Energy & Environment

Pennsylvania has always been a leading provider of America’s energy. From timber and coal to the nation’s first commercial oil well, and now the Marcellus Shale boom, traditional energy is vital to our state’s economy. But these industries, and the prosperity they generated, are now threatened because they have become politically unpopular. Instead of entrepreneurship and the responsible development of natural resources, today’s energy companies are rewarded on the basis of their lobbying.  CF’s work on Energy & the Environment focuses on balancing environmental and economic concerns, ensuring a level playing field, and preserving Pennsylvania’s role as an energy leader.

Obama & Sebelius Visits Show Free Markets Trump Big Government

Aug 23, 2013 | Commentary by Elizabeth Stelle, Nathan Benefield

President Obama and one of his cabinet members are making separate trips to Pennsylvania this week.  Their reasons for visiting couldn't be more different.

  Read More >

No Doubt About it: PA has a Severance Tax

tax

What do Christmas festivities, a new office building, and a Ford Explorer have in common? They were all paid for with impact fees on natural gas, raising doubts about the necessity of imposing higher taxes on the industry.

A recent audit of local government spending revealed some officials aren't prioritizing the costs related to natural gas drilling or, worse, the expenses associated with drilling were exaggerated from the beginning.

Back in 2012, when the impact fee was being implemented, we questioned the need for more revenue to offset the local costs of natural gas drilling:

Much of the revenue generated through Act 13 isn't used to address drilling impact—Marcellus Shale isn't responsible for deteriorating bridges and parks in midstate counties where drilling doesn't even occur. Act 13 sustains unrelated programs such as Growing Greener and is littered with corporate welfare like subsidizing rail freight assistance and natural gas vehicles.

The Auditor General's report is proof that such questions were well warranted. It's now clearer than ever that the impact fee is addressing far more than drilling impacts. It is clearly a tax.

Instead of debating the wisdom of the current impact fee (tax), Governor Wolf and others continue to push for an additional natural gas tax. Yet, the IFO estimates the current impact fee is equivalent to a 6.9% severance taxhigher than severance taxes in Louisiana, Wyoming, and West Virginia.

With natural gas prices still climbing from record lows and the industry shedding a third of its jobs in 2016, this audit should put a final nail in the severance tax coffin. Any further effort to raise energy taxes would be a transparent attempt to balance the budget on the backs of working people.

As we've seen, raising niche taxes to fill budget holes is a losing strategy. Only six months ago lawmakers passed new taxes on digital downloads, vape shops, and cigarettes. The result? A estimated $524 million budget shortfall.

Let's avoid repeating our mistake and acknowledge the truth: imposing an additional tax on one industry will do nothing to help solve the state's budget problems. 

.... Read More >

posted by Elizabeth Stelle | 02:45 PM

PA's Conflicted Relationship with Natural Gas

The government giveth, and the government taketh away. Nowhere is this more apparent than in Pennsylvania’s relationship with the natural gas industry.

On the one hand, Gov. Wolf offers a Pipeline Investment Program that would provide $24 million in matching grants to businesses, schools and hospitals for connections to gas pipelines.

On the other, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) proposes new rules on already highly regulated production activities. The gas industry filed a legal challenge to some of the rules. They claim the regulations will cost $2 billion a year “without providing meaningful environmental benefits.” Excluding initial start-up costs, DEP estimates the maximum annual cost of the regulations to be $31 million, or about $24,000 a well.

Meanwhile, Braskem America, a plastics manufacturer, chooses Texas over Marcus Hook, Pa., for the location of a $500 million plant because of Pennsylvania’s lack of pipeline capacity to deliver feedstock.

At the same time, pipeline projects are missing in-service targets due to regulatory delays.

Delayed by about 18 months is the start-up of Sunoco Logistics’ $2.5 billion Mariner East 2 project, which will transport natural gas liquids from western Pennsylvania to Marcus Hook. The company is responding to requests from the DEP for additional information on permit applications.

In New York, the Constitution Pipeline, has languished since April when New York regulators denied the project a water-quality permit. The denial came four months after New York Gov. Cuomo had approved $2 billion in economic-development grants that included an extension from the pipeline to a manufacturing plant.

Pennsylvania should learn from these missed opportunities and stop efforts to finance pipeline extensions to private businesses with tax dollars. After all, Governor Wolf just lamented policies that put well-connected businesses before taxpayers:

" . . . too often, special interests and the well-connected are put before Pennsylvania families and the middle class."

So why not return to citizens the $24 million being transferred from an “underutilized” fund for alternative energy projects? Instead of doling out politically-selected grants, the Governor should focus on ways to balance safety with enhancing the competitiveness of one of the state’s most promising enterprises.

In general, state government is too focused on doling out taxpayer cash and promulgating regulation than on fostering an environment for good-paying jobs and economic growth.

.... Read More >

posted by Gordon Tomb | 03:17 PM

Energy Mandates a Double Whammy

Alternative energy mandates raise the cost of living and make it harder for people to find work. These are the findings of a new paper on the government's futile efforts to manage the energy sector.

According to the paper's author, Dr. Timothy J. Considine, the mandates will adversely affect Pennsylvania, raising energy costs by $700 million and eliminating 11,400 jobs by 2025.

In 2004, Pennsylvania enacted the Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards (AEPS). These mandates require 18 percent of all electricity to be generated from renewable sources by 2021.

More than 98 percent of the new renewable energy capacity for Pennsylvania is supplied by wind power. This means electricity production at coal and natural gas plants fluctuates (or cycles) to accommodate times when the wind does not blow. But cycling reduces efficiency and raises costs.

In 2013, coal remained the largest source of Pennsylvania power, followed by nuclear power at 34 percent and natural gas at 22 percent. In comparison, wind power accounts for only 1.5 percent of total generation.

The high cost of renewable energy mandates isn't unique to Pennsylvania. By 2025, the mandates will destroy more than 150,000 jobs and increase electricity costs by $23.1 billion in 12 states.

If lawmakers want to shield Pennsylvanians from this economic damage, repealing the AEPS and/or refusing to extend the program should be a top priority. Rep. Sankey offered the lastest repeal bill back in 2013. 

Costs of Pennsylvania RPS in 2013 dollars (millions)

 

 2016 

 2020 

 2025 

 2030 

 2035 

 2040 

RPS Legacy Costs

 

 

 

 

 

 

Direct

$210

$206

$201

$196

$192

$187

Cycling Costs

$20

$28

$31

$32

$33

$35

less Fuel Costs

$57

$60

$64

$66

$68

$71

Net RPS Legacy Costs

$173

$174

$168

$162

$156

$150

New RPS Costs

 

 

 

 

 

 

Direct

$324

$544

$622

$651

$680

$710

Cycling Costs

$21

$29

$32

$33

$34

$36

less Fuel Costs

$216

$384

$437

$463

$490

$523

less NGCC Costs

$3

$0

$12

$12

$12

$13

Net New RPS Costs

$125

$189

$206

$209

$212

$210

RPS Tax Subsidies

$203

$291

$326

$343

$361

$379

Total RPS Cost

$502

$654

$701

$715

$729

$741

 

.... Read More >

posted by Elizabeth Stelle | 00:18 PM

PA Business Climate Isn't Winning any "Miss Congeniality" Contests

Why would one of Pennsylvania’s largest natural gas producers suddenly switch from selling all non-Pennsylvania assets to purchasing a $3.3 billion Houston company that operates exclusively in Louisiana?

A Dallas Morning News article suggests Pennsylvania’s less than “congenial” business conditions.

Range Resources, which in 2004 drilled the first commercial horizontal well in Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale, plans to purchase Memorial Resource Development partly because of regulatory hurdles in Pennsylvania and other Northeastern states.

Energy companies are trying to cope with constant calls for higher taxes, new methane emissions standards, a dramatic overhaul of drilling regulations, and pipeline delays. At the same time, the region is experiencing a severe and prolonged drop in natural gas prices.

The Dallas Morning News reports:

The U.S. gas market is Balkanized," said Subash Chandra, an analyst with Guggenheim Securities. "And the Appalachian Basin is becoming increasingly isolated."

Pipeline projects in Pennsylvania and New England running into regulatory issues over the past year include Northeast Energy Direct, Constitution, Rover and PennEast. In some cases, the delay could be a matter of months; for others, longer.

Keeping the natural gas from getting to market in the Northeast makes retail prices bounce around more and can contribute to shortages in an unusually cold winter. And it pushes some producers to the sidelines for a while.

A couple of the producers with the best cost of production in North America are sitting on their hands for a couple of years," Miller said.

In Pennsylvania, the industry has shed thousands of jobs, and the number of drilling rigs operating in the state is at 2007 (pre-boom) levels. The paper continues:

But in the meantime, the Range purchase of Memorial means Range will have options. It can push development in Louisiana while waiting for more congenial conditions in Pennsylvania.

Reporting on the transaction, Forbes says, “[P]ipeline bottlenecks in the northeast have gotten so bad that Range has been realizing sale prices 66% below market.”

Before punishing the natural gas industry with a severance tax or regulations of questionable value, Pennsylvania politicians should consider congeniality—or common sense.

Unfortunately, a lack of it seems already to have driven one company to invest $3 billion in Louisiana instead of in Pennsylvania.

.... Read More >

posted by Gordon Tomb | 01:14 PM

The $20 Billion Energy Tax

Solar Subsidies Sink State

More than ten years after its passage, Pennsylvania's Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards continue to stunt our economy. The standards cost the state $4 billion annually, according to a study by the Institute of Political Economy at Utah State University.

Researchers reviewed renewable portfolio standards in all states and found the law reduced Pennsylvanians' personal incomes by almost $20 billion from 2004 through 2009.

Data beyond 2009 is still forthcoming, but if the trend continues, alternative energy standards will have cost Pennsylvanians almost $50 billion to date. That's not too far off from the state's pension debt.

So what do these figures mean for each household in Pennsylvania? A loss of $10,000 in purchasing power. That's an enormous cost to bear for such a small benefit. 

A recent Tribune Review article highlighting the study aptly notes this isn't an indictment of renewable energy but a reality check.

As technology advances, renewable energy will become cheaper and markets will shift to renewables as a matter of course. Mandating the shift before the technology is ready simply wastes our resources.

Up until this point, government efforts to transition to a clean energy economy have been costly and unsuccessful. Ultimately, it will be entrepreneurship, not government planning, that will make clean energy affordable and reliable for all. 

.... Read More >

posted by Elizabeth Stelle | 00:24 PM

Audio: State Worker Costs & EPA Mandates Burden Pennsylvanians

State employee compensation costs have soared to nearly $93,000 per worker per year, with health care and pensions the largest contributors.

Meanwhile, costly EPA mandates on carbon and mercury emissions will cause strife for Pennsylvania's coal industry. Other mandates could cost farmers millions.

Nathan Benefield recently joined George Toth on WNPV's Regarding Your Money to discuss how the rising costs of state workers and EPA mandates will burden Pennsylvanians.

Click here or listen below to the interview:

.... Read More >

posted by Catherine Fitzhugh | 03:21 PM

PA Faces Another Costly EPA Mandate

President Obama’s energy tax—also known as the Clean Power Plan—is just one of many EPA mandates stifling Pennsylvania’s economy.  One mandate in particular imposes enormous costs on Pennsylvania farmers and taxpayers.

Chesapeake Bay Mandates place caps on nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment that can flow from rivers to the Chesapeake Bay. Historically, one of the largest sources of nitrogen and phosphorus run-off is livestock farms.

Last month, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Secretary John Quigley estimated it would cost Pennsylvanians $3.6 billion up-front, or $378.3 million annually to meet EPA’s mandated reductions. But compliance needn’t come at such a painful price tag.

The burdensome costs to farmers and taxpayers stems from the DEP’s reliance on what they call Best Management Practices (BMPs). These “best practices” have failed to meet the standard their name implies—the commonwealth is far behind EPA mandated targets at a cost of nearly $4 billion thus far.

In contrast, compliance costs can be dramatically reduced by using competitive bidding for verified nitrogen reduction credits. A 2013 Legislative and Budget Finance Committee study estimates a competitive bidding process could cost 80 to 85 percent less than modeled BMPs.

In addition to lower costs, a competitive bidding process also reduces taxpayer risk. The commonwealth would only pay for nutrient credits after they have been produced and then verified by the DEP. No special grants, tax credits or penalties on farmers would be necessary.  Senate Bill 724 sets up the competitive bidding process.

Absent repeal of these stringent regulations by Congress, state lawmakers and DEP should consider more affordable alternatives to comply with these mandates. 

.... Read More >

posted by Elizabeth Stelle | 11:03 AM

The Fair Share Fallacy

What is the natural gas industry's "fair share" of taxes? The answer depends on the calendar year.

An analysis from the Independent Fiscal Office (IFO) finds the current "impact fee" is effectively a 5.5 percent severance tax due to a 16-year-low in natural gas prices. In other words, the natural gas industry is already paying a higher tax rate than what the Governor Wolf proposed in 2014.

As a reminder, Governor Wolf called for a 5 percent severance tax during his campaign to replace the impact fee and "put Pennsylvania in line with other natural gas producing states." Of course, many of those states do not have individual income taxes, corporate income taxes or death taxes.

Natural gas prices continued to fall in 2015, so Governor Wolf redefined "fair share" by adding a price floor. Under this policy, natural gas companies pay taxes on gas at $2.97 per Mcf (thousand cubic feet), even though the actual price of natural gas was below that number . . . and still is.

According to testimony by the IFO, Wolf's original plan would establish an effective 17.3 percent severance tax rate in 2016, by far the highest rate in the nation.

Now the Governor is redefining fair share once again by proposing a severance tax of 6.5 percent to collect an estimated $218 million in revenue. For context, that's about four times higher than Ohio's natural gas severance tax and higher than neighboring West Virginia's 5 percent severance tax.

On top of a severance tax proposal, the administration is formulating new natural gas drilling regulations and adding methane emission requirements. The cost of these rules is not yet known.

If the governor and lawmakers want Pennsylvania’s tax rates to reflect other energy producing states, they should cut the impact fee or eliminate other state taxes.

.... Read More >

posted by Elizabeth Stelle | 01:30 PM

Press Pause on Clean Power Plan

Cap and Trade

In a historic move, the US Supreme Court stayed the EPA's Clean Power Plan, otherwise known as Obama's energy tax or stealth cap and trade. The court’s actions halt implementation until legal challenges (brought by 25 states) play out. That means there is no deadline to submit a state plan. In fact it would be foolish for a state to expend the resources to develop and submit a state plan without knowing if the regulation will survive.

But that hasn't stopped the Wolf administration from moving full steam ahead. According to the governor's spokesman, “Pennsylvania will continue planning and engagement with stakeholders on the Clean Power Plan, pending final decision of this issue by the Supreme Court.”

Department of Environmental Protection Secretary John Quigley plans to complete work on Pennsylvania's plan and present it to the legislature by Memorial Day. That's before the Supreme Court will even hear oral arguments.

The EPA's plan to regulate coal out of the economy should be especially concerning to coal-heavy Pennsylvania. The regulations are estimated to increase electricity prices in the state by an average of 14 percent a year, according to the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity.

The national cost of the EPA plan has been estimated to be between $29 billion and $39 billion annually — with virtually no effect on global temperatures.

The administration has defended its choice to move forward with planning as a way to give certainty to businesses, but the Supreme Court's actions make that point moot. The only thing certain is states will be waiting months and even years to know the fate of Obama's energy tax.

.... Read More >

posted by Gordon Tomb, Elizabeth Stelle | 01:14 PM

Pennsylvanians Prosper as New Yorkers Pine

They are similar in size, resources and population, but the past few years have brought prosperity to Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania and stagnation to Delaware County, New York.

The big difference? Fracking is allowed in one county and banned in the other.

Residents in Susquehanna County, where fracking for natural gas is allowed, are enjoying a robust economy while Delaware County—just across state lines—is suffering, according to the online newsletter Natural Gas NOW. On the Pennsylvania side, local companies like Diaz Manufacturing and Andre & Son are expanding. Meanwhile, New York's ban on natural gas drilling, "has condemned Upstate New Yorkers to the ‘pastoral poverty’ so typical of the region north of Orange County and west of the Hudson."

Referencing sources such as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and U.S Bureau of Economic Analysis, the newsletter paints a sharp contrast between otherwise similar communities.

  • Bank deposits:
    • Susquehanna saw a 38% increase between 2008-2015
    • Delaware increased by 19% in the same time period
  • Income from dividends, interest and rents:
    • Susquehanna saw a 44% increase between 2008-2014
    • Delaware increased by 22% in the same time period. (The newsletter notes that this figure is heavily influenced by royalty payments from gas wells.)
  • Wages and salaries:
    • Susquehanna saw a 47% increase between 2008-2014
    • Delaware increased by 4% in the same time period
  • Average wages and salaries:
    • Susquehanna saw a 41% increase between 2008-2014
    • Delaware increased by 14% in the same time period

The evidence should give pause to policymakers who take Pennsylvania’s gas resources for granted or who seek to exploit them with burdensome taxes and regulations.

.... Read More >

posted by Gordon Tomb | 02:31 PM

Total Records: 381