Your Morning Energy News

View this email in your browser ([link removed])
MORNING ENERGY NEWS | 06/22/2021
Subscribe Now ([link removed])


** No matter how much Biden destroys, the greens will always be disappointed.
------------------------------------------------------------
The Guardian ([link removed]) (6/22/21) reports: "On his first day at the White House, Joe Biden earned praise for following through on several campaign promises, committing the US to strict climate goals and a greener future. Now, nearly six months into his presidency, several of those commitments are being put to the test, and already, many are falling apart. A court last week ruled that the Biden administration did not have the authority to unilaterally pause oil and gas lease sales across the US. The decision came alongside news that congressional bargaining over Biden’s climate and infrastructure bill is hitting a wall with Republicans and the administration is now considering a slimmed-down version. Together, the developments are compounding a list of worries by environmentalists. Many fear Biden’s promises on climate may turn out to be more talk than action. 'We aren’t seeing the fight and the grit that gives us the full hope,' said Jeremy Nichols, climate
and energy program director of WildEarth Guardians. 'There’s something to be said about posturing and sending the message that you are for real, these aren’t just words, that these are values, and they are going to fight for them and build the right level of support to get things across the finish line.'"


** "Instead of merely dismissing the faux science that lends support to climate alarmism as a “hoax,” conservatives must do more to engage with and reclaim the growing body of scientific evidence that supports their climate-change realism."
------------------------------------------------------------


– Benjamin Zycher, American Enterprise Institute ([link removed])

============================================================

They're always looking for the next grift.

** Wall Street Journal ([link removed])
(6/21/21) reports: "Solar panels are part of any formula for fighting climate change, yet the U.S. makes few of them, since subsidized manufacturers in China dominate the market. First Solar Inc. is trying to change that. It has just committed to building a new $680 million panel factory in Ohio. A key reason is the company’s confidence that Washington will have its back. After years of decline, the fragile American solar industry is hoping for a turnabout bolstered by President Biden’s plans to make the U.S. electric grid carbon-free by 2035, and his insistence on a made-in-America transition that would create jobs and bolster industries deemed critical. In seeking to 'reshore' manufacturing that has moved offshore, the Biden administration is initially focusing on four industries to bolster with tax breaks or other government support. One is pharmaceuticals, whose importance the pandemic shows. The other three—semiconductors, advanced batteries and minerals crucial for electronics—are
important for next-generation renewable energy. Many of the plans would require congressional approval. Solar power isn’t named as an administration priority so far, but it is lobbying for tariff or tax-law support on grounds it, too, is critical to America’s future. The Biden administration already supports extending tax credits for solar-panel purchases and is weighing whether to back tax credits that would give domestic panel makers a lift and disadvantage imports."

Every 'regulator' who puts preformative virtue-signaling ahead of ensuring round-the-clock energy needs to be out on the street.

** E&E News ([link removed])
(6/22/21) reports: "South Carolina energy regulators rejected Duke Energy Corp.'s long-term electricity plan Thursday, an unusual rebuke that could push one of the biggest U.S. utility companies to add more solar and battery storage to the grid. Meanwhile, some North Carolina Democratic lawmakers, clean energy advocates and consumer groups pushed back against a wide-ranging energy bill that made its legislative debut last week, saying it is too costly and would not do enough to transition Duke's fleet away from fossil fuels. The battles come at a time when the Biden administration, North Carolina and Duke have set carbon-neutral targets by 2050. Separately, South Carolina's electric companies must follow the 2019 Energy Freedom Act, which is aimed at boosting renewables and other CO2-free technologies by requiring major power producers to consider procuring all sources of electricity generation. 'I believe that there's more work for Duke to do,' said Justin Williams, chair of the South
Carolina Public Service Commission, at last week's business meeting. The decision last Thursday comes 10 months after Charlotte, N.C.-based Duke filed its integrated resource plan (IRP) with regulators in both North and South Carolina...Broadly, they asked Duke to use different natural gas pricing forecasts and change how it models solar and battery storage."

There are no problems the government can handle better than privately funded innovation and no amount of wasted tax dollars is going to change that.

** Cato Institute ([link removed])
(6/16/21) blog: "A bipartisan group led by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) wants to counter China with legislation to dramatically increase government funding of pure science (science that is mainly concerned with theory rather than practical applications). They call their bill the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act. But if they really want to spur innovation and competition, they should be trying to slash science subsidies, not increase them...Advocates for government funding of science will point to the many good things it has helped produce, including the internet. Vast funds for research will indeed yield good things, but the government studies cited above show that the costs of that research merely equal the benefits. In stark contrast, the costs of private research are dwarfed by their benefits. The plural of anecdote is not data; and if we are to get policy right, we should look to systematic cost‐​benefit studies, not anecdotes. After the Soviets launched Sputnik in
1957, the federal government hugely increased its funding of research. Yet rates of growth in U.S. GDP per capita did not rise, and rates of productivity growth actually fell. That implies that government funding of research crowded out more useful work Today, China has only a quarter of the U.S.‘s GDP per capita. The federal government need not create a bogeyman out of an economic runt. Nor need it repeat the wasteful science expenditures it made after 1957. "

** ([link removed])

Energy Markets


WTI Crude Oil: ↓ $73.65
Natural Gas: ↑ $3.25
Gasoline: ↓ $3.06

Diesel: ~ $3.22
Heating Oil: ↓ $214.10
Brent Crude Oil: ↑ $74.91
** US Rig Count ([link removed])
: ↓ 530



** Donate ([link removed])
** Subscribe to AEA's Unregulated Podcast ([link removed])
** Subscribe to AEA's Unregulated Podcast ([link removed])
** Subscribe to IER's Plugged In Podcast ([link removed])
** Subscribe to IER's Plugged In Podcast ([link removed])
** Friend on Facebook ([link removed])
** Friend on Facebook ([link removed])
** Follow on Twitter ([link removed])
** Follow on Twitter ([link removed])
** Forward to a Friend ([link removed])
** Forward to a Friend ([link removed])
Our mailing address is:
** 1155 15th Street NW ([link removed])

** Suite 900 ([link removed])

** Washington, DC xxxxxx ([link removed])
Want to change how you receive these emails?
** update your preferences ([link removed])

** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])