webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

AEA bk

AEA813

main broken?  fixed 5 22  this is bak no links?

see txt capt: AmEnergyalliance615

see george banks trump swamp thing

a front for front? IER? launders study (cutout?] c 3 4?

API NAM --> In 1993 Burson-Marsteller led a $1.8 million campaign to

defeat a proposed tax on fossil fuels. President

Clinton’s BTU Tax was the most ambitious measure to

combat climate change yet proposed by an American

government.

https://www.desmog.com/american-energy-alliance-aea/

American Energy Alliance is a501(c)(4)not-for-profit organization founded in May, 2008. It is the advocacy arm of the 501(c)(3) nonprofit Institute for Energy Research (:{IER:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:). According to its website, the AEA “engages in grassroots public policy advocacy and debate concerning energy and environmental policies.” [1]

While the stated aim of the AEA is to “educate and mobilize citizens in understanding, promoting and helping to solve America’s most pressing energy and environmental policy problems,” this education has taken the form of attack ads against political candidates and messages such as “stand with coal” and “vote no on Obama’s failing energy policy.” This has led to some questions on the validity of the AEA‘snonprofit status, especially given the :{AEA:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:‘s own statement that their group is “not political.”[2], [88]

The American Energy Allianceonce declared that it “has no ties to any political party, and it has no interest in supporting the agenda of any particular political party.” However,Brad Johnson at the *Wonk Room*noted that all of AEA‘s employees at the time were former House Republican staffers and AEA‘s website, EnergyTownHall.org, was also run by a former GOP house staffer. [56], [57]

AEA has also spent millions of dollars on media advertising through Republican-orientated vendor Mentzer Media for its stated nonpartisan activities. [2]

Greenpeace reports that IER and AEA worked together on a $3.6 million anti-Obama gas price advertising campaign funded by Koch Industries. The American Energy Alliance has also received over $3.8 million from Freedom Partners, including $1.5 million in 2012, a 501(c)(6) group directed by many of the Koch brothers’ “inner circle” such as Richard Fink, Marc Short, Wayne Gable, and Kevin Gentry. [3]

Koch Connections

Both the American Energy Alliance and its parent organization, the Institute for Energy Research (IER), are run by Tom Pyle, a former lobbyist for Koch Industries. [4] *Politico*reports that Pyle regularly attends the mega-donor summits organized by the Koch brothers, including the 2012 winter summit in Indian Wells, Calif., where the Kochs raised more than $150 million to be directed to groups ahead of the general election. [5]

Nancy Pfotenhauer, another lobbyist for Koch Industries, is listed as a Director on :{AEA:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:‘s 2014 990 tax return. Pfotenhauer, formerly Nancy Mitchell, was an advisor to Senator John McCain during his presidential election campaign, and a former director of Koch Industries’ Washington office. Pfotenhauer was Koch Industries’ chief in-house lobbyist from 1996 to 2001 with a focus on gas pipelines. [6] In 2001, Nancy Pfotenhauer left Koch Industries to become the President of the Independent Women’s Forum (IWF) and later president of both Americans for Prosperity (AFP) and the IWF. She was also executive vice president for Citizens for a Sound Economy (:{CSE:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:) a group co-founded by David H. Koch.[7], [8]

Many of Pfotenhauer’s organizations have received significant funding from Koch Industries. For example:

Stance on Climate Change

2015

“At a time when the Obama administration is pushing an aggressive climate agenda in Paris, public concerns about the economy and terrorism far outpace anxieties about climate change. Rather than forcing more costly climate policies on the public, world leaders should focus their attention on the economic and national security issues that matter most to people.” [13]

2014

“Even if the apocalyptic vision painted by Al Gore and others is perfectly true—which it’s not—measures limiting the emissions from individual cities are utterly absurd. They epitomize the prevalence of symbolism over science in our climate change policy debates.” [14]

“[A]ccording to official climate models, even if the U.S. enacted an immediate and total ban on all human emissions of greenhouse gases, the difference in global temperature by the year 2050 would be a mere five one-hundredths of a degree Celsius. And that’s the most that the U.S. government could possibly achieve, even if it relied on a ridiculously draconian ban on all future emissions.” [15]

Fossil Fuels

“The morally superior choice is for people to be free to use energy to make their lives better. Today, that means having access to the abundant energy resources of coal, oil, and natural gas. Those are the technologies that lifted the developed world out of poverty, and they continue to lift millions out of poverty while they power the high-energy lives of those of us fortunate enough to live in the developed world.” [16]

CO2

“Carbon dioxide is not dirty, and is not poisonous to humans in concentrations we observe in the atmosphere. In fact, carbon dioxide is the natural product of combustion–whether that combustion occurs within our cells (which is why humans exhale carbon dioxide), or whether carbon dioxide results from the combustion of natural gas. Carbon dioxide is essential to life on Earth because vegetation requires carbon dioxide to survive and thrive.”

[…] The policies that environmental activists advocate for, such as shutting down our nation’s affordable and reliable coal power plants, will make energy more expensive. And as we have seen in countries that have made electricity a luxury good through ill-advised energy policy–like Germany–higher energy costs exacerbate poverty and the negative health impacts associated with it.” [17]

Nonpofit Status & Political Activities

The American Energy Alliance is registered as a501(c)(4)not-for-profit organization, which means it is not required to disclose its funding sources and contributions are not tax-deductible. 501(c)(4) organizations, commonly referred to as “social welfare” groups, play an influential role in politics. [18]

The IRS notes that “a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity.” The IRS also notes that “The promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.” [19]

When the AEA filed for tax-exempt status in 2008, it told the IRS that it had no interest in supporting the agenda or any particular political party or political candidate,”reports The Center for Public Integrity. While AEA acknowledged “the possibility that some of AEA‘s publications and communications may be considered ‘political,’” the group asserted that it was a “nonpartisan policy-oriented organization,” not a ‘political’ organization.” [2]

Tax documents show that AEA spent over $5 million on “media and advertising” with vendor Mentzer Media, a media buying firm that works primarily with Republicans, receiving $3.9 million of that amount. In 2012, AEA had produced television ads in swing states Virginia and Ohio encouraging voters to “stand with coal” and “vote no on Obama’s failing energy policy,” while claiming they were not designed to assist Mitt Romney in unseating Barack Obama. [2]

Marcus Owens, an attorney who previously headed the IRS’ tax-exempt division, said the American Energy Alliance’s 2013 tax filing “certainly raises a red flag.” [20]

“It’s a politically active organization,” he toldHuffington Post. According to Owens, AEA‘s pre-election advertisement blitz “sounds like a lobbying message on its face.” [20]

Funding

The following data is compiled from the Conservative Transparency project. Note that as a 501(c)(4) organization, the American Energy Alliance is not required to disclose its donors, so available data is limited. [21]

View the attached spreadsheet for additional details on :{American Energy Alliance funding by year (.xlsx):(style="box-sizing:border-box;font-weight:600"):}:.

As Recipient

...

819 DN

...And then, finally, perhaps most importantly, Koch has built a nationwide activist network calledAmericans for Prosperity. And what this is is a boots-on-the-ground operation. So, Americans for Prosperity has chapters around the country. They can activate people to go knock on doors, take petitions. They will charter busesfrom West Virginia, North Carolina, Missouri, Ohio, you name it. They will getbuses of angry voters[pseudo-populist trigger anti-gubmint] to come to Washington, D.C., and then go visit congressional offices that have been specifically identified by that big corporate lobbying shop we talked about, where they can pressure lawmakers.

And Koch put this political machine into full force in 2009 and 2010, when it looked like the United States was going to regulate greenhouse gas emissions for the first time. You know, back then, there really was bipartisan support to do something on climate change. The Republican, John McCain,ran on doing something about climate change. But Koch Industries intervened, and, I think more than even Exxon or other companies, it sort of — it politicized this issue of climate change. And Koch went after any moderate Republicans who acknowledged that climate change was real, who supported any effort to put a price on carbon. And Koch helped to drive those people out of office. So it played a vitally important role in making it clear to Republicans that they could not support any effort on climate change.

AMY GOODMAN: The Kochtopus? Elaborate further.

CHRISTOPHER LEONARD: The Kochtopus, here’s a great example. In 2009, when we were debating climate change, my book shows that Koch secretly funded a think tank report from this group called the American Council [for] Capital Formation. And this report said that if we regulate climate change, it will be a disaster for the American economy. Then another Koch-funded think tank called the American Energy Alliance took the findings from that report, made political ads and targeted those ads at Republican politicians, like Lindsey Graham, who supported climate change legislation, so now Lindsey Graham has got these horrible campaign spots running back home. And then the corporate lobbyists from Koch will be visiting the offices of Lindsey Graham and explaining why they can’t support climate change bill.

So, the Kochtopus is this remarkably effective 360-degree machine that affects the public debate around issues like this, that has lobbyists who work on issues like this, and that can, finally, bring voters in. You know, Americans for Prosperity will — I’ve been at these events where they bus voters into Washington, D.C. They give them glossy printed protest signs. They feed them a boxed lunch. They take them to the congressional offices. And they can stoke what appears to be a real public revolt against legislation like this....

===

==

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/19072018/anti-carbon-tax-resolution-house-vote-climate-solutions-caucus-curbelo-scalise-koch-influence-congress

 U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday passed a resolution denouncing the idea of a U.S. carbon tax as detrimental to the economy, one week before a Republican-sponsored bill to create a carbon fee is set to be introduced.

It was a win for a coalition of groups funded by the petrochemical billionaire Koch brothers and other wealthy, right-wing opponents of climate action. And it revealed weak resolve for bucking GOP leadership among most of the 43 Republican members of the Climate Solutions Caucus.

If the bipartisan caucus had held firm, the resolution would have been handily defeated.

Instead, only six Republicans—four of them caucus members, including Rep. Carlos Curbelo of Florida, who plans to unveil the carbon fee measure next week—joined most Democrats in opposing the resolution. Seven Democrats voted with the GOP.

The 229-180 vote marked a slight erosion in the GOP wall of opposition to climate action. In 2016, an identical measure passed the House 237-163with no Republicans opposed. Such resolutions are meant to express the views of the chamber and have no real-world impact, but with a different Congress in place now, carbon tax foes wanted a new vote.  The American Energy Alliance (AEA), the Heartland Institute, and 18 other conservative advocacy groups had urged House Speaker Paul Ryan earlier this month to bring the resolution to the floor.

AEA president Thomas Pyle said in an interview with InsideClimate News that the impetus was not the prospect of Curbelo's bill, but an effort to put members on the record before November. The groups put it this way in their letterto Ryan: "As we approach the 2018 midterm election, American voters need to know whether their elected representatives support the implementation of a new tax on the energy they rely on every single day."

The House's affirmation of a fossil fuel-friendly agenda comes in a week when President Donald Trump's administration did the same on multiple fronts.

The Environmental Protection Agency's new administrator, former coal lobbyist Andrew Wheeler, finalized a plan to ease requirements for handling the toxic coal ash from power plants—rules developed by the Obama administration after costly spills in Tennessee and North Carolina. The Treasury Department announced it would scrap requirements that certain tax-exempt nonprofits disclose their donors, helping to cloak a key avenue for campaign contributions used by the Koch brothers and other wealthy political benefactors.

2 Views on How Climate Solutions Caucus Voted

The House vote showed the flimsiness of the Climate Solutions Caucus, the bipartisan coalition that Curbelo and others have sought to build behind the concept of a market-based solution for curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

RL Miller, president of the advocacy group Climate Hawks Vote, said the caucus' credibility is in tatters after its GOP members, whom she has frequently criticized for their weak environmental voting records, failed to hold off a resolution that strikes at the heart of their purported purpose.

"It would be a joke were the subject not so serious. The caucus has no credibility, and no ability to do anything," Miller said. "The climate is changing far more quickly than Republican attitudes. That's why we do not hold faith in bipartisan solutions."

But Steve Valk, spokesman for the Citizens Climate Lobby,a grassroots advocacy group that favors a carbon tax and that helped bring together the caucus, noted the non-binding resolution has no real effect. Valk said he did not expect that its members would go out on a limb against such a measure, especially since it was sponsored by House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), the No. 3 Republican in the chamber and a potential successor to Ryan, who is retiring.

"Anybody who votes against this resolution—it's going to be a mark against them in the eyes of the leadership, which decides what assignments you get, whether or not you're on the committee you want, and who's chair," Valk said. "There's a lot of calculations that go into a decision like this. We're willing to look at that and say, yeah, it's not a simple choice for them.

"In my mind, if you can get a handful of Republicans to vote no on this, that's a victory."

The Conversation Is Shifting: Republicans Consider Carbon Pricing

Other carbon tax advocates expressed glass-half-full optimism, arguing the mere push for a vote by fossil fuel allies betrays their concern about the increasing support for the idea of putting a price on carbon to fight climate change.

"They feel that the momentum is shifting as the conversation commences, and they are trying to beat down any thoughtful analysis with a tribal drum that they are nervously beating louder," said former Rep. Bob Inglis, a Republican from South Carolina and founder of a conservative carbon tax advocacy group republicEn.

"If we were able to discuss this, we'd find that this is something that could bring conservatives and progressives together," he said.

Conservative advocates for a carbon tax have been trying to make their case in Washington since the start of the Trump administration with little success.Trump's former chief economic advisor, Gary Cohn, reportedly earned the derisive nickname "Carbon Tax Cohn" in the West Wing for giving a hearing to a revenue-neutral tax plan proposed by prominent Republicans, including former Secretary of State James Baker and former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

But since then, other groups have popped up. The nuclear-heavy energy company Exelon, the American Wind Energy Association and First Solar are funding a coalition called Americans for Carbon Dividends, which hashired former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, a Mississippi Republican, to lobby on the issue. Twenty-two college Republican groups came together earlier this year to form Students for Carbon Dividends. Its founding president, Alex Posner, an American history major at Yale, says the plan they favor would address international competitiveness and jobs creation and would look nothing like the carbon tax described in the Scalise resolution. "We want to see a plan that's pro-growth and pro-environment while shrinking the size of government," he said.

Pyle, of the American Energy Alliance, argues that no matter the design of a carbon tax program, consumers are worse off. "There's revenue generated, and then you haggle over how to spend it," he said. "It's no different than other taxes and fees. If you're giving back some to low-income households, it's a still a redistribution. And since poorer people pay a higher percentage of their incomes on energy, they are worse off."

A series of four reports released this week by Columbia University's Center on Global Energy Policy calls that argument into question, however, and provides ammunition for carbon tax advocates. The reports analyze various carbon tax legislation scenarios and conclude that they would increase government revenue by hundreds of billions of dollars a year and drive down U.S. emissions, far more than current policy, with minimal effects on the U.S. economy, families or businesses, or even on oil and gas production and consumption.

Curbelo: Resolution Presented 'a False Choice'

For now, the House vote preemptively throws cold water on Curbelo's planned introduction next week of legislation that wouldimpose an escalating tax on carbonemissions, while pausing federal regulations on climate change.Although Curbelo would not discuss details of his plan, reports said the revenue generated would be directed into infrastructure and in helping communities adapt to sea level rise and other impacts of climate change.

Curbelo did not speak on the House floor during the one-hour debate allotted for the Scalise resolution. But when asked by InsideClimate News to comment, he criticized the measure in an emailed statement.

"The resolution presents a false choice," Curbelo said. "While I agree a carbon tax on its own would not be the best way forward and could have negative effects on the economy, there are smarter, more innovative solutions that would not only reduce carbon emissions and mitigate for the effects they have on our planet, but also grow the economy and provide opportunities for American workers and businesses at home and abroad.

"I look forward to engaging with my colleagues on this topic next week, and sharing my own proposal in the near future," he said.

Curbelo, who represents the southern tip of Florida, one of the regions of the country most vulnerable to climate change impacts, is seen as one of the most vulnerable House Republicans. Cook Political Report and other political odds-makers call his race a toss-up.

With Democrats expected to gain between 20 and 35 seats in November, and just 23 needed for them to retake the majority, Inglis argues that Scalise wasn't doing his own party any favors by forcing a carbon tax showdown. "Steve, what are you doing, running for minority leader?" asked Inglis. "He's putting people at risk for an idea that is clearly going to become very passé and very retro looking."

The House Debate

During the House debate on the measure, Republicans urged a stand against carbon taxes while taking pains to assert that they were not denying the science of climate change.

"I'm not a climate denier. I'm not a science denier. I'm a climate thinker," said Rep. Andy Barr (R-Ky.) "And real science isn't just about assessing costs only. It's about looking at benefits as well. ... Coal provides cheap, plentiful, reliable energy over the long term. We should not want the most carbon-free energy, but the best energy."

Democrats used up much of their 30 minutes of time attempting to change the subject from the anti-carbon tax measure to spotlight Trump's controversial meeting this week with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.), managing the resolution for the GOP, repeatedly refused.

A handful of Democrats, most of them members of the Climate Solutions Caucus, offered full-throated defense of carbon taxes.

"For decades, economists from across the ideological spectrum have argued that a carbon price is the most efficient way to discourage the use of fossil fuels and the best way to encourage energy efficiency measures and market decisions on everything from housing to transportation," saidRep. Don Beyer (D-Va.). "The science continues to accumulate in prodigious amounts that the pollution is changing our Earth and the cost is staggering into the billions. Carbon pricing is the most market-oriented policy we can take to combat this."

Rep. Earl Blumenauer, (D-Ore.) said the resolution "encapsulates what's wrong with the Republican management of this Congress. It is a cartoon that doesn't deal with the underlying issues," he said. "We could have a debate about real legislation that would satisfy their answers and be able to deal with what our responsibilities are to the future. ... Instead, we're dealing with empty gestures."

In addition to Curbelo, Republicans voting against the resolution were Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Mia Love of Utah—all members of the Climate Solutions Caucus—and Reps. Trey Hollingsworth of Indiana and Francis Rooney of Florida. The Democrats who joined the GOP in voting for the resolution were Reps. Sanford Bishop of Georgia; Henry Cuellar and Vincente González of Texas; Conor Lamb of Pennsylvania; Stephanie Murphy of Florida; and Tom O'Halleran and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona. 

PUBLISHED UNDER:

REGULATION

CLIMATE CHANGE

together at last: IER AEA:

https://www.ecowatch.com/wind-production-tax-credit-2517400737.html

Who’s Behind a Letter Asking Congress to End the Wind Production Tax Credit?

By Dave Anderson

A new letter asking Congress to end the wind production tax credit has ties to the Institute for Energy Research, a group that has received funding from the fossil fuel and utility industry and is a close ally of the Trump administration.

The Energy and Policy Institute downloaded a pdf of the letter from WindAction.org, an anti-wind website run by the New Hampshire-based Lisa Linowes. A look at the "Document Properties" seemed to identify "Chris Warren" as the "Author" of the file:

[img]

An individual named "Chris Warren" worked as the director of communications for the Institute for Energy Research (IER) from June of 2012 to May of 2017, according to Warren's LinkedIn profile. While at IER, Warren worked to oppose the wind PTC.

The Energy and Policy Institute attempted to contact Warren via his LinkedIn account about this new anti-wind letter to Congress, but has not received a response yet.

Robert Bradley, the CEO and founder of IER, promoted the new letter, which he dubbed the "Linowes Letter," in a post on his group's **blog MasterResource**.org. IER has received funding from fossil fuel and utility interests, including the Koch network,coal producer Peabody Energy, and the Edison Electric Institute. The group also has strong ties to the Trump administration.

"I'm not sure I know who Chris Warren is?" Linowes said in response to an email from the Energy and Policy Institute.

"In any event, a Chris Warren had nothing to do with the letter," she said.

Linowes claimed that she wrote the letter, and that no one helped to draft it.

Shortly after the Energy and Policy Institute emailed Linowes for comment, the pdf of the letter found on WindAction.org was replaced with a new version with "Chris Warren" removed from the "Author" section of the "Document Properties":

img]

Robert Bradley of IER also linked to a related petition posted by Janna Swanson, an Iowa-based anti-wind activist, that's so far been signed by more than 1,100 people.

"The letter that will be sent with this petition to the U.S. Congress on Tuesday Dec.12, 2017 can be seen through this link," according to Swanson's petition, which then provided a link back to the Linowes letter on WindAction.org.

Like an earlier letter from Tom Pyle, the president of IER and its affiliated organization the American Energy Alliance (AEA), the "Linowes Letter" goes beyond attacking the wind PTC, and also opposes a "carve-out" that would save the wind and solar power industry from the harmful Base Erosion Anti-Abuse Tax, or BEAT, provision found in the Senate version of the tax bill.

AEA/IER have a long history of teaming up with anti-wind activists against the wind PTC.

Chris Warren now works as a speechwriter for Texans for Greg Abbott, according to his LinkedIn profile. Warren's new job began around the time that Governor **Abbott signed a bill**that made wind farms located near military facilities ineligible for property tax exemptions.

IER has promoted overblown claims about the impacts of wind turbines on military radar operations made by Linowes on MasterResource.org.

Linowes is one of the "Principals" who writes regularly for IER's blog MasterResource.org, and her relationship with IER calls into question**claims of independence** found in the FAQ section of WindAction.org:

"WindAction is not funded in any way by others in the energy industry including coal, natural gas, nuclear power, or other renewable energy resources; nor are we affiliated with large political activists groups. Support for our efforts is entirely grass roots, coming from diversified environmentalists, energy experts, and ordinary citizens who share our concerns about industrial wind energy development."

IER disclosed a total of $151,625 in expenses for "CONSULTING—RESEARCH AND WRITING" on its IRS 990 for 2016, andanother $227,417 for 2015, but did not disclose to whom that money was being paid.

Asked if she has received funding from IER or AEA, Linowes responded, "No."

Members of Congress who receive the "Linowes letter" should know about Linowes' ties to the Institute for Energy Research, and the fossil fuel and utility interests that this group represents.

Dave Anderson is the policy and communications manager for the Energy and Policy Institute.

ref

http://www.energyandpolicy.org/george-david-banks-trump-wind-power/

George David Banks, a top advisor to President Trump on climate change, once worked as the “D.C. liaison” for the Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (AWED), a coalition of “individuals, organizations, communities, and businesses” founded by the anti-wind activist and climate skepticJohn Droz, Jr.

Droz received national attention in 2012 for his role in drafting a :{“National PR Campaign Proposal”:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: to “… constructively influence state and national wind energy policies.” The “confidential” draft plan called for “joining forces” with a number of powerful special interest groups backed by the Koch brothers. It was soon followed by :{a February 2012 meeting:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: between local wind power opponents, including Droz, and representatives of some of these same Koch-backed groups.  

Droz is equally well known for :{his role in fooling state lawmakers:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: in North Carolina into a passing a :{controversial moratorium:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:on the use of sea level rise protections in coastal planning. Droz often :{describes himself:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: as an “independent physicist” and he does hold degrees in physics that he earned back in the 1960s and 1970s. However, :{according to Droz’s own resume:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:, his professional career since 1979 has been in real estate, where he has made enough money to pursue other interests like bashing wind power on the side. Droz is :{not an expert on climate change:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:, and he has, in fact, embraced unscientific conspiracy theories.

“One insightful observer commented that the whole AGW hypothesis was never about climate anyway — but rather it is ultimately about control (of population, lifestyle, energy use, etc.),” Droz’s :{official position on global warming:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: concluded (AGW is short for anthropogenic, or human-caused, global warming).

As AWED’s director of D.C. operations in 2012 and 2013, :{Banks worked as part of what the Washington Post dubbed an “unusual coalition”:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: that pressured Congress to allow a key federal tax credit for wind power to expire. The coalition included the utility Exelon and Koch-backed groups like Americans for Prosperity and Freedomworks, as well as:{a number of local anti-wind groups:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:. 

[img]

The Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions and Freedomworks used social media and false narratives to manufacture opposition to the wind Production Tax Credit.

Around the same time he was working for AWED, Banks was also a :{policy advisor to Heartland Institute:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:, which was working with the American Legislative Exchange Council and other Koch-backed groups to use “model legislation” to :{repeal another key driver of wind power growth:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:: state renewable portfolio standards (RPS). Droz was already working with ALEC and other groups with ties to the Koch brothers to attack :{North Carolina’s RPS:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:, and in 2013 he :{worked to recruit wind power opponents:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: in other states to the campaign.

Who paid George David Banks to work for the Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions?

A :{brief bio:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: of Banks put out by the White House press office when he was appointed by President Trump to serve as a special assistant for international energy and environment made no mention of AWED or the Heartland Institute, nor does his :{LinkedIn profile:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:.

What Banks does reveal on his LinkedIn profile is that at the same time he was working for AWED in 2012 and 2013, he was also the managing director of Battle Group, LLC,a:

“Strategic consultancy that works to bridge and integrate state and local advocacy efforts with free market lobbying campaigns at the national level, focusing on energy and environment issues.”

A consultancy is, by definition, a company that gets paid to provide professional advice or services, yet AWED and its founder John Droz – a :{self-described:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: “independent physicist and energy expert” – have long sought to portray their anti-wind efforts as powered by volunteers and free of financial ties to the fossil fuel and utility industries.

“All of our efforts (including this website) are from donated time and effort on the part of committed citizens,” AWED said on its :{PTCFacts.info:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: website, set up to oppose :{the 2012 extension of the wind production tax credit:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:. “We have received zero funding from any source for our efforts to promote better energy policies.”

“Everyone involved with AWED (including me) is an unpaid volunteer, who is committed to Science-based energy policies,” John Droz, the founder of AWED, told the Energy and Policy Institute via email in 2017.

“So the short answer is that Dave was paid nothing for any efforts he contributed to promoting Science,” Droz said. (Banks often goes by his middle name, David or Dave)

However, asked if other “individual, organizations, or companies may have been paying Banks for his work on wind energy issues while he was a ‘volunteer’ for AWED,” Droz pleaded ignorance.

“I have no knowledge of any other groups that Dave was connected with during the period of time he volunteered for AWED,” said Droz.

Banks :{started the Battle Group:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: and worked as :{AWED’s director of D.C. operations:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: after a 2011-2012 stint on the staff of Republican Senator James Inhofe, where he :{:{s:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}::{parked controversy:(style="background-color:#ff9900;"):}::(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: with :{a leaked memo:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: that used the words “our partners” to describe the oil industry.

Just after Banks left Inhofe’s staff, :{Politico Pro:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: ($) asked Banks about his ties with the lobbyist C. Boyden Gray, FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity. Here is how Banks responded:

“I was kind of on the circuit with some of these guys, but there’s obviously a limit of what you can do in the Senate,” he said, noting a desire to do media appearances and speeches. “I’d like to do more of that if possible.”

In 2009-2011, Banks had worked as a partner for Boyden Gray & Associates, where according to his :{LinkedIn profile:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: he was a registered lobbyist for Constellation Energy, which :{merged with Exelon in 2012:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:. While Banks was working with AWED in 2012, C. Boyden Gray was :{lobbying against the wind PTC:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: for Exelon, which :{along with Gray:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: publicly :{campaigned for the PTC’s immediate expiration:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:. Gray also served at the time on :{the board of directors for Freedomworks:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:, which partnered with Banks and AWED to manufacture public opposition to the wind PTC.

[img]

George David Banks tweeted links to Freedomworks’ attacks on the wind production tax credit.

Exelonalso for several years :{funded the Koch-backed American Energy Alliance’s:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: attacks on the wind PTC. This group was another member of the “unusual coalition” that Banks and AWED :{campaigned alongside:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: in 2012 and 2013.

Exelon did not respond to a request for comment on whether it made any payments to Banks or the Battle Group during the time period in question.

Droz’s 2012 proposal for a national PR campaign by local anti-wind activists had called for “joining forces” with a number of national Koch-backed groups. Sure enough, it was Christine Harbin of the Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity that organized :{a 2012 letter:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: signed by a number of local anti-wind groups and national organizations backed by the Koch brothers, according to :{a document:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: found on the website of one of the signers, Auglaize Neighbors United. Among the signers were AWED, Freedomworks, and the American Energy Alliance.

“We are working with several other national organizations who are also against the PTC,” according to an update found in that same document from the Auglaize Neighbors United website. “Our DC liaison, Dave Banks, has been actively working with these groups, who have been meeting once a week to discuss strategy, etc.”

AWED’s relationships with Banks and other D.C. insiders opened some powerful doors in Washington. Banks joined Droz and other AWED supporters for a meeting withstaff for then House Speaker John Boehner, according to a “:{AWED December 2012 DC PTC Trip Report:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:” that Droz posted online.

Asked about these relationships in 2017, Droz again feigned ignorance.

“Of course I am familiar with Americans for Prosperity, Freedomworks, and Exelon,” Droz told the Energy and Policy Institute. “None of those people(to my knowledge) paid anyone to assist in this issue.”

Bank’s public work as AWED’s director of D.C. operations appears to have ended sometime in 2013, around the same time he :{joined the Center for Strategic & International Studies:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: (CSIS). At CSIS, Banks :{again fought against the wind PTC:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: alongside :{C. Boyden Gray and Exelon:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:. Banks continued to :{target the wind PTC:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: in 2015, while executive vice president for the American Council for Capital Formation, where he later :{defended Donald Trump’s tweet:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: that claimed climate change was a hoax manufactured by the Chinese.

George David Banks faces questions about his past lobbying in 2017

Banks has faced scrutiny as :{one of many former lobbyists:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: appointed by Trump to work on the same issues they lobbied on within the past two years, despite a campaign pledge to “drain the swamp.” Banks was registered as having lobbied for the American Council on Capital Formation (ACCF) on “Tax, Environment, and Regulatory Issues” in :{2015:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: and :{2016:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:. Banks and ACCF now :{claim:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: he was “mistakenly” registered as a lobbyist, and that the work Banks did for ACCF did not actually qualify as lobbying.

As mentioned earlier, in 2009-2011, Banks was also a partner in Boyden, Gray & Associates, where his :{LinkedIn profile:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: discloses he was a “Registered lobbyist for Constellation, FirstEnergy and Nuclear Energy Institute.” Lobbying reports for Banks from this time can be in the U.S. House and Senate lobbying disclosure databases. 

Banks worked on “lobbying campaigns” for :{AWED:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: and :{the Battle Group:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:, according to statements about his work found online. However, searches of the House and Senate lobbying disclosure databases found no reports for lobbying done by “George David Banks” between 2012 and 2014, which covers the time period he worked for AWED and ran the Battle Group.

What Banks’ anti-wind allies want from Trump

“FYI I have some connections to the Trump transition team, and (as you can tell from news stories), things are moving along quite quickly,” Droz :{wrote to supporters:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: shortly after the 2016 election. 

Droz’s post-election message also included a revealing “:{list:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: of some major issues that need addressing” by the Trump administration. The list included a call to “Terminate special renewable subsidies (e.g. PTC and ITC).” Droz and AWED also :{joined a letter:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: that called on Trump to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement, which was signed by many of the special interest groups they worked with on previous attacks on the wind PTC.

The American Energy Alliance, with which Banks worked closely during his time at AWED, backed Trump’s presidential campaign and has played an :{outsized role:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: in defining the new Trump administration. The Institute for Energy Research, the American Energy Alliance’s research arm, continues to :{promote Droz’s anti-wind work:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: on its blog, MasterResources.org

Still, ending the wind PTC before it’s current expiration date of 2020 :{appears to be a non-priority:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: for most Republican lawmakers in Washington, and it’s worth a reminder that :{Trump actually backed the PTC:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: while on the campaign trail.

But Droz and AWED have found some success working with Republicans and Koch-backed groups at the state level since 2012. In 2017, Droz:{provided support:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: to Republican state lawmakers in North Carolina who tried to halt an Amazon wind farm :{based on the pretense:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:that it posed a risk to a Navy radar installation–:{ a claim the Navy denied:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:. One of those same lawmakers, Senate Majority Leader Harry Brown, later :{tacked a moratorium on new wind farms:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: onto a major solar bill that was signed into law – :{a move that pleased Droz:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:. During a recent podcast interview with H. Sterling Burnett of the Heartland Institute, Droz said he also supported a successful effort by state lawmakers in Texas to pass legislation that makes new wind farms located near military bases ineligible for property tax exemptions.

The local communities and states that Droz and AWED target next will do well to remember whose interests these wind power opponents have aligned with, and it’s not the interests of the majority Americans who want to see more, not less, support for wind power. 

==

September, 2013

The National Black Chamber of Commercewas a signatory to a l:{etter designed by the :(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}::{**American Energy Alliance (AEA**):(style="background-color:#ff9900;"):}: asking Congress not to renew windenergy tax credits that would expire at the end of the year.  [9]

Other signers of the letter included:

==

Fri, 2010-05-28

Brad Johnson over at The WONK ROOM reports:

The American Energy Alliance (AEA), a new polluter front group, is touring the nation to smear President Barack Obama’s clean energy reform agenda. Employees riding the “American Energy Express” bus are spreading the conservative lies that the American Clean Energy and Security Act will “cripple our sluggish economy.” AEA is the 501 c(4) offshoot of the Institute for Energy Research, a right-wing oil-industry think tank run by Robert Bradley, a former speechwriter for Kenneth Lay. E&E News reports that AEA’s “Energy Town Hall” bus tour [pictures workers in hard hats:

The American Energy Alliance, which is affiliated with the conservative Institute for Energy Research, has begun a four-week bus tour to county fairs, sporting events and public meetings in several coal-reliant states. Representatives of the group will travel in a large blue bus carrying the slogan “Stop the National Energy Tax, Save American Jobs” and a picture of workers in hard hats. They will cross Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, West Virginia and Virginia. Yesterday, AEA officials participated in a rally with another group, Americans for Prosperity, in Zanesville, Ohio; a day earlier, they visited a county fair in western Pennsylvania.

In fact, by attacking legislation that addresses climate change and our national dependence on fossil fuels, AEA is preventing a clean-energy economic boom. Laughably, AEA claims it has “no ties to any political party“:

American Energy Alliance staffers Kevin Kennedy, Patrick Creighton, and Laura Henderson on tour in Pennsylvania. All are former House GOP staff.

AEA may be telling the truth that it has “no interest in supporting the agenda of any particular political party” — its only interest seems to be blocking progressive reform by spreading lies and distortions. However, AEA is tightly connected to the Republican Party and right-wing oil interests. In fact, all of its employees are former House Republican staffers:

Thomas J. Pyle,AEA President, Is A Oil Lobbyist And DeLay Operative. Before joining the Institute for Energy Research and the American Energy Alliance, Pyle worked as a lobbyist for the right-wing oil giant Koch Industries, first in-house starting in 2001, and then at the Rhoads Group. In 2008 Pyle became a lobbyist for the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association. Previously, Pyle served as policy analyst for Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX), Majority Whip of the U.S. House of Representatives and as staff director for the GOP Congressional Western Caucus. Pyle started as a legislative assistant for radical anti-environmentalists Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA) and Rep. George Radanovich (R-CA). [Institute for Energy Research, Center for Public Integrity]

Patrick Creighton, AEA Communications Director, Worked For Bush And Pennsylvania Republicans. Patrick Creighton was the special assistant to Samuel T. Mok, the chief financial officer at the Department of Labor from 2004 to 2006. He then worked as a spokesman for oil and natural gas advocate Rep. John Peterson (R-PA) from 2006 to 2009, worked to elect Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-PA), then joined Thompson’s office until May 2009. [Institute for Energy Research, Legistorm]

Kevin Kennedy,AEA Federal Affairs Director, Promoted Alaska Drilling Under Don Young. After graduating from Union College in 2004, Kevin Kennedy worked for the Astroturf organization Arctic Power, which advocated drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In 2007, Kennedy became a legislative assistant for the corrupt Rep. Don Young (R-AK) and the House Committee on Natural Resources. He joined the Institute for Energy Research and American Energy Alliance in 2009. [Institute for Energy Research]

Laura Henderson, AEA Spokesperson, Served Shelby, Dole, And Tiberi. Laura Henderson was a former press secretary for offshore drilling advocate Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) from 2005-2009. Previously, she worked for former Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) and Rep. Pat Tiberi (R-OH). [Institute for Energy Research]

Daniel R. Simmons, AEA State Affairs Director, Is A Koch-Funded GOP Staffer. Simmons was the Director of the Natural Resources Task Force at the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a right-wing network funded by Koch Industries, the American Petroleum Institute, and other corporate and right-wing organizations. Previously, Simmons was a Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, also funded by Koch. From 2001 to 2005, Simmons served on the staff of Rep. George Nethercutt (R-WA) on the House Natural Resources Committee. Simmons holds a B.A. in Economics from Utah State University and a J.D. from George Mason University School of Law, also supported by Koch Industries. [Institute for Energy Research, Legistorm]

Furthermore, AEA’s EnergyTownHall.org website is run by yet another former GOP House staffer:

GOP.gov Webmaster Nathan Imperiale Runs EnergyTownHall.Org.  AEA’s EnergyTownHall.org was designed by NJI Media Group, part of Endeavour Global Strategies. Endeavour’s head, Sean Spicer, is a long-time GOP operative, including communications work for the House Republican Conference and the Bush White House. NJI Media Group’s president, Nathan Imperiale, served as Director of New Media for the House Republican Conference, building its GOP.gov website. [Twitter,2/13/09; Endeavour Global Strategies]

AEA’s “American Energy Express” joins a field crowded by conservative oil and coal propaganda — the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity’s “Factuality” bus tour, the American Petroleum Institute’s “Energy Citizens” oil rallies, and the Americans For Prosperity “Hot Air” balloon tour.

Update At Free Advice, Institute for Energy Research economist Bob Murphy writes that Paul Krugman doesn't understand tea party protesters because he doesn't care about checks on government power like they do, and continues:

So, by symmetry, I think people on "our side" should realize that the great masses of Americans who are for health care reform and climate legislation (and it pains me to not put scare quotes around those phrases) aren't actually closet socialists who want to bring America to its knees.

By Brad Johnson at The WONK ROOM.

==

Conservative group launches broad anti-carbon tax campaign

By Zack Colman - 07/16/13

A conservative energy group is rolling out a multi-pronged push ahead of the August congressional recess thataims to put the carbon tax in its deathbed.

“We’re hoping to put the final nail in the coffin on the carbon tax. The proposal should be dead on arrival by the time lawmakers come back from August recess,” Benjamin Cole, a spokesman with the Institute for Energy Research and its advocacy arm, the American Energy Alliance, told The Hill in an interview detailing the plan.

The effort includes a new poll of American opinion on a carbon tax and an advertising campaign centered on five House members, among other elements.

As early as Thursday, AEA will launch a two-week radio advertising campaign that targets five House lawmakers — four Democrats and one Republican.

The ad blitz, which will cost between $120,000 and $150,000, targets Democratic Reps. Bill Owens (N.Y.),Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.), Patrick Murphy (Fla.) and William Enyart (Ill.), along with GOP Rep. Chris Smith (N.J.).

AEA chose to focus on members who have been “soft on the carbon tax issue” and reside in “marginal districts,” Cole said.

“We obviously are ones to apply pressure in any way we can,” he said.

The timing of the IER and AEA operation is designed to get energy issues on the agenda when lawmakers meet with voters in their congressional districts, Cole said.

Cole compared the upcoming recess to the summer of 2010, when the House had recently passed ObamaCare, the national healthcare law.

He said the climate change plan Obama unveiled last month — which relies on a suite of executive actions that industry, Republicans and coal-state Democrats say will slow the economy — will draw fire from voters across the country.

“We know that there’s going to be town halls that congressmen go back to their districts to hear from their constituents. We want to make sure that energy is on the plate,” he said.

The effort will attempt to blunt any possible momentum for a carbon tax, Cole said.

Of that, there appears to be little.

Taxing carbon emissions has support from some environmentalists, as well as a collection of conservative economists and advocates who say it should be coupled with lower personal tax rates. But the idea has little political traction.

Carbon tax proposals are a non-starter in the GOP-controlled House. And Republicans combined a bloc of centrist Democrats threaten to thwart a carbon tax in the Senate. On top of all that, the White House has said it won’t pursue a carbon tax.

The concept has fueled intense opposition from the right.

The IER and AEA campaign has the support of several conservative outfits, including Americans for Tax Reform, FreedomWorks and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

The first piece of the rollout is an IER-commissioned poll of 800 registered voters conducted last week by The Tarrance Group that says Americans reject the idea of a carbon tax.

Fifty-nine percent of respondents said they oppose a carbon tax “paid by businesses of all sizes,” compared with 35 percent of those who favored the concept.

The poll doesn't take into account different schemes for a carbon tax— for example, there’s variability in policy circles when deciding whether to apply a fee at the point of carbon emissions or fossil fuel extraction.

Still, the responses differed greatly among parties. A majority of Democrats — 54 percent — favored a carbon tax, while 80 percent of Republicans rejected it.

The results of that poll will be discussed at a carbon tax event IER is hosting Wednesday. Then comes the radio ad launch.

IER will also give lawmakers a point-by-point critique of the climate change plan Obama unveiled last month before they head home.

“It’s teeing up August recess interaction with constituents,” Cole said.

Cole said that IER and AEA plan to keep the heat on lawmakers until the heads of the congressional tax-writing panels, Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.) and Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), formally declare a carbon tax is off the table.

The two committee heads have demonstrated a desire to overhaul the federal tax code — and for both, time is of the essence. Baucus isn’t running for reelection in 2014, and Camp’s term as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee is up after next year.

“There’s nothing that motivates a politician more than building his own legacy,” Cole said.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/311159-conservative-group-launches-broad-anti-carbon-tax-campaign#ixzz2bz7bE8Qk

Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

backed down groverhttp://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/11/13/1182511/grover-norquist-abruptly-reverses-position-on-carbon-tax-after-facing-criticism-from-koch-backed-group/

Grover Norquist Abruptly Changes Position On Carbon Tax After Facing Criticism From Koch-Backed Group

By Stephen Lacey onNov 13, 2012

Anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist raised a lot of eyebrows on Monday when he told National Journal that a carbon tax might be on the table if it were swapped with a cut to the income tax.

“It’s possible you could structure something that wasn’t an increase and didn’t violate the pledge,” he reportedly said.

As president of Americans for Tax Reform, Norquist has convinced hundreds of members of Congress to sign a pledge that they will never raise taxes. While his influence appears to be waning in Washington, Norquist’s tax pledge is still considered gospel for many Republicans. That’s why his willingness to consider a tax on global warming pollution is a big deal in political circles.

But one day later, after being criticized by the American Energy Alliance, the advocacy arm of a Koch-supported energy think tank devoted to promoting fossil fuel development, Norquist has completely reversed his statement, saying there virtually “no conceivable way” he could support a tax on carbon....

:{

}:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/11/13/1182511/grover-norquist-abruptly-reverses-position-on-carbon-tax-after-facing-criticism-from-koch-backed-group/

==

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/institute-for-energy-research/

Koch Industries Climate Denial Front Group

Institute for Energy Research (IER)

Read more about the Institute for Energy Research

Find more recipients of Koch foundation money

$175,000 received from Koch foundations 2005-2011 [Total Koch foundation grants 1997-2011: $235,000]

IER supported and promoted the "Spanish" and "Danish" studies critical of clean energy jobs, both of which have been debunked by credible sources. IER also argues that efforts to curb global warming would accomplish little at too great a cost, promotes ACCF/NAM and Heritage Foundation studiesthat exaggerate the costs of climate policy, and discourages U.S. leadership on the international stage.

Robert Bradley, a former Enron executive, is the CEO of IER and one of its founders. Thomas Pyle, a former Koch and oil-industry lobbyist, is the President of IER and the American Energy Alliance, the 501c4 counterpart to IER. Politico reports that IER and AEA still receive Koch money in support of a $3.6 millionanti-Obama gas price advertising campaign, although Koch foundations appear to have stopped supporting IER after 2007. The most recent available Koch foundation tax filings to IRS are for the year 2010, indicating the Kochs picked IER back up in 2011 or are funneling money through other avenues.

AEA was founded by the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Petroleum Institute to fight the BTU tax proposal in 1993, and in recent years funded by ExxonMobil and Koch Industries. AEA has been active in the climate debate, from running ads repeating false claims about the costs of climate legislation to trashing clean energy at town halls around the US.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/institute-for-energy-research/

==

The romance between ALEC and fracking continued at this year's ALEC meeting in Utah -- an appropriate location for the frack-friendly ALEC crew. In May, the U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar approved a major shale gas project by Texas-based Anadarko Petroleum Corp. in Utah's Uinta Basin -- expected to develop more than 3,600 new wells over the next decade.

In another industry-friendly move, Utah's Governor Gary Herbert, who spoke the ALEC conference's opening luncheon, signed a bill into law in March demanding that Congress hand over 30 million acres of federal land to the state by 2015 or the state will sue. According to the Associated Press, Lawmakers in Utah and Arizona have said the legislation is endorsed by ALEC. As documented by the Center for Media and Democracy's ALEC Exposed Project, ALEC drafted the "Sagebrush Rebellion Act," which was "designed to establish a mechanism for the transfer of ownership of unappropriated lands from the federal government to the states." According to the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, the governor's initiative would open up millions of acres of the "Wilderness Study Areas and proposed wilderness areas to oil and gas development" but in the process would cost Utah taxpayers enormously.

At the meeting, the CEO of the Institute for Energy Research (IER) Dr. Robert Bradley was one of the featured speakers. Bradley, formerly a director of policy analysis at Enron, also spoke at the 2011 ALEC conference in New Orleans. He is also an "adjunct scholar" at the right-wing think tank the Cato Institute and specializes in "global warming alarmism." IER is a non-profit group focused on global energy markets that pushes for deregulation, advances climate change denial, and attempts to discredit renewable energy sources. The group's 2010 IRS 990 form said that its focus was narrowed in on "impediments to domestic energy production, including government restrictions on access, burdensome regulations, and the favoritism of energy sources that are unsustainable in the marketplace."

The PR Bus of AEA and Koch's AFP

IER received some $307,000 from Exxon Mobil between 2003 and 2007, according to the publicly traded company's "Corporate Giving Reports." IER also received a total of $235,000 from Koch Family foundations between 1997-2010, according to a Greenpeace report. Koch Industries, an ALEC member, also profits from the expansion of fracking. Unlike Exxon, because Koch is not a publicly-traded company, any corporate donations to groups like IER, AEA, or AFP are not publicly disclosed.

IER is a "partner" organization of theAmerican Energy Alliance, a 501(c)4organization which calls itself the "grassroots arm" of IER. Thomas Pyle is president of both organizations, and is a former lobbyist for Koch Industries and former energy policy aide for former House Majority Leader Thomas D. DeLay, who resigned from the leadership following his indictment on conspiracy charges. Wayne Gable, also a former lobbyist for Koch Industries and former president for two of the Koch Family foundations, is on the board of both IER and AEA.

In 2011 IER and AEA launched "Energy for America" as a joint initiative with a laser point in on fracking, with an aim to "educate" the public on the practice. In October 2011, AEA and IER, in partnership with Koch Industries' astroturf group Americans for Prosperity, started a "Energy for America" bus tour to encourage the expansion of domestic exploration of oil, gas and coal, targeting U.S. Senate battleground states for the upcoming 2012 elections.

Additionally, Brownstein [trump swamp thing ] Hyatt Farber Schreck is one of the three chairs of the ALEC Energy, Environment, and Agriculture Task Force. One of its clients is Freeport LNG,which owns and operates one of the first liquefied natural gas import terminals built in the United States. According to the law firm's website, "For the last nine years, Brownstein has been the lead counsel in the structuring, strategy and development of the $1.2 billion receiving and regasification facility with commercial output capacity of more than 2.0 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day."

March 30, 2012

Funders Behind New Anti-Obama Ad Blitz Stay Hidden

Posted by Jane Mayer

A new and highly aggressive multi-million-dollar anti-Obama ad campaign has started airing on television stations in eight key political swing states—but for now at least, the funders are staying hidden in the shadows.

The ads in question have a distinctly oily aura, which is unsurprising, perhaps since the group sponsoring them has been funded in the past by major fossil-fuel companies. The group defines itself as a non-partisan nonprofit, but exemplifies the growing role that secret money is playing in the 2012 Presidential campaign. Technically, the ads have been produced and aired by the Washington-based American Energy Alliance, a 501c-4 social-welfare organization under the Internal Revenue Service’s tax code, whose activities, under the law, have to be largely non-political. This group shares office space and personnel with a sister organization, the Institute for Energy Research, a 501c-3, whose tax status is typically reserved for charities. Its activities have to be strictly non-partisan and non-political. Both groups hide the identities of their funders. All that Benjamin Cole, director of communications for both groups would say is that the ads are funded by “individuals, foundations, and corporations.”

Cole says that the $3.6 million ad campaign “is not election related at all. We’re not seeking to influence the elections.” It is, he says,only a coincidence that most of the eight states that the ads will air in—Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Virginia—are considered hotly contested swing states that could decide the outcome of the election.He says these states were chosen only because they are all places where energy is an issue. He explained, for instance, that offshore oil drilling is an issue in Virginia, and the high price of gasoline is an issue in Florida—a definition that would, it seems, allow for the group to chose any state.

He acknowledges, however, that the ads will directly blame Obama for recent increases in gas prices, despite the fact that even such conservative and libertarian voices such as Cato Institute scholars and Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal have protested that this is specious.

So who is behind the advertising campaign to push the line that Obama is to blame? Bill Burton, senior strategist at the pro-Obama Super PAC Priorities USA believes that it comes from a familiar source.“The Koch brothers and other oil barons are using profits from high gas prices to fund false political attacks benefitting Governor Romney,” he says.

Cole retorts that there is “not a single penny of Koch money” paying for the two-week ad campaign. But he declined to confirm or deny reports, including one by Politico, that the Koch brothers, whose privately owned conglomerate, Koch Industries, is a major domestic-oil refiner, have steered funds to both the American Energy Alliance and the Institute for Energy Research. A spokesperson at Koch Industries did not respond to questions on the Kochs’ ties to the groups.

The ties, though, appear to be extensive. In the past, according to National Public Radio, the Energy Research Institute has received funds from the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, which is controlled by the Kochs, as well as from Exxon Mobiland other energy companies.

The president of the American Energy Alliance, Thomas Pyle, formerly worked for Koch Industries, according to the watchdog group OpenSecrets.org. The records show that he also worked as an outside lobbyist for the Kochs’ private interests in Washington, first at Perceptum Consulting, and later at the Rhoads Group. According to Politico’s Ken Vogel,Pyle has “regularly attended” semi-annual political meetings run by the Kochs,including one this past winter in Indian Well, California, where the Kochs raised over a hundred and fifty million dollars to be directed to groups working against the Democrats in the 2012 general election. At a previous such political summit, Charles Koch described the 2012 election as “the mother of all wars.”

Pyle has a colorful political résumé as well. He worked as a top aide to Tom DeLay, the former Republican Majority Leader of the House of Representatives who was later convicted of money laundering, and he was identified by the Washington Post as a participant in the so-called “Brooks Brothers Riot,” in which Republican operatives from Washington stormed vote-counters in Florida during the hotly contested 2000 Bush v. Gore Presidential election. (“Tom Pyle is not running from his record at all,” Cole said, when asked about these ties. “It’s regrettable that the President is running from his.”)

The Kochs have blazed the trail for this sort of secretly funded, independent campaign. The ads attacking Obama for high gas prices follow an even larger ad buy last January made by Americans for Prosperity, an advocacy group founded and partly funded by David Koch, that, according to the Journal aired six million dollars’ worth ofads criticizing the President’s handling of Solyndra, the solar-energy firm that went bankrupt after receiving grants from the government. Those ads, interestingly, ran in many of the same key Presidential-battleground states earmarked for the new anti-Obama gas ads—specifically Ohio, Iowa, North Carolina, Virginia, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

So, whose money is behind the American Energy Alliance? The most striking feature of the 2012 Presidential campaign is that, at least for now, neither viewers of the ads, nor voters, nor virtually anyone else can tell.

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/03/funders-behind-new-antiobama-ad-blitz.html#ixzz1rSpUvkYv

The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, whose members include Peabody Energy Corp. (BTU) in St. Louis and Southern Co. (SO) in Atlanta, is trying to reach voters with its campaign to promote coal and warn about the economic impact of the EPA’s rules.

Earnhardt Sponsorship

Last month it announced it would sponsor Dale Earnhardt Jr.’s JR Motorsports team. An 18-wheel, mobile classroom will also be featured at NASCAR events to showcase the benefits of the fossil fuel, said Miller, the group’s spokeswoman, in an interview.

Meanwhile, the American Energy Alliance, which spent $3.6 million on a campaign targeting Obama on gasoline prices, produced a 4 1/2 minute long YouTube video describing the economic risks to Craig, Colorado, presented by state and federal policies that would limit coal use.

Coal’s complaints play into the Republican narrative that Obama administration regulations are hurting the economy.  bloomberg

BTU Tax

In 1993 Burson-Marsteller led a $1.8 million campaign to

defeat a proposed tax on fossil fuels. President

Clinton’s BTU Tax was the most ambitious measure to

combat climate change yet proposed by an American

government. The BTU Tax was to be levied on fossil

fuels, specifically on the heat generating capacity of

fossil fuels – a BTU (British Thermal unit) is a measure

of how much heat will be released by a given mass of

fuel. The tax would have added 25 cents to the price of

a gallon of petrol.

The tax was at the centre of Clinton’s plans to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions, which he aimed to reduce to

1990 levels by 2000.

Big business was unhappy with the plans however. The

National Association of Manufacturers (a sponsor of the

Global Climate Coalition), the American Petroleum

Institute, over 1,600 companies, large and small, and

farmers organised themselves to create the American

Energy Alliance (AEA), specifically to derail the BTU

tax[37].

The AEA hired B-M to orchestrate the campaign. Deploying

around 45 staff in 23 states, B-M organised a ‘grass

roots’ letter writing and phone-in campaign. They placed

anti-BTU articles and editorials in the press,

commissioned sceptical economists to write reports and

obtained media access for businessmen to express their

views. Naturally they also lobbied against the Tax in

Washington D.C.[38]

Congressional support for the BTU tax quickly withered

away and Clinton’s plan was defeated. Congress voted for

the tax to be kept below the five cents level. Treasury

Secretary Lloyd-Bentsen described the campaign as “one

of the most sophisticated jobs I've seen by lobbyists in

a long time.”

possible dupl:

webodec3 Brain