Rep. Henry Cuellar is Out of Step With His District

Last month, the American Energy Alliance released the 2024 American Energy Scorecard for the House of Representatives.  The AEA scorecard scores voting and co-sponsorship decisions on legislation affecting energy and environmental policy, educating voters on how their representatives vote and holding members accountable for those decisions.  

The scorecard is guided by principles such as: 

  • Promoting affordable, abundant, and reliable energy
  • Expanding economic opportunity and prosperity, particularly for working families and those on fixed incomes
  • Giving Americans, not Washington bureaucrats, the power to make their own energy choices
  • Encouraging private sector innovation and entrepreneurship
  • Advancing market-oriented energy and environment policies
  • Reducing the role of government in energy markets
  • Eliminating the subsidies, mandates, and special interest giveaways that lead to higher energy costs

This year’s American Energy Scorecard compiled 21 votes from the 118th Congress.  90 House members achieved a 100% score.

While many members failed to achieve a perfect score for various reasons, the most concerning scores came from those representing districts where the energy industry is a major economic driver and job creator.  One of these members is Rep. Henry Cuellar, whose 28th Congressional district includes portions of the Eagle Ford Shale Geographical Area.

Rep. Cuellar did not just score poorly.  His 62% score placed him near the bottom of the body along with extreme anti-energy members like Green New Deal creator Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  Rep. Cuellar is clearly out of step with his constituents in Texas.  His voting record might pass in New York City, but it’s not acceptable for his energy-producing district.

It also cannot be considered an accident.  AEA notifies all members in advance of votes that will be scored.  A member disagreeing with AEA’s position on one or two votes might be understandable, but Rep. Cuellar shows a consistent record of votes that restrict Americans’ access to affordable and reliable energy. His record of voting against the interests of his constituents should be on the minds of voters in 2024.

Rep. Mary Sattler Peltola is Out of Step With Her District

Last month, the American Energy Alliance released the 2024 American Energy Scorecard for the House of Representatives.   The AEA scorecard scores voting and co-sponsorship decisions on legislation affecting energy and environmental policy, educating voters on how their representatives vote and holding members accountable for those decisions.  

The scorecard is guided by principles such as: 

  • Promoting affordable, abundant, and reliable energy
  • Expanding economic opportunity and prosperity, particularly for working families and those on fixed incomes
  • Giving Americans, not Washington bureaucrats, the power to make their own energy choices
  • Encouraging private sector innovation and entrepreneurship
  • Advancing market-oriented energy and environment policies
  • Reducing the role of government in energy markets
  • Eliminating the subsidies, mandates, and special interest giveaways that lead to higher energy costs

This year’s American Energy Scorecard compiled 21 votes from the 118th Congress.  90 House members achieved a 100% score.

While many members failed to achieve a perfect score for various reasons, the most concerning scores came from those representing districts where the energy industry is a major economic driver and job creator.  One of these members is Rep. Mary Sattler Peltola, whose Alaska’s At-Large Congressional District includes rich oil and gas lands of ANWR.

Rep. Peltola did not just score poorly.  Her 37% score placed him near the bottom of the body along with extreme anti-energy members like Green New Deal creator Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  Rep. Peltola is clearly out of step with her constituents in Alaska.  Her voting record might pass in New York City, but it’s not acceptable for his energy-producing district.

It also cannot be considered an accident.  AEA notifies all members in advance of votes that will be scored.  A member disagreeing with AEA’s position on one or two votes might be understandable, but Rep. Peltola shows a consistent record of votes that restrict Americans’ access to affordable and reliable energy.  Her record of voting against the interests of his constituents should be on the minds of voters in 2024.

Rep. Gabe Vasquez is Out of Step With His District

Last month, the American Energy Alliance released the 2024 American Energy Scorecard for the House of Representatives.  The AEA scorecard scores voting and co-sponsorship decisions on legislation affecting energy and environmental policy, educating voters on how their representatives vote and holding members accountable for those decisions.  

The scorecard is guided by principles such as: 

  • Promoting affordable, abundant, and reliable energy
  • Expanding economic opportunity and prosperity, particularly for working families and those on fixed incomes
  • Giving Americans, not Washington bureaucrats, the power to make their own energy choices
  • Encouraging private sector innovation and entrepreneurship
  • Advancing market-oriented energy and environment policies
  • Reducing the role of government in energy markets
  • Eliminating the subsidies, mandates, and special interest giveaways that lead to higher energy costs

This year’s American Energy Scorecard compiled 21 votes from the 118th Congress.  90 House members achieved a 100% score.

While many members failed to achieve a perfect score for various reasons, the most concerning scores came from those representing districts where the energy industry is a major economic driver and job creator.  One of these members is Rep. Gabe Vasquez, whose New Mexico’s 2nd Congressional District includes the southern half of New Mexico and a sizable portion of the Permian Basin – one of the most prolific oil & gas basins in the United States.

Rep. Vasquez did not just score poorly.  His 19% score placed him near the bottom of the body along with extreme anti-energy members like Green New Deal creator Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  Rep. Vasques is clearly out of step with his constituents in the 2nd district.  His voting record might pass in New York City, but it’s not acceptable for his energy-producing district.

It also cannot be considered an accident.  AEA notifies all members in advance of votes that will be scored.  A member disagreeing with AEA’s position on one or two votes might be understandable, but Rep. Vasquez shows a consistent record of votes that restrict Americans’ access to affordable and reliable energy.   His record of voting against the interests of his constituents should be on the minds of voters in 2024. 

The Unregulated Podcast #204: I Believe That’s Pronounced Commie

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna give their takes on the latest hot takes on the 2024 election. As the race for the White House comes down the home stretch nothing is off the table.

Links:

Stay Connected With The Show:

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.