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 registration currently 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 entire AEEG 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

Bill Kovacs, Vice President, environment, technology and regulatory affairs, US Chamber of Commerce

George Landrith, President, Frontiers of Freedom

Steve Miller, President and CEO, American Center for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE)

William “Bill” Moody, Vice President, Southwest Gas Company

William Schroeder, Manager of Public Affairs, Intermountain Rural Electric Assocation (IREA).

Paul Seidler, Senior Director, Nuclear Energy Inistitute

James M. Taylor, Senior Fellow, Heartland Insitute

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, Missouri and Arkansas.
[x]
Disruption

This is a guest post by Zach Roberts.

As a documentary producer, I watch more than my fair share of environmental protest documentaries — probably about 20 a year. And almost all of them have the same, vague message: we need to do something!

Their scenes re-play like a bad video montage in my mind: earnest young people speaking at podiums, boring climatologists rambling on about the coming end of the world, forest fires, melting ice shelves, you know how it goes. In the lefty journalism world, we call this “preaching to the choir.”

Then there's Disruption,...

read more