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

American Voters Concerned about Economy, Not Climate

May 27, 2020 by Leave a Comment

Climate change remains at the bottom
 with respect to both priorities and willingness to pay.

WASHINGTON DC (May 27, 2020) – Today, the American Energy Alliance, America’s premier energy think tank, recently partnered with MWR Strategies to field a nationwide survey of 1000 likely voters (margin of error 3.1%).  We have attached the topline results.

AEA President Tom Pyle said this about the survey results: 

“Consistent with our research over a decade or more, respondents place no priority on climate change.  To the extent they do imagine there is a problem, they have no confidence in ability of the federal government to solve it.  More importantly, there is even less willingness to pay for anything to address climate change than there had been previously.

“The bottom line is that if our current experience with the coronavirus and government’s response to it has changed any sentiments towards climate change, it has deteriorated voters’ concern about climate change and their willingness to pay for any of the schemes ostensibly designed to ‘solve’ the problem.”

Results included:

  • When we have asked respondents to identify the most and second most pressing issue facing the United States across the years, climate change is almost invariably last on the list.  In this survey, we split the sample and offered both a list of possible responses that we read, as well as simply asking people to identify what they thought the most pressing issue is.  In both instances, climate change was at the bottom of the list.”
  • The data tells a pretty clear story.  Despite 30 years of effort of steady drumbeat by the alarmists, a little less than one in five (19%) identified global warming as a crisis.
  • Consistent with previous research (again), few voters are looking for the government to solve the problem.  More than half of voters believe that innovators and entrepreneurs (34%) or consumer demand (19%) are more likely to solve the problem than government action (28%).
  • One departure from previous research appeared in willingness to pay.  When asked how much they would be willing to pay each year to address global warming, the median answer (which had been trending towards 50 dollars for a number of years) was 20 dollars, with 32% of respondents answering “zero”.
  • Finally, even though respondents were evenly split on the wisdom of a federal tax on carbon dioxide (44% oppose/43% favor), a sizable majority (68%) do not trust the federal government to spend from such a tax wisely.

The full survey and results can be read here.

For media inquiries please contact:
[email protected]

Filed Under: Press Releases Tagged With: , ,

Coalition Cautions Oil Tariffs Would Harm Economic Recovery, Detract from America’s Energy Dominance

May 20, 2020 by 1 Comment

23 free-market organizations send letter to President Trump cautioning that oil tariffs would spark global retaliation, damage domestic industries and raise prices for American families.

WASHINGTON DC (May 20, 2020) – Today, a coalition of twenty-three free market, small business, and consumer groups joined the American Energy Alliance (AEA) in cautioning President Trump from enacting tariffs on imported crude oil as a means to help the hobbled oil and gas industry.

Thanks in large part to hydraulic fracturing, horizontal drilling and America’s prolific oil shale deposits, in 2019, U.S. energy production was higher than energy consumption for the first time in 62 years, thus attaining the long-held goal of “energy independence” attempted by every presidential administration since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

However, this does not mean the U.S. does not import crude oil. America’s oil refineries are not designed to take the oil grades currently being produced by U.S. shale fields. Tariffs on imported oil would increase costs for refiners while doing nothing to increase their use of U.S. shale oil. These higher costs would then raise gas prices at the pump, harming our nation’s refiners and raising energy prices for American businesses and families during these already challenging economic times. Unfortunately, tariffs would also harm U.S. exports because any U.S. tariffs would invite retaliation from our global competitors.

Thomas Pyle, President for the American Energy Alliance, made the following statement along with the release of this letter:

“These are certainly challenging times for the oil and gas industry, but fortunately the worst may be behind us. Our coalition applauds President Trump for his leadership and for resisting the temptation to intervene in energy markets. The President must continue to refuse the call by some to impose tariffs on imported oil.”

“Tariffs would unquestionably do more harm than good for everybody. Without government intervention, we’ve already begun to see markets correct themselves and show signs of an upward trend. Enacting a tariff on crude oil imports would likely launch a global retaliation and diminish the President’s incredible pro-energy, pro-consumer record. The best solution for U.S. oil and gas producers is reopening the economy in a safe and responsible manner.”


A text version of the letter is below.

Dear Mr. President,

Thank you for your leadership in this most challenging time. As you take steps to restore the economy, we write to express our concern about a misguided policy response being pushed from some quarters. Tariffs on imported oil would damage domestic industries and consumers while harming American global energy dominance.

We applaud your overall approach to energy policy. Your administration’s leasing and regulatory policies have helped increase domestic production and strengthened America’s foreign policy hand. The leasing on federal lands and waters that the administration has undertaken, and continues to undertake, will boost domestic production for many years to come, increasing American energy dominance and creating jobs. Oil tariffs, on the other hand, are the action of a weak energy country, and weak energy policy. The U.S. energy industry draws strength from its global competitiveness and U.S. consumers and employees benefit from our strong domestic refining capacity.

United States refiners are plugged into global markets. They use varying mixes of domestic and foreign oil grades depending on the specifications of each refinery and to balance global demand for refined products. These globally competitive refineries cannot simply switch over to American shale oil grades. The refineries are currently not designed to take the grades being produced in newly vast volumes from U.S. shale fields. Tariffs on imported oil would increase costs for refiners while doing nothing to increase their use of U.S. shale oil. These higher costs would raise gas prices at the pump, harming our nation’s refiners and raising energy prices for American families during these already challenging economic times.

This imbalance between domestic grade production and domestic grade demand is why the ability to export our energy surplus is so important. Unfortunately, tariffs would also harm U.S. exports. Any U.S. tariffs would invite retaliation from our global competitors, not just on crude oil but also on refined products. Years before crude oil exports were even allowed, the U.S. became a net exporter of refined products. These exports help reduce our trade deficit and support high paying domestic jobs. Tariffs on imported oil would make these refined exports more expensive and thus less competitive globally, in addition to retaliatory tariffs from other countries. This double blow to our refined exports would increase our trade deficit. Likewise, retaliatory tariffs on crude oil would decrease our ability to export our shale oil surplus, which is the key to our booming domestic production.

Against these significant harms, oil tariffs will have no positive benefits. Even if tariffs marginally increase the price of imported oil, U.S. domestic production is still far above current demand. Prices for domestic oil would therefore not increase with the imposition of import tariffs. This is because the core problem for U.S. producers is not imports, it is a loss of demand. The shutdowns and slowdowns in the U.S. and around the world mean that people are driving and flying much less. Until demand returns, prices for U.S. oil producers will not rise.

Ultimately, the best solution for U.S. oil producers is getting the economy back open and running. Oil tariffs do nothing to help open the economy, but would do harm to domestic industries and consumers. We urge you to reject this harmful, shortsighted policy.

The full letter and list of signatories can be read here.

For media inquiries please contact:
[email protected]

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

Amid the Coronavirus Pandemic, Bloomberg and McCarthy Reach New Political Low

May 8, 2020 by Leave a Comment

“Scientists are warning us that air pollution makes Covid-19, which strikes at the lungs, more deadly. Nonetheless, in the space of about a month, the president has repeatedly undermined rules limiting air pollution. Tens of thousands of Americans will die as a result.”

It’s no surprise that Michael Bloomberg and Gina McCarthy – two Democratic operatives – think Donald J. Trump is a very bad man. Yet their recent opinion piece How Trump’s EPA Is Making Covid-19 More Deadly does nothing to prove it. Bloomberg, coming off a failed presidential bid, and McCarthy, now head of an anti-Trump environmental pressure group, claim that because of a relationship between air pollution and COVID-19 mortality, the Trump administration’s recent announcements on environmental policy will kill tens of thousands of Americans. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Bloomberg and McCarthy cite a recent Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health study that evaluated the correlation between exposure to particulate matter and coronavirus mortality. Bloomberg and McCarthy (who, coincidentally, is a visiting professor at the school) write that the study “shows that even a tiny increase in fine particulate matter air pollution — commonly known as ‘soot’ — increases death rates from Covid-19.” The casual reader would assume the Harvard study forecasts many, many deaths that will be attributable to recent Trump administration decisions. 

But the study, which has not been peer reviewed and has been dismissed by prominent epidemiologists, does not justify what Bloomberg and McCarthy imply. In fact, the study doesn’t really even address the policies that Bloomberg and McCarthy have targeted. Of course, that didn’t stop them from using it to advance their political agenda.

Rather than forecasting the impact of any particular Trump policy change, the study’s authors evaluated what relationship there may be between long-term average PM2.5 exposure (i.e., exposure over a decade and a half) and risk of COVID-19 mortality. They did this through an analysis of county-level statistics on PM2.5 and on COVID-19 mortality in same-said counties. In their own words, “We investigated whether long-term average exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) is associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 death in the United States.”

The study concluded that a long-term average PM2.5 exposure increase of 1 μg/m3 is associated with an 8 percent increase in the COVID-19 death rate. Long-term exposure, the study finds, is linked to many of the comorbidities that have been associated with poor prognosis and death in COVID-19 patients. In simple terms, areas that have had higher average PM2.5 counts over the long-term have been hit harder by the coronavirus. 

The study says virtually nothing about the Trump administration’s recent announcements—not a mention of the fuel economy mandate increases, nor a word about the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, two of the policy changes Bloomberg and McCarthy say will lead to mass death.  

By suggesting that the study relays meaningful analysis of Trump administration policy changes, Bloomberg and McCarthy blatantly mislead their readers. The study is about long-term exposure and COVID-19 risk, not concurrent policy changes. Perhaps they should have heeded the advice of the author of the study, who stated “I don’t think that major policy decisions should be made based on our study.” 

Beyond misleading their readers on the conclusions of the Harvard study, Bloomberg and McCarthy also farcically mischaracterize the particular policy decisions at issue. “First,” they write, “the Environmental Protection Agency told coal, oil and gas, and power producers they were free to ignore pollution monitoring and reporting obligations – as long as they use the coronavirus pandemic as an excuse.” In reality, EPA has issued a temporary COVID19 enforcement policy to help regulated entities manage the unprecedented stay-at-home and social distancing orders issued by state and local governments that will prevent their employees from working as usual. EPA explicitly states that this temporary policy will not let facilities off the hook for violations and that EPA will, on a case-by-case basis, assess whether any violations that arise were caused by the public health emergency.

Bloomberg and McCarthy’s second target is the recent Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles rulemaking in which the Department of Transportation and EPA established new parameters for automaker compliance with fuel economy mandates. The alleged “rollback” is no such thing. The SAFE rule calls for fleet-wide fuel efficiency to increase by 1.5 percent per year. This increase is an attainable goal for manufactures, that allows for a more consumer-driven market than the onerous plan written by the previous administration.

The authors’ third target is that EPA recently announced it will continue to enforce the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter. You read that correctly, EPA will retain the standards, not eliminate or even diminish them. But for Bloomberg and McCarthy, that’s tantamount to “turn(ing) down an opportunity to save 12,000 lives.”

Lastly, Bloomberg and McCarthy lash out at EPA’s April reconsideration of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. While a reader would think EPA might have erased it from the books entirely, in fact, the reconsidered standards merely recalculated some of the cost-benefit frameworks and established a baseline that will ensure no more mercury or any other hazardous air pollutant will be released than before. 

Attempting to tie COVID-19 deaths to things as innocuous as the recent fuel economy rule announcement or the continuation of established policy is a political bridge too far. Bloomberg and McCarthy, like so many others who can’t bear the fact that Donald Trump is our president, have fallen into the sad, tired “now-more-than-ever” coronavirus trap. They don’t really have something new to say here, but “now more than ever” they think we need to do what they have always thought we should. 

With millions of Americans out of work and many more anxious about how to reenter society, Bloomberg and McCarthy have reached a new low in political attacks: using a not-ready-for-prime-time study to scare Americans about the Trump administration’s reasonable and rational regulatory reform efforts. One has to wonder if the Bloomberg-McCarthy op-ed would have made it past the editor’s desk were one of their names not on the masthead.

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

AEA-HAFA Joint Statement on Coronavirus Relief

May 1, 2020 by Leave a Comment

From powering hospitals and fueling delivery trucks to enabling millions of Americans to telework, affordable, reliable energy has been critical in helping families and essential businesses get through the coronavirus pandemic.

However, like many other industries across the country, Americans working in the energy sector are struggling. Whether it’s a solar installation halted by supply chain disruptions or oil companies suffering from dramatic declines in oil consumption, businesses across the country are teetering. 

Protecting public health and keeping Americans tethered to their jobs through targeted and temporary measures remains a priority. As policymakers at all levels of government prioritize mitigating the spread of the virus and getting people back to work, they must also maintain a commitment to free and open markets. When it comes to energy, policy reforms to provide an immediate jolt to the economy and sustain an economic recovery should adhere to the following principles: 

Ensure that relief funds are broad based, not industry specific. Many energy companies have a legitimate claim to any loans and relief funds Congress offers. Coronavirus is disrupting global supply chains. Travel restrictions and stay-at-home orders have significantly reduced the demand for oil. Energy companies financially harmed by the pandemic should receive funds from the Paycheck Protection Program, not receive any industry specific aid. 

Keep energy subsidies out. Previous coronavirus relief packages from the Democrats attempted to extend targeted tax credits for wind, solar and electric vehicles. Pundits and policymakers have called for a massive green stimulus similar to that of the green funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Enacting policies today that enrich the politically connected for years after the pandemic is over is not what Americans deserve. Energy subsidies distort investment flows and either prop up uneconomical projects or pad the bottom lines of companies who do not need the financial assistance. No subsidy for any energy source or technology belongs in policy responses to the pandemic. 

Maintain open markets. Open markets have been beneficial for American energy companies and energy consumers. The administration considered tariffs on imported oil while Texas regulators are considering government-mandated production cuts, but open markets have proven their effectiveness for crude producers and domestic refiners because they have better matched different crudes with specialized refining capabilities. Importantly, the free flow of crude oil and refined petroleum products has helped consumers by getting more petroleum to the market and sending resources to where they are used most efficiently. Likewise, decisions on production cuts should be based on market signals, with producers themselves choosing which wells to slow or shut in. Broad government-mandated production cuts would hit indiscriminately, forcing cuts from both efficient and inefficient wells or producers, thus propping up weaker players and disrupting the functioning of the oil industry at precisely the moment when it needs to be at its competitive best. Both tariffs and proration would have negligible impact on boosting prices but would inflict long-lasting harm by increasing government intervention in energy markets. 

Reject costly, ineffectual climate regulations. The House Democrats’ initial coronavirus relief bill proposed new requirements for each airline to reduce its climate footprint if the airline received financial assistance. Not only is such a proposal incredibly ill-timed, climate regulations on the airline industry would be costly for consumers without having any measurable impact on the climate. Any unilateral climate regulation, whether it is an aggressive Green New Deal-style policy or a regulation on a specific industry will harm Americans’ ability to get back to work without making a dent on global temperatures. Congress should keep the climate agenda out of any future legislative responses to the pandemic. 

We all want to protect the health of Americans, slow the spread of the virus and get people back to work. Now is not the time to award preferential treatment to various energy sources, restrict market access or advance politically-driven agendas that will inflict much more economic harm than good. 

Tom Pyle

President

Jessica Anderson

Executive Director

Filed Under: Congress Tagged With: , , , , ,

As America Returns to Work, Policy Proposals Must Stay Committed to Free & Open Markets

April 29, 2020 by Leave a Comment

American Energy Alliance & Heritage Action for America issue joint principles guide for policymakers considering changes aimed at mitigating the spread of the coronavirus, protecting public health and getting America back to work.

WASHINGTON DC (April 29, 2020) – The American Energy Alliance (AEA) and Heritage Action for America (HAFA) have released a joint statement of principles for policymakers considering policy changes aimed at mitigating the spread of the coronavirus, protecting public health and getting Americans back to work.

From powering hospitals and fueling delivery trucks to enabling millions of Americans to telework, affordable, reliable energy has been critical in helping families and essential businesses get through the coronavirus pandemic. However, like many other industries across the country, Americans working in the energy sector are struggling. Whether it’s a solar installation halted by supply chain disruptions or oil companies suffering from dramatic declines in oil consumption, businesses across the country are teetering.

Protecting public health and keeping Americans tethered to their jobs through targeted and temporary measures remain a priority. As numerous proposals are discussed, policymakers must maintain a commitment to free and open markets.

Thomas Pyle, President for the American Energy Alliance, made the following statement:

“The coronavirus pandemic has been a huge blow to the economy generally and the energy industry specifically, and government action certainly has a role to play on the road to recovery. However, policy actions cannot fall into the old patterns of political cronyism and the picking of winners and losers. Now is not the time to use the pandemic as an excuse to attempt to micromanage or centrally plan the economy. Government action should be temporary, resource neutral, and focus on improving the efficiency of energy flows and energy markets.”

Jessica Anderson, Executive Director for Heritage Action for America, made the following statement:

“The coronavirus pandemic and government responses have severely affected every industry. While it’s vital that policymakers mitigate the worst economic effects and help keep workers attached to their jobs, Congress should not bail out the energy industry or any other individual sector. Our response should be temporary and targeted to help the most affected areas. It should not pick winners and losers or advance politically motivated policy agendas. Now is the time to make our energy market more open and get America back to work, not to prop up politically connected companies or sectors.”

Key Points in the AEA-HAFA Joint Statement on Coronavirus Relief

Ensure that relief funds are broad based, not industry specific. Many energy companies have a legitimate claim to any loans and relief funds Congress offers. Coronavirus is disrupting global supply chains. Travel restrictions and stay-at-home orders have significantly reduced the demand for oil. Energy companies financially harmed by the pandemic should receive funds from the Paycheck Protection Program, not receive any industry specific aid.

Keep energy subsidies out. Previous coronavirus relief packages from the Democrats attempted to extend targeted tax credits for wind, solar and electric vehicles. Pundits and policymakers have called for a massive green stimulus similar to that of the green funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Enacting policies today that enrich the politically connected for years after the pandemic is over is not what Americans deserve. Energy subsidies distort investment flows and either prop up uneconomical projects or pad the bottom lines of companies who do not need the financial assistance. No subsidy for any energy source or technology belongs in policy responses to the pandemic.

Maintain open markets. Open markets have been beneficial for American energy companies and energy consumers. The administration considered tariffs on imported oil while Texas regulators are considering government-mandated production cuts, but open markets have proven their effectiveness for crude producers and domestic refiners because they have better matched different crudes with specialized refining capabilities. Importantly, the free flow of crude oil and refined petroleum products has helped consumers by getting more petroleum to the market and sending resources to where they are used most efficiently. Likewise, decisions on production cuts should be based on market signals, with producers themselves choosing which wells to slow or shut in. Broad government-mandated production cuts would hit indiscriminately, forcing cuts from both efficient and inefficient wells or producers, thus propping up weaker players and disrupting the functioning of the oil industry at precisely the moment when it needs to be at its competitive best. Both tariffs and proration would have negligible impact on boosting prices but would inflict long-lasting harm by increasing government intervention in energy markets.

Reject costly, ineffectual climate regulations. The House Democrats’ initial coronavirus relief bill proposed new requirements for each airline to reduce its climate footprint if the airline received financial assistance. Not only is such a proposal incredibly ill-timed, climate regulations on the airline industry would be costly for consumers without having any measurable impact on the climate. Any unilateral climate regulation, whether it is an aggressive Green New Deal-style policy or a regulation on a specific industry will harm Americans’ ability to get back to work without making a dent on global temperatures. Congress should keep the climate agenda out of any future legislative responses to the pandemic.

We all want to protect the health of Americans, slow the spread of the virus and get people back to work. Now is not the time to award preferential treatment to various energy sources, restrict market access or advance politically-driven agendas that will inflict much more economic harm than good.

Download the full statement guide.

For media inquiries please contact:
AEA |[email protected]
HAFA | NOAH WEINRICH | 202.870.1250

Filed Under: Press Releases Tagged With: , , ,

The Cost of The RFS is Too Big to Ignore

April 17, 2020 by 4 Comments

In recent weeks, five governors have sent letters to the EPA asking for a waiver of the 2020 blending mandates from the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) concerned about the economic damage they inflict on a refining industry already reeling from the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic.  The RFS mandates the blending of various types of “renewable” fuels into the national gas supply regardless of demand. But the blending requirements for 2020, set in late 2019, obviously did not account for the crisis currently gripping the US. With most of the country under varying levels of lockdown orders, people are not driving or flying and demand for transportation fuels has collapsed.  At this time of crisis, the last thing the refining industry needs is the compliance costs of the RFS.

Even in good times, compliance costs for the RFS mandate are substantial.  Some small refineries spend more money on RFS compliance than they do on their entire payroll.  Billions of dollars a year are spent to buy compliance credits. The situation today is certainly not good times.  Gasoline demand has fallen by nearly half in just a month.  Airline traffic is down more than 90% from normal.  The ongoing uncertainty with how and when the economy will be able to restart means it is impossible for refiners to plan for the rest of the year.

As the pandemic crisis has spread, we have seen numerous regulations relaxed or waived in response.  Licensing rules for out of state doctors, trucking regulations, FDA approvals, alcohol sales rules, telemedicine restrictions, and on and on.  All the waived regulations have always imposed costs, slowed research, or limited economic activity, usually to protect some special interest group.  In good economic times people may accept these costs, but a crisis exposes them as mindlessly harmful.

The RFS is a perfect example of this kind of special interest regulation.  It was created to prop up the corn ethanol industry, not because of consumer demand.  The costs the program imposes are thus politically driven, not economic, harming refiners and increasing gas costs for most Americans.  But the political nature of the costs makes relief straightforward: government imposes the costs, so government can reduce them.

Maybe in the best of times, we could overlook this special interest handout, but times like these should make us question all-cost, no-benefit mandates like the RFS.  EPA should waive the 2020 mandated volumes. Sparing the refining industry of this kind of pointless compliance during a crisis should be a no-brainer. And when we begin to restart our economy, every American should question why one niche industry should have the government mandating the purchase of its product at the expense of the rest of the country in the first place.

Filed Under: Blog, Renewable Fuel Standard Tagged With: , , ,

Protection and Production: EPA MATS Rule Restores Balance in Cost-Benefit Analysis

April 16, 2020 by Leave a Comment

President Trump and EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler continue to rack up regulatory fixes to the mess they inherited from the Obama administration.

WASHINGTON DC (April 16, 2020) – The American Energy Alliance (AEA) announced its support for the final updated Mercury and Air Toxics (MATS) rule released by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today. MATS sets allowable limits for chemicals that can be emitted into the atmosphere from oil and coal-fired power plants.

In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in Michigan v. EPA that the Obama administration’s EPA failed to take into consideration the cost of their original rule and returned it back to the agency. Shortly after the ruling, then EPA Administrator, and current head of the green pressure-group Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), bragged that the court’s ruling had no bearing and that MATS had already contributed to the Obama administration’s “war on coal” by shutting down a significant number of coal-fired electricity plants.

Thomas Pyle, President of the American Energy Alliance, issued the following statement in reaction to today’s announcement:

“Today’s rule reconsideration is another in a long line of regulatory corrections made by the Trump administration aimed at more accurately following the letter of the law and balancing the cost-benefit relationship between protecting our health and maintaining a vibrant energy industry, which is essential to keeping prices affordable for American families.”

“The Obama administration blatantly abused the rule-making process by vastly overstating the benefits of their original MATS rule as part of their ‘war on coal.’ President Trump fulfilled yet another promise to the American people by restoring the cost-benefit approach that is consistent with the Clean Air Act and the Supreme Court’s ruling. While it is unfortunate that so much coal-fired electricity generation was taken off line because of the original rule, but at least future presidents can no longer abuse their authority to advance radical, anti-coal political agendas at the expense of the American people.”

“The regulatory process must always maintain a balanced cost-benefit approach, but unfortunately the heavy hand of government has weighed in too often tipping the scale one way or another. Today’s rule addresses past regulatory abuses by former EPA Administrator and current NRDC head Gina McCarthy. At the same time, it protects human health by preserving current mercury emissions protections. If the green left or the media say otherwise, they are either being intentionally misleading or fail to understand this rule.”

“The bottom line is if the greens don’t like the law, they should urge Congress to change it, not rage war against affordable energy through the EPA’s back door.”

In addition to today’s MATS rule, the EPA also recently determined to retain existing primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM). PM are extremely small particles that scientists and environmental air quality experts track in our atmosphere that may be deemed harmful to our health. Since 2000, the U.S. has reduced emissions that can contribute to PM, including reducing SO2 84% while NOx air releases are down 54%. Continued implementation of existing regulations can help continue this trend without unnecessarily burdening an already fragile economy due to our efforts to slow the spread of the coronavirus.

According to the EPA, between 1970 and 2017, U.S. gross domestic product increased 262 percent, vehicle miles traveled increased 189 percent, energy consumption increased 59 percent, and U.S. population increased by 44 percent. During the same time period, total emissions of the six principal air pollutants dropped by 73 percent.

Despite doom-and-gloom predictions made by extreme environmental groups like the NRDC, the U.S. has emerged a model for environmental protection and responsible energy production.

Additional Resources

For media inquiries please contact:
[email protected]

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

48 Sign to Drive: Coalition Urges Immediate Implementation of SAFE Auto Emission Standards Rule

April 6, 2020 by Leave a Comment

Consumers will have freedom to choose among a variety of new, more affordable, and safer vehicle models.

WASHINGTON DC (April 6, 2020) – Today, a diverse coalition of forty-eight nationwide free market, small business, and consumer groups led by the American Energy Alliance (AEA) submitted a letter to President Trump in support of the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule. The rule reforms the federal fuel mandate known as the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program and is projected to save Americans $1,400 over the life of a new vehicle and reduce collision fatalities by more than 3,300 annually.

Thomas Pyle, President of the American Energy Alliance, issued the following statement in reaction to today’s announcement:

“President Trump inherited a CAFE mandate from his predecessor that was impossible to achieve without dramatically altering the automobile market or making the cost of vehicles out of reach for most American families. This new SAFE rule will make cars more affordable for consumers at a time when they need it the most. The rule puts power back into the hands of drivers, not bureaucrats, and most importantly it will save lives.”

“There is no better symbol of the American commitment to personal freedom than the car. From that moment when you get your license, the car provides you with true choice and control over your destiny. We continue to see this Administration creating an environment of choice instead of mandates, which ultimately give us freedom. Freedom to drive and free to thrive.”

“We applaud the hard work of Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao and EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler and their teams. This rule gives consumers more freedom to choose among a variety of new, more affordable, and safer vehicle models. This is a win all around.”


A text version of the letter is below.

April 6, 2020

The Honorable Donald J. Trump
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

We write you to express our support for the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule. This joint Department of Transportation (DOT) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rulemaking will reform the federal fuel mandates known as the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program.

The problems with the program are numerous and have only been compounded over its 40-year history. The fuel economy mandate has imposed a needless cost on car buyers of around $4,000 per vehicle and the previous administration’s plan would have cost car buyers more than $7,000 by 2025 .

To meet the mandate, automakers often have sold smaller, less desirable cars at a discount, while increasing prices on larger, more popular cars, crossovers, SUVs, and trucks. Today, the average transaction price for light vehicles in the United States is approaching $39,000.

Absent this tough but fair rule, the previous administration’s CAFE mandate would have made this problem even worse, shifting burdens onto families with needs or preferences for larger vehicles. Such families not only include those with children, but also those with individuals having mobility challenges. Those families and individuals who prefer or need trucks, SUVs, and crossovers pay more to subsidize those who buy smaller vehicles or electric vehicles under the existing mandate. This significant, needless, and unjust cost is a very real regressive tax on American families that has made our country worse off.

The existing unworkable mandate has also pushed people toward cars that are less safe. The cost increases on new vehicles inflicted by CAFE keep families in older, less safe, less reliable vehicles longer. While we would have preferred an even greater reduction or even the elimination of the mandate altogether, the right-sizing of this mandate to a 1.5-percent annual increase in fuel economy from an onerous 5 percent will improve the vehicle market on all fronts and restore the decision about the types of cars people can buy to consumers and the auto industry.

The new rule is projected to save Americans $1,400 over the life of a new vehicle. More importantly, it will reduce collision fatalities by more than 3,300 annually and it will reduce hospitalizations by tens of thousands. This rule gives consumers a chance to have newer, safer, and more affordable vehicles.

It should also be noted that the reform is a floor, not a cap. Automakers are free to manufacture and consumers are free to buy vehicles with greater fuel efficiency if so desired. The fundamental question on the CAFE mandate is clear: who should decide which cars and trucks are on the road, families or bureaucrats in Sacramento and Washington? This plan empowers consumers and car buyers.

The full letter and list of signatories can be read here.

Additional Resources

For media inquiries please contact:
[email protected]

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

Trump Administration Considering a Temporary Jones Act Waiver for Oil Producers

April 3, 2020 by 2 Comments

President Trump is reportedly meeting with the leaders of several U.S. oil producers today to discuss some sort of temporary relief for the industry from the sharp drop in oil prices caused by the drop in demand due to COVID-19 pandemic. Although it isn’t completely clear what the administration has in mind, there are rumors that one of the proposals under consideration is a temporary waiver of the Jones Act for transporting oil.

For those who are not familiar with it, the Jones Act is a maritime law that mandates that only vessels that are built, owned, crewed, and flagged in the United States can participate in maritime shipping between domestic ports. As I explained when I first wrote about the Jones Act in 2017:

“The obvious economic effect of the Jones Act is that it excludes foreign ships from participating in the domestic maritime shipping market. Limiting the supply of domestic shippers increases the costs of shipping goods between domestic ports relative to what they would be in a more competitive market; these costs are then passed on to consumers.  A combination of factors cause these increased costs including the cost of producing a ship in an American shipyard (which is four to five times higher than the cost of an imported ship) as well as the increased operating costs of employing an American crew. The Congressional Research Service has shown that operating costs of American vessels bound to the Jones Act can be more than twice as high per day to comparable foreign ships. In 1999, the U.S. International Trade Commission reported the Jones Act costs $1.32 billion annually to American consumers. Areas like Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Guam disproportionally feel the effects of these costs because their geographic locations limit their ability to use alternative forms of transportation such as rail or freight to move goods.  Excluding foreign competition in the domestic maritime shipping market also reduces competition for services and grants American shipping companies increased monopoly power in the market. This allows domestic companies to charge higher prices and prevents them from adapting to better meet consumer demand.”

The U.S. energy industry is particularly affected by the Jones Act as the higher shipping costs associated with the law have placed some parts of the country in the position where importing oil is frequently a cheaper option than consuming the oil produced here in the U.S. Writing over at the Cato Institute, Colin Grabow explains the impact of the Jones Act on the U.S. energy industry:

“Jones Act shipping rates are so high that shipping a barrel of oil from Alaska to the Gulf Coast has been shown to cost three times more than shipping the same oil on a foreign‐​flagged ship to the U.S. Virgin Islands (which are exempt from the law) despite the latter voyage taking twice as long. Jones Act-compliant ships are so expensive that oil can be shipped to East Coast refineries from Saudi Arabia for three times cheaper than sending it from the Gulf Coast.

As a result, Americans buy more Saudi oil and less U.S. oil, which must be instead sold to more distant customers. Last year California refineries even bought oil from as far away as Nigeria instead of Louisiana largely due to transportation costs. This is costly, inefficient, and hurts the bottom line of U.S. oil producers. “

I would add to this that the Jones Act also helps solve some of the industry’s supply chain problems that are the result of the restricted construction of new pipelines in the U.S. Additionally, because of the extremely low price of oil, a temporary waiver may make it easier and less costly for oil producers to transport their product to storage facilities as they await a rebound in the price of oil.

As Americans do their best to fight through the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, it would behoove the administration to adopt simple changes in policy that can help American consumers and producers alike. A temporary Jones Act waiver for oil and gas is the perfect example of such a policy as it wouldn’t present any harm to U.S. consumers and would help U.S. oil and gas producers bring their products to market.

Filed Under: Blog, Oil Exports Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

Trump Administration Finalizes Rationalization of Fuel Economy Mandates

March 31, 2020 by Leave a Comment

Today the Trump administration finalized the second half of its proposed rule to correct the overreach of the Obama administration’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations. The first half came last fall when the administration halted California’s ability to force fuel economy standards on the other 49 states. Today’s second half brings fuel economy mandates back to the real world of achievable improvements instead of the Obama administration’s backdoor electric vehicle mandate. This rationalizing is an important victory for consumers, providing more choice and more affordable vehicles, and a victory for automakers, who can focus on technological improvements rather than scrambling to meet overreaching bureaucratic mandates.

The CAFE program is a relic of the 1970’s oil crises. As domestic oil production declined, many people came to fear US dependency on foreign oil. Whatever the legitimacy of that justification 40 years ago, the world has changed substantially since then. The United States is now the largest oil producer in the world and a substantial exporter. In reality, the CAFE program should be repealed entirely as obsolete. But if we are to have it, it should do the least harm possible.

The Obama administration, in contrast, saw the CAFE program as an opportunity to impose its environmental agenda. The CAFE mandates proposed by the Obama administration in 2012 were set so high that they were in effect impossible to meet – at least with cars using internal combustion engines. The mandates were so excessive that compliance was impossible without special credits given for producing electric vehicles. The 2012 mandates were thus effectively a backdoor electric vehicle mandate, forcing automakers to produce electric vehicles regardless of consumer demand. And boy, do consumers not want them. Since 2012 consumers have only accelerated their transition to SUVs and light trucks. Today over 70% of cars sold are these larger vehicles.

The rule finalized today by the administration recognizes the overreach of the previous Obama mandates as well as the realities of the current car market. The rule calls for fleet-wide fuel efficiency to increase by 1.5% per year (in contrast to the Obama effective level of 5% per year). This increase is attainable by carmakers, while still allowing for consumer choice. More importantly, by right-sizing the mandates, this rule would reduce the cost of new cars during the next five years. Reducing the cost of new cars encourages fleet turnover, which increases safety and has environmental benefits. Instead of holding on to older, less safe, less efficient vehicles, consumers will be better able to upgrade. The average age of the US vehicle fleet is about 12 years, the highest it has even been.

Ultimately the rule finalized today reduces the cost of new vehicles, increases consumer choice, and will improve the overall safety of vehicles on the road. What it does not do it try to force consumers to purchase electric vehicles, which is why the environmental left and their allies in the media are on the attack. The administration’s rejection of social engineering should be applauded. The CAFE program is long past its sell-by date, but today’s rule at least minimizes the program’s regulatory damage.

Filed Under: Blog, CAFE Tagged With: , , , , , ,
Previous
Next