Did you know that mixing Mentos Freshness with Coca Cola Classic in a confined space produces explosive entertainment? See for yourself.
Something similar took place in C-Span’s Washington D.C. studio last weekend, when my Competitive Enterprise Institute colleague Myron Ebell and the Center for Biological Diversity’s Bill Snape squared off in a Washington Journal rumble. See for yourself.
One hundred eighty-six Members of Congress have signed on to H.R. 1830, the New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions (NAT GAS) Act of 2011, better known at this Web site as the Pickens-Your-Pocket Boonedoggle Bill, in honor of its chief lobbyist and beneficiary, billionaire T. Boone Pickens.
The bill would provide targeted tax breaks to subsidize the manufacture and purchase of natural gas vehicles, installation of natural gas refueling infrastructure, and production of compressed and liquefied natural gas for use as motor fuel. The bill includes no overall budget authorization. Moreover, many of the provisions modify current sections of the tax code, which in turn refer to other sections, and the Congressional Research Service inexplicably has yet to provide a bill summary. So the total amount of the tax breaks is anybody’s guess.
Nonetheless, the final tab has got to be huge even by Washington standards. Each manufacturer could claim credits of $4,000 per vehicle up to an overall amount of $200 million per year. Each purchaser could claim credits ranging from $7,500 to $64,000 per vehicle depending on how much the vehicle weighs. Each property installing natural gas fuel dispensers could claim a credit up to $30,000 (or $100,000 — it’s unclear). Each maker of compressed or liquefied natural gas could claim a credit of 50¢ per gallon for every gasoline-equivalent gallon sold. With anywhere from 225,000 to 400,000 18-wheelers sold in the USA each year, the vehicle purchase credits alone could cost billions.
T. Boone’s lobbying for these tax subsidies is all about patriotism and energy security and has nothing to do with rent seeking or corporate welfare. Just ask him! “I’m sure not doing this for the money,” the Texas Gas Mogul told New York Times columnist Joe Nocera. [click to continue…]
On E&E TV. The title mistakenly claims that the NCGA supports ending ethanol subsidies, which they don’t. They are willing to give up a specific tax credit in exchange for different government subsidies or incentives to continue lining their pockets with taxpayer dollars by encouraging ethanol production.
Rick Tolman, the CEO, discusses the reasons the corn industry has come under attack, noting that they have moved into selling a lot of corn for ethanol production. He kind of hides the whole reason for this, which are the corn ethanol production mandates, preferring to vaguely refer to “productivity improvements” which allowed them to also begin exploring additional markets. Unfortunately, markets are blind to everything except prices, so if the mandates had been stringent enough, corn would be converted to ethanol even if we weren’t producing enough additional corn to meet other needs.
He also notes that the oil industry is very upset that the ethanol industry has taken about 10% of their market. Well of course they’re upset, as they should be. There’s no other industry (energy) in America that I can think of which is so heavily reliant on government policies for their existence. Imagine if the government began requiring that 10% of your daily calories come from Starbucks? Isn’t it reasonable that every other food industry (to say nothing of citizens) in America would be justifiably furious? Note that ethanol already has its own E-85 market through flex-fuel vehicles, and its very small, because ethanol is more expensive than gasoline. [click to continue…]
Three of the Congress’s most influential energy policymakers this week “urged” the Environmental Protection Agency to delay an ultra-costly regulation targeted at coal-fired power plants, the source of 50 percent of America’s electricity generation. For the sake of keeping the lights on, all Americans should hope the Obama administration heeds these Congressmen’s request.
Senate Environment and Public Works Ranking Member James Inhofe (R-OK), House Energy and Commerce Chair Fred Upton (R-MI), and House Energy and Power Subcommittee Chair Ed Whitfield (R-KY) yesterday sent a letter to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson demanding a longer comment period for a proposed regulation known as the Utility HAP MACT
[The HAP stands for “Hazardous Air Pollutant,” and the MACT stands for “Maximum Achievable Control Technology”; to learn what these terms entail, read this summary of the regulation, Primer: EPA’s Power Plant MACT for Hazardous Air Pollutants.]
The EPA issued the Utility HAP MACT in mid-March, and it gave the public 60 days to comment. The Congressmen “urge the agency [to] extend the comment period to a minimum of 120 days to allow adequate time for stakeholders to assess and comment on the proposal.”
The extended comment period is well warranted. For starters, the EPA included a number of “pollutants” in the proposed regulation that shouldn’t be there. The EPA’s authority to regulate hazardous air pollutants from power plants is derivative of a study on the public health effect of mercury emissions. The EPA’s proposed regulation, however, would regulate acid gases, non-mercury metals, and organic air toxins, in addition to mercury. Yet the EPA’s evidence only pertains to mercury. The EPA’s authority to regulate these non-mercury emissions, despite their not having been a part of the aforementioned study, will be challenged, and the DC Circuit Court ultimately will decide.
Has Subsidy-Scrapping Time Arrived?
Peter Hannaford, American Spectator, 18 May 2011
Energy Subsidies: Our Gifts That Keep on Taking
Larry Bell, Forbes, 17 May 2011
John Huntsman and Global Warming
Greg Pollowitz, Planet Gore, 17 May 2011
An Inconvenient Truth: A Fifth Anniversary Tribute
Mark Hyman, American Spectator, 17 May 2011
One Tiny Cheer for President on Drilling
Nicolas Loris, The Foundry, 16 May 2011
Latest Threat to Wind Power: Prairie Chickens
Steve Everly, Kansas City Star, 15 may 2011
With gas prices hovering near $4/gallon, Democrats are trotting out fanciful “solutions” to temper the price of oil.
On Saturday, President rolled out a three-part plan to relieve Americans’ pain at the pump. The third part was the elimination of Big Oil “subsidies” (in fact, they are tax breaks, not subsidies). This doesn’t make any sense. The point of the tax breaks to Big Oil is to decrease the cost of production. That is, they make oil cheaper to extract. Removing these “subsidies” will in no way decrease the price of gas.
Meanwhile, Senate Democrats are blaming evil “speculators” for bidding up the price of oil. This is utter malarkey. The price of oil is dictated by a global market. Ill-defined “speculators” are a straw man.
Removing Big Oil’s “subsidies” and prosecuting “speculators” are empty political gimmicks of the sort that the 2008 version of Obama campaigned against. (So much for “Change,” right?) I suspect that the President and Senate Democrats are relying on these bogus non-solutions because, otherwise, they’d have to acknowledge that the price of oil is a function of supply and demand. And if they concede that the market, and not “subsidies” or “speculators,” is to blame for high oil prices, then they’d also have to acknowledge that increasing supply would decrease the price. That is, they’d have to admit that “drill, baby, drill” works. Of course, they don’t want to do that, because doing so would upset their environmentalist base.
The Wall Street Journal has a long piece today about the prospect of using the state to move part of the U.S. transportation fleet from oil to natural gas. It gives prominent voice to the massive public affairs campaign of T. Boone Pickens to add billions to his natural gas fortune as a swansong to a prosperous career.
This campaign takes the form of a bill embraced by ostensible fiscal hawks, causing an uproar from those conservatives who took umbrage at Members abandoning their pledges of fiscal sobriety at the drop of a billionaire’s phone call. This enabled the media to describe the Republicans’ ‘circular firing squad.’ Well played, gentlemen.
The vehicle was not Pickens’ first choice. His first choice was a windmill mandate, transparently pushed by a handful of gas interests, including Chesapeake Energy’s Aubrey McClendon, to put a green hat on their efforts to use the state to displace coal’s market. In this effort, they found natural allies in environmentalist special interests.
Last night over dinner with a knowledgeable source, I heard the skinny on the $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline extension that would double U.S. imports of tar sands oil from western Canada…if the Obama administration allows it.
The 1,700 mile pipeline would link expanding Canadian crude production with America’s first-class refining hub in the Midwest and along the Gulf. It was one of three diplomatic priorities articulated by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper during his February sit-down with President Barack Obama (the other two were Afghanistan and trade policy). That’s why the State Department is behind it.
However, oil production from tar sands is more carbon-intensive than traditional production, so environmentalist groups are staunchly opposed to the Keystone XL pipeline. As a result of the greens’ organized opposition, the Environmental Protection Agency in July, 2010, rebuked the State Department’s draft Environmental Impact Assessment* of the pipeline, stating that it contained “inadequate information.”
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.
Greenland Flourishes Due to Global Warming
Hans Bader, OpenMarket.org, 16 May 2011
The Great Train Con Part 1, Part 2
Henry Payne, Planet Gore, 16 May 2011
ATI Law Center Asks Court to Dislodge University of Virginia ‘ClimateGate’ and Other Documents That Pertain to Climate Scientist Michael Mann
Paul Chesser, American Tradition Institute, 16 May 2011
End Big Oil Subsidies?
David Harsanyi, NRO, 16 May 2011
Willis on GISS Model E
Steve McIntyre, ClimateAudit.org, 15 May 2011
Gingrich, Romney Remain Defiant on Climate
Chris Horner, Daily Caller, 14 May 2011
The Great Energy Resource Debate Part 1, Part 2
Robert Bradley, MasterResource.org, 13 May 2011
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
CEI.org