The Unregulated Podcast #187: Cheap Fakes

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss the latest catch phrase from Team Biden, primary races from around the country, new polling data on EVs and Biden’s agenda, and are joined by a special guest for an interview on modern lifeguard training practices.

Links:

Stay Connected With The Show

Biden Spends $7.5 Billion for 7 EV Charging Stations

Biden’s $7.5 billion EV charging stations program, which promised half a million installations, still has over 499,990 to go after three years. President Biden signed the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law in November 2021, allocating $7.5 billion for electric vehicle charging, of which $5 billion is dedicated to building a network of chargers along major highways, called the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program. Just seven electric-vehicle charging stations have begun operating with that $5-billion funding, marking “pathetic” progress, as automakers and others indicate that drastically expanding EV-charging stations is crucial to the wide deployment of electric vehicles, which is part of Biden’s climate change program. The seven EV-charging stations deployed to date consist of a few dozen total charging ports.

The White House goal is to grow the nationwide network of chargers to 500,000 ports, including high-speed chargers — no more than 50 miles apart — on the nation’s busiest highways. According to Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, 27 states have issued commercial requests to build charging stations and she expected about 1,000 EV-charging stations in public places to be operational by year-end from the federal government program. She added that some areas where charging stations are to be deployed do not yet have electricity.

According to a Department of Transportation, “Since the President took office, the number of publicly available charging ports has grown by over 90 percent, with more than 184,000 publicly-available EV charging ports operational today and 1,000 more coming online each week.” “There are currently projects underway in partnership with states and local grantees for 14,000 federally-funded EV charging ports across the country.”

What’s Really Going On

According to internal memos from the Department of Transportation obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, as well as interviews with those who are responsible for overseeing the implementation of the electric vehicle charging station project, the delay is in large part due to the White House’s diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. President Joe Biden has reportedly expressed frustration with the pace at which his infrastructure projects are getting built, but he should look at his executive orders since becoming President, some of which have contributed to the delays in project progress.

Shortly after taking office, the president signed an executive order mandating that the beneficiaries of 40 percent of all federal climate and environmental programs should come from “underserved communities.” The order also established the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council, which monitors agencies such as the Department of Transportation to ensure the “voices, perspectives, and lived realities of communities with environmental justice concerns are heard in the White House and reflected in federal policies, investments, and decisions.”  One of the areas determined to be “low income” and therefore worthy of federal funding for EV charging is Martha’s Vineyard, home to celebrities and such luminaries as former president Barack Obama.

In order to qualify for a grant, applicants must “demonstrate how meaningful public involvement, inclusive of disadvantaged communities, will occur throughout a project’s life cycle.” According to the Department of Transportation, “public involvement” should involve “intentional outreach to underserved communities.” That outreach, the Department of Transportation states, can take the form of “games and contests,” “visual preference surveys,” or “neighborhood block parties” so long as the grant recipient provides “multilingual staff or interpreters to interact with community members who use languages other than English.”

These Biden-administration “public involvement” requirements serve to slow down construction. They open builders up to lawsuits by members of the community where an electric vehicle charging station is set to be constructed. Applicants for federal funding must in many cases submit reports that can total hundreds of pages about how they will pursue “equity” every step along the way, which leads to delays and increases costs throughout the construction process. “Highly Qualified” applications must “promote local inclusive economic development and entrepreneurship such as the use of minority-owned businesses” that can take the form of funding “support services to help train, place, and retain people in good-paying jobs or registered apprenticeships, with a focus on women, people of color, and others that are underrepresented in infrastructure jobs.” A firm’s “workplace culture” should “promote the entry and retention of underrepresented populations.”

“These onerous diversity, equity, and inclusion requirements handcuff professionals from making proper evaluations and prevent the government/public from funding the most deserving projects, instead funneling money towards less qualified applicants,” said one high level Department of Transportation official. Those regulations are visible throughout more than 500 federal initiatives across 19 agencies, according to the White House’s chief environmental justice officer Jalonne White-Newsome.

The first electric vehicle charging station funded by the bipartisan infrastructure bill opened last December in a small Ohio town, and no one used the station within the first hours of its opening. Ohio has some of the lowest electric vehicle adoption in the country, with just 0.33 percent of all vehicles in the state operating on battery power. The propensity for the local population to actually use an electric vehicle charging station may be an afterthought for the Biden administration. The administration’s regulations seem to serve as a way to pay off Democratic constituencies—in the form of minority-focused contracting and hiring—at the expense of completing any projects in a timely or cost-effective manner. Additionally, requirements that reams of paperwork be presented to qualify boosts business for paper-writers and researchers while diluting the dollars available to go into the ground building charging stations.

Conclusion

The paucity of EV charging stations built in three years under Biden’s National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program shows how conflicting the various regulations and executive orders are under the Biden administration. Diversity, equity and inclusion requirements are holding up progress, but President Biden apparently is incapable of understanding that given his frustrations with the pace of the program. The EV charging program has turned into a debacle, funded by billions of dollars from taxpayers, and search for blame brings to mind the famous Pogo cartoon quote: “We have met the enemy and he is us.”  The Biden administration claims that a lot of charging stations will be built by the end of the year, but time will tell.


*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.

Activists Attack Alaskan Pipeline

A coalition of environmental groups has filed a legal petition with the federal government to evaluate how the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) contributes to climate change and to begin phasing the 800-mile line out of existence. The government first authorized the pipeline right-of-way across federal land in the 1970s and the pipeline has been operating successfully since then. Environmentalists opposed the pipeline in the 1970’s, arguing it would disrupt caribou and cause other environmental damage. The pipeline has transported nearly 19 billion barrels of oil and is Alaska’s economic lifeline. The federal government reauthorized the pipeline in 2002, but the environmental groups are asking the Department of Interior to begin a new environmental analysis for the pipeline because earlier studies of the pipeline did not consider the greenhouse gas emissions that resulted when the oil was refined and used, and to draft a plan to dismantle the pipeline and restore the land corridor.  The pipeline’s right of way is not due for renewal until 2034.

The petition also says that thawing permafrost is undermining the integrity of the pipeline, which the government should evaluate. The pipeline operating company, the Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., issued a written response saying the pipeline is in excellent operational condition. The company ensures safety by monitoring, maintaining and modifying the infrastructure in an unending cycle. According to Michelle Egan, a spokesperson for pipeline operator Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., the company continues to “collaborate with our numerous federal and state regulatory partners as we meet our commitments to safe and environmentally responsible operations. We are steadfast and dedicated to being a prudent operator, safely and reliably transporting oil from the North Slope of Alaska into the future.” Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy called the petitioners “nuts” and accused them of wanting to destroy Alaska more than they want to protect the environment.

The petition asks the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, which falls under the Interior Department, to evaluate a range of options that include not renewing the right-of-way, issuing a right-of-way for a period of 10 or fewer years, rather than 30, to allow for “continuous re-evaluation of the landscape in which TAPS operates,” setting potential limits on how much oil flows through the pipeline and requiring North Slope oil producers to adopt emissions controls for their operations. According to the environmental groups, the “only rational conclusion of that analysis will be a managed phase down of the pipeline,” and their petition calls on the Interior’s Department of Land Management to begin work on such a plan. No specific timeline, however, is suggested for the phase down.

The petition is the first step in pursuit of a legal strategy to get the courts to reject the pipeline or “sue and settle” the issue with the Biden Administration. President Joe Biden was one of only 5 Senators to oppose construction of the pipeline in one of his first votes as a freshman Senator in 1973.

Background

Put in service in 1977, the 800-mile pipeline is the primary way to carry oil drilled on Alaska’s North Slope to ports, refineries and pipelines farther south. It is the lifeline of the state’s industry crisscrossing the state’s rugged terrain and keeping oil from freezing in frigid temperatures. Oil supplies almost 85 percent of the state’s revenues in a state over twice the size of Texas. Oil flow through the trans-Alaska pipeline system averaged around 470,000 barrels a day last year. The 48-inch pipeline is capable of transiting 2 million barrels per day from Prudhoe Bay to the ice-free port of Valdez for shipping to the continental United States. At its peak, in the late 1980s, about 2 million barrels a day flowed through the line. The pipeline is looking for additional oil supplies since it has about 1.5 million barrels per day of available capacity.  So far, the pipeline has transported 18.7 billion barrels over its lifetime.

To that end, the state welcomed the approval by President Biden of the Willow project that could help fill the pipeline’s capacity. The Biden administration approved the Willow oil project in the National Petroleum Reserve on Alaska’s North Slope over a year ago–a decision that was welcomed by Alaska political leaders seeking to stem a trend of declining oil production in the state and by many Alaska Native leaders in the region who see the project as economically vital for their communities. It would represent a significant increase in federal production in Alaska, since almost all the oil to date has come from state lands on the North Slope. Willow, which is being developed by ConocoPhillips Alaska, could produce up to 180,000 barrels of oil a day, or almost as much as a large production platform in the Gulf of Mexico.  Some of the groups who filed the petition, including the Center for Biological Diversity and Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic, are among those who have asked an appeals court to overturn the approval of Willow. A decision is pending.

Conclusion

The Trans-Alaska Pipeline System was built in the 1970s to provide oil from oil-rich Alaska to the lower 48 states, and it has continued to do so ever since. With President Biden’s onerous anti-oil and gas policies, it is imperative that the nation develop new sources of oil for the future wherever possible in order to remain independent of OPEC and its partners. When the Willow project starts producing oil, it will need the pipeline to transport that oil to markets.

While President Biden is pushing the United States to a mandated transition to electric vehicles, U.S. consumers are showing that they do not want to purchase plug in electrics as they do not fit their needs primarily due to long charging times, few public chargers, and low vehicle range. Unless that changes, the transition from internal combustion engine vehicles to plug-in electrics will take a long time, and it may only partially occur. In the meantime, oil is an important commodity needed for personnel travel as well as weapon production and maintenance. To rid the nation of the transport system of a major and potentially growing source of oil would be harmful to the energy security of the United States.


*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.

AEA to GOP Lawmakers:  No Back Door Energy Taxes

WASHINGTON DC (06/18/2024)– The American Energy Alliance, the nation’s premier pro-consumer, pro-taxpayer, and free market energy organization, launched a digital advocacy initiative calling on elected officials to reject legislative efforts that will lead to the imposition of new taxes and tariffs on carbon dioxide, which is a tax on our energy.

The six-figure campaign will run for two weeks statewide in Utah and Iowa’s first congressional district.

Congressman John Curtis of Utah is recruiting his fellow House Republicans to sponsor his legislation, the PROVE IT Act, that would lead to the creation of new taxes on energy. Congresswoman Miller-Meeks, who recently replaced Congressman Curtis as chair of the Conservative Climate Caucus, was listed as a supporter of the legislation. More recently, it has been reported that she now has some concerns about the legislation and its potential to create new energy taxes.

AEA President Tom Pyle issued the following statement:

“Utah families deserve to know whether their elected representatives are promoting policies that will lead to new taxes on the energy they rely on every single day. Congressman Curtis is leading the charge among Republican lawmakers to promote policies that would raise the cost of energy at a time when Utah families are already struggling with higher costs for gasoline, groceries, and many other household needs. This is especially troubling since Congressman Curtis seems to be downplaying this agenda as he pursues the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Sen. Mitt Romney.

Congresswoman Miller-Meeks is correct to be skeptical of this effort to lay the foundation for new, regressive energy taxes. That is why it was startling to see she was listed as an early supporter of the PROVE IT Act legislation. I encourage her to clarify her opposition to the PROVE IT Act and to stand strong against any effort to raise energy taxes on Iowa families.

There is no such thing as a ‘conservative’ carbon tax. Any effort, like the PROVE IT Act, that would lead to the creation of new energy taxes, should be soundly rejected by lawmakers.”


AEA Experts Available For Interview On This Topic:

Additional Background Resources From AEA:

For media inquiries please contact:

The Unregulated Podcast #186: 8-1-1

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss how the 2024 presidential race is shaping up and survey the issues influencing elections in America and abroad.

Links:

Stay Connected With The Show

Key Vote NO on Judy Chang Nomination

The American Energy Alliance opposes the nomination of Judy Chang for a seat on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Chang has a long history of public opposition to approval of the energy infrastructure that FERC is statutorily required to approve. She is an established advocate against FERC’s statutory mandate and this makes her an inappropriate choice for a seat on the Commission.

Chang spent many years as an architect of the energy policies of the state of Massachusetts, where electricity rates are the third highest in the continental US and natural gas prices regularly spike to unaffordable levels. She has opposed the construction of natural gas pipelines, resulting in Massachusetts being forced to import LNG to run the electric grid rather than using domestic supplies. She has complained about natural gas prices being too low, when one of FERC’s statutory mandates is maintaining reasonable natural gas prices. Chang has opposed the continued use of natural gas, even though ensuring adequate supplies of natural gas is another of FERC’s mandates from Congress.

In short, Chang has a history of deliberately driving energy costs up and opposing and undermining the work that Congress has tasked FERC to undertake. She should not have a seat on the Commission where she will be in a position to undermine Congress’ express intent from within while inflicting her ideologically motivated increased energy costs on average Americans.

A NO vote on the nomination of Judy Chang is a vote in support of free markets and affordable energy. AEA will include this vote in its American Energy Scorecard.

Biden Takes Another Step to Limit Consumer Choice, Ban Gas Powered Vehicles

WASHINGTON DC (06/07/2024) – Today, the Biden administration has concluded the revision of fuel economy mandates for trucks and SUVs, extending them until 2031. Carmakers must reach an average of 50.4 miles per gallon across their fleet by the 2031 model year.

These mandates severely limit consumer choice, stifle innovation, and increase costs for American families already struggling under sustained high inflation rates. When combined with EPA tailpipe restrictions and the California ban on gas powered vehicles, which the Biden administration is expected to approve, the rules will amount to a de facto ban on gas powered vehicles.

AEA President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement:

“Today, the Biden administration took yet another step towards their goal of forcing electric vehicles into the marketplace and taking away our ability to choose the types of vehicles that make the most sense for individuals and families.

The first step was the EPA tailpipe emission rule. The final step will be the expected granting of the federal waiver to allow California and several other blue states to ban gas powered cars.

This rule may be less stringent than the original proposal, but make no mistake, it doesn’t change the final result. This is on top of an already unreachable level in the previous rule that’s currently being adjudicated. With today’s action, President Biden has made it absolutely clear that he wants to electrify everything, including and especially cars and trucks. Under this rule, cars will continue to become more and more expensive and Americans will continue to have fewer and fewer options when they are ready to buy a car.

Congress should immediately vote to repeal this new mandate. Better yet, they should repeal the CAFE law altogether.”

AEA Experts Available For Interview On This Topic:


Additional Background Resources From AEA:

The Unregulated Podcast: #185: Take Your Wins

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss the trump trial, the impending incompetence crisis, immigration issues, and the latest updates on global energy issues.

Links:

Stay Connected With The Show

Governor Youngkin Protects Virginia Car Buyer’s Right to Choose

WASHINGTON DC (06/05/2024) – Today, Gov. Glenn Youngkin of Virginia announced that Virginia has opted against adopting the emissions mandate set by California, choosing instead to transition back to the Federal rules by year-end. Backed by the Attorney General, this action will ensure, at least for now, that access to personal transportation remains affordable and equitable for everyone in Virginia.

In 2019, the Trump administration revoked California’s authority to set its own regulations, but in 2022, the Biden administration reinstated this power. Over a dozen Republican-led states are seeking to overturn California’s ability to establish mandates. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied their request in April. The decision will likely be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Virginia’s refusal to adopt California’s EV regulations coincides with a decline in consumer demand for electric vehicles and as automakers are adjusting their strategies for developing new EV models and investing in battery factories to align with the lower-than-anticipated consumer interest.

AEA President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement:

“Today, Governor Youngkin followed through on his promise to preserve the right of Virginians to choose the types of cars that best suit their needs. Virginians of all stripes have made it clear that they don’t want to be forced into buying more expensive and less reliable vehicles mandated by bureaucrats in California.

At a time when high inflation is making household budgets more and more expensive, Governor Younkin’s decisive action will help keep cars affordable for Virginia families. What happens in California should stay in California, especially bad policies like a ban on gasoline powered cars and trucks. It is unfortunate that the Democrats in the Virginia legislature have refused to join him.”

AEA Experts Available For Interview On This Topic:

Additional Background Resources From AEA:

For media inquiries please contact:
[email protected]

Senate Committee Advances Biden’s Slate of FERC Nominees

WASHINGTON DC (06/04/2024) – The Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee voted today to advance three Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) nominees, Democrats David Rosner and Judy Chang, and Republican Lindsay See. The nominees now await a vote before the full Senate.

Thomas Pyle, President of the American Energy Alliance, issued the following statement:

“The two candidates for President of the United States have vastly different visions for the future of our energy and electricity markets, and FERC will play a critical role in setting that direction. The Senate should wait until the voters have spoken before bringing these nominees to the floor. If the Senate does proceed before November, each nominee should clearly state their position on the discredited proposed pipeline policy statements advanced by departed Chairman Richard Glick and outgoing Commissioner Allison Clements and each nominee should be considered individually on their own merits.

Lindsay See is an accomplished attorney who is firmly grounded in free-market principles. As solicitor general for West Virginia, she successfully represented the state before the Supreme Court in the 2022 case West Virginia vs. EPA, which regulated the transition of power plants away from coal, oil, and natural gas. She should be given favorable consideration should her nomination proceed on the Senate floor.

David Rosner is an analyst at FERC who is currently on detail with the Democratic majority of the Senate Energy Committee under Senator Joe Manchin. While on paper he appears qualified to serve as a commissioner, we have no way of knowing whether he will pick up where former Chairman Richard Glick left off with respect to the future of natural gas pipeline policy at FERC. That should greatly concern the Senate.

Judy Chang, a former undersecretary of energy and climate solutions in Massachusetts, is an ideologue and an advocate for the failing net-zero climate agenda. In 2018, Chang wrongly predicted New England would move away from natural gas ‘within the next five years.’ She subsequently argued that it didn’t make sense to build natural gas pipelines. Her ideology has deprived people in Massachusetts access to affordable and reliable electricity. In March 2014, Massachusetts’ electricity rates were 41% higher than the national average, but after ten years of implementing the policies she has promoted, electricity rates are now 78% higher than the national average.

With electricity demand forecasting a sustained increase due to the ‘electrification of everything’ agenda of the Biden Administration, along with the growth of AI and associated data center capacity, now is the worst possible time to be interfering with the reliable functioning of the electricity system. Even Larry Fink, the Godfather of ESG, has reversed course and is calling for more dispatchable power. At no time should a FERC commissioner be pursuing ideological fixations like net-zero, but especially not now when additional stable and reliable capacity is desperately needed. Judy Chang should be rejected by the full Senate.”

AEA Experts Available For Interview On This Topic:


Additional Background Resources From AEA:


For media inquiries please contact:
[email protected]