William Yeatman

While environmentalists loathe coal in general, they hate especially coal produced via mountaintop removal mining. Unfortunately for them, the mining practice, which is essential to the economies of West Virginia and Kentucky, is sanctioned by state and federal law. In 1977, the Congress enacted the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, legislation that created a regulatory regime for surface mining practices like mountaintop mining.

Now, thirty-five years after the Congress endorsed mountaintop mining, President Barack Obama is poised to radically reinterpret SMCRA—legislation that authorizes mountaintop mining—such that the law would ban it. This contortion of legal logic is an affront to Congressional intent. It has engendered a stern reaction from the majority party on the House Natural Resources Committee, which is threatening to subpoena the White House unless it starts explaining its bizarre reasoning.

[click to continue…]

It’s wholly untrue to claim that President Barack Obama is picking and choosing winners in the energy industry, because this administration seems to only pick losers…

…Like the Pickens Plan. Last week, in the immediate wake of a populist State of the Union address, President Barack Obama threw his weight behind H.R. 1380, the New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act (a.k.a., the NAT GAS Act, a.k.a., “The T. Boone Pickens Earmark Bill,” a.k.a., the “Pickens-Your-Pocket Boondoggle Bill,” a.k.a the “Billionaire’s Bailout.” This legislation was written by billionaire natural gas magnate T. Boone Pickens, in order to compel Americans to use more natural gas, and thereby further pad Pickens’s pockets.

The NATGAS Act would be an unprecedented special interest giveaway. I cannot recall legislation pitched by a billionaire for the benefit of that billionaire. So my jaw hit the floor when I read Pickens’s press release applauding the President’s decision to pick the Pickens Plan, in which “legendary energy executive T. Boone Pickens” says:

“While Washington appears to now understand the issue, make no mistake. I will continue to be outspoken on this subject, and continue to call out the special interests that are working to undermine this bold and important agenda.”

[click to continue…]

Earlier this week, Stimulus beneficiary Evergreen Energy bit the dust. Then, Ener1, a manufacturer of batteries for electric vehicles and recipient of Stimulus largesse, filed for bankruptcy. And today, the Las Vegas Sun reports that Amonix, Inc., a manufacturer of solar panels that received $5.9 million from the Porkulus, will cut two-thirds of its workforce, about 200 employees, only seven months after opening a factory in Nevada.

I foresaw this spate of bad news last November. As I explained yesterday,

In a previous post, I compared renewable energy spending in the 2009 Stimulus to a green albatross burdening the President. I argued that Stimulus spending was inherently wasteful, because politics invariably corrupts government’s investment decisions. The result is taxpayers losses on bankrupt companies that existed only by the grace of political favoritism, a la Solyndra. I predicted the green stimulus would haunt the President, in the form of a slow drip public relations nightmare, as a litany of bad investments go belly-up in the run up to the 2012 elections.

Mr. President, are you still sure you want to “double down” on renewable energy giveaways?

President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address hitched its wagon to the 99 percent. The speech was rife with populist rhetoric, of which the following is only one example:

We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well while a growing number of Americans barely get by, or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.

This morning, less than 48 hours removed from his defense of the little guy, the President gave a speech in Nevada during which he championed…H.R. 1380, the New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act (a.k.a., the NAT GAS Act, a.k.a., “The T. Boone Pickens Earmark Bill,” a.k.a., the “Pickens-Your-Pocket Boondoggle Bill”), legislation that was manufactured by billionaire T. Boone Pickens in order to make himself even richer. The bill would subsidize the use of natural gas as a fuel for the transportation sector, in particular for the trucking industry. Pickens is a gas tycoon, and it goes without saying that legislation to increase demand for gas is good for his bottom line.

By throwing his weight behind this Billionaire’s Bailout, President Obama exposed the vapidity of his SOTU commitment to an America where “everyone plays by the same rules.” The NAT GAS Act was written by billionaires, for billionaires.

In a previous post, I compared renewable energy spending in the 2009 Stimulus to a green albatross burdening the President. I argued that Stimulus spending was inherently wasteful, because politics invariably corrupts government’s investment decisions. The result is taxpayers losses on bankrupt companies that existed only by the grace of political favoritism, a la Solyndra. I predicted the green stimulus would haunt the President, in the form of a slow drip public relations nightmare, as a litany of bad investments go belly-up in the run up to the 2012 elections.

Earlier in the week, Stimulus beneficiary Evergreen Energy bit the dust. Today, Ener1, a manufacturer of batteries for electric vehicles and recipient of Stimulus largesse, filed for bankruptcy. As is noted by the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Bluey at The Foundry, the Obama Administration mistakenly deemed Ener1 a success a year ago.

Mr. President, are you still sure you want to “double down” on renewable energy giveaways?

During Tuesday night’s State of the Union address, President Barack Obama called for an “all of the above” energy policy. My colleague Dr. David Kreutzer, Research Fellow in Energy Economics and Climate Change at the Heritage Foundation, offers the following observation regarding the President’s pitch:

Obama’s version of “all of the above.”

Which energy policy is best?

a. Subsidize solar energy, wind energy, and biofuels

b. Mandate the consumption of solar energy, wind energy, and biofuel

c. All of the above

d. Allow markets to produce petroleum, natural gas, and coal at affordable prices

Last night, President Barack Obama said that it’s time “to double-down on a clean energy industry that never has been more promising.”

Below, I reprint an excellent response to the President’s green energy nonsense, by Dr. David Kreutzer, Research Fellow in Energy Economics and Climate Change at the Heritage Foundation.

Saying the clean energy industry has never been more promising is damning with faint praise.  The following have also never been more promising than they are right now:

• Time travel
• Anti-gravity boots
• Teleportation
• Smart pills
• Everything-proof force fields
• Flying cars and
• High-speed rail

Why does Obama want to double down on just clean energy and high-speed rail?