"A Plan For Jobs." Really?

I have read the glossy “new” brochure put out by the President’s campaign entitled “A Plan for Jobs”.  It is simply a rehash of old ideas that haven’t worked for the last four years and have stifled economic growth.  Since this is an energy blog, I’ll limit my comments to the energy section of the brochure.  Before examining the “specifics”, it is interesting to note that nowhere in the brochure is there any mention of the Keystone XL Pipeline.  If the President was really interested in private sector job growth why did he kill the pipeline?  Some estimates indicate that upwards of 100,000 jobs would be created by the pipeline.  Many of these would be well paying jobs, not the low paying service sector jobs created during the Obama administration.  Now, on to “specific” claims made in the brochure coupled with my comments.

·         “We have cut foreign oil imports to a 20 year low”. This statement is quite true but has nothing to do with Obama energy policy (which I have detailed in a May 2012 blog).  Imports have been cut due to increased domestic petroleum production.  This improvement in production has come from private and state lands, not from federal lands.  Production on federal lands actually decreased 11% from 2010-2011 while domestic production on private and state lands have increased.

Source: EIA

·         “President Obama has made an historic $5 billion investment in clean coal”.  I’m not sure you can see this “investment” if you look at the President’s tax return.  Obama is no friend of the coal industry.  May I remind you that in 2008 he said, “So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can — it’s just that it will bankrupt them...”  Coal has been the fossil fuel of choice for the generation of electric power (historically holding a 50% share).  Under Obama, coal is down to a 32% share.  The war on coal continues with 2 EPA rulings that will ensure the demise of the industry.   This is tragic because the U.S. has a 250 year supply of this important resource.

o   MACT – released in December 2011

o   By 2016 existing coal plant emissions of mercury and “other hazardous” compounds must be reduced to levels achieved by the by the least polluting 12% of the current coal fired fleet of power plants

o   Compliance costs estimated by the EPA at $9.6 billion per year will be passed on to the consumer

o   The rule will force non-complying plants to shut down

§  EPA estimates that about 55% of all coal plants will be affected by the rule

§  Coal fired power plants will be shut down.  Estimates vary widely

·         Some in the industry claim that more than one third of the current coal fleet will be shut down as a result of the rule.

·         The Institute for Energy Research indicates that the MACT rule coupled with the Cross State Air Pollution rule will shutter about 10% of the current coal fired plants

·          The EPA claims that only 1% of the fleet will be shuttered

§  The Electric Reliability Coordinating Council (an industry trade organization) claims that 1.44 million American jobs will be lost as a result of the rule    

o   EPA issued a proposed rule on 3/24/2012 that limits on Greenhouse gas emissions on new electric generating plants

o   The proposed rule limits emission of CO2 to 1,000 pounds per megawatt hour  (Coal plants typically emit nearly 1,800 pounds per megawatt hour)

o   According to the NY Times article, coal fired power plants have no easily accessible technology that can bring their emissions under the limit

o   If this rule is implemented as proposed it will preclude construction of any new coal fired plants in America

 

The stated “Plans for the future” are shown below, again, with my comments.

·         Opening up millions of acres for exploration and development.”  Let’s look at the President’s record for some clarity on this issue.   In January of 2009, the Bush interior department issues a draft proposal for leasing for the 2010 -2015 time period which includes

o   31 Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lease Sales in the following areas

§  4 areas off of Alaska

§  2 areas off the Pacific Coast

§  3 areas off the Atlantic Coast

§  3 areas in the Gulf of Mexico

o   After President Obama was inaugurated, his appointee, Ken Salazar delayed implementation of the aforementioned draft plan which was supposed to begin leasing in 2010

o   Salazar finally put forth a new plan in November of 2011 taking all areas except those in the Gulf Coast (already open) off the table.

 

As one can see the Obama Administration took immediate steps to curtail exploration in new offshore areas.  Under Salazar only the area already open to federal offshore exploration (the Gulf of Mexico) would be allowed until at least 2017.  So much for a pro drilling policy!

·         “Investing in domestic energy sources including wind, solar, clean coal, nuclear and biofuels.”  In my opinion, the Government should not be spending billions on production of energy from currently uneconomic technologies like wind and solar.  According to an EIA study entitled “Direct Federal Interventions and Subsidies in Fiscal Year 2010” published in July of 2011, tax breaks and subsidies for renewable energy totaled $20 billion in 2010 alone.   The President’s record has been dismal and a huge waste of taxpayer dollars.  According to an article published by Fox on October 20, 2012, a complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies include the following (note that company names followed by an asterisk have already failed).

       Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Schneider Electric ($86 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*
Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

·         “Calling on Congress to build on our success in positioning America to become to be the world’s leading manufacturer of high tech batteries.  President Obama is calling for extending tax credits that support clean energy manufacturing”.   What success?  See the bullet point above.

·         “Setting a standard for utility companies so that 80% of the nation’s electricity comes from clean sources by 2035”.   This is truly incredible.  This proposal is an extension of the disastrous Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) laws passed in 29 states.  Details of this program are described in a July 2012 blog.  Suffice it to say that RPS forces utilities to buy uneconomic renewable energy.  Utilities simply pass through these higher costs (in some cases 2 to 3 times the cost of conventional electricity) on to the consumer.  This type of legislation will outsource manufacturing, increase the costs of goods and services and retard economic growth

So there you have it folks - the President’s Plan for Jobs.  I call it a recipe for economic disaster 

Disclaimer: Content, including research, tools and securities symbols, is for educational and informational purposes and should not be intended as a recommendation or solicitation to engage in any particular securities transaction or investment strategy. You alone are responsible for evaluating which securities and strategies better suit your financial situation and goals, risk profile, etc. The projections regarding the probability of investment outcomes are hypothetical and not guaranteed for accuracy or completeness. They do not reflect actual investment outcomes and are not guarantees of future results, and do not take into consideration commissions, margin interest and other costs that will impact investment outcomes. Content may be out of date or time-sensitive, and is subject to change or removal without notice