Search This Blog

Showing posts with label Obama and energy policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama and energy policy. Show all posts

Monday, April 23, 2012

Gas Taxes in the States


Gasoline prices have become a big policy issue, especially during this election year.
 
And justifiably so. After all, contrary to the declarations of President Obama, policy does in fact affect the price of oil and prices at the pump. That includes policies that prohibit oil exploration and development both offshore and onshore, along with regulations that seek to raise the costs of carbon-based energy.
 
And then there are taxes. At the federal level, for example, Mr. Obama has been pushing a package of tax increases on energy firms that would accomplish nothing more than reducing resources available for investment and production by such firms, and ultimately raise costs for consumers, including small businesses.
 
A survey done by TechnoMetrica for the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council released in mid-March made clear how small firms are impacted by higher gas prices:
 
• 72 percent of respondents say that higher gas prices are impacting their business.
• 41 percent of small business owners said higher prices were affecting their plans to hire.
• 22 percent of small business owners have cut back on employee hours.
• 40 percent of small business owners have raised their prices.
• 43 percent of respondents agreed with the following statement: “My business will not survive if energy prices continue to remain high or increase further.” (23 percent strongly agreed with the statement.)
 
Nonetheless, in late March, U.S. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) put forth the President’s tax increases, coupled with subsidies for politically preferred, but noneconomic energy sources. Fortunately, that measure failed in the Senate.
 
Of course, though, states weigh in with their own taxes that impact the costs of gas and diesel for individuals, families and businesses. While various factors come into play in terms of the different prices paid at the pump from state to state, taxes certainly matter.
 
Gasoline and diesel taxes, therefore, are included in SBE Council’s “Business Tax Index 2012,” which ranks the 50 states and District of Columbia according to how burdensome their tax systems are on entrepreneurship and small business.
 
The following shows how the states ranked on gasoline taxes (in dollars per gallon):
 
RankStateGasTax
1Alaska0.080
2Wyoming0.140
3New Jersey0.145
4South Carolina0.168
5Oklahoma0.170
6Missouri0.173
7Mississippi0.188
8New Mexico0.189
9Arizona0.190
10New Hampshire0.196
11Virginia0.198
12tLouisiana0.200
12tTexas0.200
14Alabama0.209
15Tennessee0.214
16Arkansas0.218
17tColorado0.220
17tIowa0.220
19tDelaware0.230
19tNorth Dakota0.230
21tDist. of Columbia0.235
21tMaryland0.235
21tMassachusetts0.235
24South Dakota0.240
25Utah0.245
26tIdaho0.250
26tKansas0.250
28Vermont0.261
29Nebraska0.276
30tKentucky0.278
30tMontana0.278
32Ohio0.280
33Minnesota0.281
34Georgia0.294
35Oregon0.310
36Maine0.315
37Pennsylvania0.323
38Wisconsin0.329
39Rhode Island0.330
40Nevada0.331
41West Virginia0.334
42Florida0.350
43Washington0.375
44tIllinois0.389
44tIndiana0.389
46North Carolina0.392
47Michigan0.394
48Hawaii0.471
49tCalifornia0.486
49tConnecticut0.486
51New York0.490
  
So, consider the price differences of a gallon of gasoline between two neighboring states: New Jersey and New York. According to GasBuddy.com (accessed on April 18), the average price for a gallon of gasoline in New Jersey stood at $3.773. Meanwhile, right next door in New York, the average price was $4.127.
 
That’s a price difference of $0.354.
 
The per gallon tax in New York, as noted above, was $0.49 (highest among the states), while in New Jersey, it was $0.145 (third lowest levy).
 
That’s a difference of $0.345 per gallon in taxes.
 
Like I said, taxes matter when it comes to prices paid at the pump.

Raymond J. Keating is chief economist for the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council. His new book is “Chuck” vs. the Business World: Business Tips on TV.

Monday, April 09, 2012

A Pro-Drilling Turn for President Obama?

It's an election year, prices at the gas pump are up, and the Obama administration has a track record of being hostile to almost all efforts to expand energy exploration and production at home. That, of course, can make for a rough road to reelection.

What to do?

Well, start ramping up the rhetoric to get people to ignore the facts, and instead believe that the administration is doing as much as it possibly can on the energy front. Tossing in an item or two that seems to go against type always helps as well.

Along those line, the U.S. Department of the Interior recent announcement about possibly allowing seismic surveys off part of the East Coast in 2013 amounts to nothing more than additional delaying tactics. In reality, the Obama administration has eliminated any possibility of energy development off the Atlantic Coast until after a second four years of an Obama administration, if the President were to win reelection in November.

On April 2 came another announcement by the Interior Department, which asserted that the process for drilling on public lands would be accelerated under a new process, dropping the time period from 298 days to 60 days or less, according to an Associated Press report. The new procedures would be in effect by May 2013.

But doubts and problems remain. For example, as AP also reported, "Ron Ness, president of the North Dakota Petroleum Council, which represents more than 200 companies working in the state, said the permitting process on federal land is overly burdensome and agencies are understaffed at present to deal with the rise in oil production in North Dakota and elsewhere. Ness said streamlining the permit process on federal land is welcome, ‘but proof is in the pudding.'"

Others voiced what might be called cautious optimism. Erik Milito, upstream director of API, explained, "Today's announcement sounds promising but we would suggest additional reforms are needed. We support any system that will ensure efficiency and a clear, consistent application process. Most important, the administration needs to streamline the multi-year timeframe for environmental reviews and open additional areas for responsible energy development."

A January 2012 study by EIS Solutions, done for API, found, "The decline in oil and gas leasing, permitting, and new drilling on the nation's public lands since 2009 have come at a high cost to America - namely, a significant loss of domestically produced oil and natural gas, thousands of jobs in the energy-rich western United States, and the forfeit of hundreds of millions of dollars in state and federal tax revenues, royalties, and lease payments to western states and the U.S. Treasury."

After taking into consideration the economic downturn and the trend in development on private lands, the study points out: "These facts strongly suggest that the downturn in oil and natural gas activity on the nation's federal lands is due to something beyond the nation's difficult economic circumstances. A host of new rules, policies and administrative actions that are not conducive to oil and natural gas production on federal land are a culprit. The slowdown in new leases, permits and wells drilled on BLM lands is, in real part attributable to the direction of current federal land energy policy."

The Obama administration seems to want to have it both ways. The White House has danced to the anti-carbon-based-energy tunes being played by green extremists, while trying to disguise the realities of such wrongheaded policies with token changes and some political rhetoric.

However, President Obama's core hostility to energy development cannot be hidden. It seems he simply cannot help himself. For example, in a March 29 speech, the President declared, "Today, members of Congress have a simple choice to make: They can stand with the big oil companies, or they can stand with the American people."

That, of course, is an absurd statement based on the economic reality that oil firms need to work to meet consumer demand for energy. But the statement is not just about politics, either. It seems to be another reflection of the anti-business, anti-energy beliefs held deeply by this president.

_______

Raymond J. Keating is chief economist for the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council. His new book is "Chuck" vs. the Business World: Business Tips on TV.

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Obama's Regulatory Blinders

The Obama White House's ignorance or simple disregard of the impact that policy has on business and the economy continues unabated.

One of the latest examples came as the U.S. House of Representatives moved to try to rein in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the matter of costly regulations.

In a statement, White House spokesman Jay Carney declared, "We wish House Republicans would spend less time focused on these ideological debates and more time focused on the things we can agree on to create jobs and grow the economy."

If it were not so sad for businesses, employees and those seeking work, this would be funny. After all, it's hard to think of any other presidential administration over the past six decades that's been as ideological, with economic blinders on, in its policy agenda as this White House.

The EPA has been a leading example of regulation running amok.

On Friday, September 23, the House voted to slow down and try to rationalize the EPA regulatory process. By a vote of 249-169, with 19 Democrats joining Republicans in favor, the House approved the TRAIN Act - or the "Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation Act of 2011" (HR 2401), introduced by Reps. John Sullivan (R-OK) and Jim Matheson (D-UT) - that would require a more comprehensive, cabinet-level review of the impact that EPA rules would have on the economy, including on jobs, businesses, and energy supplies and prices. In addition, the legislation would stop the EPA from imposing two rules - one finalized and the other upcoming - that would mandate reductions in various emissions from power plants, refineries, and other industries, and require the agency to rewrite or draft new proposals.

Reining in the EPA's regulatory overreach is not about ideology. Instead, it's very much about the economy and jobs.

For example, the Houston Chronicle reported on September 23: "The cross-state rule requires power plants in 27 states including Texas to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides that EPA says can harm health across state lines. Texas officials and utilities say it could force some power plants to shut down when it takes effect on Jan. 1, 2012, and cause electricity disruptions and blackouts... Dallas-based Luminant Generation Co., Texas' largest electricity provider, said early last week that it would sue the EPA. The rule is forcing the company to shut down two units at a coal-fired power plant and cut 500 workers, Luminant said."

Regarding a requirement that the EPA review the economic impact of its upcoming "Tier 3" regulations for gasoline, API noted: "The new requirements could boost the cost of making gasoline by up to 25 cents per gallon, close up to seven U.S. refineries, and drive up carbon dioxide emissions by up to 7.4 million tons a year because of the increased energy needed to manufacture the new fuel blend, according to a study by energy consulting firm Baker& O'Brien."

In general, the EPA's moves to impose additional regulations on fossil-fuel-generated power, as Reuters has reported, means that utilities are going to be forced to close many coal-powered plants. The Reuters report noted: "Stricter regulations being formulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reduce air and water pollution as well as to control the handling of coal waste are expected to force the retirement of between 30,000 and 70,000 MW of coal and other fossil-fired generation across the country, according to several industry studies." Reuters' "partial list of U.S. coal plants that energy companies expect to retire in the coming years" tallied up to 52 plants.

In the end, all of this translates into higher costs for small businesses and consumers, in particular when it comes to energy.

Unfortunately, while there are very real economic costs, it's hard to see any substantive benefits that would accrue in terms of the environment. The so-called benefits seem to be more about assertions and emotion.

There should be nothing controversial about requiring a sound analysis of how increased regulation will affect our economy. Indeed, the only reason that the administration is opposed to such a measure goes back to ideology. They don't want the economic and environmental realities that the costs would far exceed the benefits to get in the way of expanding the regulatory state.

_______

Raymond J. Keating is chief economist for the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council. His new book is "Chuck" vs. the Business World: Business Tips on TV.

Thursday, May 26, 2011

Issa Challenges the White House on Energy

It's refreshing when elected officials directly confront bad policymaking. That was the case in the House of Representatives' Oversight and Government Reform Committee on May 24.

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) led a hearing and highlighted a new report from the committee focused on the Obama administration's undermining of U.S. domestic energy production.

In a statement, the Chairman noted that the White House's emphasis on "green" energy technologies has clearly come at the expense of the development of much-needed carbon-based energy. In addition, EPA and Interior regulations "are having a detrimental impact on independent energy producers." Issa added, "Viewed in tandem with Obama Administration efforts to slow production from the Gulf of Mexico, block ‘fracking' a technology that would increase domestic oil production by 40 percent in only five years, and stifle production on public lands, this can be seen as nothing less than a concerted campaign to raise the price of energy as a means to force the issue of green alternatives. Today's hearing exposed the many ways the government is limiting access to our vast natural resources. With this understanding, Congress can enact policies that support American businesses and consumers, rather than give more reasons to look overseas for economic opportunities and more favorable regulatory climates."

For anyone concerned about domestic energy production, the committee's 42-page report, "Rising Energy Costs: The Intentional Result of Government Action," is must reading. It lays out key details about the nation's energy resources, the changes in technology that have expanded the discovery of and access to those resources, and the many governmental obstacles and problems that limit domestic energy production.

In terms of U.S. energy resources and the industry, the report highlights the following:

• "America's combined energy resources are the largest on earth. They eclipse Saudi Arabia (3rd), China (4th) and Canada (6th) combined - and that's without including America's shale oil deposits. U.S. proven reserves of oil total 19.1 billion barrels, reserves of natural gas total 244.7 trillion cubic feet, and natural gas liquids reserves of 9.3 billion barrels. ... Undiscovered technically recoverable oil in the United States is 145.5 billion barrels, and undiscovered technically recoverable natural gas is 1,162.7 trillion cubic feet."

• "The shale gas reserves of Appalachia are a game changer for the future of American energy security. The United States has 2,552 trillion cubic feet (TCf) of potential natural gas resources, enough to last 110 years at current usage rates. Almost one-third of these resources are from shale gas -- considered uneconomical to extract until just a few years ago. Newly recoverable shale reserves, both oil and gas, have revitalized the oil and gas industry in Appalachia and across the United States - from North Dakota to south Texas to California. The Marcellus Shale formation lies below many of the Appalachian states and extends up to New York. In 2002, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated the Marcellus held 1.9 TCF of natural gas. In 2009, the Department of Energy estimated the Marcellus holds 262 TCF of recoverable natural gas."

• As for Alaska: "A National Energy Technology Laboratory study estimates that this region has the potential for the exploration and development of as much as 28 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil and 125 trillion cubic feet of economically recoverable gas through 2050."

• "The exploration and production portion of the industry employs about 500,000 workers at a wage rate over 50 percent higher than the average of all manufacturing."

Meanwhile, among the hurdles and costs imposed by the Obama administration, the committee reports the following:

• "In its FY2012 budget, the Obama Administration requests over $60 billion in direct tax and fee increases (over ten years) on American energy production."

• "Despite the success of fracking, federal agencies appear to be in a race to see which one can regulate it first. The Department of Interior announced last November that it will consider regulating fracking on federal lands. The EPA, which concluded seven years ago that fracking ‘poses little or no threat' to drinking water supplies, is revisiting the issue. Having found no evidence that fracking chemicals reach drinking water, EPA now wants to study the entire lifecycle of the water used... Federal regulation by EPA, DOE, and DOI would cause needless delay and uncertainty along with multiple additional layers of red tape. Ultimately, federal intervention will chill investment and decrease energy independence."

• President George W. Bush and a Democrat-led Congress allowed a federal moratorium on energy exploration and development over most offshore areas to expire at the end of September 2008. "This opened 500 million additional acres for new energy production that contain an estimated 14 billion barrels of oil and 55 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. However, the promise of expanded access to the OCS and the accompanying increase in domestic supplies of energy was short lived."

As noted later, while billed as being pro-energy development, at the end of March 2010, the Obama administration issued "a significant retraction from the 2008 decision to lift the moratorium. Under the Obama plan, the majority of the areas open for drilling were once again closed, cutting off access to all of the Pacific Coast, the Northeastern Atlantic and Bristol Bay in Alaska, which put 13.14 billion barrels of oil and 41.49 trillion cubic feet of natural gas back under lock and key."

• After the BP oil spill, the Obama administration imposed a moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. After that first moratorium was invalidated in the courts, a second moratorium was imposed, which amounted to "a post hoc rationalization of the original moratorium." It is important to note: "However, according to testimony of Rebecca M. Blank, Under Secretary for U.S. Economic Affairs at the Department of Commerce, the Administration never once conducted a study of the economic impact the moratorium would have on the Gulf Coast economy and on oil production."

While it was announced that the moratorium ended in October of last year, "The moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico was replaced by a ‘permitorium' - whereby drilling activity remained at a standstill not by operation of law - but because of inaction on the part of BOEMRE" (Bureau of Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement), in terms of issuing permits.

• As for new regulations: "As a result of the BP Oil Spill, BOEMRE promulgated a series of regulations that coincided with the entire reorganization of the agency from the former MMS. These reforms are some of the most aggressive changes to offshore oil and gas production in U.S. history and range from new rules covering safety, oversight, and environmental protection for permitting, drilling, and development processes for oil and gas operations. In some cases, these new regulations apply to both offshore operations themselves as well as the businesses that deal directly with offshore rigs - many of which are small businesses."

• And in terms of onshore obstacles to development, the Oversight report notes a decline in new leases in 2009 and 2010, the deferral of lease parcels, failures in terms of unissued and withdrawn leases, and project approval delays.

• The EPA also has overstepped its bounds as regulator in Texas, including coordinating its actions with environmental activists.

• For good measure, the Fish and Wildlife Service has used its Endangered Species List power to threaten "oil and gas production in the Permian Basin of west Texas - which currently produces nearly 20% of the country's crude oil."

This Oversight Committee report serves a crucial purpose. It allows us to get past political rhetoric that sounds pro-energy, and exposes the reality of the Obama administration's anti-domestic energy agenda.

_______

Raymond J. Keating is chief economist for the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council.

Monday, January 31, 2011

The State of the Union vs. the Economic Realities of Energy

When it comes to energy, the President's State of the Union address was a strange mix.

The good news came in terms of what the President did not say. Specifically, he failed to push capping CO2 emissions, whether through a cap-and-trade regulatory scheme or some other means. It is doubtful that this was a result of some kind of epiphany making clear the economic ills of such an escapade. Instead, it more than likely was just a bow to altered political realities since the November elections. But, hey, here's to political reality.

Unfortunately, the President's view on doling out taxpayer dollars in subsidies for non-economic energy sources, while jacking up costs on oil firms, has not changed...

Read this latest Energy & Entrepreneurs analysis by SBE Council chief economist Ray Keating here.