View this email in your browser
MORNING ENERGY NEWS  | 03/29/2021
Subscribe Now

The Biden Administration's problem with Solyndra is that there will be more of them.


Western Journal (3/24/21) reports: "President Joe Biden will be following up the $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill with legislation that one report says has the goal of quickly 're-engineering' the country. A recent report in The New York Times said Biden will be proposing 'a sweeping $3 trillion package to boost the economy, reduce carbon emissions and narrow economic inequality' — with some of that potentially being paid for by a tax increase. And a Wednesday report from Axios — headlined, 'Biden’s New Deal: Re-engineering America, quickly' — suggests Biden is prepared to 'jam' that legislation through Congress with no Republican support, if necessary. 'President Biden recently held an undisclosed East Room session with historians that included discussion of how big is too big — and how fast is too fast — to jam through once-in-a-lifetime historic changes to America,' Axios reported. 'The historians’ views were very much in sync with his own: It is time to go even bigger and faster than anyone expected. If that means chucking the filibuster and bipartisanship, so be it.'"

"Congressman Pete DeFazio (D-Airline Industry) chairs the House Transportation Committee wants to deny the reincarnation of Norwegian Air from flying to the U.S. even though at this point there’s no legal ground on which to do so. Low cost competition across the Atlantic is good for consumers, bad for American, United, and Delta so…" 

 

– Gary Leff, View From The Wing

The carbon tax is the most regressive tax on the books. On top of that, Biden wants to use it to pay for his plan to make electricity even more expensive. And the company owned by the guy with a carbon footprint larger than most developing nations is celebrating. Forget Democracy, it will just be dark...


Washington Post (3/27/2021) editorial: "BETTER LATE than never: The American Petroleum Institute, accepting the reality of climate change and the need to do something about it, has officially called for government to set a price on carbon emissions. We can’t help but wonder how much better off the planet might be if the API had come to this position sooner. What seems most important now, however, is the fact that, given similar previous statements from the Business Roundtable and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the API’s new stance creates a broad private-sector front. Though the API and the other business groups aren’t using the precise words 'carbon tax,' the language of their proposals makes clear that it would be acceptable. The shift is obviously in response to President Biden’s defeat of his climate-indifferent predecessor, Donald Trump, in November, and is especially opportune in light of Mr. Biden’s next big legislative priority: a major package, priced at up to $3 trillion over a decade, to rebuild and revamp U.S. infrastructure, with a view toward making the economy less carbon-intensive."

More in bad ideas: DC seeks a less politically costly way to shovel $$$ to cronies.


Forbes (3/26/21) column: "President Biden has made it clear that addressing climate change is one of the primary goals of his administration, and most people want him to do this: polling suggests that a majority of Americans support this position, along with a sizable number of Republicans.  However, the way his administration proposes to achieve this would be needlessly costly to the U.S. economy, as well as taxpayers, by eschewing a simple carbon tax in favor of costly subsidies and restrictive regulations. If voters realize how much more they will pay for energy and all other goods because of this over-regulatory approach, their support for these policies may fall precipitously. An economy-wide carbon pricing regime would allow the market to set the price of carbon and provide businesses an incentive to search for the least costly and most efficient ways to reduce emissions, potentially saving the economy trillions of dollars.  For starters, the Administration's soon-to-be proposed infrastructure package is said to include $60 billion for infrastructure spending, much of which is earmarked to expand investment in producing and transmitting low-carbon energy. "

SFO Fed looking at the impact of rising severe weather on the financial system ignores the fact that there has been no rise.


Wall Street Journal (3/29/21) reports: "A Republican senator, concerned that the U.S. central bank is moving beyond its congressional mandate, is asking the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco for documents on its growing focus on climate and social issues. In a letter to the regional Fed bank, Sen. Pat Toomey, (R., Pa.) said he is concerned that the new research focus of the bank risks destabilizing the central bank’s nonpolitical profile, which could affect its independence. Some of the regional Fed banks, including San Francisco, 'have increasingly been engaged in research on social policy topics reflective of the political and normative leanings of unelected Federal Reserve Bank officials,' wrote Mr. Toomey, the ranking member on the Senate Banking Committee. 'This approach has inserted the Federal Reserve into the emotionally charged political arena—a place where the Federal Reserve seldom has ventured, and for good reason.'"

Energy Markets

 
WTI Crude Oil: ↓ $60.83
Natural Gas: ↑ $2.57
Gasoline: ↑ $2.86
Diesel: ↓ $3.09
Heating Oil: ↑ $180.55
Brent Crude Oil: ↓ $64.40
US Rig Count: ↑ 496

 
Donate
Subscribe to AEA's Unregulated Podcast Subscribe to AEA's Unregulated Podcast
Subscribe to IER's Plugged In Podcast Subscribe to IER's Plugged In Podcast
Friend on Facebook Friend on Facebook
Follow on Twitter Follow on Twitter
Forward to a Friend Forward to a Friend
Our mailing address is:
1155 15th Street NW
Suite 900
Washington, DC xxxxxx
Want to change how you receive these emails?
update your preferences
unsubscribe from this list