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

Biden Now Coming For Your Family’s Air Conditioner

December 14, 2023 by Leave a Comment

The United States is among 63 countries to join a pledge to cut cooling-related emissions at the United Nations climate summit in Dubai (COP 28). The Global Cooling Pledge includes cutting emissions not only from air conditioning but also from refrigeration for food and medicine and even medical devices such as MRI machines. It commits countries to reduce by 2050 their cooling-related emissions by at least 68 percent from 2022 levels, along with a suite of other targets including establishing minimum energy performance standards for air conditioning by 2030.

Installed global cooling capacity is expected to triple by mid-century, driven by increasing temperatures, growing populations and rising incomes as 1.2 billion people in 77 countries who lack access to cooling, seek it.  And even with increasingly energy-efficient technology, electricity use is expected to more than double, threatening to strain electricity grids, particularly in developing economies. By 2050, 67 percent of cooling capacity is expected to be in developing countries, up from less than 50 percent now. Emissions from cooling are expected to reach between 4.4 billion and 6.1 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2050.

Emissions from both the refrigerants and cooling currently account for about 7 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions and, if current trends hold, 10 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2050 could come from air-conditioning and other efforts to keep cool. About 3 billion more air conditioners are expected to be installed around the world beyond the roughly 2 billion currently in place. China serves as a prime example, with energy demand for space cooling increasing 13 percent per year since 2000, on average, and a manufacturing sector responsible for 70 percent of window units sold worldwide. China has not signed the pledge.

Achieving the pledge’s commitments will require major investment in more sustainable cooling technology, aided by government incentives and bulk procurement. It also would need electric grids to switch to renewables, as today’s use of air conditioning and fans accounts for nearly 20 percent of global electricity consumption. Switching to renewable energy would reduce the emissions from the electric sector needed to power air conditioners. The Global Cooling Pledge adds to efforts started under the 2016 Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, which calls for a gradual reduction in the production and consumption of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) in cooling technologies.

India is expected to see the greatest growth in demand for cooling in the coming decades, but has not joined the pledge. Indian government officials indicated that they were not willing to undertake targets above those committed to in 1992 under the multilateral Montreal Protocol to regulate production and consumption of ozone depleting chemicals and hydrofluorocarbons used in cooling.

Given that the United States has signed onto the cooling pledge suggests there could be more regulations or incentives to come for that industry in the United States. Progress on meeting the cooling pledge will be tracked on an annual basis until 2030, with check-ins at the yearly U.N. climate summits. The pledge calls for signatories to publish their own national cooling action plans by 2026, and to commit to supporting the deployment of highly efficient air conditioning technologies. It includes a commitment to improve the efficiency of new air-conditioners by 50 percent.

Air Conditioning (AC) Technology

Conventional ACs are energy intensive due to processes for eliminating humidity. Conventional ACs transfer heat outside by converting gas refrigerants to liquid and back again, which generates cooling. Removing humidity requires cooling air to the point at which water vapor becomes a liquid to be drained. The inability to get rid of humidity without first cooling the air makes conventional ACs less efficient.

While companies have prototypes that produce fewer emissions than traditional ACs, there are currently no plans to bring them to market soon because they are not economic due to material costs and supply chain issues. Market research suggests people are not willing to pay as much as 150 percent more for an AC, pointing out that policies and incentives are needed to lower consumer costs. Governments could implement stricter energy performance standards, clearer efficiency labelling, subsidies or bulk procurement to stimulate demand and lower costs. And, import tariffs could help prevent inefficient, second-hand models being resold in developing countries.

According to the New York Times, many new advancements and actions — including adopting “passive” cooling technology like improved insulation and reflective surfaces — can help with cooling without significantly increasing energy use. Bolstering energy efficiency, as well as phasing down refrigerant gases, can help reduce cooling-related emissions. Adopting building energy codes that explicitly incorporate “passive” cooling, like designs that increase natural shade and ventilation, can also be effective, although they can increase up-front costs for new construction and add significant costs for retrofitting existing buildings. One estimate has those passive cooling measures — coupled with faster improvements in energy efficiency and a more stringent phase out of hydrofluorocarbons — reducing projected 2050 emissions by over 60 percent.

Conclusion

COP 28 has come up with a Global Cooling Pledge to reduce greenhouse gases coming from cooling and refrigeration by 68 percent by 2050, despite the world likely almost tripling its use of air conditioning in the future as 1.2 billion people try to acquire it. Since the United States has joined the pledge, Americans can expect more regulations and incentives to reduce the comfort of cooling that has raised productivity tremendously in this country and the world since World War II. The outcome will raise energy prices for Americans and the cost of new more efficient technology as those technologies are still not economic due to material costs and supply chain issues. This agreement, and other COP agreements, should not be binding on the United States because the Constitution reserves any agreement with other countries to require compliance by the Senate via the Treaty approval authority, although the Biden Administration is expected to argue that the United States is bound by its signature.

biofuels.

*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , , ,

Gavin Newsom: Californians Don’t Pay Enough For Gasoline

December 14, 2023 by Leave a Comment

Governor Gavin Newsom claims oil companies are price gouging, which is the reason that gasoline prices are almost $2 more than the national average price in his state. Californians are paying almost $5 a gallon for regulated unleaded gasoline, while the nation is averaging $3.25 a gallon. Newsom does not believe that California’s high taxes and endless regulations should make that much of a difference in the gas price, so it must be price gouging. He is also not admitting to the fact that California’s gasoline is a “boutique” fuel that only refineries in California produce and that he and President Biden are paying those refiners incredible subsidies to switch to biofuels, limiting supply. Clearly, economics is not a forte’ of the governor for economics 101 tells you that if you limit supply without reducing demand, prices will go up. It is no wonder that Californians are migrating to Texas and Florida. Gas prices in Florida, for example, average about $3.00 a gallon. And, even though California is all-in on green energy, the air quality is better in Florida and Texas than in California.

Source: Committee to Unleash Prosperity

California’s Higher Gasoline Taxes

California has the highest gas tax in the country at 68 cents per gallon, compared to 39 cents for the national average, and the state requires a special blend of gasoline that is more expensive to produce. California also has a cap-and-trade program and low-carbon fuel standard that add about another 46 cents a gallon. Those two taxes explain about 75 cents of the difference between the California gas price and the national average.

California’s Refinery Situation

California lost 12 percent of its refining capacity between 2017 and 2021 and is set to lose another 8 percent by the end of 2023. California refineries, as well as other U.S. refineries, have been closing due to an onerous regulatory environment, rich inducements to switch to biofuels and demand destruction due to COVID lockdowns. Many refineries are converting to producing biofuels that are more profitable because of large government subsidies and higher profits.  In California, refiners can receive as much as $3.70 per gallon in benefits by switching to producing biofuels instead of making petroleum-based products. The majority of the costs of these significant refinery transitions, however, must be paid for in the sale of products.

The refinery situation in California will get worse as Phillips 66 and Marathon Petroleum are permanently converting their East Bay refineries that currently make gasoline to produce renewable, bio-based diesel fuel from plant-based materials. That means there will be a penalty at the pump for gasoline consumers as there will be fewer sources to produce gasoline. Not enough gasoline in a state mostly using gasoline cars means higher priced gasoline. That could mean that California will need to import its specialized gasoline blend from refineries overseas that have the ability to produce it and ship it by ocean tankers, which will be more expensive for consumers. The last major refinery built in California was in 1968 when Valero built the Benicia refinery that has a capacity of 145,000 barrel per day. In 1968, Ronald Reagan was the governor of California and Lyndon Johnson was president.

Due to California’s limited refinery capacity, its gasoline prices are volatile to output disruptions. The fuel delivery system in California runs up against capacity limits all the time. For instance, California’s refineries remained at full capacity during the summer driving season to meet demand, delaying maintenance and repairs. During the summer months, oil refineries in California are required to produce a special blend of gasoline that limits negative effects on air quality that are more pronounced due to the summer heat and California’s unique geography. Gasoline prices in California this past summer were averaging around $6.00 a gallon. After the summer, refineries produce winter blends that are less expensive, normally beginning October 31. Because of the high summer prices, Newsom issued an order in September for state regulators to allow oil refineries to produce winter blend gasoline sooner, bringing gasoline prices down. His actions are proof that much of California’s cost differential is self-induced.

California’s Oil Production

California is the seventh largest producer of oil in the United States, but produces less than 1 percent of the oil it consumes daily, importing oil mainly from Ecuador, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Colombia. As the state puts more restrictions on oil production, it may need to import even more of its oil. The state’s climate bill requires that new oil and gas wells or wells that are being reworked must be set back at least 3,200 feet from homes, schools and hospitals, and imposes strict pollution controls on existing wells within that distance. Companies with existing oil and gas wells within the buffers are required to monitor emissions, control dust and limit night-time noise and light.  It is estimated that about 2.7 million Californians live within 3,200 feet of the existing oil and gas wells, and cities are sprouting up around oil wells that have been producing oil in California in some cases for a century. Some California localities are even banning new drilling. Los Angeles County, for example, blocked new oil and gas drilling and is phasing out existing operations, expanding on a city-wide ban.

Further, California has put a near halt on issuing permits for new oil and gas drilling. The state’s Geologic Energy Management Division approved seven new active drilling well permits in the first half of 2023, which compares with over 200 it had issued by the same time last year. The delay in approvals is due to California’s progressive environmental laws and standards against fossil fuels despite its role as a major oil producer and a major oil-consuming state. While new drilling permits have steadily declined since Gavin Newsom became governor in 2019, the current rate of approval represents a sudden and dramatic drop. At mid-year, the oil industry had more than 1,400 permit applications for new wells awaiting state approval, half of which were over a year old. Newsom wants to phase out oil drilling in the state by 2045. Federal drilling permits for California have also dropped–from 166 to just 3 for the first 6 months of fiscal year 2023 from the same period in fiscal year 2022.

Further, California’s Assembly Bill 1167 deals with the issue of orphaned oil wells, which currently lack viable owners or operators. The bill requires full bonding for plugging and remediating these wells when transfers of ownership occur despite the state already having measures in place.  It is yet another straw piled atop the camel’s back.

And, California’s new Climate Disclosure Law also affects oil companies operating in the state. Bill SB 253 will require about 5,000 companies to report the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that are both directly emitted by their operations and the amount of indirect emissions coming from such activities as employee business travel, waste disposal and supply chains. The law applies to public and private businesses that make more than $1 billion annually and operate in California. The companies are required to disclose their emissions starting in 2027. The law is being paired with another new law that requires companies with revenue over $500 million to report their climate-related risks.

California vs. Florida Air Quality

Even with all the environmental regulations and energy restrictions, California air quality is not the best in the nation. In fact, California has the worst air quality in the nation with only 60.60 percent of good air quality days. In 2018, across 112 cities, California averaged a PM2.5 concentration of 12.1 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3), which is considered moderate. Only 35.7 percent of its cities met the World Health Organization (WHO) target for annual PM2.5 exposure of 10 μg/m3, as compared to the national average of 81.7 percent.

According to the American Lung Association, California leads the charts for cities with the worst air pollution. The top four cities in the country with the worst air quality are located in the state: Los-Angeles-Long Beach, Visalia, Bakersfield, and Fresno-Madera-Hanford. California’s air quality is hampered by increasingly frequent and severe wildfires, mountainous terrain that traps pollution, and a warm climate that contributes to ozone formation.

In contrast, the PM2. 5 concentration in Florida is below the recommended limit given by the WHO air quality guidelines. Florida also has a warm climate, but controls its brush and forests with controlled fires. Florida ranks 7th in the nation for good air quality with 89.80 percent of good air quality days.

Conclusion

Governor Newsom is making matters worse for Californians with its climate laws and regulations that are supposed to make its air quality better, which is the worst in the nation. Instead, those laws and rules are increasing prices for its residents, and those prices are likely to get worse rather than better. In particular, its gasoline prices are likely to increase due to restrictions to limit oil production, its limited refinery capacity, its specialized requirements for the fuel, and its huge inducements to refiners to stop making gasoline and switch to making biofuels.

*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , , ,

The Unregulated Podcast #160: Running the Guillotine

December 14, 2023 by Leave a Comment

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss Biden’s tough week in the polls and at the podium. Check out The Unregulated Podcast, now streamed by billions, 300 million, trillions, 300 billion listeners.

Links:

Filed Under: Podcast Tagged With: , ,

Biden Targets Domestic Refineries As China Outpaces U.S.

December 12, 2023 by Leave a Comment

A new threat to U.S. refining may be looming. A proposed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule on hydrofluoric-acid-based alkylation could spur a round of refinery closures as the cost of replacing hydrofluoric acid based alkylation with alternatives is extremely high. EPA is considering adding amendments to its Risk Management Program (RMP) regulation that could effectively eliminate the use of hydrofluoric acid at U.S. refineries to make cleaner gasoline. Finalization of the rule would result in a loss of U.S. alkylation capacity that would reduce supplies of gasoline and aviation fuel, resulting in higher fuel prices for consumers. It could also shutter some refineries and impact U.S. energy and economic security. EPA’s proposed rule appears to be the result of an explosion that occurred 8 years ago at a refinery in Torrance, California, whose hydrofluoric alkylation unit has been operating reliably and safely for more than 60 years.

Background

Alkylate is a blend stock that represents about 15 percent of the U.S. gasoline pool and provides high octane, low volatility and low sulfur content to refinery output. Refineries use one of two primary catalysts in the production of alkylate: hydrofluoric acid, or HF, and sulfuric acid, or H2SO4. Because the two catalyst technologies represent different considerations for facilities, the decision of which to use is made in the design phase for each refinery, making it extremely difficult to substitute technology. Today, HF and sulfuric acid technologies each represent about half of domestic alkylation capacity, but the shares vary significantly on a regional basis.

The EPA has proposed that refiners using the HF-based process be required to undertake extensive evaluations of potentially safer alternative technologies. While the rule does not explicitly require refineries to replace and shut down HF alkylate units, refiners employing HF as a catalyst for producing alkylate are concerned that the rule’s mandated evaluations may require replacing its alkylate unit or shutting down completely. As the cost of shifting from HF alkylation to another alkylate production process is very high–into the hundreds of million dollars per unit–, the proposed rule is likely to result in more refinery closures, leaving the United States with even less refining capacity to meet consumer needs, where it is already stretched very thin.

A study of replacing an HF unit with a sulfuric acid alkylation unit at a Southern California refinery found that the replacement would require a much larger alkylate unit because more sulfuric catalyst is required to produce the same volume of alkylate as an HF unit along with a new sulfuric acid regeneration unit that is not required for HF alkylation. The cost would approach $1 billion—significantly more than what the facility was valued at in its last sale. The study also found that a regional loss of alkylate production and the resulting need to import alkylate would add an additional 26 cents to the price of finished gasoline for Southern California consumers; that is, on top of the state’s exceedingly high gasoline prices—the highest in the country. California refiners must have alkylate because there is no way to meet California’s demand for reformulated gasoline without it.

A recent analysis found that replacing all U.S. HF alkylation units would cost a $12 billion to $19 billion. HF alkylation refineries currently support more than 447,000 jobs and contribute directly and indirectly more than $119 billion to the U.S. economy.

If the United States lost half its alkylation capacity because of EPA’s rules, the United States could not by itself immediately make up the difference in alkylate production. Sulfuric acid alkylation units are running at high capacity already and cannot double their output to make up for lost alkylate from HF units. United States gasoline production would be severely curtailed and would have to be replaced by imports that could result in a national security issue as China overtook the United States in refining capacity last year. Currently, China’s refining capacity stands at more than 18.29 million barrels per day, while U.S. refining capacity is 18.06 million barrels per day. The rule would also pose a particular challenge for California gasoline since very few refineries outside California are able to produce the boutique fuel that the state requires.

Conclusion

Today, about 90 percent of U.S. refiners have alkylation units that produce alkylate–a critically important part of the U.S. gasoline pool. EPA’s proposed regulation on HF alkylate units could have a very detrimental effect on the U.S. refinery industry and hence U.S. consumers who require gasoline and aviation fuel. The cost to convert alkylate technology is considerable and studies have suggested many refineries would not be able to afford the change and would idle their units instead, a potential precursor for facility shutdowns since many would not be viable without operable alkylate units.

Any loss of U.S. alkylate production and potential loss of U.S. refining capacity from EPA’s rule on the use of HF would likely result in more expensive gasoline and aviation fuel, amongst already tight supplies. That could make the United States an importer of either alkylates or finished petroleum products, having a potential to impact U.S. energy and economic security. With the geopolitical situation in the Ukraine and Middle East, that outcome would be unfortunate, especially since President Biden has already brought our emergency reserve of oil to a 40 year low, and is extremely slow at refilling it.

*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.

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

The Unregulated Podcast #159: Responsible Yachting

December 8, 2023 by Leave a Comment

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna are joined by Lou Pugliaresi of the Energy Policy Research Foundation for a wide ranging discussion on events in D.C. and Dubai.

Links:

Filed Under: Podcast

Manchin Played By Biden Administration On EV Giveaway To China

December 7, 2023 by Leave a Comment

President Biden’s climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022, provides up to $7,500 in tax credits to consumers who buy electric vehicles made in the United States, using largely domestic materials. The law includes a general ban on Chinese products, orchestrated by Senator Manchin, Chairman of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee, who was the deciding vote on the Democrat-passed bill. Lawmakers mandated that firms in China, Russia, North Korea and Iran be prohibited from providing certain materials to cars that received those tax breaks. The law, however, left open several questions, including what constitutes a Chinese or Russian company. According to Biden Administration officials, any entity that was incorporated or had headquarters in China or Russia, as well as any firm in which 25 percent of the board seats or equity interest is held by Chinese or Russian governments constitutes a Chinese or Russian company.

Senator Manchin is unhappy with the EV tax credit rules that the Department of the Treasury released on December 1, allowing Chinese companies who set up operations outside China to benefit, as long as the Chinese government is not a significant shareholder. Manchin accused the Biden administration of “trying to find workarounds and delays that leave the door wide open for China to benefit off the backs of American taxpayers”. The Treasury interpretation of the law was a relief to automakers, who need Chinese technology, parts and minerals for their EV business and had feared that the Biden administration would ban them from contracting with Chinese-owned mines or factories in the United States or other parts of the world. That was the original intent of the IRA, at least to Senator Manchin.

IRA also requires battery makers undertaking contracts or licensing agreements with Chinese firms to ensure they are retaining rights over their projects. Some lawmakers have challenged Ford’s plans to license technology from the Chinese battery company CATL for a plant in Marshall, Michigan, arguing that such a partnership should not be eligible for federal tax credits. The Treasury rules did not make it clear whether vehicles produced under Ford’s license agreement with CATL would receive the tax credit.

The rules could have a profound effect on the U.S. electric vehicle market, which made up about 8 percent of new cars sold in the third quarter. EV car sales, however, are not growing quick enough given all the electric vehicles sitting on auto dealer lots, as some dealers have a 12-month backlog of vehicles. Concern about electric vehicle range and the availability of chargers are holding back electric vehicle sales. Despite $7.5 billion for chargers in the IRA, the Biden Administration has a “net zero” record for charger deployment.

It is yet unclear which EV models would qualify for the full tax credit. The new rules kick in for battery components in 2024, and in 2025 for critical minerals like lithium, cobalt and nickel. Many cars have been disqualified from the tax credits by other rules, like a requirement that vehicles be assembled in North America. Only about 20 vehicles currently qualify for the subsidy program out of more than 100 electric vehicles sold in the United States. According to Tesla, the two least expensive versions of its Model 3 sedan would qualify for only half the $7,500 credit starting in January. The Model Y SUV also might not qualify for the full credit after December 31. The Model Y and Model 3 are the top two electric vehicles by sales in the United States. Tesla buys some batteries from CATL.

The Treasury rules also exempt trace materials. If the Biden administration banned all minor Chinese parts from the supply chain, no car models might have qualified for tax credits next year.

The rules also raised new issues about whether stricter requirements for supply chains could continue a trend of driving more consumers to lease, rather than buy, vehicles. The Treasury Department rules issued earlier allowed leased vehicles to receive the full EV tax credit, regardless of where the components came from. That is, the prohibition on sourcing from China applies only to vehicles that are sold, not to those that are leased. Because consumers can receive tax credits for electric vehicles they lease from auto dealers, electric vehicle leasing has boomed.

Over the past year, companies have invested $213 billion in the manufacturing and deployment of “clean” energy, “clean” vehicles, building electrification and carbon management technology in the United States–a 37 percent increase from a year earlier. But, the global electric vehicle industry remains anchored in China, which is the world’s largest producer and exporter of electric vehicles. China produces about two-thirds of the world’s battery cells and refines most of the minerals that are key to powering an electric vehicle. China processes more than half of the world’s lithium, cobalt and graphite, which are crucial inputs.

The rules also restrict automakers from sourcing nickel used in their batteries from Russia, which is one of the world’s largest nickel producers. Efforts to start new nickel mines in the United States have been stymied by the Biden Administration.

One of the challenges for automakers will be developing systems to track all the components of their battery through the supply chain. The rule, which has a 30-day comment period, establishes the beginnings of a system for automakers to track critical minerals contained in their cars from the source and for the IRS and the Energy Department to review the materials that automakers procure. For example, car makers have a two-year transition period to adapt to regulations for small battery parts that lack tracing standards, such as electrolyte salts. Vehicles that are reported incorrectly will be subtracted from an automaker’s eligibility for tax credits, and automakers that commit fraud or intentionally disregard the rules could be declared ineligible for the tax credit in the future.

Conclusion

Treasury released additional rules on December 1 concerning which vehicles would receive the full EV tax credit based on the IRA, a Democrat-passed bill in 2022. One of the issues was to define what constitutes a Chinese or Russian company—guidance that Senator Manchin finds as “another example of the Biden administration clearly breaking the law to try to implement a bill that it could not pass.” Unless auto makers follow the Treasury Department’s measures, however, new EV supply-chain companies could lose access to $6 billion in federal grants and auto makers would not be able to offer customers all or part of a $7,500 tax rebate on EV purchases.

Senator Manchin is correct in his taking issues with the Treasury Department guidance, which works around the intent of the law in developing an EV industry in the United States. While the United States has critical mineral resources, the Biden administration is not allowing new mines to be developed to further the industry. Biden has revoked leases, delayed permits and placed fauna and flora on the endangered list to avoid developing new mines. Further, EPA regulations would make it difficult to develop critical mineral processing facilities that are needed for making the minerals usable for EV manufacturing. And, as the Biden administration is ridding the United States of its affordable and reliable coal plants, the industry would have a problem competing with China for cheap electricity needed for the energy-intensive industry. China has spent decades gearing up for the energy transition and has left the United States in the dust. Biden is not helping as he is garnering votes from his environmental friends for his reelection bid in 2024.

*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.

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

House Votes to Save Our Cars

December 6, 2023 by Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON DC 12/6/23 – Today, the House passed H.R. 4468, the Choice in Automobile Retail Sales Act, by a vote of 221-197. This bill, introduced by Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI), prevents the EPA from finalizing its proposed rule on federal vehicle emissions standards, which would require 70 percent of cars and trucks to be electric in less than 10 years.
 
AEA President Thomas Pyle, and founding member of the Save Our Cars Coalition, issued the following statement after House passage of the bill:

“Bipartisan passage of this bill is welcome recognition that Americans should continue to be free to choose the car or truck that best suits their budget and lifestyle.
 
The proposal to essentially ban internal combustion engines ignores the realities of the vehicle sales market and shows just how out of touch the Biden administration is when it comes to the types of cars and trucks Americans prefer.
 
Using the regulatory process to pick winners and losers in Washington is an abuse of the law and will do little more than raise costs and reduce our choice in vehicles. This legislation signals that Congress is reasserting its authority over the ideologies of unelected bureaucrats and putting the needs of their constituents first.”

Additional Resources:

For media inquiries please contact:
[email protected]

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

Key Vote YES on H.R. 4468

December 6, 2023 by Leave a Comment

The American Energy Alliance supports H.R. 4468, the Choice in Automobile Retail Sales Act which would prevent the EPA from mandating certain types of vehicles.

The Biden Administration has made very clear that it has a strong ideological preference for electric vehicles and wants to do everything in its power to increase electric vehicle sales. But Congress has given no power to the President to require the purchase or sale of electric vehicles. Indeed, where the topic is mentioned, existing statutes make very clear that the administration is not supposed to even consider electric vehicles when making regulatory decisions, for example with regard to Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards.

Contrary to this clear instruction from Congress, this administration has sought backdoor ways to force adoption of electric vehicles through supposedly neutral regulations that in practice can only be complied with by producing more electric vehicles. This legislation directly addresses one element of this overreach, the EPA’s new tailpipe emissions standards, and clarifies that in the future EPA cannot use tailpipe regulations again in such a deceptive manner.

Americans have made clear through their purchasing decisions that they are reluctant switch over to electric vehicles. This legislation respects that preference by ensuring that consumers can continue to buy the kind of cars they find most useful rather than be forced into the cars that a bureaucrat decides for them.

A YES vote on H.R. 4468 is a vote in support of free markets and consumer choice. AEA will include this vote it in its American Energy Scorecard.

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

The Unregulated Podcast #158: The Coup

December 4, 2023 by Leave a Comment

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle is temporarily replaced with long time show producer Alex Stevens who joins with Mike McKenna in a discussion of the future of Bidenomics, an update on the 2024 presidential field, and the competency of the Biden administration’s speech writers.

Links:

Filed Under: Podcast Tagged With: , ,

COP 28: Hot Air And Hypocrisy

December 1, 2023 by Leave a Comment

The upcoming UN Climate Conference (COP 28) will have a larger ‘carbon footprint’ than any of the 27 previous U.N. climate conferences. COP28 is being held in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), where more than 70,000 people are attending–about 25,000 more than were at COP 27 in 2022. Biden’s special envoy for climate change, John Kerry, recently said that the United States will pay ‘millions’ into the U.N.’s ‘loss and damages’ fund that is attracting record numbers of attendees, who are looking for handouts despite the cost of attending the Dubai conference where luxury hotels are sold out at high rates.  President Biden and Vice President Harris, however, are not planning to be part of the 70,000 attendees, skipping a meeting expected to be attended by King Charles III and leaders from nearly 200 countries.

Source: Twitter

President Biden earlier this month called climate change “the ultimate threat to humanity” and is pushing his climate agenda in the United States, using taxpayer funds to subsidize his favorite technologies. Last year, he promoted the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act—the country’s most significant climate law. That legislation is providing at least $370 billion into “clean” energy over the next 10 years. Biden believes it would help the rest of the world move away from fossil fuels. But, current national climate plans are expected to achieve only a 7 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. This year global carbon dioxide emissions are expected to increase by 1 percent, despite the United States reducing its carbon dioxide emissions by a projected 3 percent. No major nation is on track to meet the emissions reduction goals outlined in the United Nations’ Paris accord.

China’s President Xi is also not expected to attend the meeting despite China being the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide. The United States, the world’s second largest emitter, and China recently established a joint agreement to boost renewables with the goal of displacing coal, gas and oil. Both nations will back global efforts to triple renewable energy capacity by 2030, accelerate the domestic buildout of green power to replace coal, oil and gas, and advance cooperation to limit emissions of nitrous oxide and methane, the US State Department and China’s Ministry of Ecology and Environment said in identical statements.

China’s Renewable Growth Undermined by its Coal Expansion

China’s energy bureau recently noted that total installed solar power capacity hit 536 gigawatts in October, up 47 percent from last year and wind capacity increased 15.6 percent to 404 gigawatts. Despite those numbers, China is continuing to increase its coal capacity faced with rising energy consumption, as the world turns to it for solar panels, EV batteries and minerals needed to produce “green” technologies.

China has granted permits for 152 gigawatts of new coal power since the start of 2022, starting construction on 92 gigawatts, with total capacity on track to increase 23 percent by 2030. Low cost and reliable coal power has made China the polysilicon leader of the world. For the same amount of capacity, coal can generate 2 to 3 times the energy that wind and solar generate due to their intermittency and dependence on the sun shining and the wind blowing. Further, coal generators can easily operate for 40 to 60 years, while wind and solar generators produce power for 20 or 30 years and then must be replaced and capitalized.

China’s carbon dioxide emissions are by far the highest in the world. They rebounded in 2023 as a result of low hydropower output and the revival of the country’s economy after its COVID lockdowns. Global demand for energy and materials from the rapid expansion of clean energy and electric vehicle manufacturing also offset the decline in emissions brought about by a slump in real estate, which restrained cement and steel production.

Biden’s Domestic Energy Transition is Facing Challenges

Despite the generous subsidies for green energy from Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the President’s climate agenda is suffering, faced with canceled offshore wind projects, imperiled solar factories, and fading demand for electric vehicles. Even President Biden’s and Energy Secretary Granholm’s favorite electric bus company, Proterra, is in bankruptcy. A year after passage of the largest climate change legislation in U.S. history, meant to set off a boom in American clean energy development, economic realities are becoming apparent due to inflation, high interest rates, soaring costs, unreliable supply chains, and sluggish permitting. Offshore wind developer Orsted cancelled projects in the Northeast; Tesla, Ford and GM scaled back EV manufacturing plans, and the breakneck speed of developing solar manufacturing plants has created the prospect of a glutted market that could drive down the price of solar panels due to supply outpacing demand. Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act’s billions in tax credits cannot resolve these issues, nor the fundamental issue that these technologies make energy more expensive.

More than 56 gigawatts of “clean” power projects have been delayed in the United States since late 2021 with solar energy facilities accounting for two thirds of those delays due in part to U.S. import restrictions. The United States has been trying to combat the use of forced labor and tariff-dodging in a global solar panel supply chain that is dominated by China.

Permitting gridlock, local fights over where to site solar and wind projects and a grid connection process that can take an average of five years are cited by developers as among the industry’s biggest challenges. While these are traditional problems faced by conventional energy projects over many decades, it appears to be surprising to “green energy” business people, many of whom were supportive of regulatory roadblocks to other energy projects. Tight supplies and strong demand for renewables from utilities and corporations because of mandates and subsidies have also driven up contract prices, which could mean higher costs for consumers. Solar contract prices increased 4 percent to $50 per megawatt hour for the first time this decade in the third quarter. The IRA has incentivized domestic production of solar panels and wind turbines, but manufacturers have recently warned that a wave of new Asian capacity is threatening the viability of dozens of planned American factories.

Turmoil in the U.S. offshore wind industry is a major issue. Developers like Orsted, BP and Equinor have sought to renegotiate or cancel contracts due to soaring costs, and have taken multi-billion dollar write downs on projects. Only one bid resulted at a federal wind lease sale in the Gulf of Mexico in August. The Biden administration’s target of deploying 30 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2030 is now widely regarded as unattainable with 16 gigawatts being a more likely target.

Some corporations are delaying investment decisions, awaiting the Treasury Department to write rules regarding the IRA’s tax credits. For instance, one company is waiting on the design of tax credits for sustainable aviation fuel under the IRA, to determine whether corn-based fuel can qualify as a feedstock.

Conclusion

The U.N. COP 28 is expected to garner a huge crowd that will be waiting for handouts from wealthy nations, starting with the United States. The United States is spending billions on Biden’s climate agenda pushing his favorite technologies here, but progress has slowed due to inflation, high interest rates, and problems with supply chains. Despite that, Biden is charging ahead with agreements with China to triple renewable energy to phase out fossil fuels, but that will not stop China from continuing to build coal plants and remain the world’s top emitter of greenhouse gases. Meanwhile, global carbon dioxide emissions continue to rise, led by China.

*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.

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