Fringe Activists vs. Colorado Energy

October 29, 2018 by Robert Bradley Leave a Comment

First published by the Pueblo Chieftain

Next month, Colorado voters will decide whether to stymie a thriving industry for ideological purposes.

If passed, Proposition 112 would greatly expand the existing no-drilling zones surrounding occupied buildings. That would effectively prohibit Colorado oil and gas firms, which support 230,000 local jobs and add $31 billion annually to the state economy, from drilling new wells.

Grounded in science and countless studies, Colorado already has strict, common sense boundaries to protect public health and the environment: 500 feet for homes and 1,000 feet for high-occupancy buildings, such as offices and schools. Prop 112 unnecessarily ratchets up the existing setbacks to 2,500 feet — nearly half a mile — creating a patchwork of prohibited zones that would render 85 percent of all non-federal land off limits to energy extraction, according to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.

The consequences would be dire. Once existing wells deplete, the state will have to import oil and gas at greater cost from other states, even requiring new long-distance pipelines. At risk are 140,000 direct Colorado jobs and $7 billion in Colorado’s gross domestic product in the first five years of the de facto ban.

The state’s budget would certainly suffer. Oil and gas companies are a crucial source of public revenue, paying over $1 billion a year in state taxes. Most of that revenue is earmarked specifically for vital public services.

Consider the Colorado Land Board, a state agency responsible for 4 million acres of energy assets. This board generates hundreds of millions of dollars every year through user fees and taxes. And 95 percent of its revenues go to public education. If energy companies can’t drill, that income will fade away. Schools would be forced to find new funding — ironic, given another ballot measure to raise taxes for education.

It’s no wonder, then, that educators staunchly oppose Prop 112. Bob Schaffer, the headmaster of Liberty Common School in Fort Collins, has condemned it as “irresponsible” and “dangerous.”

Green activists claim Prop 112 is an environmental imperative. “We are protecting homes, schools, playgrounds, and water sources,” boasted Anne Lee Foster, a chief organizer of Colorado Rising, the group that led the signature collection drive to put Prop 112 on the ballot.

Foster and allies have focused their ire on “fracking,” an innovative drilling technique. When companies frack a well, they pump water, sand and a small amount of lubricants into underground rock formations at high pressure. This mix creates fissures in the rock, allowing companies to extract the embedded oil and gas. Activists claim the expanded buffer zones will prevent fracking from polluting local waterways with dangerous chemicals.

Yet fracking has been examined thoroughly and found safe. Twenty-six separate studies, including one from Colorado State University, have concluded that fracking does not contaminate groundwater. There is no scientific evidence that increasing the setback distance would improve health or protect anyone from anything — it is a political ploy designed to stymie an essential industry.

The de facto drilling ban contained in Prop 112 is the latest battle in the keep-it-in-the-ground war against fossil fuels. New York state outright banned fracking; Colorado’s proposition is the back-door version of the same thing. That’s why the Washington D.C.-based lobbying group Food and Water Watch gifted $160,000 to Colorado Rising’s issues committee.

Colorado policies should be up to Coloradans, not special interest groups in Washington. And it is a colossal waste that the petroleum industry has had to pony up significant monies for an unnecessary political fight, funds that could have gone to employees or shareholders, not to mention to new drilling efforts to reduce energy costs for consumers.

Historically, Coloradans has proven they can successfully balance environmental and economic concerns. Regulators have set smart rules that protect precious national resources and ensure public health. Colorado was the first state in the country to require water sampling around drilling sites and the first to require methane capture. At the same time, energy developers have always been afforded the flexibility needed to grow and generate wealth.

Prop 112 threatens this balance. Let’s hope voters see through the ruse come Nov. 6.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: colorado, keep it in the ground, Proposition 112

Denver CBS 4 explains Colorado’s Proposition 112

October 29, 2018 by AEA Leave a Comment

With a little more than a week to the midterm elections, the American Energy Alliance would like to take one more opportunity to remind our audience about an important ballot initiative in the state of Colorado: Proposition 112. If passed, 112 would require a 2,500-foot barrier between new oil and gas drilling projects and any occupied structure or loosely defined “vulnerable area” in the state of Colorado.

Recently, Denver CBS 4’s Shaun Boyd discussed the topic on her popular political fact-checking segment “Reality Check.” The American Energy Alliance encourages voters in the state of Colorado to view the segment here, as it offers a brief, yet thorough, explanation of the economic harm Proposition 112 would cause the state of Colorado if it were to pass on Election Day.

A recent poll from the University of Colorado’s American Political Research Lab shows that voters are evenly split in their support for Proposition 112. For this reason, we want to highlight an important part of the CBS 4 segment; mainly that it draws attention to the wide-ranging bipartisan opposition to Proposition 112, which can be attributed to the severe economic harm it would cause to the state of Colorado.

The segment walks us through claims being made in a television ad featuring prominent opponents of the ballot initiative. In the ad, Democrat Ken Salazar, the former U.S. Senator of Colorado and the former Secretary of the Interior to the Obama Administration points out that Proposition 112 is “effectively a ban on oil and natural gas in Colorado.” It then cuts to the former Republican Governor of Colorado Bill Owens where he explains, “112 will cost thousands of good jobs across our state.” CBS 4’s Boyd calls each of these claims “alarming and true.”

Boyd also points out that other opponents of the proposition include environmentalists like former Colorado Governor Bill Ritter who called the proposal a “keep-it-in-the-ground effort,” that was “arrived at in a very non-Colorado way… without dialogue or debate, by a group of advocates.”

The segment then goes on to expose other important factors of this initiative, including this report from the Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission, which explained that 112 would ban fracking on at least 85 percent of non-federal land in Colorado. Colorado Rising, the group responsible for bringing 112 to the ballot, has disputed this claim. But as the segment explains, the supporters of 112 are relying on a single academic paper from an assistant professor at the Colorado School of Mines, which Boyd explains, “included big caveats and has since been debunked by his colleagues.”

For a more detailed analysis on Proposition 112, we also encourage readers to listen to a recent episode of our partner organization’s podcast where IER’s staff discussed the proposition with Kelly Sloan of the Centennial Institute at Colorado Christian University to discuss the initiative.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: CBS, colorado, fracking, oil and gas, Proposition 112

Nevada’s Tesla scam reaches the federal level

October 16, 2018 by Alexander Stevens 2 Comments

In the last two weeks, two different bills, both sponsored by Republicans, were introduced to the House of Representatives. One would extend the electric vehicle tax credit, the other would revoke it.

Plenty of people have pointed out problems with the EV tax credit with the main issue being that it subsidizes wealthy people purchasing luxury goods. The Pacific Research Institute published a study earlier this year showing 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. Additionally, that same report concluded that federal policies to promote the manufacturing and purchasing of EVs including tax credits for new buyers, financial support for the industry that produces them, and programs that promote efforts to educate consumers about electric vehicles will have a total budgetary cost of about $7.5 billion through 2019.

Last week, Senator John A. Barrasso of Wyoming introduced a bill to revoke the federal tax credit for electric vehicles (EVs), which offers a $7,500 tax credit to purchasers of the first 200,000 EVs sold per manufacturer. Today, in direct conflict with Senator Barrasso’s bill, Senator Dean Heller of Nevada quietly released a bill that would eliminate the cap on the first 200,000 vehicles sold and extend the tax credits to 2022. This raises a question: why is Sen. Heller introducing a bill in direct opposition to his colleague that would extend the federal EV tax credit? The answer: crony capitalism is alive and well in Nevada and Republican politicians are to blame.

In 2014, Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval approved a $1.3 billion subsidy package to Tesla,Inc. The biggest chunk of the deal gave Tesla sales tax exemptions for 20 years as well as payroll tax exemptions through 2024. In exchange, Tesla agreed to build a $5 billion lithium-ion battery factory outside of Reno. The deal also required at least half of all workers hired by Tesla to be Nevada residents.

After the deal was finalized, Republican politicians took an opportunity to celebrate their ability to hand out special favors to a privileged political firm. During the deal’s signing ceremony, Governor Sandoval proclaimed, “Nevada has announced to the world – not to the country, but to the world – that we are ready to lead.” Additionally, Assemblyman Ira Hansen, a Republican from Sparks, Nevada, said the deal was “arguably the biggest thing that has happened in Nevada since at least the Hoover Dam.”

Four years later, crony capitalism has run its course in Nevada as serious concerns about the direction of Tesla abound and a recent court filing has shown that Tesla was delinquent on more than $650,000 in Nevada state taxes. In that context, Senator Heller’s attempt to extend the federal EV tax credit and eliminate the 200,000-vehicle cap makes sense: it’s an attempt to keep the rent-seeking casino open so that politically-connected groups in Nevada can continue to benefit at the expense of the American people.

Last month, AEA spearheaded a coalition of free market think tanks that sent a letter to House Ways and Means Committee Chair Kevin Brady explaining the problems caused by efforts to expand the EV tax credit. Those problems are worth outlining again here as a critique of Sen. Heller’s new bill. The elimination of the 200,000-vehicle cap would be fiscally irresponsible as the liability to taxpayers would be limitless; despite generally positive feelings about electric vehicles as a whole, recent polling shows that 67 percent of voters believe they should not be forced to subsidize electric vehicle purchases; electric vehicles do not necessarily pollute less than modern internal combustion engines; and subsidies for electric vehicles overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy. It’s time to end the EV tax credit gravy train and force electric vehicles to compete on a level playing field.

Filed Under: Blog, Electric Vehicles

AEA Announces 2018 American Energy Champions

October 15, 2018 by AEA Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today the American Energy Alliance is pleased to announce the 2018 American Energy Champion award recipients for both U.S. House and Senate members. This award goes to members who scored a 90 percent or higher on AEA’s American Energy Scorecard for the 2017-2018 legislative session.

“This award goes to the members of Congress who have demonstrated a commitment to pro-growth policies that will lead to more affordable energy for American families,” AEA president Thomas J Pyle said. “The American Energy Scorecard is an essential tool for engaged citizens to determine how their representatives voted on the most important energy votes of the year. We’re encouraged to see 198 House members and 48 Senate members remain committed to free-market principles and continue to fight for less government intrusion into Americans’ energy choices.”

On the House side, AEA scored 13 votes including legislation related to repealing the overreaching WOTUS definition, cutting spending authority for ATVM loan programs, and expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the U.S. economy.

On the Senate side, AEA scored five votes including legislation related to drilling in ANWR, the Stream Protection Rule CRA, and BLM Planning 2.0 CRA.

The American Energy Scorecard was launched in 2015 as the first free-market legislative scorecard dedicated to energy policy. For more on the principles behind the American Energy Scorecard click here.

See the full list of the 2018
American Energy Champions

###

Filed Under: Press Releases Tagged With: press release, press releases

AEA to President Trump: “Reject Big Ethanol’s Call for a Special Deal”

October 9, 2018 by Erin Amsberry 1 Comment

WASHINGTON – Today, President Trump urged the EPA to waive seasonal restrictions on E15 fuel thus allowing for year-round sales. AEA President Thomas J. Pyle made the following statement:

“We are disappointed that Big Ethanol has convinced President Trump to request the EPA to overstep its authority and extend a waiver for year-round E15 sales, something not within EPA’s power to even grant and will assuredly be challenged in court. EPA is given no statutory authority to grant RVP waivers beyond levels set by Congress. The specification in the Clean Air Act 42 U.S.C. 7545 (h)(4) only allows a waiver for up to E10 gas and cannot extend to E15 gas without clearly violating the law.”

“President Trump should reject the corn lobby’s special deal and instead urge Congress to find a comprehensive solution to the renewable fuels mandate that addresses RVP waivers and sunsets this program once and for all. The mandate is a fundamentally unnecessary policy of yesteryear that is only alive today because of presidential politics.”

###

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

Filed Under: Press Releases, Renewable Fuel Standard Tagged With: E15, ethanol, press release, rfs

Key Vote YES on Kavanaugh Confirmation

October 5, 2018 by Erin Amsberry Leave a Comment

The American Energy Alliance urges all Senators to support Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States.

As a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Judge Kavanaugh has established a firm track record of fairly evaluating important regulatory issues relating to energy and environmental policy, and applying the Constitution in an impartial and consistent manner.

Judge Kavanaugh has shown a willingness to challenge regulatory overreach and we expect he will fortify citizens’ protections from the administrative state. His critical stance toward the doctrine of Chevron Deference, in particular, promises to wrest authority from federal bureaucrats and return it to the elected representatives of the public in the United States Congress.

The American Energy Alliance urges all Senators to vote YES to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court and will include this vote in its American Energy Scorecard.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: kavanaugh, Key Vote, scorecard

Free Market Coalition to Congress: Don’t Extend the Federal Electric Vehicle Tax Credit

September 19, 2018 by Erin Amsberry Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON – This morning, a coalition of 30 free market policy groups, led by the American Energy Alliance, sent a letter to House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady objecting to any expansion of the federal electric vehicle tax credit.

The letter encourages Chairman Brady to reject attempts by the EV lobby and their allies in Congress to slip a tax-credit cap increase into upcoming spending packages. Congress has a responsibility to spare American taxpayers increased economic harm from a subsidy that benefits only those who can afford expensive electric vehicles.

American Energy Alliance President Thomas J. Pyle made the following statement:

“The electric vehicle tax credit subsidizes expensive vehicles that only a fraction of wealthy Americans want and that do not necessarily pollute less than modern internal combustion engines.

“Why should a typical middle class American family — with a median annual income of $44,000 — subsidize the lifestyles of the rich and famous? Political leaders should recognize that Americans can make their own decisions about how to spend their money and what cars they want to drive. We shouldn’t give handouts to wealthy individuals to help defray the cost of their luxury vehicles.”

The letter was signed by the following organizations who share AEA’s wariness of the irresponsibility of extending this massive government handout:

The full letter can be read here.

For more about electric vehicles, click here, here, and here.

Filed Under: Press Releases, Uncategorized Tagged With: electric vehicles, press release, tax credit

Release: AEA Applauds Trump Administration For New Waste Prevention Rule

September 18, 2018 by Erin Amsberry Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON – Today, the Department of the Interior announced its final rule reforming methane regulations by revising the 2016 Waste Prevention Rule (also known as the Venting and Flaring Rule). American Energy Alliance President Thomas J. Pyle issued the following statement:

“We are pleased to see the Trump administration taking an opportunity to reduce the burden of another costly and unnecessary regulation that threatens to derail efforts to achieve U.S. energy dominance. The BLM has no authority over regulation of air emissions, which is more properly a function of the state governments as specified by the Clean Air Act. Not only that, but the energy sector is already significantly reducing methane emissions without this top-down directive from the federal government, in part, because methane itself is a valuable resource that producers have incentive to capture and sell.

“Had the Trump administration not undone this costly regulation, the cost of complying with this regulation would ultimately fall on the shoulders of the American people. Today’s reform will save millions in regulatory costs annually and is another example of President Trump’s truce in President Obama’s ongoing war on affordable energy.”

###

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

Filed Under: Press Releases, Uncategorized Tagged With: methane, methane emissions, press release

AEA Applauds Reform of Costly, Unsafe Federal Fuel Mandates

August 2, 2018 by Erin Amsberry Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON — The American Energy Alliance (AEA) commends the Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency for righting a wrong of the previous Administration by proposing to keep the 2020 federal fuel mandate levels in place as part of the federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program and for suggesting to eliminate California’s unprecedented and legally questionable waiver to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and trucks.

As demonstrated in our recent coalition letter, there is a broad consensus that fuel economy reform is needed. We are grateful that the Administration has – through their proposed rule – taken meaningful steps to reduce the burden and irrationality of this outdated and unnecessarily complicated mandate. The proposed rule addresses a number of problems:

The proposed rule elevates and ensures the primacy of consumer choice over bureaucratic dictates. Automakers now design vehicles to meet the preferences of bureaucrats rather than the preferences of consumers, the proposed rule takes steps toward changing that.
The proposed rule establishes and confirms true federalism by removing California’s ability to dictate to consumers in other States what kinds of cars they should buy. No State should have the ability to dictate what kinds of cars citizens of other States can or should own.
The proposed rule is a welcome acknowledgment that the world has changed since 1975. We now live in an era of energy abundance. The mandate is a relic of a bygone era based on the notion that oil is becoming scarce and needs to be rationed by government action.
The proposed rule minimizes the costs to consumers imposed by the current mandate. The technical assessments (initially created by the Obama Administration) indicate the mandate, left undisturbed, will raise the average price of a vehicle by at least $3,000 and consequently price some consumers entirely out of the new car market.

Thomas J Pyle, President of AEA made the following statement:

“What started as a mandate in the mid-1970’s to reduce foreign imports of oil morphed into a costly and unworkable environmental regulation thanks to bureaucrats in the previous Administration and in Sacramento. President Trump should be commended for standing up for American consumers by reducing the regulatory burden placed unnecessarily on automakers.

“The fundamental question associated with this mandate is clear: who should decide what types of cars consumers should buy, consumers themselves or bureaucrats in Sacramento or Washington? We think that answer is clear, and, consequently, welcome the Administration’s action.”

###

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

Filed Under: Press Releases Tagged With: CAFE, cafe mandates, CAFE standards

News

Urges Floridians to Reject the “Curbelo Carbon Tax”