New York Primary “Fracking” Fight

Bernie Sanders is demanding a nation-wide ban on hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” while he campaigns in the state of New York against Hillary Clinton, using the anti-fracking position of the state of New York to sway more voters over to his side.

Bernie’s campaign aligning with the anti-fracking effort claims that the drilling process has extremely hazardous effects. However, some very extensive studies prove otherwise.

Last year the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted an extensive study on the effects of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water. The study:

  • Did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States.
  • Of the potential mechanisms identified in this report, there were specific instances where one or more mechanisms led to impacts on drinking water resources, including contamination of drinking water wells.
  • The number of identified cases, the study concluded however, was small compared to the number of hydraulically fractured wells.

In addition to the EPA’s findings, the processes of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling created an energy/economic boom in the United States.

Apr 13, 2016 | 9 comments | by

Available and Off-Limits Offshore U.S. Oil and Natural Gas Resources

Despite the fact that the federal government has made it clear that all oil and natural gas drilling along the Atlantic coast is off limits, oil and natural gas companies are still going ahead with seismic surveys to see just how much oil is resting off of our eastern coast.

Close to 87 percent of all federally controlled offshore acreage are off-limits to offshore oil and natural gas development. If included in the federal government’s next five-year leasing program and lease sales beginning in 2018, exploratory drilling could start the following year with commercial production expected as early as 2023.

Opening the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf, the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf and the Eastern Gulf of Mexico to offshore oil and natural gas development could have remarkable benefits. By 2035, this opportunity could:

  • Create nearly 840,000 new jobs along coasts and across the country.
  • Add about 3.5 million barrels of oil equivalent per day to domestic energy production.
  • Generate more than $200 billion in cumulative revenue for the government.
  • Lead to nearly $450 billion in new private sector spending.
  • Contribute more than $70 billion per year to the U.S. economy.

Specifically, increasing access to offshore oil and natural gas resources in the Atlantic with an investment of an estimated $195 billion cumulative between 2017 and 2035, could by 2035:

  • Produce an incremental 1.3 million barrels of oil equivalent per day (MMboe/d).
  • Add nearly 280,000 jobs.
  • Contribute up to $23.5 billion per year to the U.S. economy.
  • Generate $51 billion in cumulative government revenue.

If seismic activity were to begin in 2017 and lease sales in 2018, first production could be expected as early as 2026.

Mar 30, 2016 | Leave a Comment | by

Oregon & EPA Launch Aggressive Moves Against Coal

Oregon is now one of the first states to announce that it plans to officially wean itself off coal consumption. Governor Kate Brown signed a bill that prohibits the state’s utilities from purchasing coal-fired power after 2030. The bill is largely symbolic, since Oregon is not a coal producing state and consumes very little coal. In fact, Oregon produces and consumes far more hydroelectric energy than coal and natural gas.

  • The level of coal consumption has been steadily rising in Oregon.
  • Coal consumption is only 3 percent of all fossil fuel consumption.
  • Coal consumption is only 2 percent of all fuel and renewable energy consumption.
  • Hydroelectric power accounts for close to 35 to 40 percent of all of Oregon’s energy consumption.

In addition to Oregon’s anti-coal move, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that 11 states have failed to submit plans to reduce sulfur dioxide air pollution. The EPA says the states have not reduced their emissions enough to meet federal limits or submitted plans to the EPA outlining how they will meet an October 2018 deadline for meeting standards.

Both of these efforts will more than likely have very little effect. Oregon is not much of a coal consuming state and the EPA’s deadline comes after the next federal administration is sworn into office.

Mar 14, 2016 | 5 comments | by

Utah Joins Oklahoma in Rejecting Clean Power Plan

The state of Utah has now joined Oklahoma in outright rejecting complying with the Clean Power Plan after the Supreme Court halted the regulations earlier in February. Utah was already a member of a coalition of 30 states challenging the EPA’s Clean Power Plan in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Under the plan, all states are required to come up with their own carbon emission reduction goals or have federal goals imposed on the state. It directs states to lower their greenhouse gas emissions by a third by 2030, specifically targeting the coal industry. An outright rejection may be viewed as the state is unwilling to come up with their own goals, thereby requiring the federal government to interfere in each state’s coal industry and electricity production.

Groups suing the agency say is an impossible goal that will raise energy prices and raise the potential for rolling blackouts. In addition, a study by NERA Economic Consulting concluded that:

The EPA has severely underestimated the cost of compliance with its regulation of carbon dioxide from power plants, and by doing so it is trying to make Americans believe that the government can force the electric generating sector to eliminate a massive amount of low-cost coal-fired generation for little or relatively no cost. U.S. consumers of electricity will pay for prematurely retiring coal-fired plants through substantially higher electricity prices. Because EPA has set emission reduction targets by state, the impact of the higher costs will not be borne equally, but 40 states (out of 47 affected) could see average electricity prices rise by 10 percent or more and 27 states could see average electricity prices increase 20 percent or more.

With the recent Supreme Court decision to stay the implementation of the Clean Power Plan, other states say they will continue to work on complying with the plan. EPA senior officials have said they will meet with any states that wish to voluntarily continue working on the regulations.

 

Mar 02, 2016 | 1 comment | by

Obama Announces $98.1 Billion More Transportation Spending Waste

A major portion of the Administration’s proposed new transportation spending — 21st Century Clean Transportation Plan — is a series of proposals to expand transit systems (31 rail, bus and streetcar systems in 18 states costing $3.5 billion), revive the failed high speed rail initiative, modernize freight systems and provide grants to regional authorities to implement innovative “clean” technologies and “green” transportation programs. This new transportation spending is expected to cost $98.1 billion in just FY 2017.

The President just recently signed a groundbreaking transportation bill — the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act or FAST Act — that gave a longer temporary partial solution for the nation’s transportation infrastructure. However, the Fast Act and the new transportation proposal both fail to address several key problems with the Highway Trust Fund and the federal gas tax.

The new administration budget for transportation is a 60% increase over the current annual spending level. To partly pay for the new spending, the Administration is calling for a $10 per barrel tax on oil or a 25 cent/gallon increase in the price of gasoline at the pump which is estimated to bring in $650 billion over a decade.

Despite this, the administration’s budget request was declared dead even before its arrival on Capitol Hill, just like most of Obama’s previous transportation budget proposals.

 

Feb 24, 2016 | 1 comment | by

Supreme Court Ruling Temporarily Helps Coal Industry

The Supreme Courts’ recent ruling temporarily holds off increased regulations on the coal industry. The administration’s stricter coal plant rules, which call for a phased-in 30-percent reduction in emissions by 2030 will be based on a state-by-state voluntary basis.

According to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):

We will continue to provide tools and outreach. But we clearly understand that the courts will be winding through the process of looking at that rule. The [Supreme Court’s ruling] means that it’s going to take a little longer for that to happen. We will respect that, but in the meantime we’re going to continue to address greenhouse gases with the authorities under the Clean Air Act that are available to us today.

The Clean Power Plan requires very strict environmental controls to limit emissions from power plants. Twenty-seven states and a group of industry advocacy organizations challenged the new plan at the Supreme Court. The coalition of states and industry asked the Supreme Court to allow them to hold off on implementing the Clean Power Plan until after the Supreme Court has ruled on its legality. The Supreme Court granted a stay on the Clean Power Plan, giving hope, for now, to the coal industry and its allies.

Feb 17, 2016 | 10 comments | by

Supreme Court Votes Against Clean Air Act

Yesterday, the Supreme Court vote dealt a major blow to President Obama and his Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation of carbon dioxide emissions from power plants under the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act requires EPA to set national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone and five other pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. However, the new regulation would have severe consequences, as emphasized here by the Supreme Court vote.

In addition, written testimony, related to this issue, by the NCPA to the Environmental Protection Agency last year included:

The EPA’s proposed regulation ― which would lower the threshold of ground-level ozone pollution ― has been characterized as “the most expensive regulation ever.”

President Obama nixed a similar version of this rule in 2011, claiming that he was acting to “underscore the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty.” Yet many are wondering what happened to President Obama’s commitment to “reducing regulatory burdens” in the face of the EPA’s new proposal.

The proposal itself would lower the existing acceptable ozone standard from 75 parts per billion (ppb) to somewhere between 65 and 70 ppb ― though the EPA’s science advisers would rather see limits closer to 60 ppb. According to the EPA and environmentalist groups, lowering the amount of acceptable ozone would increase public health, reduce illness and premature deaths, and lead to $21.2-$42.1 billion in benefits, contrasted with $16.6 billion in costs.

However, a recent study by the National Association of Manufacturers found that the new ozone regulation could have a very high cost in jobs and to the economy. The study found that a stricter new ozone regulation could:

  • Reduce U.S. GDP by $270 billion per year and $3.4 trillion from 2017 to 2040.
  • Result in 2.9 million fewer jobs per year on average through 2040.
  • Cost the average U.S. household $1,570 per year.
  • Increase natural gas and electricity costs for manufacturers and households across the country.

The EPA must make a final decision on the rule by October 1, 2015. While many argue that it’s too early to truly estimate the costs of the proposed regulation, the initial forecasts put millions of jobs, billions of dollars in investment, and trillions of dollars of economic output at risk.

Heavy regulations like this one cost too many jobs and wreck the economy. Businesses will choose to go to other countries with friendlier business environments, further negatively impacting our economy in the long run. We must look at the bigger picture and see the other side of the issue and understand that more harm than good is achieved through many existing regulations like this new one.

A domestic energy boom means nothing if the economy cannot rise with it — over a trillion dollars of estimated regulatory burden directly burdens job markets and wage growth. The American voters are clear: the economy and jobs remains their top concern; elected officials need to begin representing their constituents.

Feb 10, 2016 | 11 comments | by

Cruz’s Victory Against Ethanol Cartel

Most presidential candidates in the past would go to Iowa, the first state to cast a ballot for President of the United States, and proudly, boldly support ethanol and the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) ‒ even if they talked badly about it everywhere else in the nation.

However, Senator Ted Cruz set himself apart from all the others. Cruz voted to repeal the Renewable Fuel Standard. He stood up to the ethanol cartel, while he was campaigning very hard in Iowa. In response, the cartel mobilized an army to fight him, and they were defeated Monday night when he took first place in the Iowa Caucus.

The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) is a law requiring traditional fuel to have increasing blends of ethanol and later, other biofuels. However, the RFS plan has already failed.

 

Feb 03, 2016 | 2 comments | by

Murkowski Outlines Senate Energy Plan

In the GOP weekly address, Sen. Murkowski describes the Energy Policy Modernization Act, which includes liquid natural gas (LNG) exports. Looks like it is still on the Senate calendar this week…although it may slip.

On LNG exports, the bill requires the Energy Secretary to approve or disapprove LNG export applications within 45 days, so the applications don’t linger. That’s for nations that don’t already have free trade agreements with us, since most free trade agreements already address expedited LNG exports. It also puts federal energy regulatory commission (FERC) in control of all federal LNG authorizations.

The bill authorizes a new “e-prize” competition, which is basically an x-prize for energy. I’m seeing more and more of these x-prizes in public policy.

The section on nuclear power misses the opportunity to promote molten salt reactors, a nice byproduct of a robust rare earth element policy…but it does call for more nuclear reactor fusion and fission reactor prototypes, so that might encompass molten salt even if it isn’t listed specifically.

There are a ton of repeals and program eliminations, which is a good sign of conservative legislation.

  • Repeal of the methanol study.
  • Repeal of the weatherization study.
  • Repeal of various DOE programs.

Unfortunately, it also reauthorizes the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is bad public policy.

Jan 25, 2016 | 1 comment | by

SOTU: President Obama’s Reckless Energy Policy

Last night, President Obama gave his final State of the Union (SOTU) address to the nation. He briefly discussed energy policy:

Seven years ago, we made the single biggest investment in clean energy in our history.  Here are the results.  In fields from Iowa to Texas, wind power is now cheaper than dirtier, conventional power.  On rooftops from Arizona to New York, solar is saving Americans tens of millions of dollars a year on their energy bills, and employs more Americans than coal – in jobs that pay better than average.  We’re taking steps to give homeowners the freedom to generate and store their own energy – something environmentalists and Tea Partiers have teamed up to support.  Meanwhile, we’ve cut our imports of foreign oil by nearly sixty percent, and cut carbon pollution more than any other country on Earth.

Gas under two bucks a gallon ain’t bad, either.

Now we’ve got to accelerate the transition away from dirty energy.  Rather than subsidize the past, we should invest in the future – especially in communities that rely on fossil fuels.  That’s why I’m going to push to change the way we manage our oil and coal resources, so that they better reflect the costs they impose on taxpayers and our planet.  That way, we put money back into those communities and put tens of thousands of Americans to work building a 21st century transportation system.

Seven years ago, President Obama said he would bankrupt the coal industry, he has come pretty close to doing just that. The American coal industry is on the verge of collapse, with around 50 companies out of business and stock prices of the big four companies have fallen as much as 99 percent! Most recently, the second largest coal company has filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

In addition to all the regulations placed on the coal industry by the Obama administration, natural gas has experienced a boom due to new discoveries and the advanced technologies of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. Natural gas recently passed coal as America’s top source of energy power.

Despite the President’s efforts and the natural gas boom, coal is still a major source of American energy power. While, renewable energy is only supplying 6 percent of our electric power.

Wind power and solar power are also not cheap, compared to energy options such as natural gas and coal. The savings that the President is referring to are the very high subsidies that both the federal government and some states have been giving to individuals for buying wind or solar. Also, I am sure he is adding in the possible savings over something like 20 or 50 years. Yet leaving out the very high initial installation and maintenance costs.

The President’s SOTU last night coverage a variety of topics, including the reckless energy policy over the past seven years. An energy policy that has unnecessarily put our coal industry on life support, at a high cost to taxpayers and energy consumers.

Jan 13, 2016 | 1 comment | by
Next Page »