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

Billions From Biden For Wealthy EV Owners

February 17, 2022 by Leave a Comment

The White House unveiled a framework to provide $5 billion to states to expand their electric vehicle charging networks toward President Biden’s promise to build 500,000 charging stations by the end of the decade to help achieve his goal of having half of all new vehicle sales by 2030 be electric. The Department of Transportation (DOT) has asked the states to provide plans to the federal government before receiving the money. The framework calls on states to prioritize building charging infrastructure on interstate highways under the Transportation Department’s alternative fuel corridors program. If a state does not submit a plan, DOT will award funds directly to local jurisdictions or give the funds to other states. DOT will distribute funds, which were approved by Congress in the $1.2 trillion Infrastructure bill last year, over the next 5 years. The infrastructure bill that Congress passed in November includes $7.5 billion for 500,000 new chargers.

However, drivers of electric cars will have to exit the highway if they rely on the Biden administration’s $5 billion for chargers because federal law limits commerce at interstate rest stops to vending machines, lottery tickets, and tourism promotion. The recent infrastructure law (Public Law 117-58) did not change a 1956 restriction on commercial activity at rest stops. It is an issue that has divided fuel retailers and electric vehicle advocates. The guidance from the Federal Highway Administration says electric vehicle chargers should be as close to the Interstate Highway System and highway corridors as possible and generally no more than one mile from the exit. Some older rest stops are not subject to the Eisenhower-era restriction. This restriction has the potential to force charging infrastructure further off the travel corridor, limiting solutions for planners, increasing range requirements for vehicles, and potentially inconveniencing drivers.

Electric vehicle range has been a major factor for electric vehicle buyers, who often see an electric car as a second vehicle along with owning a gasoline or diesel vehicle that can more easily be used for long distance trips which are common in the United States, the third largest nation by size in the world. U.S. electric vehicle sales have lagged behind other industrialized countries for this reason as well as their higher initial costs and much longer refueling times.

Electric vehicles accounted for almost 9 percent of new cars sold globally last year—up from 2.5 percent in 2019. U.S. electric vehicle sales in 2021 doubled their share to 4.5 percent, surpassing half a million sold. The U.S. electric car market is still mostly dominated by Tesla, which accounts for more than half of all electric units sold. Federal tax credits (except for Tesla and GM vehicles) are still available to U.S. consumers, and Biden and some automakers are pushing to expand and extend them.

Global sales and sales market share of electric cars, 2010-2021

DOT Schedule

DOT will initially deploy an installment of $615 million. All 50 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico are required to submit plans by the beginning of August, explaining how they would install high-voltage chargers along or very close to major highways. The chargers must be no more than 50 miles apart. States are encouraged to place them at rest areas that allow them, or other places with food and other services, which makes them more convenient because of the long recharging times. Federal officials will decide by the end of September whether to approve the states’ plans. The administration hopes the private sector will also add charging stations, but plans to spend $2.5 billion on chargers in rural areas or other communities where private sector operators may be less inclined to invest. There are currently fewer than 50,000 public charging stations in the United States.

Biden sees the charger plan as a way to create jobs for electricians and other workers and a way to revive manufacturing in the United States. Tritium, an Australian manufacturer of charging equipment recently announced plans to build a factory in Lebanon, Tennessee, that is expected to eventually produce 30,000 chargers per year, employing 500 people.

Issues with the Electric Vehicle Transition

One issue is the type of charging station that will be provided. There are currently three different types, or levels, of electric vehicle chargers. Level 1 chargers plug into a regular 120-volt power outlet and deliver power to electric cars at three to five miles of range per hour, which could take tens of hours to charge a 100 percent electric car. Level 2 chargers require 240 volts, charging cars around 10 times faster than Level 1 chargers and bringing a battery to full charge within a few hours. Level 3 chargers, called DCFC fast chargers, are the fastest and most expensive, adding anywhere from three to 20 miles of range per minute. But not every electric vehicle can charge using level 3 chargers. Also, charging at a DCFC station is only effective if the battery’s state-of-charge is below 80 percent.

Because electric vehicles have fewer components than gasoline vehicles, electric vehicles require far fewer workers to build them. As a result, there will be job losses at auto manufacturers and suppliers. Makers of mufflers, fuel injection systems and other parts could go out of business, leaving these workers jobless. Nearly three million Americans make, sell and service cars and auto parts. Americans losing these jobs need to find employment elsewhere.

The electric vehicle transition could also be limited by the lack of battery metals like lithium, nickel and cobalt, which could become more sought after than oil. Prices for these materials are skyrocketing, which could limit electric vehicle sales in the short term by driving up the cost of electric cars even more. Further, China dominates the battery supply chain, making the United States dependent on them for the critical metals needed for batteries. And, adding charging stations at or near highways may help some potential buyers but it does not help apartment residents or street-parking homeowners who cannot charge at home.

Conclusion

The $5 billion, to be spent over five years, will not be nearly enough to build the charging network that is needed to meet Biden’s goal for a fleet of electric vehicles. Despite that, administration officials hope the federal charger plan will encourage utilities and private operators to build additional chargers to aid in Biden’s plan for an electric vehicle transition. But, many other issues remain, including skyrocketing costs for battery metals—an industry that China dominates, high initial prices for electric vehicles, long refueling times, job losses for Americans in the automobile manufacturing and supply industries, and nowhere to recharge for apartment residents. Biden’s plan appears to be to spend taxpayer funds on his wish list without evaluating the feasibility.

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

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

Biden Helps China Again, Exempting Bifacial Solar Panels From Tariffs

February 11, 2022 by Leave a Comment

According to The New York Times, President Biden is imposing a tariff of between 14 percent and 15 percent for the next four years on imported crystalline silicon solar products, but his administration at the same time doubled the amount of solar cells that can come into the country without facing tariffs to 5 gigawatts and exempted bifacial solar panels from the levies “to help ensure that solar deployment in the United States continues at the pace and scale needed to meet the president’s clean energy targets.” Biden’s administration also plans to begin talks with Canada and Mexico to allow them to export their products to the United States duty-free.

Utility-scale bifacial solar panels are the most important for President Biden’s climate agenda because they are the most efficient and used in large utility-scale solar energy projects. Bifacial solar modules produce power from both sides of the panel—up to 30 percent more than traditional monofacial panels. China dominates all stages of the solar supply chain, producing between 60 and 80 percent of the world’s polysilicon, wafers, crystalline silicon cells and solar modules. And, China’s solar industry is reliant on polysilicon sourced from Xinjiang, where the Chinese government has mass detentions of minority groups such as the Muslim Uyghurs. Xinjiang makes about 45 percent of the world’s polysilicon.

Biden’s Pledge and U.S. Solar Manufacturing Capability

President Biden pledged to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 50 to 52 percent below 2005 levels by the end of this decade and to have 100 percent of electricity generated from carbon-free sources such as renewable energy and nuclear power by 2035. While these goals are not binding on the United States since Biden’s Paris Climate Commitment is not a treaty ratified by the Senate, Biden’s goals are based on his executive actions. His administration is counting on solar to play a significant role in reducing emissions from electricity production. According to an Energy Department report, solar energy could provide 40 percent of the nation’s electricity by 2035, but now supplies less than 4 percent. To achieve the needed growth, the nation would have to double the amount of solar energy being installed every year over the next four years and then double it again by 2030. A study by the University of California, Berkeley showed that achieving even a 90 percent emissions-free grid by 2035 would mean 25 percent of power would need to be generated by solar—an increase of 70 gigawatts each year.

Last year, the U.S. solar market grew to about 20 gigawatts from 11 gigawatts four years ago. U.S. solar manufacturing capacity, however, was four gigawatts last year, which satisfies just one-fifth of the country’s installations and no bifacial solar manufacturing capability. Some new manufacturing plants opened since tariffs were imposed (Jinko Solar’s facility in Florida, LG Electronics’ in Alabama and Hanwha Q CELLS USA’s in Georgia) and some existing companies (e.g. First Solar) expanded operations. Still, American solar manufacturers have not been able to compete with low-cost products from China.

Solar Tariffs

To spur the domestic solar manufacturing industry, solar tariffs were imposed in February 2018 by President Donald J. Trump, who followed a recommendation of the International Trade Commission, an independent panel that reviews trade cases. The tariffs started at 30 percent and were set to decline by 5 percentage points each year over the course of four years. The first 2.5 gigawatts worth of solar cell and module imports were exempt from the tariffs. The tariffs would have expired this month, but several manufacturers, including Auxin Solar, Suniva, Hanwha, LG and Mission Solar Energy, petitioned to extend the levies, indicating they were still needed. In 2020, the United States imported 21.1 gigawatts worth of solar products with 88 percent of them subject to the tariffs. In 2022, the fourth year of the tariffs, the rate was set at 15 percent.

A Biden administration ban imposed last year on solar products made with material from one Chinese company accused of using forced labor in Xinjiang brought tens of billions of dollars of U.S. solar installations to a halt. U.S. Customs and Border Protection banned imports of silica-based products made by Hoshine Silicon Industry Company as well as goods made using those products because Hoshine uses forced labor to produce its silica-based products.

A new law that strengthens the prohibitions on importing goods from Xinjiang is expected to cast that net even wider. A bill aimed at banning products made with forced labor in China became law after President Biden signed it on December 23. Over the next four months, the Biden administration will convene hearings to investigate how pervasive forced labor is and what to do about it. The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act shifts the burden of proof to companies from customs officials. Firms will have to prove that their factories, and those of all their suppliers, do not use slave labor or coercion.

Conclusion

Much of the world’s supply of solar panels come from China, which creates a quandary for the Biden administration that has described China as America’s foremost geopolitical and economic competitor. China has pumped vast amounts of government funding into renewable energy industries, making them the number one supplier of solar panels and their components. But, China uses slave labor to produce polysilicon—a primary component of solar panels. For the United States to meet Biden’s target of 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2035, which may not even be feasible, it would need to construct a vast number of solar facilities each year. The domestic U.S. solar manufacturing industry is not equipped to handle the massive number of solar panels needed. That means that the United States is dependent upon China’s solar manufacturing capability to meet Biden’s energy goals. A new law that Biden signed in December, however, may put a damper on his carbon-free ambitions. Biden’s carbon-free goals and China’s dominance in solar panel manufacturing may clash with Biden’s promise and signed legislation to defend human rights.

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

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

Team Biden Diverts Infrastructure Dollars To EV Chargers While Bridges Collapse

February 10, 2022 by Leave a Comment

If you thought that the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill passed by Congress last year would fix America’s roads and bridges, think again. Only $40 billion in the bill is allocated to roads and bridges with just $26.5 billion for fixing the nation’s bridges. The $40 billion is a pittance compared to the $156 billion for mass transit and rail that the bill funds despite low ridership that was made even worse than normal due to the coronavirus pandemic. People are afraid to be confined in indoor congested spaces such as subway cars or rail cars as the coronavirus persists in its variant forms. Further, mass transit has already received $70 billion in pandemic relief to support them through times of less ridership.

On January 28, the Fern Hollow Bridge in Pittsburgh collapsed, injuring 10 motorists, including four people who were sent to the hospital when a bus and cars plummeted 100 feet down a hillside and caused a major gas leak. The bridge collapse occurred on the same day that President Joe Biden was to tout the recently passed infrastructure bill, except that the bill was not expected to cover the Fern Hollow Bridge, which did not rank high enough to be on the list for repairs despite its poor inspection rating. Pennsylvania expects to receive more than $15.5 billion in funding from the infrastructure bill, including an estimated $1.6 billion for bridge repairs. Pittsburgh, however, has the highest number of bridges within city limits in the world with 732 spans. In the United States, 44,000 bridges across the country are in “poor” condition, and approximately 3,353 of these bridges are located in Pennsylvania, the second-most of any state.

The bill’s spending allocations show that suburbs and certain other U.S. areas do not count as priorities for needing road infrastructure improvements. Guidance from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), who is fielding infrastructure project proposals from states and cities, demonstrates this to be the case. According to a FHWA memo, proposals should be sent to the bottom of the pile if they “add new general purpose travel lanes serving single occupancy vehicles,” including construction of new roads and highways, or expansions of existing ones. That is, states and cities that need new capacity will take a back seat to those seeking upgrades. The government is prioritizing projects with multiple riders rather than projects on roads where people drive the most or have the most fatalities.

Road construction could also be tied up by environmental reviews. The memo declares that any project requiring a new right of way is ineligible for a fast-tracked National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review that was stipulated in the bill to take no more than 90 days. States planning to widen clogged highways using federal funds could face months or years of scrutiny. Fast-growing areas in the Sunbelt and Northwest need highway extensions to improve local commuting and commerce. For example, the North Dakota transportation department plans to widen part of the two-lane route on Highway 85 where an increase in fatalities have occurred with new federal funds, but these restrictions could delay the process or it may not be funded at all. Texas also needs new interstate highway capacity, especially north from Laredo and from the Rio Grande Valley to the Houston area.

Other Energy-Related Funding in the Infrastructure Bill

Besides mass transit, the infrastructure bill’s other big winner is so-called “green” energy with $21 billion for “demonstration projects” for clean hydrogen, advanced nuclear, carbon capture and other green projects. There is also $11 billion for states and utilities for grid “resilience” to back up intermittent renewable energy (solar and wind) being mandated into the system and $6 billion to save nuclear plants that renewable subsidies are driving out of business. There is another $40 billion in loan authority to finance large-scale clean energy deployment projects,” that can go bust (think Solyndra), with loan guarantee applications increasing 23-fold since Biden became President. In other words, the government will spend tens of billions of dollars on renewables that make the electric grid less reliable, and tens of billions more on transmission lines, batteries and nuclear to back up unreliable renewables.

There is also $7.5 billion for an electric-vehicle charging network to facilitate charging areas for wealthy Americans that can afford electric vehicles and $5 billion for “clean-energy” buses that may not be able to travel from schools to homes to disperse pupils if weather or terrain reduces electric bus mileage. According to Kelley Blue Book, electric vehicles cost consumers an average of $56,437 in November of 2021, more than $10,000 above the industry average, and well over double the cost of the compact cars that so many lower-income Americans rely on. The infrastructure bill also contains a new mandate (to be implemented by 2026) that new vehicles be equipped with anti-drunk driving technology, such as features that might monitor the driver’s attention and actions or detect blood alcohol levels using sensors. The technology obviously will not be cheap to develop and implement, and will likely raise the price of basic, low-tech subcompacts like the Mitsubishi Mirage, Chevy Spark, or Nissan Versa.

Conclusion

It is clear that bridges and roads took a distant back seat to “green” pork in the infrastructure bill and that the Biden administration is furthering working in that direction with its guidance on project priorities. Biden’s Department of Transportation is prioritizing mass transit, rail and electric vehicle charging to road and bridge improvements. Outside of only a handful of densely-populated, walkable cities, vehicle ownership remains a necessity for most Americans to be able to commute to jobs and doctor appointments and to conduct errands. It is doubtful that many Americans have bought into this allocation of funds in the infrastructure bill and the Biden administration priorities that are being set where needed road construction and bridge repair would not be conducted, causing fatalities and injuries to increase. It turns out that with transportation priorities, as with many other things headed by the Biden administration, it is important to distinguish words from actions.

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

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

The Unregulated Podcast #70: The Science Has Changed

February 10, 2022 by Leave a Comment

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna make predictions for the next Congress and discuss the dramatic shift in “The Science™” narrative and what could possibly be behind the change.

Links:

Contact The Unregulated Team
Filed Under: Podcast Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

China Not Following Biden’s Plan For Energy Suicide

February 8, 2022 by Leave a Comment

China’s low-carbon goals should not come at the expense of energy and food security or the “normal life” of ordinary people, according to its president, Xi Jinping, signaling a cautious approach to the Paris agreement and COP26 pledges to reduce emissions. China is the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases. It sees pledges to reduce carbon dioxide emissions as a risk to jobs and economic growth, something they have prioritized. Xi was quoted as saying, “Reducing emissions is not about reducing productivity, and it is not about not emitting at all, either.” Xi also said, “We must stick to the overall planning and ensure energy security, industrial supply chain security and food security at the same time as cutting carbon emissions.” These are words of wisdom that the Biden administration needs to emulate since Biden’s anti-oil and gas policies are escalating gasoline and heating costs for millions of Americans that can least afford those increases.

Coal Production and Generation

To that end, China has started up the first of four 1,000-megawatt units at a new coal-fired power plant in a northwestern region of Inner Mongolia in late December. The facility is the largest coal-fired power plant currently being built in China. Shanghaimiao is sited in an area with significant coal reserves and will eventually send power to Shandong province via a long-distance, ultra-high voltage grid. According to the Chinese government, carbon dioxide reduction plans will not begin in China until after 2025. The country plans to add significant coal-fired generation capacity in the meantime—plants that last 40 to 60 years or more, and are cleaner than coal plants in the United States. The country’s increased demand for electricity could bring development of up to 150 gigawatts of new generation capacity by year-end 2025, putting China’s known coal-fired generation capacity at 1,230 gigawatts—about 6 times the U.S. coal-fired generating capacity. China already accounts for over half of all global coal-fired electricity output.

In line with building more coal-fired power plants, China increased its coal production. China’s coal production reached record levels in 2021 as the state encouraged miners to ramp up their output to secure sufficient energy supplies through the winter. Areas across China had suffered blackouts and brownouts earlier in 2021 due in part to a lack of wind power and a shortfall in the coal supply, which increased coal prices. China, the world’s largest coal producer and consumer, mined 384.67 million metric tons in December, topping its previous record of 370.84 million metric tons set in November. Chinese coal production climbed to an all-time high of 4.07 billion metric tons, up 4.7 percent from the previous year. By comparison, the United States produced 525 million metric tons.

Nuclear Power

But, China also sees the need for diversity of supply. In December, China brought into operation the world’s first nuclear power plant that contains a pebble bed reactor —the fourth generation of high-temperature gas reactor—in East China’s Shandong Province. The reactor core is formed from graphite pebbles that contain specially designed fuel particles, which allows reactors to be run safely at higher temperatures. The technology is the safest type of nuclear reactor to date as the reactor will not melt when placed under duress and there is no risk of radiation leaks. Very few countries have mastered high temperature gas reactor technology, and China’s launch marks the country consolidating its role as a world leader in nuclear power. Almost all (93.4 percent) of the material used in the plant was domestically sourced in China. The unit has total generation capacity of around 200 megawatts. A second reactor is scheduled to go into full operation next year following tests.

The 200-megawatt small modular reactor is roughly a fifth of the size of China’s first proprietary reactor design, Hualong One, and allows for greater scalability as well as reduced operations and deployment costs. China’s nuclear capacity totaled 51 gigawatts at the end of last year, falling short of a 58 gigawatt target. China National Nuclear Corporation has urged the government to approve at least six new projects a year over the next decade in order to bring total capacity up to 180 gigawatts by 2035. China is the world’s largest investor in nuclear power, paying up to $440 billion towards building new nuclear power plants over the next 15 years, which will allow it to overtake the United States as the world’s top generator of nuclear electricity. The country is also investing heavily in nuclear fusion.

Refining

China also reached a record in refining last year with oil processing rates rising by 4 percent over 2020 to 14.13 million barrels daily. This year will likely see further increases in the amount of oil Chinese refineries process as two new facilities will come on stream—one with a capacity of 320,000 barrels per day and the other with a capacity to process 400,000 barrels per day. The record was reached by the state-owned majors, who compensated for the lower production from independent teapots as Beijing instituted a tax on dirtier feedstocks.

China’s oil imports in 2021 fell by 5.4 percent as China stocked up in 2020 when oil was the cheapest in years. Total 2021 oil imports in China were 512.98 million tons (about 10.3 million barrels per day)—down from 542.39 million tons during 2020. China’s 2021 oil import decline was the first in two decades. China has been the biggest oil importer in the world for seven years. Since then the country has accounted for as much as 44 percent of the global oil import growth. Over the same period, the annual growth in import rates for China averaged 10 percent.

Conclusion

China’s President Xi said the nation’s carbon goals should not clash with other priorities, which include securing adequate supplies of food, energy and materials “to ensure the normal life of the masses.” In this light, China is building coal-fired and nuclear power plants and refineries as well as increasing its processing rates at refineries and its domestic coal production. President Biden, in contrast, is not allowing coal-fired power plants to be built in the United States, is seeing nuclear power as too expensive due to onerous regulations, and is rejoicing as many U.S. refineries retool to produce renewable fuels. His administration’s anti-energy policies such as closing lands to leasing and banning pipelines are hurting U.S. consumers as gasoline prices are up over a dollar a gallon since he took office, oil prices are above $90 a barrel, and energy prices for heating are much higher this winter. What does it take for Biden to come to his senses and realize that President Trump had the right energy policy—an energy dominant America?

Currently, U.S. leaders talk about an “all of the above” energy policy, which in fact translates into “nothing from below the ground.” China is using all its resources to amplify human strength and grow its economy for its people. The gap between the two economies is shrinking as China pursues the energy necessary for growth. The United States is currently napping, and the signs are becoming evident everywhere.

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

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

The Unregulated Podcast #69: Six More Weeks

February 4, 2022 by Leave a Comment

This week on The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss Punxsutawney Phil’s batting average, major February thirds from history, Biden’s increasing ridiculous appointment picks, and more.

Links:

Contact The Podcast Crew
Filed Under: Podcast Tagged With: , ,

Key Vote NO on H.R. 4521

February 4, 2022 by Leave a Comment

The American Energy Alliance urges all members to oppose H.R. 4521 the vehicle for the America COMPETES Act. While some parts of this legislation, especially those focused on China’s human rights violations, may be laudable, the larger package hijacks these important issues in an attempt to jam through significant green spending that could not pass through the normal legislative process.

The billions of dollars for the so-called Green Climate Fund are especially egregious. US taxpayer dollars should not be going to a global environmental slush fund that will be used to fuel corruption and anti-energy policies around the world. The subsidies for solar manufacturing included in the legislation recall the most wasteful parts of the 2009 stimulus when billions of dollars were thrown at uncompetitive sham companies like Solyndra. Other provisions would encourage the export of some of America’s most harmful environmental policies to other countries. In those countries as in the US, the harms of these policies fall hardest on the poor, who can least afford the higher energy costs that these environmental policies cause.

Legislation ostensibly about competition with China should not be hijacked by green ideology. The AEA urges all members to support free markets and affordable energy by voting NO on H.R. 4521. AEA will include this vote in its American Energy Scorecard.

Filed Under: Scorecard Tagged With: , , , ,

Propagandists Run With Flawed Stove Study

February 3, 2022 by Leave a Comment

Based on a study of a paltry 53 homes in California, researchers with Oakland-based Physicians, Scientists and Engineers for Healthy Energy (PSEHE) and Stanford University estimated that stoves emit between 0.8 and 1.3 percent of the natural gas they consume as unburned methane with three-quarters of these emissions occurring when the devices are shut off, suggesting leaky fittings and connections with gas service lines. The flawed research is to support banning natural gas appliances, as some cities in California and elsewhere have done for new buildings, as well as others debating converting existing buildings that consume natural gas to electricity, despite the extremely high costs to do so. The current study draws its conclusions by incorporating inflated methane emissions and claiming health impacts from emissions of nitrogen dioxide, a federally regulated pollutant.

There are numerous problems with the study—from sealing off the cooking room when taking measurements in their “laboratory”—to assuming that the leaks, if there are leaks, would have no odor. The following refutes their premises and conclusions.

Issue 1: The researchers set up an unrealistic environment 

The researchers encased the tested kitchen area in plastic sheets, sandbags, and painter’s tape – which in no way represents the kind of kitchen in which normal people cook. Sealing the room with plastic also meant sealing any ventilation to the exterior. Instead of using the “ductless” range hoods, which many homes had, the researchers used indoor fans to circulate air at selective locations and speeds to, supposedly, not interfere with the burners. Vented hoods have a high degree of effectiveness when overhanging the stove, and their counterpart, the “ductless” range hoods, feature activated carbon filters to remove particulate matter and pollutants from recirculated air. The sealed off room and the circulating fans are not representative of how Americans cook in their kitchens. It is more akin to measuring air quality produced by automobiles by attaching a hose to a tailpipe and directing it into a closed passenger compartment of an auto.

There are also issues with natural gas stove technologies that should be taken into consideration – but were not—when doing this analysis. The researchers found that stoves with pilot lights produce larger amounts of methane because they require constant natural gas stream with delays in ignition between steady-off and steady-on states. Newer natural gas appliances, however, do not have these inefficient pilot lights. Further, as of 2009, the U.S. Department of Energy issued a “no standing pilot light” rule, which prohibited standing pilot lights in gas cooking products.

The above may be some of the reasons why in two of the scenarios—the stove steady-state-off and cooktop steady-state-on scenarios—five stoves (nine percent of the sample size) emitted half of all measured emissions.

Issue 2: Inappropriate health comparison

In order to make the claim that gas stoves are harmful to health, the researchers compared nitrogen dioxide (NO2) emissions readings over the course of a few minutes to the average one-hour outdoor National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for NO2. The researchers did not acknowledge that the “1-hour national standard” is an outdoor standard, and is also an average, although they do admit that “there are no indoor standards.” Thus, the research team erred by comparing a peak reading in a small sample to an average outdoor standard. It is meaningless to compare a maximum to an average.

Further, since the researchers excluded ventilation, they distorted the measurement even more. When ventilation is included, concentrations of pollutants from cooking burners are reduced by 55 percent.

Last year, a study on this same topic called out a separate research team at UCLA for making the exact same claim.

“For comparison to NAAQs and CAAQs, the UCLA Report compared peak (maximum) concentrations directly to 1-hour NAAQs and CAAQs. The comparison of maximum peak concentrations to a 1-hour standard is not correct and certainly not relevant for assessing health risks. The 1-hour NAAQS and CAAQS represent health effects thresholds associated with 1-hour time averaged exposures. It is meaningless to compare a maximum to an average.”

The UCLA study was funded by the Sierra Club and was not peer-reviewed. This same fundamental error, however, occurs in the Stanford study, which was peer-reviewed. Clearly, dishonest claims should be dismissed when researchers and reviewers cannot be honest and must rely on sleight of hand and confusion to make claims regarding gas stoves and health in pursuit of a policy goal of banning gas stoves.

Issue 3: Researchers do not understand natural gas use in homes

The authors of the study told E&E News that the “larger than we thought” gas leaks they found could be happening in homes without residents knowing it. Their reasoning was amazing:

“The leaks were probably occurring on pipe fittings located in the kitchen itself and could be too small to perceive by smell, allowing them to drag on without being detected, since methane doesn’t give off a smell, Lebel and a co-author, Stanford professor Rob Jackson, told E&E News.”

The statement makes no sense because natural gas that enters transmission and distribution lines that go into houses must be odorized as a safety mechanism. Even though methane may be odorless in its natural state, most people associate a rotten eggs smell with natural gas. The odor occurs because the utility is required by law to add mercaptan to the gas stream so residents will be able to detect gas leaks.

Equally alarming was the suggestion by one of the researchers that people should fix their fittings on their own to ensure no leaks are evident. If residents have any reason to believe they may be experiencing leaks, they should call a licensed professional. Telling people to pull out their own stove to tinker with the connectors reflects a lack of understanding of how natural gas appliances function in the home, and in fact, could lead to catastrophic accidents

Issue 4: Activist involvement

The lead author, Eric Lebel, is affiliated with PSE for Healthy Energy, an organization funded by the Park Foundation, which also supports anti-fossil fuel groups and interests across the country. Years ago the head of the Park Foundation bragged that the organization was funding an “army” to oppose fracking.

The PSEHE’s Executive Director wrote a memo in 2012 laying out a strategy for making questionable health claims about fracking.

Issue 5: The natural gas industry has actively invested in reducing emissions

According to the American Gas Association, the natural gas industry has committed to investing nearly $30 billion each year to modernize the gas system and is investing $3.8 million every day to help customers and communities reduce their carbon footprint. Pipeline replacement projects have reduced emissions from the natural gas distribution system 69 percent since 1990 as pipes that may no longer be fit for service are being replaced with ones made from more modern materials, which increases safety and reduces emissions. Natural gas utilities have offset over 13.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions from 2012 to 2018—the equivalent to removing 2.9 million cars off the road for a year.

Conclusion

While combustion emissions from gas ranges, ovens, and cooktops can contribute some emissions, there are no documented risks to respiratory health from natural gas stoves from the regulatory and advisory agencies and organizations responsible for protecting residential consumer health and safety. Federal agencies such as the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency closely monitor and have evaluated homes with natural gas piping and natural gas appliances and have not taken any action to limit their use due to methane emissions as this study would suggest.

Nationally, more than one-third of households—about 40 million homes—cook with natural gas. To have all these households switch to electricity would be an enormous undertaking with huge costs and massive increases in demand for more electricity. Higher energy costs force homeowners to keep their homes at unsafe temperatures and greatly impact lower income residents who do not have sufficient income to meet their basic needs, particularly amongst rising prices. Further, natural gas is the main fuel used to generate electricity in the United States. Approximately 40 percent of our nation’s electricity comes from natural gas. But using natural gas to make electricity, rather than delivering it directly to a home or business is significantly less efficient. Converting natural gas into electricity only maintains 36 percent of usable energy from production to customer. Homes that use natural gas for heating (about 50 percent of U.S. homes), cooking, and clothes drying emit 37 percent fewer total carbon dioxide emissions than homes using electricity.

Attempts to force government policy changes on the basis of flawed studies performed in unnatural conditions mislead the public, and should be called out when they are cited by proponents of such changes.

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

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

AEA, CEI Send Joint Letter Opposing Confirmation of Sarah Bloom Raskin to the Federal Reserve

February 1, 2022 by Leave a Comment

The confirmation of the Biden administration’s choice for Vice-Chair of the Federal Reserve would be a recipe for financial instability.

WASHINGTON DC (February 1, 2021) – The American Energy Alliance (AEA), the country’s premier pro-consumer, pro-taxpayer, and free-market energy organization, joined with the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) in opposition to the confirmation of Sarah Bloom Raskin to the Federal Reserve.

This Thursday, the Senate Banking Committee will hold a confirmation hearing to consider the nomination of Ms. Raskin to be Vice Chairman for Supervision and a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

AEA President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement:

“The world is witnessing an energy crisis. On one hand, the White House has begged OPEC and Russia to supply additional oil on global markets and on the other hand he nominated Ms. Raskin who has stated that “even in the short term, fossil fuels are a terrible investment.” It is unclear why fossil fuel production is fine when it occurs in the OPEC countries or Russia, but not in the United States.

Investing in conventional energy — the source of 79 percent of energy consumption in the United States — is not a terrible investment, it is necessary to keep the lights on, keep our houses warm, and keep our transportation system moving.

Ms. Raskin endorses using the powers of the Federal Reserve outside of its statutorily-defined role. Anyone confirmed by the Senate should be committed to executing the law, rather than to pursuing a personal vendetta against certain types of energy.”

If Ms. Raskin is successful siphoning away necessary investments in fossil fuels we will see even higher energy prices and even more offshoring of energy intensive industries. If President Biden wants a stronger economy, he needs withdraw the nomination of Ms. Raskin. If he refuses to do so, the committee should vote against her confirmation.”


Myron Ebell, Director of CEI’s Center for Energy and Environment, issued the following statement:

“The Senate should not confirm Ms. Raskin to the Federal Reserve, where she appears eager to misuse the Fed’s considerable authority to try to destroy the coal, oil, and gas industries.”

John Berlau, CEI’s Director of Finance Policy, issued the following statement:

“As late as 2020, Sarah Bloom Raskin called for the Fed to actively discriminate against oil, gas, and coal firms in its lending programs. If confirmed as Vice Chair for Supervision, she could force banks to deprive these sectors of financial services to the detriment of the economy as a whole. The Senate must reject her nomination and stand up for ordinary American consumers, investors, and entrepreneurs still reeling from the pandemic and the onslaught of inflation.”


A full copy is available for download below. Here are some excerpts of the joint letter:

Ms. Raskin endorses using the powers of the Federal Reserve outside of its statutorily-defined role. Anyone confirmed by the Senate should be committed to executing the law, rather than to pursuing a personal vendetta against certain types of energy.

Ms. Raskin was incorrect when she stated in May 2020 that “even in the short term, fossil fuels are a terrible investment.” The stock prices of many oil companies have doubled since then. The stock price of Peabody Energy, the largest private coal company in the world, has tripled since then. Generally, fossil fuels have become a great investment in the brief time period since Ms. Raskin claimed they were a terrible investment.

Ms. Raskin’s terrible investment advice is one reason why the Federal Reserve should not be in the business of trying to pick winner and loser industries. The Federal Reserve Act did not charge the Federal Reserve with trying to pick winners and losers and there is no reason to believe it would choose wisely.

We urge President Biden to withdraw the nomination of Ms. Raskin, and if he does not do so, we urge the committee to vote against her confirmation. Congress has charged the Federal Reserve with maintaining a stable environment for the effective operation of the financial system, but this is very different from actually directing the flow of capital as Ms. Raskin would like to do. Ms. Raskin’s confirmation would be a recipe for financial instability.

Download A Copy Of The Letter

Additional Resources:

For media inquiries please contact:
[email protected]

Filed Under: Press Releases Tagged With: , , , , ,

The Unregulated Podcast #68: Room for Improvement

January 28, 2022 by Leave a Comment

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast, Tom Pyle and Mike Mckenna discuss the cringe-inducing incompetence in the West Wing and the administration’s efforts to push through its “signature” legislation.

Links:

Filed Under: Podcast Tagged With: , ,
Previous
Next