AEA Joins Broad Coalition Urging Senators to Reject the PROVE IT Act

WASHINGTON DC (01/18/2024) – In advance of today’s Senate Environment & Public Works Committee markup of S. 1863, the PROVE IT Act of 2023, a coalition of more than 40 organizations sent a letter urging Congress to reject the legislation. The PROVE IT Act directs the U.S. Department of Energy to set up the necessary infrastructure to tax imported goods based on their carbon dioxide content, which would then be used to establish a tax on energy intensive imports and then later a domestic tax on carbon dioxide.

AEA President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement:

“The PROVE IT Act is a backdoor attempt to impose carbon dioxide taxes on the American public without so much as an up or down vote. If Senator Kevin Cramer, the bill’s sponsor, believes we should increase the price of energy – along with everything that is grown, made or transported with energy – then he should be honest with his constituents instead of hiding behind rhetoric about getting tough on China.

The American people know that any tax on imported goods will be paid for by families and businesses, not Chinese companies. If Senator Cramer really opposes carbon taxes, then he should prove it by withdrawing his legislation.”

A copy of the letter can be found here.

Additional Resources:


For media inquiries please contact:
[email protected]

New Survey, Same Results: Americans Reject Carbon Dioxide Taxes in Favor of Affordable and Reliable Energy

WASHINGTON DC (01/09/2024) – The American Energy Alliance and the Committee to Unleash Prosperity recently sponsored a survey of 1600 likely voters equally divided among eight States (Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada, Michigan, Missouri, and Ohio) conducted by MWR Strategies in December 2023. The total sample margin of error is 2.45 percent.

The survey results confirm that there has been little change in sentiment and attitudes on energy and climate change. Many of the responses in the survey are either consistent with or more emphatic than what we have found in previous surveys.

For example, just 3 percent of respondents identified climate change as the most pressing issue facing the United States, compared to the 59 percent that identified the economy as either the first or second most important issue facing the United States. 51 percent of all voters (including 63 percent of Republicans) oppose a carbon dioxide or energy tax on imported goods. When asked what they would be willing to pay each year to address climate change, the median response was 10 dollars, and 35 percent (including 17 percent of Democrats) said they were unwilling to pay anything.

AEA President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement:

“The results reconfirm what we already knew: voters are not willing to pay any tax associated with carbon dioxide or energy – including a carbon dioxide or energy tax on imported goods. Those who believe in limited government and free energy markets continue to be allied with the vast majority of voters concerning the destructive and pointless nature of carbon dioxide taxes and on the fundamentals of the climate change issue.”

Steve Moore, of the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, noted:

“These survey results show Americans care most about their wallets and their access to reliable and affordable energy, not the radical green energy agenda Joe Biden has embraced.”


Additional Resources:


For media inquiries please contact:
[email protected]

The Unregulated Podcast #163: A Feature, Not a Bug

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss what’s on the agenda for Congress in the new year.

Links:

The Unregulated Podcast #162: 2024 Predictions

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna make bold predictions on how anno Domini 2024 will unfold.

Links:

The Unregulated Podcast #161: Don’t Marginalize My Experiences

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss how to best celebrate during the holiday Christmas season, the latest from the 2024 presidential race, and the future of American automotive production.

Links:

They Might as Well Call it a Least Sale 

WASHINGTON DC (12/20/2023) – President Biden’s Department of Interior finalized the 2024-2029 National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program on Friday with the fewest oil and gas lease sales in history. There will be a maximum of three lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico scheduled over the five years, and no sales will occur off the east and west coasts or offshore Alaska.

AEA President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement:

“While President Biden continues to blame oil and gas companies for high energy prices, his Department of Interior has done the absolute minimum forced upon them by law and demanded by the courts with respect to this latest leasing plan.

This latest attack on the oil and gas industry provides further warning to companies eager to invest in American energy and endangers our economic and national security. All President Biden’s offshore program will do is offshore our oil and production to other nations, like Iran and Venezuela.”

Additional Resources:

For media inquiries please contact:
[email protected]

Biden Now Coming For Your Family’s Air Conditioner

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.

Gavin Newsom: Californians Don’t Pay Enough For Gasoline

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.

The Unregulated Podcast #160: Running the Guillotine

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:

Biden Targets Domestic Refineries As China Outpaces U.S.

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.

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.