issue: Energy & Environment

Energy investment boom drives economic recovery

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Americans seem to have a love-hate relationship with major energy companies. On the one hand, our iconic brands are global leaders and symbols of U.S. technological and economic prowess. On the other hand, Big Energy takes the heat when the public gets restive over rising gas prices, or there’s an extended power outage.

A new Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) report highlights an underappreciated fact about energy companies—they are huge investors in the U.S. economy. In fact, along with telecoms and Internet-based businesses, they are leading our economic recovery.

Each year, PPI economists Michael Mandel and Diana Carew rank America’s top 25 “Investment Heroes”—the U.S. companies (excluding finance) that are making the biggest capital investments in economic innovation and jobs here at home. This year’s report shows that 10 U.S. energy companies made the list. These companies, involved in the exploration and production of oil and gas, or in energy distribution and power, invested a total of $57 billion in domestic capital expenditures last year. That figure represents 37 percent of the $152 billion that all 25 companies pumped into the U.S. economy in 2013. The energy companies on the list included many household names—Exxon (3), Chevron (4), ConocoPhillips (8), Exelon (10), and Duke Energy (11). But some lesser-known firms made the cut too, including Energy Transfer Equity (16), Enterprise Product Partners (18), and FreeportMcMoRan (24). All are helping to spur America’s energy transformation by investing in the nation’s shale oil and gas boom.

Continue reading at the Hill.

U.S. Investment Heroes of 2014: Investing at Home in a Connected World

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

In this era of globalization, goods, services, money, people, and data all cross national borders with ease. Indeed, connectedness to the rest of the world is now essential for the data-driven economy we find ourselves in to thrive. It follows that our tax, trade, immigration, and regulatory policies must be oriented to encourage that connectedness.

But perhaps paradoxically, prospering in a connected world requires a dedication to investing at home. It is impossible to participate as a full partner in the global economy unless we are investing in digital communications networks, education, infrastructure, research, energy production, product development, content, and security domestically. Investment generates increased productivity, higher incomes, new jobs, and more opportunities for the economic mobility and growth that we all desire.

Such prosperity-enhancing investment comes in many flavors, both private and public. In this report, we focus on identifying the U.S.-based corporations with the highest levels of domestic capital expenditures, as defined by spending on plants, property, and equipment in the United States. Currently, accounting rules do not require companies to report their U.S. capital spending separately, although some do. We fill in this gap in available knowledge using a methodology outlined at the end of this paper, based on estimates derived from published data from nonfinancial Fortune 150 companies.

To understand which companies are betting on America’s future, we rank the top 25 companies by their estimated domestic investment. We believe this list can help inform good policy for encouraging continued and renewed investment domestically.

Download “2014.09 Carew_Mandel_US-Investment-Heroes-of-2014_Investing-at-Home-in-a-Connected-World“

USA Today: AT&T, Verizon, Exxon are top corporate spenders

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

PPI Economist Diana Carew was quoted in a USA Today exclusive covering PPI’s newest report, U.S. Investment Heroes of 2014: Investing at Home in a Connected World. Carew co-authored the report with PPI Senior Economic Strategist Michael Mandel.

PPI economist Diana Carew says the government should promote faster capital spending growth and contributions from more industries through policies that encourage investment.

Last year, three sectors — telecommunications and cable, Internet and technology, and energy — accounted for 83% of the top 25 firms’ total investment.

“Policies need to make investment an explicit focus,” Carew says.

Continue reading on USA Today.

MSNBC: Hillary Clinton’s hard choices on energy

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

PPI President Will Marshall was quoted by MSNBC’s Alex Seitz-Wald on the Democratic Party’s divide on energy policy.

One salutary effect of Republican radicalism is to unify Democrats,” said Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a moderate Democratic think tank that helped feed Bill Clinton’s White House with new policy ideas. “Having said that, there are some important fault lines that will become apparent as we move into the next presidential election cycle.”

…

Both sides are members in good standing of the Democratic coalition, and have legitimate claims, so it may require some Clintonian triangulation. “Anybody who wants to be the Democratic nominee will have to strike a balance between the needs of the economy and concerns about the environmental impact of energy production,” Marshall told msnbc. “It’s a fault line, so you’ve got to walk a line.”

Read the entire article at MSNBC.

The Hill: Don’t reform the tax code on the backs of over-taxed energy producers

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

William F. Shughart II, writing for the Hill, referenced an observation made by the Progressive Policy Institute that major U.S. energy companies are “Investment Heroes.”

A high-growth strategy requires strong investment — private and public — in our nation’s productive and knowledge capacities.

To read the rest of the article, visit The Hill’s website here.

Bringing U.S. Energy Policy Into the 21st Century

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

U.S. lawmakers don’t drive around in 1970s-era cars, yet they don’t seem to mind energy policies that are equally out of date. Attempts to export shale oil and gas, for example, have run smack into legal and regulatory barriers as old as a Gran Torino.

Energy companies have been urging Congress to lift the lid on exports and start treating oil and gas again like any other commodity that’s freely traded in world markets. Tapping global demand for U.S. shale oil and gas, they say, will spur domestic production and create even more jobs in a sector that’s already racked up robust employment gains.

Russia’s naked power play in wresting Crimea from Ukraine has given fresh impetus to the export push.

From outraged Republicans to eastern Europeans living anxiously in Moscow’s shadow come calls to use America’s shale windfall to wean Europe off dependence on Russian gas, oil and coal.

The idea that surging U.S. gas and oil production is a new source of geopolitical power is a seductive one, though there are practical difficulties inherent in using energy as an instrument of foreign policy.

Vladimir Putin’s Russia is not as scary as the Soviet Union, but it remains an energy superpower. Moscow supplies Europe on average with roughly a third of its energy; many Baltic and central European countries rely almost completely on Russian gas, oil and coal. Some observers think such realities have muted Europe’s reaction to Putin’s aggression.

Taking market share from Moscow would diminish its political leverage, while also weakening its petro-centric economy. Energy accounts for as much as a quarter of Russia’s GDP, 60 percent of its exports, and the lion’s share of its revenues. The problem, of course, is that Washington doesn’t export oil and gas, companies do. They go where the profits are, not where geopolitics dictates.

In any event, U.S. gas and oil exports are stalled by old laws and rules as well as potent domestic opposition. For example, the 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act bars most exports of U.S. crude oil. Exporting natural gas isn’t illegal, but it requires getting the U.S. Department of Energy’s approval to build terminals for liquefying the gas so it can be shipped overseas. Amid industry complaints that the Department of Energy is slow-walking approvals, Congress recently held hearings on ways to expedite LNG export licenses.

America’s import-oriented energy policies are a legacy of the 1970s energy crises. They are predicated on an assumption of fossil fuel scarcity and U.S. vulnerability to volatile global oil markets. Today’s reality is abundance, thanks to horizontal drilling techniques and shale fracturing, aka, “fracking.” Next year, the United States is expected to overtake Saudi Arabia as the world’s largest oil producer.

The energy world has been turned on its head, but U.S. policies haven’t changed. Powerful interests are invested in preserving the status quo. Chemical companies, which use natural gas as a feed stock, say ramping up exports would raise domestic gas prices and thereby threaten a revival in U.S. manufacturing. Some analysts say we’d be better off using more natural gas in the transportation sector, for cars as well as heavy-duty trucks, because this would cut both carbon emissions and oil imports.

The fiercest opposition to exporting oil and gas comes from environmental activists. In an open letter (PDF) to President Obama, a coalition of environmental groups led by anti-XL Pipeline crusader Bill McKibben, slammed the administration’s plans for building LNG terminals along U.S. coastlines. “We believe that the implementation of a massive LNG export plan would lock in place infrastructure and economic dynamics that will make it almost impossible for the world to avoid catastrophic climate change,” the letter asserts. Most of the nation’s fossil fuel reserves, it adds, should stay “in the ground.”

It’s highly unlikely, though, that the public will support attempts to stuff the shale genie back in its bottle. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, jobs in the oil and natural gas industry grew by 32 percent between 2007 and 2012, even as overall employment fell 11.4 percent. The glut of cheap gas is also a boon to energy-intensive industries in the United States, which are beginning to attract significant investment from Europe, where energy costs are much higher.

Moreover, it’s not a foregone conclusion that taking advantage of America’s shale bonanza will bring on an environmental catastrophe. On the contrary, fuel switching in the electricity sector from coal to natural gas already has brought a 10 percent decline in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. If gas catches on as a transport fuel, that also would yield lower emissions. In any event, fossil fuels will continue to be a major part of America’s fuel mix for decades to come, green fantasies notwithstanding, and lawmakers must manage the nation’s energy portfolio — including zero-carbon-emitting nuclear energy—in a way that both spurs economic growth and reduces the risks of global warming.

In truth, no one really knows what will happen if America once again becomes a major energy exporter. We can’t say for sure whether domestic prices will spike, or how global markets would react to an influx of U.S. oil, or what the net effect on global carbon emissions would be. Nor is it certain that exports by energy companies would buttress U.S. diplomacy. The sensible course is to experiment—to lift restrictions on oil and gas exports at a measured pace, measure economic and environmental impacts, and make adjustments as we go. That should be part of a political bargain in which Democrats agree to ease export controls in return for GOP support for more public investment in research and development of renewable fuels and clean technology.

What makes no sense is to let the dead hand of 40-year-old energy policies constrain America’s freedom of action today. As the shale revolution approaches its 10th anniversary, it’s time to bring U.S. energy policy into the 21st century.

This piece was originally published at the Daily Beast.

Keep Nuclear Energy On The Table

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

On Tuesday, President Obama’s State of the Union address touched briefly on the all-of-the-above energy strategy that his administration has made a priority for the past few years. However, one thing missing from his remarks about energy was nuclear power. Nuclear energy production must remain an important component of any successful U.S. energy strategy and part of the global climate change solution.

As President Obama rightly noted, “[America’s] energy policy is creating jobs and leading to a cleaner, safer planet.” Nuclear power isn’t the only answer to American energy needs, nor should it be. But it is an important part of the well-balanced solution. The United States is leading the way to safer and more economical plants and the sector continues to innovate and improve the technology for the next generation of nuclear energy facilities. Progressives must not run from supporting nuclear energy and should continue to consider it a viable clean energy alternative as part of a comprehensive energy plan.

Energy is an Important Driver of U.S. Investment

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Given the ongoing boom in oil and natural gas production, it’s no surprise that U.S. and non-U.S. energy companies are among the top companies investing in America. Still, the sheer magnitude of the investments by these companies means the contribution of the energy sector to economic growth should not be ignored or discounted in the larger conversation.

Of the U.S. companies highlighted in our new U.S. Investment Heroes report, eight of our top 25 U.S. Investment Heroes of 2013 were energy companies. Together, we estimate these eight companies invested a total $56 billion over the last year in plants, property, and equipment in the United States, comprising almost 40 percent of the total $150 billion invested by the top 25 companies. Exxon Mobil, the top energy company on our list, invested over $12 billion in the U.S. in 2012 alone.

Due to incomparability across financial statements, our non-U.S. Investment Heroes report separately considered companies in energy production, automotive manufacturing, and industrial manufacturing.

Still, our research found that of the three categories, energy companies were by far making the biggest bet on America’s future.  Global energy giant BP was the top non-U.S. Investment Hero out of all the companies we considered across the three categories, putting a combined $19.3 billion into the U.S. economy in 2011 and 2012. (To the best of our knowledge, these funds did not include any payouts related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.) Together, the top four energy non-U.S. energy companies we considered invested an estimated $58.7 billion in 2011 and 2012.

At a time of weakness in other industries, these studies highlight that energy production is a bright spot for U.S. business investment. That this message is clear in both our U.S. Investment Heroes and non-U.S. Investment Heroes reports suggests energy will continue to be a driver of U.S. growth and job creation.

Who are the U.S. Investment Heroes of 2013?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

In our newest report, “U.S. Investment Heroes of 2013: The Companies Betting on America’s Future,” we highlight the top U.S. Investment Heroes of 2013, as ranked by their U.S. investment.

PPI’s ranking of U.S. Investment Heroes for 2013 is led by AT&T, which invested almost $20 billion in the U.S. in 2012. The top five are rounded out by Verizon, Exxon, Chevron, and Intel, and together these five companies invested over $66 billion in the U.S. during the last year.* Total U.S. investment by the top 25 companies amounted to almost $150 billion last year, spent on high-speed broadband deployment, oil and natural gas production, and new corporate and retail facilities.

Telecommunications and cable, energy, and technology dominated this year’s Investment Heroes list, comprising 18 out of our top 25 companies. The fact that these three sectors are driving U.S. private fixed investment reflects their importance in driving U.S. economic growth.

Given the importance of investment as a path to sustainable growth, it is essential our economic policies make domestic business investment a priority. In our report we put forward four ways to encourage more U.S. investment: simplify the corporate tax system, invest in workforce training, don’t over-regulate innovative industries, and free up more spectrum.

*See full report for complete methodology and definitions.

 

U.S. Investment Heroes of 2013: The Companies Betting on America’s Future

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

For too long, U.S. policymakers have focused narrowly on boosting consumers’ buying power, assuming that the productive end of the economy will take care of itself. Yet the last decade of slow growth shows that debt-driven consumption is not a sustainable strategy for expanding economic opportunity or lifting U.S. living standards. In contrast, a high-growth strategy requires strong investment—private and public—in our nation’s productive and knowledge capacities.

It’s time for progressives to rebalance the consumption-investment equation. Total domestic investment fell drastically during the recession and has yet to fully recover. A big part of the problem is the public sector. With gridlock in Washington and financial troubles at the state and local level, government real spending on productive assets from highways and bridges to computer equipment, net of depreciation, is down by half compared to the average level of the 2000s.

Investment by the private sector is doing better, but taken as a whole still falls way short of what the country needs to generate jobs and growth. As shown in Figure 1, business investment, outside of housing, is still 20 percent below its long-term trend. There are several reasons why private business investment is failing to reach its potential. Globalization, weak demand, deleveraging and a shortage of workers with technical skills all contributed to the investment fall-out and subsequent investment gap. And as PPI has documented elsewhere, the sheer accumulation of regulations over time can discourage capital investment and innovation.

Within this gloomy picture, however, are some bright spots—companies that continue to place big bets on America’s future, creating jobs and raising productivity in the process. Surprisingly, in a world of information overload, identifying these major contributors to the U.S. economy is not an easy task, since most companies do not break out their domestic capital spending. That’s why we undertook our second annual report on “U.S. Investment Heroes,” making a systematic analysis of publicly available information to rank nonfinancial companies by their capital spending in the U.S.

PPI’s ranking of U.S. Investment Heroes for 2013 is once again led by AT&T, which invested almost $20 billion in the U.S. in 2012. The list then follows with Verizon, Exxon, Chevron, Intel and Walmart. Together, we estimate these companies invested almost $75 billion in the U.S. in 2012, an astonishing total almost twice the GDP of Wyoming. Over the last year, these companies have poured capital investment into the deployment of high-speed broadband, oil and natural gas production, and new corporate and retail facilities.

As a general principle such spending provides both direct and indirect benefits to Americans. For example, a variety of studies suggest that investment in fixed and mobile broadband creates jobs. In fact, PPI Chief Economic Strategist Michael Mandel estimates that since Apple introduced the iPhone in 2007, the economy has created over 750,000 jobs related to mobile apps.

Indeed, telecommunications and cable companies are a major driver of U.S. investment today, sparking the rise of what we call “the data-driven economy.” The digital transformation of the U.S. economy would not be possible if high-speed fixed and mobile broadband networks were not in place. That’s why encouraging private investment in our nation’s broadband infrastructure is rightly a major priority for the Obama administration. Beyond that, robust private investment in smart devices, sensors, and “big data” analytics is sparking the emergence of the “Internet of Everything,” which could boost productivity and job creation in ‘physical’ industries such as manufacturing and transportation.

Our ranking of U.S. companies investing in America also shows the tremendous role energy—oil and natural gas production and power generation—has on U.S. economic growth. The shale oil and gas boom has turned old assumptions about energy scarcity on their head. It is lowering input costs for U.S. chemical companies and helping to revive U.S. manufacturing. It may also turn the United States into a major energy exporter, while creating jobs at home.

This report is the third in PPI’s “Investment Heroes: Who’s Betting on America’s Future” research series. That so many companies are choosing to invest elsewhere—or not at all—makes it all the more important to recognize those that are placing their bets on America’s future.

Download the memo.

 

PPI Releases New Report on U.S. Energy, Motor Vehicles Attracting Foreign Investors

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

U.S. Energy, Motor Vehicles Attracting Foreign Investors

WASHINGTON — Seeking to capitalize on America’s shale gas boom, foreign companies are making major investments in the U.S. energy sector, a new PPI study shows. And while foreign investors still see making motor vehicles in the United States as good business, they seem less willing to place their bets on America’s greatly heralded manufacturing renaissance.

These are key findings of “Non-US Investment Heroes: Foreign Companies Betting on America” by PPI Economist Diana G. Carew. In the first study of its kind, Carew identified the top non-US based companies in three key industries – energy, motor vehicles, and industrial manufacturing – by their level of U.S. investment in 2011 and 2012.

In energy, the top company investing in America by their cumulative 2011 and 2012 capital expenditures was BP, followed by Shell, Statoil, and Total.

In the two remaining industries, we could not produce a ranking due to limitations in publicly available financial data. Still, we identified six motor vehicle and industrial manufacturers that had significant U.S. investment in 2011 and 2012 (listed in alphabetical order): BMW, Honda, Robert Bosch, Samsung, ThyssenKrupp, and Volvo. To obtain these results, PPI analyzed publicly available financial statements.

In general, the report found that foreign direct investment in the United States is still well below its pre-recession high of $310 billion. “We need investment from overseas to propel the U.S. economy, but we continue to be stuck in an investment drought,” Carew says.

However, as Carew notes, a paucity of good data on investment from many non-U.S. based companies, particularly those outside of the energy sector, presents a challenge for designing effective U.S. investment policy.

This report is part of our “Investment Heroes” series, and follows from our 2012 report “U.S. Investment Heroes: Who’s Betting on America’s Future?”

Non-US Investment Heroes: Foreign Companies Betting on America

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)—investment in the United States by foreign-based companies—has yet to recover to pre-recessionary levels. In 2011, FDI remained 25 percent below 2008 levels, and preliminary 2012 figures suggest an even further drop.

Indeed, almost 6 years after the Great Recession began, the United States continues to wallow in an investment drought. Such weak investment—both from U.S. and non-U.S. based companies—is almost certainly a key factor behind today’s slow-growth economy.

Investment is a critical part of any high-growth strategy. It is the building block for innovation and economic growth. Investment that increases U.S. production— of goods, services and data—creates high-skill, globally competitive jobs and raises incomes.

This report highlights several important facts about foreign investment that shed light on sectors of the U.S. economy. First, energy is one of the fastest growing areas for foreign investment in America, just as it is for U.S.-based company investment. Official data shows foreign direct investment in “petroleum”—oil and gas extraction, refining, and distribution—more than doubled from 2008 to 2011.

Second, our research shows the United States continues to be an important platform for non-U.S. motor vehicle manufacturers. Moderate investment by non-U.S. motor vehicle manufacturers to upgrade and expand existing production lines show the U.S. market continues to be an important part of their business model.

Third, relatively low investment by non-U.S. industrial manufacturers suggests the greatly heralded manufacturing renaissance may not be as robust as some believe. Our research shows companies in this sector engaged in relatively little U.S. investment activity, and in some cases previous U.S. investments were unsuccessful. Such lackluster investment should be considered by policymakers on federal and state levels designing pro-investment growth strategies that target manufacturing.

Finally, a lack of good data on investment from many non-U.S. based companies, particularly those outside of the energy sector, presents a challenge for designing effective U.S. investment policy. Not having access to quality information on the U.S. activities of large non-U.S. companies makes it difficult to why certain companies are investing while others are not.

For this report, PPI considered three categories of investment: energy, motor vehicle, and non-motor vehicle industrial manufacturing. We chose these categories because of their importance to facilitating broader growth in the U.S. economy. We calculated the U.S. capital expenditures for companies in each category in 2011 and 2012, using publicly available financial reports.

This report is part of our “Investment Heroes” series, and follows from our 2012 report “U.S. Investment Heroes: Who’s Betting on America’s Future?” that ranked U.S.-based companies by their 2011 U.S. capital expenditures.

Download policy brief.

Get Real on Global Warming

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

President Obama came to office with ambitious plans to combat global warming and galvanize clean energy development. Then he ran smack into two brick walls: a weak economy and Republican hostility to science.

So Obama last week issued a new “climate action plan” aimed at bypassing GOP obstructionists in Congress, relying instead on regulatory steps the administration can take on its own. Expect conservatives to squawk loudly about “job-killing regulation,” but remember it’s their intransigence that’s ruled out what the country really needs: a market-based approach that uses a carbon tax or cap to allocate the costs of carbon reduction efficiently and drive private investment toward cleaner energy.

The president’s grab bag of things he can do by executive order may be the second-best option, but it’s a whole lot better than nothing. Democrats, however, have blind spots of their own, and one of them is nuclear power. It doesn’t even rate a mention until page 18 of the 21-page plan, where there’s some anodyne language restating Obama’s support for “safe and secure use of nuclear power.” Continue reading “Get Real on Global Warming” →

Regulatory Improvement Commission: A Politically-Viable Approach to U.S. Regulatory Reform

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The natural accumulation of federal regulations over time imposes an unintended but significant cost to businesses and to economic growth. However, no effective process currently exists for retrospectively improving or removing regulations. This paper first puts forward three explanations for how regulatory accumulation itself imposes an economic burden, and how this burden has historically been addressed with little result. We then propose the creation of an independent Regulatory Improvement Commission (RIC) to reduce regulatory accumulation. We conclude by explaining why the RIC is the most effective and politically-viable approach.

A well-functioning regulatory system is an essential part of a high-growth economy. Regulations drive business decisions, such as where to locate production and where to invest in the local workforce. They provide guidelines that keep the air clean, protect consumers, and ensure worker safety. Smart regulations enable the capital markets to function properly, financing the trades, contracts, and insurance that allows businesses to survive and grow.

A successful high-growth strategy requires a regulatory system that balances innovation and growth with consumer well-being. A regulatory structure that is too prescriptive could restrict investment in job-creating innovation if companies are overwhelmed by costly rules, hampering potential economic growth. On the other hand, a regulatory structure that is too relaxed may threaten the environment or unnecessarily place consumers at risk.

A regulatory system that achieves this balance must include a mechanism for addressing regulatory accumulation—what we define as the natural buildup of regulations over time.

Regulatory accumulation is both a process and an outcome of our reactive regulatory structure. Over time regulations naturally accumulate and layer on top of existing rules, resulting in a maze of duplicative and outdated rules companies must comply with.

However, our current regulatory system has no effective process for addressing regulatory accumulation. Every president since Jimmy Carter has mandated self-evaluation by regulatory agencies, but for various reasons this approach has been met with limited success.

In this paper we propose the creation of an independent Regulatory Improvement Commission (RIC), to be authorized by Congress on an ongoing basis. The RIC will review regulations as submitted by the public and present a recommendation to Congress for an up or down vote. It will have a simple, streamlined process and be completely transparent. Most importantly, it will review regulations en masse in a way that is politically viable.

Download “205.2013-Mandel-Carew_Regulatory-Improvement-Commission_A-Politically-Viable-Approach-to-US-Regulatory-Reform”

Photo credit: Shutterstock

Natural Gas Vehicles: Driving America to a More Prosperous, Secure and Sustainable Future

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

There has been a sea change in public attitudes toward natural gas. Not so long ago natural gas was widely viewed as a “bridge fuel” to a future of clean, renewable energy. Now, amid a shale gas boom, many energy analysts regard it as a “foundation fuel” that can power America’s economy in efficient, affordable and environmentally responsible ways for the rest of this century, and possibly beyond.

It is by far the cleanest fossil fuel. Gas produces 50 percent less CO2 than coal2 and 30 percent less CO2 than oil, while also producing significantly less sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and harmful particulate matter. The more we burn natural gas in the place of oil or coal the less we put greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere.

Natural gas is also highly efficient. When used directly in America’s homes and businesses, natural gas loses just 8 percent of its useable energy in its journey from the point-of-origin (wellhead) to the point-of-use (burner tip). By contrast, electricity loses approximately 68 percent of its useable energy during the same journey from origin to use.

Thanks to the huge increase in natural gas now being produced from shale rock formations, natural gas is becoming even more abundant. America is now the largest producer of natural gas in the world, with an estimated future supply (reserves plus resources) of approximately 2,170 trillion cubic feet. That’s enough to meet America’s energy needs for more than 85 years. These estimates are based just on current technology. As new production technologies are
developed, this resource base will only grow.

Because natural gas is abundant domestically, it is very affordable. In 2012, oil cost about $15 per MMBtu (million British thermal units) on average, while natural gas cost less than $4 per MMBtu.5 In recent years, natural gas consumers have literally saved millions of dollars on their energy bills. With all of this going for it, more and more American consumers are turning to natural gas for their home heating, water heating, cooking and other energy needs.

Download the entire policy memo.

State of the Union 2013: Right Direction, Wrong Speed

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

President Obama got off on the right foot in last night’s State of the Union address by putting America’s economic revival at the center of his second-term agenda. That was reassuring, since his second inaugural strangely neglected this crucial subject.

There’s no more urgent national challenge than building new economic foundations for shared prosperity. More than anything else, what happens to the U.S. economy over the next four years will decisively shape history’s judgment of Barack Obama’s presidency.

Last night, the president certainly got the goal right. But it’s fair to ask whether the modest means he proposed are adequate to the task.

On the plus side, the president’s endorsement of corporate tax reform was welcome. Eliminating tax loopholes and subsidies will make for better investment decisions, and bringing down the corporate rate will make doing business in the United States more attractive. We also need to overhaul a worldwide tax system that encourages companies to offshore activities and leaves profits stranded abroad.

Continue reading “State of the Union 2013: Right Direction, Wrong Speed” →