Posted July 14, 2015
Our series highlighting the economic and jobs impact of energy in each of the 50 states continues today with Connecticut. We started our focus on the state level with Virginia on June 29 and began this week with Wisconsin. The energy impacts of the states individually combine to form energy’s national economic and jobs picture: 9.8 million jobs supported and $1.2 trillion in value added.
Information covered in this series can be found online here, arranged on an interactive map of the United States. State-specific information will be populated on this map as the series continues.
Posted July 13, 2015
Another data point in the continuing public discussion of EPA’s plan to make the nation’s standards for ozone more restrictive, even as the existing standards have ozone levels falling 18 percent from 2000 to 2013 – and giving every indication levels will continue to fall. A new study by the Center for Regulatory Solutions (CRS) details how more restrictive ozone standards would impact where a lot of people live: Chicago and the state of Illinois.
According to the study, 21 counties in Illinois would be out of compliance or in “non-attainment” if EPA tightens ground-level standards from the existing 75 parts per billion (ppb) to 65 ppb, as it may do. (The fact is EPA is considering a national level as low as 60 ppb.)
Those 21 counties represent nearly 80 percent of Illinois’ gross domestic product, or $613.4 billion. The CRS study says Cook County and five other counties that surround Chicago would be “ground zero” for the most dramatic ozone reductions, potentially affecting 65 percent of the state’s population, nearly 70 percent of its employment and 73 percent of its GDP.
Posted July 7, 2015
Roll Call (Reps. Joe L. Barton and Henry Cuellar) – The advantages of lifting the ban on crude oil exports are not just theoretical talking points discussed in the halls of Congress, but rather supported by a large and growing body of research by government agencies, academic institutions and think tanks across the political spectrum. The latest is a study released by the Harvard Business School and the Boston Consulting Group. It highlights the obvious benefits lifting the ban will have on American families and businesses, our economy and global allies.
The study discusses the changing U.S. energy landscape and the opportunities made possible by America’s new energy abundance. The fear of a crippling dependence on foreign oil that existed in the 1970s, when the export ban was put in place, is no longer applicable today. In fact, the U.S. is now the world’s top petroleum producer largely due to our recent ability to produce oil and natural gas from shale formations. The world has changed drastically in the past 40 years and it is time for our policies to accurately reflect the current conditions in which we now live. We must embrace the United States’ new leading role on the world energy stage and recognize the value it would create in our everyday lives.
Posted July 2, 2015
A few months ago API President and CEO Jack Gerard explained why America is experiencing an energy revolution:
“We got to this era of energy abundance and global energy leadership because of the entrepreneurial spirit of the private sector, the hard work of the American worker and the unique system of private property and individual rights of the American marketplace.”
Posted June 29, 2015
Posted June 26, 2015
More from the new Wood Mackenzie study comparing the effects on the U.S. energy picture from pro-development policies versus a regulatory-constrained path. We’ve looked at the implications for energy supplies. Today we’ll zero in on two very different scenarios affecting individual American households.
Once again, the study compared impacts on key areas, depending on the energy policy path our country chooses. The pro-development path includes increased access to oil and natural gas reserves, approaches to regulation and permitting that encourage accelerated energy production and export policies that allow U.S. oil and natural gas to reach global markets, stimulating domestic output. The constrained path would pretty much maintain the status quo on access, regulation and exports – costing the United States, as the study shows.
Posted June 25, 2015
Let’s get into some of the detail in the new Wood Mackenzie study that was released this week, starting with the implications for domestic energy supply, found in two vastly different energy paths that U.S. policymakers could take. As the study details, the path we choose will affect energy production, job creation, the economy and the lives of individual Americans.
For context, recall that Wood Mackenzie’s study compared two energy policy paths – one that embraces pro-development, and one that’s characterized by regulatory constraints. Certainly, the constrained path actually would just continue a number of the policies the current administration is advancing.
Posted June 23, 2015
We spend a good deal of time trying to highlight the enormous potential of American energy – in terms of jobs, growth to our economy, greater energy security and more. It’s a big deal. The ongoing U.S. energy revolution is a game-changer – built on safe, responsible domestic oil and natural gas development.
Yet, there’s a caveat: Energy development hinges on energy policy. And as the 2016 election cycle nears, it’s difficult to overstate the importance of choosing policymakers who: (a) recognize the generational opportunities being afforded by American energy, and (b) understand the need for policy paths and regulatory approaches that will sustain and grow our country’s energy renaissance.
The major findings in a new Wood Mackenzie study show in clear terms the stakes for all Americans in choosing the right leadership for the country’s energy future. Wood Mackenzie analyzed and compared the impacts in seven major areas of a future characterized by pro-development policies and also one characterized by regulatory constraints.
Posted June 19, 2015
The issue was energy infrastructure – where the United States is and where things are headed. At the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) annual conference this week, one discussion honed in on the challenges to infrastructure approval and construction – as well as government’s best role in developing projects that are key to U.S. energy transport and overall energy security. The latter produced some friction between speakers not often seen at conferences like EIA’s. More below.
The U.S. Energy Department’s Melanie Kenderdine talked about some of the details in the department’s recently issued Quadrennial Energy Review (QER), which focused on ways to modernize the nation’s infrastructure.
Posted June 12, 2015
For some time we’ve been talking about EPA’s bid to make the nation’s ozone standards more restrictive.
We’ve expressed puzzlement that the agency wants to impose more stringent standards when the existing ones are working – lowering ozone levels 18 percent between 2000 and 2013 according to EPA’s own data. We’ve noted the lack of scientific and public health justification for stricter standards while highlighting potential risks to the economy. If this week’s House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing on ozone was any measure, the issue has the attention of many in Congress.
Top EPA official Janet McCabe was peppered with questions about economic impacts, the arguable wisdom of stricter standards when areas like Los Angeles don’t meet existing standards and EPA’s push for more stringent standards before the current standards are fully implemented in the states.