Facebook Instagram Linkedin RSS Twitter Youtube

Consumer Advocate Warns: Transportation & Climate Initiative Risks Adding Billions in Costs & Taxes on Drivers

Semi trucks on the road

WASHINGTON  – A newly proposed 12-state initiative put forth by an unaccountable quasi-public body run out of a private university in the name of clean transportation is in reality a plan to charge drivers tens of billions of dollars in exchange for barely 1 percent of that amount in environmental benefits.

CEA submitted public comments into the Transportation & Climate Initiative policy development process which, unusually, has offered the public little substantive information, other than a draft MOU and a brief webinar outlining its plan to tax people across the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic.

“CEA has long supported policies that continue our environmental progress while pursuing and maintaining sensible, affordable and reliable energy solutions.  TCI, as currently proposed, offers none of these policy goals. In short, TCI is a terrible investment for consumers, families and businesses, because even at its lowest tax levels, gasoline customers will be paying 5-17 cents more per gallon in the first year and as much as 10-35 cents a gallon later,” CEA Vice President for State Affairs Brydon Ross said.

“Even more concerning is the fact that 12 states are behind the initiative, but are not bound by the draft agreement to submit these proposed taxes to their legislatures. Consumers may not know what hit them until they get a nasty surprise at the gas pump.

“What’s worse is that, even using TCI’s conservative estimates, consumers could pay $56 billion to get $890 million – at the most – in environmental improvements. There are far smarter and less expensive ways to continue the already-impressive environmental improvement we are making as a nation without burdening every sector of the economy and hurting our families, small businesses and farmers.”

“We urge everyone in the affected states to ask their local legislators for greater clarity about how their state plans to implement a new and significant tax burden that fails to offer any real environmental benefits. The TCI will affect them, even if they don’t drive. The cost of transportation would spike, and that will be passed on to them in one form or another.”

The Georgetown University Climate Center is supporting the plan that the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia have joined along with the District of Columbia.

###

About Consumer Energy Alliance
Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) is the leading consumer advocate for energy, bringing together families, farmers, small businesses, distributors, producers and manufacturers to support America’s environmentally sustainable energy future. With more than 550,000 members nationwide, our mission is to help ensure stable prices and energy security for households and businesses across the country. CEA works daily to encourage people across the nation to seek sensible, realistic and environmentally responsible solutions to meeting our energy needs.

Contact:
Bryson Hull
P: 202-657-2855
bhull@consumerenergyalliance.org

CEA Vice President of State Affairs Submits Comments to the Transportation & Climate Initiative’s Public Input Process

Semi Trucks on Interstate

Comments for the Transportation & Climate Initiative’s (TCI) Public Input Process

February 28, 2020

Transportation & Climate Initiative, Georgetown University Climate Center

On behalf of Consumer Energy Alliance and the families and businesses it represents across the country, we appreciate the opportunity to offer our comments on the draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the Transportation Climate Initiative (TCI).

Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) is a nationwide grassroots organization that supports policies that ensure affordable, abundant and reliable domestic energy supplies. With nearly 300 affiliates and over 550,000 members nationwide, we are committed to supporting an all-of-the-above energy policy that includes all forms and sources of energy. CEA supports environmental stewardship and works to ensure a diversity of supply options for energy consumers that includes traditional sources, renewables, and expanded technology options that can help provide a cleaner future.

Our organization is primarily concerned with protecting consumers, seniors, motorists and those on fixed incomes who are struggling with energy bills as well ensuring the effectiveness of the proposal to meet the outlined objectives under the draft MOU for TCI states.

Unfortunately, the draft MOU as currently constructed does not provide enough clarity on the true cost implications and whether or not the economic pain proposed is actually offering enough meaningful future environmental improvement. Further, many of the structural and procedural aspects of the framework with respect to state oversight, control over additional fuel tax revenue, specific details on the structure of the offset programs, and clarity on the rationale behind the selection of certain methodologies are still very much conceptual and vague. Far too many cost and programmatic uncertainties have been left unanswered and the timeline envisioned for the adoption of a Final Rule is much too truncated for serious state, stakeholder, and public review and input.

From the time comments are due for the draft MOU, it is envisioned that a multi-state Final Model Rule will be released by December 2020 regulating an unknown universe of entities impacting more than 72 million people based essentially on a range of assumptions outlined in a webinar. This is not how the public policymaking process should work – especially when it will alter the lives of so many people across 12 states – if public buy-in, awareness, and feedback are truly being sought.

Below is a range of our key concerns with the draft MOU and modeling scenarios of the TCI:

  • Cost – Three cost scenarios were outlined in the December 2019 webinar that described the expected financial impacts of the MOU with a 20%, 22% and 25% reduction in emissions by 2032. As page 27 noted, “If fuel companies decide to pass on allowance costs it could mean an incremental price increase in 2022 of $0.05, $0.09 or $0.17 / gallon in the 20%, 22% and 25% Cap Reduction Scenarios, respectively.” It can be safely assumed that covered entities are most certainly going to pass on the billions of dollars of costs associated with this regulatory scheme to the driving public and fuel-intensive industries. As mentioned in the presentation, initial annual proceeds from the emissions cap range from $1.4 billion at the start of the 20% case up to $5.6 billion when the 25% case begins in 2022. Assuming these numbers are accurate, and without accounting for annual cost increases, this is an additional minimum $10.4– $56 billion by 2032 out of the pockets of drivers, truckers, manufacturers, seniors, and single parents trying

to make ends meet. To put these figures in context, the President’s 2019 Budget Request for the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration was roughly $56 billion.[i] This is not an insignificant amount of money. Further, these cost assumptions are very conservative considering they just estimate the price per gallon impact at the beginning of the program. A common rule of thumb used to calculate fuel price impacts from greenhouse gas emission pricing schemes estimates that for every $1 in tax levied per ton of emitted carbon amounts to an additional penny per gallon in price increases. On page 26 of the webinar, the draft MOU predicts that allowance prices would climb to $10, nearly $20 and over $35 per ton in the 20, 22, and 25 percent scenarios respectively.  This roughly translates into 10, almost 20 and over 35 cents per gallon in future price increases – depending on the scenario endorsed in the out-years of the TCI.

  • Effectiveness – As the December 2019 webinar and public presentation shows, under the Reference or “Business as Usual” Case – which means no regulatory action takes place – transportation emissions from vehicles in the TCI states will decrease by 19 percent by 2032. This is due in large part to increasing federal fuel economy standards that are already significantly improving fuel efficiency and from the expected penetration of more electric vehicles in the fleet mix. Again, this is happening independent of a cumbersome and expensive regulatory scheme like the TCI. From a macro-climate perspective, is there really any appreciable difference between a 19 percent, 20 percent or even a 25 percent reduction in transportation emissions? Assuming the lowest-cost scenario outlined by the webinar, the public would spend – at the very minimum- $10.4 billion by 2032 to get an extra 1 percent reduction in carbon emissions. Is this really the highest and best use of billions in public tax money? Are there better ways to drive emissions reductions in states and let them retain control of the fuel taxes envisioned in this proposal rather than ceding authority to an unaccountable new regional entity?
  • Modeling Assumptions – While improving air quality and reducing emissions is certainly a positive for the region, there appears to be no mention of the value of the public health benefits from the Reference Case. What would those public health values be from simply having the 19% reduction in emissions outlined earlier in the presentation? Unfortunately, the public was not provided that information. The modeling analysis puts significant confidence in truly unknowable factors in the future by predicting that billions of dollars will be saved from hundreds of avoided transportation-related deaths and injuries because of a cap and trade plan placed on fuel. It is similar to the recent policy debate over the use of so-called “co-benefits” by the EPA a few years ago to justify the cost of very expensive air rules that employed the conjecture and guesswork of “avoided death or harm” to mask their real financial impacts to society. Based solely on the study’s projected air quality benefits, the TCI draft MOU will provide somewhere between $105—$447 million in air quality improvements by 2032 at the minimum cost of $10.4 to $56 billion to consumers. This is a stunningly low 1 percent return on an involuntary investment by the public. Nearly all the projected benefits in the modeling scenarios are based on very speculative assumptions such as “improved physical activity” will automatically lead to verifiable economic benefits from the building of new pedestrian infrastructure, bike lanes or trails – many of which will be inaccessible to rural populations, seniors and less physically able people.
  • Offsets, Management of Consumer Money, and Accountability – Scenario B was highlighted in the draft MOU presentation as the illustrative portfolio for directing spending from offsets collected in additional fuel taxes for a range of various programs. Under this scenario, 22 percent of the proceeds are being directed towards “Pedestrian and bike safety” initiatives as well as “indirect/other” programs. A more detailed explanation is needed as to why more than

one-fifth of the offset proceeds are going towards programs without a direct, significant nexus to reducing transportation emissions. Under the most stringent cost scenario that was modeled, this would represent, at a minimum, over $12.3 billion in offset credit value in the first 10 years of the program. This is one of the many reasons why CEA has repeatedly called for more involvement, consultation, and oversight hearings as well as votes by state legislators to more fully understand where their constituent’s money is going and why. It further illustrates the need for more transparency and mechanisms to ensure additional funds are going towards the stated intent of the TCI in the first place – which is reducing emissions from the transportation fleet, not creating revenue streams for special interests or pet projects with consumer money.

CEA wants to reiterate that our members want a cleaner future, clean air, reduced emissions and expanded technologies for transportation needs. However, the vague structure and lack of concrete details of the draft MOU leaves far too many questions and policy concerns unresolved for tens of millions of people in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic before a Final Rule will be set in place in just nine months. Based on the limited information provided, it does not appear that the Draft MOU will make that much of an appreciable difference in environmental quality or avoided climate impacts compared to the status quo while raising energy prices and straining the budgets of truckers, manufacturers, and those employed in the service economy. Much more thought and consideration should be given to providing greater detail on the offset program for ways to reduce the economic burden as well as address the significant limitation of mass transit options for large swaths of rural communities who do not have the option of taking a train, bus or bicycle to work. States can do much of this type of policy work on their own now without a new, Byzantine regulatory construct that removes accountability and transparency from the public via their elected officials, at an exorbitant cost with minimal return.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments and urge the policymakers involved in the TCI to take a few steps back to consider the full ramifications of such a sweeping proposal. In addition, more explicit focus and involvement of state legislators is needed in this process before moving forward with such an aggressive timeline for a Final Model Rule.

Respectfully,

Brydon Ross

Vice President of State Affairs

CEA

[i]US DOT 2019 President’s Budget Request https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/cfo/508dotbh2019-b.pdf

Coronavirus and Its Impact on the Texas and U.S. Economy

David Holt, CEA President speaks on the impact that the Coronavirus is having on the oil and gas industry. When it comes to global affairs, even the smallest economy can be affected.

“For instance, oil prices have dropped dramatically for the last few days and reached its lowest point in over a year. David Holt with the Consumer Energy Alliance explains why.

 

Exports and imports in and out of China has been significantly curtailed. That’s been the biggest immediate impact on the price of oil,” Holt said.”

Read more – KTRH News Radio

New API Study Warns of Harmful Economic Consequences of Fracking Ban for American Families

Oil Workers Climb a Rig

WASHINGTON, February 27, 2020 — The American Petroleum Institute (API) today released a new economic analysis outlining the dire economic consequences of a ban on federal leasing and hydraulic fracturing (or fracking) for American families and businesses. The technology has enabled the U.S. to become the world leader in energy production and emissions reductions.

The study – conducted by economic modeling firm OnLocation, Inc. – warns that banning federal leasing and fracking on public and private lands, which some presidential candidates have proposed, would cost up to 7.5 million American jobs in 2022 alone, lead to a cumulative GDP loss of $7.1 trillion by 2030, slash household incomes by $5,400 annually, increase household energy costs by more than $600 per year and reduce farm incomes by 43 percent due to higher energy costs. If a ban is enacted, the U.S. would flip from being a net exporter of oil and petroleum products to importing more than 40 percent of supplies by 2030.

“If I told you about a technology that would help the environment, that would help American consumers, would reduce our trade deficit and increase American jobs, I think most politicians would jump on that, not try to ban it,” API President and CEO Mike Sommers said. “American families should be shocked to hear proposals from candidates for high office that would ban this transformative technology, which would erase a generation of American progress and return us to the days of heavy reliance on foreign energy. There is perhaps no better example that points to the stark contrast we see today in the debate over America’s energy future.”

American families would pay more under a fracking ban, according to the new analysis. On average, residential natural gas prices would increase 58 percent and electricity prices would average 20 percent higher per family annually. American farmers and manufacturers would also suffer, with the cost of wheat farming increasing 64 percent, cost of corn farming increasing 54 percent and cost of soybean farming increasing 48 percent, due to the impact of higher energy costs.

“You can’t eliminate the very technology that has enabled the American energy revolution without damaging economic consequences,” said Lessly Goudarzi, founder and CEO of OnLocation, Inc. “As our analysis shows, assuming a full ban on fracking would threaten a U.S. recession and force American consumers to rely more on foreign energy rather than energy produced here in the U.S.”

More than 95 percent of U.S. natural gas and oil wells today are developed using hydraulic fracturing. The study projected that states with the highest job losses if a fracking ban is enacted include Texas (1,103,000), California (765,000), Florida (711,000), Pennsylvania (551,000) and Ohio (500,000), for a total of 3.6 million job losses in those five states alone in 2022.

The study was developed based on the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s National Energy Modeling System (NF-NEMS), a well-known and vetted model used to build the U.S. Department of Energy’s Annual Energy Outlook. Vienna, Va. based OnLocation, Inc. used the integrated model to capture interactions of economic changes and energy supply, demand and prices based on economy-wide projections, examining the impact of a fracking ban not only in the energy sector but across all industries and households.

In addition to the study, API launched a new digital ad campaign highlighting the negative consequences of a fracking ban. Watch the ads here.

View a copy of the report here.

API represents all segments of America’s oil and natural gas industry. Its more than 600 members produce, process, and distribute most of the nation’s energy. The industry supports 10.9 million U.S. jobs and is backed by a growing grassroots movement of millions of Americans. API was formed in 1919 as a standards-setting organization. In its first 100 years, API has developed more than 700 standards to enhance operational and environmental safety, efficiency and sustainability.

Jeroen van der Ploeg – We Came to the U.S. for the American Dream

Continue

Consumer Group Applauds Bipartisan Energy Bill Needed for Our Future

Pennsylvania Avenue and United States Capitol

WASHINGTON D.C. – Consumer Energy Alliance applauds Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Manchin for their bipartisan leadership in putting forward the American Energy Innovation Act, which sets the tone of collaboration and cooperation America must embrace to meet our energy needs and improve our world-leading environmental stewardship.

CEA has long supported efforts to improve energy efficiency and promote emissions reductions through greater encouragement of American innovation. The U.S. leads the world in the development of technology that safeguards our environment while providing the affordable, reliable energy that our families, farmers and small businesses need.

“Too many of our discussions about energy are mired in partisan bickering and extreme positions that close off productive discussion,” CEA President David Holt said. “This bill shows us how America has always met its greatest challenges: by setting aside differences and embracing our native ingenuity and pragmatism to build successful compromises.”

The bill encourages the development of new technologies supporting energy storage, carbon capture, nuclear technology and critical minerals, vital to modern manufacturing, national security and a reduced environmental impact from renewable and traditional energy resources.

“At a time of increased divisiveness and an apparently growing partisan divide, we are grateful for the leadership of Senators Murkowski and Manchin,” Holt said. “Their bill provides opportunities to make real progress on the energy issues and environmental protections that all Americans support.”

###

About Consumer Energy Alliance
Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) is the leading consumer advocate for energy, bringing together families, farmers, small businesses, distributors, producers and manufacturers to support America’s environmentally sustainable energy future. With more than 550,000 members nationwide, our mission is to help ensure stable prices and energy security for households and businesses across the country. CEA works daily to encourage people across the nation to seek sensible, realistic and environmentally responsible solutions to meeting our energy needs.

Contact:
Bryson Hull
P: 202-657-2855
bhull@consumerenergyalliance.org

Line 5 is the Wrong Villain in Michigan, Let the Tunnel Project Move Forward

Pipeline construction with welder

Continued outrage from extreme anti-energy activists causes unsafe delay at the cost of taxpayers. The Line 5 project was deemed constitutional, and voters support the project; however, the loud rhetoric from radicals keep putting the project back in court. Delays like this are an important look at why NEPA needs modernization. Chris Ventura, CEA Midwest Director explains exactly how unsafe delays on the Line 5 project are:

“The new pipeline will prove better for the environment because stopping it would require alternate transportation of the fuel, which in turn would increase pollution and spill risks, since pipelines are safer than 99% of all other transportation modes, according to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Additionally, halting the project would hike energy bills, disrupt critical energy supplies and damage the state’s economy by costing high-paying union construction jobs.”

Read more – Lansing State Journal

Consumer Group Testifies on NEPA Reform

NEPA

Statement before the 2020 Council on Environmental Quality

February 25, 2020

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

RE: Docket No. CEQ-2019-0003

RE: Executive Order 13807

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today regarding the Council on Environmental Quality’s proposed rule to update the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

My name is Kaitlin Schmidtke and I am the Director of Policy and Campaigns for Consumer Energy Alliance, the leading consumer energy advocate in the nation. On behalf of CEA’s nearly 300 member organizations that represent a cross-section of industries, including Farm Bureaus, Labor, small businesses, and local Chambers of Commerce, all of whom will benefit the most from these changes. CEA strongly supports alternative and renewable energy, just as we support conventional energy. We believe that we need all energy sources to help us achieve both our economic and environmental goals.

CEA advocates for families, seniors, and small businesses across our growing nation. Since NEPA was last updated in the late 1970s, the United States population has grown by over a hundred million people [1], we have gone through seven presidential administrations, the Internet and iPhone were invented, and technology is now helping us harness more productivity across more industries than ever before. What has not changed since 1978 is NEPA.

I was raised in Texas, where it is hard to keep up with the surging population growth and the demands that it brings to our infrastructure. Roads and bridges are in vast need of improvement and growth to remain competitive, the ports need to be dredged and widened, and energy projects need to expand to meet the needs of all Texans.

As American lives move quicker and quicker, it is important that our critical infrastructure is able to modernize and move just as fast as we do. American infrastructure includes roads, bridges, energy, airports, and water projects that are becoming more costly and harder to complete given burdensome and outdated regulations.

Anti-development groups will always say that traditional energy will be the biggest winner, but that’s just not true. With new, streamlined regulations, the biggest winners will be our communities and our wind and solar developers who rely on consistent processes that meet the rapid deployment schedules and renewable integration states across the nation are demanding – and on which political candidates are campaigning.

The proposed updates to NEPA will modernize our regulatory process and create certainty in the place of delay while still protecting the environment during the implementation of projects. The new guidelines provide clear timelines for environmental review that ensure a thorough, yet prompt process.

We must not equate faster and more predictable with less thorough. The proposed rules also ensure the government is seeking community input and organizational guidance early in the permitting process, so the reviewing agency can consider scientific information, alternatives, and other useful information from the public in the early stages of the process to avoid project delays caused by excessive legal actions that arise following a decision.

This is reform to a process, not gutting regulations. People in communities across the nation should embrace the CEQ’s reforms as something that will bring more transparency and certainty. CEA will continue to support these reforms and hope the committee and its chairwoman see this is the right course of action.

[1] https://www.census.gov/popclock/ , https://www.census.gov/population/estimates/nation/popclockest.txt

Consumer Group Applauds Arizona Governor’s Move to Block Overzealous Natural Gas Ban Trend

Tucson Arizona at night

HOUSTON – Consumer Energy Alliance, the leading voice for sensible energy policies for families and businesses, applauds Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey for signing Arizona Bill 2686, which protects the right of the state, local communities and families  to make rational, smart energy choices that will help ensure affordable, reliable and environmentally-responsible energy policy for all Arizonans.

The bill would put the state government in control of energy policy, where it belongs, and restrict municipalities across the state from banning new natural gas hookups for homes and businesses. This state action prevents the creation of a patchwork of confusing energy policy, and heads off what may be an unfortunate trend in some communities to restrict natural gas that is being pushed by anti-energy activists for whom consumer costs are immaterial.

“We support Gov. Ducey’s bold — and unfortunately necessary—move to stand up for consumers and allow households and businesses to have responsible energy choices,” Consumer Energy Alliance President David Holt said. “The overzealous fad in more than a dozen California communities and New York that seeks to ban new natural gas hookups, risks disrupting the lives and plans of consumers and businesses.  Hopefully, Arizona’s action today helps put a stop to these bizarre efforts. States, families and businesses need energy choices, not unnecessary restrictions – especially when those restrictions also serve to worsen our environmental progress.”

“The U.S. is leading the world in environmental progress and reduction of emissions, largely due to use of natural gas and ongoing progress in renewable energy. Governments and industry working together to offer sensible, environmentally-positive solutions to our energy challenges are proving that we can have a sensible mix of energy sources including renewables while still keeping prices affordable and services reliable for everyone.”

###

About Consumer Energy Alliance

Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) is the leading consumer advocate for energy, bringing together families, farmers, small businesses, distributors, producers and manufacturers to support America’s environmentally sustainable energy future. With more than 550,000 members nationwide, our mission is to help ensure stable prices and energy security for households and businesses across the country. CEA works daily to encourage people across the nation to seek sensible, realistic and environmentally responsible solutions to meet our energy needs.

Contact:

Bryson Hull

P: 202-657-2855

bhull@consumerenergyalliance.org

Pancake Day: Cheap Gas Boosts Road Trips and Roadside Diner Sales

Waitress Pouring Coffee For Customers In 1950s Styled Diner

It’s National Pancake Day and Americans around the country are set to indulge at local diners in a plate of flapjacks. Each year, IHOP commemorates the holiday in style by giving away free pancakes to raise money for charity. For instance, in 2019 IHOP raised more than $4 million for the Children’s Miracle Network Hospitals on National Pancake day.

Roadside diners aren’t just getting a boost on the day dedicated to our national pancake obsession. Low gas prices put cash back in consumers’ pockets, and they use that money for dining and road trips. Diners are aplenty on the road and offer affordable, familiar food, which makes them the go-to choice for families traveling on a budget.

The recent boost in business gives diner chains like Denny’s an optimistic outlook for growth. Low gas prices give consumers an appetite for travel, and businesses around the country feel the benefits.

1...888990...338Page 89 of 338

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT

© Consumer Energy Alliance