Washington, DC – In anticipation of President Barack Obama’s return from Asia, the free-market Institute for Energy Research (IER) today released and delivered a policy brief for the president and his advisors on China’s booming energy economy and growth.

Thomas J. Pyle, president of IER, issued this statement:

“By all accounts, the president’s trip to Asia was a successful one, and we welcome him home. However, it’s critical to highlight the commonsense energy policies that China is pursuing. Because of China’s aggressive pursuit for affordable, reliable and secure energy – of all forms – their nation continues to be one of the world’s most powerful economic engines. And our team of experts have prepared a compelling outline of ways the U.S. can learn from China and once again make energy a top priority in this country.

“China is manufacturing coal-fired power plants by the week, nuclear plants every few months, the largest hydro-electric dams on earth, windmills and solar panels for export, and securing up oil and gas reserves around the world. They understand that affordable energy is key to economic activity, growth and prosperity.

“Unfortunately, policymakers in Washington are working to increase the cost of energy and limit access to our most affordable resources while others work tirelessly to shut down our nation’s power plants, regardless if it results in the loss of jobs and higher energy costs. Litigation and inaction from federal bureaucracies continues to delay responsible offshore energy exploration. And while China is deploying next generation nuclear technologies, our government continues to say no to low-carbon nuclear energy.

“We hope someday that expensive and unreliable alternative and renewable energy forms can exist in the market place without significant taxpayer assistance and government mandates. And we hope the president reads this paper with an open mind.”

NOTE: Click HERE to view the briefing paper sent to the President today.

#####

Washington, DC – Offshore energy exploration and production in the United States is safe and environmentally sound. Over the past 50 years, the U.S. oil and gas industry has developed innovative, 21^st century technologies and exploration techniques that are efficient, pose little threat to the environment, and ensure worker safety.

According to the National Academies of Science, less than 1 percent of the oil found in the North American marine environment comes from oil and gas development. Nearly 60 percent, however, is the result of natural seeps.

Thomas J. Pyle, president of the market-oriented Institute for Energy Research (IER), issued this statement in response to today’s Senate Energy Committee hearing on environmental stewardship and offshore energy production:

“Technology and innovation remains key to delivering more homegrown, job-creating American energy, both onshore and off. The facts and history demonstrate that offshore energy production, with today’s 21^st century technologies, poses little to no threat to our marine environment. In fact, marine life actually flourishes in waters shared with energy infrastructure.

“Unfortunately, a de-facto ban on safe, responsible offshore domestic energy development remains in place today, despite the fact that a clear majority of American people want access to the energy that is rightfully theirs. Advanced technologies currently deployed throughout the western Gulf of Mexico – which help deliver huge amounts of energy to keep our economy fueled and moving each day – are testament to the strides made to ensure environmental safety.

“Last summer the American people spoke, and Congress responded when it retired the nearly 30-year ban. It’s time for this administration to unchain the federal government’s stranglehold on so much of our nation’s job-creating energy resources offshore. Slow-walking this commonsense action could make the next energy crisis pale in comparison to the pain of $4 gasoline working families and small businesses felt during the summer of 2008.”

NOTE: Here is brief overview of some of the advanced, 21^st century offshore energy exploration technologies:

Advanced 3-D seismic and 4-D time imaging technologies: enable offshore operators to locate oil and gas resources far more accurately to necessitate less drilling and allow greater resource recovery.

Storm chokes: placed on all offshore wells to detect damage to surface valves and shut down production during an emergency.

Blowout preventers: continuously monitor the subsurface and subsea-bed conditions to prepare for unexpected changes in well pressure.

Waste product reuse technology: transforms drill cuttings, a waste product of rock pieces and drilling fluids produced when drilling a well, into raw material for bricks, roads, and even rebuilding Louisiana’s wetlands.

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

#####

Washington, DC – As part of the ongoing efforts in the US Senate to enact sweeping, energy-rationing legislation, the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing today entitled “Climate Change Legislation: Considerations for Future Jobs.” Following the hearing, Thomas J. Pyle, president of the non-partisan, market-oriented Institute for Energy Research (IER), issued this statement:

“There is perhaps nothing more misleading surrounding the ongoing global warming debate than claims that cap-and-trade legislation will be a jobs boon and will spur economic activity. Look no further than the DeSoto Solar Center in Florida – a Florida Power and Light installation. On his recent visit, President Obama touted the center as the ‘largest solar field in the United States.’ However, the president failed to mention that the panels and other items were all manufactured abroad. The solar cells came from the Philippines; the steel mountings from Canada; the electric boxes from Germany. And how many ‘green jobs’ have been created there? Two full-time employees, six part-time groundskeepers that will work one week a month during the rainy season.

“Cap and trade backers often cite European countries, like Spain and Germany, as a model for the US follow. Yet both of these nations have failed miserably at delivering affordable and reliable energy and creating jobs. Spain’s government has committed more than $753,000 per ‘green job’ over the past 9 years. And in Germany, per worker annual taxpayer subsidies have reached $240,000. Beware of the politician promising you a green job in one hand because he is pick-pocketing you with the other.

“Washington must craft comprehensive energy policies that do not empower Congress or bureaucrats to determine which energy forms win or lose in the market. Cap and trade aims to increase the cost of our most affordable, abundant and reliable energy forms, including coal, oil and natural gas. With unemployment now at a 26-year high, raising energy costs across the board and making it more difficult for us to compete in the global economy is not the right solution to help put Americans back to work.”

READ MORE: Key experts from a recent Washington Post article entitled “Painting a street green hasn’t stimulated one new job”:

In Baltimore, the 300 block of East 23 1/2 Street is getting patched up in time for winter. One economic stimulus program is paying to insulate 11 rental rowhouses, another is paying for furnaces and a third is covering the cost for reflective roofs to be installed by prison inmates in a job-training program.

The block is part of one of the biggest initiatives ever undertaken by the federal government, a nationwide push to improve the energy efficiency of buildings. But as the national unemployment rate crosses into the double digits and Republicans question the stimulus program’s impact, the work on East 23 1/2 — even with all of its activity — has so far not produced a single job.

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

#####

Washington, DC – Today, the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee passed a global warming bill. Following the panel’s vote, Thomas J. Pyle, president of the non-partisan, pro-market Institute for Energy Research (IER), issued this statement:

“The winners today are rent-seeking corporations, Washington special interests and our global competitors, especially China. The timing of this vote – which will weaken America’s ability to compete in the global economy – is particularly ironic, given that just yesterday a U.S. global warming envoy official told Congress that ‘No country holds the fate of the Earth in its hands more than China.’

“Enacting burdensome policies – such as cap-and-trade – will drive energy prices up and make it more difficult to create jobs, wealth and prosperity here in the U.S. China’s hand, however, will only grow stronger, as they continue to aggressively access and develop all forms of energy in their country and across the world. This, in large part, is what has enabled their enormous economic growth and expansion.

“While the members of this committee who voted to advance this legislation may attempt to downplay their vote to increase energy costs for American families, seniors and small businesses as an inside-the-beltway procedural motion, the fact remains that job-killing, carbon regulating legislation has cleared a major hurtle and is a major step closer to becoming law.”

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

#####

Washington, DC – According to a recent Oregonian investigative report, state government officials in Oregon intentionally misled the legislature by withholding critical costs estimates of an extremely expensive ‘green’ energy subsidy program, known as the Business Energy Tax Credit, which would ultimately cost taxpayers millions more than the disclosed amount.

The Oregonian’s Harry Esteve reports this:

According to documents obtained under Oregon’s public records law, agency officials estimated in a Nov. 16, 2006, spreadsheet that expanding the [green energy] tax credits would cost taxpayers an additional $13 million in 2007-09. But after a series of scratch-outs and scribbled notes, a new spreadsheet pared the cost to $1.8 million. And when energy officials handed their final estimate to the Legislature in February 2007, they pegged the added cost at just $1.2 million for the first two years and $4.1 million for 2009-11.

The higher estimates were never shown to lawmakers. Current and former energy staffers acknowledged a clear attempt to minimize the cost of the subsidies.

Thomas J. Pyle, president of the non-partisan market-based Institute for Energy Research (IER), issued the following statement:

“Green jobs and green energy are simply not feasible without massive government subsidies, mandates and sometimes – as it appears in the case of Oregon – outright deception and dishonest acts. What was uncovered this weekend in Oregon is only the tip of the iceberg. Many rent seeking, corporate-welfare searching ‘green energy’ businesses seem more concerned with securing taxpayer-funded government handouts than producing jobs, dividends, growth, and reliable energy.

“Like Spain’s experience with green jobs, Oregon’s wind energy and other green jobs are temporary and simply would not exist if it weren’t for massive government subsidies and huge corporate handouts, bankrolled by hardworking everyday taxpayers.”

NOTE: Since 2007, when the Oregon legislature approved the governor’s massive Business Energy Tax Credit increase, unemployment has more than doubled, rising from 5 percent in January 2007, to 11.5 percent today.

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

#####

Washington, DC – Though proponents of so-called government-funded ‘green jobs’ often reference the ‘success’ European countries have enjoyed in their experiments with such regulations and mandates, a study released today in the United States sheds new light on Germany’s experience with renewable energy and heavy taxpayer subsidies. Entitled ‘Economic impacts from the promotion of renewable energies: The German Experience,’ the study was published by German think tank Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (RWI).

According to the study, “Germany’s experience with renewable energy promotion is often cited as a model to be replicated elsewhere, being based on a combination of far-reaching energy and environmental laws that stretch back nearly two decades.” Researchers add this: “German renewable energy policy … has failed to harness the market incentives needed to ensure a viable and cost-effective introduction of renewable energies into the country’s energy portfolio.”

Thomas J. Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research (IER) – a non-partisan market-oriented energy think tank – issued the following statement:

“Today, Vice President Biden will tout the economic benefits of ‘green jobs’ and ‘green energy.’ However, this new analysis from Germany only further emphasizes the fact that when renewable energy has been mandated and subsidized by taxpayers, economies have constricted and suffered. Germany, like Spain, is just another example of how billions of tax dollars forced to support wind and solar energy create not a hint of economic or environmental benefits.

“Some in Washington, who are working to restrict, mandate and subsidize certain energy forms that would otherwise be unaffordable, continue to offer Germany as a case-study for success. However, such a policy could increase electricity prices nearly 20 percent and require a subsidy of nearly $240,000 dollars per ‘green job.’

“This study should serve as a cautionary tale of what is likely to occur should the US continue down the road of mandating politically-favored, expensive power. We would be well served to learn from, and not repeat, the mistakes of Germany, Spain and Denmark.”

Key findings:

• Financial aid to Germany’s solar industry has now reached a level that far exceeds average wages, with per worker subsidies as high as $240,000 US.

• In 2008, the price mark-up attributable to the government’s support for “green” electricity was about 2.2 cents US per kWh. For perspective, a 2.2 cent per kWh increase here in the US would amount to an average 19.4% increase in consumer’s electricity bills.

• Government support for solar energy between 2000 and 2010 is estimated to have a total net cost of $73.2 billion US, and $28.1 billion US for wind. A similar expenditure in the US would amount to about half a trillion dollars US.

• Green jobs created by government actions disappear as soon as government support is terminated, a lesson the German government and the green companies it supports are beginning to learn.

• Government aid for wind power is now three times the cost of conventional electricity.

On Monday, report co-author Dr. Colin Vance will be in Washington, D.C., part of a three-day tour (Monday-Wednesday) aimed at explaining to a wider American audience the core conclusions of their report. Those interested in speaking with Dr. Vance or setting up an interview should contact Patrick Creighton (202.621.2947) or Laura Henderson (202.621.2951).

More on the RWI Study

• Fact Sheet: Strike Three:  First Spain, Then Denmark, and Now Germany…

• Notable Quotes: Should the U.S. Follow Germany’s Renewable Energy Experiment?

• In pictures: Impact on electricity rates by region and by state

• Study: Economic impacts from the promotion of renewable energies: The German Experience

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

#####

WASHINGTON – In advance of Wednesday’s Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing on the economic consequences of climate change legislation, the Institute for Energy Research (IER) today released an analysis entitled ‘The Other Half of Waxman-Markey: An Examination of the Non-Cap-and-Trade Provisions.’ As the title suggests, the report identifies and analyzes several of the provisions included in the House climate bill unrelated to cap-and-trade, but taken on the whole, potentially just as harmful to the U.S. economy as the components of the bill attracting all the headlines.

IER President Thomas J. Pyle released the following statement about the new study:

“Though nearly all of the debate surrounding Waxman-Markey and its new Senate counterpart, Kerry-Boxer, has centered on cap-and-trade, there is much more to this legislation than just that one policy. This bill is chock-full of provisions that mandate everything from the kind of light bulbs we can use in our swimming pools to the amount of electricity that utilities will be forced to provide from politically correct, unreliable, and unaffordable sources.

“While the bill boldly announces itself ready and willing to regulate fundamental aspects of Americans’ daily lives, harder to find is any explanation of how it will actually improve our environment, or enhance the quality of life of those who live within it. One would’ve thought those considerations could have found their way into a nearly 700-page bill. But they did not, and it’s hard to imagine they will moving forward.”

More information on the study:

• Fact Sheet: Highlights of the Rest of Waxman-Markey
• Summary: A Brief Overview of Waxman-Markey’s Non-Cap-and-Trade Provisions
• Study: The Other Half of Waxman-Markey: An Examination of the Non-Cap-and-Trade Provisions

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

#####

Thomas J. Pyle, president of IER, a market-oriented energy think tank, issued the following statement in response to today’s hearing:

“The direct transfer of wealth, jobs and opportunity from the United States to the rest of the world has begun in earnest, as a program sold to Americans under the banner of ‘green jobs,’ but, in reality, will generate little more than pink slips. Unfortunately, rather than working to ensure that Europe’s failed experiments don’t harm us more than they already have, a number of committee members today actually called on Congress to send more of our taxpayer money overseas, viewing this as some sort of bizarre solution for addressing climate change.

“As Dr. Hayward testified today, America’s subsidization of expensive, unreliable forms of energy cannot be sustained domestically, and cannot be defended as a foreign transfer aboard. It’s my hope that the committee left today’s hearing with a better understanding of what we can expect under this regime, and a better appreciation of the consequences it would necessarily visit upon the American people.”

The following excerpts were taken from Dr. Hayward’s prepared remarks:

“At the present time, the U.S. runs a trade deficit in renewable energy technologies, and there is good reason to expect this to continue, especially if there is a significant expansion in the deployment of renewable sources here in the U.S.”

If the U.S. and Europe place a higher price on carbon while the developing world does not, it will ironically make fossil fuels more attractive for the developing world. Either way, it is easy to predict that in ten years our leading energy technology export will still be oil and gas drilling equipment, where we currently enjoy a trade surplus.”

“Above all, policymakers should regard with skepticism claims of net new jobs in the energy sector that depend on subsidies or mandates.”

• Click HERE to view Dr. Steven Hayward’s testimony from today. Hayward, a F. K. Weyerhaeuser Fellow in Law and Economics at the American Enterprise Institute, is an IER board member.
• Click HERE to view a recent Washington Post article on green jobs entitled “In Michigan, A Yellow Light for Green Jobs.”
• Click HERE to read a WHAG-TV report under the headline “Is President Obama Overpromising Green Jobs?”

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

#####

“It doesn’t take an advanced legal mind to interpret what Congress meant in the Deep Water Royalty Relief Act – it’s right there in black and white. Unfortunately, now that this case has officially come to a close, it will likely be used by those who oppose responsible energy development as a cudgel to beat Congress into passing bad legislation that would otherwise have no legitimate place in the energy debate.

“Make no mistake. Oil and gas revenues from federal lands and waters contributed more than $23 billion dollars to the Treasury in 2008 – making this the single largest revenue raiser after federal income tax receipts. And with scarcely three percent of the outer continental shelf currently leased for energy exploration, it’s fair to say we haven’t even scratched the surface of what could be a multi-trillion-dollar resource.

“Today’s court ruling represents a clear victory for the rule of law, and an unambiguous rebuke to those in the administration who believe they have the unilateral power to make law, instead of the faithful obligation to enforce it.”

Note: According to an economic analysis commissioned by the American Energy Alliance, robust offshore energy exploration and production would generate $8 trillion in additional economic output (GDP); $2.2 trillion in total tax receipts; 1.2 million new, well-paying jobs annually across the country; and $70 billion in additional wages each year.

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

#####

Who Benefits From Free Emission Allowances? (PDF 358 KB)

WASHINGTON – With Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) expected to reveal a draft of the Senate’s climate bill this week, free-market think tank Institute for Energy Research (IER) released a new analysis today outlining how cap-and-trade would precipitate a financial windfall for well-connected special interests and politically-favored companies.  The study, entitled “Who Benefits from Free Emission Allowances? An Economic Analysis of the Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade,” details how shareholders, not ratepayers, will be the primary beneficiaries of cap-and-trade’s largess. The analysis also outlines the significant wealth-transfer that cap-and-trade would initiate – a $14 billion redistribution of resources from the nation’s poorest citizens to the nation’s wealthiest citizens.

The study’s lead author, Andrew Chamberlain, issued the following statement today:

“Many of the current estimates of cap-and trade’s distributional impact are in direct contradiction to microeconomic theory. Using implausible assumptions about free emissions allowances, the government’s analysis concludes that the costs associated with cap-and-trade legislation are progressive. Unfortunately, they are almost certainly regressive, with America’s top income-earners profiting by more than $14 billion per year, and low- and middle-income households footing a large portion of the burden. What’s more, the free allowances distributed under Waxman-Markey will result in large windfall profits for the corporate allies of the legislation.”

Based on these findings, IER economist Bob Murphy made the following remarks:

“Andrew Chamberlain’s analysis of the Waxman-Markey bill’s cap-and-trade title illustrates just how flawed and skewed this legislation is toward rent-seeking special interests. For one, Chamberlain puts to rest the ‘postage stamp a day’ claim that proponents and some in the media point to as the cost of this misguided legislation. And secondly, and more important, it shows that cap-and-trade, as outlined in Waxman-Markey, is nothing more than a transfer of wealth from the poorest to the richest among us.

“These new findings should send a clear message to the American people – cap-and-trade helps the powerful and hurts the rest of us. And as Congress’ corporate allies receive the bulk of the benefits Waxman-Markey has to offer, our environment, along with our struggling economy, will suffer for years to come. Congress needs to get out of the business of picking winners and losers and allow the market to determine which energy and electricity sources should power our economy.”

Note: To speak with ANDREW CHAMBERLAIN or BOB MURPHY, please contact Laura Henderson, (202) 621-2951, lhenderson@ierdc.org, or Patrick Creighton, (202) 621-2947, pcreighton@ierdc.org

More from IER on the Chamberlain Study:

Summary: Who Benefits From Free Emission Allowances?

Fact Sheet: Main Street Under Attack from Cap-and-Trade

Study: Who Benefits From Free Emission Allowances? An Economic Analysis of The Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade Program

The Institute for Energy Research (IER) is a not-for-profit organization that conducts intensive research and analysis on the functions, operations, and government regulation of global energy markets. IER maintains that freely-functioning energy markets provide the most efficient and effective solutions to today’s global energy and environmental challenges and, as such, are critical to the well-being of individuals and society.

#####