Cronyism Lawsuit Against Energy Department’s $25 Billion Green Energy Program Advances

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has ruled that a lawsuit filed by a government watchdog group against the Department of Energy over “political favoritism” within a multi-billion dollar federal green energy loan program can advance.

Cause of Action, a nonpartisan watchdog group, submitted the lawsuit against the DOE arguing the agency awarded loans to companies based on political connections and donations while denying money to similar companies who do not have the same political clout.

The DOE program in question, the $25 billion Advanced Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program, was created in 2008 with the intent of supporting the development of energy-efficient cars. The group submitted the lawsuit on behalf of the now dissolved XP Vehicles and Limnia—a former California vehicle company.

Within the complaint, which was initially filed on Nov. 14, 2012, in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, XP alleges “corruption and negligence” pervaded the Department of Energy’s decision to award loan guarantees to Nissan, Ford, Tesla Motors, and Fisker Automotive for the development of electric vehicle technology.

“When politicians and agencies allow companies to purchase government access, the basic foundation of our free market economy is compromised,” Dan Epstein, president of Cause of Action, told the Washington Free Beacon.

Epstein elaborated on this point in a recent op-ed published in The Hill.

Epstein notes Tesla Motors—one of the companies awarded money from the Advanced Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program—had plenty of connections and access to give them an advantage over a company such as XP Vehicles.

Tesla’s founder, Elon Musk, was a maxed out donor to President Obama. Steven Westly, a board member of Tesla, was appointed to a Department of Energy advisory board. Additionally, an investor and adviser of Tesla, Steven Spinner, served as a program analyst at the Department of Energy from 2009 to 2010. Spinner helped monitor the issuance of the $25 billion coming from the program.

Another beneficiary of the program, Fisker Automotive, also had high-dollar donors to President Obama.

Fisker was backed by a San Francisco-based venture capital firm whose senior advisers donatedmillions to Democrats during the 2008 election cycle, including Obama. John Doerr, a partner of the group, later secured a seat on the President’s Council of Jobs and Competitiveness and helped Fisker land $192 million in government energy loans. The company has since gone bankrupt.

XP Vehicles and Limnia, on the other hand, were rejected twice by the Department of Energy for what Epstein says are “bogus reasons” despite being similar to other companies who received federal money to aid the manufacturing of energy-efficient cars.

“For starters, the department made claims that were laughably false. To take one example: It rejected XPV’s application because its vehicle was powered by hydrogen. It was an electric SUV. It also raised objections that it didn’t raise with other companies whose applications were approved,” Epstein wrote. “For instance: The bureaucracy criticized the proposed all-electric vehicle for not using a specific type of gasoline. Yet Tesla and Fisker received the loans despite producing similar all-electric cars.”

As a result, XP Vehicles could not compete with the other heavily subsidized companies and has since gone out of business.

Epstein called the recent ruling by a federal district court that allows his lawsuit to advance “groundbreaking” and a victory for individuals and businesses everywhere.

“For the first time, a federal district court has confirmed there is a legal remedy when cronyism influences federal administrative discretionary spending,” Epstein told the Free Beacon. “This groundbreaking opinion establishes that the government owes everyone—not just presidential campaign donors—a fair shake when awarding government funds.”

“Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s common-sense judgment that government decisions tainted by cronyism and political favoritism are ‘arbitrary and capricious’ is a victory for individuals and businesses everywhere.”

Via: WFB

Continue Reading.....

CALIFORNIA: Legislature Should Examine Costs of Climate Control Policies

Regardless of differences in opinion about approaches to combatting climate change, California decided in 2006 that the state would have a comprehensive greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction program. Now, nine years later, the AB 32 programs are beginning to take effect and having a financial impact. That impact is being felt by consumers in their electricity bills and there are strong indications that other cost increases will be coming soon.

The unexpected magnitude of the costs, coupled with the uncertainty about future economic impacts, demand greater evaluation of the costs that will be associated with any new climate change proposals (SB 350, SB 32, and the California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan). This is hardly a revolutionary approach – in fact, cost analysis is an approach the state should prioritize for all new policies – but proponents of new climate change proposals seem surprisingly blasé about their need.

To be fair, there are several studies: Energy and Environmental Economics, “California State Agency’s PATHWAYS Project: Long-term Greenhouse Gas Reduction Scenarios;” Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, “Modeling California policy impact on greenhouse gas emissions;” and Next 10, “California Climate Policy to 2050: Pathways for Sustained Prosperity,” that review cost impacts and conclude that the proposals will actually lower overall consumer costs. Those studies make assumptions about the future costs with many caveats about population and economic growth. They may be correct assumptions or they may be faulty. However, the Wall Street Journal opined on a study in November, 2011, showing that AB 32 would cost the average household $3,857 in increased costs by 2020. So before any legislation moves forward, NFIB/CA is requesting that the legislature not blindly accept these assumptions but fully analyze the cost issues and allow a public debate over these far reaching policies.

Here are some basic questions that small businesses need to know about these proposals:

What will Californians have to pay in increased electric costs to reach the 50% renewable energy goal? Already, many school districts, hospitals, businesses and residents have seen increases in their electricity bills and many of the costs associated with AB 32 have not yet been built into the rates. The California Energy Commission’s own numbers estimate a 28% to 42% increase in electricity rates by 2020. Many of the studies that show consumers will pay less rely on “savings” to offset the higher electricity costs but those savings are vague and there is no indication when those savings will be available to consumers, much less whether they are quantifiable and verifiable. The alternative renewable energy sources being pushed can be several times more expensive than traditional energy sources, particularly since energy from dams and solar roof tops are excluded from the equation, and these costs will constitute half of consumer electricity bills.

What will ratepayers need to pay to transform the state’s electricity infrastructure? According to the studies, the 50% petroleum reduction goal will require the number of Zero Electric Vehicles (ZEVs) to climb from 100,000 to over 7 million. That increase will require a massive new investment in infrastructure to transform the transmission and distribution system and to build charging stations. Who will pay for the billions of dollars of new infrastructure? Are those costs built into economic projections models? And what provisions in the new proposals will prevent all the benefits going to those can afford Teslas and solar panels — and the costs being borne by middle and lower income families and small businesses? And electric cars are often heavier than others, and contribute to serious wear and tear on our highway systems without paying maintenance taxes at the pump.

How much will energy efficiency proposals cost California residents? We’re leaders in energy efficiency, and committed to further efficiencies. But all efficiencies have a cost, and we need to know what we’ll have to pay to make climate change goals feasible. But we do know that we’ll have to increasingly rely on electricity. Do the math: a new electric stove — $800 to $1200. A new electric water heater — $1200 to $2000. A new electric furnace — $600 to $1200. Will California residents and business be required to replace existing appliances? Will restaurants, for example, be required to replace all their gas stoves with electric ones? Will lower income homeowners and qualifying small businesses receive government assistance to convert their property?

These costs matter. They matter to small businesses and they matter to hard-working Californians. If we truly desire to maintain the integrity of the legislative process and protect our businesses and families, we need the legislature to conduct a full cost examination of climate change policy impacts.

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading....

The green mirage—and con job

Elon Musk and his fellow barons of Climate Crisis, Inc. recently got a huge boost from Pope Francis. Musk et al. say fossil fuels are causing unprecedented warming and weather disasters. The Pope agrees and says Catholics must “ask God for a positive outcome” to negotiations over another UN climate treaty.

It matters not that the predicted calamities are not happening. There has been no warming in 19 years, no category 3-5 hurricanes making US landfall for a record 9-1/2 years, indeed none of the over-hyped climate disasters occurring in the real world outside the alarmists’ windows. In fact, poor nations support the treaty mostly because it promises some $100 billion per year in adaptation, mitigation and compensation money from FRCs: Formerly Rich Countries that have shackled their own job creation, economic growth and living standards in the name of stabilizing Earth’s perpetually fluctuating climate.

Any money that is transferred will end up in the pockets of governing elites. Poor families will get little or no cash—and will be told their dreams of better lives must be limited to jobs and living standards that can be supported by solar panels on their huts and a few wind turbines near their villages.

Simply put, the Musk-Obama-Pope-Climate Crisis schemes will save humanity from exaggerated and fabricated climate disasters decades from now—by impoverishing billions and killing millions tomorrow.

For the catechism of climate cataclysm coalition, the essential thing is that we believe the hysterical assertions and computer models—and support endless renewable energy mandates and subsidies.

Musk and his Tesla and Solar City companies have already pocketed $4.9 billion in taxpayer-financed subsidies, and even long-elusive profitability has not ended the handouts. Now he claims a small “blue square” on a map represents the “very little” land required to “get rid of all fossil fuel electricity generation” in the USA and prevent a non-existent climate cataclysm. We just need rooftop solar panels linked to wall-mounted battery packs—a mere 160 million Tesla Power walls—to eliminate the need for all coal and natural gas electricity generation in the United States, he insists.

Via: Canada Free Press

Continue Reading....

Electric Cars Are Not as 'Green' as the Public Is Lead to Believe

The 23,000 buyers who pre-ordered the $70,000 Tesla Model X may have been better off buying a Honda. 

Tesla claims its next electric vehicle will offer “the most elegant and powerful charging system in the marketplace.” The Model X that will debut in 2018 is expected to be a best-seller. Although Model X buyers may cringe at the $70,000 price tag, they justify their purchase on moral grounds. After all, electric cars are supposed to save the environment.  However, in a new NBER working paper, economists Stephen Holland, Erin Mansur, Nicholas Muller, and Andrew Yates show electric cars are not as “green” as the public is lead to believe. 

The popularity of electric vehicles is partly due to a $7,500 government subsidy offered to individuals who purchase such a car. Eight states provide additional subsidies for buying an electric vehicle. These payments are defended on the grounds that encouraging people to buy electric cars results in “decreased reliance on imported oil, insulation from oil price shocks, and a reduction in environmental impacts.” Contrary to this assumption, the new research shows that electric cars are in most cases, bad for the environment. Forget subsidies, the environment may benefit more from a tax on electric vehicles.  

In terms of environmental effects, the study notes that electric cars are not truly emissions free. Seventy percent of electricity is generated from coal or natural gas. Moreover, comparisons of emissions from electric cars and gas-powered cars are misunderstood. 

When gas-powered cars release emissions, they do so within their immediate area. When electric cars use electricity to charge their motors, the power is generated at power plants, which could be located miles away from the vehicle. Air pollution damages depend upon where emissions are released, so electric vehicles driven in one place lead to environmental externalities in another. 

Benefits from electric cars are entirely dependent upon whether an area has a power grid that is less polluted than its airspace. For example, in Los Angeles, gasoline damages are large, but electric damages are comparatively small. Driving an electric car in Los Angeles does benefit the environment. But in the Midwest, where coal-driven power grids are prevalent, and damage from gas-powered vehicles is small, choosing to drive an electric car has a negative environmental effect. The researchers find that in only 12 states does driving an electric vehicle benefit the environment. On average, driving an electric car has an environmental benefit of negative 0.5 cents per mile. To put this number in perspective, driving a 2014 electric Ford Focus creates $724 more in environmental damages over its driving lifetime than driving a 2014 gas-powered Ford Focus. 

Via: CNS News

Continue Reading....

‘What Difference Does It Make?’… Hillary Travels to Texas for Elitist Fundraiser – Protest Breaks Out

Hillary Clinton traveled to Texas for a big donor fundraiser on Wednesday night.
A protest broke out…

Best Sign: “I did not have textual relations with that server”

What difference does it make?

Protesters lined the street in Texas to welcome embattled former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to the Lone Star State.
The Daily Mail reported:

They came in Bentleys, BMWs, Maseratis and Porsches. A handful drove Mercedes-Benzes and Lexuses. At least two luxury Tesla eco-cars made the trip.

Valet attendants parked the cars of the deep-pocketed Democrats for $10 per hour and raced around the neighborhood two hours later as a line of millionaires formed.

The guest of honor, Hillary Clinton, arrived in a black Cadillac for her $2,700-per-plate presidential fundraiser.

As the former secretary of state’s Secret Service escort pulled into the driveway of a $11.4 million home near Dallas on Wednesday night, a group of Republican activists were waiting.

When a nondescript Texan, a 20-something man in a silver pickup truck, drove by and yelled ‘F*** Hillary!,’ a small cheer went up.

Via: Gateway Pundit

Continue Reading.... 

Going Green is Going to Hell

Going Green is not going well for the Electric Car Company Tesla. Last week we reportedof its latest car fire and now we have this:

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said Tuesday it is opening a formal investigation into 13,100 Tesla Motors Model S electric vehicles for battery fires — one month after it declined to do so.

It comes as the Palo Alto, Calif., start-up said it would extend warranty coverage to fire claims and is making changes to make the vehicles less suspectible to striking roadway debris.

NHTSA Administrator David Strickland told a congressional committee that the agency had seen some issues it wanted to investigate…

The auto safety agency in October said it would not open a formal investigation after a fire in Kent, Wash., occurred when debris struck the underside of a Model S sparking a battery fire. After a fire in Mexico and a fire earlier this month near Smyrna, Tenn., the agency said Tuesday it had decided to open a preliminary investigation. Strickland said it made the initial decision believing the first fire was an isolated incident.

Meanwhile, the Tesla stock (TSLA) lost more than 25% of its value over the last four weeks!

Via: The Right Scoop

Continue Reading....

California:The Betrayal of Taxpayers

At the end of September, Assembly Bill 8 was signed by Governor Brown and became law. This is horrible news for taxpayers because California motorists will now be paying $2.3 billion in additional taxes and charges. Adding insult to injury, taxpayers will find their hard earned dollars being used to subsidize programs such as the purchase of all electric cars, like the Tesla that, even with the taxpayer provided discount, can be afforded only by a handful of wealthy individuals. Money will also be lavished on the hydrogen network designed to service vehicles of which, about 250 currently exist.

The bill for ordinary California drivers may not be immediately noticeable because these “surcharges” are buried in vehicle registration and charges for the disposal of tires and other auto services. But they are there nonetheless and, like a death by a thousand cuts, working class Californians are paying for questionable programs that citizens in other states simply don’t have to suffer.

With all the burdens Sacramento imposes on taxpayers — we already have the highest state sales in all 50 states, the highest marginal income tax rate and the highest gas tax — these additional taxes may not get much attention from the general public — at least not at first.

But the real problem for taxpayers with the approval of this kind of legislation runs much deeper than its immediate cost because it was passed in the Legislature using the technique of bribing unconvinced lawmakers to vote yes by offering the prospect of reduced regulation on businesses important to those lawmakers’ districts. Nine Republicans, who usually put taxpayers’ interests first, were persuaded to support AB 8 by the lure of reduced regulations.

While the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association believes that business is shouldering an unreasonable burden of regulations, especially compared to other states, these regulations should be judged individually on their merits. The offer of reform should not be used by the majority party to solicit payoffs — higher taxes — in return for doing the right thing.

However, against type, it is Republicans in the Capitol who provided the votes to guarantee this bad legislation became law. And it is not the first time. Sadly, we are sensing a trend. Last year, the Legislature placed a new one percent tax on the sale of lumber, with four Republicans providing the votes to put the measure over the top. Here, the bribe was that some restrictions on the timber industry would be lifted.

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading.....