The current administration’s rush to offer vast swaths of our public lands to oil and gas companies—irrespective of their potential to actually produce either oil or gas—is both unprecedented and unwise. It comes at the expense of other land uses, traditional values, the Western economy, and multiple use principles that have guided American land management for more than a century. This fire-sale approach to managing our public lands is also fiscally irresponsible, as it encourages speculative and non-competitive leasing that allows our lands to be locked up for as little as $1.50 per acre. Nevada has been hit particularly hard, with more than 2 million acres having already been offered up for leasing. This prompted Senator Cortez Masto (D-NV) recently to introduce legislation, the End Speculative Oil and Gas Leasing Act of 2020 (S. 3202), aimed at reining in these irresponsible leasing practices. If enacted, the bill would restore much needed balance to our federal oil and gas leasing program, and help ensure those lands that are leased provide a fairer return to the American taxpayer. This legislation would prohibit most leasing in areas designated as “low or no potential” for oil and gas development. It would also require any public land put up for lease to have an up-to-date analysis of its oil and gas development potential, and reinforce the government’s duty to manage public lands for multiple use. It should not matter which side of the aisle this common sense legislation originates from, it is long overdue and essential for the responsible stewardship of America’s public lands. Without passage of reforms, like those in S. 3202,...
The Trump administration’s recent move to revoke California’s ability to set tougher emissions standards for cars sold in the state is not aimed at rolling back Obama policy, it seeks to reverse a waiver that then governor Ronald Reagan secured for the state more than 50 years ago. Governor Reagan was very committed to cleaning up California’s notorious smog problem, which was largely due to auto emissions. Not only did he support stronger pollution limits, in 1967 he established the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and appointed a scientist—an expert on smog—to lead the agency. That same year, Congress was considering the Air Quality Act of 1967. Reagan wanted assurance that any new federal law would not threaten California’s strong tailpipe pollution standards. He worked with his allies in the California congressional delegation to secure a waiver that allowed the state to set its own, more stringent, pollution limits. Shortly thereafter, Reagan signed a state bill into law curbing auto emissions significantly more than was required by the new federal standards. Reagan was very proud of his smog-fighting efforts, and as president, he made them the topic of a 1984 radio address to the nation. Listen Here: https://conservativestewards.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Reagan-Radio-Address1.mp3 This Trump administration move to strip California of its longstanding waiver not only threatens more smog, it represents a strike against states’ rights, and it tramples on Reagan’s legacy by seeking to eliminate one of his signature achievements. Revoking the waiver is part of a broader administration rollback of automobile fuel economy standards that is so illogical even auto manufacturers, including Ford, General Motors, Honda, and Toyota, are opposed. They...
For more than a century, Americans have been conditioned to think of coal as a cheap and abundant energy source—and for much of that period it was true. However, the passage of time can change such things, and it has. Big time. Today’s reality is, as the nation’s aged coal-fired power plants continue to get older, using coal for electricity generation has gotten more and more expensive. Like cars, homes, or most anything else, coal plants require more investment in repairs and maintenance as they age. These investments become an ever-greater portion of the power generation cost. In Arizona, a recent filing by Tucson Electric Power (TEP) shows just how dramatic this reality is affecting the price of coal-generated electricity. TEP projects that the 2020 to 2030 cost of electricity from two of the primary coal plants it relies on, Four Corners and San Juan, will be $80 per megawatt hour (MWh) or more. In its cost chart (see below), TEP also projects power from new combined cycle gas plants to cost more than $50 per MWh, while solar power comes in at only $29 per MWh. Regardless of where you live, if coal is a big part of your utility’s power mix, odds are it is causing your electricity rates to be higher than they should be. The investment firm Lazard Asset Management, which keeps track of global energy prices, reports that the cost for electricity from coal-fired power plants can run as much as $143 per MWh. By contrast, many solar contracts, especially in the Western U.S., are selling electricity for less than $25 per MWh....
CRS was actively involved in three ballot measures that were decided on Election Day. We scored important victories in two of those. Here is a brief recap: Nevada Question 6 – CRS supported this measure that would increase Nevada’s renewable energy standard for electricity to 50 percent by 2030. Such a standard is needed because Nevada, which has abundant solar and geothermal resources, still depends on natural gas piped in from other states for 75 percent of its electricity generation. This lopsided energy mix makes little sense because solar energy in Nevada, even with storage for overnight power, is currently cheaper than power generated by natural gas. Even more important for ratepayers, while solar energy will keep getting cheaper, the price of natural gas is expected to double over the next decade. Question 6 passed, and will need to pass again in 2020 to become law. Colorado Amendment 74 – CRS opposed this amendment pushed by American Farm Bureau and the oil and gas industry. Had it passed, Amendment 74 would require taxpayers to compensate property owners when a law or regulation reduces the value of their property. In other words, individuals and corporations could sue local governments over any law they contend might cost them money, even if the law is necessary to protect the public. Not only would it fleece taxpayers, it would also create a strong disincentive for enacting laws that limit pollution, manage development, or protect health and safety. Amendment 74 thankfully failed. Arizona Proposition 127 – This measure was the same as Nevada’s Question 6. It would have increased the renewable energy standard to...
Colorado has a ballot question this year, Amendment 74, that if passed, would represent an unprecedented fleecing of Colorado taxpayers. It would amend the Colorado constitution to allow any corporation to sue local governments over any law they contend might cost them money. This amendment would hold towns and neighborhoods hostage to the specter of costly lawsuits, creating a strong disincentive for passing laws to protect the public. For example, a town that prohibits oil and gas drilling too close to schools could be successfully sued for damages to companies wanting to drill there. The list of absurd possibilities are endless. After Oregon passed a similar measure, the state faced nearly $20 billion in claims in just the first three years. Thankfully it was repealed before it bankrupted local communities and undercut the state’s ability to fund schools and infrastructure. The consequences of passing Amendment 74 are vast. In addition to allowing corporations to siphon away Coloradans’ tax dollars, it would undermine the environmental protections, health standards and zoning laws needed to protect the public. In short, it makes everyone and second class citizen by giving more power to moneyed special interests. This is not conservative. Nothing good can come from Amendment 74. This is why CRS hopes this reckless amendment is defeated at the ballot box on November 6. Below is a short piece by two Colorado conservatives explaining why Amendment 74 runs afoul of basic conservative principles, even as flyers promoting try to tie the effort to great conservatives like Ronald Reagan. Reagan was a steward of taxpayer’s wallets, he would no doubt see this scheme for what...
On September 5, CRS petitioned Secretary of the Interior Zinke to temporarily withdraw approximately 117,000 acres of public lands in Colorado, Montana, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming from oil and gas leasing. Over the past year-and-a-half, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has unsuccessfully tried to sell oil and gas leases on all of these lands. It is now time to take a step back and reexamine whether other uses of these lands, such as hunting and fishing, safeguarding drinking water, and recreation, should take precedence. “Responsible stewardship and multiple use are conservative principles that have guided America’s public land management for more than a century. The Trump administration has turned this tried and true approach on its head, threatening the public access, resource quality, and diverse revenue stream that western communities depend on,” said CRS president David Jenkins. The parcels included in our petition include critical habitat for big game and other wildlife, migration corridors, trout streams, popular outdoor recreation areas, important drinking water sources, and significant historic sites. Many of these parcels were leased over objections by state and local agencies that understand the true values of these lands. For this administration’s leasing program, quantity is trumping quality. There is no correlation between number of acres offered and number of acres actually leased. Since this administration came to office, the BLM has offered more than 12.7 million acres for oil and gas leasing, yet only 1.3 million acres have sold. With this no-holds-barred pursuit of its so-called “energy dominance” agenda, the Trump administration has made oil and gas drilling its preferred use of America’s public lands, and in doing...
