industry that supplies just over 2 percent of our power.”

To read the entire letter, click here.

*Since September 6th, 24 more organizations have signed the letter. Below is an updated list of organizations who have signed on.

###

In the Pipeline: 9/5/12

He definitely should.  It would help the campaign tremendously. National Journal (9/4/12) reports: “A large group of Democratic donors is threatening to withhold money from President Obama’s reelection campaign unless he breaks his silence on climate change and responds directly to GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s denigration of the issue at the Republican National Convention last week.”

 

I had no idea that Pleistocene-era caliche deposits release carbon into the atmosphere when exposed to the elements. WSJ(9/4/12) reports: “A couple of weeks ago we wondered if green lobbying groups would object to new Department of Interior rules to streamline environmental approval for solar energy projects on hundreds of thousands of acres of federal land. (“The Solar-Painted Desert,” Aug. 13, 2012.) Well, here we go. Three environmental groups—Western Lands Project, Basin and Range Watch, and Solar Done Right—have filed a formal complaint of the kind that often presages a lawsuit… But here’s the real shocker: The letter complains that “no scientific evidence has been presented to support the claim that these projects reduce greenhouse emissions.” And “the opposite may be true. Recent work at the Center for Conservation Biology University of California, Riverside, suggests that soil disturbance from large-scale solar development may disrupt Pleistocene-era caliche deposits that release carbon to the atmosphere when exposed to the elements, thus ‘negat[ing] the solar development C [carbon] gains.'””

 

You know the really sad part?  No one is really surprised. Inside Climate News (9/4/12) reports: “Mitt Romney has vowed to drill the nation’s way out of its foreign oil addiction instead of investing in clean fuel technologies—but according to Dan Senor, one of Romney’s closest political advisers, that’s bad economics.”

 

This is discouraging.  Again, not surprising, but discouraging. E&ENews (9/4/12) reports: “Man-made global warming is happening, President Obama and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney agreed in answers released today on the independent website ScienceDebate, but neither candidate provided specifics about what kind of future policies would be needed to slow climate change or guard against its adverse effects.”

In the Pipeline: 9/4/12

 

So the new automobile mandates kill people, increase the cost of cars, punish poorer people, and erode the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund.  Is there anything this crew can’t wreck? American Road & Transportation Builders Ass. (8/29/12) reports: “As new cars and light trucks are purchased in the future and old ones retired, average fuel economy will improve, reducing the 2009 forecast of gasoline sales and HTF revenues by the amounts shown in the table.  The baseline for computing percentage losses is total HTF revenues.”

 

Is Reuters trying to imply that Senator Reid is a corrupt politician trying to compel a utility to purchase expensive, unreliable energy?  Because if they are, they need to write this story on just about every Member of Congress who favors utility mandates.  Or, looked at through a different prism, everyone who favors the ethanol mandate. Reuters (8/31/12) reports: “In 2003, the Nevada Democrat publicly banned relatives from lobbying him or his staff after newspaper reports showed that Nevada industries and institutions routinely turned to Reid’s sons or son-in-law for representation. Now, questions surrounding family ties are flaring again in Nevada around the Senate majority leader. He and his oldest son, Rory, are both involved in an effort by a Chinese energy giant, ENN Energy Group, to build a $5 billion solar farm and panel manufacturing plant in the southern Nevada desert.”

 

Hey, I’m pretty sure Solyndra and the rest of the crew went under babbling about how the Chinese were killing them.  Let’s make it easy.  No one on the planet wants a product that doesn’t work as well as its competition.  When was the last time you bought a VHS tape? The Telegraph (8/29/12) reports: “At the same time, the quality of the solar equipment being made by Chinese companies, even by the biggest companies, is often not export-grade… While the Chinese government has promised to hugely increase its purchases of solar panels, there is a significant excess capacity in the domestic market that has kept prices low.”

 

What?  You mean FERC does not rule the entire planet?  Does Joe Kelliher know about this? Platts (8/28/12) reports: “While the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission can retroactively determine what the electricity rates in California should have been during the Western energy crisis of 2000-01, it cannot use that information to make non-jurisdictional entities, such as municipal utilities and the Bonneville Power Administration, pay refunds, a federal appeals court has determined.”

 

On Friday we noted that some in New York did not want the Champlain Hudson line bringing in electricity from Canada.  Now, we note that some in New England would rather not have the Northern Pass line bringing electricity in from Canada.  Sense a theme?  On a separate note, kudos to ISO-NE for acknowledging that switching to natural gas may be a lot more complicated than people think. Union Leader (8/29/12) reports: “On Friday we noted that some in New York did not want the Champlain Hudson line bringing in electricity from Canada.  Now, we note that some in New England would rather not have the Northern Pass line bringing electricity in from Canada.  Sense a theme?  On a separate note, kudos to ISO-NE to acknowledging that switching to natural gas may be a lot more complicated than people think.”

In the Pipeline: 8/31/12

This is why my native New York is doomed.  Even the “Republicans” are idiots. WSJ (8/27/12) reports: “Upstate legislators are opposing a plan to build an electricity transmission line from Canada to New York City, claiming the proposal to import lower-cost hydroelectric power would cost New York jobs.”

 

You would think that Nancy Pelosi would take time out from increasingly ridiculous press conferences to make sure that San Francisco is doing its part to destroy what is left of California. SF Weekly (8/29/12) reports: “Now, more than four years and one mayor later, that program has also done almost nothing to offset greenhouse gas emissions. The fund has reaped in $203,152 from city departments since 2009, plus a $14,000 donation and $1,129 from travelers who purchased carbon offsets from a kiosk at SFO.”

 

Does anyone really think this crew was going to let Shell explore in the Chukchi?  Seriously? BSEE (8/30/12) reports: “It’s an upside-down world when a company forks over more than $2 billion to the government for the right to explore for energy and it becomes a news story 5 years later when the government allows them to stir up some mud – but not actually drill for oil — on the ocean floor dozens of miles off shore.  Sort of makes one wonder how the process will work for getting the government to allow an operation that will actually cost them something when they run our health care.”

 

Congressman Pompeo is rarely wrong.  He is not here. Politico(8/29/12) reports: “There’s been a steady drumbeat recently from those seeking an extension of the wind production tax credit. For many reasons, including some that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has carefully highlighted in his opposition, this is a bad idea.”

 

We won.  You might have missed it in all the mayhem. Politico(8/29/12) reports: “T. Boone Pickens said natural gas vehicles can survive just fine without Congress approving his so-called Pickens Plan.”

Is Ethanol Cheaper Than Gasoline?

 

CLICK HERE to tell the EPA to waive the ethanol mandates and  relieve pressure on our nation’s food supply, fuel prices, and vehicle fleet.

No doubt feeling the heat from record corn prices, defenders of the ethanol mandate are now claiming that ethanol is actually something that the market would embrace, without government intervention. If this were true, it would simply prove that the mandate is unnecessary. But of course it’s not true. In particular, claims that ethanol is currently “cheaper than gas” are very misleading because they ignore differences in energy content.

To give an example of what we mean, consider this recent article from Bloomberg:

Ethanol, the best-performing energy commodity this year, is cheaper than gasoline, encouraging refiners to use the biofuel even if President Barack Obama’s administration ends a requirement to do so.

A 49 cent-per-gallon discount to gasoline provides…an opportunity to profit by blending the corn-based additive into fuel, while easing prices at the pump for consumers. Marketers may use ethanol as they look for the cheapest way to boost engine performance and reduce pollution.

The most severe U.S. drought in 56 years has prompted lawmakers from both parties to ask the Obama administration to suspend the mandate because of the potential impact on food costs. Ethanol will consume 42 percent of this year’s corn crop, according to government estimates, up from 41 percent last year. The biofuel has been blended into more gasoline than ever this year, Energy Department data show.

“It’s just ingrained in the supply and distribution and it’s having a moderating effect on pump prices,” John Kilduff, a partner at Again Capital LLC, a New York-based hedge fund that focuses on energy, said by phone. “As long as they were still allowed to use it, most would. The lower price and just the logistics of taking it out, most would still use it.” [Bold added.]

This analysis is extremely misleading. But first, note the stakes: As we put in bold above, ethanol is currently absorbing 42 percent of the corn crop. At a time of drought and record agricultural prices, the federal ethanol mandate is particularly disastrous.

Yet what of the claims that ethanol is “cheaper than gasoline” and would be used anyway? This ignores the fact that ethanol has lower energy per unit volume. Once we adjust for the fact that your car will go more miles on a gallon of conventional gas, compared to a gallon blended with ethanol, then ethanol is more expensive. Consider the following table from AAA, captured on August 28, 2012:

 

Regular

Med

Premium

E85

**E85 MPG/BTU adjusted

$3.756

$3.900

$4.042

$3.385

$4.455

 

Yes, superficially it looks like fuel with higher ethanol blends (e.g. E85, which is 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline and can only be used in flex fuel vehicles)  are currently “cheaper than gas.” But adjust the price for the difference in energy content per volume shows that the one fuel on the market that is the closest thing to pure  ethanol  is still far more expensive. As Dan Simmons quipped, “A gallon of water is cheaper than a gallon of ethanol.” This observation doesn’t mean refiners are rushing to mix water into the fuel mixture in order to boost profit margins.

In conclusion, nobody is saying that ethanol would completely disappear in the absence of federal mandates. Rather, the claim is that it is currently being supported at an artificially high level. Yet in a sense, this debate is irrelevant: The federal mandate on refiners to use ethanol is unjustified. If it simply mandates what would happen due to market forces anyway, then it is unnecessary. But if—as we suspect—it is diverting an enormous amount of corn away from food and distorting markets—then the ethanol mandate is clearly disruptive.

CLICK HERE to tell the EPA to waive the ethanol mandates and  relieve pressure on our nation’s food supply, fuel prices, and vehicle fleet.

ICYMI: The Oklahoman's Editorial

 

Below is an editorial from the Oklahoman about the American Products, American Power bus tour, a project of the Institute for Energy Research and the American Energy Alliance.

Get out of the way.

That, in a nutshell, is the message preached by the American Energy Alliance, a right-leaning nonprofit that stumps for free-market energy policy. The AEA, whose multistate bus tour stopped in Oklahoma City last week, has its megaphone aimed squarely at the Obama administration, which has spent nearly four years looking for ways to curb the production of energy that doesn’t have a distinctly green hue.

While fast-tracking approval of projects such as Solyndra, and burning through hundreds of millions in government money in the process, the administration has tried to increase the tax burden on oil and gas producers — the one segment of the economy that’s actually creating jobs — made it more difficult to drill, and rejected the Keystone XL pipeline.

“This tour is about American products and American power, about the goods made from these products and about the threats from government,” AEA President Tom Pyle told The Oklahoman’s Opinion Page writers. “The only thing standing in the way is Washington, and in some places statehouses. Not here in Oklahoma, though.”

That’s because we get it here in Oklahoma. We understand the benefits of a robust oil and gas industry. Obama doesn’t — which helps explain why, as The Wall Street Journal noted in an editorial Friday, federal acres available for leasing and exploration are down 18 percent since 2008, and the permitting rate is 37 percent slower. The average time needed to get a federal drilling permit? More than 300 days!

Mitt Romney gets it, too. Romney’s energy plan, unveiled last week, would untangle many of the burdensome regulations imposed by this administration and allow this sector to expand and create more jobs.

The fact that Romney’s plan was immediately dismissed by Obama’s minions as a sop to “Big Oil” speaks volumes.

Electing Romney would help get Washington out of the way. It’s something to consider on Nov. 6.

In the Pipeline: 8/29/12

Ken Green not only killed it, he squashed it like a bug.  Don’t even think about mustering up a rebuttal to this gem. AEI (8/28/12) reports: “So let us, once again, review why a carbon tax is a bad idea: 1) Taxes on carbon are not simply taxes on consumption, they’re a tax on production as well, since energy is a primary input to production (and is a growing share because of increasing automation). Taxing both production and consumption seems like a poor way to stimulate your economy, reduce your costs of production, or make your exports more competitive.”

 

Waiver requests on the RFS are starting to rattle investors?  The RFS itself has been a disaster for the economy, for fuel efficiency, for the environment.  I’m glad someone is getting rattled. The Hill (8/28/12) reports: “Biofuels groups said Tuesday that political pressure from governors to waive the renewable fuel standard (RFS) this year is starting to strain the industry by sending “instability signals” to investors.”

 

First off, who wrote this for him?  Second, I guess the world is easy when you are a rich-kid punk.  But consumers actually prefer affordable, reliable energy.  And workers like to have jobs.NYTimes (8/27/12) reports: “ON the northern tip of Delaware County, N.Y., where the Catskill Mountains curl up into little kitten hills, and Ouleout Creek slithers north into the Susquehanna River, there is a farm my parents bought before I was born. My earliest memories there are of skipping stones with my father and drinking unpasteurized milk. There are bald eagles and majestic pines, honeybees and raspberries. My mother even planted a ring of white birch trees around the property for protection.”

 

It’s actually scary to read this, because it makes you think that someone in the current Administration is trying to undermine American prosperity and security. Governor Sean Parnell (8/24/12) reports: “At this critical juncture, Alaska is prepared to supply our nation with employment as well as a secure source of domestic energy, only to be thwarted repeatedly by federal actions designed to impede our progress. Evidence shows the blame lies not with industry, but with the Obama Administration’s agenda to prevent oil and gas production on federal lands.”

New CAFE Mandates Harm Consumers

 

WASHINGTON D.C. — IER Director of Regulatory Affairs Daniel Simmons issued the following statement about today’s announcement by the Obama administration of a new corporate average fuel economy mandate (CAFE):

“This is an undemocratic, dangerous, and costly decision. The Obama administration’s heavy-handed regulation overrides American’s automobile preferences and imposes the choices of unelected bureaucrats on consumers.

Forcing ever-higher fuel economy mandates will lead to less safe cars and more automobile fatalities and injuries, according to leading safety experts. The problem with downsizing cars, according to the International Institute for Highway Safety, is that ‘smaller, lighter vehicles generally are less protective of their occupants in crashes.’

Because the fuel economy mandate drives up the price of cars and trucks, millions of hard-working Americans will be priced out of the market. Nearly 7 million Americans may not be able to afford a car or truck because of this ill-conceived decision.

The federal government has a responsibility to provide information about fuel economy, but not the responsibility to dramatically limit people’s automobile choices because of the administration’s anti-fossil fuel agenda.”

For more information on the effects of the CAFE mandate, click here.
To read the American Products and Power analysis of CAFE standards, click here.

In the Pipeline: 8/28/12

Normally, this is called vandalism. On Wednesday, you’ll be encouraged to sign the bus, while also enjoying beef tenderloin and seafood for lunch. AEA invites you to join Stephen Moore, Senator John Barrasso, Representative Mike Pompeo, and Thomas Pyle, President of AEA for a free market energy forum on Wednesday, August 29th, at 11:30 in Liberty Plaza.

 

 

 

Perhaps not the largest surprise we’ve ever experienced. USA Today(8/27/12) reports: “It would be the second interruption in production for the Volt, which can go 38 miles on battery power before needing a recharge from its gasoline engine. GM late Monday disputed published reports that the move is because of slow Volt sales.”

 
The Romney crew is only going to have trouble flipping some of these regulations if they hire the same batch of “moderates” that the Bush Administration did.  Yes, we mean guys like Boyden Gray and Jim Connaughton. National Journal (8/27/12) reports: “For all the Republican rhetoric about President Obama’s “war on coal,” there isn’t really a lot that Mitt Romney could do as Obama’s successor to turn around the decline in an industry that has long been the mainstay of the nation’s power supply.”
 
Jack Gerard would be a great chief of staff or Secretary of Interior or even Energy.  He would definitely be better than some of the horrible names that are being kicked around now. Politico (8/27/12) reports: “American Petroleum Institute President and CEO Jack Gerard on Monday dismissed scuttlebutt that he could serve a senior role in a Mitt Romney administration… “Washington silly talk,” Gerard told POLITICO in an interview on the first official day of the Republican National Convention.”