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

AEA calls for RFS Enforcement Cease Fire

August 1, 2012 by 1 Comment

WASHINGTON D.C. — American Energy Alliance President Thomas Pyle released the following statement upon annoucements that Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack had declared more than half of U.S. counties as disaster areas due to the record drought affecting U.S. farmers. A dramatically reduced corn crop has caused prices to rise by about 60 percent since mid-June, and other grain prices are steadily increasing. To meet current renewable fuel standards, American refiners will have to blend 13.2 billion gallons of corn ethanol with gasoline this year, an amount that will consume 40 percent of this year’s reduced crop unless EPA grants an immediate waiver.

“In addition to hurting America’s farmers, this year’s record drought has exposed another great flaw with EPA’s renewable fuel standards. Not only do EPA regulations force American consumers to purchase more expensive fuel that generates lower mileage per gallon, these regulations now threaten to consume 40 percent of our nation’s corn crop at a time when the USDA has designated more than half of U.S. counties as ‘disaster areas’ because of the drought,” Pyle said.

“EPA Administrator Jackson should announce an immediate cease-fire in the administration’s war on affordable energy and suspend the agency’s enforcement of ethanol mandates. Food costs — like fuel costs — are already a heavy burden to American families. Continued EPA enforcement of renewable fuel standards will only add to that burden. To provide greater certainty for American farmers and food producers, Congress should take steps to eliminate the ethanol mandate permanently, so that Americans do not find themselves in a similar crisis during the next dry spell.”

###

Filed Under: News, Products and Power, Renewable Fuel Standard, Threats Tagged With: , , , , ,

AEA: USPS TROUBLES TIED TO FAILED ENERGY POLICIES

July 31, 2012 by Leave a Comment
WASHINGTON, D.C. — American Energy Alliance President Thomas Pyle released a statement today in advance of a default by the United States Postal Service, which is expected to skip more than $11 billion in mandatory contributions for employee retirement benefits between now and Sept. 30 to remain solvent. There are competing measures in the U.S. House and Senate to address the postal service’s long term fiscal crisis. A May 2011 GAO report revealed that USPS compliance with congressionally authorized energy policies substantially increase postal operating costs. Congress has mandated that 75 percent of new light duty vehicle acquisitions run on alternative fuels like biodiesel and ethanol. Moreover, replacement costs for these expensive alternative fuel vehicles complicate USPS’s long term sustainability. 

“If Congress wishes to address long term problems at USPS, it will require long term solutions. The alternative fuel mandates on USPS are another example of bad energy policy crippling efficient government services and opening the door to more taxpayer bailouts,” Pyle said.

“Immediately granting USPS the freedom to continue its constitutionally-authorized responsibility to deliver the mail with an affordable fleet of vehicles that use affordable fuels is a no brainer. A five day delivery — which USPS has considered but Congress resists — is another viable cost-cutting measure that would reduce fuel demand. On the other hand, proposals to meet USPS fleet fuel demands with offshore wind farms like Sen. Carper (D-Del.) recently suggested on the Senate floor are laughable, and green roof reforms at the postal service do nothing to affect the bottom line. USPS knows that it cannot deliver the mail if it is forced to plug into wind mills or burn algae and other biofuels in its fleet. To save USPS, Congress should reverse course and replace failed energy policies with commonsense solutions based on free market principles.”

###

Filed Under: Press Releases

Energy: All for All of the Above

July 31, 2012 by Leave a Comment

While the campaign was launched as prices at the pump were  creeping upward to the highest levels in years, AEA spokesman Benjamin Cole said the group’s theme of energy affordability continues to resonate with voters, even as oil prices have stabilized in the subsequent months. “The fact is, gas is twice what it was in 2009 when President Obama took office,” he said. “The fact is, the sources he’s invested in are the most expensive.”

As a nonprofit issue advocacy group, the AEA is not supposed to  support individual candidates or political parties but exists to spread a message that Cole summarizes as “energy makes your life better, and the cheaper energy is the better.” The spokesman said his group has no interest in taking out-front sides in the partisan fray because “Republicans have stupid ideas on energy, and Democrats have stupid ideas on energy.”

Nonetheless, in the coming days, the AEA will launch a five-week bus tour through 18 states, including some battlegrounds that could well decide who controls Congress and the White House after November. There will be stops in New Mexico, Montana, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida…The tour, intended to highlight the economic importance of refined petroleum products, will roughly trace the route of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. The 1,700-mile project, which would carry petroleum produced from the abundant oil sands of Alberta, Canada, to Gulf Coast refineries, has been a headache for Democrats since major environmental groups last year decided to make it a litmus test for their support of Obama’s re-election bid.

Click here to read the whole article

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

AEA Hits GOP Reps for Farm Bill Boondoggle

July 29, 2012 by Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON D.C. — The American Energy Alliance begins airing this week three radio advertisements exposing the taxpayer-funded giveaways and wasteful energy subsidies included in the House Farm Bill, sponsored by Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-Okla.). The ads, which cost $80K to run in South Dakota, Iowa, and Oklahoma, encourage listeners to contact Reps Kristi Noem, Steve King, and Frank Lucas and “tell them that the Farm Bill should help farmers and consumers and not their corporate cronies.”

“The American Energy Alliance is committed to America’s farmers, who rely on affordable energy to produce the food that feeds the world. But the Farm Bill has a long history of supporting expensive taxpayer giveaways that have nothing to do with a stable food supply or commonsense energy policies,” AEA President Thomas Pyle noted.

“Through the years, Republicans and Democrats alike have used this behemoth legislative vehicle to funnel billions of taxpayer dollars into expensive green energy ventures. If Washington politicians were serious about helping farmers, they would enact policies that promote development of affordable energy sources like oil and natural gas that are used to fuel equipment and produce fertilizer. Instead, we get more cronyism and big green boondoggles disguised as as a farm bill.”

To listen to the radio ad that South Dakotans will hear, click here.
To listen to the radio ad that Oklahomans will hear, click here.
To listen to the radio ad that Iowans will hear, click here.

To read AEA’s fact sheet on the radio ads, click here.

###

Filed Under: News

The “Fatal Conceit” of Federal Hydraulic Fracturing Regs

July 29, 2012 by 2 Comments

 

There is a push to implement federal regulations on hydraulic fracturing or “fracking.” There are plenty of problems with the specific regulations that proponents have in mind. However, we can also step back and realize that the very premise of federal regulations on hydraulic fracturing ignore the lessons in humility that Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek tried to teach.

Whatever one thinks of the pros and cons of hydraulic fracturing, clearly the alleged dangers are local issues. In other words, even if we accept for the sake of argument that hydraulic fracturing cannot be economically justified because its total costs (all things considered) outweigh its total benefits, notice that these costs would be borne by the people living near the hydraulic fracturing. People in Hawaii have absolutely nothing on the line when it comes to the issue of hydraulic fracturing in (say) Pennsylvania. In fact, the people in Hawaii only stand to benefit from hydraulic fracturing, because the only way it can impact them is by providing lower energy prices.

Thus we see that hydraulic fracturing, by its very nature, confers benefits on the whole world (in the form of greater supplies of oil and natural gas) while any potential harms are concentrated primarily in the communities where the hydraulic fracturing actually occurs. Thus any federal regulations that hindered hydraulic fracturing would be nonsensical, and would amount to pure paternalism. It would effectively mean the representatives of the American people in general, were telling the people in Pennsylvania (say) that they are too stupid to make decisions about hydraulic fracturing that could harm only them, and therefore the rest of us will have to take that responsibility away from them.

Notice that the situation with hydraulic fracturing is very different from the claims made about greenhouse gas emissions. Here, if the warnings are accurate, we have a situation where businesses acting in their narrow self-interest would potentially impose great harm on other people, and so there is at least a theoretical case to be made for federal intervention. (In practice, there are problems with the proposals for a carbon tax and other related policies, but the point is that it’s at least plausible that someone might recommend federal measures to counteract a problem that affects everybody.

Ironically, because the benefits of hydraulic fracturing accrue to the whole world, while its potential problems would only affect the communities where the hydraulic fracturing actually takes place, the only federal regulations that would make sense on economic grounds would be to prohibit state or local governments from interfering with hydraulic fracturing. Yet this is hardly what the proponents of such regulations have in mind.

Economist Friedrich Hayek in his book The Fatal Conceit warned of the hubris of policymakers to believe they could levy one-size-fits-all regulations applying to large swathes of people, rather than allowing smaller communities to make on-the-ground decisions. Ignoring the lessons of history and economics, Hayek worried that these budding central planners would overturn customs and business practices that had evolved in response to local conditions.

Those who want to lay down blanket federal regulations on hydraulic fracturing should heed Hayek’s observation that “[t]he curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”

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

Three Cheers for America!

July 27, 2012 by 2 Comments

 

Representative Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania received a standing ovation and enthusiastic chants of “USA!” on the House floor this week for his passionate attack on regulatory red tape.  Rep. Kelly passionately argued that excessive, unnecessary regulations must be removed in order to get Americans back to work.

Energy is no exception when it comes to costly, burdensome regulations. In fact, American energy production and manufacturing are directly under attack from Federal agencies like the EPA and Department of Interior.   If we want our country to “thrive and not just survive,” then freely-functioning energy markets and domestic energy production are the most effective solutions.  Let’s take Rep. Kelly’s advice and create “red, white, and blue jobs.”

To view Rep. Kelly’s speech, click below.

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

350.org Declares War on Energy and Prosperity

July 27, 2012 by Leave a Comment

The following email was sent to “350.0rg” subscribers and is a follow up to an article written in Rolling Stone Magazine that can be found here. 

Dear Friends,

I confess to being somewhat blown away by the reaction to the piece I wrote for Rolling Stone last week. Despite the fact that it was 6,000 words long and pretty technical, it has been shared almost 100,000 times —which is more than 10x as many as the interview they did with President Obama the month before. Clearly the piece struck a nerve—probably because its timing coincided with the heat and drought and fire that have so unnerved the nation this summer.

I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to read all 6,000 or so of those words, and for sharing it with your friends and family. I was told by the folks at Rolling Stone that it’s been viewed 450,000 times, which is just remarkable. (If you haven’t had a chance to read it yet, here’s the place to go: act.350.org/signup/reckoning)

Monday night we had a big video chat with folks who wanted more details and I’ve been poring over the helpful comments that arrived by the kilobyte to [email protected].

With the crazy weather putting climate change at the top of more people’s agenda, it is clear that we’re at one of those breakthrough moments that movements occasionally get, and we don’t want to waste it. If you’ve read the piece, you know that it makes clear that the fossil fuel industry already has 5 times more coal and gas and oil on hand than even our most timid governments think would be safe to burn—left to their own devices, they’ll usher us right past the brink.

So—even as we continue to fight pipelines and coalmines and oil wells, we need to take on that industry as a whole. We need to change the rules. Until the election we’re going to do that by pushing folks running for office to take a stand against fossil fuel subsidies. But we also have to start preparing for what happens after Nov. 6th.

I’ve been working on something I wanted to let you know a bit about, and hopefully have your help in seeing through.

Starting the day after the election, I’d like to go after the fossil fuel industry even more directly, trying—as the Rolling Stone piece suggests—to spark a movement like the ones that overturned the great immoral institutions of the past century, such as Apartheid in South Africa. On November 7th, 350.org board member Naomi Klein and I are planning to launch a road show that will cover 20 cities in just over 20 nights (we’re going to break for Thanksgiving) to bring the message I laid out in Rolling Stone to thousands of people across America.

We’ll have a revolving cast of musicians and great speakers, to make it an inspirational and exciting event. We’re in the process of confirming venues now – but we’re going to need your help to promote these events in your community, and help turn these ideas into a powerful campaign. If you can help us book a large venue, know of great musicians that might want to participate, or can lend a hand with the creative work that this will surely require, click here to let us know how you’d like to help out: act.350.org/survey/tour-help/.

Look, the Rolling Stone piece was pretty grim. But the response to it shows that people understood that our backs are to the wall and that means it’s time to fight. I don’t know if we can win; but I’m certain that without each of you we’ve got no chance. So thanks in advance for jumping in.

Bill McKibben for 350.org

Filed Under: Can't Make This Up Tagged With: , , ,

In the Pipeline: 7/26/12

July 26, 2012 by Leave a Comment

President Obama built this.  We did not. IER (7/24/12) reports: “In addition to Solyndra, Beacon Power, and a host of other “Stimulosers,” we can now add solar panel manufacturer Amonix to the list of federally-backed alternative energy companies jeopardizing taxpayer funds. The latest embarrassment is especially relevant in light of this week’s planned vote on the “No More Solyndras Act” [.pdf], which would discontinue new loan guarantees and would limit the DOE’s discretion in approving pending applications.”

No doubt Josh Fox, the Russians, the Qataris, and others opposed to production from the shale formations will have something contrary to say.  But the evidence continues to mount:  production is good for economic growth and is being safely regulated by the States. AP (7/25/12) reports: “The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said Wednesday that it has completed tests on drinking water in the northeastern Pennsylvania village of Dimock and has determined it is safe to drink, despite the claims of some residents who say it has been polluted by gas drilling.”

Brookings has decided that AEI shouldn’t be the only think tank advocating an energy tax.  Let me spare you the read.  Economic growth goes down. Government revenue goes up.  The use of energy goes down.  Wages go down. What a shocker. Brookings (7/24/12) reports: “We find that the carbon tax will raise considerable revenue: $80 billion at the outset, rising to $170 billion in 2030 and $310 billion by 2050. It also significantly reduces U.S. CO2 emissions by an amount that is largely independent of the use of the revenue. By 2050, annual CO2 emissions fall by 2.5 billion metric tons (BMT), or 34 percent, relative to baseline, and cumulative emissions fall by 40 BMT through 2050.”

Andy Revkin puts the wood to NASA and those who intentionally twisted the press release on Greenland. NYTimes (7/25/12) reports: “Unprecedented means “never done or known before.” Yet the news release beneath the headline directly undercuts that description of this melting event, saying that it is rare — the last wide surface melt was in 1889, recorded in separate ice cores at the Greenland ice-sheet summit and in the northwestern part of the vast frozen expanse — and has happened roughly every 150 years over a long stretch of centuries, as recorded deeper in the ice.”

Inexplicably, neither Dan Kish nor Tom Pyle is on this list. The Hill (7/25/12) reports: “Forget the Loaded Potato Skins. Max Engling was surely the best thing to come out of an Indianapolis TGI Friday’s, where he was waiting tables when a diner with ties to the modeling industry discovered him.”

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

“No More Solyndras Act”

July 25, 2012 by 4 Comments

Representative Cliff Stearns recently introduced the “No More Solyndras Act,” which would exercise more oversight of the $16 billion federal program that loaned $528 million dollars to the now-bankrupt solar manufacturer Solyndra and subsidized other clean energy companies that have had subsequent financial troubles.  An up-to-date list of these companies can be viewed on IER’s Stimulosers report here.

The “No More Solyndras” bill would prohibit any new loan guarantees from being issued under the Department of Energy’s Section 1705 program, and would require more oversight of pending and existing loans that the agency has already made commitments for.  Specifically, the act would give the Secretary of the Treasury oversight of decisions regarding current loan guarantees, and requires the Secretary of Energy to explain his or her reasoning is that decision is not followed.  These decisions must be reported back to Congress, placing responsibility back on the lawmakers that authorized the program to ensure it is properly administered.

The “No More Solyndras” legislation would also make a crucial change to existing loan guarantee terms that would stipulate that taxpayers are the senior debt holders, even if the loan is restructured.  That means that the taxpayers are paid back first if a company goes bankrupt, rather than being last in line in the case of Solyndra.

While millions of dollars in government subsidies can keep any business afloat for a time, the fact that so many of the companies that received government assistance have failed within a few years’ time is a testament to the folly of attempting to pick winners and losers in the marketplace.   The Section 1705 program has demonstrated that government bureaucrats lack neither the knowledge nor the expertise to make decisions on what technologies will best fulfill consumers’ energy needs—rather, superior, cost-effective products typically arise from the competition that subsidies insulate companies against.

Moreover, allowing government employees to make decisions about how to disburse billions of taxpayer dollars—the loss of which is of no risk to them—provides incentives for abuse when oversight is lax.  Such has been the case with politically connected firms receiving funds.  Solar company BrightSource energy is a prime example of how the loan guarantee process can become entangled with political considerations: released emails showed that the chairman of the company, which received $1.6 billion for a solar installation in California, had corresponded with officials in charge of the program right before the loan guarantee came through.  The chairman, John Bryson, was also subsequently chosen by President Obama to be the Secretary of Commerce. Another individual involved with BrightSource was also “installed at the Department of Energy advising on energy grants.” The revolving door of loan guarantee recipients and decision makers in Washington is troubling, and additional scrutiny would mitigate opportunities for improper influence to play a role in the administration of public monies.

The “No More Solyndras Act” is an attempt to restore fiscal discipline to Washington, and its passage would help bring transparency to a process that has subordinated the taxpayer’s interests to that of politically connected companies.  Whether it becomes law remains to be seen, but it should nonetheless be regarded as a bellwether for determining if Congress is truly serious about cutting wasteful spending.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , , ,

In the Pipeline: 7/25/12

July 25, 2012 by Leave a Comment

You have to hope that at some point, Governor Romney will start talking about this. WSJ (7/24/12) reports: “President Obama may not want to exploit the energy buried in Canada’s Alberta oil sands, but China sure does. Think of Monday’s $15.1 billion offer by China’s state-owned Cnooc to buy Canadian energy giant Nexen as a post-Keystone XL Pipeline bid to replace the U.S. as Canada’s biggest energy investor and market.”

This is what regressivity looks like outside of an economics classroom. Herald Sun (7/24/12) reports: “This would scare them to death really. “Electricity is such a basic need. When prices threaten things like proper heating, especially on cold nights when you’re sick, it can make life miserable.”

Again, please make sure to think of this next time you are tempted to argue that Republicans are uniformly better than Democrats on energy issues. Triple Crisis (7/23/12) reports: “Even though Congress was sold the RFS on the promise of energy independence, those “other biofuels” do not have to be produced in the United States. (In fact, mandating U.S. sourcing could have been subject to a WTO challenge.) Brazil’s sugarcane-based ethanol is considered advanced, with a GHG-reduction score of 50% despite widespread concerns about a range of other social and environmental impacts.”

I would like to meet the person who thinks (or thought) that this Administration was ever going to let Shell drill in the Beaufort or Chukchi.  And I would like to play poker with them. National Journal(7/23/12) reports: “A series of mishaps and bad breaks appear to be making a dent in Shell’s goal of starting five exploratory wells by mid-July—two in the Beaufort Sea and three in the Chukchi Sea on Alaska’s northern coast. Now, assuming the Interior Department approves final permits in the next few weeks, the earliest Shell can begin drilling is mid-August.”

The internet?  Nope.  Hydraulic fracturing?  Not so much.  Millions of businesses?  No. WSJ (7/22/12) reports: “A telling moment in the presidential race came recently when Barack Obama said: “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” He justified elevating bureaucrats over entrepreneurs by referring to bridges and roads, adding: “The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all companies could make money off the Internet.””

This is an email that went out from Arthur Brooks yesterday.  He runs AEI, which, as you may be aware, is currently working with a fairly questionable group (including Mr. Carol Browner) on ways to impose a new energy tax on unsuspecting American citizens.  Those guys should probably make up their mind – more production or more taxes; it will be difficult to have both. Locker Room (7/24/12) reports: “We stand to gain a great deal more from America’s shale revolution than simply jobs. Cheap and abundant energy is the lifeblood of any prosperous society. Energy use is so routine we often don’t think of all the ways we depend on it. When energy prices rise, it’s the poor who suffer the most as the cost of powering their homes, buying food and filling their gas tanks increases.”

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , , ,
Previous
Next