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:

Key Vote YES on H.R. 1640 and YES on H.R. 277

The American Energy Alliance supports H.R. 1640 the Save Our Gas Stoves Act and H.R. 277 Regulations from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny Act. 

H.R. 1640 would prevent the Department of Energy from proceeding with its overreaching and illegal rulemaking which would ban at least 40% of all gas stoves and as many as 100% of gas stoves with certain features preferred by consumers. While claiming this rulemaking is about energy efficiency, in reality it is just one part of the administration’s broad effort to eliminate natural gas powered appliances entirely. The claimed savings are minuscule, only averaging $1.08 per year, which makes the rule entirely unjustified and contrary to the plain text of statute.

The attempted overreach by the Department of Energy highlights the need for a second piece of legislation, H.R. 277 the REINS Act. Expensive and unjustified regulatory adventurism from the executive branch is increasingly common, under administrations of both parties. It is long past time for Congress to take back some of the power it handed over to the regulatory state. Requiring Congress to approve major rules would provide a necessary check on extreme executive regulatory action as well as rebalancing the administrative state to make it more accountable to the American people.

A YES vote on H.R. 1640 and a YES vote on H.R. 277 are votes in support of free markets and affordable energy. AEA will include these votes in its American Energy Scorecard.

The Unregulated Podcast #135: Somewhat Understated Style

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss the widening 2024 presidential field, high jinks in the House, and more headlines from the week.

Links:

After Decades Of Climate Catastrophizing, Reality Hits Europe

Beginning decades ago, Europe went wholeheartedly into “net zero carbon by 2050” by implementing carbon reduction policies that eventually raised prices dramatically, putting more residents into energy poverty and causing industry to flee to areas where they could remain competitive. The United States under President Biden’s leadership is following in those footsteps at a rapid pace through legislative initiatives (e.g. the Inflation Reduction Act) and regulatory action such as EPA’s power plant rule and efficiency standards for vehicles which are forcing electric vehicles on the American public. But, now that the Europeans are starting to see the impact of their net zero carbon policies and people are rebelling in the streets of Paris and farmers on the roads in the Netherlands, European lawmakers are starting to say “whoa.” But, not the Biden administration.

The Beginnings

The European Union has been at the forefront of the fight against the energy sources which enabled their wealth and the climate change they insist is linked, but it is now under pressure to pause new environmental efforts amid fears they will hurt the economy. Some leaders and lawmakers are concerned about antagonizing workers with new binding legislation and restrictive measures and are urging the 27-nation bloc to hit the brakes. The European Union (EU) had adopted a wide range of measures, from reducing energy consumption to sharply cutting transport emissions and reforming the EU’s trading system for greenhouse gases. French President Macron even suggested people were facing “the end of abundance.”

Current Issues

Earlier this year, however, Germany delayed a deal to ban internal combustion engines in the EU by 2035 due to disagreements within its economy. The auto industry in Germany employs about 786,000 people. Last fall, Germany had signed an EU target to ban the sale of internal combustion engine cars by 2035, but the country opposed the idea earlier this year, along with Italy, Poland, and the Czech Republic. Germany’s transport minister is asking what the point is in pushing electric vehicles if the power that drives them comes from burning coal, as Germany has closed all its nuclear plants and is unable to get sufficient power from wind and solar to meet demand.  Germany is tackling its reduction in natural gas supplies from Russia by re-opening coal mines. In one case, a wind farm is being removed to dig for lignite. In March, EU reached an agreement to allow internal combustion engine vehicles to be powered by synthetic fuels manufactured from hydrogen and carbon dioxide, but these fuels are considerably more expensive than gasoline and their availability is limited. 

France recently called for a pause on EU environmental regulation. President Macron said it was time for the EU to implement existing rules before adopting new ones, as they could put France at a competitive disadvantage. He railed against those who still want to add standards and called for a new generation of nuclear reactors as France gets most of its electricity from nuclear power.

Belgium Prime Minister Alexander DeCroo called for a moratorium on the introduction of EU legislation aimed at nature preservation. The EU law proposed by 2030 to cover at least 20 percent of the EU’s land and sea with nature restoration measures, and eventually extend them to all ecosystems in need of restoration by 2050. According to DeCroo, climate legislation should not be overloaded with restoration measures or limits on agricultural nitrogen pollution, warning that businesses would no longer be able to keep up. The nature restoration law proposal would threaten agriculture and undermine food security in Europe by increasing food prices, require more imports and driving farmers out of business.  The government in the Netherlands has been seizing and idling farmers’ lands in the name of climate.

In Poland, ruling party leader Jaroslaw Kaczynski said the EU climate package was promoting “irrational solutions.” He vowed the government will fight for “a just transition” for the country.

The European Union lawmakers in Brussels decided to delay key parts of its Green New Deal after a party led by anti-Net Zero farmers came in first in Senate elections in the Netherlands in a huge upset.  EU lawmakers recently recommended weakening a proposal on industrial emissions and threatened to reject rules on pesticides and re-wilding land and seas. As concepts and regulations begin to be implemented, politicians pushing those policies are facing growing opposition.

European Companies Looking Abroad

A majority of chief executives in an influential group of European businesses said they are planning to increase their presence in North America amid growing concerns about Europe’s loss of competitiveness. About 57 percent of company chiefs of European multinationals are eyeing shifting investments or operations — or both — over the next two years. A majority of respondents — more than 80 percent —  said they believe Europe is losing competitiveness as a base for industry, as the continent reels from geopolitical risks, inflation and energy costs, along with skills shortages and supply-chain disruptions. Europe’s efforts to restore its competitiveness are more challenged than ever due to an unstable geopolitical environment, elevated energy prices compared to pre-2019 levels, rising inflation, tighter financing conditions, and record-high input costs.

Conclusion

The EU seems to be realizing that its quest to reach net zero carbon needs to take a pause and perhaps be more thought-out as the pace of legislative changes may be a detriment to the economy and to their political futures.  Escalating prices are making more residents energy-poor and forcing companies to move abroad to be competitive, leading to de-industrialization. It seems that when politicians feel the heat, they see the light.

But, Biden is not heeding the European warnings and instead is moving ahead with regulations that will shutter natural gas and coal plantsforce Americans to buy electric vehicles costing much more than gasoline-powered vehicles, and practically kill the U.S. coal industry. The Biden administration laws are forcing wind and solar power on communities through lucrative incentives that will result in higher electric costs and summer blackouts as reliability will be lessened with fewer coal and natural gas power plants. It is mind-boggling that the United States under President Biden is now to the left of socialist France and other EU nations in climate fanaticism and is enacting policies that would make people poorer.

policies.


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

The Unregulated Podcast #134 Happy Hour

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss Biden’s latest tumults, the AI-enabled end times, new survey data from AEA and the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, and more.

Links:

New Survey, Same Results: Voters Prefer Affordable Energy over Climate Agenda

The American Energy Alliance and the Committee to Unleash Prosperity recently completed a nationwide survey of 1000 likely voters (3.1% margin of error) executed in the first two weeks of May.  A full slide deck of the results can be found here.  

As Mike McKenna of MWR Strategies notes, there are a few salient points worth noting.

First, and probably most pointedly, Republicans continue to be on solid ground with respect to who should make decisions about (and who should pay for) car and truck purchases, on carbon dioxide taxes, on willingness to pay to address climate change, on issue prioritization, and even on the fundamentals of the science (by a margin of 19 points respondents identified carbon dioxide as “needed for plant life” rather than a “pollutant”).

Second, voter sentiment and attitudes on energy and climate change seem to be characterized by stasis; despite what you may have read in the media, there has been little change in voter sentiments and attitudes with respect to energy and climate change.  Many of the responses in the survey are either consistent with or more emphatic than what we have found previously.

Where there has been change from past surveys, voter sentiment in favor of government making decisions, in favor of taxation, in favor of banning gasoline-powered products, and in favor of reliance on China, has eroded over time.

For example, when we asked whether a federal EV mandate would cause electricity prices to increase or decrease, 81% of respondents said that it would cause them to increase.  Last year, 74% said it would cause them to increase.  The year before, 69% said it would cause them to increase.

We asked about levels of concern about China’s domination of the EV supply chain.  This year, 64% were very concerned.  Last year, 56% were very concerned.  The year before 43% were very concerned.

We asked about a tax on carbon dioxide.  This year, by a margin of 44 percentage points (65-21).  Last year, it was opposed by a margin of 40 points (63-23).  The year before, it was opposed by 34 points (62-38).

We asked about whether the federal government should raise energy taxes as a potential response to climate change.  This year, respondents opposed by a margin of 63 points (77-14).  Last year, respondents opposed it by a margin of 55 points (70-15).  The year before, respondents opposed it by a margin of 38 points (59-21).

We asked about banning gasoline-powered vehicles.  This year, it was opposed by a margin of 67 points (82-15).  Last year, it was opposed by a margin of 63 points (76-13).  The year before, it was opposed by a margin of 66 points (75-9).

In short, there has been a lot of durability of sentiment on this issue, and where there has been change, it has run counter to the policy preferences of the left.

Third, voters don’t seem to care much about climate change and their willingness to pay anything to address has dissolved in the last year.

As we have seen across a number of years, climate change is not a priority for most.  Just 28 respondents (2.8%) identified it as the most pressing issue facing the United States, and just 29 more (2.9%) identified it as the second most pressing issue facing the United States.  Compare this to the 55% that identified the economy as either the first or second most important issue facing the United States.

Given that, it is not surprising that there continues to be limited appetite to pay to address climate change.   When asked what they would be willing to pay each year to address climate change, the median response was 20 dollars, and 35% (including 15% of self-identified Democrats) said they are unwilling to pay anything.  There has been some rapid erosion in these responses:  last year, the median response was 55 dollars.

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.  Voters don’t want a carbon dioxide tax (rejected by 44 points).  They don’t want to ban gasoline-powered engines (rejected by 72 points, compared to being rejected by just 63 points last year).  Voters – including 58% of self-identified Democrats — flat out reject electric vehicle mandates (77-23).

Finally, voters don’t trust government very much.  More than two-thirds (70%) said that they did not trust the federal government to decide what kind of cars should be subsidized or mandated.  An even greater percentage (80% this year, up from 70% last year) said they wanted to make the decision about the cars and fuels they buy, rather than the State government (4%) or federal government (8%).  No one wants California to be in charge of that decision:  82% of respondents (including 72% of self-identified Democrats) disagreed with the statement:  “The State of California should be able to determine what kinds of cars can be sold in other States.”

New Survey, Same Results: Voters Prefer Affordable Energy over Climate Agenda


Voters reject policies, like carbon taxes, that make energy more expensive and believe consumers, not government, should decide what types of cars people can buy.


WASHINGTON DC (06/01/2023) – The American Energy Alliance and the Committee to Unleash Prosperity recently sponsored a nationwide survey of 1000 likely voters (3.1 percent margin of error) conducted by MWR Strategies in the first two weeks of May. The survey can be found here (slide deck) and here (written results).

AEA President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement:

The results of our new survey make it clear that voters prefer energy affordability and choice over government efforts to address climate change and they overwhelmingly reject the associated costs.

Despite the narrative driven by the legacy media, there has been little change in voter sentiment with respect to energy and climate change. If anything, voters have even less trust in government when it comes to the types of energy we use or the vehicles we drive.

The survey asked about a tax on carbon dioxide. This year, by a margin of 44 percentage points (65-21). Last year, it was opposed by a margin of 40 points (63-23). The year before, it was opposed by 34 points (62-38).

We asked about banning gasoline-powered vehicles. This year, it was opposed by a margin of 67 points (82-15). Last year, it was opposed by a margin of 63 points (76-13). The year before, it was opposed by a margin of 66 points (75-9).

In short, there has been a lot of durability of sentiment on this issue, and where there has been change, it has run counter to the policy preferences of the left.

Michael McKenna, who conducted the research, added some context:

As we have seen across a number of years, climate change is not a priority for most. Just 28 respondents (2.8 percent) identified it as the most pressing issue facing the United States, and just 29 more (2.9 percent) identified it as the second most pressing issue facing the United States. Compare this to the 55 percent that identified the economy as either the first or second most important issue facing the United States.

Given that, it is not surprising that there continues to be limited appetite to pay to address climate change. When asked what they would be willing to pay each year to address climate change, the median response was 20 dollars, and 35 percent (including 15 percent of self-identified Democrats) said they are unwilling to pay anything. There has been some rapid erosion in these responses: last year, the median response was 55 dollars.

Steve Moore, from the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, issued the following statement:

The American people want affordable energy and to make their own choice of what to drive. This poll shows Republicans have a huge opportunity to score political points by getting out in front of the parade against Biden’s destructive anti-energy agenda.

Additional Resources:


For media inquiries please contact: 

[email protected]

Key Vote YES on H.J. Res. 27

The American Energy Alliance urges all Senators to support H.J. Res. 27, the Congressional Review Act resolution disapproving of the revised definition of “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act.

The Clean Water Act clearly spells out an extensive state role for regulation of water sources. The federal statutory regulatory role is overseeing navigable waters of the United States. The repeated attempts by federal bureaucrats to stretch this definition to cover nearly all water sources in the country is an illegal power grab. This most recent rule from the Biden Administration is yet another version of the same old power grab that has been repeatedly struck down by the courts. The definition of “waters of the United States” in this rulemaking is so broad that it deeply intrudes on state responsibilities contrary to the express intent of the Clean Water Act. It will be used as a pretext to insert federal bureaucrats into industries and areas that are already well regulated by the states themselves.

With the Supreme Court set to reach a decision that will hopefully better clarify how the term “waters of the United States” should be construed, this rule should not have been rushed out at all. That the bureaucracy pressed forward with this power grab regardless only emphasizes why Congress should disapprove of this rulemaking. They will not be stopped by voluntary restraint, Congress must take action.

The AEA urges all Senators to support free markets and affordable energy by voting YES on Amendment H.J. Res. 27. AEA will include this vote its American Energy Scorecard.

The Unregulated Podcast #133: Why Does Rice Play Texas?

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss the growing 2024 presidential field, more bumbles from team Biden, the debt battle, and the unique happenings of Florida.

Links: