|America's independent, non-partisan advocate for overburdened taxpayers.||Home | Donate | RSS | Log in|
California Cap & Trade
The Journal's editorial page today takes a look at California's AB32, aka California's cap & trade bill. Here are the opening couple of paragraphs as background:
California originates many ideas that roll across the country, for better or, lately, for worse. Now it has a global-warming law with no real name, just this: AB32. Last month, the California Air Resource Board (CARB) proclaimed in a report that AB32 would grow 10,000 jobs. This was widely cheered as good news. That's true only if you also repeal basic market economics and the state's current business indicators.
AB32 creates a statewide cap-and-trade program and imposes numerous command-and-control mandates that CARB calls "complementary measures" on businesses, such as low-carbon fuel standards and a goal of achieving 33% energy from renewable sources by 2020. Companies say compliance costs will force them to cut jobs and raise prices.
Unfortunately for Californians, an independent analysis of the measure by Charles River Associates finds that AB32 "would reduce income by 0.9% or $414 per year. Using a variety of scenarios, Charles River calculated the program would cost between $28 billion and $97 billion over the next decade. (emphasis added)"
Fortunately, for Californians, NTU is joining with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and many other allies with the California Jobs Initiative to circulate petitions to protect the state and its citizens from this predatory legislation. To find out how you can help, click here.1 Comments | Post a Comment | Sign up for NTU Action Alerts
Drill Baby Drill
As an organization that works to reduce the size of government and lower the tax burden for citizens, we’ve looked into offshore drilling as a way for the government to raise revenue without raising taxes. Yesterday, the Obama administration proposed opening vast expanses of water along the Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and the north coast of Alaska to oil and natural gas drilling. The proposal would end a longstanding moratorium on oil exploration along the East Coast from the northern tip of Delaware to the central coast of Florida. Under the plan, the coastline north of New Jersey would remain closed to oil and gas activity as well as the Pacific Coast. The proposal is intended to reduce dependence on oil imports and generate revenue from the sale of offshore leases.
Our country’s energy future deserves more than political gamesmanship and the Administration may be onto something here. In fact, California alone consumes more natural gas than all but a handful of countries, ranking tenth in worldwide consumption. We mandate the use of relatively clean natural gas for over half of our electricity generation and yet we severely restrict its production. We also pay the highest natural gas prices in the world!
Interestingly enough, the United States is the only country that bans ocean production of natural gas. Natural gas prices are based on local supply constraints much more than are oil prices. Development of more domestic sources will likely bring lower prices. This is an opportunity to use natural gas to help achieve our goals of reducing greenhouse gases and other emissions and promote energy self-sufficiency.
Additionally, states are also likely to claim rights to the revenues from oil and gas deposits within 3-12 miles of shore and to some portion of lease proceeds. Offshore drilling opens a new chapter in our nation’s search for a comprehensive energy policy and can provide states will the much-needed revenue in order to balance their budgets. Offshore drilling will create jobs and increase the energy supply without cost to the taxpayer. It will create revenues for financially strapped state government and increase revenues for federal governments. President Obama said in his State of the Union address that we should make tough decisions about offshore drilling- looks like a pretty easy decision to me.
1 Comments | Post a Comment | Sign up for NTU Action Alerts
Cost of fuel for Defense Department: location and planning
With the cost of petroleum climbing, and more importantly unpredictably fluctuating, the Pentagon is looking at ways to balance out its behemoth gas consumption – 300,000 per day totaling 1.5% of national consumption. Cost scores include factors such as direct and indirect fuel infrastructure operations, environmental considerations, and regulatory compliance, but force protection for convoys is quickly becoming the largest piece in getting fuel where troops need it.
In a new National Defense article, How Much Does the Pentagon Pay for a Gallon of Gas?, Sandra Erwin helps break down the location costs of military fuel through Defense Logistics Agency estimates:
Of course, costs vary depending on the level of development and connectedness of a particular theater. A $400 per gallon cost in Afghanistan, likely an inflated figure, maybe half the cost in Iraq because, according to Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Ashton Carter, Afghanistan is “landlocked, rugged, [and] the road network is much thinner than Iraq and it has fewer airports.” There are also many crossover fuel exchanges between branches, especially with the Air Force refueling Navy planes but the AF is billed for the consumption.
The Pentagon is looking at ways to both cut consumption with cleaner technologies (flex fuels and fuel cells) and to start seriously considering platform energy consumption at time of design and purchase. With the M1 Abrams Battle Tank performing at 0.6 miles per gallon, we can all get behind more bang for our tax dollars through better practices and goals.0 Comments | Post a Comment | Sign up for NTU Action Alerts
Representative Tom Price gave one of the last speeches at CPAC day 2. Price serves as Chairman of the Republican Study Committee which “is a group of over 110 House Republicans organized for the purpose of advancing a conservative social and economic agenda in the House of Representatives.” He pointed out America is too great to be managed by just one man, especially one man in the While House. That attempted control has resulted in “1 trillion dollars stolen from future generations to weatherize homes” and other decisions American citizens should be making for themselves.0 Comments | Post a Comment | Sign up for NTU Action Alerts
SOTU Update: Cost Estimate for Nuclear Energy Loan Guarantees
In a surprising move, President Obama made a pitch for nuclear energy in his State of the Union address:
"[T]o create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. That means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country.”
For the 2011 budget, the department will add $36 billion to the $18.5 billion already approved for nuclear-power plant loan guarantees, according to the people, who asked not to be identified because the budget hasn't been released.
The cost to taxpayers won't be the full $36 billion for the guarantees, but for the percentage of loans that default. In 2003, S. 14 (108th Congress) contained a provision to furnish federal loan guarantees for the construction of the next generation of nuclear power plants. CBO estimated "that the net present value of amounts recovered by the government on its loan guarantee from continued plant operations following a default and the project's technical and regulatory risk would result in a subsidy cost of 30 percent ... ." Applying that subsidy rate, the President's proposal could cost $10.8 billion, $2.16 billion annually over a five year period.
The Late Edition: May 30, 2013
Today’s Taxpayer News!
NTU’s Pete Sepp explains how the punitive energy taxes some in Congress are proposing can drive up energy prices in this Chicago Grid op-ed.
A poll from Quinnipiac University released today shows that 76% of respondents want a special prosecutor to investigate the IRS’s misconduct of singling out conservative groups for unfair scrutiny. Read the full story from The Hill.0 Comments | Post a Comment | Sign up for NTU Action Alerts