Tag: "federal government"

Beneficiary of Billion Dollar Green Fuels Program Files for Creditor Protection

Today, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its final ruling on blend volumes of renewable fuels for the calendar years 2014, 2015 and 2016. The challenge for the EPA is the lack of advanced biofuels to meet obligated minimum levels. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), mandates an increasing blend of renewable products into our domestic fuel supply. The Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS) provisions require non-food based cellulosic biofuels to be increasingly introduced into commercial gasoline. Called “2nd generation”, cellulosic ethanol, unlike 1st generation corn-ethanol, is derived from wood chips, grasses, corn cobs and other biological material. The problem is the congressionally mandated product is simply nonexistent.

Industry discussions, analytical reviews, and organizational rationalizations toss out phrases such as immature technology, steep learning curve, and of course, more federal funding. The issue is complicated, yet, not complicated. Producing 1st generation ethanol is much simpler than taking a cellulosic material and transforming it into a viable fuel source suitable for commercial use. Of course, we all knew this going into the program. Unfortunately, after pouring billions of dollars into this boondoggle we have done nothing more than successfully proven cellulosic ethanol is not a practical endeavor.

Even more so, with one of only four cellulosic ethanol production plants possibly set to shut its doors, Abengoa, a Spain-based sustainable energy development company, has filed for creditor protection one day before Thanksgiving, and less than a week before the EPA is expected to release the blend levels of renewable fuels. After the U.S. taxpayers invested billions of dollars towards the building of a massive biofuel facility, not to mention the world’s largest solar farm and wind farms, the company is teetering like a giant, green energy Jenga tower.

Abengoa is an international, mega-corporation founded in 1941. Its near certain investment losses to taxpayers’ dwarfs those of the Solyndra fiasco. Aside from perks and discounts for federal land use, employment credits and special tax incentives a quick search discloses only some of the federal dollars pumped into Abengoa and yet we still have no 2nd stage biofuels to meet program goals.

  • $1.45 billion loan guarantee to Abengoa Solar, Inc. for construction and the start-up of solar energy plant in Solana, AZ — 2010
  • $1.2 billion loan guarantee to Mohave Solar, LLC. for the construction & start-up of Mohave Solar Project plant in San Bernardino County, CA. — 2011
  • $133.9 million loan guarantee for biofuel plant Hugoton, KS — Department of Energy – 2011
  • $97 million federal grant, Hugoton, KS — Department of Energy — 2011
  • $4.03 million in grants and federal contracts for 2015 alone

Beyond the amounts presented here, millions more U.S. dollars have rolled into Abengoa and its many subsidiaries. With its announcement in Spain yesterday and today being Thanksgiving, American stock values for the company have not yet reacted. The protection filing gives the company four months to find a solution before creditors can force a full bankruptcy. But, many employees of U.S.-based projects may still be unaware.

It is likely by the end of next week, Abengoa will be a household name. The failure of Abengoa, along with the failure of the Renewable Fuels Standard program, will hit jobs, stock values, the banks and the federal budget. All this, and we still have no cellulosic ethanol to meet the mandates of the Renewable Fuels Standard.

Nov 30, 2015 | 5 comments | by

Organics: Another Fine Government Mess

The Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), as part of the 1990 Farm Bill, established the National Organic Program (NOP). The program, as administered by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), oversees uniform standards governing the marketing of organically produced products. The NOP’s mission is to assure consumers of consistent organic standards of production and to facilitate the interstate commerce of organically produced food.

At the time of the NOP’s inception, the organic market for farm products had an estimated annual value of $1 billion.  By 2012, U.S. certified organic sales were at $28.4 billion and according to the USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS), the sales for 2014 are estimated at $35 billion. It is clear that organic sales are showing significant growth, but at what costs?

The current Chipotle E. coli outbreak offers an opportunity for shoppers to understand the true nature of the USDA’s organic certification program. Numerous studies and public opinion polls find consumers overwhelmingly believe the higher priced, organically certified food is a healthier, safer choice.  However, experts, consumer groups and scientific research does not support that view.

In one example, a 14-page letter dated October 8, 2015, by the Consumer Reports National Research Center details many of the failings of the NOP. The letter criticizes the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) for approval of synthetic and non-organic nutrient additives and synthetic pesticide material, even in baby formulas. The letter states, “We support the proposal to remove nonylphenol ethoxylates (alkylphenol ethoxylates) or NPEs/APEs from the list of “inerts” allowed in organic production because of their toxic and endocrine-disrupting effects.”

The Consumer Reports letter demonstrates the discrepancy between what the NOP entails and what the public believes the program offers. The NOP outlines the rules and processes to create uniformity for organic labeling. Although there are restrictions and prohibitions of a variety of chemical applications, the program allows for many waivers and exemptions. Nowhere in the program does it suggest certification assures a safer or more nutritious food choice. In fact, Dr. Stuart Smyth, a food safety expert and agriculture biotechnology researcher calls the National Organic Standards, “an illusion of food safety.” As Smyth explains, “These organic standards pertain to seed, fertilizer, and chemicals that are allowed to be used to produce a crop that will be certifiably organic when it is ready to be harvested. These production standards have absolutely nothing to do with increasing food safety.”

Still, the organic industry, as a marketing ploy, perpetuates the myth to consumers that organic certification implies safer foods. Moreover, with the ever-growing market share, one would assume conscientious shoppers increasingly prefer organic foods. Do they or is that another false assumption? What has changed in the past 15 years to drive the annual market value of organic food products from $1 billion to $35 billion if not consumer preference? How about the huge increase in consumer prices for the organic products, the increased volume of the labeled products, and the massive increase in program funding? To explain, let’s consider just some of the taxpayer dollars pumped into the NOP by means of the most recent farm bill, the 2014 Farm Act.

  • $20,000,000 for each fiscal year 2014 through 2018 for program operation
  • $5,000,000 to the Secretary of Agriculture for data collection and distribution to National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS) and Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS).
  • $15,000,000 for each fiscal year 2014 through 2018 for modernization and technology upgrade
  • $5,000,000 upgrade collaboration with Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC).
  • $11,500,000 for each fiscal year 2014 through 2018 for cost-share programs with CCC.
  • $7,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2014 through 2018 for natural products research.

In the above designated funding commitments alone, the federal government will spend $277.5 million through the term of the current agriculture authorization bill. An astonishing amount, considering the original 1990 Organic Foods Production Act stipulated the program costs will be covered entirely by fees gleaned from the program’s participants.

The growth of the organic market follows the growth in federal dollars pumped into the program. Food safety is not improved. Consumers have no assurance they are purchasing a more nutritious product. Third party certifiers charge upwards of $3,000 to farmers for label use creating an incentive for fraud. Foreign products are certified outside of the U.S. by foreign agents with no USDA oversite. Contemporary farmers are at a competitive disadvantage as a result of the marketing, promotion, and price difference of organically labeled product. Organic foods can potentially be less safe than their uncertified counterpart. And, in the end, the taxpayers are again burdened with an unproductive, fraud-laden, market manipulating program that offers no demonstrative benefit.

Nov 11, 2015 | 2 comments | by

USDA and States to Spend $210 Million on Fuel Pumps

On May 29th, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced $100 million in grants offered through their Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership (BIP) program. According to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, the move is to make renewable fuel options more available to American consumers. The program is a 1:1 partnership with states to build fueling stations and purchase blender pumps for E15 and higher. The preliminary spending tally estimates $210 million for 5,000 pumps at 1,400 fueling stations in 21 states.

This latest money toss is yet another multi-million dollar outlay resulting from the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), as mandated by the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA). The mandate requires gasoline to be blended with renewable fuel sources at incremental increasing levels.

The original RFS mandated level was 10% ethanol or E-10. The next mandated level, 15% ethanol or E-15, is a blend level the EPA labels to be used only in Flex-fuel passenger vehicles, model years 2001 and newer. The label goes on to state, “Do not use in other vehicles, boats, or gasoline-powered equipment. It may cause damage and is prohibited by Federal law”. Still, the EPA wants to make even higher blend levels available, even if that means taxpayers are to fund the necessary infrastructure.

Unlike the traditional pumps where a consumer makes the fuel choice of diesel, unleaded, or octane levels, the government has decided to fund blender pumps offering a choice between ethanol or even more ethanol. Even though the overwhelming preference of consumers, environmentalist, economists, most ag sectors and automakers is E-0, an option not found on the new pumps.

Though extensive studies with science-based evidence prove the damage ethanol contributes to the environment and engines, along with the real damage to a market-based economy, federal agencies continue to dig deeper into the ethanol quagmire. Even the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found the RFS costs outweighed its benefits and criticized the EPA’s economic analysis of the RFS as intentionally misleading. In a 2014 report to Congress, the GAO exposed the agency’s false reporting of the program’s costs stating, “EPA estimated net benefits of the mandated volumes ranging from $13 to $26 billion.” However, the EPA did not include the infrastructure costs (such as this latest $100 million) in their calculations. An expense the EPA estimates to total an astounding $90.5 billion.

 

Nov 04, 2015 | 4 comments | 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

OIG announces probe of EPA’s Reporting Practices on Biofuels Impact

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) has announced a probe into the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) adherence to reporting requirements regarding biofuel’s impact on air quality. Under the Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS), the EPA is to submit to Congress a science-based triennial report on the effect of the controversial program.

As a result of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), changes were made to the Renewable Fuel Standard program (RFS), the program that mandates the blending of ethanol with petroleum-based fuels for domestic use. The law directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to analyze lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the increased use of renewable fuels in comparison with petroleum-based fuels.

The Clean Air Act (CAA), defines the term “lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions” as the GHG impact from all emissions including land use changes and other activities. The law requires EPA’s report to include,

“…all stages of production of fuel and feedstock and distribution, from feedstock generation or extraction through the distribution and delivery and use of the finished fuel to the ultimate consumer, where the mass values for all greenhouse gases are adjusted to account for their relative global warming potential.”

According to the OIG’s announcement, the goal of the review is to determine the following;

  1. Whether the EPA has complied with the law on reporting requirements of the Clean Air Act.
  2. If the EPA followed a mandate to amend its previous biofuel’s environmental impact reports to reflect the findings of a 2011 study by the National Academy of Sciences.
  3. If the EPA used the National Academy of Sciences data in subsequent reports.

In preparation for the review the OIG has asked EPA to provide:

  • Triennial Reports to Congress issued after the EPA’s first report in 2011, and any other reports to Congress on the environmental and resource conservation impacts of the RFS program.
  • RFS Antibacksliding Analysis required under Section 211(v) of the Clean Air Act.
  • Documentation of the EPA’s response to the 2011 National Academy of Sciences study and its recommendations.
  • Documented changes or planned future modifications to the RFS regulatory impact analysis or lifecycle analysis based on findings/recommendations from the 2011 National Academy of Sciences study, Triennial Reports to Congress and/or Antibacksliding Analysis (or documentation explaining why no changes were necessary).

The OIG’s investigation comes at a time when the call to cut corn-based ethanol is growing louder. Interestingly, the announcement came one day after the University of Tennessee released results of a comprehensive 10-year review which calls for a restructuring of the RFS program. The Tennessee study concludes, “We have had 10 years under the RFS and a commercially viable, next-generation biofuels technology has not emerged.”

Oct 26, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by

Congressional Request leads to Scathing Review of the EPA

Businesses, landowners and farmers know the feeling of dread that comes with hearing the words “not in compliance” from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA has earned the reputation of delivering heavy-handed enforcement actions and exorbitant punitive penalties. The agency’s authoritarian over-reach is near legendary, earning them the moniker “rogue agency”. Even the U.S. Supreme Court gave the EPA a dressing-down stating they commonly strong-arm regulated parties into “voluntary compliance” without the opportunity for judicial review. The EPA has taken a firm stance that the rules are published, and therefore, noncompliance is not excusable.

Yet, a congressionally requested federal review of the EPA found the agency regularly ignores rules that pertain to its own operating procedures as dictated by law. In fact, a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report says the EPA disregards the law in its reporting to congressional inquiries. According to the GAO, the EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) is not in compliance with the long-standing Environmental Research, Development and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 (ERDDAA). As well, the agency’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) fails to follow legal requirements of the Clean Air Act.

The GAO investigation revealed agency staffers routinely judge whether a congressional request is a policy driven question or requires a science-based response. As a result, answers to lawmaker’s queries often have no scientific basis in fact. Also, the agency failed to perform regular five-year impact reviews of national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Under the Clean Air Act, CASAC is to review and report “any adverse public health, welfare, social, economic, or energy effects” resulting from regulations and strategies of NAAQS. According to the GAO, the EPA “has never” instructed CASAC to comply with the federal requirement to review and report.

Members of Congress and the GAO have voiced similar concerns regarding EPA conduct and manner of operational performance.

  • Regularly ignores epidemiological evidence that dispels, counters, or invalidates their decisions.
  • Ignores their own scientific panels to format or propel false alarms.
  • Uses federal law, such as the Clean Water Act, to regulate private lands through regulatory “takings” of rights.
  • Consistently exceeds its legislative authority forcing businesses, municipalities, and citizens to challenge regulations through the court system.
  • Abuses authority in “policing” of private property activity through notoriously heavy fines.
  • Habitually practices “moving the goal” tactics to hamper businesses and industries efforts to remain operationally compliant.

The agency’s standard operating procedures often are in defiance of the law. Also, the arbitrary use of selected and contrived science to establish environmental regulation is a serious threat to our national wellbeing and jeopardizes public health, general welfare, socio-economic conditions and our environment.

Oct 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

EPA and Regulatory Taking of Private Property

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids the government from taking privately owned property without the due process of law, and without just compensation. However, what constitutes a government “taking” and can “due process” be preemptively satisfied by agency regulation? It seems in the case of “wetlands”, the EPA has overreached its authority.

Let us first attempt to identify “wetlands”. According to a comprehensive classification system developed in 1979, a site can be categorized as coastal or inland, yet the classification of “wetland” is not site-specific. Instead, “wetlands” is explained as a hierarchical, progressive structure of connected waters of the state. In what is termed the Cowardin Classification System, “wetlands” is an all-encompassing geographical feature. It consists of linked layers of species and subspecies, soil types and subtypes, an assortment of vegetation, along with various water sources, movements, and duration of presence. Simply stated, a piece of ground that can receive water (including rain) is part of the system that is “wetlands”. The Cowardin System, prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is an impressive, comprehensive report. Indeed, it has been the de facto standard for EPA employees in assigning a wetlands designation to private property. As a result, EPA’s authority and jurisdiction relating to “Navigable Waters” has multiplied.

As a result, many landowners have lost private property usage and development rights. Effectively, the property owner has suffered a “taking” by the federal government. Such was the case of Mike and Chantell Sackett, an Idaho couple who challenged the EPA’s enforcement actions under §404 (wetlands) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). In a 2013 decision, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against the EPA. In essence, the agency could not deny the Sacketts a hearing to challenge the agency’s use of CWA authority and jurisdiction over their land. The Sacketts successfully argued the EPA violated their constitutional right to due process. The simple question before the Supreme Court was whether landowners have a right to challenge a legal order of the EPA? The answer was a resounding 9 to 0 “Yes”. The EPA worked to preclude the right to judicial review exercising self-assumed authority in designating wetlands. In the majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the court rejected EPA’s attempt to use the CWA as a blanket fulfillment of due process. Justice Samuel Alito concurred stating Congress should clarify ambiguities in the CWA.

In the case of Rapanos v. the United States, though the court came to no decision (the parties eventually settled), four Justices spoke against the EPA. Justice Scalia wrote the EPA’s use of the term “waters of the United States” is an overreach in identification of wetlands. The concurring Justices agreed. The court found that occasional, intermittent, or ephemeral water flows may have a hydrological connection. However, “are not sufficient to qualify a wetland as covered by the CWA; it must have a continuous surface connection”.

Likewise, in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, the Court ruled against EPA. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote the EPA overreached in its wetland designation of “isolated, abandoned sand and gravel pits with seasonal ponds, which provide migratory bird habitats”. Both the Rapanos and the SWANCC court opinions counter the Cowardin concept of all waters being connected in one wetlands system. Such decisions constitute a slap-of-the-hand by the Supreme Court to EPA and offer an opportunity to discuss the ever increasing dominance of the agency over the lives of everyday citizens.

America’s founders designed our government to serve the people. Increasingly citizens are left with little recourse but to ask the courts to assure their constitutional rights as threatened by dominant government agencies. The EPA, arguably being one of the most insidious, dictatorial federal agencies.

Fortunately, recent Supreme Court decisions and Justice Alito’s urging that Congress address ambiguities have triggered action by some. Several Senators have introduced S.980 a bill that attempts to clarify the CWA by explaining waters of the state are “Navigable-in-fact” and is “permanent, standing, or continuously flowing bodies…from streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes and are connected to waters that are navigable-in-fact“. Passing S. 980 would be a great start to corralling the EPA’s assault on private property rights. This, along with the Supreme Court ruling affirming the 5th amendment right to due process is an indication we are making headway.

Aug 19, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by

Wind Subsides Cost Taxpayers Big

Appears on Newsmax:

A draft package released by the Senate Finance Committee proposes to revive a 2.3 cent per kilowatt-hour production tax credit (PTC) incentive for wind energy, which lapsed last December. Congress had voted to terminate the PTC along with other tax breaks for wind projects at the end of 2013, only to have it retroactively extended through 2014 by the Obama cromnibus budget.

Previous “temporary helping hand” extensions have been granted seven times since PTC was first stablished in 1992 to “help the industry compete in the marketplace.” It was preceded by two other “temporary” federal subsidies dating back to 1978, which were advertised to accomplish the same elusive purpose.

Alas, despite lots of windy marketing claims there simply aren’t any free “renewable energy” lunches. According to the Energy Information Administration, 2013 PTC wind benefits alone topped $5.9 billion, while solar received $5.3 billion. The Senate Finance Committee now projects that a two-year PTC extension will heap on another $10.5 billion in lost federal tax revenues over the next 10 years.

Wind and solar combined provided less than 5 percent of total U.S. electricity in 2013. Yet according to the nonprofit Institute for Energy Research, federal subsidies and support on the basis of that per-unit electricity production, each of them received more than 50 times more subsidy support than coal and natural gas combined.

Added to this taxpayer pain are cost penalties borne by electricity consumers thanks to renewable energy mandates provided in 29 states and the District of Columbia that guarantee designated market shares regardless of extra production charges for wind and solar power. Escalating costs have prompted Ohio to freeze its mandates, and West Virginia to cancel them altogether.

Consider New York state, for example, which has been blowing billions of taxpayer green on wind, yet has some of the highest U.S. electricity rates. Despite this charity, a household there using 6,500 kwh of electricity annually will pay about $400 more than the national average. Statewide, this 53 percent extra cost over the national average amounts to approximately $3.2 billion each year. And after all, wasn’t the main idea to replace fossil-fueled plants with assuredly “cost-effective” renewables? A 2013 report by the New York Independent Systems Operator (NYISO) estimates that New York’s first 15 wind farms operating in 2010 produced about a 2.4 million megawatt-hour output.

That’s equivalent to a single 450 mwh gas-fired combined cycle generating unit operating only at 60 percent capacity which can be built at about one-fourth of the capital cost. Even worse, those wind turbines have a very short operating life, requiring a total infrastructure reinvestment about every 10-13 years, easily a $2 billion replacement for New York.

Add to this substantial infrastructure and transmission costs to deliver electricity from remote wind sites to the New York City area where greatest power demand exists. Such dislocations between locations of supply and high demand are typical throughout all regions of America, both for industrial scale wind and solar. The quality of that power isn’t any bargain either.

Unlike coal- and natural-gas-fired plants that provide reliable power when needed — including peak demand times — wind turbines only produce electricity intermittently as variable daily and seasonal weather conditions permit regardless of demand. That fickle output trend favors colder night-time periods rather than hot summer late afternoons when needed most.

The real kicker here is that wind has no real capacity value. Intermittent outputs require access to a “shadow capacity,” which enables utilities to balance power grids when wind conditions aren’t optimum . . . which is most of the time. What we don’t tend hear about is that those “spinning reserves” which equal total wind capacity are likely fueled by coal or natural gas which anti-fossil activists love to hate and wind was touted to replace. But then again, self-proclaimed environmentalists aren’t all keen on wind turbines either.

A Sierra Club official described them as giant “Cuisinarts in the sky” for bird and bat slaughters. In some cases “not in my backyard” resistance arises from an aesthetic perspective as evidenced, for example, by strong public opposition to the proposed 130-turbine offshore Cape Wind development stretching across 24 square miles of Nantucket Sound’s pristine Horseshoe Shoal. Other wind critics also have legitimate health concerns about land-based installations. Common symptoms include headaches, nausea, sleeplessness, and ringing in ears resulting from prolonged exposure to inaudibly low “infrasound” frequencies that penetrate walls.

So long as this industry’s survival depends upon preferential government handouts and regulatory mandates, two things are clear. Wind is not a free, or a competitive free market source of energy. It is also not a charity we can continue to afford blow money into. It’s time to finally pull the plug and permanently cut off the taxpayer and rate-payer juice.

Aug 03, 2015 | 4 comments | by

Senate Energy Policy Leaves Out Oil and Highway Funding

The focus of the Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2015 includes energy efficiency and conservation, protecting the electric grid and speeding up the application process for liquid natural gas refineries. The bill includes:

  • The secretary of the Energy Department to issue a final decision on applications to export liquefied natural gas within 45 days after projects have won approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
  • The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a stockpile of nearly 700 million barrels of oil, should be used only in emergencies — while there are legislative efforts to sell off some of that oil to help pay for surface transportation funding.

The most recent senate energy bill failed to address some of the most important energy issues currently facing the nation. The bill avoided such issues as:

  • The ban on exporting crude oil.
  • Keystone XL pipeline.
  • Federal gas tax reform.
  • The failure to fund our highway system.
  • Renewable Fuel Standard reform.

U.S. energy policy that includes natural gas, but leaves out oil, is not real energy policy. Protecting the electric grid and leaving out critical funding for the highway system, addresses half of our most pressing infrastructure needs.

Jul 27, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by
« Previous Page — Next Page »