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: 10/17/12

October 17, 2012 by Leave a Comment

This video makes us laugh.  Until we remember that we are paying for this mess. Michigan Capitol Confidential (10/8/12) reports: “In the video, Gov. Granholm’s press conference on A123 Systems was interrupted by a phone call… It was President Obama on the line to remind the audience that it was his American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that enabled A123 Systems to be the “first American factory to start high-volume production of advanced vehicle batteries.””

 

 

There are a lot of good reasons to wake up from this nightmare. For starters, no one is interested in investing anything except taxpayer dollars in wind.  Grist (10/17/12) reports: “Since 2007, Susman’s OwnEnergy, which installs wind turbines, has grown to be one of the nation’s most prominent wind installers. But he’s plagued by a recurring nightmare: “Every few years the industry has to drop everything for six or nine months and focus exclusively on having the credit passed.””

 

I think Scott and Jeff are trying to drum up some business.  Although I am not sure a $20 a ton tax would not be noticed by industry.  It would, after all, become the third largest tax in the United States at that point. Politico (10/16/12) reports: “Two key energy industry advisers say a carbon tax will likely become an attractive revenue-boosting option for Congress, no matter who lands in the White House next year… A carbon tax likely won’t achieve lift-off in the next year, but it does remain a possibility that everyone — especially investors — should keep a close eye on, Bracewell & Giuliani’s Scott Segal and Jeff Holmstead said on a conference call Tuesday.”

 

Again, government does not pick winners and losers; it only picks losers. Politico (10/16/12) reports: ““It’s sad so many people keep losing jobs that are based on politicians cutting ribbons instead of businesses built on real market demand,” Dan Kish of the Institute for Energy Research wrote to POLITICO. “The government couldn’t even get the math right” on A123 Systems.”

 

Of course they talked about the production of affordable, reliable domestic energy instead of global warming.  Almost no voters care about global warming, and almost every voter cares about energy. Think Progress (10/17/12) reports: “Those concerned about climate change were sorely disappointed during Tuesday night’s town hall-style debate when both the candidates and the moderator — CNN’s Candy Crowley — failed to address the issue of climate change, even during a lengthy and heated exchange about energy issues.”

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , , ,

In the Pipeline: 10/16/12

October 16, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Why we fight. 

 

How in the world did this run in the Washington Post? Washington Post(10/15/12) reports: “Al Gore is about 50 times richer than he was when he left the vice presidency in 2001. According to an Oct. 11 report by The Post’s Carol D. Leonnig, Gore accumulated a Romneyesque $100 million partly through investing in alternative-energy firms subsidized by the Obama administration.”

 

When the Bloomberg crowd starts running things like this, you have to think they are beginning to hedge their bets, just in case the blessed one loses. Bloomberg (10/11/12) reports: “In 2008 candidate Barack Obama promised to create 5 million green jobs. He laid out a plan to invest $150 billion over 10 years that would advance a clean-energy economy built around biofuels, hybrid cars, low-emission coal plants, and renewable sources such as solar and wind. How many has he actually created? … Digging into the public records of the $21 billion spent so far through 19 U.S. Department of Energy programs reveals 3,960 projects that employ 28,854 people.”

 

I am amazed that a federal government program, especially one as well-designed and run as the 30% tax credit for expensive and unreliable energy, is subject to corruption. Renewable Energy World (10/15/12) reports: “A new government investigation of SolarCity on the eve of its initial public offering (IPO) may explain how solar leasing is fleecing federal taxpayers and making U.S. residential solar more expensive than in other countries.”

 

Even at the State level, government does not pick winners and losers.  It just picks losers, mostly because winners don’t go to the government for funding.  Losers on the other hand, understand that their only hope is the corrupt and irrational government approach.ToledoBlade.com (10/14/12) reports: “Four of the 10 companies or projects funded under the advanced energy program have failed to repay the state on time, submit financial reports by designated deadlines, or adhere to stipulations of state loan agreements, a Blade investigation found. Some of them face a combination of these problems. Four of the 16 projects initially approved by the state aren’t moving forward.”

 

For those of us already losing sleep over Obama’s energy policy, this is not a good thing. Berwickshire News (10/11/12) reports: “An honorary consultant in sleep medicine, Dr C D Hanning, is warning of the “unacceptable levels of sleep disturbance” for people living within 1.5km of wind turbines.”

 

If some is good, more is better. ABC News (10/15/12) reports: “There were cheers around Germany when Chancellor Angela Merkel announced last year, in the wake of the Fukushima disaster in Japan, a swift end to nuclear power in favor of renewable energy sources like wind and solar… But only 18 months into the plan, the cost of the switchover is beginning to sink in. Some politicians, fearful of losing popular support for the transition, are demanding an overhaul of the way it is financed… The country’s four main grid operators said Monday that households will from January see a nearly 50 percent rise in the tax they pay to finance the switchover – from €3.6 cents to €5.3 cents ($6.7 cents) per kilowatt hour. A typical family of four will pay about €250 ($324) per year under the tariff, including a sales tax.”

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , , , , ,

In the Pipeline: 10/15/12

October 15, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Promise made. Promise kept. Watch our latest ad:

War on Affordable Energy Ad

 

Here is the deal.  It turns out you can’t get rid of an affordable, reliable energy source (like nuclear), and rely on an expensive, unreliable source (like solar and wind), without increase the cost to ratepayers (like me and you). Renewable Energy World (10/12/12) reports: “German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to cap taxpayer subsidies for renewable energy is aimed at limiting the political fallout among voters from a surge in electricity bills due next week.”

 

Remember this when some idiot economist starts blathering about taxing “bads”.  An energy tax is just that – a tax on energy; it will have zero effect on global warming. Daily Mail (10/13/12) reports: “The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week… The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.”

 

Here’s the problem.  Guys like Joe Manchin (who had nothing to do with killing cap and trade), Sherrod Brown, and Joe Donnelly talk a lot about how they favor coal.  But the reality is that they vote for Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, and they do (and have done) nothing to slow down the Administration’s ruthless march towards eliminating affordable, reliable energy.  They are all like Rick Boucher and will all wind up like Rick Boucher eventually. AP (10/12/12) reports: “Obama’s moves on clean air and fossil fuels have complicated the lives of Democrats in coal-rich states that count on mining for jobs and economic growth, with incumbents and candidates adopting drastically different strategies to ensure their own political survival.”

 

Maybe this explains why sales of electric cars are so terrible. WSJ (10/10/12) reports: “Electric vehicles can help reduce harmful greenhouse emissions, but a new study suggests that, without cleaner sources of electricity, the environmental benefits would be limited.”

 

Hang on, Donna, the Utica is coming on line. NYTimes (10/13/12) reports: “She tries to lower expenses. When her vexing electric bill shot up a while back, she sold off several appliances and bought a cheaper, more energy-efficient freezer. She spent Mother’s Day shopping for wholesale bargains on eggs and dish soap. She bounces from Rural King to Sam’s Club to Giant Eagle, looking for the cheapest coffee.”

 

Why we fight. National Journal (10/11/12) reports: “Seventeen-year-old Contessa Skelton learned that her mother had lost her job—for the second time in two years—as they stood in the parking lot outside her dentist’s office.”

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , , ,

Stand with Coal

October 12, 2012 by Leave a Comment

President Obama kept his promises and bankrupted coal plants, increased electricity rates, and increased gas prices, leading Vice President Biden to say he “thinks our energy policy is the best it has ever been”. VOTE NO on Obama’s failing energy policy.

Filed Under: Multimedia

AEA Takes “Stand with Coal’ Effort to the Airwaves

October 12, 2012 by 1 Comment

WASHINGTON D.C. — The American Energy Alliance released today a 30 second advertisement that will air in Ohio and Virginia markets, starting Oct. 13 and running through Oct. 26. The “Stand With Coal” ad features video footage of President Barack Obama pledging to make “electricity rates skyrocket” and “bankrupt” the coal industry. Vice President Biden is also featured in the ad, claiming that the Obama administration’s energy policy is “the best it’s ever been.”

The ad, which will run primarily in coal country, is the latest phase in AEA’s year long, multi-million dollar effort to educate the American people about the Obama administration’s failed energy record. In April, AEA’s “Nine Dollar Gas” ad aired across the country on cable and TV, in addition to garnering more than 1.7 million views on YouTube. Similarly, AEA will run the “Stand with Coal” spot online.

“The Obama administration has been trying to kill affordable energy from day one, and the American Energy Alliance is committed to fighting back in the war on coal. Coal is America’s most plentiful energy resource, and it provides the largest share of our nation’s electricity needs. AEA stands with coal, and we are mobilizing grassroots activists to support this vital industry that powers our economy and supports jobs in some of our nation’s hardest hit areas,” AEA President Thomas Pyle said.

To view the “Stand With Coal” ad, click here.

To read the hard facts about American coal, click here.

To read the North American Energy Inventory, which gives in depth analysis of U.S. coal reserves, click here.

###

Filed Under: Press Releases

In the Pipeline: 10/12/12

October 12, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Vice President Gore won his Nobel Prize for his “work” on climate change.  But you know, the market doesn’t really care about that.  They only care that he keeps backing losers. The Street(10/4/12) reports: “Three years ago, First Solar seemed on its way: Interest in solar was at an all-time-high — as were subsidies for making, installing and using it. So America’s largest manufacturer of solar equipment seemed ready to cash in… So did Generation Investment. According to SEC filings, Gore’s company bought 440,000 shares in late 2010 at about $130. By the first quarter of 2012, the value of First Solar — and just about every other solar manufacturer in America — had plummeted.”

 

Millions for Chevy Volts!  But not one cent for defense! Fox News(10/11/12) reports: “The raging debate on Capitol Hill over the Libya consulate attack has put a spotlight on the State Department’s security spending, with some questioning whether money spent on electric cars and green-embassy programs could have been put to better use.”

 

Part of us hopes that Jay Inslee wins, so he won’t come back to DC as a lobbyist for some commie front group. KIMATV.com (10/10/12) reports: “Jay Inslee once speculated that the solar company SunPower could be the Microsoft of its industry… The Democrat candidate for governor invested a chunk of his own money in the firm, then publicly touted the company’s work making solar panels and championed policies in Congress that would aid the industry’s growth… None of it helped fulfill Inslee’s prediction: SunPower stock – once as high as $133 a share – has sunk to under $5, and the company recently announced it was cutting jobs amid stagnant demand.”

 

California is the sad, sick, decrepit old man of the United States.  Texas is not. Forbes (10/11/12) reports: “The Lone Star state has 50% more jobs than in 1990, compared with only 6% job growth in New York, 8% in Illinois and 14% in California. Americans have been flocking to Texas in droves while fleeing those other states… What’s the secret? It ain’t social services, which Fisher admits are lacking in Texas relative to other states. “But we excel at creating the single most important driver of human dignity and pride: jobs.””

 

The Sierra Club joins EPA in complete and utter abandoning of any pretense of science, statistical rigor, or anything that approaches rationality. That probably means we’re winning.  I would also note that the President — their President — spends a lot of time in Ohio, Virginia, and during debates talking about how much he likes coal. Sierra Club (10/10/12) reports: “Today the Sierra Club and Sierra Magazine released a new photography project examining the effects of coal on the lives of everyday Americans. The feature, “Cost of Coal,” follows the life-cycle of coal, using sharp, poignant images to show the impact coal mining, burning and disposal has on families across the country.”

 

Thank goodness they didn’t turn it into a park for expensive, unreliable energy.  Menard’s is a great store. WXYZ.com (10/09/12) reports: “The Wixom Assembly Plant was supposed to undergo a major renovation and ultimately become an alternative energy park. Back in 2009 local, state and Ford representatives held a huge press conference at the facility announcing that three companies were going to set up shop, creating 4,000 jobs… The companies were supposed to produce things like solar panels, wind turbines and other green energy technology.”

 

Heads of think tanks* who are publicly opposed to a carbon tax: 

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

*It is good to see that many people would like to be included on this list. For now, we’re going to keep it simple and focus on heads of think tanks. If that applies to you and you’d like to join the list, or you think you might know someone who would, please contact [email protected]. 


Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , , , ,

The New "Benefits" of Environmental Regulation

October 11, 2012 by Leave a Comment

The American Energy Alliance released today a new study authored by  Scott Beaulier and  Daniel Sutter that closely examines the purported “benefits” of environmental regulations. The following summary outlines the details of the study’s findings: 

  • The number of new regulations and estimates of the value of regulation have grown in recent years. Proponents of regulation say the private and coincidental benefits of regulation are high. We disagree and say arguments for large private and coincidental benefits are weak and supported by an extreme point of view in microeconomic theory.
  • To say private benefits from regulation are large contradicts basic teachings of microeconomics, where people are engaging in rational, profit maximizing economic activity. If the benefits of a new technology, such as more fuel efficient automobiles, are large, then consumers, will invest in the new product; if not, they will rationally choose not to consume.
  • The literature on large co-benefits from regulation is on shaky scientific ground. Many regulations can only be justified by the inclusion of co-benefits and some rely almost entirely on large co-benefits. Furthermore, many attempt to draw on the same “pool” of co-benefits (e.g., particulate matter reductions) without making any assumptions about the pool eventually being exhausted by so many beneficial regulations.
  • If the new regulatory approach wants to include co-benefits, a term we call “co-costs” should also be included. These are the unforeseen costs of regulation, such as less innovation, regulatory capture, and higher prices for consumers.

Click here to read the full study: The New “Benefits” of Environmental Regulation

Executive Summary

Although the U.S. economy has been slow to recover from The Great Recession, the nation has experienced a boom in regulation, in both the number of significant regulations and the estimated net social benefits.  Environmental regulations have, as usual, accounted for the majority of the reported benefits.  A closer examination reveals that the rapid increase in claimed regulatory benefits has resulted from the inclusion of private benefits and co-benefits of recent EPA regulations.  These categories of benefits differ substantially from the traditional externality benefits of environmental protection.  Private benefits arise when regulation forces firms and consumers to invest in technologies regulators think make them better off, but which people do not believe are valuable.  Co-benefits are spillover benefits and result when a regulation to address one pollutant reduces a second pollutant.

We examine in this paper the economic arguments for private benefits and co-benefits and consider some costs of regulation ignored in recent EPA cost-benefit analyses.  Arguments for the existence of private benefits likely to be captured through regulation are weak.  Failure to purchase the most energy efficient products on the market is not a sign of irrationality requiring government action.  The substantial co-benefits of recent EPA regulations are highly dubious.  The existence of substantial co-benefits from incidental reductions of fine particulate matter is troubling given the existing air quality standard for this pollutant.  If the air quality standard for fine particulate matter has been set properly, there cannot be thousands of avoidable deaths available as co-benefits of other regulations.  And while the EPA has diligently included co-benefits, negative side effects or co-costs have been downplayed or ignored.  Some omitted co-costs include the value of personal autonomy compromised by paternalistic regulations, reduced productivity due to regulation, and the increase in auto fatalities due to fuel economy regulations.

Cost-benefit analysis properly done provides evidence on whether the social costs of an externality are worth addressing through regulatory action.  The emergence of private benefits and co-benefits in environmental regulation indicates that the EPA is moving away from the traditional externality justification for regulation and into uncharted waters.

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

WHICH CANDIDATE WILL LEAD ON ENERGY?

October 11, 2012 by 2 Comments

WASHINGTON D.C. — The American Energy Alliance released today a candidate comparison infographic, assessing the energy record and policy proposals of President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney. Covering oil, natural gas, coal, renewables, transportation, regulation and personnel, the comparison chart offers a side-by-side assessment of the candidates as the American people consider the future of U.S. energy policies.

AEA President Thomas Pyle released the following statement with the comparison chart:

“Energy policy has captured the attention of the American people unlike any other time in our nation’s quadrennial exercise in self-government. This election year, perhaps even more than 1980, offers voters a clear contrast on energy policy between the two candidates. Will America’s energy future be marked by taxpayer-funded subsidies, more government mandates, onerous regulations, bailouts and bankruptcies? Will Washington force the American people to buy expensive, unreliable and intermittent energy sources? Or will our future involve greater energy security, more jobs, more domestic production, and more affordable fuel sources?

“The American Energy Alliance sees a clear path forward that builds upon private-sector successes in harnessing American-made energy and creating good-paying jobs. We cannot have four more years of the policy failures that have led to skyrocketing electricity rates, record high gasoline and home heating oil prices, and billions of wasted taxpayer dollars to prop up uneconomic renewable industries that don’t exist without government life support. It’s time to pull the plug on broken energy policies, and chart a new course that relies on American power and American products.

“Regardless of who wins, the American Energy Alliance will continue our fight for affordable, reliable, domestic sources of energy.”

To view the American Energy Alliance’s “Obama-Romney Energy Comparison Chart,” click here.

###

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

In the Pipeline: 10/11/12

October 11, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Dan is right.  The Obama crew has a relentless preference for unreliable, expensive forms of graft and corruption that require taxpayer support.  They have waged relentless war on affordable, reliable energy.  How much simpler can we make it? IER (10/10/12) reports: “IER Senior Vice President Daniel Kish released the following statement in response to the Interior Department’s announcement regarding the Chokeberry and Sierra Madre Wind Energy Project in Wyoming: “The constant message the Obama administration sends to the American people is clear — unreliable, intermittent and expensive energy sources will receive preferential treatment, while the affordable and reliable sources we use every day will be taxed, embargoed, and driven into bankruptcy.”

None of these entities are going to pay the tax.  The people of Japan are going to pay the tax. Reuters (10/10/12) reports: “Japan’s new tax on carbon emissions will cost utilities about 80 billion yen ($1.02 billion) annually from 2016, adding to their already high costs of running power stations after the Fukushima crisis shut most of the country’s nuclear plants, a government backed think-tank said.”

It is about time. Energy & Commerce (10/10/12) reports: “Republican members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee today wrote to U.S. Comptroller General and head of the Government Accountability Office Gene Dodaro requesting a study of federal spending used to support energy-related technologies. Full committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI), Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-KY), Rep. Tim Murphy (R-PA), and Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) are requesting the study in response to concerns over the dramatic growth of spending and subsidies in energy markets.”

Where is Senator Boxer’s letter howling about this market manipulation, this victimization of Californians? Forbes (10/10/12) reports: “California regulators on Wednesday approved a $10 million grant to Tesla Motors to help manufacture its next electric car, the Model X sport utility vehicle.”

Did Obama Policies Aid Hugo Chavez’s Reelection? IER (10/10/12) reports: “The value that U.S. dependence on Venezuelan oil provides to that country’s socialist dictator, Hugo Chavez, cannot fully be estimated. Currently, Venezuela ranks fourth as a supplier of U.S. oil imports after Canada, Saudi Arabia and Mexico. But the United States could drastically reduce support of Hugo Chavez’s oil regime if President Obama had approved the Keystone XL pipeline, which is designed to move 830,000 barrels of oil per day from Canada to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast where Venezuelan crude arrives by tanker.”

I have no idea why we keep running these sort of stories, except that they amuse us.  They also help confirm our suspicions that this whole solar thing is a bit of a racket. Renewable Energy World (10/10/12) reports: “Suntech has $541 million of convertible notes due in March, more than triple its market value of $164 million. It has a total of almost $2.3 billion in debt and is expected to report a loss of $495 million this year, the average of five estimates compiled by Bloomberg, as panel prices fall. The company is overleveraged and will face difficulties shoring up its balance sheet, Molchanov said in an interview… “I’d be interested to see the rabbit Suntech and UBS can pull out of their hat,” he said.”

I wonder if this is disappointing for the people who worship solar panels as if they were some sort of savior for mankind. Washington Times (10/10/12) reports: “But a series of emails from solar power giant BrightSource Energy Inc. show how the company applied political pressure and used behind-the-scenes cajoling to win a $1.6 billion loan guarantee in April 2011.”

Filed Under: Blog

Four Years Later: Is Energy Better Off?

October 11, 2012 by Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON D.C. — The American Energy Alliance released today a comparison chart answering the basic question in many American’s minds: Are we better off today than we were four years ago?  With an exclusive focus on energy markets, regulations, and the economic impact of energy policies, the American Energy Alliance answered this question by looking at trends in energy regulations, energy costs, and taxpayer-funded energy subsidies over the past several years.

“Using the most cautious estimates, the facts are still clear.  Four years of policies aimed at crippling domestic energy production for affordable sources like coal, oil, and natural gas have yielded higher electricity costs, more pain at the pump, and more federal regulations that drive up the price of energy.  Meanwhile, taxpayers have been put on the hook for an explosive growth in renewable subsidies to fund Solyndra-style ventures, a disturbing number of which are closely tied to President Obama’s political and fundraising efforts,” AEA Director of Communications Benjamin Cole noted.

“Unemployment has grown by 43 percent in the last four years — from 5.8 to 8.3 percent this month.  Meanwhile, per capital GDP has dropped by more than $1000, which means that Americans are spending a larger share of their income to keep the lights on, heat their homes, and commute to work.  Gasoline prices have more than doubled since President Obama took office, and household energy expenses have jumped by 31 percent.  The federal government is leasing less land for energy production, generating less revenue for U.S. taxpayers, and dispensing as much as 1000 percent more for renewable subsidies to bankroll intermittent, unreliable, and uneconomic sources.”

Some basic facts from AEA’s analysis of energy policies under President Obama:

  • Taxpayer-funded biomass and biofuel energy subsidies have increased by 1731 percent — from $61 million to $1.1 billion
  • Taxpayer-funded wind energy subsidies have increased by 947 percent — from $476 million to $4.98 billion.
  • Taxpayer-funded solar energy subsidies have increased by 534 percent — from $179 million to $1.13 billion.
  • The total cost of regulations have increased 49 percent — from $1.17 trillion to $1.75 trillion.
  • The number of EPA regulations costing $100 million or more increased 40 percent — from 20 to 28.
  • Total federal acreage under lease has decreased by 11 percent — from 47.24 million to 38.46 million.
  • Total revenue from offshore lease sales has decreased by 100 percent (or 258 times lower) — from $9.48 billion to $36.75 million.
  • The approval time from permit to drill on federal lands has increased 45 percent — from 212 days to 307 days.
  • Total approved drilling permits on federal land has decreased 36 percent — from 6,617 to 4,244.
To download a hi-resolution version of the chart, click here.
To access the source material for the chart, click here.
###

 

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