Biden’s Transit Plan Is All Malarkey

According to Democratic Party presidential nominee Joe Biden’s Clean Energy Plan:

“Biden will also transform the energy sources that power the transportation sector, making it easier for mobility to be powered by electricity and clean fuels, including commuter trains, school and transit buses, ferries, and passenger vehicles.”

Many U.S. cities and states have experimented with electric (battery-powered) buses, including Los Angeles and San Francisco, California; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Columbus, Ohio; Virginia; the District of Columbia; and Chicago, Illinois. The cities all found them not ready to replace gasoline, diesel, and natural gas-powered buses because the electric buses take too long to charge and did not live up to their mileage specifications, particularly in cold or hot weather and in hilly terrain or even because of how the drivers braked. San Francisco worried that the buses might not hold up with a full passenger load, particularly on its hilly terrain. Albuquerque, New Mexico cancelled its contract over safety concerns with the vehicles’ batteries and chargers.

Most recently, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) tested battery buses and found them not ready for prime time. The MBTA purchased five battery-power, 60-foot buses in 2019 and ran them over the past year. The vehicle manufacturer promised the buses would run 100 to 120 miles on a single charge, but the actual mileage ranged from 60 to 110 miles, with the lesser amounts coming on colder weather days. According to the Chief Engineer, “They don’t have enough battery power to deliver a full day’s service.” The buses would run out of power in the afternoon, and then it would take eight hours to recharge the batteries.

Further, the MBTA worried that the performance could actually be worse than the testing indicated because the past winter (2019) was so mild. The mileage dropped to 60 miles when the temperature was 20 degrees, but the mileage could drop even more with colder temperatures.

Despite lawmakers and transportation advocates pressing to convert to all-electric buses as quickly as possible, the MBTA found that the technology was not ready for a large procurement. 

The vast majority (99 percent) of the world’s electric buses (425,000) are in China, where a national mandate promotes electric vehicles. China also nationally subsidizes its manufacturing of electric buses, and is shipping electric buses in mass to other countries, including the United States. 

As mentioned above, some U.S. cities have bought a few electric buses and run limited pilots to test the concept in their areas. Despite California cities finding problems, the state has mandated that by 2029 all buses purchased by its mass transit agencies be zero-emission so that the state will have a total zero-emission fleet by 2040. There are just 650 electric buses in the United States currently, with over 200 of them in California.

Other Issues

Buying an electric bus is just the start because an entire electric bus system is needed. Charging stations are expensive—about $50,000 for a standard depot-based one. Longer bus routes would also need on-route charging stations, which could cost two or three times that amount not including construction costs or the cost of land. Charging infrastructure will cost a major city millions of dollars. An electric bus in the United States today costs around $750,000 compared to a diesel bus that sells for $550,000.

In most urban centers, bus depots are tightly packed to accommodate parking and fueling. The limited space would especially be a problem when transitioning between diesel and electric buses because two sets of fueling infrastructure would be required. Since charging buses can take 8 hours, more charging stations and space would be required than when compared to relatively brief fueling times for existing natural gas or diesel buses. 

Companies must also get electricity to their charging stations, which involves grid upgrades, possible rewiring of systems and building new substations, and, determining cost-effective rates with utility companies. This is especially expensive in urban areas, given already-congested underground utility systems. One estimate is that it would take 150 megawatt-hours of electricity to keep a 300-bus depot charged throughout the day. A typical American household, by comparison, consumes 7 percent of that amount annually. Another comparison is that a single charge for a fleet of 100 battery electric buses—roughly one-tenth of MBTA’s current fleet size—would take 60 to 80 percent the amount of energy that AT&T Stadium does on a Dallas Cowboys game day. 

Some transit agencies have run into high demand pricing from their local electric utility. In King County, Washington, for example, the county’s electric buses had a higher per-mile fuel costs than its diesel fleet due, in part, to high electricity demand charges. The Denver area’s transit agency worked out an agreement with Xcel Energy after similar problems with demand charges on one of its routes. Electricity is metered on volume as well as peak demand times, which can make the pricing of charging an electric bus more complicated than refueling a diesel one.

Conclusion

If the United States transitions to an all-electric fleet of buses, the country is likely to become reliant on China where the majority of manufacturing is taking place. The United States has transitioned from being dependent on foreign oil in the Middle East to achieving energy independence under President Donald Trump, but if Joseph Biden is elected, the United States will end up relying on China for its electric buses and the batteries that are needed to run them. Electric buses have performed much worse than advertised, leading many localities to begin questioning the switch.


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


For more information on these issues check out AEA’s Vote Energy 2020 election hub.

Joe Biden Loves Canada’s High Energy Prices

In February 2009, Ontario, Canada passed its Green Energy Act. The act entailed: increased integration of wind and solar energy into Ontario’s electricity grid, shutting down coal plants and creating 50,000 green jobs in the first three years; allowing First Nations communities to manage their own electricity supply and distribution (the ‘decolonization’ of energy), empowering Canada’s indigenous communities; and reducing costs for poorer citizens through clean and sustainable energy provided by renewable energy. That part of the act received an endorsement from Ontario’s Low Income Energy Network – a group that campaigns for universal access to affordable energy.

On January 1, 2019, Ontario repealed the act—one month before its 10th anniversary. The 50,000 guaranteed jobs never materialized. The “decolonization” of energy did not work out. one-third of indigenous Ontarians now live in energy poverty—their electricity bills more than doubled during the life of the act, making their electricity costs among the highest in North America. Its promises turned out to be false, and the actual results made people’s lives worse. 

What Went Wrong?

Ontario’s contracts with renewable suppliers guarantee electricity suppliers that they “will be paid for each kilowatt hour of electricity generated from the renewable energy project,” regardless of whether the electricity is consumed. While that does not make sense, the new contracts were an improvement over earlier contracts that guaranteed payments close to 100 percent of the supplier’s capacity, rather than electricity generated. So if a producer supplied only 33 percent of its capacity in a given year, it would still be paid as if it had produced almost 100 percent. About 97 percent of the applicants to the program were forms of intermittent energy—wind or solar energy—that operate only when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining, requiring other sources for back-up. They are inherently intermittent by design and nature, and therefore their capacity factors are always well below their maximum capacity over a year. Wind and solar electricity providers cannot replace consistently reliable power plants like natural gas, coal or nuclear—they can only supplement the grid.

The Council for Clean and Reliable Energy found that “in 2015, Ontario’s wind farms operated at less than one-third capacity more than half (58 percent) of the time.” Regardless, Ontarians paid multiple contracts as if wind farms had operated at full capacity all year. Ontario’s contracts also guaranteed exorbitant prices for renewable energy—often at up to 40 times the cost of conventional power for 20 years of operation. By 2015, Ontario’s auditor general concluded that citizens had paid $37 billion above the market rate for energy. Since these plants will continue operating, they will pay another $133 billion from 2015 to 2032 on top of market valuations. (One steelmaker has taken the Ontarian government to court for these exorbitant energy costs.)

Despite the act being repealed, Ontarians continue to pay exorbitant rates. In April, 2020, the market value for all wind-generated electricity in Ontario was $4.3 million, but Ontario paid $184.5 million in wind contracts—almost 43 times the value of electricity delivered

Between 2011 and 2015, electricity demand in Ontario declined, and it has continued to decline. Yet, Ontarians were forced to pay higher prices for new electricity capacity that they did not need since their consumption was going down. They had sufficient electricity capacity—just not the right kind.

Biden’s Promises 

If elected, U.S. Democratic Party presidential nominee Joe Biden promises to forge a carbon-free power sector by 2035. That means shutting down perfectly good coal and natural gas plants and replacing them with wind and solar power. He claims this means he will create new jobs in the “clean-energy” arena, much like the promises in Ontario. Of course, that also means that coal and natural gas jobs will be killed, replacing them with jobs that pay only half of their previous salary, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

It also means that U.S. ratepayers will pay higher prices for their electricity because perfectly good coal and natural gas capacity will be replaced by wind and solar farms. When Germany went on its path of pursuing renewable energy for its electric generation, residential rates skyrocketed. Germans pay 3 times more for their residential electricity, on average, than U.S. residents.

It also means that taxpayers will be subsidizing intermittent renewable technologies in order to make them economic. Or, Biden might go down the path of half our states that instituted Renewable Portfolio Standards, only to find they resulted in much higher electricity prices. One of those states, California, has been rewarded with rolling black-outs as high temperatures resulted in a shortage of electrical generation when solar panels powered down as sunset was approaching and families arrived home from work and turned on their air conditioning and other appliances. 

Conclusion

Americans need to make sure that they do not fall into the same trap as Ontarians, allowing changes to the electrical grid that will only result in higher energy prices, premature capacity retirements, and a loss of jobs to be replaced by lower paying ones. Americans have abundant energy at very affordable prices. All that could be lost with policies such as those Joe Biden is cheerleading.


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


For more information on these issues check out AEA’s Vote Energy 2020 election hub.

AEA Supports U.S. Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett


The nation needs clear, fair and objective interpretation of the law, especially on energy, environment, and regulatory issues.


WASHINGTON DC (September 26, 2020) – The American Energy Alliance (AEA), the country’s premier pro-consumer, pro-taxpayer, and free-market energy organization, has released a statement in support of Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

Thomas Pyle, President of the American Energy Alliance, issued the following statement:

“President Trump has made another outstanding decision in nominating Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. Much like the beloved Justice Antonin Scalia, Judge Barrett has shown that she interprets the laws based as they are and applies the Constitution as it was intended – impartially and consistently. Those are ideal qualities in a candidate for a seat on the highest court in the land. The Senate should hold fair hearings and bring her nomination to the floor for a vote in a timely matter.”


For media inquiries please contact:
[email protected]

The Energy Bill is Back, With Bootleggers and Baptists Onboard

When last we saw the Murkowski-Manchin energy bill, it was March and the bill was stymied by arguments over amendments.  At the time we dubbed the bill the American Energy Bureaucracy Act, and that description is still apt.  We questioned, and still question, the need for the raft of new programs the bill is pushing.  Indeed, given that the economy is still recovering from the coronavirus shock, new layers of energy bureaucracy are the last thing needed right now.  Talk is now in the air of bringing the bill back to the Senate floor thanks to an agreement on one of the amendments at issue earlier in the year having to do with regulating hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), a class of refrigerant.  This deal turns the relatively benign original bill into affirmatively harmful legislation that should be opposed.

HFCs are common industrial chemicals used worldwide for refrigeration and cooling.  They are also now believed to contribute to global warming as greenhouse gases.  There is an international treaty to phase out HFCs called the Kigali Amendment, which amends an earlier treaty known as the Montreal Protocol.  The United States has not ratified the Kigali Amendment, but has ratified the Montreal Protocol.  And what is the Montreal Protocol?  It was an dtreaty to phase out another class of refrigerants called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which were believed to be harming the ozone layer.  When CFCs were phased out, the replacement was HFCs.  So the “problem” that the Kigali Amendment seeks to solve was actually created by the very treaty it is amending.  Over the last couple decades the world spent untold billions converting old CFC refrigeration and cooling to the bureaucratically approved HFCs.  Now, the UN has decided that the exercise must be done again, with small businesses like restaurants and convenience stores once again stuck with the bill.  The UN treaty-making bureaucracy is impervious to the cruel irony.

Corporate Bootleggers and Green Baptists

The Trump administration has not submitted the Kigali Amendment to the Senate for ratification, citing the vast compliance costs, so a bootleggers and Baptists coalition has come together to try to pass legislation phasing out HFCs instead.  Recall that “bootleggers and Baptists” describes the teaming up of mafia alcohol smugglers with religious temperance zealots to push for Prohibition.  The mafia made money because legal competitors were outlawed; the temperance leagues got their purification of society.  

In the HFCs debate the bootleggers are big corporations like Honeywell and Chemours, who make the expensive replacement chemicals for HFCs, and the Air-conditioning Heating and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), which represents the HVAC companies that stand to make a killing by replacing all the systems that businesses just installed to comply with the Montreal Protocol.  The Baptists, as usual when it comes to environmental policy, are the green left, for whom Americans’ comfortable standard of living is a continuing affront.

Sen. Kennedy (R-LA), who has been leading the push for HFCs legislation, portrays this bootleggers and Baptists coalition as a virtue: Big Business is on board, environmentalists are on board, what more could you want?  Left out there, though, is the average customer, like a restaurant that just recently spent a huge amount to replace their cooling and refrigeration to comply with the Montreal Protocol, who now will have to find the cash to replace it again.  There are millions of air conditioning and cooling systems that will have to be upgraded or replaced, all at owners’ expense.  These costs are enormous.  And the profits that Honeywell, Chemours and AHRI members stand to reap are similarly hefty.  Yes, big business is happy for the government to ban competing chemicals.  Yes, HVAC installers are excited about the government mandating demand for their services.  But someone has to pay for all this rent-seeking.

The other problems still remain

Beyond the HFCs amendment, our underlying concerns about the Senate energy bill remain.  Whatever the Senate passes is not what will ultimately be sent to the President.  This week the House is rushing through its own energy bill packed full of subsidies and handouts.  Passing the Senate bill will provide a vehicle for a House-Senate compromise bill that will be determined behind closed doors.  This conference committee process provides the opportunity for every subsidy and mandate under the sun to hitch a ride on the legislation.

In the end, the verdict from March still applies today.  There is nothing urgent in this legislation.  Indeed, it is not clear why energy legislation is needed at all given low energy prices, rising energy exports, and accelerating private sector innovation everywhere from natural gas to renewables. Many of the parts of this bill that are truly noncontroversial and consensus policy could and should be passed individually.  The Senate would be better off simply pulling the plug on this “low-energy” energy bill. The United States has enough bureaucracy in our energy sector as it is.

It’s Time To End Corporate Welfare for Big Wind


AEA applauds legislators willing to take on on the powerful wind lobby and end the Production Tax Credit (PTC) once and for all.


WASHINGTON DC (September 24, 2020) – The American Energy Alliance, the country’s premier pro-consumer, pro-taxpayer, and free-market energy organization praised legislation introduced by Senators Lankford (OK), Cramer (ND), Hoeven (ND), Capito (WV) and U.S. House Representative Marchant (TX) that would help bring the era of intermittent energy subsidies to a close.

Subsidized wind power increases electricity costs, harms taxpayers, and destabilizes the electric grid. It is most beneficial to wealthy wind developers who are able to reduce their tax rate at the expense of the rest of the taxpayers and ratepayers.

The PTC has drained tens of billions of dollars while foisting unreliable energy onto the grid. It has now been extended a dozen times and the American Energy Alliance fully supports this legislative effort to finally end this unnecessary tax credit.

Thomas Pyle, President of the American Energy Alliance (AEA), issued the following statement:

“Ending this needless handout is years overdue, but welcomed. The wind industry, well past it’s infancy, should be able to stand on its own two legs by now.

“Even with this phase-out, the Production Tax Credit (PTC) will cost taxpayers around $40 billion over the course of this decade, making it the most expensive energy subsidy under current tax law. The credit distorts markets and strains the grid. It is the polar opposite of sustainability.

“This isn’t about wind states vs. gas and coal states—it’s about the people of the United States vs. corporate greed who have now become addicted to subsidies. The wind lobby has gone to the taxpayer well one too many times. We encourage all other Senators to join Senators Lankford, Cramer, Hoeven, and Capito in tying a bow on the PTC and restoring a more balanced market to electricity.


Congress enacted the Wind Production Tax Credit (PTC) in 1992 as a temporary measure for an “infant” industry. In 2013, Congress renewed the Wind Production Tax Credit (PTC) which will cost taxpayers more than any other subsidy Wind PTC in the past 10 years. After propping up the wind industry for almost three decades, the American Energy Alliance supports eliminating the PTC.


For media inquiries please contact:
[email protected]

AEA To Newsom: Consumers Should Be in the Driver’s Seat, Not Bureaucrats


Executive order banning gasoline-powered vehicles 
not only a bad idea, but insulting to consumers


WASHINGTON DC (September 23, 2020) –Thomas Pyle, President of the American Energy Alliance (AEA), issued the following statement in response to the executive order signed by California Governor Gavin Newsom that directs the California Air Resources Board to ban new gasoline-fueled vehicles and that all new cars and passenger trucks sold in California be zero-emission vehicles by 2035.

“Governor Newsom’s announcement today asks a question virtually everyone already knows. Who should decide what kinds of cars Californians should buy? Should bureaucrats in Sacramento make those decisions, or should consumers and families make the decisions for themselves?

“Right now, 97% of Americans decide to buy a car with an engine powered by gasoline. They make that decision for all kinds of reasons, including safety, size, range, comfort, and, in many instances, because an electric vehicle is too expensive.

“The Governor knows that today’s engines are cleaner, more efficient, and more powerful. He also knows that there is no such thing as an environmentally perfect vehicle. This is not only a bad idea, and a bad deal for the state of California, it’s insulting to consumers and families.”


For media inquiries please contact:
[email protected]

Unregulated Podcast #4: Tom & Mike on What the Supreme Court Vacancy Means for the Election

On this episode of Unregulated Tom & Mike discuss what the recent vacancy on the Supreme Court means for this November’s election and how it changes President Trump’s path to victory.

Links:

AEA’s 2020 election hub

Biden “used to be a good driver” clip

AOC saying the vacancy must radicalize Democrats

More on Joe Biden’s kowtow to the radical green left

McKenna’s column on Secretary Pompeo

McKenna’s column on Donald Trump’s potential path to victory

Key Vote NO on H.R. 4447

The American Energy Alliance urges all members to oppose H.R. 4447 the Clean Economy Jobs and Innovation Act.  

H.R. 4447 is an unwieldy collection of bills packed full of subsidies and burdensome regulations.  The legislation as a whole has one outcome: increasing the cost of energy for Americans.  Federal government micromanaging of people’s energy choices is as foolhardy as it is costly.

Even in good times, this legislation would be harmful, but with the economy still climbing out of the coronavirus shock, the regulatory burdens in this legislation are especially poorly timed.  The new government mandates and regulations in this legislation would choke the economy at the worst possible moment.

AEA urges all members to support free markets and affordable energy by voting NO on H.R. 4447.  AEA will include this vote in its American Energy Scorecard.

The Insane Cost Of Biden’s Fracking Ban

Hydraulic fracturing has made the United States the top oil and natural gas producer in the world and it has made the nation energy independent for the first time in 62 years. Yet, during stages in the campaign, potential Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and his running mate Kamala Harris advocated a ban on fracking and a ban on drilling, sometimes entirely and sometimes only on federal lands and waters. A recent study shows that banning federal leasing and fracking on public and private lands would:

  • cost up to 7.5 million American jobs in 2022,
  • lead to a cumulative loss of $7.1 trillion in GDP by 2030,
  • reduce household incomes by $5,400 annually,
  • increase household energy costs by over $600 per year, and
  • reduce farm incomes by 43 percent due to higher energy costs.

The United States would also lose its energy independence from the Middle East, importing more than 40 percent of its oil and petroleum supplies by 2030. It would also result in the United States importing almost 30 percent of its natural gas, rather than being the net exporter of natural gas we currently are. The impact is dramatic because over 95 percent of U.S. natural gas and oil wells today are developed using hydraulic fracturing. The impact of the bans on top of the losses experienced due to the coronavirus lockdown would be devastating to Americans and the U.S. economy, while decreasing national energy security and lessening our influence in energy markets throughout the world.

Increase in Costs

Under the bans, on average, residential natural gas prices are expected to increase 58 percent, electricity prices to increase 20 percent and gasoline and heating oil prices are expected to each increase 15 percent. Despite consuming less due to the higher prices, the average U.S. household is projected to spend $618 more per year for its energy: gasoline, natural gas, electricity, and heating oil. From 2020 to 2030, average household energy use is projected to decline by 12 percent.

Due to higher energy costs, the cost of farming and manufacturing will also increase. The cost of wheat farming is projected to increase 64 percent, the cost of corn farming to increase 54 percent and the cost of soybean farming to increase 48 percent. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, direct and indirect energy costs can account for 36 percent to 48 percent of total production costs for crops.

Energy is a huge component of modern agriculture. Farms use energy directly in the form of electricity, diesel, gasoline, and natural gas. They use it to move water and to irrigate crops, which is very energy consuming. Farms also use significant amounts of energy intensive products, including pesticides and fertilizers, much of which is sourced from natural gas. For example, natural gas can account for between 75 percent and 85 percent of fertilizer manufacturing costs. A ban on fracking and federal leasing could increase the cost of natural gas delivered to fertilizer manufacturers by an average of more than 170 percent. Fertilizer prices have been kept much lower to farmers as a consequence of the decline in natural gas prices attributable to hydraulic fracturing.

State Impact

If a fracking ban is enacted,  the states projected with the highest job losses include:

  • Texas with 1,103,000 job losses,
  • California with 765,000 job losses,
  • Florida with 711,000 job losses,
  • Pennsylvania with 551,000 job losses, and
  • Ohio with 500,000 job losses,

totaling 3.6 million job losses in 2022 in just those five states.

The states with the highest job losses as a share of overall employment include:

  • North Dakota (76,000),
  • Oklahoma (319,000),
  • New Mexico (149,000),
  • Wyoming (48,000),
  • Louisiana (321,000),
  • West Virginia (109,000)
  • Kansas (208,000) and
  • Colorado (353,000).

Conclusion

A ban on hydraulic fracturing and leasing would be devastating to the U.S. economy, increasing energy prices for electricity, natural gas, oil, and gasoline to the American consumer. Food costs would also increase as energy costs to farmers would also rise, which would also affect the competitiveness of products made by U.S. farmers for export to feed the world. Household energy costs would escalate and household incomes would decline dramatically. The U.S. economy would be at risk in falling into another recession with GDP in 2022 reduced by $1.2 trillion due to the bans. The U.S. would see massive unemployment again with 7.5 million jobs lost in 2022, but in this case they would be lost for good. Clearly, oil and natural gas is critical to the U.S. economy and the recovery that the American public currently needs from the coronavirus.

Though Joe Biden claims he will not ban fracking whenever he campaigns in Pennsylvania, he said he would ban it during his debate with Bernie Sanders in March. It is one of his many flip-flops during this presidential campaign. Increased U.S. energy self-sufficiency and the jobs created by fracking have brought enormous benefits to all Americans. Halting that enormous economic engine would cause very serious negative consequences for all Americans.


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


For more information on these issues check out AEA’s Vote Energy 2020 election hub.

Unregulated Podcast #3: Tom & Mike Tackling Today’s Headlines and the Election

On this episode of Unregulated Tom & Mike give an update on their election forecasts and dive into the rhetoric surrounding the ongoing crises plaguing California as well as touching on other headlines in the news.

Links:

AEA’s 2020 election hub

More on California’s wildfires and blackouts

More on America’s status as a major energy producer

More on Joe Biden’s kowtow to the radical green left

Check out McKenna’s latest at the Washington Times