Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth

see main

API

...Acting on behalf of and under the supervision and control of the Fossil Fuel Defendants, API has, since at least 1988, participated in and led several coalitions, front groups, and organizations that have promoted disinformation about the climate impacts of fossil fuel products to consumers—including, but not limited to, the Global Climate Coalition, Partnership for a Better Energy Future, Coalition for American Jobs, Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth, and Alliance for Climate Strategies. These front groups were formed to promote climate disinformation and advocacy from a purportedly objective source, when in fact these groups were...

---

History and Background of the Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth

Overview: Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth

The Alliance for Energy and Econimic Growth (AEEG)was founded in 2001 and has been a major attack dog on climate and renewable energy policy for the US Chamber of Commerce.

While it is unclear who the founding members of the AEEG are the website registrationcurrently lists both the American Gas Association and the Edison Electric Institute as contacts. The staff email address for the US Chamber of Commerce is listed as the main contact.

The current management team of the AEEG (PDF) includes many of the most influential players in the US energy and transportation lobby, including:

James May, President and Chief Executive Officer, Air Transport Association of America

Dave McCurdy, President & Chief Executive Officer, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers

David Parker, President and CEO, American Gas Association

Andrew Sharkey, President and Chief Executive Officer, American Iron and Steel Institute

Red Cavaney, President and CEO, American Petroleum Institute

Edward Hamberger, President & CEO, Association of American Railroads

Thomas Kuhn, President, Edison Electric Institute

Donald Santa Jr., President & CEO, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America

Jay Timmons, Executive Vice President, National Association of Manufacturers

Evan Gaddis, President and CEO, National Electrical Manufacturers Association

Kraig Naasz, President and CEO, National Mining Association

Frank Bowman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear Energy Institute

R. Bruce Josten, Executive Vice President, U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth on Global Warming and Renewable Energy

Since its beginning the AEEG has a history of pushing hard for the expansion of domestic US energy production, while at the same time attacking efforts by the federal government to expand renewable energy use and greenhouse gas emission reductions strategies to fight global warming.

Here’s a timeline:

March 2003:the AEEG released a briefing note for policymakers promoting the use of “clean coal.” The document argues for the expansion in the use of coal and further investment by the federal government in the development and deployment of “clean coal” technologies.

You can also download a copy of this AEEG clean coal briefing note that we’ve archived.

March 2003: the AEEG lobbied to expand oil exploration and drilling into the Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), (PDF) arguing that, “if America’s needs for oil and natural gas are to be met, there is no choice except to migrate into new areas for exploration and production.” You can also download a copy of this AEEG ANWR position note that we’ve archived.

April 2003: the AEEG also lobbied hard against a nationwide, mandatory Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards (PDF).

You can also donwload a copy of this AEEG press release that we’ve archived.

May 2003: the AEEG ran an ad campaign and issued a position paper arguing that “Congress should not regulate Carbon Dioxide (C02) emissions” (PDF) in opposition to the 2003 Senate’s Energy Policy Act. The AEEG argued at the time that any “regime to cap C02 emissions” would “… require the U.S. to make deep and immediate cuts in our economy to meet an arbitrary target,” and the “Real GDP would drop at least $100 billion below the baseline, 1 million jobs would be lost, and disposable income would fall by more than $70 billion due to lower wages and fewer jobs.”

You can read the entire AEEG advertisement and position paper here (PDF).

May 2003: the AEEG released a position paper urging that “Congress should not mandate new greenhouse gas reporting.” The paper argued that “Mandating new federal greenhouse gas data collection beyond existing programs could impose billions of dollars in new and unnecessary costs and paperwork burdens on businesses without demonstrable justification or benefit and without clear purpose.” The AEEG instead urged Congress to impose voluntary reporting of greenhouse emissions for industry.

You can read the entireAEEG greenhouse gas position paper here (PDF)

June 2008: The AEEG lobbied Members of the US Senate to vote against the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act arguing that (PDF) the proposal could “could jeopardize energy supplies and harm the nation’s economic growth.”

The 2008 AEEG State-to-State Climate Change Tour

In 2008 the AEEG undertook a cross-coutry tour conducting a series of “state climate change dialogues… designed to raise awareness of important energy-related issues. The dialogues are intended to stimulate a national discussion on key climate change issues and provide.”

The initiatiave is a joint effort of the US Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers.

So far, the AEEG has held sessions in Colorado, Virginia, Nevada, Tenessee, Ohio, Montana, North Dakota and New Hampshire.

Speakers at the AEEG dialogues have included many well-known energy-industry lobbyists:

Rayola Dougher,Senior Economist, American Petroleum Institute

Kyle Isakower, Director of Policy Analysis, American Petroleum Institute

David Kreutzer, Senior Policy Analyst, Heritage Foundation

The AEEG’s Economic Impact Studies

The AEEG has used the dialogues speaking tour to roll-out State-level “Economic Impact Studies” that were prepared by the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Council for Capital Formation in response to the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act that was introduced in the Spring, 2008. When you consider the sources, it’s not suprising that these “studies” found the impacts of greenhouse gas reduction strategies as proposed in the Lieberman-Warner bill would result in massive job loss, decreases in disposable income and higher energy costs.

These “Economic Impact Studies” were prepared and publicly released in North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia,West Virginia, Michigan, Colorado, New Mexico, Oregon, Nevada, Missouriand Arkansas.

---

[### tag accf Hill Heat

http://www.hillheat.com › articles › tag › accf](http://www.hillheat.com/articles/tag/accf)

Mar 15, 2008 — The Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth (AEEG) (an industry coalition organized in 2001 to support the administration's Energy Task ...

[### Tag: Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth

Climate Investigations Center

https://climateinvestigations.org › tag › alliance-for-ene...](https://climateinvestigations.org/tag/alliance-for-energy-and-economic-growth/)

Feb 28, 2019 — Tag: Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth · The Climate Change Countermovement: Brown University Report and Panel · Research Topics · Contact Us.

earlier this month, CIC’s Kert Davies was an invited speaker at a collaborative conference held at Brown University on the economic impacts of climate change and the opposition to policy advances. The day long event, America’s Climate Change Future: Housing Markets, Stranded Assets, and Entrenched Interests, gathered experts on a range of climate change topics ranging from increased flood risk and stranded assets in fossil fuels, to the climate change countermovement and misinformation campaigns.

Alongside keynote speaker Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Brown professor Timmons Roberts, Davies participated in a discussion on a recently published paper by Justin Farrell of Yale’s School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. The paper’s focus on the “institutional and corporate structure of the climate change countermovement” helped shaped a discussion which outlined the existing body of research the paper built on.

The panelists examined the corporate genesis of the climate denial movement and the many methods of influence that have been utilized to stall effective climate change policy. Using documents and analysis found on Climate Files, Davies recounted how the largest oil majors, including Shell and Exxon, had extensive internal knowledge about climate change science and impacts decades before it became a topic of global concern. Rather than addressing the threat that their product posed to the world, the documents show that the fossil fuel industry engaged and funded a climate change countermovement to deny the urgency their own scientists knew to be true.

See video below of the full session with Davies, Senator Whitehouse and professor Roberts called, “Pushing Against Climate Denial and Defending Science.”

Brown University: New Report on Climate Change Countermovement

Brown University’s Climate Development Lab recently released a supplemental report titled Countermovement Coalitions: Climate Denialist Organizational Profiles tracking the affiliations and output of twelve organizations that “engaged in public misinformation campaigns about climate change” from 1989 to present day. Collaborating with CIC and drawing from Climate Files, ExxonSecrets, and other resources, the report highlights the coalitions’ “insular nature,” showing many to “share leadership teams, major donors, key members, and mission statements.” The twelve organizations highlighted by the Brown team are:

---

[### Alliance For Energy And Economic Growth Letter To Congress

poweronline.com

https://www.poweronline.com › doc › alliance-for-ene...](https://www.poweronline.com/doc/alliance-for-energy-and-economic-growth-lette-0001)

Dec 13, 2005 — Alliance For Energy And Economic Growth Letter To Congress: Energy Production From ANWR Is Vital. Washington - Energy production from a small ...

News | December 13, 2005

Alliance For Energy And Economic Growth Letter To Congress: Energy Production From ANWR Is Vital

Washington - Energy production from a small portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is vital to economic growth and energy security, and should be approved by Congress this month, according to a letter sent to all members of Congress by the Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth (AEEG).

The U.S. Senate's version of budget reconciliation legislation would allow energy producers to work in 2,000 acres of the 18-million acre wildlife refuge in Alaska. In its letter to Congress, AEEG said, "Our members believe that ANWR is one more critical part of securing America's energy future. While ANWR alone can't provide us with all the domestic energy we need, combined with the rapid development of other domestic oil and natural gas supplies, ANWR would make a tremendous difference, especially when coupled with greater energy efficiency, conservation and diversification. In addition, we must protect those Americans most at risk by supporting full funding of the Low- Income Home Energy Assistance Program."

The letter noted, "ANWR's Coastal Plain holds the nation's greatest potential for another Prudhoe Bay-size discovery. Conservative estimates from both the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Energy Information Administration peg technically recoverable crude oil reserves at approximately 10 billion barrels. That is enough to provide the United States with 1 million barrels of oil a day for 30 years."

SOURCE: The Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth

[### Energy Alliance Launches Ad Campaign Urging Adoption ...

Engineered Systems Magazine

https://www.esmagazine.com › articles › 88023-ener...](https://www.esmagazine.com/articles/88023-energy-alliance-launches-ad-campaign-urging-adoption-of-comprehensive-energy-plan)

The Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth recently launched a multi-media advertising campaign in Washington, D.C. to inform elected and appointed ...

[### Got $5 000 to spare? Join energy group

Indianz.Com

https://indianz.com › News › archive](https://indianz.com/News/archive.asp?ID=env/5302001-3&day=5/30/01)

It costs $5,000 to join the Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth but that isn't the only requirement for the a new political lobbying group,. Members must ...

MAY 30, 2001

It costs $5,000 to join the Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth but that isn't the only requirement for the a new political lobbying group,

Members must pledge to support President Bush's national energy policy 100 percent. If any are caught lobbying against any parts of it, even if it should change, they won't be part of the group.

The guidelines haven't dissuaged 400 groups from joining the month-old corporate alliance.

Get the Story:

Trade Groups in Lock Step Behind Bush Energy Policy(The Washington Post 5/30)

Get the President's Energy Policy:

Reliable, Affordable, and Environmentally Sound Energy for America�s Future(The White House 5/17)

ERRATA: Corrections(The White House 5/17)

Relevant Links:

Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth - http://www.yourenergyfuture.org

Board Members

1 / 2

David N Parker Natural gas lobbyist

• Principal

Donald Santa Jr President & CEO, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America | former FERC Commissioner

• Principal

James C May Air industry lobbyist

• Principal

Jay Timmons National Association of Manufacturers lobbyist

• Principal

Evan R Gaddis Electrical equipment lobbyist

• Principal

Thomas R Kuhn Electric utility lobbyist; president, Edison Electric Institute

• Principal

Donna Harman Paper industry lobbyist

• Principal

R Bruce Josten Exec. VP of Govt. Affairs for U.S. Chamber of Commerce

• Principal

Edward R Hamberger Right-wing railroad lobbyist

• Principal

John S. Shaw Republican cement lobbyist

• Principal

Members

1 / 2

U.S. Chamber of Commerce Largest business lobbying group in the USA

• Member

Portland Cement Association

• Member

Nuclear Energy Institute policy organization of the nuclear energy and technologies industry

• Member

National Mining Association Top mining lobby organization

• Member

National Electrical Manufacturers Association

• Member

National Association of Manufacturers

• Member

Interstate Natural Gas Association of America Natural gas trade group

• Member

Edison Electric Institute Association of U.S. investor-owned electric companies; fights state-level rooftop solar incentives

• Member

Association of American Railroads U.S. freight railroad association

• Member

American Petroleum Institute Oil and natural gas industry association

[### Alliance For Energy And Economic Growth Letter To Congress ...

electricnet.com

https://www.electricnet.com › doc › alliance-for-energ...](https://www.electricnet.com/doc/alliance-for-energy-and-economic-growth-lette-0001)

Alliance For Energy And Economic Growth Letter To Congress: Energy Production From ANWR Is Vital · Log In or Subscribe · Product Showcase News. News | December ...

[### Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act - GEM.wiki GEM.wiki

https://www.gem.wiki › Clean_Energy_Jobs_and_Am...](https://www.gem.wiki/Clean_Energy_Jobs_and_American_Power_Act)

Apr 29, 2021 — ... Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth, stood with Mr. Kerry and Mr. Lieberman and endorsed their bill. The bill includes proposals to ...

[### Chairman Bingaman Remarks Before the Chamber of ... U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources (.gov)

https://www.energy.senate.gov › ...](https://www.energy.senate.gov/2002/9/press-F1B79EA8-E240-4B3F-B152-43ED3897ECB7)

Sep 24, 2002 — Along with over 1000 other organizations, the Chamber has played an important role in forming an overall Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth ...

September 24, 2002

12:00 AM

I appreciate the opportunity to be with you today to provide my perspective on the ongoing conference on the energy bill. The conference has been officially underway since June 27, and its meetings to date have been very productive. For example, three of the biggest issues before the conference have been resolved. • The first issue is reauthorization of the Price-Anderson nuclear liability act, a key achievement if our future electricity supply picture is to have a strong nuclear component. Nuclear power accounts for 20 percent of our electricity generation today, and we should allow for the development of new generations of designs for safer nuclear power plants. • The second major issue we have resolved deals with energy transportation–the enactment of strong pipeline safety legislation. This House-Senate compromise that we struck in conference will ensure that the oldest and most risky pipelines get priority attention and inspection, so that our overall pipeline system can enjoy increased public confidence. • The third major issue we have resolved involves the efficiency of energy end-use – the enactment of provisions to raise CAFE standards on light-duty trucks. Again, we have reached a House-Senate compromise that found the middle ground on a very divisive issue, although the overall contribution to reducing our dependence on foreign oil is nowhere near as much as I would have preferred. The balance among these issues on energy supply, energy transmission, and energy efficiency, though, illustrates what I think is an important theme of the conference to date, and one that I hope we continue to carry forward. America needs a balanced and comprehensive energy policy. A supply-only approach will not meet the needs our country will face in the future; nor will a conservation-only approach. We need both. The success of the conference in striking this balance is illustrated by the agreement that has been reached in 13 other areas that, while not as newsworthy as CAFE standards, are still important to our nation’s energy future. These bipartisan agreements include the following: • a major new clean coal R&D program; • increased and streamlined energy development on Indian lands; • streamlining the process of siting and building a major new gas pipeline from Alaska; • permanently authorizing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve; • provisions to facilitate the production of nuclear energy; • new programs to promote rural and remote energy infrastructure • increased funding for LIHEAP, State Energy Programs, and Weatherization; • new standards and programs for energy efficiency that have been developed cooperatively with the affected industries; • increased energy efficiency in public housing; • studies and assessment on increasing our supply of renewable energy; • directives to Federal agencies to take the lead in increasing the fuel economy of the automobiles they own; and • programs to provide the next generation of scientists, engineers, and skilled workers for the energy needs of the country. The conference is far from over, though. Still ahead of us are a series of tough issues. Some are close to resolution, such as: • provisions to revitalize our energy research and development programs, so that the U.S. leads the world in new energy technologies; and • programs to increase the use of alternative fuels in vehicles, to help counteract our growing dependence on foreign oil. Other major issues will require additional hard work to find consensus. One of the most difficult and controversial will be electricity reform, where we need to provide order and certainty to a key energy sector that is currently very troubled. While adequate electricity supply is not a pressing problem right at the moment, there is a lot of uncertainty about the future. Investment in new electric generation is down. We will feel the effects of that investment downturn in about 4 years, when demand catches up to supply. We also need to address the need for greater diversity in our sources of generation. If most of the new generation being built in the future relies only on natural gas, then our country faces a real danger that electricity prices will begin to mirror the price spikes that frequently occur in natural gas prices. I can’t think of a more troubling development for consumers and small businesses. Two winters ago, natural gas prices spiked and consumers and small businesses started seeing electricity bills that were three and four times the cost of the previous year. There is no way that most small businesses can pass those kind of sudden increases along. Those sort of painful episodes argue for measures that diversify our generation sources. Most Americans think that we aren’t doing enough to give renewable electricity generation a chance to contribute to our energy mix, and they’re right. Doing so would help us buy some insurance against future electricity price spikes. Another renewable source of energy that more Americans would like to see us use is ethanol and other renewable fuels. Again, it is attractive to think that our transportation fuel system could be made more resistant to events in trouble spots like the Middle East by relying more on domestically supplied renewable fuels. The energy conference will be looking for sensible steps to do so. The conference will also look for ways to stimulate our production of domestic oil and gas. As a Senator from New Mexico, a State with a large and vibrant oil and gas industry, I hear a lot from independent producers, who are the backbone of the U.S. industry domestically. Their biggest priority is to get the right fiscal incentives for domestic oil production in this country. In their view, that is the most important thing we can do to stimulate increased production, and I agree with them. There has been a lot of talk about the need to open up the Arctic Refuge in Alaska to drilling. Interestingly, very little of that talk actually comes from the oil industry. My approach, and that of the Senate when it passed its version of the energy bill, has been to look to the other areas around the country where oil production is not controversial, including the major oil deposits in Alaska outside of the Arctic Refuge. Most Americans don’t know that there is a national oil preserve in Alaska, set aside for the purpose of facilitating energy production. When I visited Alaska with Sen. Murkowski last year, he and I had a chance to meet with the oil companies that were developing major new fields near this Alaskan oil preserve. Those companies struck me as being more interested in additional access to those lands than to the Arctic Refuge. I think we should look for ways to encourage greater oil development in Alaska outside the Arctic Refuge. A final area in which I think the conference has a big opportunity to make a difference is in the area of climate change. Again, most Americans and most of the other nations of the world think that this is a serious and looming problem that we need to face up to. Yet, the Administration has not shown much leadership or strategic vision. The energy bill passed overwhelmingly by the Senate called for a national strategy on climate change, coordinated out of the White House by someone with authority and accountability for progress. It stated that the national climate change strategy had to reflect our need for continued economic growth and prosperity. The Senate bill called for a great increase in R&D on both climate and on technology that would help us slow the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. These are not extreme positions–they were championed by Senators Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia and Ted Stevens of Alaska. So far, we have not been able to address this issue in conference, but I hope that we will before we are done. America needs a common-sense and practical approach to this important topic, if we are to act responsibly towards future generations. The progress in the energy conference so far has been good, and we are headed towards an overall conference report that I think will command broad bipartisan support. The support of the Chamber of Commerce for a broad and comprehensive energy policy has been a help in getting us to the stage where we are now. Along with over 1000 other organizations, the Chamber has played an important role in forming an overall Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth. The Alliance has bene a constant source of pressure to keep moving forward on this bill, and I am grateful for that. As we move into the final days of the Congress, we will need constructive help even more. Chairman Tauzin and I are committed to trying to get an energy bill done in this Congress. If we are to help the U.S. economy have a robust, viable energy sector, we will need to keep pressing forward to make sure that we have the crucial balance between increased energy supply, adequate energy infrastructure, and sound energy efficiency.

[### 5-27-16 Peabody Creditor Matrix

DocumentCloud

https://www.documentcloud.org › documents](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2859772-1642529160527000000000019-2)

May 27, 2016 — Alliance For Energy And Economic Growth p. 33. Alliance for Sound Energy Policy p. 33. American Association of Blacks in Energy (AABE) p. 39.