Biden Goes After American Energy Producers By Raising Fees 20-Fold

The Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has proposed increasing royalty rates for oil and natural gas drilling on federal lands from 12.5 percent to 16.67 percent—about a third higher–and raising the minimum bond paid upon purchasing an individual drilling lease from $10,000 to $150,000. To top it off, they propose raising the minimum bond required for a drilling lease on multiple public lands in a state from $25,000 to $500,000—a 20-fold increase. Developers must pay the bond before drilling begins. The agency also proposes limits designed to steer development away from wildlife and cultural sites. The Interior Department estimates that energy firms will incur $1.8 billion in additional costs by 2031 as a result of the increases, which will make oil and natural gas products more expensive for consumers. The Biden administration is making this determination as Americans are seeing higher inflationary costs, including for fuel, of 16.3 percent since President Biden took office in January 2021.

The Interior’s rule also raises fees to rent land from the government — previously either $1.50 to $2.00 per acre — to $3 per acre during the first two years of the lease, $5 per acre for the next six years and $15 per acre after that. It also ups the required minimum bids for a lease from $2 per acre to $10 per acre and establishes a new fee of $5 per acre for companies to formally register their interest in leasing public land for drilling. The new rule also requires the agency to prioritize approvals of new permits in areas where drilling is already taking place or where there is significant potential for oil and gas production and that is not near “important wildlife habitat or cultural sites.”

The Interior Department’s plan codifies provisions in Biden’s climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act, approved solely by Democrats in Congress last year, as well as the 2021 infrastructure law and recommendations from an Interior report on oil and gas leasing issued in November 2021. The new royalty rate set by the climate law is expected to remain in place until August 2032, after which it can be increased.

A separate Biden administration proposal would allow conservationists and others to lease federally owned land to keep it from other uses, similar to the way oil companies buy leases to drill and ranchers pay to graze cattle. Environmentalists say the plan would benefit wildlife, outdoor recreation and conservation, but opponents say it could exclude mining, energy development, forest management and agriculture, increasing scarcity and resulting in higher costs. This is a significant change from federal law that stipulates multiple uses of the public lands under the Federal Land Policy Management Act, FLPMA.

At the same time, the Biden Administration is discussing dropping renewable energy fees by 80 percent, after a 50 percent reduction last year.  Biden supports wind and solar energy deployment, even though the land footprint to produce energy from these sources is much larger than that of oil and gas to produce similar amounts of energy.

Of the $1.8 billion additional cost in Biden’s proposals, about half is scheduled to go to states, approximately a third would be used to fund water projects in the West, and the rest would be split between the Treasury Department and Interior.  However, increasing costs may ultimately dissuade people from investing in such activities on federal lands, which could result in less activity and revenue.

The rules on oil and gas and public lands use are expected to become final next year.

New Poll on Domestic Energy Production

new poll indicates that an overwhelming majority of voters not only support the production of more American energy but also want the economic contributions of oil and natural gas to inform energy policies in the United States. The poll found that 88 percent of voters believe it is important to produce natural gas and oil in the United States; 90 percent believe producing natural gas and oil strengthens the U.S. economy; and 83 percent believe that the government should consider economic data when developing regulations that would affect the development of the U.S. energy infrastructure. Further, 88 percent of voters believe that producing natural gas and oil in the United States can help lower energy costs for American consumers and small businesses; 85 percent believe that producing natural gas and oil in the United States helps make it more secure against actions by countries such as China and Russia; and 80 percent support increased development of the U.S. energy infrastructure.

The study was commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute and prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers. The oil and gas industry supported 10.8 million jobs and contributed nearly $1.8 trillion to the U.S. economy in 2021, and since energy makes all other endeavors possible, is responsible for much of the wealth creation and the sustainability of the modern quality of life.

Conclusion

The proposed rules by the Department of the Interior and Bureau of Land Management raise the costs  for onshore fossil fuel leasing including bonding requirements, royalty rates, and minimum bids. These drilling fee increases are so huge that they could kill new oil and gas production on federal lands that are owned by the American public. A new poll shows that the American public wants continued domestic oil and gas development, which they believe provides for greater security against actions from such countries as China and Russia. The new fees by the Biden administration come after its policies have resulted in federal leases falling dramatically as the Wall Street Journal reported last year.

American Petroleum Institute Vice President of Upstream Policy Holly Hopkins called the move “yet another attempt to add even more barriers to future energy production, increases uncertainty for producers and may further discourage oil and natural gas investment.”  These policies are part of a suite that fulfills President Biden’s promise to end fossil fuels.


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

The Unregulated Podcast #140: Checks and Balances

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss Special K’s trip to China, the continued implosion of the legal system, and give an update on the looming appropriations battle.

Links:

Mandated EVs Acting As Firebombs Across NYC

So far this year, there have been 108 lithium-ion battery fires in New York City, which have injured 66 people and killed 13, up from 98 fires that had injured 40 and killed two at this time last year. The most recent was a fire at an e-bike shop that killed four people near midnight on the morning of June 21 and left two individuals in critical condition and one firefighter with minor injuries. According to Fire Commissioner Laura Kavanagh, it was “very clear” that the fire was linked to lithium-ion batteries, and she warned New Yorkers that such devices could be very dangerous and typically exploded in such a way that rendered escape impossible, as opposed to slowly catching on fire. The volume of fire created by lithium-ion batteries is incredibly deadly. The NY fire department issued a warning on Twitter, advising citizens to keep devices with lithium-ion batteries away from exits or windows, avoid using batteries that lacked “approved safety certifications,” avoid charging batteries overnight or when they are not present and to not use damaged or after-market batteries. In just three years, lithium battery fires have tied electrical fires and have surpassed blazes started by cooking and smoking for major causes of fatal fires in New York City.

Across the United States, over 200 micro-mobility fire or overheating incidents have been reported from 39 states, resulting in at least 19 fatalities, according to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. The problem is particularly acute in densely populated areas like New York City where 23 people have died in battery fires since 2021. In London, lithium battery fires are the fastest-growing fire risk, with 57 e-bike fires and 13 e-scooter fires this year.

Reasons for the Increased Fires

The reasons for the increased NYC fires include a lack of regulation and safety testing for individually owned devices, hazardous charging practices (such as using mismatched equipment or overcharging) and a lack of secure charging areas in a population-dense city with numerous residential buildings, where most fires start. New Yorkers rely on e-bikes and other battery-powered devices to make deliveries or use them in other ways to earn a living.

Cheap e-bikes and e-scooters became popular during the COVID pandemic when public transit was compromised and the demand for food deliveries skyrocketed. New Yorkers that purchase them typically charge the batteries in their apartments. However, once a lithium battery overheats or malfunctions, the speed and impact of lithium battery fires make them particularly perilous, especially when people live in close quarters.  E-bikes of questionable origin have made it difficult for victims to sue as batteries are often destroyed in fires, and even when they are recovered, they can lack identifying marks to trace back to a specific manufacturer or distributor who can be held legally responsible. Some NYC landlords have banned e-bikes and other e-mobility devices in the wake of fires.

Beginning in September, New York City leaders will ban the sale of e-bikes and other e-mobility devices that fail to meet recognized safety standards—the first such ban in the nation. City and fire officials have also pushed for greater state and federal oversight of the devices, and have shut down illegal battery charging stations, worked with food delivery apps to educate workers and shown public service messages with exploding batteries. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has increased its oversight of e-mobility devices, urging companies to “comply with established voluntary safety standards or face possible enforcement action.”

Background

Since 1991, Lithium batteries have been used commercially and have had a history of sparking fires in Dell notebook computers, Samsung smartphones and hoverboards, leading to huge recalls. But after years of research, lithium batteries have generally become safer. Inside a lithium battery, a number of small cells are bundled together. When the battery is used, lithium ions move between the electrodes inside each cell, generating an electrical current. The danger occurs when a cell goes into “thermal runaway,” a chain reaction in which heat develops extremely quickly, creating a threat of fire and sometimes explosion. A cell can be sent into thermal runaway by overcharging, a manufacturing defect or even the heat from an adjacent cell in the battery pack that is already in thermal runaway.

In 2019, after a Citi Bike fire, battery safety became a priority for NYC’s bike-share program. The program uses only batteries that have been certified to safety standards and have built-in sensors to monitor their condition in real-time, as well as a shut-down switch. In the warehouse, each battery is inspected and charged in a rack with fireproof concrete dividers. Since these protocols were added, there has not been a major battery fire at Citi Bike. Fire officials also revised the city fire code, which now requires buildings to provide safety measures, like a dedicated charging room with a sprinkler, when more than five e-bikes are charging. The fire code, however, does not cover the individual use and charging of e-bikes, and fire inspectors do not enter private dwellings to check for safety violations without a warrant.

Fire officials had been aware of the dangers of lithium batteries for years. They initially focused on highly regulated batteries in energy storage systems, which hold backup electricity for buildings. There is market pressure, however, on manufacturers to add more energy to batteries, which can push safety limits. The batteries in e-bikes contain far more energy than in cell phones and, as a result, are more potentially destructive in a fire.

More powerful batteries are only part of the reason that so many e-bikes and e-scooters are catching fire. Electric cars and energy storage systems require far more energy and yet have fewer fires. The difference, according to battery and fire safety experts, is that those industries are closely regulated and have to go through several layers of testing to show their products are safe. Until recently, e-bikes and e-scooters have not received similar scrutiny.

Conclusion

The rash of deadly explosions and blazes in New York City are linked to the lithium-ion batteries in E-bikes and E-scooters. The batteries are generating fires as many of the bikes and scooters are of questionable origin and do not meet standards, their owners use hazardous charging practices such as employing mismatched equipment or overcharging, and there are few secure charging areas, resulting in charging in densely-populated apartment areas. Regulators, lawmakers and fire officials need to be on top of procedures and regulations to ensure that battery fires are contained as the demand for lithium-ion batteries grows due to Biden’s electrification of the U.S. economy to meet his net zero climate goals.


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

The Unregulated Podcast #139: Kite Strings

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast, Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna are joined by guest-co-host Travis Fisher, of the Heritage Foundation, for a wide-ranging discussion.

Links:

American Energy Alliance Releases 10 Questions for Special Envoy Kerry

Read the latest from Travis

Follow Travis on Twitter

Read the latest from Tom

Follow Tom on Twitter

Read the latest from Mike

Follow Mike on Twitter

10 Questions For Special Envoy Kerry

The House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Accountability is set to force Kerry to explain his budget beginning Thursday at 10 a.m. The American Energy Alliance has prepared 10 questions for Special Envoy Kerry.

  1. Can you provide an estimate as to how much carbon dioxide you emit a year traveling the world in your official capacity as Special Envoy on Climate?
  2. In 2009, Special Envoy Kerry said the Arctic could be ice-free by 2014.  It’s 2023 and this hasn’t come to pass.  Why should we believe today’s claims about disasters when yesterday’s claims of disasters have not come to pass?
  3. In numerous instances, Special Envoy Kerry has made claims about climate change that are not backed by the IPCC’s reports on climate change.  Should we trust the IPCC’s reports on climate change?
  4. Do you consider China to be on the forefront of the sort of climate policies that you would like to see in America?
  5. China burns more coal each year than the rest of the world combined, and they have recently opened new coal mines that will last generations and started moving coal by rail from Mongolia cutting transportation costs to 1/4 their previous level.  Since China makes most of the world’s polysilicon for solar panels from cheap coal power, doesn’t this just mean the administration’s “green transition” means we will be importing coal-dependent solar panels from China?  Does it ever occur to you that we may be making China stronger by pushing for “green energy” products they make and sell to us because they use so much coal?
  6. Given the critical minerals requirements of green technologies, why are we not working toward streamlining the approvals process for domestic mines that would produce them?
  7. Are claims of modern-day slavery in China a concern to you?
  8. Are you willing to acknowledge that the cost-of-living crisis in Europe is, at least in part, tied to the climate policies pursued by the EU?
  9. Is there any sort of limit you are willing to put on how much the U.S. government should spend a year addressing climate change?
  10. Recent surveys show that American voters prefer affordable energy to your climate agenda. Given the concerns about the economy and the general disinterest in climate change as an issue, it is not surprising that voters don’t really want the government to do much.  How do you make the democratic case for continued aggressive government action in the name of climate change?

American Energy Alliance Releases 10 Questions for Special Envoy Kerry

WASHINGTON DC (07/13/2023) – The House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Accountability is set to force Kerry to explain his budget beginning Thursday at 10 a.m. The American Energy Alliance has prepared 10 questions for Special Envoy Kerry.

  1. Can you provide an estimate as to how much carbon dioxide you emit a year traveling the world in your official capacity as Special Envoy on Climate?
  2. In 2009, Special Envoy Kerry said the Arctic could be ice-free by 2014. It’s 2023 and this hasn’t come to pass. Why should we believe today’s claims about disasters when yesterday’s claims of disasters have not come to pass?
  3. In numerous instances Special Envoy Kerry, you have made claims about climate change that are not backed by the IPCC’s reports on climate change. Should we trust the IPCC’s reports on climate change?
  4. Do you consider China to be on the forefront of the sort of climate policies that you would like to see in America?
  5. China burns more coal each year than the rest of the world combined, and they have recently opened new coal mines that will last generations and started moving coal by rail from Mongolia cutting transportation costs to 1/4 their previous level. Since China makes most of the world’s polysilicon for solar panels from cheap coal power, doesn’t this just mean the administration’s “green transition” means we will be importing coal-dependent solar panels from China? Does it ever occur to you that we may be making China stronger by pushing for “green energy” products they make and sell to us because they use so much coal?
  6. Given the critical minerals requirements of green technologies, why are we not working toward streamlining the approvals process for domestic mines that would produce them?
  7. Are claims of modern-day slavery in China a concern to you?
  8. Are you willing to acknowledge that the cost-of-living crisis in Europe is, at least in part, tied to the climate policies pursued by the EU?
  9. Is there any sort of limit you are willing to put on how much the U.S. government should spend a year addressing climate change?
  10. Recent surveys show that American voters prefer affordable energy to your climate agenda. Given the concerns about the economy and the general disinterest in climate change as an issue, it is not surprising that voters don’t really want the government to do much. How do you make the democratic case for continued aggressive government action in the name of climate change?


AEA President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement:

“Special Envoy Kerry has made a career championing dubious claims about the so-called ‘climate crisis’ while turning a blind eye to the world’s worst polluters such as China. The House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Accountability has an obligation to raise questions to Special Envoy Kerry about the role of China in the government-imposed energy transition.”


Additional Resources:

For media inquiries please contact:
[email protected]

The Unregulated Podcast #138: Save Our Cars

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss Vice-President Harris “finding” her voice, New York City’s war on independent restaurants and carry-outs, Ford’s latest deal with the federal government, and the latest on war against American car ownership.

Links:

“Prove It” Act Lays the Groundwork for a Carbon Tariff

Recently, the issue of a carbon tariff has been getting a lot of attention. This is true both in Congress and abroad as the European Union just instituted its own carbon border tax earlier this year. In the U.S., there has been talk of instituting a similar policy for a while now, with advocates in both the Republican and Democratic party. Call it a “carbon tax,” a “carbon border tax,” “carbon pricing” or a “carbon tariff,” but for consumers, it simply means making everything cost more via a hidden tax politicians can use to spread around for their political priorities. You can probably guess that you aren’t on that list.

For Democrats, the carbon tax and carbon tariff are vehicles to further “climate action,” which they seem to favor in any form and at any cost. For some Republicans, the concept is a way to restrict trade while simultaneously punishing China, which has lower environmental standards than the United States. What the China hawks fail to acknowledge is that tariffs imposed by the U.S. government aren’t borne by international producers, but by domestic consumers. In many ways, it acts like inflation, which erodes the buying power of consumers. And hiding “climate action” or “leveling the playing field,” does not change the fact that we all will be paying more for our energy, which has already been eating away at our household budgets for several years now. 

The most recent effort is the Providing Reliable, Objective, Verifiable Emissions Intensity and Transparency Act of 2023 or the “PROVE IT Act. The bill is authored by Republican Senator Kevin Cramer (ND) and Democratic Senator Chris Coons (DE). This bill’s stated objective is to direct the Department of Energy to publish a study identifying the emissions intensity of various industrial products both domestically and from countries that are trading partners of various types or who control substantial global market share for a product. The study would also seek to identify any issues with verifying emissions intensity, and would compare U.S. intensity to that of other countries.

This idea sounds benign. After all, what is wrong with a study, say the authors. The problem is this administration’s track record on producing accurate information free from their climate bias is problematic at best. Given that, the idea that the report would use objective metrics to determine carbon emissions is dubious. Rather, it would almost certainly be used to justify carbon pricing, which the Administration already supports. 

Let’s take the social cost of carbon, for example. The social cost of carbon is a metric established by the Obama administration and brought back under President Biden that estimates the purported economic damages associated with CO2 emissions. It sounds good in theory, but the model used has been shown to be incredibly easy to manipulate, rendering its conclusion useless, while giving cover to the Administration to justify vastly expensive new regulations. 

The PROVE IT act would act in a similar way by legislating the creation of a study that was handmade for the purpose of raising prices on American consumers. It is also unnecessary since studies on the relative carbon dioxide intensities of other nations already exist. 

Ultimately, tariffs are not a tax on foreign producers, but on domestic consumers. In the case of a carbon tax, they simply reflect the Biden Administration’s view and compliance with their voluntary re-entry into the Paris Accords, which have never been subjected to a treaty vote by the U.S. Senate, which is constitutionally responsible in such matters. Companies always pass their costs onto their customers, and so, as with all other tariffs, the ones ultimately holding the bill for a border-adjusted carbon tariff would be you and me. Our reliance on Chinese minerals and other industrial products is certainly a concern, but raising the prices we pay for energy intensive goods is not the solution to that problem. This is especially true for things we don’t make in sufficient quantities such as the critical minerals that the Biden Administration has kept us from developing. A tax on imports will only serve to exacerbate our existing trade issues without presenting meaningful solutions to our domestic mining issues that actions like permitting reform and quicker approvals would help to alleviate. It’s difficult to understand how our government could justify taxing things from abroad while simultaneously denying us the ability to produce them at home. 

Furthermore, you can’t have a border adjusted tax without a domestic carbon tax. That’s just how the international trade rules work. So even if you support a border tax, but not a domestic carbon tax, we are eventually going to get one anyway.

If Senator Cramer wants to promote American industry, then he should look for options other than trade protectionism in the form of carbon tariffs or other taxes. In the short run, carbon tariffs may confer some advantages to some parts of American industry, but in the long run, policymakers will only harm those businesses by shielding them from the competitive pressures of foreign competition in a global market. That competition encourages innovation and efficiencies that benefit the industry itself as well as consumers. Along the way, American consumers will be harmed as they pay more for goods and services as the costs of tariffs are ultimately passed along to them. Americans are waiting to build pipelines, open mines, and produce energy to compete with China, but our elected leadership has failed to open avenues for them to pursue that work. 

A better approach to promoting American industry would be to focus on reducing burdensome regulations here in the U.S. that raise the cost of doing business and make it harder for American industry to compete with countries like India and China. In the energy sector, a good place to start would be to work on overturning the over 150 actions the Biden administration and Democrats have taken that have raised energy prices by making it harder to produce oil and natural gas here in the U.S. Likewise, they could reverse their animosity towards mining in the U.S. that has foreclosed access to the minerals their “green energy policies” are demanding we use. 

Americans do not need new taxes of any kind. It will only make their lives harder. The PROVE IT act is the beginning of a road that will end in both a tax on imports and a domestic energy tax. If Senators Cramer and Coons want to tax our energy, they should be more transparent about it and bring a carbon tax to the Senate floor for a vote. But they won’t because they know that it would be dead on arrival.


Contact your legislators through the form below and let them know what you think about their efforts to bring a carbon tax to America.

The Unregulated Podcast #137: A Collapsed Bridge

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss the “historic” characters running around the Biden White House, the deteriorating situation with China, and the looming threats to America’s electric grid.

The Unregulated Podcast #136: Going Off Script

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss the latest Biden bumbles, the aftermath of the Canadian wildfire smog, and more headlines from a busy week.

Links: