Tag: "energy"

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 | 3 comments | 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 | Leave a Comment | by

U.S. House Energy Bill Debate Today

The House of Representatives starts the debate today on 38 amendments out of an original 103 submitted for H.R. 8 —North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2015 — and concludes discussion tomorrow. The 2015 energy bill would modernize energy infrastructure, build a 21st century energy and manufacturing workforce, bolster America’s energy security and diplomacy, and promote energy efficiency and government accountability.

Despite the President’s threat to veto the House bill, lawmakers from both parties have over one hundred amendments to the Energy and Commerce Committee’s broad energy bill to discuss in this week’s floor debate.

The amendments included many policy recommendations relating to energy, natural resources, infrastructure and grid security. Below are a few of the 38 amendments to be debated:

  • Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) has filed an amendment to repeal the crude oil exports ban.
  • Sean Duffy (R-Wis.) is proposing to require the Secretary of Energy to collaborate with the Secretariat of Energy in Mexico and the Ministry of Natural Resources in Canada when developing guidelines to develop skills for an energy and manufacturing industry workforce.
  • Rep. Gene Green (D-Tex.) has offered an amendment that would establish a permitting process within DOE, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the State Department for cross-border infrastructure projects.
  • Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.) has an amendment that includes energy storage as a form of energy that DOE should consider to enhance emergency preparedness for energy supply disruptions during natural disasters.
  • Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) has an amendment that secures the most critical components of America’s electrical infrastructure against the threat posed by a potentially catastrophic electromagnetic pulse.
Dec 02, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by

Clean Power Plan Opposition Grows

A coalition of 24 states and a power company are suing to stop the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan (CPP), calling it an unlawful federal bid to control state power grids.

As part of the lawsuit, the states seek to place a hold on the Clean Power Plan’s deadlines for meeting its carbon emission goals, which supporters have described as necessary to improve air quality but foes have criticized as arbitrary and unrealistically strict.

In addition to the lawsuit by the states, pro-business groups have also joined the fight against the Clean power Plan that mandates a massive reduction in carbon emissions in the next 15 years, arguing that it will jack up energy costs and slash jobs without making a dent in greenhouse gases.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce and 14 other business groups filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency. Their lawsuit:

  • Claims the EPA has overstepped its authority by attempting a takeover of state power plants.
  • Seeks a hold on the rule’s implementation pending the legal challenge.
  • Parallels the lawsuit filed same day by 24 states.

The Rule requires a fundamental restructuring of the power sector, compelling States, utilities and suppliers to adopt EPA’s preferred sources of power and fuel and to redesign their electricity infrastructure in the process.

A preliminary analysis of the Clean Power Plan issued in October, 2014 by the NERA economic consulting calculated that the CPP could boost retail electricity prices 12 percent to 17 percent.

The Clean Power Plan would effectively shut down coal-fired power plants, which provide inexpensive and reliable electricity but cannot reduce their emissions to the required levels using current technology.

Thousands of businesses will stop providing support services to coal-fired plants and coal mines. Many coal mines will have to reduce operations or close entirely, laying off numerous employees in the process.

Oct 28, 2015 | 1 comment | by

War on Domestic Energy Supply

Anti-energy activists are planning to attack the oil and natural gas supply in the United States through a critical strategy. They want the federal government to stop new leases for oil and natural gas development. The damage to our domestic supply and energy output could:

  • Increase oil imports and greater dependence on foreign oil. As EIA projects, the United States will continue to use oil well into the future, and more imports would increase U.S. dependency on others for its energy needs.
  • Diminish U.S. energy security. At home and abroad, less domestic energy production and increased dependency would make the U.S. less secure in the world, more vulnerable to global energy pressures.
  • Weaken the economy. Oil and natural gas are the engines of our economy, and cutting domestic development will mean job losses, lower GDP, less revenue for government and higher household costs.
Oct 28, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by

Federal Solar Energy Subsidy Expires 2016

The Solar Investment Tax Credit (ITC) is expected to expire in 2016. The solar energy industry is trying to get another extension to last until the year 2022. They believe that without this critical subsidy, then they will lose 80,000 jobs in just 2017 alone.

  • The ITC is a 30 percent tax credit for solar systems on residential (under Section 25D) and commercial (under Section 48) properties.
  • The multiple-year extension of the residential and commercial solar ITC has helped annual solar installation grow by over 1,600 percent since the ITC was implemented in 2006 — a compound annual growth rate of 76 percent.

CEO of solar developer Greenwood Energy calls for reducing the ITC to 10 in 2017 and letting it expire in 2018.

As of December 2013, the United States Treasury Department had awarded more than $4.4 billion to solar projects.

Once the ITC expires, the solar energy market will level out, losing the inflated strength it has been receiving from the ITC and become more competitive within the energy market.

Sep 28, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by

Close to Lifting the U.S. Crude Oil Export Ban

Congress is planning to vote on lifting the ban on U.S. crude oil exports by the end of this month. Across the aisle, most Republicans support the end of the export ban. In fact, the Republican-controlled House is scheduled to vote on legislation that would lift the restrictions. In the Senate, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said for the first time he supports lifting the ban.

Congress passed the ban after the 1973 Arab oil embargo, which sent gas prices soaring. Now, the “shale revolution” has stimulated tremendous domestic oil and natural gas production, thanks mainly to hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling methods. The Obama administration has permitted exports of some exchanges of oil with Mexico and federal policies permit exports of crude oil to Canada.

The EIA projects the U.S. will eliminate net energy imports sometime between 2020 and 2030. Rising oil prices would mean the U.S. reaches this landmark turning point sooner, but even low prices are unlikely to stop the swing from importer to exporter. The U.S. has been a net importer of energy since the 1950s.

Opponents of lifting the ban include former Secretary of State and presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton who said she would only support lifting the U.S.’s 40-year-old ban on oil exports if it was part of a broader plan that included concessions from the oil and natural gas industry. The United Steelworkers, which represent workers at several Louisiana refineries, contends that lifting the ban would jeopardize U.S. energy security and adversely affect gas prices.

The controversy over whether or not to lift the ban centers around fears that no ban could mean higher gasoline prices held by some Democrats and consumer groups. Further, environmentalists worry lifting the ban would lead to more oil & gas exploration and development. Even, President Obama opposes such legislation.

However, a recent Government Accountability Office review noted wide agreement among analysts that allowing crude exports would tend to decrease international oil prices, which is the way to depress gasoline prices. That is why analysts predict that lifting the export ban would increase U.S. crude oil prices by $2 to $8 per barrel but reduce U.S. gasoline prices by 1.5 cents to 13 cents per gallon.

Another recent report by the United States Energy Information Administration says that although unrestricted exports of U.S. crude oil would either leave global crude prices unchanged or result in a small price reduction compared to parallel cases that maintain current restrictions on crude oil exports, other factors affecting global supply and demand will largely determine whether global crude prices remain close to their current level.

Sep 21, 2015 | 1 comment | by

The Failure of U.S. Biofuels Program

Ending a relationship is never easy, even one with a proven history of broken promises, twisted logic, weak justifications and financial exploitation. Such is the bond between the American taxpayer and the domestic ethanol industry. In the beginning, statements of common goals sparked hopeful enthusiasm. Many eagerly supported the romantic notion of growing our way to energy independence and an American-led green-based movement towards world prosperity. But, alas, the thrill is gone, and the truth exposed. The once proud, almost pompous, biofuels sector is struggling for justification.

The affair began in 2007 with the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA). Contained within the act is the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) provisions that sets forth incentives for the development of biofuels such as plant-based ethanol and biodiesel. At the time, Bush had committed to the goal of ending American’s addiction to fossil fuel. The original promise was a reduced dependency on Middle Eastern oil, cleaner air, a boon to agriculture and reduced fuel costs for consumers.

Unfortunately, ethanol has failed to live up to its promised benefits. Recent low prices at the pump have exposed its life-support dependency on the government. Although direct subsidies have expired, ethanol producers continue to benefit from other financial incentives and federal mandates. A study by the NARC Consulting Group calls the program an economic death-spiral and discloses its many flaws. Yet, industry groups rally for maintaining, even increasing, RFS percentages in the face of mounting evidence of the program’s failure. Still, in a recent rule change proposal, the EPA published a plan to amend the mandates.

The statutory requirement to blend government-supported biofuels with free-market fuels is market manipulation. If the value of ethanol and other biofuels were legitimate, forced consumption, through the RFS, would not be necessary. Congress should end this failed relationship and costly experiment. Let the free market drive innovation and job development. Below, are but a few of the adverse effects of the RFS:

  • disruptive to agriculture markets
  • increases food costs
  • rife with fraud
  • lacks self-sustainability
  • burdens Taxpayers
  • environmental damage
  • violates free-market principles
Sep 14, 2015 | 2 comments | by

Increased Energy Use Raises Standard of Living in Developing Nations

Global production of oil and natural gas has increased in recent years, and prices have been falling.  This is not only good news for consumers in developed countries, but also for the poor in developing countries around the world.  Increased energy use is essential in developing countries if they are to raise the living standards of the poor and grow the middle class.  Even rapidly growing economies use much less energy than developed countries.  For instance, India uses one-tenth as much energy per person as the United States and, despite decades of rapid economic growth, China still uses only one-third as much energy per capita.  [See the figure.]

jaiwin fossil fuel

 

Special contribution by NCPA research associate Jiawen Chen. 

Aug 24, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by

NCPA Nationwide Survey of Anti-Fracking Activism – the “Frac Map”

3038

The NCPA completed a nationwide survey of successful anti-fracking activism that we presented to state legislators, energy associations and think tanks. This map demonstrates the threat of misguided activism to oil and gas production, the key to continuing our economic recovery, addressing the national debt, lowering the trade deficit and preserving U.S. superpower status into the future.

The NCPA “Frac Map” was also featured at the Washington Post.

 

 

Aug 10, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by
Next Page »