Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Director Bob Abbey will testify today before the Senate and House Appropriations panels, respectively. The Interior Department is the nation’s largest land and mineral owner, and the BLM is tasked with managing both the surface and subsurface energy resources on these federal lands. Interior is also tasked with managing the almost 2.4 billion acres of mineral estate – an area larger than all the land in the United States – on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Currently, the government has leased about 3% of these offshore lands for domestic energy development.

Thomas J. Pyle, president of the non-partisan Institute for Energy (IER), issued the following statement regarding the Interior Department’s budget request, which discourages domestic energy production through new fees and layers of burdensome and unnecessary bureaucratic red tape.

“It’s good and well to say that you support domestic energy production on taxpayer-owned Federal lands; it’s another thing to advance policies that actually promote such commonsense development. This Administration has not only implemented a de-facto ban on new development of our homegrown energy resources offshore, but the budget request that Secretary Salazar and Director Abby are presenting today will increase red tape, fees, and regulatory hurdles on development of these job-creating energy resources.

“Increasing regulations, taxes and barriers on energy development, and you will discourage investment, the Administration’s logic goes. These misguided efforts will drive capital investment and good-paying American jobs overseas. Some smaller energy producers may even be forced to shut their doors. For Western states – like Utah, Colorado and Wyoming, where bureaucrats in Washington largely determine where and how energy can be produced – taxpayers, small businesses and local governments all lose out on the economic development, royalties and the jobs generated from oil, gas and coal development on taxpayer-owned lands.

“This Administration has a clear choice: encourage responsible energy development on taxpayer-owned federal lands, or continue to deny Americans access to affordable, domestic energy resources and the millions of jobs that come with it. It’s very clear, and unsettling, which path this proposed budget will lead our nation.”

Additional resources from IER:

Press release: Obama Admin Delays Atlantic OCS Development until at Least 2014, Will Congress Force Interior’s Hand?

Study: The Economic Contribution of Increased Offshore Oil Exploration and Production to Regional and National Economies

Analysis: The President’s Bogus Green Economics

#####

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MARCH 4, 2010
CONTACT:
LAURA HENDERSON, 202.621.2951
PATRICK CREIGHTON, 202.621.2947

And at the same time, top Administration officials have worked hand-in-glove to ensure that the same bad actors – who were to be the beneficiaries of billions in tax dollars through the stimulus’ “green jobs” slush fund – secure even more carve-outs, special favors, and sweetheart deals. Why? It’s quite simple. The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), or “Big Wind,” understands full well that in order to exist, the wind industry must continue to receive massive streams of taxpayer handouts.

Top Energy Dept. Officials, “Big Wind” in Cahoots

Chicago Tribune: “Questions swirl around wind-jobs studies … The [Spanish] study, funded by a free-market think tank with links to the fossil fuel industry, calculated that government subsidies for the wind-power industry killed more jobs than they created, because the subsidies drained money from the (more efficient) private sector. … Climate activists scheduled a conference call to discuss how to refute the Spanish researcher’s claims. The group included officials from the American Wind Energy Association – a wind industry trade group, known as AWEA, which spent millions of dollars lobbying last year in Washington. The call also included researchers from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a division of the Energy Department. … “AWEA policy people are quite concerned.” A [Energy Dept.] colleague replied: “We need to come up with an appropriate response to these criticisms soon. I just spoke to a few people at AWEA about this.” … Emails show the Laboratory researchers shared a draft of those findings with officials from the wind industry group before the white paper was published. “ (3/3/10)

Washington Examiner: “Obama administration colluded with ‘windmill welfare queens’ to rebut European ‘green job’ studies … “Windmill welfare queens” — the corporations who stand to benefit from carbon regulation, and who already benefit from massive subsidies — are telling Americans that they can “have their cake and eat it too” when it comes to emissions controls and so-called “green jobs.” A FOIA request now reveals that as the Obama administration scrambled to respond last year to strong evidence that “green jobs” are a massive an economic drain, costing 570,000 Euros apiece, Department of Energy officials relied heavily on Big Wind and its monied backers. …the Left in government and the rent-seeking corporations who make their money not by producing anything, but by putting their hands in the next guy’s pocket.” (3/4/10)

American Thinker: “Obama administration protecting the ‘green’ investments of its friends … Crony capitalism is alive and well in Barack Obama’s Washington. … Green energy promoters are raking in our tax dollars, often for wasteful “investments .” … Now comes word that the Obama administration’s Department of Energy has engaged in some “monkey business” to rebut a study that showed investments in wind energy costs far more jobs than they create. A Spanish university study had calculated that government subsidies for the wind power industry killed more jobs because they diverted money from more efficient private businesses. … The Obama administration’s attack on the Spanish study was written by two non-economist, pro-wind activists from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. This is a part of the Department of Energy and is overseen by Assistant Secretary of Energy Cathy Zoi , who previously served as the CEO of Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection. Al has a pal to protect his vast investments in renewable energy.” (3/4/10)

The Hill: “Senior Republican seeks info on Energy Department, clean energy group secret talks … Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) wants to know the extent to which Energy Department officials talked to supporters of clean energy subsidies before DoE published an unusual rebuttal to a study critical of green job programs. He fired off a letter to a DoE official on Wednesday asking a series of pointed questions about discussions between government officials and groups like the American Wind Energy Association and the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank run by White House confidant John Podesta. … A recently released batch of emails showing possible collaboration between DoE and a group whose members stand to benefit from clean energy subsidies won’t help. … The controversy seemed largely over until the release this week of emails, obtained by a free-market think tank through public records laws, that suggest some measure of cooperation among DoE officials and representatives from AWEA, CAP, and the Union of Concerned Scientists.” (3/4/10)

CEI’s Chris Horner on Pajamas Media: “‘Anti-Lobbyist’ Obama Administration Recruited Left-Wing Lobbyists to Sell Bogus ‘Green Jobs’ … The Department of Energy – specifically the office headed by Al Gore’s company’s former CEO, Cathy Zoi – turned to George Soros’ Center for American Progress and other wind industry lobbyists to help push Obama’s wind energy proposals. … As candidate and president, on eight separate occasions Barack Obama instructed Americans to “think about what’s happening in countries like Spain [and] Germany” if they wanted to know what successful “green jobs” policies look like, and if they wanted to know what we should expect here in the U.S. from his agenda. … After the Spanish study embarrassed the White House, prompting substantial media attention and even questioning at a press conference, Obama swapped out Denmark for Spain for later references to an enacted “green jobs” program. … The American Wind Energy Association – the lobby for “Big Wind” in Washington, D.C., which includes a few Spanish wind giants – also attacked the publication of the Spanish paper. Soon, the Obama administration published a five-page talking points memo assailing the economic assessment – written by two young, non-economist, pro-wind activists from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).” (3/3/10)

The Hill: “Spanish jobs spat revisited … The Competitive Enterprise Institute, used public records laws to obtain emails showing NREL shared its response with groups supporting renewable energy policy, like the American Wind Energy Association, before releasing the rebuttal publicly.” (3/3/10)

Reason: “Restoring Science to Its Rightful Place — Shilling for Green Jobs … Last year, a study released by researchers at Spain’s King Juan Carlos University found that subsidized green jobs were an economic black hole. … The green lobbyists just knew the study must be wrong and breathed huge satisfied sigh of relief when a new study refuting the JCU study was produced by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Science had once again triumphed over rightwing anti-science ideology – green jobs forever! But some cynical people were suspicious of the provenance of the NREL study. So they filed a Freedom on Information Act (FOIA) request with the Department of Energy to see how the study came about. It turns out that it was vetted by the renewable energy industry, specifically the lobbyists at the American Wind Energy Association.” (3/3/10)

Washington Post: “Wind industry influenced DOE report … The Chicago Tribune first reported the connection, which came to light after the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute gave the paper the results of its Freedom of Information Act request. The controversy centers on the Aug. 1 white paper, “National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s (NREL) Response to the Report ‘Study of the Effects on the Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources’ from King Juan Carlos University (Spain).” (3/3/10)

That’s a Great Question: “What, exactly, is a ‘green’ job?”

IER’s Robert Murphy on The Daily Caller: “What, exactly, is a ‘green’ job? … By their very nature, government-created green jobs are unsustainable. If they weren’t, it wouldn’t take government mandates or billions in taxpayer subsidies to create them in the first place – and it certainly wouldn’t take billions more to sustain them. … The Spanish embarked on the world’s most aggressive renewables program – President Obama specifically praised it soon after his inauguration as a model for his own agenda. Yet, as the Spanish government faced budget difficulties, it was forced to rein in its support for renewables. … Apparently, even this monumental handout wasn’t enough to sustain those jobs: The Spanish bubble popped, and today the country is wracked with an unemployment rate on the doorstep of 20 percent. … For every “green” job the government “creates” in one area, it destroys a real job somewhere else. But the whole charade isn’t simply a wash, because government green jobs policies make the economy less productive. They raise prices – especially for energy – across the board and make consumers poorer.” (3/3/10)

Iain Murray on NRO: “Green-Jobs Fantasy … Germany and Spain went down the green-jobs road many years ago, for much the same reasons as the ad­ministration. They saw it as a way to make their countries world leaders in coming technologies, provide good jobs to replace decaying industries, and insulate against energy shocks originating overseas. It didn’t work out that way. … The story is the same in Spain, which set out to be the world leader in solar technology. A study by a team from King Juan Carlos University in Madrid led by Gabriel Calzada Alvarez found that the opportunity costs of public investment in renewable energy were very high, resulting not just in significant numbers of jobs destroyed or never created, but in unsustainable bubbles in the renewables sector. … There are already signs that green jobs created in the U.S. are going to be just as expensive as the German and Spanish ones.” (3/4/10)

Orange County Register, Op-Ed: “We need green money, not green jobs … The love affair on the left with “green jobs” is, of course, about ideology, which is why facts are irrelevant. It is another excuse to grow government and bring European socialism to America. … In a Zogby poll done after the presidential election, 73 percent of blacks said they were opposed to taxing fossil fuels to promote alternative energy. The Carter Administration invested $2.1 billion in the Great Plains Coal Gasification Plant to convert coal to gas. The result? Zero. Federal government spending since 1961 on “advanced energy technologies and basic energy science research” totals $187 billion with hardly anything to show. Poor folks don’t need socialism or green jobs. They need green money. They’ll get more of it being free, going to school, getting married and going to work.” (3/3/10)

#####

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MARCH 4, 2010
CONTACT:
LAURA HENDERSON, 202.621.2951
PATRICK CREIGHTON, 202.621.2947

BACKGROUND: Last March, Spanish economics professor Gabriel Calzada published an academic analysis that showed for every green job created in Spain, 2.2 jobs were lost as an opportunity cost. This finding contradicted the Obama Administration’s claim that massive subsidies for wind and solar energy would create jobs. Calzada’s study gained national attention from the media and policymakers, making it difficult for the Administration to advance such failed policies. The Administration’s response? Huddle with big wind lobbyists and other special-interest groups to collaborate on a taxpayer-funded “rebuttal” to Calzada’s work. When the media and some in Congress inquired about the highly unusual step the Administration took in analyzing and responding to an analysis of the Spanish experience with renewable energy and green jobs, senior level government officials were not forthright or honest in their response.

Washington, DC – A day after being sworn into office, President Obama issued a memorandum to the heads of executive departments and agencies “reaffirming the commitment to accountability and transparency.” In the memo, the President states “All agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA [Freedom of Information Act], and to usher in a new era of open Government.” The President has also promised on numerous occasions that lobbyists will have no influence over his Administration.

Despite calls for increased transparency and openness, recent U.S. Energy Department documents obtained through FOIA requests and reported by The Chicago Tribune show significant collusion among Energy Department officials and the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), as well as other third party special-interest groups, including the left-of-center Center for American Progress.

Assistant secretary of energy Cathy Zoi, who has held top positions at Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection, is charged with crafting renewable energy policy for the Obama Administration. According to FOIA-obtained emails, Zoi and her team worked hand-in-hand with big wind’s lobby – AWEA – and other special-interest groups to rebut and discredit a groundbreaking study published by Dr. Gabriel Calzada, of Madrid’s King Juan Carlos University, that examined Span’s experience with renewable energy mandates and so-called “green jobs.”

Dr. Calzada’s original academic research squarely contradicts the Obama Administration’s position on taxpayer-funded green jobs. Calzada determined that for every “green job” the Spanish government created, 2.2 jobs were destroyed as an opportunity cost. They also found that 9 out of 10 government-created “green jobs” are temporary, highlighted the fact that Spain’s unemployment is at an all-time high, and noted that overall carbon emissions – which are said to decrease under “the greening of the economy” – actually increased.

This research on Spain’s failed attempted to create a government-mandated “green economy” served as a major setback for those who favor top-down federal energy mandates, subsidies and handouts – such as AWEA and the President himself. According to the FOIA-secured emails, high-level Energy Department officials worked with AWEA and other special-interest groups to collaborate on a taxpayer-funded rebuttal.

“This Administration may publicly pride itself on being open, transparent, and free from lobbyist influence, but these emails and internal documents demonstrate that actions speak much louder than words,” said Thomas J. Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research. “Dr. Calzada led and conducted a sound analysis of Spain’s failed experience with renewable energy mandates. For his work to be targeted by top U.S. government officials is disturbing. What’s worse, though, is how closely this Administration’s ties are with far-left special-interests lobbyists.”

According to a FOIA-obtained email, one Energy Department official stated, “This is the first time we’ve been asked to response so directly (right?).” His colleague responded, “That is probably true. But we can let DOE [Head Quarters] tell them why they wanted it, especially if this is the first time.”

Additional information:

Study: Spanish Green Jobs/Renewable Energy Study

Rebuttal: NREL Rebuttal to Spanish Green Jobs/Renewable Energy Study

Blog post: IER Response to DOE/NREL rebuttal

Note: The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) obtained this information through a FOIA request. Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at CEI, posted his thoughts HERE.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MARCH 3, 2010
CONTACT:
LAURA HENDERSON, 202.621.2951
PATRICK CREIGHTON, 202.621.2947

####

Washington, DC – As U.S. secretary of energy Steven Chu continues his tour through the Middle East “to strengthen and expand U.S. relationships across the region” and “discuss a range of energy issues, including energy security and the importance of investing in a broad portfolio of energy technologies as part of the global economic recovery,” the Institute for Energy Research (IER) wonders about the comparative value of this trip weighed against one to Canada.

It has been nearly a year since Secretary Chu was confirmed by the U.S. Senate, but according to his Department of Energy website, it appears he still has yet to visit Canada—our most strategic trading partner and strongest hemispheric ally—from which we import more natural gas, refined gasoline and oil than any other country.

Despite this strong and critical energy trading partnership, some out-of-the-mainstream special-interest organizations who oppose our most affordable energy resources, as well as several governors, members of Congress and top administration officials, are actively working to antagonize Canada with a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). Many of these LCFS backers wax poetic about the dire need for the U.S. to use less Middle Eastern oil. Yet, the core objective of a LCFS is to effectively ban the nearly 17 percent of our oil we import from Canada. The result? A deeper reliance on oil derived in the Middle Eastern and in other unfriendly, unstable regions of the world. Oh, and higher prices at the pump, too.

While Secretary Chu pairs his world travels with such important missions as encouraging Americans to paint their roofs white, Canada—obviously not willing to depend on an increasingly anti-energy Washington, D.C.—recently inked a lucrative oil sands trade deal with China. Perhaps our strongest competitor in the global economy, China realizes the importance of securing affordable and stable energy resources to continue to drive economic growth.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, nearly 2.1 trillion barrels of U.S. oil shale are currently kept off-limits by the federal government. These abundant, homegrown resources—coupled with Canada’s secure oil sands supplies—represent the largest oil reserves in the world. Still, Washington, and other elected officials throughout the country, considers policies such as an LCFS, which would effectively ban secure, job-creating Canadian energy imports to the U.S.

Perhaps, instead of provoking our partners in the world’s largest trade relationship, Secretary Chu’s time could be more wisely used to strengthen economic ties and “discuss a range of energy issues, including energy security” with top Canadian officials. If he waits much longer, we may have plenty of houses with white roofs and no energy to keep them warm. Even worse, we might not have enough oil-derived jet fuel necessary to make the secretary’s world gallivanting possible.

NOTE: According to an Energy Dept. press release, secretary Chu will travel to the energy rich nations of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the Emeritus Abu Dhabi. The estimated distance of this trip is roughly 15,363 miles. However, the distance from Washington, D.C. to Ottawa is roughly only 575 miles.

More from the Institute for Energy Research on Secretary Chu, Canada and U.S. energy policy:

• Press Release: 15,000 Miles or 15 City Blocks?
• Blog Posting: Low Carbon Fuel Standards: Recipes for Higher Gasoline Prices and Greater Reliance on Middle Eastern Oil
• Fact Sheet: Embrace Canadian Energy
• Analysis: China Secures Oil and Gas Resources; U.S. Prefers to Wait for Green Energy

For additional information, please contact Patrick Creighton, 202-621-2947, or Laura Henderson, 202-621-2951.

#####

We ask: Could as much, if not more, have been accomplished by walking 15 blocks to the Interior Dept.?

Washington, DC – Today marks day two of Energy Secretary Steven Chu’s four-day, three-country tour through the Middle East “to strengthen and expand U.S. relationships across the region” and to “discuss a range of energy issues, including energy security and the importance of investing in a broad portfolio of energy technologies as part of the global economic recovery.”

This trip comes nearly one year after Secretary Chu was confirmed by the U.S. Senate and in the wake of countless statements from the Obama Administration on the urgent need to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources. It should also be noted that while the energy secretary is in the Middle East, the Obama Administration is busy here at home locking up job-creating domestic oil, oil shale and natural gas resources on taxpayer-owned land.

Most economists, independent experts and, in particular, our chief economic competitor, China, recognize that energy markets are global in nature. However, reducing our foreign energy dependence has become a rallying cry for some who favor top-down federal mandates to promote expensive and unreliable energy sources. These heavily taxpayer-subsidized forms of energy – such as wind and solar – are not transportation fuels, and simply cannot be used to drive our nation’s manufacturing base.

If the Obama Administration’s goal is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, it is certainly attainable; however, it will only become a reality if this government implements policies that encourage increased domestic production of homegrown resources. The U.S. has the capability and technological know-how to achieve this goal. But to do so, policymakers must demonstrate a commitment to commonsense, pro-job, pro-American energy policies, which have been noticeably absent in Washington for the past 30 years.

Visiting our allies in the Middle East to discuss energy security is important. But this administration’s efforts to demonize domestic energy production, add layers of bureaucratic red-tape, and impose enormous, burdensome tax hikes on the very resources that serve as the foundation for economic growth and prosperity will only cause our nation’s long-term energy security to weaken.

One has to wonder if the Energy Secretary could accomplish more if he were to “discuss a range of energy issues, including energy security” with his colleague, Interior Secretary Salazar. At a minimum, by walking the 15 blocks to the Department of the Interior, he could have saved energy– the kind derived entirely from oil.

NOTE: According to a Energy Dept. press release, Secretary Chu will travel to the energy rich nations of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and the Emirate Abu Dhabi. The estimated distance of this trip is roughly 15,363 miles. However, a distance to the Interior Department is at most 15 city blocks.

For additional information, please contact Patrick Creighton, 202-621-2947, or Laura Henderson, 202-621-2951.

#####

Washington, DC – In a perceived attempt to lure wary senators toward support of a job-killing cap-and-trade bill that will increase energy costs across the board, today President Obama committed $8 billion in taxpayer-backed loans to construct two new reactors in Georgia. The president made the announcement in Lanham, Maryland, where he also spoke about “clean” and “green” energy jobs.

However, President Obama did not mention that his budget eliminates funding for the nuclear waste repository at Nevada’s Yucca Mountain. Pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended in 1987, Yucca Mountain is the only permanent nuclear waste repository in the United States.

“As is the case with the rest of this Administration’s energy proposals, there is a complete and daunting lack of consistency on the issue of nuclear waste and nuclear loan guarantees,” said Thomas J. Pyle, president of the non-partisan Institute for Energy Research (IER). “Putting American taxpayers on the hook for $8 billion in an attempt to garner support for a job-killing cap-and-trade package is a purely political ploy, especially when measured against the closure of Yucca Mountain.

“Nuclear energy is an important component towards securing our nation’s long-term energy needs. But without a plan for spent fuel rods, this administration is simply using taxpayer-backed loan guarantees as an effort to curry favor with a few senators,” continued Pyle. “This announcement has nothing to do with securing America’s energy future and everything to do with the business-as-usual Washington horse-trading that the American people are tired of.”

For additional information, please contact Patrick Creighton, 202-621-2947, or Laura Henderson, 202-621-2951.

#####

Subsequent to the release of this letter, Institute for Energy Research (IER) vice-president Dan Kish released the following statement:

“What this letter suggests is that Sec. Salazar isn’t looking to kick the can down the road when it comes to responsible offshore exploration – he’s looking to take that can, crush it, and then shut down the road altogether. Despite the overwhelming majority of Americans supporting robust energy development off our coasts, this Administration continues to view our domestic energy resources as an environmental liability, not the job-creating assets that they are.”

In particular, Mr. Kish pointed to a letter from the Interior Department dated February 3 in which a prospective timeline is laid out for conducting a Programmatic Environment Impact Statement (PEIS) on the Atlantic OCS. A PEIS must be completed prior to seismic testing taking place — a process that will ultimately determine where oil and gas resources are located beneath the seafloor.  In addition to the PEIS, additional permits and environmental analyses must take place prior to holding a lease sale.

“Tossing a few acres up for lease, as this Administration has done, and implementing a robust plan to safely expand domestic oil and gas production are two radically different things. This decision to slow-walk development in the Atlantic is perfectly consistent with the administration’s record on these issues – and perfectly inconsistent with its rhetoric.

“Sec. Salazar is breaking all speed records to deploy the most expensive and unreliable forms of energy that exist, while dragging his feet on the type of energy that makes America run.  He is establishing a road map that sends us off an energy cliff, at the expense of American jobs and economic growth.”

Note: Click HERE to view the letter from the Department of the Interior to Members of the House and Senate Appropriations Committee outlining the proposed Atlantic OCS PEIS.

For additional information, please contact Patrick Creighton, 202-621-2947, or Laura Henderson, 202-621-2951.

#####

Washington, DC – Earlier this morning, President Obama promised that over the next 10 years, the federal government will reduce its carbon emissions by 28 percent – and issued an executive order to make it so. “Actions taken under this Executive Order,” the White House declared today, “will spur clean energy investments that create new private-sector jobs, drive long-term savings, build local market capacity, and foster innovation and entrepreneurship in clean energy industries …”

Following the announcement’s release, the Institute for Energy Research (IER) conducted its own fact-check of key assertions contained in the statement. What follows is what we found:

WH Presser: “Achieving the Federal GHG pollution reduction target will reduce Federal energy use by the equivalent of 646 trillion BTUs, equal to 205 million barrels of oil, and taking 17 million cars off the road for one year.  This is also equivalent to a cumulative total of $8 to $11 billion in avoided energy costs through 2020.”

IER: While it’s not entirely clear from where the 646 trillion BTU number was derived (no citation given), the notion that this initiative will result in the “cumulative total of $8 to $11 billion in avoided energy costs through 2020” is difficult to substantiate. What will this initiative cost? Will expected costs exceed “avoided” costs? To argue that this is a cost savings measure is not only disingenuous, it is misleading.  A proper accounting of costs and benefits would include a recognition that there’s no such thing as a free lunch – especially when dealing with renewable energy resources that are, by their very nature, expensive, unreliable and intermittent.

WH Presser: “As the largest energy consumer in the United States, we have a responsibility to American citizens to reduce our energy use and become more efficient,” said President Obama.  “Our goal is to lower costs, reduce pollution, and shift Federal energy expenses away from oil and towards local, clean energy.”

IER: That the U.S. Government is the largest consumer of energy in America is accurate; beyond that, very little of this statement seems to reflect the reality of the present world. It is indeed easy to cast demagogic aspersions on oil – and then leave the podium to board an aircraft that runs entirely on fuels derived from it. More difficult – but more representative of the actions of a leader – is to admit that any attempt to radically restructure the means by which the federal government secures it energy will necessarily require higher costs, higher taxes, and the potential for significant disruption owing to the use of an unreliable, but politically correct, product. Framed in that context, some Americans may still support the broader program – but at least none would be deluded into thinking it can be secured without cost.

WH Presser: “Federal Departments and Agencies will achieve greenhouse gas pollution reductions by measuring their current energy and fuel use, becoming more energy efficient and shifting to clean energy sources like solar, wind and geothermal.”

IER: At its core, this initiative is nothing more than a renewable electricity mandate and a cash for caulkers program wrapped into one, sweet-sounding cipher. While the President cites “avoided” costs, he fails to mention the untold additional costs such a program like this will cost the taxpayer. According to Energy Information Administration (EIA) statistics, wind and solar energy will continue to be the most expensive way of generating electricity for years to come. Click HERE for a levelized cost analysis of all generating technologies.

For additional information, please contact Patrick Creighton, 202-621-2947, or Laura Henderson, 202-621-2951.

#####

• IER President: “Americans need jobs and America needs fuel to drive economic growth and prosperity. Increasing domestic energy production is a common sense solution embraced by a clear majority of Americans”

Washington, DC – Today, one in 10 Americans are out of work. However, the Obama Administration has the opportunity to help create hundreds of thousands of jobs, increase America’s long-term energy security and reduce our dependence on imported energy by allowing responsible, environmentally-sound offshore energy production.

“The President has directed an enormous amount of hard-earned tax dollars to prop up ‘green jobs’ that would otherwise not exist without heavy and ongoing government support. At the same time, this Administration has discouraged common sense job creation efforts, especially responsible offshore oil and gas development,” said Thomas J. Pyle, president of the market-oriented Institute for Energy Research (IER). “And despite widespread public support for increasing all forms of domestic energy – especially offshore – the President and his Administration continue to add layers of red tape and bureaucratic hurdles on access to homegrown energy.”

Pyle is referring to the job-creating energy resources along the outer continental shelf (OCS), an energy-rich area located between 3 and 200 miles off our coast. Developing oil and gas reserves along the OCS has the potential to create 1.2 million jobs and provide an additional $70 billion in annual wages.

“This Administration continues to embrace Washington-dominated, command-and-control national energy policies focused on mandates, subsidies and political favors – not market forces,” continued Pyle. “Subsidizing one form of energy, while restricting the exploration of another, will lead to several measurable outcomes: increased energy prices across the board, fewer jobs and a weaker footing in the global economy.”

According to the Interior Department, this Administration has leased less taxpayer-owned land than any other year on record during its first year in office, while realizing one-tenth the amount of revenue from leasing taxpayer-owned land than it did in 2008.

Pyle notes that free enterprise continues to create tens of thousands of energy-related jobs right here at home.

“Without a government handout or a Washington mandate, natural gas production created nearly 48,000 jobs last year in Pennsylvania alone,” said Pyle. “Now more than ever, Americans need jobs and America needs fuel to drive economic growth and prosperity. Increasing domestic energy production is a common sense solution embraced by a clear majority of Americans. If the President was serious about redirecting our economy and helping to put struggling Americans back to work, he’d move forward aggressively to expand domestic energy production.”

More from IER:

• OCS Economic Impact Study
• Actions Speak Louder Than Words on Domestic Energy Production
• IER sets the record straight on Obama Admin energy leasing program

For additional information, please contact Patrick Creighton, 202-621-2947, or Laura Henderson, 202-621-2951.

#####

IER Prez: Picking winners and losers in the market—the cornerstone of this Administration’s energy agenda—is the quickest path to increasing our dependence on imported energy and driving costs up even further.”

Washington, DC – Thomas J. Pyle, president of the non-partisan market-oriented Institute for Energy Research (IER) issued the following statement today on wind energy and the American Wind Energy Association’s (AWEA) year-end report:

“Using taxpayer subsidies and mandates, the Obama Administration and its allies on Capitol Hill have all but guaranteed that wind energy will be part of our nation’s energy portfolio. But to force the use of technologies that have yet to pass the market test is shortsighted and will lead to increased electricity costs across the board.

“AWEA announced today that installed wind generating capacity in 2009 broke previous records. But big wind misses the point. As much as proponents of wind energy want to ignore the facts, wind is an inefficient and unreliable power source. And, even more importantly, wind is unable to deliver the affordable and reliable electricity this nation needs to drive economic growth.

“The government can waste taxpayer resources to cover the United States with windmills if it so chooses, but it cannot force mother nature to turn those turbines. And while replacing coal or natural gas with the power of the wind might make for a good talking point, this industry will fail in the marketplace as soon as government subsidies dry up.

“That said, I look forward to the day when renewable energy plays a meaningful role in helping to meet our nation’s energy needs. But in the meantime, the government should not prohibit exploration for homegrown fossil fuels and increase the regulatory burden on domestic energy production. Picking winners and losers in the market – the cornerstone of this Administration’s energy agenda – is the quickest path to increasing our dependence on imported energy and driving costs up even further.”

Read more about wind energy:

• IER Fact Sheet: Facts on Energy: Wind
• IER Fact Sheet: Wind, A Historical Perspective
• New York Times (1/15/10): Fossil Fuel Use in 2034? Not Much Different

#####

For additional information, please contact Patrick Creighton, 202-621-2947, or Laura Henderson, 202-621-2951.