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

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: , , , , , ,

President Trump’s Fuel Economy Rule a Win for Consumers and Automakers

March 31, 2020 by Leave a Comment

Announcement shows regulatory reform of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) rule can serve as additional relief when the economy needs it the most.

WASHINGTON DC (March 31, 2020) – The American Energy Alliance welcomed the final Safer Affordable Fuel Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule released by the White House today noting that clear auto fuel efficiency standards can benefit a majority of consumers and automakers simultaneously. Contrary to claims that this final rule has been rushed out in a time of crisis, the rule is the culmination of a several years long joint process from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and it is required by the law.

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 CAFE rule will make cars more affordable for consumers at a time when they need it most. The rule puts power back into the hands of drivers, not bureaucrats and most importantly, it will save lives. This is a win all around.”

“The reset of the fuel economy mandate, combined with the waiver rule issued last fall, will reestablish the states’ and the federal government’s proper roles with respect to whom determines national fuel efficiency requirements.”

“Make no mistake, this rule is not a retreat from the regulation of fuel efficiency, it is a year over year increase. While we would prefer the CAFE program was eliminated entirely, we are pleased that the Trump Administration has followed the intent of the law and restored integrity into this process.”

In combination with the previously finalized rule reclaiming regulatory authority from California, this rule corrects the Obama Administration’s expensive, coercive mandates, leaving businesses and consumers in control of what kind of cars to buy and sell. Like consumers, businesses can excel when they are presented choices and confirmation the rules in front of them won’t keep changing.

AEA, along with 30 additional organizations have argued that free-market mechanisms and developing lower-emitting vehicles should be decisions made by car manufacturers to meet the demands of consumers, not dictated by the government, be it state or federal. Most recently, AEA cheered the administration’s decision in September to rescind California’s waiver from the 1970 Clean Air Act (CAA) to regulate its own vehicle tailpipe emissions – a privilege previously granted by the Obama administration.

For media inquiries please contact:
[email protected]

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

We’re in the Coronavirus Fight Together…Almost

March 26, 2020 by Leave a Comment

As of Thursday, March 26, 2020, the number of confirmed coronavirus cases in the U.S. is nearing 70,000 and the global tally is approaching half a million. In an effort to stop the rapid increase in new cases and to keep hospitals within their capacities we have put much of our economic activity on pause. Twenty-two thousand people have died from COVID-19 already, the stock market has lost a third of its value, and unemployment claims have skyrocketed to record levels.

In response to the crisis, the world’s 7.8 billion people are united against a common foe like never before. We’re collaborating to manufacture medical equipment, to find therapeutic cocktails that can lessen victims’ suffering, and to create a vaccine. But if you’re under the impression that we have unanimity on the importance of stopping this virus’s spread, you’re wrong. In the midst of this deadly and economically-crippling struggle against the pathogen, some environmentalists are pleased.

Incendiary though that accusation may sound, one need only look to the philosophy of deep ecology to see that it is valid. Deep ecology—or as I sometimes call it, the nature-for-nature’s-sake view—holds that the preservation of wild nature provides the ultimate measure by which we should judge human behavior. The nature-for-nature’s-sake view is that humans have overstepped our just bounds and that we deserve only to be cut down. The deep ecologists see homo sapiens and our penchant for re-shaping our environment as a pox.

Most people are reluctant to make such categorical claims, preferring to espouse a “balanced” view, but they take for granted that when push comes to shove human beings will rally together. And yet push is coming to shove before our very eyes, and a non-trivial segment of the environmentalist movement literally is wishing us ill. Many who self-describe as environmentalists are people of goodwill, who genuinely want human beings to live happily; other environmentalists want the human population to be decimated. 

Jason Crawford, the founder of The Roots of Progress, describes this environmentalist rift as a bright line between people who want to save the planet for human beings and those who want to save the planet from human beings. 

The coronavirus puts the divide into sharp relief and puts a coda on decades of anti-human rhetoric.

The three examples below show that the nature-for-nature’s-sake ethical premise is a force that must be acknowledged and countered. In these most dire of times, the distinction is obvious, but when a return to normalcy does eventually come, we mustn’t forget that there are people within the environmentalist movement who would hasten our decline. 

  1. In 1989, environmentalist Bill McKibben authored a book entitled The End of Nature which details what he calls “environmental cataclysm.” In a review of The End of Nature for the LA Times, National Parks Service research biologist David Graber presented the thesis to the general public in words more poetically malevolent than McKibben’s own. In a concluding paragraph that anthropocentrists should ensure lives in infamy, Graber wrote:

“It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil-energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”

  1. In a 2013 interview with Radio Times, popular broadcaster Sir David Attenborough declared humanity a plague. Though stopping short of welcoming it, he blithely foretold of impending doom, expressing regret not for our fate, but for our impact:

“We are a plague on the Earth. It’s coming home to roost over the next 50 years or so. It’s not just climate change; it’s sheer space, places to grow food for this enormous horde. Either we limit our population growth or the natural world will do it for us, and the natural world is doing it for us right now,”

  1. And in the current coronavirus crisis, the echoes of the nature-for-nature’s-sake environmentalists are sounding again. On March 17, with COVID-19 ravaging Italy and picking up its pace in the U.S., Thomas Schulz, a San Francisco start-up founder, posted the following message on Twitter, garnering more than 290,000 digital nods of approval:

As champions of human flourishing, we wish to see the coronavirus stopped in its tracks. Most environmentalists do, too. But a lurking anti-human, nature-for-nature’s-sake segment within the environmentalist movement just might have found the virus they’ve been hoping for.

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

Congressional Clarity Surfaces as Green New Deal Giveaways Cut from COVID-19 Stimulus Deal

March 25, 2020 by Leave a Comment

House and Senate Democrats cave, acknowledging unrelated renewable energy tax credits won’t stimulate the economy

WASHINGTON DC (March 25, 2020) – The American Energy Alliance (AEA) released the following statement after an announced deal between House and Senate leaders on a $2 trillion legislative package meant to protect our health and the economy as the nation navigates the COVID-19 pandemic. President Trump is expected to sign the soon-to-be-passed legislation.

Previous negotiations fell apart when Democratic leaders Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, green advocacy groups, and renewable energy industry lobbyists attempted to insert unrelated and unnecessary tax extensions for electric vehicles, tax credits for wind, investment tax credits for solar and other clean technologies, and emission restrictions for distressed airlines.

Thomas Pyle, President of AEA, issued this statement:

“Three full days of dithering for a Green New Deal unnecessarily delayed the financial relief that American families and businesses so desperately need as we fight the coronavirus.”

“It is downright shameful that the Democratic Leadership put the priorities of the greens and the renewable lobby in front of health care providers, small business owners, and American families by holding up the relief bill in a failed effort to advance their unpopular progressive agenda.”

“The irony of holding up the economic relief package to push for a Green New Deal is not lost on American families. By design, the Green New Deal would eliminate or make prohibitively expensive the fuels vital to our economy and the products that we rely on for everyday living.”

“We commend Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and President Trump for standing up for American families and businesses by refusing to let Speaker Pelosi hold the economic relief package hostage in exchange for an outrageous and harmful progressive wishlist.”

Additional Resources:

For media inquiries please contact:
[email protected]

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

Nancy Pelosi Holds Pandemic Relief Hostage for the Green New Deal

March 25, 2020 by 75 Comments

All last weekend, Democratic and Republican Senators huddled hour after hour hammering out a bipartisan deal to get financial relief to the individuals, companies and state and local governments affected by the widespread shutdowns in response to the spread of the Wuhan coronavirus.  By Sunday evening, a deal had been reached to send checks directly to American citizens, provide billions in funding to hospitals, make billions in loans available to businesses small and large. While not perfect, the deal provided an immediate injection of help to cratering American household budgets and the wider economy.

But Sunday night, returning from a weeklong recess, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced she was not satisfied with this bipartisan deal and would be introducing her own.  Suddenly, Democrats were demanding emissions limits for airlines, sweeping collective bargaining mandates, extensions of wind and solar tax credits, an extension of electric vehicle tax credits, federalizing state election rules, student loan cancellation, a bailout for the postal service, and on and on.  In fact, Pelosi’s demands looked a lot like the project of the left-wing of the Democratic Party known as the Green New Deal.

In 2009 the famous quote to accompany the bank bailouts and wasteful “stimulus” was “never let a crisis go to waste” from Barack Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel.  In 2020, we get “a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision” from Speaker Pelosi’s third in command, Rep. Jim Clyburn. The Democrats decided that an unprecedented global pandemic was the perfect opportunity to hold America hostage for their Green New Deal.

It is hard to understate the outrageousness and cynicism of Pelosi’s gambit.  Millions of Americans have already been laid off as businesses have been forced to close by state lockdowns.  Small businesses, like restaurants, face imminent bankruptcy as their revenues abruptly vanish. Hospitals, bracing for a flood of patients, are worried about making payroll.  The American people need immediate help, but at the last minute, Nancy Pelosi jeopardized everything for her Green New Deal.

Thankfully, such shamelessness was finally a bridge too far, even for a media that normally bends over backward to cover for the environmental left.  Under an avalanche of criticism, Pelosi backed down and finally today the Senate will pass the deal agreed to on Sunday with only a few minor tweaks (tweaks that Senate Republicans would have agreed to on Sunday).  

But we can’t forget this incident.  Nancy Pelosi has delayed this much-needed disaster relief by three days.  The end of the month is less than a week away when millions of individuals and businesses must pay rent and mortgages.  Even with the deal on Sunday, it was going to be hard for the government to get assistance out in time. With Pelosi’s cynical delay, it will take that much longer for relief to reach the American people.  

For three days, Nancy Pelosi held up pandemic relief for her own selfish political payoffs.  Even by the standards of Washington, DC, Pelosi’s gambling with the lives and livelihoods of tens of millions of Americans is shocking.  When Americans were desperate and hurting, Pelosi saw only a chance to jam the Green New Deal down the country’s throat. Never forget it.

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

House Dems use Coronavirus to push Green Agenda

March 18, 2020 by 5 Comments

A coalition of House Democrats, environmental advocacy groups, and renewable energy trade associations are looking to take advantage of the economic slowdown caused by the COVID-19 pandemic by sneaking several renewable energy tax credits into an economic stimulus bill.

Let’s set aside for a moment the question of whether or not such stimulus packages are actually effective. The idea that renewable energy tax credits have anything to do with responding to the COVID-19 situation is, on its face, ridiculous. The focus of public policy in the wake of an extreme economic shock should be on allowing price signals to properly convey information to energy producers and consumers and on eliminating regulatory barriers that might prevent economic actors from adjusting to the changing circumstances presented by COVID-19. 

But it appears that House Democrats will instead use this situation to once again hand out favors to the renewable energy industry. Unsurprisingly, House Democrats plan to provide this support by promoting several tax credit provisions that they, along with environmentalists and renewable energy industry groups, failed to codify during the 2019 end-of-year funding package. These tax credit provisions would likely:

  • Provide batteries and electricity storage systems the same investment tax credit currently offered to PV solar
  • Extend the investment tax credit for solar
  • Extend the current production tax credit for wind
  • Extend the investment tax credit for offshore wind
  • Increase the number of vehicles that are available the electric vehicle tax credit

Of course, the renewable energy industry has a long history of taking advantage of economic stimulus bills. In the wake of the financial crisis in 2009, the renewable energy industry lobbied hard for the introduction of new tax credits, most of which were eventually included in the 2009 stimulus bill.

It should be obvious to any outside observer what this pattern says about the nature of the renewable energy industry. Although people in the industry often claim that renewable energy does not need the support of the government, we continue to see the renewable energy industry take advantage of every opportunity to benefit from government handouts.

As IER has explained in the past, renewable energy tax credits distort energy markets in several ways that ultimately raise energy prices for consumers. Lawmakers should, therefore, reject the renewable energy industry’s attempt to take advantage of another economic downturn. 

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