10 Questions for Vice President Kamala Harris Ahead of Her Town Hall in Pennsylvania

WASHINGTON DC (10/23/24) – Vice President and Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris will be participating in a Town Hall Forum this evening hosted by CNN in Pennsylvania, the second largest natural gas producer in the country. In advance of this event, the American Energy Alliance has prepared ten questions for Anderson Cooper to ask Vice President Harris:

  1. Your environmental allies have proudly boasted about your history of “standing up to Big Oil.” The oil and gas industry supports more than 423,000 direct and indirect jobs in Pennsylvania and contributes more than $75 billion to the state’s economy. You have a long track record of trying to punish domestic energy production, including over 250 actions the Biden-Harris administration has made it harder to produce oil and gas domestically. Why have you and your administration worked so hard to impede the production of oil and natural gas in the United States?
  2. Pennsylvania is the second largest natural gas producer in the country, producing almost 22% of total US production. Over half of households rely on natural gas, the most cost-effective option, to heat their homes. Fracking, which in 2020 you said you are in favor of banning, provides cheap and abundant energy for American consumers. If you no longer oppose fracking, what would you specifically do to encourage more of it? Can you name five things you have done either as Vice President or as U.S. Senator to increase domestic oil and gas production?
  3. At a recent campaign event in Michigan, you stated “Contrary to what my opponent is suggesting, I will never tell you what kind of car you have to drive.” This is despite your long-standing support for policies that would ban gas-powered cars and trucks and mandate electric vehicles in their place. More than half of Pennsylvanians oppose electric vehicle mandates, which you have long supported, and your administration has tried to implement. If you truly have reversed your support for mandating electric vehicles, why haven’t you, as President of the Senate, encouraged Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to bring legislation to the floor to prevent EV mandates? As the sitting Vice President, why haven’t you taken any action to stop your own EV rules from moving forward?
  4. The Biden-Harris administration halted all new LNG export permits, a move that even Pennsylvania’s Democratic Senators John Fetterman and Bob Casey, as well as Democratic Governor Josh Shapiro have spoken out against. Analysts at Poten & Partners indicate that this ongoing uncertainty is leading to increased costs and project delays. Lengthened timelines, rising engineering costs, procurement, and construction expenses, along with methane emissions fees, are impacting projects awaiting approval or final investment decisions. The broader U.S. LNG industry is also feeling the effects, with many projects needing to reapply or seek extensions. LNG facilities are highly labor- and capital-intensive, showcasing some of the most advanced engineering today. For instance, the Golden Pass facilities are expected to generate $34 billion in private sector investments, contribute $5 billion in taxes, and create 5,200 jobs over their operational lifespan. This pause jeopardizes these potential benefits. Why does your administration prefer that Middle Eastern dictatorships sell LNG instead of U.S. companies?  
  5. You have proudly stated you cast the tie-breaking vote to increase leases for fracking, but that is fully taken out of context. You cast your vote for the Inflation Reduction Act, which doubles rental fees on onshore leases, imposes a new fee to simply nominate acreage to be leased, and increases onshore royalty rates to 16 2/3% from 12.5% under the previous administration. It also imposes a new natural gas tax on U.S. oil and natural gas companies. Consequently, under your administration, the number of new leases has fallen by 88% since FY2019 and is 84% lower even than the average new leases issued during the Obama administration. How can you tout oil production when your administration hasn’t even kept pace with the leasing that took place during the Obama administration?
  6. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), Canada supplies most of the oil used in the upper Midwest and Canada makes up 60% of our total oil imports. Why did the Biden-Harris administration, on day one, stop the Keystone XL Pipeline from Canada, killing thousands of good-paying union jobs for American workers?
  7. The EIA said last week that energy prices this winter will be 11% higher than last year in the Midwest, which is more than your worst year of inflation under Bidenomics. How can you reassure Americans worried about their utility bills that you won’t be cutting off their energy supplies given your statements in the past on banning fracking?
  8.  You have touted a “just transition” to renewable energy, but on your watch, electricity rates are up 27%. During this same period, input prices for coal, oil, and natural gas have remained relatively low, leading critics to suggest that your policies pushing an “energy transition” are what is fueling the rise in electricity prices. Is driving people into energy poverty a feature of your energy plan? Are you willing to commit to embracing affordability and reliability as the cornerstones of a sensible approach to energy policy?
  9.  Your policies focus on the electrification of everything, but electrification relies on minerals that come from China, not the United States. At the same time, a key talking point your administration uses to promote the “energy transition” is the idea that it will all be done in America. However, your administration has stopped mining projects in the United States. How do you square the stated goals of a “built-in-America” energy transition with the build-nothing policies your administration has actually pursued?
  10. Your administration had no problem selling millions of dollars from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in the run-up to the midterm elections of 2022 in an attempt to reduce the price at the pump. Why doesn’t your administration also support increasing domestic oil production as a way to reduce gasoline prices for American motorists more effectively and sustainably? 

AEA Experts Available For Interview On This Topic:

Additional Background Resources From AEA:


For media inquiries please contact: 

[email protected]

American Energy Alliance Launches Pipeline Protection Project

WASHINGTON DC (10/22/24) – Today, the American Energy Alliance launched a new initiative, the Pipeline Protection Project, to hold green activist groups accountable for their efforts to stop the building of new pipelines and shine a spotlight on the tactics deployed by many of these pressure groups – including excusing violence and vandalism under the banner of free speech – that place affordable and reliable energy at risk.

 AEA President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement: 

“Our nation’s energy infrastructure is critical to ensuring reliable and affordable energy for all Americans. For too long, many radical activist groups have gotten away with destructive and sometimes illegal actions that jeopardize the safety of workers, communities, and the environment they claim to protect. The effort to stop the important and necessary work of building out our energy infrastructure, especially pipelines, impacts all of us.

Affordable and reliable energy heats our homes, powers our businesses, and fuels our economy. We stand firm in our commitment to promoting energy security for all Americans and to exposing these groups for the misinformation, destruction of property, violence, and other misdeeds they perform in their pursuit of stopping new energy projects. Enough is enough. These groups must be held accountable for their efforts to compromise our energy security.”


AEA Experts Available For Interview On This Topic:

Additional Background Resources From AEA:


For media inquiries please contact: 

[email protected]

The Unregulated Podcast #203: Lights Out Better

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss the latest high and low points from the presidential contest.

Links:

Stay Connected With The Show:

The Unregulated Podcast #202: Higher Ground

On this week’s episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss the dark turn in rhetoric from Team Kamala, the new big issues shaping the race for the White House, and the latest roadblocks for the federal EV mandate.

Links:

Stay Connected With The Show:

The Unregulated Podcast #201: Forget Criminality

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna cover the recent VP debate, how regulations are shapping the presidential race, and provide an update on senate races around the country.

Links:

Stay Connected With The Show:

Grid Operators Take Legal Action Against Biden-Harris Attacks On Affordable Energy

On Friday, September 13th, four regional transmission organizations (RTOs) filed an Amicus Brief to the D.C. Court of Appeals, contesting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regulations on carbon dioxide emissions from existing coal and new natural gas power plants. They requested that the Court send the rules back to the EPA for reconsideration. The four organizations—PJM, the Midcontinent Independent Systems Operator (MISO), Southwest Power Pool (SPP), and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT)—serve a broad area from New Jersey to parts of New Mexico, impacting over 156 million Americans. Their brief argues that enforcing the current regulations could threaten the reliable delivery of power, contradicting the Biden-Harris administration’s assertions that these rules would not compromise long-term power reliability. The grid operators filed the amicus brief in support of legal challenges from red states against the regulation.

In April, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized its power plant regulations, asserting that the rules would “enhance public health while maintaining reliable electricity delivery.” According to these regulations, existing coal plants and new natural gas facilities must cut their emissions by 90 percent by 2032 to remain operational beyond 2039. The EPA effectively mandates that power plants achieve these reductions through carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology. However, the four grid operators argue that this technology is too costly and unproven to implement within such a stringent timeline without risking grid stability.

The amicus brief outlines in detail that “without additional modification, the compliance timelines and related provisions of the Rule are not workable and are destined to trigger an acceleration in the pace of premature retirements of electric generation units that possess critical reliability attributes at the very time when such generation is needed to support ever-increasing electricity demand because of the growth of the digital economy and the need to ensure adequate back-up generation to support an increasing amount of intermittent renewable generation.” “Such inevitable and foreseeable premature retirement decisions resulting from the Rule’s timelines will substantially strain each of the Joint [independent system operators’] / [regional transmission organizations’] ability to maintain the reliability of the electric power grid to meet the needs of the citizenry and the country’s economy.”

In their brief, the grid operators also argued that the EPA’s assertion that carbon capture and storage (CCS) represents the “best system of emissions reduction” is questionable. They pointed out that the compliance deadlines “are based on overly ambitious and inadequately supported assumptions as to target dates for commercialization of CCS.” “Those [best system of emissions reduction] determinations then drive both the rate and timing of compliance which, in turn, will drive the premature retirements of generation sources that will threaten the reliability of the electric grid even before the compliance date in the Rule.”

Similarly, grid experts have warned that the EPA’s regulations could threaten power reliability at a time when electricity demand is anticipated to surge, driven by the Biden-Harris administration’s electric vehicle (EV) initiatives, programs promoting electric appliance adoption, and the rising energy needs of artificial intelligence (AI). Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Commissioner Mark Christie has also highlighted the risk of a significant power crisis looming over the country, as demand increases and dependable supply sources are retired without sufficient, reliable capacity being introduced to replace them.

The Inadequacy of EPA’s Analysis

An analysis entitled EPA’s Green Leap Forward found that the EPA’s Regulatory Impact Assessment was modeling an overreliance on intermittent resources to meet the projected peak demand and reserve margin. By modeling the reliability of EPA’s MISO and SPP grids, the analysis found that wind and solar inevitably underperformed the EPA’s expectations, resulting in widespread rolling blackouts. According to the EPA, it does not analyze reliability implications to the grid, stating “EPA does not conduct operational reliability studies.”

Not only did the EPA not conduct a reliability analysis, but the agency also failed to respond to the grid operators regarding their proposed changes to make the rules more reliable. The grid operators had suggested four reliability mechanisms to create safety valves that would make the rules more workable, but the EPA did not address them. Those mechanisms include creating a sub-category of units needed for reliability; providing clear guidance regarding what would constitute an acceptable state plan that would address regional resource adequacy issues; and creating a bank of regional reliability allowances available to unit owners during emergency conditions. In the Final Rule, EPA did not address these specific recommendations and did not explain why it did not adopt them.

EPA Modeling Issues

The Biden-Harris EPA has developed or revised several regulations, including the Ozone Transport Rule, the Coal Combustion Residual Rule, and the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, all aimed at phasing out coal plants. However, the Biden-Harris EPA does not model the combined rules but analyzes them individually. Additionally, the administration has implemented other regulations that are expected to drive up electricity demand, such as mandating electric vehicles in its tailpipe emissions rule and prohibiting certain natural gas appliances in favor of electric alternatives, which are also not factored into the modeling alongside the power plant rule. The Chamber of Commerce was the first to bring attention to these shortcomings in the EPA’s analyses under the Biden-Harris administration. The Biden-Harris administration has positioned the reduction of fossil fuel use as a crucial component of fulfilling its climate commitments to the United Nations, consistently taking steps to hinder both its production and usage.

Conclusion

The regulations and standards that the Biden-Harris administration is promulgating will prematurely shutter baseload plants that can operate 24/7 in favor of intermittent and weather-driven wind and solar power that will result in potential blackouts and brownouts of the U.S. electric grid. While the Biden-Harris EPA finds that its regulations do not show any reliability problems, it also states that it does not perform operational reliability studies. EPA errs in its modeling in that it does not model the cumulative effect of all of its regulations affecting both electricity supply and demand, where reliability problems are likely to surface. In that light, four regional transmission organizations filed an amicus brief to the D.C. Court of Appeals, challenging the EPA’s regulations on carbon dioxide emissions from existing coal and new natural gas power plants and asked the Court to remand the rules back to EPA—an action that is unprecedented.


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

The Blaze: Biden’s EV mandate hits roadblock

The electric vehicle mandate may be running out of juice.

On September 20, House Democrats and Republicans joined forces to overturn a Biden administration rule setting tougher emissions standards for car manufacturers starting in 2027.

[…]

The American Energy Alliance, on the other hand, celebrated the vote against these standards as a victory for consumers.

“Americans deserve the freedom of choice to make their own informed decisions about their transportation options. I commend the House on their passage of this resolution today and look forward to seeing it on the Senate calendar soon,” AEA President Thomas Pyle said in a statement.

The measure will now head to the Senate for a vote.


Read the full article at The Blaze.

Biden-Harris LNG Pause Wrecking Havoc On American Energy Infrastructure

It’s been nearly a year since the Biden-Harris administration officially paused approvals for new LNG export projects. Analysts at Poten & Partners indicate that this ongoing uncertainty is leading to increased costs and project delays. Lengthened timelines, rising engineering, procurement, and construction expenses, along with methane emissions fees, are impacting projects awaiting approval or final investment decisions. The broader U.S. LNG industry is also feeling the effects, with many projects needing to reapply or seek extensions. LNG facilities are highly labor- and capital-intensive, showcasing some of the most advanced engineering today. For instance, the Golden Pass facilities are expected to generate $34 billion in private sector investments, contribute $5 billion in taxes, and create 5,200 jobs over their operational lifespan. This pause jeopardizes these potential benefits.

Key impacts include:

Higher Costs: Engineering, procurement, and construction costs have risen, partly due to the bankruptcy of major contractors like Zachry Group, which has reduced the number of available contractors, leading to higher overall project costs.

Project Delays: Regulatory delays have pushed back many projects that were pre-final investment decision, such as Golden Pass LNG, with some now expected to be delayed until 2028 to 2029.

Regulatory and Legal Costs: The need for reapplications and extensions is adding to the overall costs.

Inflation and Gas Prices: Inflation and rising natural gas prices are contributing to higher costs. As domestic U.S. gas demand grows and more coal-fired generation is forced offline by Biden-Harris EPA regulations,  the cost of gas production is expected to rise.

These factors collectively impact the competitiveness and timelines of U.S. LNG export projects. The delays and cost increases are making U.S. LNG projects less competitive globally as other countries, such as Qatar, are signing long-term contracts, locking in markets for decades, building infrastructure, and increasing LNG export capacity. U.S. LNG remains attractive, however, due to its flexible cargo destinations and competitive pricing indexed to the Henry Hub gas benchmark.

Background

The Biden-Harris administration’s freeze specifically targeted pending applications for exporting LNG to countries without a free trade agreement (FTA) with the U.S., which includes all of Europe. The U.S. has FTAs with 20 countries across all continents except Europe. According to the Department of Energy (DOE), this pause was implemented to allow for updates to the climate and economic assessments used to determine if such authorizations serve the public interest. It’s important to note that this halt does not impact the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which independently authorizes the siting and construction of LNG import and export facilities. Instead, the DOE is responsible for permitting companies to export the supercooled gas. Analysts following the situation believe it is unlikely the DOE will approve any additional non-FTA export authorizations before Biden’s term ends in January. In late August, the DOE did grant a non-FTA authorization to New Fortress Energy for its LNG export project off the eastern coast of Mexico, but only for five years, significantly shorter than the requested term through 2050. Most companies are likely to avoid investing billions in construction costs when facing a freeze on export permits from those facilities.

Source: E&E News

Following the Biden administration’s announcement of the pause, the Center for LNG compiled a list of a dozen pending non-FTA export authorizations at the DOE. Large projects still awaiting approval include the Calcasieu Pass 2 and Commonwealth LNG projects in Louisiana, as well as an expansion of the Corpus Christi LNG project in Texas.

Companies looking to import or export natural gas in the U.S. must obtain authorization from the DOE. Under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), the DOE is required to assess the public interest for applications to export LNG to non-FTA countries. The NGA outlines two standards for reviewing LNG export applications based on the destination countries. Applications for exporting LNG to countries with existing FTAs or for importing LNG from any source are automatically considered in the public interest. However, the DOE must evaluate applications for non-FTA countries and grant export authority unless it determines that the proposed exports are not aligned with the public interest or are explicitly prohibited by law or policy.

In late March, sixteen Republican attorneys general filed a lawsuit against the DOE over the pause. In a 62-page ruling on July 1, Judge James Cain of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana noted that the NGA instructs the DOE to ensure an “expeditious completion” of its review of export applications. However, the DOE has significant discretion regarding the speed of its reviews, and there is no legal definition of what “expeditious” entails, leaving it to the DOE and the administration to determine their pace for approvals.

DOE is planning a 60-day public comment period on the economic and environmental analyses it is preparing and expects it “will complete the process by the end of the first quarter of 2025.” DOE will “review and take into consideration” public comments, the department said. “Once ready, an announcement of the updated analyses will be made available in the Federal Register and include instructions on how to submit comments,” DOE said. DOE has a department fact sheet that provides more details about the analyses.

According to the Energy Information Administration’s Short-Term Energy Outlook, U.S. LNG exports are projected to rise 17 percent from 2024 to 2025. The International Energy Agency’s latest gas market report also indicates that global gas demand is expected to increase by 2.3 percent this year.

Conclusion

The Biden-Harris administration in its LNG pause has created a situation where LNG project developers do not have a clear view of what the future looks like, which is essential for developing multibillion-dollar infrastructure projects. The pause is unlikely to be resolved before the next administration takes office as DOE is to complete the analyses at the end of the first quarter of 2025. The delay is causing costs to increase and timelines to be forfeited because of government fiat. It is also causing other countries to capture long-term contracts, covering decades, and to expand their LNG infrastructure. U.S. LNG is a net benefit to America and to U.S. allies, particularly Europe, which has used U.S. LNG to replace Russian natural gas after it invaded Ukraine.


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

The Unregulated Podcast #200: You Must Be So Proud

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna are joined by friends of the show to celebrate their two-hundredth episode!

Links:

Stay Connected With The Show:

AEA Endorses Energy Champion Sen. Rick Scott

WASHINGTON DC (9/24/2024) – The American Energy Alliance (AEA), the country’s premier pro-consumer, pro-taxpayer, and free-market energy organization, is proud to endorse Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) for reelection to the U.S. Senate.

Senator Scott was one of only five Senators to receive AEA’s Energy Champion designation this year, with a full-term score of 96%.

The AEA Scorecard informs voters on how their elected representatives in Washington vote on policies that impact the availability, reliability, and cost of energy. It holds lawmakers accountable for their votes, not their rhetoric, when it comes to policies that affect families and businesses.

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

“Senator Scott’s commitment to promoting American energy and protecting consumers from rising costs makes him the clear choice for Floridians and the nation. 

“His consistent support for expanding domestic energy production has been critical to strengthening our nation’s energy security, protecting American jobs, and ensuring that families and businesses are not burdened by rising fuel costs. 

“His strong opposition to heavy-handed regulations that stifle energy innovation and support for an overhaul of the permitting process system shows that he understands the drivers behind a strong economy. 

“In contrast, Senator Scott’s challenger, Debbie Mucarsel-Powell was a co-sponsor of the Green New Deal, a socialist wishlist of proposals which would undoubtedly send energy prices skyrocketing and cripple our economy. Floridians, and the country, deserve better.

“The American Energy Alliance proudly endorses Senator Rick Scott for United States Senate to ensure all Floridians continue down the path of prosperity.”


AEA Experts Available For Interview On This Topic:

Additional Background Resources From AEA:

For media inquiries please contact: 

[email protected]