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

Key Vote YES on H.R. 1

March 30, 2023 by Leave a Comment

The American Energy Alliance urges all members to vote yes on final passage of H.R. 1 the Lower Energy Costs Act.

This legislation includes common sense reforms and policy changes which will lower energy costs for Americans and encourage domestic investment in resource development as well as reducing red tape for a broad spectrum of energy and energy-related projects. With persistently high inflation, these types of actions to lower costs are all the more needed. The incremental steps included in H.R. 1 move this country in a more prosperous and secure direction and are worthy of support.

The AEA urges all members to support free markets and affordable energy by voting YES on H.R. 1. AEA will include this vote in its American Energy Scorecard.

Filed Under: Scorecard Tagged With: ,

AEA to House: A Job Well Done on Passing H.R. 1.

March 30, 2023 by Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON DC (03/31/2023) – Today, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1, the Lower Energy Costs Act.

AEA President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement:

“Today, the House of Representatives took an important step in pushing back against President Biden’s war on domestic energy production. H.R. 1 addresses many of the policy priorities that the American Energy Alliance has championed in recent years. The Lower Energy Costs Act will cut red tape and increase domestic energy production to lower energy costs for American families and reduce our dependence on China for important minerals and mineral processing.

By prioritizing energy reform, House Republicans are keeping their promise to fight the Biden administration’s radical approach to energy policy. The passage of H.R.1 is an important first step in pushing back against this harmful agenda, but there is much more work to be done. I look forward to continuing to work with lawmakers to help secure reliable and affordable energy for all Americans.”

The Bill is an attempt to dispel some of the Biden Administration’s anti-oil and gas policies, pipeline permitting delays, and rejections of critical mineral mines such as revoking the leases for the Twin Metals mine in Minnesota and withdrawing lands from mining, despite resources known to be in place.

H.R. 1 will increase the production and export of American energy and reduce the regulatory burdens that make it harder to build major infrastructure in the United States through comprehensive permitting reform. The bill will also expedite critical mineral mining, streamline manufacturing, and make it easier to transport and export American natural gas by repealing the natural gas tax and speeding permitting for critical projects.

It will also reform the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that currently adds years of delays and millions of dollars in costs to energy and infrastructure projects. The Lower Energy Costs Act will provide a streamlined, simplified permitting process for all federally impacted projects, speeding construction for pipelines, transmission, and water infrastructure.

Additional Resources:

For media inquiries please contact:
[email protected]

Filed Under: Press Releases Tagged With: ,

Key Votes on H.R. 1 Amendments

March 29, 2023 by Leave a Comment

The American Energy Alliance urges all members to vote YES on amendments 10, 11, 12, and 13 and vote NO on amendment 26 offered to H.R. 1 the Lower Energy Costs Act.

YES: Palmer-Lesko amendment #10 would ensure that consumer choice in appliances is not arbitrarily constrained. Despite denials from the White House, various parts of the bureaucracy continue to advance proposals that would ban functionally all gas powered stoves. Congress can definitively end this threat with a simple vote.

YES: Perry amendment #11 would make clear that interstate river compacts do not have any special power to regulate hydraulic fracturing. Congress has made clear that individual states make their own regulations regarding hydraulic fracturing and this amendment would prohibit any attempts to get around that intent.

YES: Perry amendment #12 would ensure that Congress remains responsible for decisions on climate change regulations by repealing section 115 of the Clean Air Act regarding international air pollution. Sec. 115 has been repeatedly targeted by activists as an avenue to impose radical climate regulations through the backdoor, circumventing elected representatives in Congress.

YES: Roy-Self amendment #13 would direct the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to withdraw its two highly controversial policy statements from last year regarding pipeline project approvals. While FERC has partially backed down by designating the policy statements as mere “draft” documents, FERC should abandon its misguided regulatory overreach entirely.

NO: Levin amendment #26 which would strike the section of H.R. 1 which seeks to lower the cost of developing federal energy resources. One of the most effective ways of lowering energy prices is producing more of our energy domestically, which also has added benefits in jobs and economic growth. Raising the cost of producing energy on federal lands both reduces domestic production while at the same time increasing costs to consumers, precisely the opposite of what is needed during this period of persistently high inflation.

The AEA urges all members to support free markets and affordable energy by voting YES on amendments 10, 11, 12, and 13 and NO on amendment 26. Should votes on these amendments occur, AEA will include them in its American Energy Scorecard.

Filed Under: Scorecard Tagged With: ,

Biden’s EV Dreams A Nightmare For Working Families

March 29, 2023 by Leave a Comment

Expensive electricity rates are making home battery charging a headache and outside of the home, inconsistent and sometimes high pricing policies, frequently broken equipment, and a lack of battery chargers in key locations for all but Tesla drivers is frustrating electric vehicle owners. Inflation and intermittent renewable energy (wind and solar power) are escalating electricity rates, making EV home charging a frustrating experience for some drivers, particularly those in blue states with increasingly higher electricity rates. A J.D. Power study of EV owners who use Level 2 home-charging stations found that overall satisfaction in the home charging experiences declined 12 points since last year due mainly to the increase in electricity prices that are starting to hit home.

Home Charging

In New England, where electricity prices surge at peak hours, home charging satisfaction saw the largest year-over-year decline. There are several programs designed to ease the cost of EV home charging, including options to schedule charging at the most affordable times of day. Only about half of EV owners in the J.D. Power study indicated that they had an understanding of their utility company programs for home charging. But, these programs may not help all EV owners as the lowest rates in California are when electricity is generated by solar power during daylight hours when the sun is shining, but when Californians are mostly at work.

Different EV brands also had different levels of satisfaction, with Tesla home charging stations having the most satisfaction. Tesla’s public charging network is also satisfying customers more as it is far larger than the others–a reflection of the fact that most EVs sold in the United States are Teslas. Tesla’s network is divided into Superchargers located on highways and destination chargers located at places like hotels and tourist spots. Tesla also plans routes for its drivers on its network, suggesting where to stop, how long to charge and how many plugs are available at that station.

Charging Outside the Home

The Biden Administration is installing electric vehicle chargers across 75,000 miles of highway – helping electrify the great American road trip. It is funding charging stations every 50 miles along the interstate highway system as a result of the infrastructure law that put $7.5 billion toward EV charging infrastructure.  However, EV owners indicate that the chargers where people refuel EVs are often broken. One study found that about a quarter of the public charging outlets in the San Francisco Bay Area, where electric cars are commonplace, were not working. EV drivers say that companies that install and maintain charging stations need to do more to make sure that chargers remain reliable. There is often no one to turn to for help when something goes wrong at charging stations. Problems include broken screens and buggy software. Some chargers stop working mid-charge, while others never start in the first place.

While stations are getting better at fixing broken chargers, many still malfunction in nearly every way possible. For example, an EV operator encountered chargers that refused to recognize the vehicle was an EV model no matter how many times it was plugged in, and at another station, the charger kept booting the EV off after just a few seconds. Electrify America stations would, quite regularly, display the “spinning wheel of death” — the spiraling icon that indicates a computer is struggling for unknown reasons. Sometimes the wheel would stop after 30 seconds or a couple of minutes, and charging would begin and at other times, it would not. Getting a station to work meant making an old-fashioned phone call to customer service to find a solution.

Even when a charger is working, the rate at which it refills the battery can vary widely. Charging rates can vary depending on the outside temperature, how full or warm the battery is, what charging level the vehicle is designed to accept and whether another car is sharing the electric current. After reaching a certain state of charge, often 80 percent, the rate of charging drops dramatically, a measure taken to preserve the battery’s longevity.

Despite the huge cash infusion for EV infrastructure in the past three years, the U.S. charging network remains spotty. Between the end of 2019 and the end of 2022, U.S. spending included $600 million by federal, state and local governments; more than $4.3 billion by private companies; and more than $1.7 billion by electric utilities. That spending has not resulted in many new chargers because the permitting and construction of chargers can take 18 months or more. Moreover, qualified electricians are getting increasingly hard to find to perform the complex wiring forced electrification is requiring. Nonetheless, the number of U.S. public EV fast-charging ports nationwide has more than doubled, from about 14,000 to almost 30,000. For example, according to station counts from the Department of Energy, Utah and Washington have more than doubled charging stalls since 2019, and Colorado has tripled them. Idaho increased its number by 35 percent and Wyoming by 45 percent. These increases, however, begin from very low numbers of chargers, meaning that the network is still very sparse.

Reliability is a major issue, with chargers going offline for weeks or months at a time. The Biden administration is seeking to address reliability problems by requiring chargers funded under the infrastructure law to function 97 percent of the time. Numerous studies, however, suggest that goal to be far away. Last year, the data analytics firm J.D. Power surveyed more than 11,500 EV drivers and found that one out of five drivers to an EV charging station came away without a charge. Almost three-quarters of those said it was because of a malfunctioning station.

The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a trade group of U.S. auto manufacturers, pointed out that while the United States added 652,000 EVs since the start of 2022, it had added just 20,300 charging ports during the same period. That equates to 32 EVs for each public port. The alliance pointed out that California, the nation’s leading EV state, has estimated that its charging network in 2030 will require about seven charge points for every EV. Despite EV automakers claiming that 14 of their models have a range of 300 miles or more, range can be hindered by extreme temperatures, requiring more charges are needed.

EV Battery Charging Prices in Massachusetts

Some stations charge by the minute and others by the amount of electricity consumed, leading to unpredictable pricing. Charging by the minute means that less expensive EVs, which have slower charging equipment, pay more for the same amount of electricity than more expensive vehicles. For example, the maximum charging rate of the $109,000 GMC Hummer EV is about five times faster than the Chevy Bolt EV, which costs under $30,000. Charging by the amount of electricity consumed makes more sense because along with a vehicle’s maximum charging rate, temperature, equipment in the charger, and the number of other vehicles charging at the same station affect how long it takes to fill a battery. Some stations also have multiple subscription plans or charge different rates at different times of day.

Overall, there have been some significant price increases over the past few months in charging rates in Massachusetts after electric utility companies increased their rates. Electrify America, one of the largest operators of fast-charging stations in the state, raised prices by 16 to 19 percent. Smaller operator EVgo made its rate plans more complicated and added a new fee. And Tesla, which raised prices at many of its chargers last year, is opening its national network to other car brands but with higher prices for non-Tesla vehicles.

Electricity prices jumped to 39 cents per kilowatt-hour in February from 27 cents a year earlier, a 44 percent rise in the Boston metro area, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. In EVGo charging sessions, prices averaged 61 cents per kilowatt-hour in March after the new rate plan took effect, compared to 42 cents in January. At Electrify America, effective rates per kilowatt-hour calculated rose from 20 cents to 26 cents (though the company charges by the minute). The company has two rates, one for slow-charging cars and one for faster-charging cars. On March 6, the price for charging slower vehicles went up to 19 cents per minute from 16 cents. Faster-charging vehicles pay 37 cents, up from 32 cents. (With a $4-per-month subscription, customers get a discount of about one-quarter off those rates.)

At ChargePoint terminals owned by MassDOT, such as along I-95 and Route 24, prices have remained steady at 35 cents per kilowatt-hour. And prices have also been steady at 70 cents at the Nouria network, owned by convenience store chain Nouria Energy, which installed a few fast chargers in the southeastern part of the state. The calculated prices include fees and taxes that operators tack on.

Conclusion

The lack of on-the-road operable charging stations and their unreliability add anxiety to EV drivers who would be carefree in a gasoline-powered automobile. There are also major issues at charging stations ranging from broken chargers to the spiraling icon at malfunctioning stations, despite Biden’s requirement for 97 percent reliability. At some stations, the charging rate would oscillate up and down, which is difficult to accept compared to the predictable output of a gasoline pump. Erratic charging performance is not what Americans want as they drive their expensive EVs when their experience at the gas pump is without drama and at a fraction of the time of a battery charge.  As more Americans acquire EVs, problems are beginning to surface.

Biden’s infrastructure bill adds many charging stations to the network, but though it may look big on paper, that number vanishes in a country as big and sprawling as the United States, which has thousands of miles of roads that can absorb hundreds of chargers without creating an atmosphere of complete coverage. Further, Biden’s net zero electricity goal is escalating the price of electricity to the point that charging stations are increasing prices dramatically, which in at least Michigan is making it cheaper to operate a gasoline car for certain models than an EV.

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

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

Low Battery Warning For Biden’s EV Dreams

March 27, 2023 by Leave a Comment

Minor damage to an electric vehicle battery pack can lead to the entire car being totaled, leaving the expensive battery packs piling up in the scrapyard and causing higher insurance premiums. With no way to repair or assess slightly damaged battery packs after accidents, electric vehicles can lose up to 50 percent of their price, rendering it uneconomical to replace them, as batteries are the most expensive component of electric vehicles costing many tens of thousands of dollars.

In some cases, the battery packs are not even accessible. Tesla’s Texas-built Model Y battery pack has “zero repairability,” because the battery pack is part of the car’s structure and cannot be easily removed or replaced. Tesla’s decision to make battery packs “structural” has allowed it to cut production costs but pushes costs back to consumers and insurers. Without access to Tesla’s battery data, it is difficult for insurers to assess the extent of battery damage and take appropriate action.

Although electric vehicles constitute only a fraction of vehicles on the road, the trend of low-mileage electric vehicles being written off with minor damage is growing. Insurers and industry experts warn that unless carmakers produce more easily repairable battery packs and provide third-party access to battery cell data, already-high insurance premiums will keep rising and more low-mileage electric vehicles will be scrapped after collisions. According to insurance companies, making batteries in smaller sections or modules that are simpler to fix, and opening diagnostics data to third parties to determine battery cell health, would help the problem.

The lack of accessibility and data are resulting in battery packs that could be reused, but instead are thrown away, which reduces the sustainability argument of electric vehicles. Further, the production of EV batteries generates more carbon dioxide than fossil-fuel vehicles, which means that electric vehicles need to be driven for thousands of miles more than their fossil fuel counterparts before they offset the extra emissions. This would be compounded if battery damaged vehicles are prematurely scrapped.

Most carmakers believe their battery packs are repairable, though few seem willing to provide access to battery data. For instance, insurers, leasing companies and car repair shops are fighting with carmakers in the European Union over access to connected-car data.

In Germany, EV battery damage makes up just a few percent of Allianz’s motor insurance claims, but 8 percent of its claims costs. Insurance companies in Germany pool data on vehicle claims and adjust premium rates annually, so if the cost for a certain model increases, it raises premiums. Allianz has seen scratched battery packs where the cells inside are likely undamaged, but without diagnostic data it must write off those vehicles.

At Synetiq, the UK’s largest salvage company, over the last 12 months, the number of electric vehicles in the isolation bay – where they must be checked to avoid fire risk – at the firm’s Doncaster yard has soared, from about a dozen every three days to up to 20 per day. The UK currently has no EV battery recycling facilities, so Synetiq removes the batteries from written-off cars and stores them in containers. It is believed that at least 95 percent of the cells in the hundreds of EV battery packs – and thousands of hybrid battery packs – Synetiq has stored at Doncaster are undamaged and could be reused.

It costs more to insure most electric vehicles than traditional internal combustion engine vehicles. The average U.S. monthly EV insurance payment in 2023 is $206, 27 percent more than for a combustion-engine model. U.S. insurers recognize that if even a minor accident results in damage to the battery pack, the cost to replace it could exceed $15,000. A replacement battery for a Tesla Model 3 can cost up to $20,000; the car having retailed at around $43,000.

Tesla offers its own insurance policies in a dozen U.S. states to Tesla owners at lower rates than other insurance providers. Recently, Elon Musk indicated that Tesla has been making design and software changes to its vehicles to lower repair costs and insurance premiums. According to insurers and industry experts, electric vehicles, because they are loaded with all the latest safety features, have had fewer accidents so far than traditional cars.

Conclusion

The transition to electric vehicles so far has resulted in battery packs at scrap yards as insurers are totaling electric vehicles that have batteries dinged or scrapped because they lack the data to know whether the cells are still in good shape. Carmakers do not want to share battery data with third parties and as a result those electric vehicles with minor dents, and even those with low mileage are written off by insurers. Further, because EV batteries generate more carbon dioxide emissions than those in fossil fuel-powered vehicles, electric vehicles need to be driven more miles than their internal combustion counterparts to be rid of the excess emissions. Insurance companies warn that as more electric vehicles get totaled, insurance premiums will increase.

President Biden wants U.S. sales of electric vehicles to reach 50 percent of the market by 2030 and has begun with a goal that all light-duty federal government vehicles to be electric by 2027. In that vein, California and other states have banned the sale of fossil fuel vehicles, taking away vehicle and refueling choice for Americans. That will only increase costs for Americans as electric vehicles cost more than their fossil fuel counterparts, insurance premiums are higher, and as electricity costs rise from Biden’s transition to wind and solar power backed up by expensive batteries, refueling electric vehicles could increase above those for internal combustion vehicles. They already have for Michigan and certain model vehicles.  Government officials whose fevered dreams of electric vehicles as the solution to climate problems may have overlooked some very important issues their zeal is creating.

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

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

The Unregulated Podcast #125 Living and Dying

March 27, 2023 by Leave a Comment

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss the prospects for major banking institutions in the face of government meddling, the moving goalposts of the anti-stove agenda, and where the latest trillions in government spending have all gone.

Links:

Filed Under: Podcast Tagged With: , , ,

Biden’s War On Mining Weakens America

March 23, 2023 by Leave a Comment

China’s efforts to ramp up lithium extraction could see it accounting for nearly a third of the world’s supply by the middle of the decade. Chinese-controlled lithium mines, including those in Africa, are expected to increase output to 705,000 tons by 2025, from 194,000 tons in 2022—almost quadrupling the amount of its global supply and lifting China’s share of the critical mineral to 32 percent of the world’s supply, up from 24 percent last year. Further, over the next two years, China’s share of cobalt production is expected to reach half of global output, up from 44 percent currently. China’s cobalt refining reached 140,000 metric tons in 2022–77 percent share of the world’s refining capacity.

Source: Mining.com

Lithium

Lithium is important to the manufacture of electric vehicle batteries and because China is the world’s biggest market for new energy vehicles, lithium is particularly critical to its electric vehicle manufacturing industry. Chinese lithium mining is increasing its use of lithium derived from lepidolite–a lithium-bearing rock often considered poor quality and environmentally unsound because of its low yield and high energy costs. For every ton of lithium carbonate equivalent processed from lepidolite, 200 tons of waste are produced that needs treating and disposal. Because of China’s cheap coal generation and huge coal generation capacity, however, it has ample energy to process the material.  Lepidolite is expected to help increase China’s lithium yield to 280,000 tons in 2025—13 percent of global supply–up from 88,000 tons last year.

China has over half of the world’s lithium refining capacity but has to rely on imports for about two-thirds of the raw material. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, China accounts for 8 percent of the world’s lithium reserves, which are mostly held in an igneous rock called spodumene. Saltwater lakes are another key source.

Source: Mining.com

Lithium prices hit an all-time high in 2022 as demand for electric vehicles outstripped production. However, the price dropped about 50 percent from its November peak, from over $80,000 per metric ton to around $44,000 per metric ton because of more global supply coming online this year, and signs that the breakneck growth of China’s electric vehicle sector may be starting to moderate. Despite the drop, lithium carbonate, a refined version of the metal, is still around eight times more expensive in China than it was in 2020. Even after lithium prices have fallen that much, they remain so high that mining and processing the metal is a very profitable business. The metal, which is suited for batteries because of its ability to store energy, costs about $5,000 to $8,000 per metric ton to produce and can sell for as much as 10 times that amount.

Source: Daily Metal Price

Cobalt

Global cobalt mine production increased 42 percent between 2020 and 2022 as covid-19 related supply chain constraints eased, existing operations ramped up due to expected demand increases and several new mines were commissioned. Global supplies are expected to surge to around 210,000 metric tons this year, up 24 percent from 2022, while demand is forecast to increase 8 percent to 205,000 metric tons.

Source: Mining.com

Due in part to the surge in production, the price of cobalt hit a 32-month low this month. Also affecting lower cobalt prices is the relaxation of logistics issues, weak consumer electronic sales and the increasing popularity of batteries made without cobalt from lithium, iron and phosphate, a combination known as L.F.P.

Cobalt prices are expected to average $54,840 a metric ton this year and $50,320 in 2024, compared with $63,739 last year—a decrease of 14 percent between 2022 and 2023. Cobalt prices could fall further if the world’s second-largest cobalt mine, Tenke Fungurume owned by CMOC (formerly Chinese Molybdenum Company, Ltd), is allowed to resume exports from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DOC) where a tax dispute led to an export ban in July 2022. The company has kept producing despite the ban, stockpiling 10,000 to 12,000 metric tons of cobalt. Most of the world’s cobalt comes from the DRC, where mining operations are known for child labor and abysmal working conditions and where China owns half of the large cobalt mines. The Congo has almost half of the world’s cobalt reserves.

Conclusion

China is ensuring that it is ahead in the mineral race for electric vehicle batteries and other “green technologies” that the Western world is pushing in its fight to eliminate fossil fuels. While President Biden indicates that he wants to mine and process critical minerals in the United States, he is doing little to achieve it. Instead, he is catering to environmental groups, and even closing prospective mining areas in the United States.  His administration has revoked federal leases; used regulatory action to delay or revoke mining, air pollution and water quality permits; and labeled a flowering plant “endangered” as ways to delay or cancel metal mines in the United States. The United States is well on its way to becoming 4 times more dependent on China for its energy than it was ever dependent on the Middle East for oil. To become dependent on an autocratic country is not in the best interests of the United States, especially since the United States has enormous domestic energy resources.

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

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

EV Queues Ahead

March 21, 2023 by Leave a Comment

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal, “The Energy Industry Prepares for Upheaval at the Gas Station,” points toward a big problem ahead regarding electric vehicle (EV) recharging. 

“Electric vehicles are a small but growing share of cars on the road,” Carol Ryan begins her article. “Energy companies already need to prepare for how they will change the gas station.” Why the upheaval?

“A customer refueling a conventional car spends five to six minutes on average near the pumps. Even with fast charging, an EV owner might hang around for 25 minutes.”

Will the affluent EV owner wait four-to-five times longer than the average motorist or truck driver at a service station? And if there is a line at the charger, ten times longer? Or 15 times longer being third in line? Nope.

I remember the gasoline lines of the 1970s (created by federal price controls, another story). Tempers flared, and folks were always trying to game the queue to get the fuel to resume a normal life. I also remember an advertisement in a Houston newspaper in August 1979 for hiring a “gas jockey” to pick up your vehicle, wait in line, and return it filled-up—for a handsome fee.

What will give? Carol Ryan ends her article:

“…. as more drivers in densely populated cities buy EVs despite limited access to on-street or driveway charging facilities, demand for public charging should grow. Shell and BP are betting that this will make their revamped gas-station businesses more lucrative, despite the decline in traditional gasoline consumption. It might pay off, but they will have to work harder than before to attract customers.”

Here is my expectation. “EV jockeys,” high school kids maybe, will do the dirty work. And be sitting on the hood with their cell phones and not roaming the minimart aisles making purchases as perhaps BP and Shell are thinking. Or maybe the enterprising will come to your home or business with the charging equipment. Or ….

A person’s time is a truly depleting asset. Duplicating the transportation grid for EVs spells wastage, trouble, and expense. Maybe the green EV elite can afford to pay someone to wait in the queue, but I think most Americans will smartly fill up five minutes a pop. Color them rationale and normal. 

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , , ,

House Energy Champions Release Bill Fighting Back Against Biden’s War On American Energy

March 17, 2023 by Leave a Comment

The U.S. House of Representatives released its energy bill, H.R. 1, the Lower Energy Costs Act which will increase the production and export of American energy and reduce the regulatory burdens that make it harder to build major infrastructure in the United States through comprehensive permitting reform. The Lower Energy Costs Act will also expedite critical mineral mining, streamline manufacturing, and make it easier to transport and export American natural gas by repealing the natural gas tax and speeding permitting for critical projects. It will also reform the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that currently adds years of delays and millions of dollars in costs to energy and infrastructure projects. The Lower Energy Costs Act will provide a streamlined, simplified permitting process for all federally impacted projects, speeding construction for pipelines, transmission, and water infrastructure. By fast-tracking the approval process for American energy production on federal lands and waters and speeding up the permitting process, the bill will lower costs for Americans and help grow the U.S. economy.

The Bill is an attempt to dispel some of the Biden Administration’s anti-oil and gas policies, pipeline permitting delays, and rejections of critical mineral mines such as revoking the leases for the Twin Metals mine in Minnesota and withdrawing lands from mining, despite resources known to be in place.  President Biden is conducting war upon American energy, apparently preferring the United States to get its oil from hostile countries or countries with dirtier energy whose standards are not on par with American companies and to get its critical minerals needed for technologies the Biden administration promotes (wind turbines, solar panels, and electric vehicles batteries) from China, who dominates those supply chains.

Environmental Quality

The Institute for Energy Research (IER) showed in its report on environmental quality that Biden’s preference for oil production outside of North America results in oil and natural gas production moving from countries with the highest environmental standards to countries with lower, or even functionally zero, environmental standards. IER’s report creates an environmental quality index to quantify this disparity. The report illustrates that oil production in the United States and other developed countries (Canada, Norway and the UK) is actually better for the environment than importing from producers in the Middle East, Africa and Asia. Yet, Biden removed the Presidential permit from the Keystone XL pipeline on his first day in office, decreasing the amount of oil the United States can import from Canada, and is holding Federal lands and waters hostage from legally required lease sales that would help increase future oil production. Recently, Biden withdrew 16 million acres from oil exploration in energy-rich Alaska, after suspending legal leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge during his first week in office.

Revenues from Domestic Production 

By withholding oil and gas production leases and minimizing land available for future production, President Biden is not allowing taxpayers to get the full value of the resources on public lands owned by the American public. Not only would increased domestic production provide lower energy costs for Americans, but taxpayers would benefit from federal and state government revenues increasing from rents and royalties. The Department of the Interior’s Office of Natural Resources Revenue disbursed $21.53 billion in revenues generated in fiscal year 2022 from energy production on federal and Tribal onshore lands, and federal offshore areas. Part of those revenues collected from oil, gas, renewable energy and mineral production on federal lands within states’ borders and from offshore oil and gas tracts in federal waters were distributed to the respective states. Alaska received $45 million in fiscal year 2022—less than 60 percent of what Texas received despite having massive federal lands rich in resources. New Mexico received the largest revenues from production on federal lands in fiscal year 2022– over 60 times more than Alaska.

Permitting Reform Needed

President Biden told his federal agencies to ensure climate change is factored into their work and even issued that edict to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)—a politically independent agency in charge of certain energy activities including natural gas permitting. His administration has been so diligent in those matters that the Energy Information Administration (EIA) recently reported that interstate natural gas pipeline capacity additions reached a record low in 2022 based on data collected over 27 years. In 2022, 897 million cubic feet per day of interstate natural gas pipeline capacity was added from five projects, with only one project adding a relatively small amount of new pipe. The 2022 gas pipeline capacity additions were just 3 percent of the record amount added (28,040 million cubic feet per day) in 2017. Since the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has to approve new interstate natural gas pipeline capacity, the news speaks loudly regarding its motivations as does President Biden’s promise to cause the demise of the U.S. oil and gas industry stated during his campaign. Regulatory hurdles are clearly stymying growth in pipeline capacity and thus to natural gas production, which points to much-needed permitting reform for interstate pipelines.

The Mountain Valley pipeline is a good example of why permitting reform is needed. The Mountain Valley pipeline is a 303 mile pipeline from northern West Virginia, through Southwest Virginia, and connecting with an existing pipeline near the North Carolina line. It was originally set for completion in 2018 and is now 94 percent complete. Permitting delays and court action have increased the pipeline’s cost from the original estimate of $3.5 billion to $6.6 billion. If all goes well in court and with obtaining remaining permits, Equitrans Midstream Corp., the lead partner in the project, hopes to have the remaining work done in time for the pipeline to begin transporting natural gas by the end of this year. This pipeline alone would add more than double the capacity of total U.S. interstate pipeline additions last year.

Minerals Needed for Renewable Energy and Electric Vehicles

While the United States has critical minerals needed for wind turbines, solar panels, electric vehicles and their batteries, Biden is making it difficult to mine those resources in the United States by removing lands from mining, revoking leases, delaying permits and listing wildflowers as endangered. That means the United States will become dependent on China for them. John Podesta, Biden’s clean energy czar, remarked that the Chinese energy and technology industries will play a major role in future domestic energy production. Podesta said Chinese companies will be “big players” in U.S. energy production and electric vehicle manufacturing. He noted that the companies would be able to take advantage of the Inflation Reduction Act and the Chips and Science Act, two laws the Biden administration would use to bolster American supply chains. Even Secretary of Energy Granholm said that “We can all learn from China.” That is because China has 80 percent of the processing capability for the critical minerals needed for renewables and electric vehicles. So, Biden, Podesta and Granholm are telling Americans that we need to be 4 times more dependent on China for our future energy needs than we were on the Middle East for oil.

However, what we should learn from China is that the country is diversified in its energy program and not appearing to adhere to its carbon reductions. It has approved more coal plants for construction than the UK has in its entire generating fleet—plants that easily operate for 40 to 60 years. China’s coal plant inventory is larger than the entire generating fleet of the United States. China gets over 50 percent of its electric generation from coal and consumes over 50 percent of the world’s coal each year. Further, its coal generation is so cheap that it makes over 50 percent of the world’s polysilicon—an energy intensive product needed in solar panels. The country respects diversity of supply with more wind, solar and hydroelectric power than the rest of the world, and an aggressive nuclear energy construction program. It imports oil and natural gas from the United States, Russia and the Middle East to supplement its own production of oil, natural gas, coal, lithium, cobalt, rare earth minerals and other metals. China is looking to the future and ensuring it has sufficient energy to grow its economy and keep its people supplied with energy during droughts and heat waves that it has experienced over the past several years. In comparison, under Biden, the United States is moving toward wind and solar power that rely on the wind blowing and the sun shining, and increasingly upon China for the essential parts of those devices.

Conclusion 

The Lower Energy Costs Act, if it becomes law, will cut red tape and increase domestic energy production to lower energy costs and stop U.S. dependence on hostile foreign countries for energy and minerals. With the passage of the Lower Energy Costs Act, the United States can end the war on American energy, become energy independent again, and lower costs for Americans. But obstacles are in the way. Chuck Schumer, Senate Majority Leader said the bill was dead on arrival and a non-starter. Americans should be up in arms at Biden’s energy program, which will be limited to almost complete electrification, produced mainly by renewables. Limiting choices for Americans is what socialism and communism – two forms of totalitarian government — is all about.

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

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

The Unregulated Podcast #124: Running Out of Digits

March 17, 2023 by Leave a Comment

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss the Biden administration’s monetary policy and its impact on the price of energy and everything else.

Links:

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