Key Vote NO on H.R. 2

The American Energy Alliance urges all members to opposed H.R. 2 the Moving Forward Act.

This legislation is not good faith effort to advance transportation policy.  Rather the legislation seeks to hijack the required surface transportation reauthorization process to attach a slew of extraneous green provisions drawn from the unworkable Green New Deal.  This mirrors the equally shameless effort from earlier this year to hijack the coronavirus relief legislation to advance many of the same green provisions that have been attached to H.R. 2.

The various wasteful subsidies and handouts packed into this $1.5 trillion legislation are bad policy in of themselves, but jeopardizing the passage of a transportation reauthorization in an attempt to spread these special interest handouts around is irresponsible.  This legislation cannot pass the Senate, which makes it merely a signaling exercise, hardly what is needed during the uncertain economic times the country is facing.

The House should return to the drawing board and work through the normal bipartisan transportation reauthorization process.  Perhaps that can happen once this signaling bill goes nowhere.

The AEA urges all members to support free markets and affordable energy by voting NO on H.R. 2.  AEA will include this vote in its American Energy Scorecard.

Key Vote NO on H.R. 2

The American Energy Alliance urges all members to opposed H.R. 2 the Moving Forward Act.

This legislation is not good faith effort to advance transportation policy.  Rather the legislation seeks to hijack the required surface transportation reauthorization process to attach a slew of extraneous green provisions drawn from the unworkable Green New Deal.  This mirrors the equally shameless effort from earlier this year to hijack the coronavirus relief legislation to advance many of the same green provisions that have been attached to H.R. 2.

The various wasteful subsidies and handouts packed into this $1.5 trillion legislation are bad policy in of themselves, but jeopardizing the passage of a transportation reauthorization in an attempt to spread these special interest handouts around is irresponsible.  This legislation cannot pass the Senate, which makes it merely a signaling exercise, hardly what is needed during the uncertain economic times the country is facing.

The House should return to the drawing board and work through the normal bipartisan transportation reauthorization process.  Perhaps that can happen once this signaling bill goes nowhere.

The AEA urges all members to support free markets and affordable energy by voting NO on H.R. 2.  AEA will include this vote in its American Energy Scorecard.

Democrats $1.5 Trillion Infrastructure Plan Kicks Bipartisanship and Common Sense to the Curb

H.R. 2 has lost its way becoming the latest vehicle for Green New Deal policies

WASHINGTON DC (June 30, 2020) – Today, the American Energy Alliance (AEA) voiced its opposition to H.R. 2, the “Moving Forward Act”, a $1.5 trillion infrastructure package currently under consideration before the U.S. House of Representatives. What traditionally serves as a bipartisan effort for highway funding has taken a wrong turn and morphed into a limousine of green goodies focused more on moving special interests forward than improving America’s infrastructure.

AEA pointed to public opinion polling confirming that climate change remains at the bottom with voters in respect to both priority, and willingness to pay, voicing concern for the economy over everything else – especially during uncertain times created by the spread of COVID-19. Yet efforts to prop up expensive, failing products and energy sources with subsidies for electric vehicles (EV), windmills and solar panels, continue to be added in. It is clear that Democrats will look to whatever vehicle is before them to push Green New Deal proposals.

AEA continues to oppose EV and renewable energy tax extender and expansions which only benefit the wealthiest and the rent-seeking industries who swear they’re economic while continuing to demand access to taxpayers’ and ratepayers’ wallets. The organization has repeatedly reminded lawmakers that 78.7 percent of the EV tax credits went to households with an adjusted gross income of $100,000 or higher, and more than half went to households with an adjusted gross income of more than $200,000. Additional polling shows that a majority of Americans don’t believe taxpayer money should go towards paying for other peoples’ cars. Voters’ sentiments against paying for other’s electric vehicles especially sharpen when they learn nearly 50 percent of all subsidies are going to California.

Democrats have also shared no mechanism (or explanation) as to how to pay for the $1.5 trillion bill.

AEA will use its Energy Scorecard to highlight those that vote for this misguided plan, and if ever passed by the U.S. Senate, recommends a veto from President Trump.

Kenny Stein, Director of Policy and Federal Affairs for the American Energy Alliance, released the following statement against H.R. 2:

“With the spread of COVID-19, is now the time for $100 billion in mass transit? Or $75 billion for the first phase of the Green New Deal? Or unnecessary tax extenders for failed products and inadequate energy sources? Once again, Democrats have signaled how desperate they are to reward the extreme green left for their loyalty by prioritizing giveaways for special interest over citizen’s needs.”

“American voters are concerned with the economy right now, not the Green New Deal. H.R. 2 lost its way from the beginning when it shut out one side from contributing recommendations on how to support and improve America’s infrastructure and shows that Democrats are out of touch with working people and the economy.”

Additional Resources


For media inquiries please contact:
[email protected]

Pushing the Green New Deal (Fox News Alert!)

“To fully address the threat of climate change and move towards the goal of global net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, the United States should advance specific policies and champion collaborative initiatives….” American Conservation Coalition—Campus

Fox News viewers are being subjected to a slick advertising campaign by the American Conservation Coalition–Campus (ACCC), a group “giving conservatives on campus a voice on the environment.” 

“We work with existing groups on campus to promote a free-market approach to clean energy and conservation,” their pitch goes. “By working with elected officials and activists, our student leaders are working to change the narrative on conservative environmentalism and facilitating important dialogue on critical environmental issues.”

Conservative? As in rejecting climate alarmism and Malthusianism in favor of sound science, humanism, and policy realism?

Conservation? As in market conservation—or government conservationism via energy taxes and mandates?

Free market? As in rejecting carbon taxes and special subsidies to politically correct energies? In reducing, not expanding, existing government intervention?

Clean energy? As in natural gas, reformulated gasoline, and clean coal? As in infrastructure minimalism from dense, storable, portable mineral energies—not infrastructure maximalism from industrial wind turbines, solar arrays, EV batteries, and biofuels?

Exactly not. The whole idea of ACCC is to assume, not debate, climate alarmism and the need to phase down-and-out carbon-based energies. Yet natural gas, oil, and coal are the very energies that consumers naturally choose—and taxpayers do not need to subsidize.

ACCC, which intends to “move towards the goal of global net-zero carbon emissions by 2050,” is promoting the message of the Democratic Left, the climate platform of Joe Biden and the yet-to-be-selected Green Party candidate, as opposed to the freedom-forward platforms of Donald Trump and of Libertarian Party candidate Jo Jorgensen. It is energy statism versus energy freedom. 

True conservatives, including students involved in this organization, should check their premises and debate these questions.

  1. What are the areas of unsettled climate science and exaggerated climate alarm?
  2. What are the benefits of carbon dioxide for the ecosystem, as documented by the CO2 Coalition?
  3. What is the temperature (and sea level) effect of a given level of a U.S. carbon tax?
  4. What are the environmental problems of industrial wind turbines, solar arrays, biomass, biofuels, and large-scale battery production?
  5. How does “government failure” and “analytic failure” compare to the alleged “market failure” of free-market energy decision-making?
  6. Will the climate/energy crusade end in eco-fascism?

To ask these questions is to turn the whole mission of the American Conservative Coalition–Campus on its head. One can only hope for open student inquiry and activism of a different kind.

Key Vote NO on H.R. 1957

The American Energy Alliance urges all Senators to vote NO on H.R. 1957 as amended with the text of the Great American Outdoors Act.  The federal government already owns far more land than it can adequately manage, which is part of the reason for the large maintenance backlog this bill tries to address.  However, the Land and Water Conservation Fund is simply a vehicle for buying up even more land for the federal government to mismanage.

By buying up land, the federal government hems in and impoverishes local rural communities by removing taxable land and limiting space for economic activity.  Land procured through the LWCF that is later placed off limits to development further harms the local communities as well as harming the larger economy.  While the LWCF itself is questionable policy, at least the current structure of the fund allows for congressional input into the land acquisition process through appropriations.  Making LWCF funding permanent removes this last Congressional check on federal land acquisition.  Permanent funding of the LWCF should be opposed.

The AEA urges all members to support free markets and affordable energy by voting NO on H.R. 1957 as amended with the Great American Outdoors Act.  AEA will include this vote in its American Energy Scorecard.

AEA Joins Coalition to Stop the Federal Land Grab

Senators are holding our national parks hostage for an unpopular federal land grab. President Trump should insist that the LWCF not be made permanent.

WASHINGTON DC (June 9, 2020) – Today, the American Energy Alliance joined a diverse coalition in opposition to Title II of the Great American Outdoors Act (S. 3422) which would make permanent the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF.) The Senate voted to proceed with debate last night on the measure, which would – in part – divert revenues from oil and gas production on federal lands to address the maintenance backlog of our national parks.

It should stop there.

AEA objects to Title II of this measure, which would create in law a permanent diversion of $900 million per year of even more federal oil and gas revenues towards the purchase of new lands to be added to the federal estate. AEA urges Senators to fix the bill before final passage and will use it’s Energy Scorecard to highlight those that voted for this bill in its current, flawed form.

Since its original passage in 1965, four federal land agencies have spent $11.4 billion to acquire over 5 million acres of private land, and state and local governments have acquired over 2.6 million acres. S. 3422 would roughly triple spending on land acquisition over average historic appropriation levels. The fact is that the federal government already owns far too much land – approximately 640 million acres or 28% of total U.S. acreage. The federal government owns more than half the land in the eleven western states and Alaska. More than 90% of the land in a number of Western counties is federally owned and more than 75% in many more counties.

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

“Our national parks are indeed a treasure, but they shouldn’t be used as trade bait by Democrats and Republicans who seek to take even more land out of private ownership. The federal government already owns too much land. Making permanent a diversion of nearly a billion dollars per year of federal oil and gas revenues towards the purchase of even more land will only make at harder to manage the lands the government already owns. And it will make it easier for special interests – like the green left – to lock them up from multiple uses including ranching, mining, pipelines, transmission rights of way, and other forms of energy production.”

“My message to Senators is this: start by taking care of the lands already in your control. This flawed legislation must be amended to protect taxpayers from an ever expanding federal estate. We will score against final passage of the Great American Outdoors Act should it pass the Senate in its current form.”

Additional Resources


For media inquiries please contact:
[email protected]

Green Government Goliath

The climate radicals are upping the ante on puppet Joe Biden. The latest is a push by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) for Joe to embrace spending up to $16 trillion in the name of averting a climate crisis and going fossil-fuel-free. 

Bold. Ambitious. Transformative describe the DNC’s Green New Deal plan.

In poker, they say it is only money. But in this case, it is serious money that would necessitate serious tax hikes and a regulatory apparatus not seen since the Jimmy Carter energy years.

The 12-person DNC Council on the Environment and Climate Crisis, (DNC-CECC) formed in February, has leftt Biden’s original $1.7 trillion climate/energy plan in the dust. Bernie Sanders and Jay Inslee were in the $16 trillion ballpark, and now Joe is the target.

The fine print of the DNC-CECC proposal is scary. End federal permitting for fossil-fuel projects; eliminate natural gas and oil in new buildings by 2025; phase out new gasoline or diesel vehicles by 2030. 

Here is the language:

“Develop and implement a science-based national climate action plan that employs the full palette of policy tools, including aggressive use of executive actions, establishment of new structures and practices, and bold legislation. 

• Commit to ambitious short- and long-term emissions and renewable energy targets: near-zero emissions by 2040; 100% clean renewable energy by 2030 in electricity generation, buildings, and transportation; and 100% zero-carbon new building infrastructure by 2025.

• Commit to the spending necessary to address the climate emergency: $10-$16 trillion in federal expenditures over the next decade. “

Then comes environmental justice:

“Put communities and working families above fossil fuel corporations by ensuring a just transition and building a green economy with millions of new, family-sustaining jobs. 

• Establish a federal Just Transition Task Force to develop a program supporting communities and workers impacted by the climate crisis and the transition to renewables, and fund the program.

• Direct massive investments to renewable energy infrastructure, creating millions of jobs, and end all incentives and subsidies of the fossil fuel industry, including passing the ReWIND Act.

• Shift subsidies and federal procurement policies to support the growth of sustainable, regenerative agriculture powered by 100% clean energy. n Support the growth of healthy, just, sustainable green communities and address the disproportionate environmental and climate harms to frontline and vulnerable communities.

• Elevate the EPA to a federal department; make the EPA Office of Environmental Justice permanent.

• Use health impact assessments and climate equity screenings for major federal government actions. se health impact assessments and climate equity screenings for major federal government actions.

• Direct 40% of climate and environment investments to frontline and vulnerable communities.

• Rescind Trump-era rollbacks on environmental protections. rotect 30% of all U.S. lands and oceans by 2030 and 50% by 2050.”

In light of the above, Biden is expected to release his updated climate plan in the next weeks. The presumptive nominee has a big problem: consumers are choosing fossil fuels, and wind, solar, and biomass have their own set of controversies. Swing states such as Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, like and benefit from their oil and gas industries. West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Illinois like their coal producers too.

The grand $16 trillion is a billboard marquee about how uneconomic and impractical the Green New Deal is. Expect voters to notice.

AEA Applauds EPA’s Final Rule to Fix Governor Cuomo’s Muddying of the Clean Water Act

EPA left with no choice but to curb misuse of Section 401 certification.

WASHINGTON DC (June 2, 2020) – Today, the American Energy Alliance announced its support for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and their effort to help break the logjam of overdue energy infrastructure projects across the U.S.

The EPA has released a final rule that will increase the transparency and efficiency of the Clean Water Act Section 401 (Section 401) certification process in order to promote the timely review of infrastructure projects while continuing to ensure that Americans have clean water for drinking and recreation. The rule was finalized pursuant to the direction of Executive Order 13868, “Promoting Energy Infrastructure and Economic Growth.”

Despite a history of maintaining a strong, energy-reliant economy – all while maintaining a stellar environmental track record – extreme, deep-pocketed organizations continue to misuse environmental laws such as the Clean Water Act as a litigation strategy to stop traditional energy projects. Unfortunately, some governors have also misused Section 401 as a means to favor specific energy interests and punish others.

In response to the issuing of the final rule, Thomas Pyle, President of the American Energy Alliance, released the following statement:

“President Trump and EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler were left with no choice but to respond to the blatant misuse of the Clean Water Act by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and others. Activist judges and environmental extremists continue to misuse the legal system to prevent the safe and responsible production and transportation of America’s energy. Today’s announcement will limit at least one of the weapons being used to abuse our legal system.”

“The Keep it in the Ground movement has failed time after time to prevent our boundless supplies of natural gas, oil, and coal from being used to power the economy and lift millions out of energy poverty around the world. So instead, they shifted their strategy to abusing environmental laws like the Clean Water Act to keep these resources from moving around via pipeline and other modes of transportation.”

“If the greens think the nation’s environmental laws are no longer working for them, they should urge Congress to change them. In the meantime, the EPA’s final rule will help restore the Clean Water Act as originally intended and rein in governors like Andrew Cuomo who have systematically abused the permitting process at the behest of big donors and green activists.”

Additional Resources:


For media inquiries please contact:
[email protected]

American Voters Concerned about Economy, Not Climate

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]

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

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]