Key Vote: H.R. 2740 Appropriations Minibus Amendments

In voting on amendments to H.R. 2740, the American Energy Alliance urges the following votes: in Part 1 of the Rule, support amendments #81, #83, #91 and #94; in Part 2 of the Rule, support amendment #89, and oppose amendments #83 and #108.

Amendments to Division D: State and Foreign Operations:

YES on Amendments #81, 83, and #94: US tax dollars should not fund UN bodies that seek to impose higher energy costs across the globe. These unaccountable international organizations threaten free markets and affordable energy worldwide.

YES on Amendment #91 (Palmer): The Paris Agreement was and remains a bad deal for the United States.  Without Congressional approval, the previous administration sought to shackle the US to economically harmful targets while allowing most of the rest of the world to do nothing. The decision to withdraw is correct and should be allowed to proceed.

Amendments to Division E: Energy and Water

YES on Amendment #89 (Mullin): The social cost of carbon calculation is entirely notional and cannot be justified on scientific or economic grounds. During the creation process, the social cost of carbon models and calculations were manipulated to reach a desired end goal. The social cost of carbon designed by the previous administration should be discarded.

NO on Amendment #83 (Castor): The previous administration’s last minute decision to extend efficiency requirements to additional lighting was an unlawful overreach. The current administration is correct to reconsider that regulatory decision.

NO on Amendment #90 (Huffman): Like any other proposed project, the environmental assessment for the Pebble Mine should be allowed to continue according to established regulatory procedures.

AEA urges all members to support free markets and affordable energy with the above votes.  Should a vote on any of these amendments occur, AEA will include it in its American Energy Scorecard.

New Survey Results Find Voters (Still) Don’t Favor EV Subsidies

WASHINGTON – The American Energy Alliance today released the results of a series of surveys that examined the sentiments of likely voters about tax credits for electric vehicles. The surveys were administered to 800 likely voters statewide in each of nine states (MOPAIAKYGASCNCCO, and OH). The margin of error for the results in each state is 3.5%.

• The findings include: Voters don’t think they should pay for other people’s car purchases. In every state, overwhelming majorities (typically three-quarters of respondents) said that while electric cars might be a good choice for some, those purchases should not be paid for by other consumers.

• Voter’s sentiments about paying for others’ electric vehicles are especially sharp when they learn that those who purchase electric vehicles are, for the most, wealthy and/or from California.

•There is almost no willingness to pay for electric vehicle car purchases. When asked how much individuals would be willing to pay each year to support the purchase of electric vehicles by other consumers, the most popular answer in each state (usually more than two-thirds of respondents) was “nothing”.

•As always, few voters (usually less than 1/5) trust the federal government to make decisions about what kinds of cars should be subsidized or mandated.

Read the Topline Survey Results

Thomas Pyle, President of AEA said:  

“Voters in key swing states understand that they shouldn’t be required to pay for someone else’s electric vehicle. Senators and Representatives from the nine states where we conducted this survey should know that support for an expansion of the electric vehicle tax credit might make Elon Musk and Mary Barra happy, but it will not sit well with their constituents.”

Michael McKenna, who conducted the surveys, said: 

“Elected officials who are concerned about voter opinion should probably think twice before expanding favorable tax treatment for electric vehicles. Voters in each state we examined are very skeptical of them.”

For media inquiries, please contact Erin Amsberry
[email protected]
202.621.2955

New Survey Results Find Voters (Still) Don’t Favor EV Subsidies

The American Energy Alliance released the results of surveys that examine the sentiments of likely voters about tax credits for electric vehicles. The surveys were administered to 800 likely voters statewide in each of nine states (MO, PA, IA, KY, GA, SC, NC, CO, and OH). The margin of error for the results in each state is 3.5%.

The findings include: 

  • Voters don’t think they should pay for other people’s car purchases. In every state, overwhelming majorities (typically three-quarters of respondents) said that while electric cars might be a good choice for some, those purchases should not be paid for by other consumers.
     
  • Voters’ sentiments about paying for others’ electric vehicles are especially sharp when they learn that those who purchase electric vehicles are, for the most, wealthy and/or from California.
     
  • There is almost no willingness to pay for electric vehicle car purchases. When asked how much they would be willing to pay each year to support the purchase of electric vehicles by other consumers, the most popular answer in each state (usually more than two-thirds of respondents) was “nothing.”
     
  • As always, few voters (usually less than 1/5) trust the federal government to make decisions about what kinds of cars should be subsidized or mandated.

Read the survey results for each state:

A Step Towards More Accurate Cost-Benefit Analysis

WASHINGTON – This afternoon, EPA Administrator Wheeler signed a memo directing agency leadership to develop rules for consideration in outlining the proper use of benefit-cost considerations to be applied to future rulemakings. 

AEA President Tom Pyle made the following statement in response:

“EPA Administrator Wheeler’s directive to write new rules for the consideration of cost-benefit analysis is a welcomed and appreciated move as this analysis lays the foundation for all regulatory proposals. This effort will make strides towards more accurate appraisal of the real world implications of regulations and future rulemakings. Previous administrations have often gamed these calculations in order to reach whatever conclusion they desired. We hope the Trump administration’s forthcoming rule will help cut down on the worst abuses.”

Trump Admin. Right to Cut California’s Failed Rail Funds

WASHINGTON – Today the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) announced the termination of $928 million in federal funding conditionally granted to California to build a high-speed rail. FRA stated that the funds were terminated after California “abandoned its original vision” and ” failed to make reasonable progress” on the project.

AEA President Tom Pyle made the following statement in response:

“America should be thankful to have a president who will protect taxpayers by stopping wasteful government spending when he sees it. President Trump and Secretary Chao did Americans a favor by cutting off the nearly $1 billion federal grant to California to build the high-speed train to nowhere. 

The rail costs were exorbitant and irresponsible and wouldn’t have gone to benefit average Americans. Just like the Green New Deal, if this liberal train wreck derailed in liberal California, there’s no chance it’ll work anywhere else. Gov. Newsom should own up to the cost overruns and delays, and return the $2.5 billion California previously received back to American taxpayers.”


For media inquiries, please contact Erin Amsberry
[email protected]

hi

Free Market Coalition to Congress: No Electric Vehicle Tax Credit Expansion

WASHINGTON – Today, a coalition of 34 organizations, led by the American Energy Alliance, sent a letter to several members of Congress expressing their unified opposition to any effort to expand the electric vehicle tax credit.

The coalition includes the Texas Public Policy Foundation, FreedomWorks, Heritage Action for America, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and 30 others stating that expanding the tax credit would be fiscally reckless. The coalition believes that electric vehicles, like all other products in the marketplace, should succeed or fail on their merits, without unnecessary government intervention forcing wealth transfer between states. Other points communicated in the letter include:

Subsidies for electric vehicles are unpopular. As shown in recent polling, 67% of voters believe they should not be forced to subsidize electric vehicle purchases. 

Subsidies for electric vehicles overwhelmingly benefit the rich.  A recent study from the Pacific Research Institue found that 79% of electric vehicle tax credits were claimed by households with an adjusted gross income of more than $100,000 a year.

Expanding the electric vehicle tax credit will be a net harm to consumers. A recent study from NERA economists found that extending the tax credit reduces total personal income of all U.S. households by $7 billion in 2020 and $12 billion in 2035.

Read the full letter and view the signers here

AEA President Tom Pyle made the following statement:

“Extending the tax loophole for electric vehicles helps rich people, Californians, companies that already don’t pay taxes, and China, which owns many of the resources required to build and operate these vehicles.  The loophole disproportionally transfers money from middle class taxpayers to rich people, mostly from California.  It hurts the working class, people who buy cars, trucks, crossovers, and SUVs, and those American companies not seeking to expand the loophole for their own benefit. We are proud to have over thirty organizations stand with us to tell Congress that a vote to expand the electric vehicle tax loophole is a vote against American families and workers.  It is just that simple.”

Mandy Gunasekara, former Trump EPA Official and Founder of Energy 45 made the following statement: 

“In 2017, 128 electric vehicles were sold in Mississippi, compared to the nearly 95,000 electric vehicles sold in California.  A system that forces hardworking Mississippians to subsidize wealthy Californians ability to drive around in luxury electric vehicles is simply unfair.”

AEA Supports Interior’s Reasoned Well Control Rule

WASHINGTON – Today the Department of the Interior released the final Well Control Rule from the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement with implications for well operations on the Outer Continental Shelf. The revisions to the original Well Control Rule are intended to make operations safer and smarter while removing unnecessary regulatory burdens.

In response, AEA president Thomas Pyle made the following statement:

“American ingenuity and technological advancement has led the way in unlocking U.S. natural resources both onshore and offshore and has turned the U.S. into a world leader in energy production. This achievement has benefited our nation greatly, leading to cheaper energy prices for American families and enabling our way of life. President Obama used the Deepwater Horizon tragedy as an excuse to go beyond the necessary and responsible precautions and instead imposed draconian regulations in an effort to stop offshore production altogether. Today’s action by Interior to revise the Obama rule will help ensure both environmental protection and economic vitality in the Outer Continental Shelf for years to come.

The green lobby is predictably trying to mislead the public about the efficacy of this rule. Written entirely by career officials in the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, this rule balances the need to implement important safeguards as well as streamline regulations to ensure maximum efficiency in an area of paramount importance for the U.S. economy. This rule provides regulatory certainty, incorporates necessary safety precautions, and will enable the U.S. to remain a world leader in energy development and innovation. Once again, we applaud President Trump for putting the energy needs of American families first and implementing a plan to ensure both environmental protection and energy dominance for years to come.”

For media inquiries, please contact Erin Amsberry

[email protected]

Key Vote NO on H.R. 9

The American Energy Alliance urges all Representatives to oppose H.R. 9 the Climate Action Now Act, which seeks to prevent the United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on climate change.

The Paris Agreement was and remains a bad deal for the United States. Without Congressional approval, the previous administration sought to yoke the U.S. to economically harmful targets while allowing most of the world to do nothing. For example, the two largest sources of carbon dioxide emissions growth, China and India, committed to little more than business as usual, letting their economies grow and develop just as they have been for several decades.

Additionally, the economic truth is that according to the models of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the economic costs of cutting greenhouse gas emissions to hit the Paris targets are greater than the expected costs of environmental damage from climate change. This is true when looking at all representative pathways, even the worst case scenario modeled. In other words, the IPCC consensus science is that compliance with the Paris minimum target of 2 degrees Celsius—let alone the more ambitious 1.5 degrees goal—would be MORE HARMFUL than the environmental cost of doing nothing.

The Paris Agreement would harm the domestic economy to advantage our foreign competitors in pursuit of a goal the IPCC itself calculates would be more harmful than doing nothing. There is no redeeming feature to the Paris Agreement and President Trump was absolutely correct in deciding to withdraw.

The AEA urges all members to support free markets and affordable energy by voting NO on H.R. 9. AEA will include this vote in its American Energy Scorecard.

GM and Tesla: Pay No Taxes, Take More Handouts

For at least a year now we have heard complaints from GM and Tesla about the need to extend the electric vehicle (EV) tax credit, with just these two companies upset that their gravy train is coming to an end. These companies insist that it is crucial that the EV tax credit be expanded and extended, and have convinced a few members of Congress to introduce a bill to do just that. One could pass it off as just your standard rent-seeking of the sort that goes on every day in Washington, but a funny thing about these two rent-seekers: they don’t pay taxes. That’s right, the two companies demanding more taxpayer subsidies don’t even pay corporate income taxes.

The EV tax credit is manufacturer specific and begins to phase out once a company has sold 200,000 eligible vehicles. GM and Tesla hit both that threshold last year, the only companies that have done so.  Taxpayers are still on the hook for the full EV tax credit for every other car company, adding up to billions of dollars, and even GM and Tesla buyers will continue to be eligible for reduced credits for a while. Billions already out the door, with billions more committed, but still not enough for GM and Tesla.  In a shameless display, these two companies—who pay no corporate tax—insist that they should get even more in subsidies from the rest of us.

Tesla has never turned a full year profit. Indeed, it has only managed four profitable quarters in its entire existence, surviving on revenue from California’s EV credit scheme and oceans of debt. So it is perhaps not surprising to see Tesla on the hunt for more government subsidies to keep it afloat. However many people, having grown accustom to headlines about GMs solid vehicle sales in recent years, may not realize that they too are not paying any federal corporate taxes.

In fact, GM has not paid corporate income taxes in more than a decade. For 2018, GM actually claimed a refund of $104 million on $11.8 billion in profit. This all stems from past GM mismanagement, when the company lost $86 billion from 2005-2009. Note that it wasn’t all due to the 2008 financial crisis. GM was losing money even during the peak of the economic cycle. The 2008 crisis, though, finally tipped GM into bankruptcy, leading to an unpopular bailout that ended up costing taxpayers about $10 billion even after some of the money was clawed back.

The legacy of GM’s bankruptcy is a tax write-off that has stretched over the last 10 years, as GM has only made about $69 billion in profit since 2009. GM probably will not be paying income tax for at least another few years.  A government bailout and no corporate taxes?  Government Motors indeed.

But apparently this isn’t good enough for GM, who along with Tesla, has deployed a small army of lobbyists to swarm Capitol Hill in search for a handout. GM and Tesla lobbyists claim that expanding the EV tax credit will “level the playing field” in the electric vehicle market. What they mean is that they already used up their allotted subsidies and don’t like the fact that other companies—a.k.a. their competitors—still qualify.  

The EV tax credit was originally sold as a way to get off of foreign oil imports. Give electric vehicles a jump-start to get the industry off the ground, they said. That is why there was cap placed on the total for each manufacturer to incentivize production, but also to protect taxpayers from being forced to indefinitely subsidize the industry. The electric vehicle industry today is clearly well established, selling millions of cars around the world and being the beneficiary of numerous other state and federal advantages and mandates. GM and Tesla have already benefited tremendously from the tax credit. They don’t need or deserve another subsidy.

We don’t blame corporations for taking advantage of the existing tax code to minimize their tax liability. But through bailouts and subsidies, GM has been floating on taxpayers credit for long enough. It is time to cut them off. Congress should end the EV tax credit, not extend it. President Trump is right to call for cutting their subsidies and we hope he will threaten to veto any legislation that would further extend GM’s gravy train. 


AEA Applauds President Trump’s Executive Orders Streamlining Pipeline Permitting

WASHINGTON – Today President Trump announced that he is issuing two Executive Orders pertaining to the construction and permitting of pipelines and critical energy infrastructure in the U.S. and across international borders. These orders are intended to strengthen the process of pipeline permitting and ensure that the U.S. has the ability to construct essential pipeline infrastructure in the years to come.

AEA President Tom Pyle made the following statement in response:

“For America to operate from a position of strength, we must have the critical energy infrastructure to deliver affordable energy to power our lives. Today’s Executive Orders are an attempt to make necessary changes to ensure federal statute is properly interpreted and followed, and make certain that politically motivated delays blocking pipeline infrastructure come to an end. It’s time to let America’s energy flow freely through pipelines which are a proven, safe, and efficient way to transport our resources.”