Brian McGraw

Fifty Dollar Light Bulbs

by Brian McGraw on May 17, 2011

in Blog, Features

Post image for Fifty Dollar Light Bulbs

This week Philips Co. showcases its newest success at capturing rents produced by government mandates: it has produced a 17-watt LED bulb that functions as equivalent to a 75-watt incandescent bulb. The catch: they will initially cost around $50.

The announcement contains the usual boilerplate about how in just a few more years these light bulbs will be the cat’s pajamas, and everyone will be buying them. Go get in line. Lynne Kiesling comments:

This week Philips is releasing a mass-market LED light bulb with a physical and lumens-delivering profile to mimic incandescents at a fraction of the energy use. But they’ll still be priced at $40-45, which is a bit steep for customers who are accustomed to cheap, short-lived bulbs, so their market success will require some education and adaptation of expectations. They will also have to overcome the hurdles of the failed expectations of compact fluorescent bulbs, which have not demonstrated the required longevity/price tradeoff to make them economical (in addition to their other shortcomings). I may buy one to test, but I don’t plan on fitting out my whole house in these LEDs any time soon, based on my CFL experience.

[click to continue…]

Fight Over Natural Gas Heats Up

by Brian McGraw on May 10, 2011

in Blog, Features

Post image for Fight Over Natural Gas Heats Up

There is a highly controversial natural gas bill floating around the House of Representatives, with over 180 cosponsors, written about here (also here and here).

The Daily Caller’s Chris Moody summarizes the debate:

The measure has 180 bipartisan co-sponsors, including many of the chamber’s most conservative Republican members. But some are crying foul over the special treatment that the government would be providing to the natural gas industry, arguing that it is not Washington’s role to “choose winners and losers” by offering tax credits to promote one energy industry over another. The bill’s proponents, however, say promoting natural gas — a plentiful resource in the United States — will help wean the country off foreign oil, provide resources to alternative energy sources and increase the nation’s energy security.

A coalition of nearly two dozen free-market and conservative groups sent a letter to members of Congress in March urging them to avoid new subsidies and tax credits, and they plan to blast anyone — especially Republicans — who do.

The divide is so deep in fact, that it has even split the libertarian advocacy group Campaign For Liberty, a co-signer of the March letter, with its founder, Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul, who is co-sponsoring the tax credit bill. Paul discussed his support for tax credits during a recent interview with MSNBC, arguing that they are not subsidies, as his critics would call them, but rather another form of tax reductions.

Support for the Boone(doggle) Pickens Bill

by Brian McGraw on May 5, 2011

in Blog, Features

Post image for Support for the Boone(doggle) Pickens Bill

With the current partisan fighting over oil subsidies (and energy policy more generally), its worthwhile to look at energy legislation that has found bipartisan support: the New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act of 2011 (the NAT GAS Act, often called the Boone Pickens bill). It currently has 180 cosponsors, split roughly even between Republicans and Democrats. Joe Nocera likes it.

True fiscal/small government conservatives understand the danger of using the tax code to steer the economy. It has brought us ethanol, subsidized home ownership for the wealthy, etc. Populist conservatives-in-name-only don’t actually care about applying consistent principles, or often let their concern be overshadowed by campaign donations.

Which is why I was surprised to see Representative Ron Paul, principled libertarian/free-market extraordinaire, as a cosponsor. I spoke to someone in Ron Paul’s office, and they explained (roughly) that support for tax credits (i.e., industries paying less in income tax relative to the status quo) is consistent with Ron Paul’s support for lower taxes.

This YouTube clip seems to explain Paul’s position (he was asked about a bill to end tax credits for the oil industry):

PAUL: Well, how do you define a subsidy? I don’t consider any tax break as a subsidy. That was not a spending bill, that was not a grant.

…

I never vote to increase any taxes. I vote to always give tax credits, and I always cut spending. I’ve never voted for a real spending bill, so, I don’t think that is in the category of something I’d consider a spending bill.

[click to continue…]

Wesley Clark on Ethanol

by Brian McGraw on May 3, 2011

in Blog, Features

Post image for Wesley Clark on Ethanol

In an appearance on E&E TV, retired General Wesley Clark discusses the future of corn ethanol policy. Transcript here. Given that he is a member of Growth Energy, completely objectivity isn’t expected. However, he makes a number of incorrect statements and supports very poor economic analysis.

CLARK: And so we’re behind in cellulosic because we’ve been artificially constrained in the fuels market, first by the EPA blend wall at 10 percent, which meant there was no market for cellulosic. And then secondly then by the lack of infrastructure to be able to actually go out to the service agent and say, hey, I want to try 20 to 30 percent ethanol blend.

Cellulosic ethanol production is “behind” because its not economical, and investors are aware that the current market for cellulosic ethanol relies almost entirely on a government law that clearly isn’t guaranteed given how difficult it is to produce cellulosic ethanol at a price that is even close to something consumers would want.

Clark also complains about the 10% “blend wall” yet doesn’t acknowledge that the majority of ethanol sold is due to an “artificial” government mandate. I’d gladly end the EPA’s ability to determine what American’s can put in their gas tanks just as I’d gladly end the mandate requiring refiners to blend petroleum with ethanol.

[click to continue…]

An Overview of Oil Industry and Subsidies

by Brian McGraw on May 2, 2011

in Blog, Features

Post image for An Overview of Oil Industry and Subsidies

Here is an excellent overview (by Robert Rapier) of taxes and the oil industry. The basic takeaways are that a simpler tax code is much preferable to what we have now, that ending these deductions without reforming the tax code will be damaging, and the oil industry’s profit margins are actually lower than many other industries. The whole thing is worth reading, but below are a few excerpts.

The biggest ‘oil company subsidy’ — amounting to $1.7 billion per year for the oil industry — is a manufacturer’s tax deduction that is explained in Section 199 of the IRS code. This is a tax credit designed to keep manufacturing in the U.S., but it isn’t limited to oil companies. It is a tax credit enjoyed by ethanol companies (have you ever heard anyone call it an ethanol subsidy?), computer companies (we are subsidizing Microsoft and Google!) and foreign companies who operate factories in the U.S.

One never hears of proposals to entirely do away with Section 199. Apparently, since this tax credit was designed as an incentive to keep manufacturing in the U.S., many would feel that eliminating it for all companies would provide less incentive for them to keep their factories in the U.S. Some of the same people apparently don’t believe this reasoning will apply with the oil industry.

[click to continue…]

Paper Industry Still Getting Renewable Fuel Tax Credits

by Brian McGraw on April 29, 2011

in Blog, Features

Post image for Paper Industry Still Getting Renewable Fuel Tax Credits

Via Steven Mufson at The Washington Post.

Black liquor is a by-product of paper production and much of it is burned in house at the paper mills to produce energy. Note that these companies need no incentive to do this as they already have been doing it on their own for quite a long time as its an efficient way for them to produce their own energy. This was an issue in the past, which Congress had theoretically fixed, but as the article notes:

Eager to limit the cost to the Treasury — more than $4 billion by the end of fiscal year 2009 — Congress said that black liquor would not qualify for the alternative fuel tax credits after Dec. 31, 2009. And to help cover the cost of the January 2010 health-care law, Congress also barred black liquor from qualifying for the cellulosic biofuel tax credit.

But the story didn’t end there.

Last year, the IRS said that the provision in the 2010 health-care legislation didn’t prevent black liquor produced in 2009 from qualifying as a cellulosic biofuel, so the paper industry got its calculators out again. The cellulosic biofuel tax credit, part of the 2008 farm bill, is worth $1.01 a gallon.

I can understand how this might happen initially. Laws are written vaguely and companies take advantage of a law not intended to benefit them. This is frustrating in and of itself, but given the complexity of our tax code its bound to happen sometimes. However, the fact that our laws are so complicated that Congress tried, and failed, to fix this loophole is beyond belief.

[click to continue…]

Newt Gingrich Paid $300K to Praise Ethanol

by Brian McGraw on April 26, 2011

in Blog, Features

Post image for Newt Gingrich Paid $300K to Praise Ethanol

From  The Center for Public Integrity:

According to IRS records, the ethanol group Growth Energy paid Gingrich’s consulting firm $312,500 in 2009.The former House Speaker was the organization’s top-paid consultant, according to the records. His pay was one of the group’s largest single expenditures, as it took in and spent about $11 million to promote ethanol and to lobby for federal incentives for its use.

In a Growth Energy publication, Gingrich was listed as a consultant who offered advice on “strategy and communication issues” and who “will speak positively on ethanol related topics to media.”

Chris Thorne, a Growth Energy spokesman, said Gingrich was not hired again in 2010. The group was organized by ethanol producers from the Midwest in late 2008, Thorne said. Its members sought Gingrich’s counsel when it started because “they were people who were never involved in DC politics before, and they were looking for someone who knew how to get things done.” The organization’s IRS report for 2010 is not yet available.

First, the idea that Growth Energy doesn’t have anyone who is familiar with DC politics is laughable. The CEO of Growth Energy is Tom Buis, formerly the President of the American National Farmer’s Union, and named one of D.C.’s top 50 lobbyists. They also employ (or have employed) General Wesley Clark and Jim Nussle.

Do recall Newt Gingrich’s scuffle with the WSJ earlier this year, where in a letter to the editor Gingrich wrote:

Second, I am not a lobbyist for ethanol, not for anyone. My support of increased domestic energy production of all forms, including biofuels and domestic drilling, is born out of our urgent national security and economic needs.

Turns out that wasn’t true. CEI has previously written about Gingrich’s shameless ethanol pandering here and here.

 

EPA Shuts Down Drilling in Alaska

by Brian McGraw on April 25, 2011

in Blog, Features, Politics

Post image for EPA Shuts Down Drilling in Alaska

Shell announced today, for now, it must end a project to drill for oil off the coast of Northern Alaska, because of a decision made by an EPA appeals board to deny permits to acknowledge that Shell will meet air quality requirements. This is not part of ANWR.

Companies that drill for oil must go through extensive permitting processes and invest billions of dollars as payments for leasing the land, exploring for possible oil fields, equipment, etc. This is all done with the understanding that assuming they follow the letter of the law, there is a chance that this investment won’t be flushed down the toilet at the end of the tunnel. It appears that in this case Shell has followed procedure and that emissions will be below any standards required by the EPA:

The EPA’s appeals board ruled that Shell had not taken into consideration emissions from an ice-breaking vessel when calculating overall greenhouse gas emissions from the project. Environmental groups were thrilled by the ruling.

“What the modeling showed was in communities like Kaktovik, Shell’s drilling would increase air pollution levels close to air quality standards,” said Eric Grafe, Earthjustice’s lead attorney on the case. Earthjustice was joined by Center for Biological Diversity and the Alaska Wilderness League in challenging the air permits.

Talk about moving the goalposts. They must have been really desperate to cancel this project given that this was the best straight-faced excuse they could muster. Not only do you have to be below the legally required emission limits but you must also not even be “close” to the limits, as defined by unelected officials, one of whom is a former attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund.

Events like this are a prime example of why many in Congress want to strip authority from the EPA. Shell had reportedly invested over $4 billion in this project. When companies make investment decisions, consideration is given to whether or not bureaucrats can make arbitrary decisions to shut the project down halfway through a multi-year process. There are many other countries with natural resource reserves who do not subject economic activity to such unpredictable insanity, and in the eye of a corporation, after an event like this these locations begin to look more preferable to dealing with the United States.

 

 

 

Energy Populism at the Justice Department

by Brian McGraw on April 22, 2011

in Blog, Features

Post image for Energy Populism at the Justice Department

In case you haven’t checked recently, gas prices are high again. Fear not, because the DoJ is on the case: “High gasoline prices prompt Justice department to eye energy industry.” From the article:

Attorney General Eric Holder made no secret the move is a direct response to public angst, not to current evidence of any illegal conduct.

…

While promising official vigilance, the attorney general acknowledged regional differences in gasoline prices, and said, “It is also clear that there are lawful reasons for increases in gas prices, given supply and demand.”

At least give them credit for admitting that they’re wasting taxpayer dollars on a bunch of nonsense. If public conern is the only metric for a DoJ bureaucratic task-force, there are a number of other issues American’s are inappropriately worried about. I’d be shocked if the Department of Justice was interested in wasting its time on those issues.

There was a good piece in Forbes explaining the (lack of) evidence that speculators have been driving the price of oil by Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren.

Arnold Revisits Judgment Day

by Brian McGraw on April 21, 2011

in Blog, Features

Post image for Arnold Revisits Judgment Day

Depending on where you live, April 21, 2011 may have already faded into yet another non-apocalyptic win for humanity. If not, you may still have about 12 hours to be worried.

Arnold Schwarzenegger has taken to The Wall Street Journal op-ed pages to warn of the potential future termination of humanity:

Today, I have tears in my eyes again, but for a very different reason. Some in Washington are threatening to pull the plug on this success. Since January, there have been more than a dozen proposals in Congress to limit enforcement of our clean-air rules, create special-interest loopholes, and attempt to reverse scientific findings. These attacks go by different names and target different aspects of the law, but they all amount to the same thing: dirtier air.

This is not an abstract political fight. If these proposals are passed, more mercury, dioxins, carbon pollution and acid gases will end up in the air our kids breathe. More Americans will get sick, end up in the hospital, and die from respiratory illness.

Don’t cry, Arnold! Much of this is an abstract political fight. The major push back and political grandstanding against the proposed EPA rules is what, if anything, should be done about the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The only proposal floated by Congress was found to be horribly ineffective, even by many environmentalists. During that fight, the Obama administration threatened opponents to accept it, because EPA regulations would follow if the legislation didn’t pass, and the EPA wasn’t capable of providing efficient or even effective “solutions.”

And here we are, with the EPA moving forward on costly regulations (during a recession) that, according to their own estimates, will reduce temperatures in 2100 by anywhere from 0.0015 to 0.006 degrees centigrade. Remember, Arnold, whatever your opinion on the historical benefits of the EPA, past performance is no guarantee of future success.

Finally, Arnold points to California as a model economy:

And, as I know from California’s experience, clean-air rules have led to innovation and new technologies that have created hundreds of thousands of new jobs and billions in clean-energy investment.

I’m not sure California ought to be cited as the model of anything, given their inability to budget and the steady exodus of business from the state.

 

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →