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

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: , , , , ,

In the Pipeline: 10/10/12

October 10, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Well now.  The Obama crew favors a carbon tax.  Governor Romney does not.  Maybe the Romney campaign should make that difference more visible, obvious, and well-known. The Hill(10/8/12) reports: “An Obama campaign representative speculated Friday that the White House would consider a carbon emissions tax if Republicans were interested in negotiating — a political circumstance the surrogate cast as highly unlikely.”

 

And George Shultz favors a carbon tax.  But in all fairness he did serve in the Nixon Administration.  So, he is pretty much a Democrat anyhow (anyone remember wage and price controls?).ABC News (10/9/12) reports: “I think we ought to start by putting sources of energy on a level playing field. So I believe that we should put a revenue neutral tax on those pollutants, mainly carbon. I say revenue neutral to be sure that this is not something that causes a fiscal drag on the economy, it’s not a fundraising scheme, it’s just a method for causing all sources of energy to be on a level playing field.”

 

Chairman Upton (R-America) proves once again that he is the best chairman in this Congress.  By joining Mike Pompeo (R-USMA) in calling for the elimination of all subsidies, he adds formidable capability to this fight. Michigan Live (10/9/12) reports: “Even in the end, more than a year later, the administration was prepared to do another $100 million of reinvestment to try to keep it afloat despite its sorry track record that the taxpayer ended up eating every dime on because the law was violated at the end. We don’t need subsidies like this particularly when taxpayers lose every dime in their pocket. I’m for putting all these on an even footing. Let’s look at the oil and gas subsidies and let’s take them away. Let’s let them compete just like everyone else at the same level.”

 

This surprises us.  Usually the Chinese run the whole corrupt/crony/State-owned business thing better than we do.Renewable Energy World (10/9/12) reports: “New reports of a government-sponsored rescue package being assembled for for fast-sinking Suntech (NYSE: STP) and other major solar firms highlight everything that’s wrong with China’s struggling solar sector, most notably exposing the ridiculous levels of state report it receives. At this point the Chinese seem to no longer care about denying the allegations of unfair government support made by their western peers, and instead are focused on simple survival as the industry remains caught in its worst ever downturn created by a massive supply glut.”

 

Look, Senator, Governor Moonbeam (Jesuit “educated”) alerted everyone to the racket by waiving some regulations.  It is you and your colleagues that create the pain at the pump.  It is you and your colleagues that manipulate the market.  It is you and your colleagues without scruples that victimize Californians. Senator Boxer (10/8/12) reports: “Californians have too often been victimized as unscrupulous traders have created or taken advantage of supply disruptions to drive up energy prices. We cannot allow market manipulation by those who would seek to profit off the pain of our families at the pump.”

 

This is the sort of thing you typically see in the death throes of a movement or idea.  When it becomes clear that goals cannot be met, they are rationalized as movable, and what was once essential and necessary becomes optional and tangential. Climate Central (10/8/12) reports: “According to a new study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, however, this seeming inconsistency is not just unsurprising: it was inevitable. By focusing on the 2°C goal, negotiators inadvertently guaranteed that their efforts would fail, because there’s no hard evidence that any specific temperature target marks a dangerous threshold, with clear consequences for crossing it (instead, there is plenty of evidence that more and faster warming entails greater risks of major consequences, such as the collapse of the polar ice sheets). This uncertainty, the study argues, provides an incentive for countries to be free-loaders, jumping on board with the agreement without making potentially costly emissions reductions.”

 

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , ,

David Kreutzer on EPA and Oil Externalities

October 9, 2012 by Leave a Comment

 

Sometimes in their zeal to exaggerate the “social benefits” of one of its programs, the number-crunchers at government agencies will stoop to absurd arguments that end up coming back to bite them. The Heritage Foundation’s David Kreutzer recently caught a great example of this, concerning the NHTSA’s and EPA’s analysis [pdf] of its new emission standards for light-duty vehicles. As Kreutzer points out, the agencies unwittingly made a great argument for increased domestic oil production.

EPA on Import Externality

Before explaining Kreutzer’s “gotcha,” we have to set up the context. On page 4-33 of its analysis, EPA/NHTSA feature the following table:

TABLE 4-11. Energy Security Premium in Selected Years (2009$/Barrel)

The numbers above show the estimates for the social cost per barrel of imported oil, because of the “energy security premium.” To break down the specific sources:

  • “Monopsony” is the demand-side version of a monopoly. The claim here is that the U.S. is such a large buyer on the world oil market, if it could reduce the amount of oil it imports from abroad, then the world price of oil would fall. This in turn would shower benefits on the U.S., because the remaining imported oil would be cheaper. But if reducing oil imports would benefit the country, the flip side shows that maintaining oil imports carries with it a social cost above the price of the barrel itself. The table above shows that EPA estimates this external cost per barrel will be $11.12 in the year 2020.
  • The “macroeconomic disruption / adjustment costs” refer to the economic dislocations caused by large swings in the world price of oil. To the extent that the U.S. could wean itself from foreign oil, the EPA analysis estimates that the social savings would be $7.10 per barrel in the year 2020.

We should be clear that the “energy security premium” estimated above does not include funding for the military, even though many people claim this is an added “negative externality” of oil imports. The EPA analysis acknowledged this widely held view, but declined to formally include it because of the difficulty in quantifying how much of the military budget should be allocated to the maintenance of oil imports.

Finally, we should note that although the table above adds up the two factors for a total energy security premium, the EPA/NHTSA analysis of the net benefits of the enhanced regulations on light-duty vehicles does not include the monopsony effect, because this is only a benefit to Americans. What they gain from reduced world oil prices, the net exporting countries (Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, etc.) lose by the same amount, meaning it is simply a transfer. (See page 4-37 of the report.)

To not lose sight of the big picture, let us recall the point of all this: The government agencies are trying to explain why tighter fuel economy and emission standards on light-duty vehicles are a good idea. So they are touting, among other alleged benefits, the “energy security premium” flowing from reduced oil imports when the American fleet becomes more fuel efficient.

Kreutzer’s Insight

Now that we know the context, we can quote Kreutzer’s simple yet damning point:

While the EPA does not explicitly say we should subsidize domestic petroleum production, the benefit of cutting imports—which are separate from whatever benefit there may be from cutting consumption altogether—can come from either cutting consumption or increasing domestic production.

The point is undeniable: If EPA is going to credit conservation programs with an “energy security premium” for every barrel of oil the U.S. no longer needs to import, then to be consistent they should do the same for proposals to expand drilling on federal lands. Yet, we don’t recall ever seeing such an “energy security premium” when the government analyzes the impacts of expanded drilling in ANWR or the Outer Continental Shelf.

Kreutzer takes matters further, and calculates what the “social cost of carbon” is, per barrel of oil, according to the government’s own numbers:

The whole purpose of (and legal underpinning for) these most recent CAFE standards is to cut CO2 emissions and the external costs they supposedly impose. Though far from a universally accepted number, according to the EPA, the external cost of CO2 is $22 per metric ton. So how much would this be per barrel of petroleum?

On page 4-45 of the JTSD, the EPA lists its estimate of CO2 released per gallon of gasoline (19.6 pounds) and diesel fuel (22.5 pounds). After adjusting for the greater use of gasoline, we get an average of about 20.4 pounds of CO2 per gallon, or 858 pounds (0.39 metric tons) per barrel.

Therefore, the perceived externality that so motivated the EPA, NHTSA, untold environmental activists, lobbyists, and legislators—and led to the 1,230-page regulation (not counting supporting documents)—works out to $8.58 per barrel (0.39 metric tons of CO2 per barrel times $22 worth of damage per metric ton of CO2).

Thus we have a very interesting juxtaposition. The EPA’s own numbers show that the negative externality from climate change (i.e. the social cost of carbon) is only $8.58 per barrel of oil, while increased domestic production of oil (which reduces imports, other things equal) has positive externalities to the whole world of $7.10 per barrel, and $18.22 if we focus just on Americans. In other words, according to EPA, even if we include the costs of global warming, America is better off by about $10 for every barrel of oil we produce domestically rather than importing. This benefit does not include the economic benefits to Americans that everyone knows about—increased jobs and increased American production, but comes just from EPA’s own estimates of the “positive externality” of an “energy security premium” more than offsetting the “negative externality” of climate change from greenhouse gas emissions.

As Kreutzer points out, the alleged negative externality from carbon emissions has been one of the motivating causes of our time, inspiring countless government regulations and public service campaigns. Yet the apparent “energy security premium” from enhanced domestic production is comparable or much greater, depending on how one frames the group.

Conclusion

In this post, we are not endorsing the calculations of an “energy security premium” nor are we arguing that there is a “positive externality” from domestic oil production, justifying a government subsidy. Rather, we are following Kreutzer in simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the government’s statistics and selective uses of economic theory. If the government thinks it makes sense to restrict car and truck producers and consumers by imposing tighter fuel economy and emission standards in order to reduce oil imports, then surely it makes sense to allow American firms to expand domestic oil production and reduce imports through that mechanism. After all, according to EPA there is an $18 a barrel “energy security premium” for Americans for each additional barrel of oil produced domestically.

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

In the Pipeline: 10/9/12

October 9, 2012 by Leave a Comment

It really is quite simple. More energy = more jobs.

Governor Bob McDonnell

 

Doubling down on the automobile mandate does make sense, if you are in favor of more deaths on the highway, a $3000 increase in the average price of a car, pricing millions out of the new car market, and limiting consumer choice. White House (10/8/12) reports: “On energy, I’m big on oil and gas, and developing clean coal technology, but I also believe that if we’re ever going to have control of our energy future, then we’ve got to invest in solar and wind and biofuels, and that it does make sense for us to double our fuel-efficiency standards on cars.  And that’s not a socialist plot — (laughter) — for us to reduce our energy usage.  It’s the smart thing to do.  It’s right for our national energy.  It’s right for our economy.  It’s right for the environment.”

 

“Temporary” right?  The subsidies have been in place for 20 years.  People have been using wind to generate electricity for more than 100 years.  And if this stuff is really cost competitive, why are we subsidizing it? WSJ (10/8/12) reports: “At a time of intense debate over the federal budget, government subsidies for wind and solar power are more contentious than ever. The question of whether those subsidies are justified has taken on fresh urgency with the looming expiration of a major wind subsidy.”

 

The Keystone XL Pipeline project, for those who may have forgotten, could replace all the crude we import from the Middle East.  At least according to the Department of Energy.  But the President is such a tightly held hostage (by the scarcity gang), that he will never approve it.  The Romney crew should have an event every week on the project. AP (10/8/12) reports: “Mitt Romney’s administration on Day One would approve a pipeline that would run from Canada to U.S. refineries in Texas, creating thousands of jobs and pushing America on its way to energy independence, Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan said Monday.”

 

If regulations provide more benefits than costs, like our friends at EPA are always saying, wouldn’t the appropriate action here be to increase regulatory requirements, rather than waive them?   Hasn’t Jerry Brown (“educated” by Jesuits, of course) just become part of the Big Oil machine (that claims regulations have, you know, costs) by this action? WSJ (10/7/12) reports: “Californians are grumbling about a gas price spike, which state officials blame on disruptions in the supply chain. Actually, they’re paying through the nozzle for their greener-than-thou government.”

 

Shocker. WAToday.com (10/8/12) reports: “ONE hundred days after the government introduced a carbon price, power bill increases are the one visible impact.”

 

Do you remember when the Democrats were the party that tried to help coal country? Bobby Kennedy and Bobby Byrd and those dudes? The American Spectator (10/8/12) reports: “There was a time, half a century ago, when Democrats stood firmly on the side of coal miners and enacted programs to help alleviate the cruel poverty that for so long plagued rural Appalachia. Now, under the control of environmentalists, the Democratic Party is the coal miner’s worst enemy and threatens Appalachia with a new kind poverty, even crueler for being the result of a deliberate policy. Folks in America’s coal towns have not yet lost hope, even as they have been betrayed by the president who famously promised Hope. The end of Obama’s war on coal may now be within sight, and the people of Coal Country could cast the deciding votes to end it.”

 

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

Coal: The Heartbeat of America

October 8, 2012 by Leave a Comment

As the American Products and Power bus tour powered through the end of September, the American Energy Alliance traveled to the heart of coal country in Boone Country, West Virginia. The AEA team was fortunate to meet the men and women who work tirelessly and with great pride to power America with affordable, reliable energy. But this vital energy source and the families whose lives depend on coal are under attack by the federal government.

The coal industry is no stranger to job-killing regulations. In 1999, the mine in Sharples, WV was shut down by a federal judge over an insect. Diane Kish, a lifelong resident whose husband and son worked in the mine at the time, shared heart-wrenching stories with the AEA team about the impact of the mine closure on the community: “We couldn’t believe it happened… we did not believe that one person, a federal judge, could change your future, and have the right to do it, over an insect.”  Diane remains optimistic, but it’s not easy. “I saw families destroyed; they lost everything.”

What’s more troublesome is the fact that the miners, working in their own back yard, have done more to benefit the environment than the “environmentalists” who protest the development of this vital resource. The coal companies “always leave the area a lot better than it was before they started,” noted Dempsey Stowers, a member of the Spruce Fork Community Advisory Panel. Airports, schools, lakes, hospitals and business developments breathe life into the local economy after a surface mining operation is complete. The AEA team visited these economic developments, in addition to reclaimed forests and mountains where the locals hunt, fish, and hike on land that was previously mined for coal.

The outlook for coal all across the country is bleak. Fulfilling his promise from 2008, President Obama and the EPA have enacted policies to bankrupt the coal industry and make electricity rates “skyrocket.” Joshua Nelson, a coal miner running for the House of Delegates in West Virginia, met with the AEA team and noted, “America is the only country in the world where our resources are treated like liabilities, not assets.” Joshua, who has to work through a maze of regulations on a daily basis, went on to point out, “If you think I don’t want to go home to my son and wife everyday, you’re a fool. But what good does it do us to pass safety regulations if there’s not a single person inside the coal mine working?” Josh went on to say, “When they do stuff in the name of ‘safety’, to push an agenda, that’s wrong.”

Roger Horton, President of Citizens for Coal and a coal miner, painted a frightening picture of the regulations that have landed on the coal industry since the Obama administration took office. Horton said that what used to be a manageable stack of paper, regulatory and permitting materials today stand “six feet tall.” He went on to explain that wading through all the EPA, State, and federal regulations takes “three years to get a permit, if you get it.” Not to mention you have to “spend some $750,000 before you can turn the first shovel load of dirt. And that’s just unacceptable, absolutely unacceptable.”

Ten percent of America’s coal-fired electric generating capacity will be taken offline as power plants struggle to comply with the EPA regulations that are stacking up against coal. That means more jobs destroyed in communities all over the country. That means small businesses and families will start to see their monthly electric bills “skyrocket.” And that means that now more than ever, we need to fight.

As regulators and bureaucrats continue to wage the war on affordable energy, the American Energy Alliance will continue to hit back. To date, we have traveled over 15,000 miles and had 12,000 activists sign the petition in support of more sensible energy policies that view coal as an asset, not a liability. As we meet these concerned citizens in states as far and wide as New Mexico to Virginia, the American Products and Power bus tour has brought hope to individuals and families whose voices are no longer heard in Washington, D.C.

While the name on the bus is American Products. American Power., the tour and the American Energy Alliance are fighting for the American people. Coal is the heartbeat of the American economy, and Americans depend on coal jobs. We cannot afford to let the EPA win the war on coal.

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

In the Pipeline: 10/8/12

October 8, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Why we fight. WCYB (10/5/12) reports: “Mitt Romney’s campaign stopped in Abingdon on October 5, 2012.”

 

Coal Jobs in Abingdon

 

All of the above means nothing from below. Human Events (10/5/12) reports: “The Obama administration’s plan to lock up nearly half of the National Petroleum Reserve from energy production has drawn criticism from key Alaska officials and Iñupiat Eskimos who say the plan is unacceptable and should be canceled… The 23 million acre reserve on Alaska’s north slope was set aside by Congress 90 years ago to preserve the domestic supply of oil and gas, and critics say the proposal shelves the most prosperous lands.”

 

Next up:  informing on parents and neighbors! CNS News (10/5/12) reports: “On the website page is a link to a 26-page EPA report entitled, “Sensible Steps to Healthier School Environment.” In the report’s chapter on Energy Efficiency, the EPA presents a box with items to help establish “Energy Efficiency Opportunities for Schools.” One of the items in the box reads, “Educate students and staff about how their behaviors affect energy use. Some schools have created student energy patrols to monitor and inform others when energy is wasted.””

 

First, the panels were bursting into flames.  Now, the finances are bursting into flames. Heritage (10/6/12) reports: “The DCNF’s sources also show agreement with the extraordinarily high number of replacement panels–nearly 160,000–due to underperformance issues. Faulty manufacturing, DCNF said, was apparently prompted, at least in part, by the necessity to meet loan guarantee production benchmarks issued by DOE… The company’s financial statements, under investigation in Colorado, will form a major part of the Congressional inquiry launched by Gardner.”

 

What can we possibly say?  Except that the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning, but without understanding.  At least that’s what my friend Lou used to say. BBC (10/4/12) reports: “Electric cars might pollute much more than petrol or diesel-powered cars, according to new research… The Norwegian University of Science and Technology study found greenhouse gas emissions rose dramatically if coal was used to produce the electricity.”

 

Whatever you think about LNG exports, you have to dig the $65 billion in investments. WSJ (10/4/12) reports: “Energy companies are racing to export natural gas from the U.S. as they search for more-profitable markets amid a continent-wide gas glut that has depressed prices to the lowest levels in a decade.”

 

This is the kind of person who should be running EPA.  Or pretty much anyplace that requires judgment and common sense. Texas Public Policy (9/12/12) reports: “Among the most out-of-touch promotions for a carbon tax is former Congressman J. Inglis’ Energy and Enterprise Initiative. Touted as the conservative, free-enterprise solution, the Inglis carbon tax intends to make fossil fuel derived energy bear the full cost of its “negative externalities” construed as health impacts, global warming and “dangerous dependence on a scarce resource.” Inglis has overlooked some glaring facts in air quality improvement, discredited climate science and newly accessed abundance of domestic oil and gas.”

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , , ,

In the Pipeline: 10/5/12

October 5, 2012 by Leave a Comment

This fight is far from over. And if you haven’t signed your name on the bus, it’s pretty much the cool thing to do these days. 

Energy Bus Tour

 

As the Greeks sing during Mass:  Wisdom!  Let us be attentive! Reuters(10/4/12) reports: “Mitt Romney’s support of the coal industry during his debate with President Obama sent coal company stocks higher on Thursday, analysts said… “It’s amazing what 15 words about coal in a presidential debate can do for the stocks,” said Michael Dudas of Sterne Agee.”

 

The wind PTC was just another false bill of “hope”, sold to the American people with no warranty or refunds attached. IER (10/5/12) reports: “The American Wind Energy Association would like us to believe that the PTC is the only factor affecting wind markets today and that it is needed to save jobs that are very costly to the taxpayer. However, a closer look at the industry finds that the wind manufacturing sector is over supplied, that many utility companies have exceeded their RPS targets for the next few years, and that wind is facing a great deal of competition from inexpensive natural gas generation.   Due to the over-supply in turbines, manufacturers are already laying off workers irrespective of the PTC’s future.”

 

Tell you what, you get rid of government purchases of ridiculously expensive “cars”, ethanol mandates, electricity mandates, production and investment tax credits, for wind and solar, and automobile mandates, then come back and visit us about the 4 billion dollars oil and gas companies get back from the 47 billion in taxes they pay every year. National Legal and Policy Center (10/2/12) reports: “Even if a consumer needs an electrical converter, the 240V dedicated charging stations cost, at most, around $2,000 (and guess what? consumers get tax credits for these, too). What did the embassy spend the extra $100K on? And this is where it actually starts to get ridiculous. The State Department also recently threw a big party (photos of two Chevy Volts at the event here) to celebrate the “greening” of the American Embassy in Vienna. There’s actually a “League of Green Embassies” website.”

 

I vaguely remember something about good for the goose, good for the gander.  But maybe not. The Hill (10/4/12) reports: “Oil and natural gas producers said they’re keeping an open mind Thursday after Mitt Romney opened the door to repealing billions of dollars in industry tax breaks as part of a wider overhaul that would lower corporate rates… But the industry hardly rushed to support the idea.”

 

Really, no “golden age”?  This guy’s living in the Stone Age. TomDispatch.com (10/4/12) reports: “While output from unconventional oil operations in the U.S. and Canada is likely to show some growth in the years ahead, there is no ‘golden age’ on the horizon, only various kinds of potentially disastrous scenarios. Those like Mitt Romney who claim that the United States can achieve energy ‘independence’ by 2020 or any other near-term date are only fooling themselves, and perhaps some elements of the American public.”

 

You probably want to click the link on “the tax code” in the New York Times answer to a reader (at 10:28pm).  It links to the White House press release on, among other things, tax credits related to clean energy manufacturing.  If we were more cynical, we would suspect this is pretty much prima facie evidence of coordination between the media and the Obama campaign. NYTimes (10/3/12) reports: “It is true. The tax code currently does allow companies to deduct certain expenses when they move operations overseas. As part of its plan to aid the manufacturing sector and promote job growth, the Obama administration has proposed ending this deduction, and giving tax credits to companies moving jobs back to the United States.”

 

Again, we leave it to you to make judgments about those not on this list, but here are the brave warriors who are publically 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

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

In the Pipeline: 10/4/12

October 4, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Whoever came up with this idea has a sick, sick sense of humor.  The President by his own account wants electricity prices to skyrocket, has hired people who have predicted and encouraged gasoline prices to go up to 9 dollars a gallon, has led a war on the most affordable and reliable source of domestic energy, favors offshore development of oil and gas in Cuba, Venezuela, and Brazil but not the United States, and is just generally hostile to any form of energy that actually works. White House (10/1/12) reports: “NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim October 2012 as National Energy Action Month. I call upon the citizens of the United States to recognize this month by working together to achieve greater energy security, a more robust economy, and a healthier environment for our children.”

 

A timeout? The game has been completely stopped since 2008. When are we going to resume play? The Hill (10/2/12) reports: “The Interior Department’s offshore drilling safety chief said more review is needed to gauge whether industry technology is keeping pace as companies push into increasingly risky climates, suggesting a “time-out” could be needed in the future.”

 

So the bad guys finally get a chance to vote on pricing carbon, and what happens?  They flinch.  If I were advocating for a carbon tax, the vote in the Senate would make me nervous. National Journal (10/2/12) reports: “Amid election-year gridlock, both chambers of Congress have overwhelmingly passed measures exempting U.S. airlines from a European Union plan to assess fees for carbon emissions from airlines flying into or out of E.U. airports. The fees are part of Europe’s broad cap-and-trade program for addressing climate change… President Obama is expected to sign the legislation once differences between the House and Senate bills are worked out, but that won’t be until after the election, saving Obama from having to defy an E.U. effort to combat global warming after he himself pledged action on climate change in his first presidential campaign in 2008.”

 

Who wants to take the under on 17,000 electric vehicles being sold in 2013?  For that matter, who wants to take the over on the President’s promise of 1 million electric vehicles by 2016? Technology Review (10/2/12) reports: “In August 2009, President Obama announced a $2.4 billion grant program designed to create an electric vehicle battery industry in the United States. Three years on, the factories funded by those grants are sitting idle or operating well below their originally intended capacity.”

 

Keep in mind, the President thinks Spain is the way to go when it comes to unreliable, expensive (“renewable”) energy. Bloomberg (10/1/12) reports: “After Spain’s rescue of its banks and cash-strapped regions, the 2013 budget reveals a bailout of the power industry to cover 25 billion euros ($32 billion) of debt accumulated by the electricity system.”

Filed Under: Blog
Previous
Next