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

China Owns Kamala’s “Renewable” Future

July 29, 2024 by Leave a Comment

Construction of U.S. solar-manufacturing plants by Chinese companies is surging, putting China in position to dominate the industry, as other American factories struggle to compete despite federal subsidies.  Chinese companies will have at least 20 gigawatts’ worth of annual solar panel production capacity on U.S. soil within the next year, enough to serve about half the U.S. market. The group includes seven companies backed by Chinese firms including Jinko Solar, Trina Solar, JA Solar, Longi, Hounen, Runergy, and Boviet. Chinese-backed companies have advantages over U.S. competitors due to heavily subsidized supply chains for raw polysilicon and unfinished solar modules and low-cost government financing. They also collect U.S. subsidies for “clean” energy manufacturing embedded in the 2022 Democrat-passed Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).

The projected rapid increase in U.S. solar panel production by Chinese-owned companies should represent a concern for the Biden-Harris climate agenda. While the administration is looking for new investment that creates U.S. jobs in “clean” energy, the Biden-Harris administration wants to prevent over-reliance on China as it pushes the U.S. economy to transition to renewable energy. Renewable energy and other supposedly “clean” technology that is being pushed on U.S. consumers is China’s strength that it has been developing over decades to lead the world in their manufacture. Part of China’s advantage is its reliance upon cheap coal-fired electricity, consuming over half of the world’s annual consumption.

Chinese Influence on U.S. Solar Manufacturing

Chinese companies, by far the top suppliers of solar and electric-vehicle battery components imported to the United States, are accounting for one-fifth of the solar factories announced since the United States adopted new climate-justified subsidies. The United States put tariffs on Chinese solar products and banned goods linked to China’s Xinjiang region over concerns about forced labor to try to develop a domestic solar manufacturing industry. It is now considering new duties on components made in other Asian countries where Chinese manufacturers have established facilities.

Chinese companies building factories in the United States so far are mainly investing in module production, in which solar cells imported from Asia are assembled into panels. Longi, the world’s third-biggest solar producer, for example, is producing solar panels in Pataskala, Ohio through a joint venture with U.S. solar developer Illuminate USA. The five-gigawatt plant is among the largest announced since passage of the IRA, and the company is also exploring the possibility of building a cell facility. Illuminate USA is an American company, majority owned by Invenergy, who owns both the facility and the land in Ohio where over 1,000 Americans will be working to assemble more than nine million high-quality solar panels annually later this year.

Trina, the No. 4 global manufacturer, plans to start a five-gigawatt panel factory in Texas this year, and is also planning a cell facility. Trina’s U.S. subsidiary is a U.S.-registered company that sources the polysilicon it uses to produce its equipment from European and U.S. sources.

U.S. solar project developers that are interested in low-cost supply are welcoming the Chinese companies. The American Clean Power Association, a trade group, said the U.S. solar-manufacturing sector is attracting global and domestic investment and U.S.-headquartered companies make up most of the operating and planned panel production.

Top U.S. producers, Hanwha Qcells and Arizona-based First Solar, however, are pushing for the United States to impose new tariffs on component and equipment imports from countries where their Chinese rivals have built factories to supply the United States. “We’re just asking for legitimate U.S. manufacturers to have a chance to compete with these gigantic Chinese-owned companies,” said Tim Brightbill, attorney for the American Alliance for Solar Manufacturing Trade Committee. The group’s rivals argue that placing duties on some cell imports and not others is unfair and will stifle construction of U.S. factories.

Non-Chinese Solar Manufacturing Cannot Compete

Non-Chinese manufacturers in the United States have found it hard to compete against cheap Chinese imports and are worried by China’s large U.S. presence. It is estimated that as many as half of the announced U.S. factories may not materialize. U.S.-based Convalt, for example, is struggling to bring online 10 gigawatts of U.S. capacity at a factory it started building in upstate New York in 2022. Convalt’s plant would make panels plus solar cells, wafers and ingots that go into the panels, but progress stalled a year ago as global panel prices plunged 50 percent to levels below Convalt’s cost of production.

The Biden-Harris Department of Energy said that developing a domestic solar supply chain would take time and that the United States must rely on foreign businesses for their expertise.

Conclusion

It is difficult to imagine how a greenfield manufacturer can produce solar panels as quickly as a Chinese manufacturer, who has all the advantages, including heavily subsidized supply chains for raw polysilicon and unfinished solar modules and low-cost government financing. The Biden administration needs to realize that the best situation for America is to develop its massive fossil fuel resources for which China depends and must import from the United States or another large producer, such as Russia or OPEC. China has been working on developing its “clean” energy technologies for decades to become the leader in their manufacture and to have the world dependent on them. And, it seems to be working!

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

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

Whoever Is Calling The Shots At The White House Takes Another Swing At Alaska

July 26, 2024 by Leave a Comment

The Biden-Harris administration is considering further restricting oil development in Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve (NPR-A), the nation’s largest swath of public land. The Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will be soliciting public comment on whether to expand or designate new “special areas” in the 23-million-acre reserve. The move could extend the areas of the NPR-A that are mostly off limits to drillers and stymie new exploration for oil in the western Arctic. BLM claims it is protecting caribou and herd health, as well as other wildlife, migratory birds, and native plants. The evaluation is part of the Biden-Harris administration’s attempts to dampen oil and gas activity in the Arctic to appease environmentalists following its 2023 approval of the $8 billion Willow oil project in the national reserve. The Biden-Harris administration has targeted Alaska’s resource development opportunities 65 times, affecting the state’s energy and economic future. The Biden-Harris administration has kowtowed to environmentalists in an attempt to gain favor at the ballot box.

The NPR-A, which is an area the size of the State of Indiana, has experienced limited drilling since it was created in 1923 as a potential oil supply for the U.S. Navy. In recent years, the reserve has garnered increasing interest due to the discovery of deposits that could hold millions of barrels of oil and help reverse Alaska’s declining oil production. Oil revenues support the state’s economy and contribute to jobs and annual dividends to its citizens.  Oil and gas jobs represent about one quarter of all state jobs, and generate about half of the state’s economy, while providing as much as 90 percent of state unrestricted General Fund revenues in most years and accounting for over $180 billion in total revenue since statehood.

Along the reserve’s eastern border, and near Alaska’s prolific North Slope oil fields, companies are tapping into large oil deposits. The Willow project is expected to produce up to 750 million barrels of oil, and ConocoPhillips has expressed confidence that more oil likely lies deeper into the reserve. An Australian company, 88 Energy, is also exploring a potential 1.6-billion-barrel oil discovery in NPR-A called the Peregrine prospect. The rising oil activity in the NPR-A, however, has heightened calls for greater limits on drilling from environmental groups, who have always opposed the Trans-Alaska Pipeline (TAPS) into which oil would flow.

A day before approving the Willow project last year, the Biden-Harris administration announced sweeping regulatory changes for additional protections in special areas of the NPR-A, making drilling and exploration more difficult but not banning them outright. The new rules, finalized in April, allow BLM to reevaluate the boundaries of special areas and consider new ones. BLM’s recent solicitation marks the beginning of the first of those evaluations. BLM  also plans to consult with local people about the special areas and it has sent invitations to consult with Alaska Native Villages and Corporations, but a group of North Slope cities, tribes and Alaska Native corporations is already challenging previous federal restrictions on oil development in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska.

Roughly half of the NPR-A is already designated as special areas, and in some locations there are bars on drilling infrastructure or limits on new oil leasing. That includes an expansive wetland around the Teshekpuk Lake that supports caribou herds and migratory birds, which are common on Alaska’s North Slope.

ConocoPhillips, Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor (R) and a nonprofit representing Alaska’s North Slope Iñupiat sued to block the Biden administration’s NPR-A rules. The state argues that the Biden administration is “dramatically” changing the way the reserve is managed. The reserve’s management is governed by the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976, which orders the Interior Department to balance oil development with other values like conservation, wildlife protection and subsistence hunting. In response to the oil and gas industry’s interest in the NPR-A, the Trump administration in 2020 opened most of the reserve to exploration. In 2022, the Biden-Harris administration reversed that decision.

According to the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, “This latest maneuver by BLM regarding Alaska’s Petroleum Reserve is indicative of BLM’s continuing refusal to manage the Petroleum Reserve as Congress directed. Rather than follow Congress’s direction for ‘expeditious’ development of the Petroleum Reserve, the current administration — in its effort to appease Lower 48 environmental activists — is seeking to set aside large swaths as off-limits to any development.”

NPR-A Lawsuit

A coalition of North Slope local and regional governments, tribal governments and Native corporations has sued the Biden-Harris administration in the U.S. District Court in Anchorage for prohibitive environmental protections President Biden placed on the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A).The NPR-A lawsuit, filed by the organization Voice of the Arctic Iñupiat, claims that the rule enacted by the Department of the Interior on April 19 should be invalidated because it resulted from a flawed process. The rule was enacted improperly because of several legal shortcomings, including the agency’s failure to conduct a full environmental impact statement, the diversion from four decades of NPR-A management that emphasized oil development and a lack of “meaningful” engagement with the people of the North Slope. The lawsuit claims the rule “turns vast swaths of the NPR-A into a de facto conservation system unit.” The new rule was proposed by the Bureau of Land Management last September and finalized in April. The group says the Biden-Harris administration’s environmental restrictions threaten to reverse progress that has improved their lives.

Trans-Alaska Pipeline System

Put in service in 1977, the 800-mile pipeline is the primary way to carry oil drilled on Alaska’s North Slope to ports, refineries and pipelines farther south. It is the lifeline of the state’s industry crisscrossing the state’s rugged terrain and keeping oil from freezing in frigid temperatures.  So far, the pipeline has transported 18.7 billion barrels of oil over its lifetime. Oil flow through the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System however, averaged around 470,000 barrels a day last year. The 48-inch pipeline is capable of transiting 2 million barrels per day, and once did, from Prudhoe Bay to the ice-free port of Valdez for shipping to the continental United States. At its peak, in the late 1980s, about 2 million barrels a day flowed through the line. The pipeline is looking for additional oil supplies to keep it operating since it has about 1.5 million barrels per day of available capacity. Oil production in the NPR-A can keep the pipeline viable and provide decades of oil for American consumers if the Biden-Harris administration gets out of the way. Opponents of the pipeline have sought to reduce oil produced on the North Slope, in hopes of an early closure.  President Biden was one of only 5 U.S. Senators to vote against the final pipeline conference report 51 years ago in 1973, which passed 80-5.

Conclusion

The Biden-Harris administration is doing all it can to restrict new development of oil and gas in the United States despite having a wealth of those resources here and particularly in Alaska. The Biden-Harris Administration has fought economic development in Alaska beginning with its refusal to honor the law that opened ANWR, denying the state access to their own mineral lands and closing opportunities in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. In doing so, the Biden-Harris administration is depriving Americans of their public wealth, increasing energy prices and spurring on inflation.

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

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , ,

Candidate Profile: Kamala Harris on Energy

July 25, 2024 by Leave a Comment

President Biden ended his reelection campaign on Sunday, July 21, under mounting pressure from Democrats following his poorly received debate performance. By endorsing Harris, he has positioned her as the frontrunner to succeed him. However, there is still some degree of uncertainty looming as Democrats hurriedly work to assemble a new 2024 ticket before the party’s convention on August 19-22 in Chicago.  

Harris’ stance on energy, both during her tenure as a senator and as a candidate in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, was to the left of Biden’s, leaning more towards far-left positions that favor government control and political direction of energy production.  In her 2019 platform, she outlined climate goals that surpassed those of the current administration, aiming to achieve a renewable reliant economy by 2045. Her plan proposed that new buses, heavy-duty vehicles, and vehicle fleets must be zero-emission by 2030, with all vehicles mandated to be 100 percent zero-emission by 2035.

Fracking Bans

As a candidate for president in 2020, she advocated for a ban on hydraulic fracturing.  Furthermore, during her tenure as California’s attorney general, Harris filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration’s Interior Department in 2016, challenging potential fracking activities off the state’s coastline and describing the practice as a “threat to the health and well-being of California communities.” 

The shale revolution has profoundly changed American energy production. Through hydraulic fracturing, precise drilling techniques, and private ownership of subsurface resources in strategic regions, the United States has emerged as a global energy leader.  

According to a 2015 report by the National Bureau of Economic Research titled “Welfare and Distributional Implications of Shale Gas,” the U.S. shale boom significantly lowered natural gas prices. The report estimated an annual welfare gain of $48 billion from 2007 to 2013, a substantial figure given that retail spending on natural gas totaled around $160 billion in 2013. This economic impact represented approximately one-third of one percent of the gross domestic product, equivalent to about $150 per capita.  The reduced prices of natural gas facilitated its displacement of coal in the U.S. energy mix. In 2023, carbon dioxide emissions dropped by 3 percent, continuing a consistent decline in U.S. emissions observed over the past 15 years.  

The benefits of the shale boom extend to royalty payments for individuals and families, as well as substantial economic advantages for local and regional economies. For every million dollars of new oil and gas extraction, there is an associated $80,000 increase in wage income, $132,000 in royalty payments and business incomes, and the creation of 0.85 jobs within the local economy. These economic impacts are magnified threefold when considered across the broader region.  According to a recent report by the American Petroleum Institute, the oil and natural gas industry supports 0.8 million jobs across all 50 states, both full-time and part-time. This workforce accounts for 5.4 percent of the nation’s total employment and contributes nearly $1.8 trillion to the U.S. economy annually.

Green New Deal

Harris was also an early supporter and original co-sponsor of the Green New Deal, a resolution initially proposed in 2019 by progressive Democrats such as Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts.  The Green New Deal (GND) comprises a range of policy proposals aimed at addressing what is claimed to be a climate crisis, with a central goal of achieving net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050 in various iterations. 

While proponents of the GND claim it aims to address energy, environmental, and climate concerns, its policies are predicted to bring no economic benefits while imposing significant economic costs. Historical data on energy consumption, economic growth, employment, income levels, and poverty suggest that the GND would have adverse effects across all of these dimensions. In particular, reducing reliance on conventional energy sources will stall economic growth and increase poverty by limiting opportunities in energy production. The estimated annual cost of implementing the GND’s electricity mandate alone is projected at $490.5 billion annually, impacting households unevenly across states.  Transitioning to “clean” electricity is expected to require extensive land use and may increase greenhouse gas emissions from backup power generation. The unreliability of intermittent renewable sources like wind and solar power would jeopardize electricity grid stability and lead to widespread blackouts. Beyond energy concerns, the GND’s broader costs will be approximately $9 trillion per year, excluding costs from shifts in the transportation sector and environmental damages. The proposal to fund the GND through money creation is dismissed as likely to cause inflation and devalue currency, further straining economic stability and reducing investments in environmental protection over time. 

Climate Equity

In conjunction with her support for the GND, Harris also supported several pieces of legislation that would expand the federal bureaucracy in the name of advancing “climate equity.”  In 2020, Harris proposed the Climate Equity Act, which aimed to create a new independent Office of Climate and Environmental Justice Accountability.  

In practice, the current administration’s approach to “equity” consisted of transferring hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris’s own environmental justice advisors.  Just days into his presidency in 2021, Biden issued an executive order to create his environmental justice advisory council. This council operates under the EPA, includes four designated federal officers from the agency, and holds authority to advise both the White House Council on Environmental Quality and an interagency council consisting of various Cabinet secretaries.

The Washington Free Beacon reviewed a database of federal grants and found that four prominent environmental justice organizations — WE ACT for Environmental Justice, the Bullard Center for Environmental & Climate Justice at Texas Southern University, the Deep South Center for Environmental Justice, and Kean University’s Center for the Urban Environment — collectively received $229 million in grants from the Environmental Protection Agency. Additionally, they were designated as partners to recipients of another $200 million in grants. Leaders from these organizations serve on the White House’s Environmental Justice Advisory Council, housed within the EPA, the agency responsible for awarding these grants. According to the White House, the council provides “independent advice and recommendations on how to address current and historic environmental injustice.”  Peggy Shepard, executive director of WE ACT for Environmental Justice, chairs the council. Other council members include Robert Bullard from the Bullard Center, Beverly Wright from the Deep South Center, and Nicky Sheats from the Center for the Urban Environment.  

Except for the Center for the Urban Environment, all of these organizations are linked to Mike Bloomberg’s Beyond Petrochemicals initiative, an $85 million campaign launched in 2022. They have also received substantial funding from Jeff Bezos’s Earth Fund and other progressive funding channels.  Large firms run by people like Bezos and Bloomberg stand to benefit from complex environmental regulations. Regulations often either directly restrict competition, or indirectly imposes a greater burden on smaller businesses as they have fewer resources to comply with new rules.  The Free Beacon’s investigation concluded that these revelations raise concerns about the oversight of the Biden-Harris administration’s allocation of significant environmental grants because of the close ties between the EPA’s environmental justice efforts and these organizations.

In addition to her Environmental Equity Act, then-Senator Harris also introduced legislation titled the Environmental Justice for All Act. This too would have seen hundreds of millions of tax-dollars go to radical foundations and nonprofits aligned with Harris’ politics. However, it goes much further by targeting American energy producers with new taxes and fees. The proceeds of these new punitive taxes would go to further grantmaking for the very organizations attempting to put American energy workers out of jobs. On top of the traditional spending spree and new taxes, this bill would create new programs seeking to enact “reparations” to communities most “impacted” by climate change. One such program proposed in the bill is to fund the creation of make-up and other cosmetic products exclusively for “women of color” all in the name of fighting climate change.

Electric Vehicle Mandates

Vice President Harris has also been a consistent supporter of the Biden administration’s unpopular EV mandates.  During her 2020 presidential campaign, Harris pledged ambitious climate policies.  She aimed for 50 percent of all new passenger vehicles sold to be electric vehicles (EVs) by 2030, and a complete transition to 100 percent EVs by 2035. Additionally, she supported a mandate that by 2030, all new vehicle purchases for corporate fleets, transportation networks, and heavy-duty vehicles must be electric.

Back in January 2019, months after announcing her presidential bid, Harris cosponsored the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act. Initially targeting 43 percent of car sales to be electric by 2027, the bill evolved to set a goal of 100 percent electric car sales by 2035.  In contrast, the Biden administration’s current approach includes finalized standards that aim for 56 percent of new light-duty car sales to be battery-electric and 13 percent hybrid by 2032. For heavy-duty vehicles under these standards, fewer than half of trucks produced in 2032 are expected to be electric.

A recent poll conducted by the Remington Research Group, commissioned by the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, revealed that in key states such as Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin — pivotal for determining the election outcome — 59 percent or more of likely voters oppose government bans on gas-powered cars.

Bans On Plastic

Harris has also supported bans on plastic straws and single use plastics even though these policies routinely fail to provide any sort of meaningful benefit to the environment.  For example, in 2020, New Jersey enacted legislation prohibiting single-use plastic and paper bags in all stores and food service businesses, which took effect in May 2022 and was applauded by environmental groups. Despite a reduction of over 60 percent in the total number of plastic bags to 894 million, the switch to alternative bags led to a significant increase in the state’s plastic consumption, soaring nearly threefold from 53 million pounds to 151 million pounds. 

Most stores in New Jersey adopted heavier, reusable shopping bags made from non-woven polypropylene, which require over 15 times more plastic and generate more than five times the greenhouse gas emissions during production per bag compared to polyethylene plastic bags. Moreover, these alternative bags are not widely recyclable and typically lack post-consumer recycled materials. Greenhouse gas emissions surged by 500 percent compared to the previous bags used in 2015, adding to consumer expenses for reusable bags at a time when economic pressures from inflation were already affecting grocery budgets.

AEA Congressional Scorecard

Senator Kamala Harris received a lifetime score of 0 percent from the American Energy Alliance’s Energy Scorecard.

2019 – 2020 votes:  

2017 – 2018 votes: 

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , ,

The Unregulated Podcast #192: Meritocracy and Freedom

July 25, 2024 by Leave a Comment

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna cover the fallout of the Kamala Coup, recent bombshell proceedings in Congress, and what it all means for the 2024 presidential election.

Links:

Stay Connected With The Show:

Filed Under: Podcast Tagged With: , , ,

Biden-Harris Admin Giving Out Billions In EV Subsidies

July 19, 2024 by Leave a Comment

The Biden administration plans to award General Motors and Chrysler-parent Stellantis nearly $1.1 billion in grants to convert existing car manufacturing plants to build electric vehicles and components. The Department of Energy (DOE) announced $1.7 billion in planned grants to help fund the conversion of 11 “at risk” plants in eight states to enable the production of 1 million electric vehicles annually, help retain 15,000 existing jobs, and create 3,000 new positions. The plants are “at risk” because of EV transition policies being forced by Washington, D.C. The awards are for plants in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, and Virginia — some of which are swing states in the November presidential election.

To support the EV effort further, President Joe Biden has prodded U.S. automakers to assemble a rising number of electric vehicles, introduced new tax incentives and funded EV charging stations. Biden federal regulators have also issued stricter emissions rules to boost EV sales. Despite these initiatives designed to increase demand, Americans’ interest in purchasing electric vehicles isn’t matching the Biden administration’s desires as the rate of growth of EV sales has fallen due to the high cost of electric vehicles and lack of charging stations, of which the federal government has only installed seven out of the 500,000 it promised. As a result, electric vehicles are piling up on dealer’s lots.

The White House is courting union workers in key battleground states and seeking to reassure autoworkers that its policies pushing electric vehicles will not cost jobs, despite requiring fewer workers to manufacture them and maintain them than gasoline and diesel vehicles. The Energy Secretary told reporters the awards were a “hallmark of the Biden administration’s industrial strategy” and would “modernize historical auto manufacturing facilities.”

The Biden administration’s grants include more than $650 million for two factories in Michigan. The plants in Michigan include General Motors’ Lansing Grand River Assembly, which is to be refurbished at an unspecified future date to allow production of new EV models and could receive up to $500 million, if it, like the other projects, hits marks for retooling, production and hiring or employee retention. The plan calls for retaining more than 650 UAW jobs at the facility and adding 50 new hires. GM will make its own unspecified investment to produce electric vehicles in Lansing at a future date but said the plant will continue to produce the Cadillac CT4 and CT5.

ZF North America Inc. was also awarded a grant of up to about $158 million to retool a portion of its plant in Marysville in St. Clair County to move from making axle drive component parts for internal combustion engine vehicles to components for electric vehicles. The grant calls for retaining 536 jobs, including 387 UAW employees.

The potential grants also include $335 million to help reopen and convert Stellantis’ idled Fiat Chrysler assembly plant in Belvidere, Illinois, to building electric vehicles, restoring some 1,450 union jobs. Another $250 million will go to convert Stellantis’ transmission plant in Kokomo, Indiana, to make electric drive modules, which combine the motor, transmission and other electronics in a single unit in battery-powered electric vehicles. The grant expects to retain 585 UAW jobs. In October, Stellantis agreed to build a new $3.2 billion battery plant and invest $1.5 billion in a new mid-size truck factory in Belvidere, Illinois under a new union contract.

Other plants in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Maryland and Virginia also received grants to help shore up supply chains and assembly of electric cars, trucks and buses. The funding was included in the Democrat-passed Inflation Reduction Act in 2022.

Hyundai Mobis, which operates a Stellantis supplier in Ohio, will receive $32 million to produce plug-in hybrid components and battery packs.

Other awards include $89 million for Harley-Davidson to expand its York, Pennsylvania plant for EV motorcycle manufacturing; $80 million for Blue Bird to convert a former Georgia plant to build electric school buses; and $75 million to engine company Cummins to convert part of an existing Indiana plant to make zero-emission components and electric powertrain systems. The DOE also plans $208 million for the Volvo Group to upgrade plants in Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania to increase EV production capacity.

The DOE must still complete negotiations with companies on milestones and other requirements and complete environmental reviews before the awards are finalized.  Given the current time it takes DOE to complete negotiations for awards, there is little chance these awards will be finalized and the money will go to these companies until after the next Presidential inauguration.

Conclusion

The Biden administration is handing out grants and other incentives to increase EV production in order to reach Biden’s goal of a 50 percent EV share of auto sales by 2030—part of the plan to keep his promise to the U.N. in support of the Paris Climate Accord. Biden’s Department of Energy has proposed grants of $1.7 billion to companies that will either manufacture electric vehicles or their component parts. This situation of free wheeling with taxpayer dollars is reminiscent of Solyndra and Fisker—companies that the Obama administration funded that failed in that administration’s endeavor to transform the energy market.  Rather than let markets work and consumers select the best technologies to meet their needs, the Biden administration is using regulations, grants, tax credits and other incentives to push manufacturers towards faster EV production and sales, despite the rate of growth in EV sales slowing.

Donald Trump has criticized Biden’s EV policies and vowed to reverse them if he takes office.  Trump vowed to “terminate” green vehicle mandates, warning that if they continued under Biden, “American auto production will be totally dead.” Currently, the U.S. auto industry cannot compete against electric vehicles made by Chinese manufacturers, who are making the cheapest electric vehicles on the market and gaining market share in Europe. Only U.S. trade policy is keeping those manufacturers from flooding U.S. vehicle markets.

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

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

The Unregulated Podcast #191: Hey Joe, How Are You Doing?

July 19, 2024 by Leave a Comment

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna go over the fallout from the attempted assassination on Donald Trump, the events at the RNC, and what Trump’s choice of J.D. Vance for vice-president means for the future of American energy and politics.

Links:

Stay Connected With The Show:

Filed Under: Podcast Tagged With: , ,

Biden And Harris Block Development In Alaska

July 16, 2024 by Leave a Comment

On July 5, Biden’s Interior Department blocked 28 million acres of federal land (D-1 lands) in the state of Alaska from any mining or oil and gas development, which removes an area the size of the state of Pennsylvania from resource development. The Biden administration also blocked a 211-mile gravel road, the Ambler Access Road, that would have connected mining districts in west-central Alaska to a highway that runs through the middle of the state. The mines are rich in copper and cobalt needed for the green energy transition. In 2020, President Donald Trump had approved the permit to build the road, but after Joe Biden was elected President, Interior Secretary Deb Haaland ordered a new analysis, arguing that the Trump-era studies had been inadequate.

The Biden administration has targeted Alaska’s resource development opportunities 65 times, affecting the state’s energy and economic future. The Biden administration has kowtowed to environmentalists to gain favor at the ballot box. This time, it is placing 28 million acres off-limits to responsible development, which empowers China, Russia and other enemies of the United States, and has blocked a gravel road used to reach areas for mineral development needed for Biden’s green energy transition. The Biden Administration has done everything environmental groups have requested in Alaska, except for the decision to allow development of the Willow Project in NPR-A, making some wonder if the Willow decision was an artificial controversy to mask later anti-energy and mineral actions such as those taken recently.

D-1 Lands Removal

“D-1” lands are about 50 million acres of federally managed public lands found in pockets across the state from Bristol Bay to the Brooks Range, Copper River watershed, and northern Southeast Alaska. D-1 lands, overseen by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), were withdrawn from mineral entry under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) in 1971 to allow the Secretary of the Interior to determine whether those lands should remain withdrawn to protect the public interest. D-1 protections cover most of each BLM regional planning area, making them off-limit to extractive development.

Source: Audubon Alaska

In 1980, President Jimmy Carter signed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) into law, designating the largest swatch of protected areas in the United States.  Alaska now hosts 60 percent of the acreage in the National Park System, 88 percent of the acreage in the National Wildlife Refuge System, and the two largest National Forests.  The D-1 areas were left for later disposition, but most Alaskans believed they would become lands of multiple use, allowing them economic and recreational opportunities after the huge battle over ANILCA.  Until President Trump’s decision made in consultation with the State of Alaska, the lands remained in limbo.

The Trump administration, seeing the need for fossil fuel and mineral development, prepared, but did not finalize, five Public Land Orders to lift the D-1 protections for 28 million acres of BLM-managed lands within Bristol Bay, Bering Sea Western Interior, East Alaska, Kobuk Seward, and the Ring of Fire regions of Alaska for multiple uses. On August 16, 2022, however, Biden’s BLM initiated a process to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to determine the impact of lifting the D-1 protections on fish and wildlife habitat, subsistence opportunities, and Alaska communities.  On December 15, 2023, the BLM opened a 60-day comment period seeking input from the public. In its final environmental impact statement concerning Alaska’s D-1 lands, the BLM selected the “no action” alternative, which will prevent all future oil, gas and mining activities on 28 million acres spread across Alaska.  This action follows Biden’s closure of ANWR despite lease sales mandated by federal law and his foreclosure of future energy development in the Indiana-sized National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A}.

Ambler Access Road Project

The Ambler Access Road project had bipartisan support from Alaska’s congressional delegation and was mandated to be permitted by Congress. In December, Republican Senators Dan Sullivan and Lisa Murkowski, along with the state’s Democratic Representative Mary Sattler Peltola, sent a letter to Haaland urging the analysis be conducted quickly and the road project re-approved. The Alaskan lawmakers argued that Alaska and the nation needed the jobs, revenues and minerals to which the road would allow access. Those minerals, the lawmakers explained, would also make America less dependent on foreign countries with poor records on human rights and environmental quality for oil and gas development. According to the delegation, Congress had mandated the road’s construction through the 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), meaning that the Biden administration was overreaching its executive authority to deny the road’s right away.

China dominates global critical mineral supply chains, accounting for approximately 60 percent of world-wide production and 85 percent of processing capacity. Transitioning from fossil fuels, which is the goal of Biden’s climate mandates, would leave the U.S. dependent on China for energy, unless the U.S. develops its own mines and processing facilities. While there are some other sources of minerals in the world, such as the cobalt mines in the Democratic Republic of Congo, human rights investigations have discovered widespread use of children in dangerous and toxic conditions. China also holds a heavy hand in the ownership of those mineral rich areas.

Ignoring guidance from Alaska’s Congressional delegation, in its formal record of decision, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) picked the “no action” alternative, which prohibits construction of the road on public lands. The Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority intends to pursue litigation against the decision.

Conclusion

The Biden administration is doing all it can to restrict new development of fossil fuel and mineral resources in the United States despite having a wealth of those resources here and particularly in Alaska. In doing so, the Biden administration is depriving Americans of their public wealth, increasing energy prices and spurring on inflation. It is also making the United States dependent on countries such as China, who has spent decades in placing itself as a forerunner in critical mineral development as it has little oil and gas resources to compete against the massive U.S. resource base.

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

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

The Unregulated Podcast #190: Making Fetch Happen

July 12, 2024 by Leave a Comment

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss the latest woes of Team Biden, America’s out of control spending, the fading EV fad, and commemorate the passing of the great James Inhofe.

Links:

Stay Connected With The Show:

Filed Under: Podcast Tagged With: , , , ,

Biden’s Tik-Tok Inspired LNG Ban Blocked By Courts

July 12, 2024 by Leave a Comment

A federal judge halted President Joe Biden’s temporary moratorium on new licenses for exports of US liquefied natural gas (LNG). U.S. District Judge James D. Cain Jr. in Louisiana issued a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit filed by 16 states, including Louisiana, Alaska, Texas, West Virginia and Wyoming, which argued Biden violated the U.S. Constitution and other federal laws by halting licenses in January to assess their impact on climate change. Under Biden’s direction, the Department of Energy stopped approving new licenses to export LNG to Asian nations and other countries that are not free trade partners with the United States, including Europe and Ukraine, while the department reviewed how the shipments affect climate change, the economy and national security. According to U.S. gas producers, the halt in licensing threatens to harm allies dependent on American energy supplies as well as billions of dollars in LNG export projects.

According to Judge Cain, the government’s decision to halt approvals appears to be “completely without reason or logic and is perhaps the epiphany of ideocracy,” adding that the states can pursue their legal challenge to Biden’s moratorium. Cain cited evidence submitted by the plaintiffs that showed loss of revenues and deferred investments in LNG projects due to the Biden administration’s actions. For example, some $61 billion in pending infrastructure construction in Louisiana is at risk from Biden’s pause. The case is Louisiana v. Biden, 24-cv-406, US District Court, Western District of Louisiana (Lake Charles).

Despite the court order, the short-term practical effects are likely to be minimal. Under federal law, the Department of Energy decides whether such LNG exports are in the public interest — and it can continue scrutinizing proposals for new export authorizations. Meanwhile, rival developers with existing licenses remain unaffected by Biden’s decision, and Biden’s LNG pause is a boon to foreign adversaries that produce energy, including Iran and Russia, as well as Qatar, which is expanding LNG production rapidly to corner world market share. Some key U.S. projects affected include:

  • Energy Transfer LP’s extension for a Louisiana project whose license expired before construction was completed.
  • Commonwealth LNG’s license request that has been under review since November 2022.
  • Venture Global LNG’s CP2 project, which has a major deal with Ukraine.

Already-licensed projects can move forward including expansions by NextDecade Corp., Cameron LNG, Freeport LNG, and Texas LNG, whose expansions depend on order books and financing. According to the DOE, current authorizations for exports of LNG to non-free trade agreement countries stand at over 48 billion cubic feet per day, or more than 45 percent of the current domestic production of natural gas. The agency also said the United States will continue to be the largest exporter of LNG for at least the next six years based on the current export capacity.

The judge’s ruling comes just days after the Federal Energy regulatory Commission (FERC) approved what would be the nation’s largest export terminal for liquefied natural gas. Venture Global’s Calcasieu Pass 2 southwestern Louisiana project, often referred to as CP2, was recently approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, but the project still needs DOE approval. According to DOE, the project’s application is pending.

The CP2 project has had several delays as FERC has requested more data for its environmental review, after anti-fossil energy groups began a campaign to stop them. Notably, the Biden administration invited a 25-year-old TikTok “influencer” involved in the campaign to the White House to share his policy “expertise” with the White House Climate Team and relevant decision makers before making a final decision.

Ukraine recently struck a major deal with Venture Global to help wean Eastern Europe off Russian natural gas as many EU countries still depend on Russian gas that is shipped through a pipeline that crosses Ukraine. Ukraine does not intend to renew a five-year transit agreement with Russia’s Gazprom that expires at the end of this year. Instead, Ukraine’s largest private energy company, DTEK, recently signed a deal with Venture Global. DTEK would buy LNG from Venture Global’s Plaquemines facility “to support near to medium term energy security needs for Ukraine and the broader Eastern European region.” Under the deal, DTEK will also be able to purchase up to two million metric tons of gas each year from the company’s CP2 facility, which is ensnared in the Administration’s moratorium on new LNG export projects.

Russia still accounts for about 15 percent of Europe’s gas supply. In May, Europe had to import more gas from Russia than the United States for the first time in nearly two years amid problems at a U.S. LNG facility, proving the need for more LNG capacity to support U.S. allies. If Europeans cannot get gas from the United States, they will have to rely on Russia. CP2 could supply about 5 percent of the world’s LNG by 2026. It already has contracts with Germany and Japan in addition to eastern Europe. Biden officials have told allies not to worry, and that the Administration’s permitting pause will not have an immediate impact on U.S. LNG exports. But Biden’s moratorium has caused enormous political uncertainty about the future supply of U.S. gas, which in turn damages investor confidence in projects and affects the jobs and lives of construction workers who would build them.

Conclusion

A U.S. District Judge has temporarily blocked the pause on LNG export licenses that the Biden administration put into effect in January due to a suit by 16 states that the pause violates the Constitution and other federal laws. The short-term impact is expected to be minimal due to the fact that Biden’s Energy Department will still be in charge of scrutinizing the applications for facilities. The pause affects U.S. European allies and their ability to sever their gas imports from Russia. Ukraine has a major deal with an LNG exporter that is affected by the pause. And, while DOE studies the Impact of  LNG on climate during Biden’s moratorium, other countries are building LNG facilities, signing deals and creating jobs in their countries.

supplier.

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

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , , ,

Alaska Sues Biden Over War On American Energy

July 11, 2024 by Leave a Comment

Two lawsuits have been recently filed against the Biden administration over lost leases on Alaska’s North Slope. A coalition of North Slope local and regional governments, tribal governments and Native corporations has sued the Biden administration in the U.S. District Court in Anchorage for prohibitive environmental protections President Biden placed on the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A). And, the state of Alaska has filed suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to recover lost revenues from nine canceled federal oil and gas leases covering lands in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge’s (ANWR) Coastal Plain. Alaska’s state budget is heavily reliant on its oil production as are jobs of Alaskan residents.  Oil and gas jobs represent about one quarter of all jobs, and generate about half of the state’s economy, while providing as much as 90 percent of state unrestricted General Fund revenues. Virtually all of Alaska’s oil transits the 800-mile Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) from state lands at Prudhoe Bay to a marine terminal in Valdez.

NPR-A Lawsuit

The NPR-A lawsuit, filed by the organization Voice of the Arctic Iñupiat, claims that the rule enacted by the Department of the Interior on April 19 should be invalidated because it resulted from a flawed process. The rule was enacted improperly because of several legal shortcomings, including the agency’s failure to conduct a full environmental impact statement, the diversion from four decades of NPR-A management that emphasized oil development and a lack of “meaningful” engagement with the people of the North Slope. The lawsuit claims the rule “turns vast swaths of the NPR-A into a de facto conservation system unit.” The new rule was proposed by the Bureau of Land Management last September and finalized in April. At 23 million acres, the National Petroleum Reserve is an area the size of the State of Indiana, established as a petroleum reserve in 1923.

The rule makes changes to the Integrated Activity Plan that was issued in 2013 by the Obama administration. That plan put about half of the reserve off-limits to leasing and identified five “special areas” as sites closed to development because of their ecological and cultural importance. The new rule codifies protections that are in the integrated activity plan, making them requirements rather than guidelines. It makes the protections for the five designated areas more permanent and contains provisions for possible future additions.

The members of Voice of the Arctic Iñupiat, a diverse group that includes the North Slope Borough government, Arctic Slope Regional Corp., the Iñupiat Community of the Arctic Slope and Ilisagvik College in Utqiagvik, have significant interests in continued oil development in the reserve. The members benefit from revenues and employment generated through the area’s oil development.

The new rule followed a Trump administration plan to replace the Obama-era integrated activity plan. That plan would have opened 82 percent of the reserve to oil leasing, including the areas in and around Teshekpuk Lake, the North Slope’s largest lake. The Trump plan, which was finalized in the final days of the Trump administration, was never enacted, and management continued under the 2013 Obama administration plan.

The petroleum reserve, located on the western side of the North Slope, holds large amounts of oil in a geologic formation called Nunashuk, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. Though development there occurred much later than that at Prudhoe Bay and other sites on state land, there have been some large discoveries within the reserve that are connected to the Nunashuk formation. The most prominent is Willow, currently under development by ConocoPhillips and expected to start production in 2029. Little exploration has occurred in the region but the area is known to have enormous potential for oil, gas and coal.

ANWR Lawsuit

The state of Alaska sued the Biden administration to recover lost revenues after it canceled oil and gas drilling leases in the federal Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The state in its lawsuit said the cancellation of the leases issued during the Trump administration cost the state hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars. Alaska lawmakers in 2017 secured the opportunity to develop the leases through a provision included in a tax cut bill that was signed by President Trump. In the final days of the Trump administration, it issued nine, 10-year leases for drilling in ANWR after a lease sale was held January 6, 2021. Two of the entities that won leases withdrew from their holdings in 2022, and Biden’s Department of Interior canceled the remaining seven leases last September, which had been issued to the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority. In October, the state agency filed a separate lawsuit which remains pending before a federal judge in Anchorage that argues the administration’s decision violates a clear Congressional mandate in the 2017 tax bill to open up ANWR to drilling.

The state in the most recent lawsuit focused on the financial impacts of the Biden administration’s actions on Alaska and sought to “compel the United States to face the logical and legal consequences of its policy decision.” Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, the state was entitled to a royalty of 8.335 percent of the revenues generated through production of oil and gas under the leases. The lease cancellations also deprived Alaska of expected revenue derived from corporate income taxes and local taxes stemming from the oil and gas construction activities, which would have produced billions of dollars in revenue that would benefit the education, health and well-being of residents of Alaska, whose state budgeting is heavily reliant on oil production. The case is the State of Alaska v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 1:24-cv-01017.

Conclusion

Alaska and some of its residents are suing the Biden administration over lost opportunities for oil production on the state’s North slope which would provide billions of dollars for the state budget and jobs for Alaskan residents. The Biden administration cancelled ANWR leases that were provided as a provision in a tax cut bill signed by President Trump. The Biden administration also required the removal of areas of the NPR-A from further oil and gas development for environmental reasons that was originally issued as only guidelines under the Integrated Activity Plan of the Obama administration. The National Petroleum Reserve was established in 1912 as a backup source of oil for the federal government, originally for the Navy, as it was at one time referred to as the Naval Petroleum Reserve. The Biden administration actions regarding oil production in the ANWR and the NPR-A are costing Alaskans billion of lost dollars and numerous jobs.

ANWR lies to the east of Prudhoe Bay and TAPS while the NPRA lies to the west.  They both are federally owned, and have geological potential to contribute to the pipeline, which is currently running at less than ¼ of nameplate capacity.  If additional oil is added from these federal sources, it will extend the life of the line, while allowing Alaska full development and production of its resources, while supplying additional domestic production of energy. Green groups have long held that shutting off new sources of oil for the Alaska Pipeline would hasten its closure, while leaving billions of barrels of oil in the ground on- and offshore Alaska.

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

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