Does Congressman Carney Support Higher Electricity Rates?


Pennsylvania electricity rates to sky rocket under plan pending before Congress

 

Washington, DC – With only days remaining until the U.S. House of Representatives casts an historic up-or-down vote on one of the largest tax hikes in the history of Congress, Congressman Chris Carney (D-Pa.) has yet to state publicly where he stands on this measure – even as recent estimates suggest Pennsylvania families could be among the hardest hit by it.

Under this proposal, the federal government would mandate the increased use of expensive, unreliable forms of power, which currently represent a mere 2.8 percent of the nation’s overall electricity usage. In total, less efficient renewable electricity accounts for 0.9 percent of Pennsylvania’s power, which would have to increase by 1,624 percent by 2020 to reach this 15 percent mandate.


[Read more…]

Let’s Make a Deal: EPW Chair Acknowledges Principles Tossed Aside Early in Waxman Consideration

Let’s Make a Deal: EPW Chair Acknowledges Principles Tossed Aside Early in Waxman Consideration, All About the Money From Then After

“There’s so much revenue that comes in from a cap-and-trade system that you can really go to a person in a congressional district and get enough votes there by saying, ‘What do you need? What do you want? You can really help them.” U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., June 6, 2009

Washington, DC – Following the release of the June 6, 2009 cover story in National Journal Magazine detailing the ongoing cap-and-trade negotiations in the Senate, American Energy Alliance(AEA) president Thomas J. Pyle issued the following statement in response to Sen. Boxer’s claim that “revenue” from “a cap-and-trade system” was used to “get enough votes” to report Chairman Waxman’s plan out of committee:

“While American families and small businesses continue to confront one of the most difficult economic periods of our time, and nearly 10 percent of the American workforce remains out of a job, Sen. Boxer’s confirmation of Chairman Waxman’s strategy for getting his bill out of committee underscores the extent to which patronage, and not principle, has guided this entire process from the start.

“Suggesting that members of Congress were coaxed into voting for a job-killing energy tax in return for political carve-outs is a new low point, made all the more disappointing if it’s true. The American people deserve commonsense, supply-oriented solutions to the energy and economic challenges they face — not backroom deals, massive new taxes and one-size-fits-all mandates.”

The American Energy Alliance (AEA) is a not-for-profit organization that engages in public policy advocacy and debate surrounding the function, operation, and government regulation of global energy markets. AEA, an affiliate of the Institute for Energy Research, works to educate and mobilize citizens around the idea that freely-functioning energy markets provide the most efficient and effective solutions to today’s global energy and environmental challenges.

#####

Clear Majority of Coastal North Easterners Support Environmentally Sound Energy Exploration

Clear Majority of Coastal North Easterners Support Environmentally Sound Energy Exploration and Production

While Americans Continue to Call for More American Energy, Out-of-the Mainstream Washington Politicians Say ‘No We Can’t’

Washington, DC – Following the release of a Monmouth University poll that found a clear majority of support for offshore domestic energy exploration and production from coastal residents in New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, Thomas J. Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance (AEA), issued this statement:

“While our economy continues to struggle and working-class families and small business owners are being forced to tighten their budgets, out-of-step Washington politicians are working to make American energy less accessible and affordable. In any economy, good or bad, actively working to make energy more expensive is a job killer.

“This poll is just another reminder that the American people understand far better than Washington politicians that more domestic energy will help create well-paying jobs and bring down the cost of energy.”

According to the Associated Press, “the telephone poll questioned 1,006 coastal residents of New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia from April 21-28. It has a sampling error margin of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.”

NOTE: Click HERE to view the results of this poll online. Key finding: “On the question of drilling for oil or gas, 46% of coastal residents now support this – up from 33% in 2007 – compared to 37% who are opposed… .

According to a economic analysis released earlier this year, offshore energy exploration and production would generate:

  • $8 trillion in additional economic output (GDP);
  • $2.2 trillion in total tax receipts;
  • 1.2 million new, well-paying jobs annually across the country; and
  • $70 billion in additional wages each year.

The American Energy Alliance (AEA) is a not-for-profit organization that engages in public policy advocacy and debate surrounding the function, operation, and government regulation of global energy markets. AEA, an affiliate of the Institute for Energy Research, works to educate and mobilize citizens around the idea that freely-functioning energy markets provide the most efficient and effective solutions to today’s global energy and environmental challenges.

#####

That’s a Wrap: Way Over Budget and Getting Horrible Reviews, Waxman Finally Clears the Set…

Washington, DC – While the American people continue to list climate change among the issues they care about the least, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Hollywood), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, reported legislation out of his committee today that elevates that issue above all others, even as our economy founders and the benefits of cap-and-trade become less defensible by the day.

Thomas J. Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance (AEA), issued the following statement:

[Read more…]

Pulp Fiction: On Page 781 of Waxman Cap-and-Tax Bill, a Response Guide for Mass Unemployment

Beneficiaries to receive 3 years of salary, health insurance, job training, and relocation package as a result of this job-killing measure

Washington, DC – With 946 pages of legislative text, it comes as no surprise that as the days pass by, interesting new provisions buried deep in the Waxman-Markey cap-and-tax bill are revealed. Today we expose section 426.

“While the authors of this bill continue to insist that cap-and-tax will be a clear economic winner, several provisions buried deep in the text confirm their true belief that it will massively stimulate the unemployment rolls,” said Thomas J. Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance.

[Read more…]

BURIED: Scarcely Reported Poll finds that 78% of Americans Oppose Legislation…

BURIED: Scarcely Reported Poll finds that 78% of Americans Oppose Legislation that will Increase Electric Bills

Washington, DC – Nearly six out of 10 Americans would oppose Chairman Henry Waxman’s cap-and-tax scheme if it resulted in their electricity bills going up a single penny, a recent poll found. And nearly eight out of 10 respondents would consider a $50 per month increase in utility bills a “hardship,” even if that figure only represents a fraction of the cost burden that cap-and-tax is expected to inflict on working Americans.

[Read more…]

When Will Congress Come Clean on Cap and Tax?

Only 24 percent of Americans understand cap and tax; Waxman needs to slow down and explain it to the American people

Washington, DC – Recent polling conducted by Rasmussen Reportsand released today found that an overwhelming majority of Americans notonly don’t support cap-and-trade – they don’t even know what it is,even when given three options from which to choose.

Interestingly,the polling data comes out at a time when Energy and Commerce ChairmanHenry Waxman (D-Calif.) is moving at breakneck speed to pass acap-and-tax plan out of his committee, announcing today that he expectsthe markup to begin on Thursday.

[Read more…]

Who Wins, Who Loses? Everything Up for Grabs as Waxman Scours for Votes

New debate centers on who should get thecarve-outs, who should get stuck with the tab

Washington,DC – After marathon hearings inthe House Energy and Commerce Committee last week debating the largest, mostregressive tax plan ever brought before Congress, Chairman Henry Waxman(D-Calif.), appears to have left many questions unanswered. Chief among them:how he plans to carve up the bill, and to whom he plans to extend the patronageof upfront emission “allowances.”

“Afterweeks of hearings and backroom deal-making, Chairman Waxman has yet to tell theAmerican people what this energy tax will cost, and the adverse impact it willhave on their everyday life,” said Thomas J. Pyle, president of the AmericanEnergy Alliance (AEA). “The fact that families are already struggling to makeends meet, it is reprehensible for Congress to add yet another tax to a familybudget that’s already stretched past its breaking point.”
[Read more…]

The Waxman-Markey Game Plan for Higher Energy Prices

When Representatives Henry Waxman and Ed Markey unveiled their 648-page discussion draft climate and energy bill, they claimed that “The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009” will not only save the planet, but will provide the economy with a “green recovery” to boot. The bill, which was the subject of four days of hearings with more than 65 witnesses, features sweeping changes in energy policy including forcing families and businesses to buy more expensive electricity, implementing a low carbon fuel mandate (fuel with less energy in it), additional taxes on electricity generated from reliable energy sources, new energy efficiency mandates, and a cap and trade style energy tax. The measure represents a high water mark for political economic planning, but a low road for American family budgets.

Carbon Caps: A Tax Doesn’t Really Hurt If We Give the Money Back, Right?

The Waxman-Markey bill admits that the bill’s provisions, such as a cap and trade energy tax program, are very economically damaging and thus require countermeasures to (supposedly) cushion the blow to consumers. Since energy is, literally, the capacity to do work, increasing the costs of doing work will hurt the economy. In fact, much of Title IV is dedicated to limiting the economic impact of this plan, or as the bill describes it, “Preserving Domestic Competitiveness.”

Cap and trade is a tax on energy. Because cap and trade regulations increase the costs of doing business in the U.S., business will flee to countries with lower energy costs and the U.S. companies that remain will be put at a competitive disadvantage. The effect of limits on carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. will be to export the jobs and industries which cause those emissions to other countries without such regulations. This exodus will limit jobs in the U.S., harm the U.S. economy, and not reduce global emissions of greenhouse gases. This last fact—that American efforts to clamp down on emissions may simply cause emitters to relocate to other jurisdictions—is referred to as “carbon leakage.”

In an attempt to counter this problem, the Waxman-Markey bill lays out a series of policy measures that attempt:

(1) To prevent an increase in greenhouse gas emissions in countries other than the United States as a result of direct and indirect compliance costs incurred under title VII of the Clean Air Act.

(2) To compensate the owners and operators of entities in eligible domestic industrial sectors and subsectors for carbon emission costs incurred under title VII of the Clean Air Act. [emphasis added]

This describes one of the ways in which carbon caps will enhance the power of unelected bureaucrats, even without officially raising taxes or government expenditures. First, federal regulators will set an absolute limit on how much carbon dioxide can be emitted by various industries. They will then “auction” (sell) these rights. This will foster a new market in paper permits sold by the government, giving legal permission for carbon dioxide-emitting businesses to trade in the (essential) business activity of emitting carbon dioxide. Then, to ease the blow, federal lawmakers may hand out many of these permits – for free – to favored constituencies. The whole operation is a massive tax hike and giveaway program, but its details are opaque to most voters who don’t understand the details (all 648 pages worth) of what “cap and trade” really means. The dirty little political secret, of course, is that cap and trade is not meant to be understood, and in fact, is a semantic device to make a tax on carbon emissions appear as though it not really a tax.

Another area of concern is found in the “Distribution of Rebates” section of the legislation. This section describes the distribution of rebates in a way that makes it appear as though the regulator won’t have much discretion in handing out carbon emission permits that may carry quite a hefty price tag.

However, in subsection (b)(2) (on page 540) the bill reads:

(2) PRESUMPTIVELY ELIGIBLE SECTORS AND SUBSECTORS.—An owner or operator of an entity shall receive rebates under subsection (a) if such source is in a sector or subsector that is included in a six-digit classification of the North American Industrial Classification System that meets the criteria under subparagraphs (A) and (B). The Administrator may rescind the eligibility of such sector or subsector only if the Administrator determines, after notice and an opportunity for comment, that, even in the absence of the rebates distributed under this section, such sector or subsector would not be subject to carbon leakage. [emphasis added]

In other words, the bill allows the Administrator to overrule the “objective” criteria for rebate eligibility if she decides that the cap and trade program poses no threat of “carbon leakage” to that industry after all. The considerations for making this determination are enumerated on pages 545 and 546 of the discussion draft, but they are rather vague and provide little to constrain the Administrator. In sum, the bill turns huge powers (including the very powers by which an industry’s success or failure may be determined) over to unelected and thus unaccountable government bureaucrats.

Starting a Trade War

The tremendous and arbitrary power the bill give the feds over private companies isn’t the only ominous feature of the Waxman-Markey bill. It also proposes a separate program of allowances—only this time, the “cap” is applied to imports coming into the United States. On page 561, the bill reads that if the President determines domestic companies are facing unfair competition because of disparate climate regulations among countries, then the Administrator shall issue regulations

(A) establishing, determining an appropriate price for, and offering for sale to United States importers international reserve allowances;

(B) requiring the submission of appropriate amounts of such allowances in conjunction with the importation into the United States of a covered good produced by any sector or subsector for which the President made an affirmative finding under section 414(b);… [emphasis added]

In essence, this provision admits that the consequences of increasing the costs of energy needed to manufacture American goods may make them uncompetitive, and so offers a way to penalize other countries for not adhering to U.S. standards. Since the direct route of establishing formal tariffs on imports may be too aggressive, and too blatant a violation of international trade agreements, the bill attempts this nuanced version of imposing U.S. standards on foreign nations and the companies that make products there. Under the Waxman-Markey approach, there would be a “stealth tariff,” because importers would need to purchase allowances for certain goods coming from countries that had looser carbon limits. With the world in a severe recession, starting another trade war is a terrible idea.

These are just a glimpse at a few of the implications to the U.S. in a bill which is the starting point for consideration by Congress of a comprehensive “reset” of our economic and energy policies. By themselves, they pose ominous threats to U.S. and world economic growth. The Waxman-Markey bill, unfortunately, is not limited to these particular impediments to economic growth and job creation.

AEA Educational Campaign to Fight Massive Energy Tax, Further Government Induced Job Losses

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT:
Wednesday, April 29, 2009 Laura Henderson (202) 621-2951

AEA Educational Campaign to Fight Massive Energy Tax, Further Government Induced Job Losses

WASHINGTON – With Congress moving at breakneck pace to pass an energy tax bill that would amount to the largest single tax increase on working families in U.S. history, American Energy Alliance (AEA) today announced the launch of an integrated education and advocacy campaign aimed at helping Americans understand all the facts surrounding “cap-and-trade,” and arming them with the tools they need to hold their elected officials accountable as the debate moves forward in Washington, D.C.

At its core, the campaign will reach out to residents of ten targeted congressional district by taking its message to the radio airwaves, making sure middle-class Americans know that cap-and-trade is actually a massive, intentionally complicated “cap-and-tax” scheme in disguise – one that will potentially cost families more than $3,100 a year in new taxes and higher energy bills.

“Even advocates of cap-and-trade admit the purpose of the plan is to increase the cost of energy,” said AEA president Thomas J. Pyle. “That fact is not in dispute. The real fight in Washington is over how high those costs will go, and what, exactly, we can expect to get from engaging in the unilateral disarmament of our energy and economic future.”

Added Pyle: “Cap-and-trade’s supporters know full well what the answers are, but up until now have done their best to keep them away from the American people – at least until they have rammed their plan through Congress.  AEA wants to ensure that Americans are fully aware of cap-and-trade’s dire consequences: higher energy bills, new taxes, and increased job losses.”

The radio spots are slated to run for two weeks, commencing Wednesday, April 29 in the home districts of Representatives John Barrow (D-Ga.), G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.), Mike Doyle (D-Pa.), Charlie Gonzalez (D-Texas), Baron Hill (D-Ind.), Jim Matheson (D-Utah), Charlie Melancon (D-La.), Tim Murphy (R-Pa.), Mike Ross (D-Ark.), and Betty Sutton (D-Ohio).  For audio and text of the ads, click on the representative’s name.

The American Energy Alliance (AEA) is a not-for-profit organization that engages in public policy advocacy and debate surrounding the function, operation, and government regulation of global energy markets.  AEA, an independent affiliate of the Institute for Energy Research, works to educate and mobilize citizens around the idea that freely-functioning energy markets provide the most efficient and effective solutions to today’s global energy and environmental challenges.

#####

www.americanenergyalliance.org