Press Releases

 

Saturday
Jul252015

Christie For President - A Busy Week in NH

 

You're Invited

Chris Christie's New Hampshire Tour

 

Town Hall Meeting in Keene

DATE: Monday, July 27
TIME: 6:00PM *Doors open at 5:00PM, town hall meeting starts at 6:00PM
LOCATION: Lab'n Lager, 122 Main Street, Keene, NH 03431

Click Here to RSVP to the Town Hall Meeting in Keene

 

-

Meet Governor Christie at Audrey's Cafe

DATE: Tuesday, July 28
TIME: 8:15AM
LOCATION: 13 Main Street Street, Marlborough, NH 03455

RSVP to Britt Carter bcarter@chrischristie.com or call 276.698.7270

 

-

Town Hall Meeting in Newport

DATE: Tuesday, July 28
TIME: 12:00PM *Doors open at 11:00AM, town hall meeting starts at 12:00PM
LOCATION: Salt Hill Pub, 58 Main Street, Newport, NH 03773

Click Here to RSVP to the Town Hall Meeting in Newport

 

-

Meet Governor Christie at Robie's Country Store

DATE: Wednesday, July 29
TIME: 8:00AM 
LOCATION: Robie's Country Store, 9 Riverside Street, Hookset, NH 03106

RSVP to Matt Moroney mmoroney@chrischristie.com or call 978.314.9233

 

-

Americans for Peace, Prosperity & Security Forum with Governor Christie

DATE: Wednesday, July 29
TIME: 11:30AM
LOCATION: University of New Hampshire, 88 Commercial Street, Manchester, NH 03101 - Room P-201

RSVP by clicking here using PROMO CODE APPSNH or call 603-617-4212

Saturday
Jul252015

Cooler Heads Digest 24 July 2015 

 

24 July 2015

In the News

100% Renewables?
Thomas Stacey II, Master Resource, 24 July 2015

EPA’s Climate Action Flimflam Report, Part 2
Marlo Lewis, GlobalWarming.org, 23 July 2015

Obama’s Scorched-Earth Oil and Gas Policy
Robert Bradley, Jr., Real Clear Energy, 22 July 2015

Let’s Have Full Disclosure on Harvard’s New Health Study
Steve Heins, Fortnightly, 22 July 2015

A Vote for the PTC Is a Vote for EPA’s Climate Regulation
Thomas Pyle, The Hill, 22 July 2015

Britain Moves To Slash Renewable Subsidy Costs
Susanna Twidale, Reuters, 22 July 2015

Commutes Could Get Worse under EPA’s Ozone Rules
John Siciliano, Washington Examiner, 22 July 2015

Nonsensical “Fractivist” Pipeline Hysteria
Mark Perry, Washington Times, 21 July 2015

Innovation Sputters in Battle against Climate Change
Eduardo Porter, New York Times, 21 July 2015

North Dakota’s Oil Economy Remains Strong Despite Media Myths
James Taylor, Forbes, 20 July 2015

Senior Cardinal Questions Pope’s Authority on Climate Change
Steve Doughty, Daily Mail, 20 July 2015

News You Can Use
Study: Removing Oil & Gas Export Hurdles Would Create 2.3 Million New Jobs

According to a new study by economic consulting firm Wood Mackenzie, Congress would create as many as 2.3 million new jobs by removing the oil export ban by 2016 and streamlining approval of liquefied natural gas export terminals.

Inside the Beltway
William Yeatman

House and Senate Committees Introduce Underwhelming Energy Bills

This week witnessed the introduction of energy policy bills in both chambers of Congress. The House Energy and Commerce Committee on Monday dropped a 92 page as-yet-unnamed bill, while the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Thursday unveiled the 370 page Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2015. Both bills are underwhelming.

Out of more than 100 sections in the Senate bill, only two are any good, and they would streamline permitting for liquefied natural gas exporting facilities and hydropower dams (respectively). The worst section of the Senate bill affirms the purpose of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), a federally maintained oil repository meant to guard against a major supply disruption, despite the fact that the American oil boom has rendered the SPR obsolete. The rest of the Senate bill is fluff, syuch as a sense of Congress supporting geothermal energy, research into methane hydrates as an energy source, and the codification of individual dam permits.

The unnamed House bill similarly includes only two welcome provisions: §1101 would speed the permitting of natural gas pipeline construction and §1102 would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission enhanced flexibility if EPA’s war on coal threatens electric reliability. The worst provision of the House bill is a boondoggle in the form of a federally-managed “strategic reserve” for large transmission transformers, whose ostensible purpose is to guard against the possibility of a solar storm. The rest of the bill is more fluff, like the creation of an “energy security” plan for North America.

Thus, the newly-introduced House and Senate energy bills are large collections of policies that are disparate, uncontroversial, and minor. Moreover, for each draft statute, the bad outweighs the good (though the total mass is small, thankfully).

At heart, serious (and seriously beneficial) congressional energy policy must be a function of regulatory reform, rather than the creation of new and insignificant programs. On this front—serious energy policy—there was some good news this week from Capitol Hill. Yesterday, by a robustly bipartisan 258-166 vote, the House passed H.R. 1734, the Improving Coal Combustion Residuals Regulation Act, an excellent bill that would rein in EPA’s recent coal ash regulation. And in the Senate, Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) told reporters this week that her panel will take a vote before the August recess on a consolidated bill to lift the existing ban on oil exports.

Wind PTC: Watching Congress Make the Sausage

At the end of 2014, Congress allowed to expire the wind production tax credit (PTC), the wind energy's most lucrative subsidy.

However, the wind PTC remained a priority for legislators from wind-heavy states and environmentalists. During the 114th Congress, these wind energy proponents have been pressing to include the wind PTC in a bill, known as the “tax extenders package,” comprised of dozens of other tax subsidies. Unfortunately, this “package” of preferential tax treatments represents the apogee of congressional comity—it enjoys overwhelming bipartisan support because everyone gets to eat from the taxpayer trough. Regardless whether Democrats or Republicans are in charge, most Members of Congress agree that the tax extenders package is good parochial politics, alas.

On Wednesday, the Senate Finance Committee took up the tax extenders package. So as not to rock the boat, and thereby jeopardize everyone’s goodies, the Committee leadership gave way to wind energy proponents, and included the wind PTC in the draft legislation. By a depressingly bipartisan 23-3 vote, the Senate Finance Committee approved the package. All of the democrats on the committee voted for the bill, and a preponderance of republicans voted for it. The principled few to oppose the tax extenders package—Sens. Dan Coats (R-Ind.), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.)—won my respect.

Science Update
Marlo Lewis

House Panel Examines Administration’s Social Cost of Carbon Analysis

The House Resources Committee this week held a hearing on the Obama administration’s social cost of carbon (SCC) estimates. The SCC is a guesstimate of the damage allegedly inflicted on society by an incremental ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions over an immense span of time – typically out to the year 2300.

Discernible in neither meteorological nor economic data, carbon's social cost exists in the virtual world of “integrated assessment models” (IAMs) – computer programs that combine speculative climatology with speculative economics.

Under President Obama, agencies routinely incorporate SCC estimates in cost-benefit analyses used to justify regulatory proposals. Agencies have an incentive to invent and inflate SCC values to make CO2-reducing regulations look more valuable.

For example, the administration’s 2013 technical support document (TSD) on the social cost of carbon increased the SCC values of an earlier 2010 TSD by roughly 60%. In just four short years, while climate models increasingly overshot observed global temperatures, and multiple datasets continued to provide no evidence of a greenhouse "signal" in the frequency or strength of extreme weather, climate change somehow got 60% worse and CO2-reductions 60% more valuable. Your government at work!

Four witnesses testified at the hearing. For reasons of space, I will cover only two key points in the testimony of Cato Institute scientist Patrick Michaels.

A critical input in SCC calculations is climate sensitivity, an estimate of how much warming results from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration. Both the 2013 TSD and the administration’s July 2015 response to comments reaffirm the IPCC 2007 Fourth Assessment Report's (AR4) "best" climate sensitivity estimate of 3°C.

Some 14 recent studies and 20 experiments estimate lower sensitivities, averaging about 2°C. Plugging that value into the administration's IAMs would reduce SCC values by 35%-60%.

More importantly, using an updated sensitivity estimate would significantly reduce the apparent risk of high-impact, low-probability events such as collapse of the Greenland ice sheet. Michaels faults the administration for refusing to recognize “what is now becoming mainstream science.”

Worse, the administration’s analysis is systemically biased. Literally thousands of empirical observations demonstrate that rising CO2 concentrations increase crop yields. Yet DICE and PAGE, two of the three IAMs on which the administration relies, have no CO2 fertilization benefit.

Although one IAM, the FUND model, has a CO2 fertilization effect, it is about four times smaller than the benefit identified in a recent comprehensive assessment by Craig Idso. If all three IAMs incorporated Idso’s CO2 fertilization benefit, SCC values would have been very low or even “negative” (i.e. a net benefit).

Models that lack CO2 fertilization -- a "known physical effect" -- are inherently biased. And that, Michaels reasonably concludes, should "disqualify them from contributing to the final result."

 

The Cooler Heads Digest is the weekly e-mail publication of the Cooler Heads Coalition. For the latest news and commentary, check out the Coalition’s website, www.GlobalWarming.org.

 

Saturday
Jul252015

Perry For President - WHAT THEY ARE SAYING ABOUT PERRY’S LEGAL VICTORY 

 

“Good News” … “Potentially Huge Legal Victory” … “Huge Victory” … “A Big Legal And Political Victory”

The New York Times: “[Perry] Received Some Good News…” “Former Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, who is seeking the Republican nomination for president, received some good news regarding his legal problems on Friday when an appeals court in his state dropped one of the two felony charges he is facing.” (The New York Times, 7/24/15)

The Associated Press: “A Potentially Huge Legal Victory…” “One of two felony indictments against former Texas Gov. Rick Perry was tossed out Friday, giving the Republican presidential candidate a potentially huge legal victory in the face of flagging polling numbers for the 2016 race.” (The Associated Press, 7/24/15)

Bloomberg: “Good News…” “Rick Perry got some needed good news Friday when a Texas court threw out one of two ethics charges he claims were intended to derail his presidential bid.” (Bloomberg, 7/24/15)

Houston Chronicle: “Rick Perry Scores Huge Victory In Legal Battle”
(Twitter.com, 7/24/15)

Fort Worth Star-Telegram’s Max Baker: “A Big Legal And Political Victory…” “Former Gov. Rick [Governor Perry] dodges at least one charge, a big legal and political victory.” (Twitter.com, 7/24/15)

RedState’s Erick Erickson: “I Read The Ct Of Appeals Decision About [Gov. Perry]. Pretty Clear They’ve Have Tossed The Other Count, But Couldn’t In A Habeas Setting.” (Twitter.com, 7/24/15)

The Huffington Post
Headline: “Rick Perry Now Has One Less Problem In His Run For President”
(The Huffington Post, 7/24/15)

New York Magazine: “Perry Got One Step Closer To A Clean Slate…”
“On Friday morning, Perry got one step closer to a clean slate when a Texas appeals court dropped the coercion charge on First Amendment grounds.” (New York Magazine, 7/24/15)


Friday
Jul242015

NH House leadership response to Gov. Hassan Going to the Press First with Budget Proposal

The following is a response from House leadership to Governor Maggie Hassan’s press conference held this morning at the State House in Concord:

 

“It is unfortunate that Governor Hassan, rather than sitting down with legislative leaders to have a substantive discussion about her proposal, has chosen instead to hold a press event, inviting only members of her own party.  That clearly demonstrates a lack of bipartisanship and the people of New Hampshire deserve better than someone governing via press conference,” said House Majority Whip Richard Hinch (R-Merrimack).”

 

“We only received a copy of the proposal after the governor’s press conference had started. At first glance these seem to be nothing more than warmed over proposals that have already been floated and rejected.  Perhaps the governor’s time would be more wisely spent discussing these matters with legislators in person rather than trying to negotiate these important issues through a press conference,” Rep. Hinch added.

 

House Speaker Shawn Jasper  said that Republicans continue to stand by the responsible budget that was sent to the governor.  “It funds our state’s priorities in education, social services and transportation without raising taxes or fees, while making New Hampshire more competitive in retaining and recruiting companies that would create jobs and boost our economy.  Our budget also addressed the most pressing public safety money that would deal with the heroin epidemic currently gripping our state,” said Speaker Jasper.

##

Friday
Jul242015

NHDP - ICYMI: Union Leader On Ted Gatsas Blocking Manchester Solar Project 

 

 

 

 

Concord, N.H. – Yesterday, Chris Sununu and Joe Kenney – apparently at the direction of Manchester Mayor Ted Gatsas – blocked a solar project that would have saved taxpayer dollars and had the support of the Manchester board of aldermen.
 
Click here for the full Union Leader story or see excerpt below:
 
On a 3-2 vote, the Executive Council shot down a plan for a solar array to generate electricity for Manchester city government.
 
… Under the proposal, the city would purchase electricity at a rate just below 6 cents per kilowatt/hour, which would result in $26,500 in savings in the first year of the project, according to the developers’ calculations. The city would also receive an annual tax payment of $5,000. The savings in future years would rise based on the increase in electricity rates.
 
Manchester Ward 1 Alderman Joyce Craig... said the project had support of a majority of city aldermen.
 
“We had a board vote and I voted to support it,” said Craig. “It was my understanding that this was the first phase, and the project could be expanded in the future.”
 
“This should have went through,” said Manchester Alderman Keith Hirschmann, who represents Ward 12 where the landfill is located. “The full board voted for this. I know the mayor didn’t vote for it, but the full board did, and now our constituents won’t benefit from it.”
 
Hirschmann said he felt it was wrong that Manchester wouldn’t benefit from the state’s renewable energy trust funds.
 
“This would have been the largest solar project in the state,” said Hirschmann. “Instead we have a landfill that will sit dormant, while other communities benefit from the renewable energy trust funds.”
 
Executive Councilor Chris Pappas, D-Manchester, noted there is board support for the project, with the only reservation that it could be larger.
 
… Pappas and Van Ostern voted in favor of the Manchester project, but Sununu, and councilors David Wheeler, R-Milford, and Joe Kenney, R-Wakefield voted against the project.
 
Kenney voted with Pappas and Van Ostern to award a $580,757 renewable energy grant to Milford Town Solar LLC to place solar panels on that town’s landfill.
 
Kenney said Gatsas does not support the project, preferring the earlier, larger project, while the Milton selectmen unanimously supported that project.
 
“Councilor Kenney cited Mayor Gatsas’ opposition to the project,” said Craig. “I think it’s a lost opportunity for the city.”
 
Click here for the full Union Leader story.

###

Page 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 5376 Next 5 Entries »