-in the first half of 2010, wind power installations decreased by 57% and 71% from 2008/09 levels

-new wind energy installations are down 72% from last year, their lowest level since 2006

-coal industry added almost three times more to the nation’s electric power in the first 9 months of 2010 than the wind industry

-because wind energy doesn’t make enough net profit, under the renewed grant, tax payers have to pay 30% of a renewable energy project’s cost

-wind produces a scant 1% of the nation’s electrical generation, while coal comprises almost 50%, yet it takes at least 25 time more workers to produce a kilowatt of electricity from wind as from coal (Competitive Enterprise Institute)

-wind/solar industries require at least 20 times more in subsidies per unit of electricity generated than coal and natural gas (Energy Information Admin.)

-the stimulus’s subsidies for renewable energy cost taxpayers approximately $475,000 for every job generated, or at least 4 times the cost of a non-subsidized, privately created job (Competitive Enterprise Institute).

President Obama’s economically injurious support for Big Wind is accompanied by his Administration’s continued efforts to demonize the oil, coal, and natural gas industries- the ones which actually catalyze our nation’s economy. If it were coal or gas being propped up by billions of subsidies despite their marked failure, the Hollywood Left would be readying a mutiny. Since wind power is en vogue, however, it is not receiving nearly enough money in tax credits, subsidies, bailouts, and so on. Likewise, because Big Wind cannot compete, it has relentlessly pushed for a federal renewable energy standard to force utilities to purchase X amount of green energy power, as well as lobbying the EPA to raise the cost of carbon sources of power. It has also spread its tentacles into the individual states to push for these measures when national efforts have stalled, with some success.

The effects of this anti-competitive, anti-capitalist favoritism are especially acute for Louisianans and other Gulf Coast residents, where the oil industry is being persecuted to the tune of millions, if not billions, of lost profits, and thousands of unfairly lost jobs. The punitive measures instituted on oil and gas throughout the country, particularly in the Gulf Coast, far surpass response to BP’s malfeasance and clearly represent the implementation of a higher agenda. Accordingly, it is necessary that the newly minted Congressional Republicans seize the opportunity and puncture wind energy’s subsidized bubble. It is time to restore those sectors which are the engines of our economy and prosperity, and to stop unduly rewarding special interests at the expense of the vast majority.

On August 18th, approximately 500 individuals crowded the Pontchartrain Center in Kenner, Louisiana, to hear from Kenneth Feinberg and Mary Landrieu (D-La). The two speakers explained the new Gulf Coast Claims Facility, highlighted its independence, and assured the audience of their concern for victims of the oil spill.

Feinberg, Chief Administrator of the facility, appeared travel weary at his second town hall of the day (the first in Houma) and his seventh visit to Louisiana in the last two months. But he had good news to share: the facility will be ready to commence in less than a week, transitioning away from BP on the morning of August 23rd. He also pledged an outcome to all individual claims within two days of receiving them, and within seven days for business claims.

Kenneth Feinberg, Chief Administrator of the Gulf Coast Claims Facility

Alongside logistical information and responses to questions, Feinberg’s primary message was that people would do well to trust him and his independence. “[The GCCF] is not part of BP. It is not part of the government. It is an independent program, established by the administration and BP… I am beholden to neither of them. I am working for you.”

Landrieu introduced the event and echoed Feinberg’s sentiment that there is nothing sinister about the facility. “I just want you all to know that your delegation, along with your elected officials, are working very hard for you… Today we really want to spend the next 45 minutes talking about this claims process and getting your questions answered.”

She also sought to emphasis the collaborative aspect of the facility, that she and Feinberg are working together and that they hold each other in high regard.

“He is an expert in what we have asked him to do. He has already handled many claims processes, starting with the settlement when soldiers came back from Vietnam and there were arguments about Agent Orange… and he is very well respected. He is being paid by BP – we don’t want the taxpayers to have to pick the expenses associated this – but he is independent in his rule making and judgments on these claims. I think the president and BP have made a good choice here.”

Feinberg later joked back that “there is no senator in Washington that has been more on my back about this program than Senator Landrieu.”

Vietnamese individuals had a notable presence, but from the outset there were technical difficulties with the translation system. To remedy the situation, Landrieu offered an additional meeting at the end, just for the Vietnamese community.

May Ngyen, a representative of the Mary Queen of Vietnam Community Development Corporation, said that the language barrier manifested itself in more ways than one might anticipate.

“It’s still a problem. We found out about this meeting very last minute… We did all this organizing in the last 24 hours, and we got 50 people – so you can imagine what our reach would have been if we’d had more days… The entire process is going through mainstream media. We have to go on the Vietnamese radio station and announce about this.” After the meeting, some members of the audience disputed the accuracy of one translator.

Listen to Ngyen’s remarks here (three minutes):

Darlene Kattan, Executive Director of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Louisiana. Listen to her question and Feinberg's response below (three minutes).

Darlene Kattan, Executive Director of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Louisiana, attended and questioned Feinberg on the economic methodology being used, and how this might vary across demographics. While Feinberg did not go into finer details, he assured her and the audience that all individuals and businesses eligible for claims will be subject to the same methodology.

To reinforce Feinberg’s points of the meeting, GCCF representatives handed out copies of a “Claimant Bill of Rights.” The document promoted eight such rights, the first being equal treatment.

Fergus Hodgson is the capitol bureau reporter with the Pelican Institute for Public Policy. He can be contacted at fhodgson@pelicaninstitute.org, and one can follow him on twitter.

Since July 15th, BP has ceased all use of dispersants in the clean-up of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Although not widely publicized, BP’s decision was made in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Coast Guard and came after three months use and 1.8 million gallons of the dispersant Corexit.

BP has not ruled out future aerial application of dispersants, depending on the weather and water conditions. However, regarding the move away from dispersants BP spokesman, Steve Rinehart, said “the decision was due to a changed scenario, not fears over toxicity… Dispersants are used to break up surface oil before it can drift onto shore, and they were most suitable when there was a lot of oil on the surface and leaking from the bottom, but they are no longer so necessary.” A representative from the Unified Command’s Joint Information Center concurred that “there’s not so much oil on the surface that would need it.”

Mr. Rinehart also wanted to make clear that the EPA had preapproved the use of Corexit, manufactured by Nalco Company, even though it is illegal in parts of the United Kingdom. On May 19th the EPA did call for a less harmful dispersant, but BP was following relevant regulations. Consequently BP introduced Corexit 9527, rather than 9500, although 9527 only includes one extra ingredient, an additional form of ethanol.

The Emergency Committee to Stop the Gulf Oil Disaster disputes BP’s claims of Corexit’s relative non-toxicity and alleges use of dispersants close to shore, contrary to statements on BP’s website. On Thursday, July 22nd, outside the Deepwater Horizon Command Center in New Orleans, the group held a protest and press conference to advocate the end of dispersants in the Gulf.

They promoted a consensus statement of leading marine scientists that oppose chemical dispersants in the Gulf and assert “Corexit dispersants, in combination with crude oil, pose grave health risks to marine life and human health, and threaten to deplete critical niches in the Gulf food web that may never recover.”

The group also highlighted illness numbers from Louisiana’s Department of Health and Hospitals. As of Monday, July 27th, the DHH reports that 324 individuals, including 83 from the general public, have exhibited injuries of illnesses attributable to the oil spill.

A BP Deputy Area Commander, Tom Pennington, attended the event and received the written requests of those present. Although he did not accept questions, he told organizers “we’ll take all your demands, and we’ll give them to reading [sic] and take care of them.”

Alternative dispersant manufacturer, Green Earth Technologies, received EPA approval on July 7th for its G-Marine surface washing agent, after four laboratory studies. Their dispersant, made from harmless ingredients such as cactus, potato peelings, orange juice, and palm extracts, is biodegradable in 72 hours and is half the price of Corexit. However, after the more than two-month approval process they were not able to negotiate an agreement with BP in time to have an impact on the offshore clean up. Sales representative, Greg Rendon, says the company is now “focusing on oil that is inland… the beaches, marshes, and waterways.”

Fergus Hodgson is the capitol bureau reporter with the Pelican Institute for Public Policy. He can be contacted at fhodgson@pelicaninstitute.org, and one can follow him on twitter.

On July 15th, Kenneth Feinberg used three Louisiana town hall gatherings – in Houma, Port Sulphur, and Lafitte – to explain how the Gulf Coast Claims Facility (GCCF) will work. Animated and lively, with a little Bostonian humor, Feinberg held the attention of each overflowing crowd for approximately 30 minutes, followed by 20 minutes of questions from the audience.

By coming to Louisiana and dealing with victims directly, at the invitation of Governor Jindal, Feinberg hoped to demonstrate his independence and concern for locals as lead administrator. “I’m working for you,” he repeated, and he called for local collaboration. “It’s not going to work from DC. It’s got to be from here, particularly if we are to weed out fraud… which could undermine the entire process.”

As Feinberg explained, the compensation plan includes two components: a no-obligation six month payment and a terminal payment with acceptance of release for BP. All victims can apply for the six month payment, up until three months after BP manages to contain the leak (which may end up being from the day of his town hall gatherings). However, if claimants choose to accept the second and final GCCF offer, they wave any right to bring further court proceedings against BP.

If victims do not consider the offer sufficient, they may turn it down and pursue higher payments through the courts. However, Feinberg views the lack of court proceedings associated with his facility as a win-win for both sides. “Everyone should come in,” and the matter will be over with in a matter of weeks or months, rather than years. To drive home his point, he mentioned other oil spills that still have ongoing litigation regarding compensation, decades after the event.

To further encourage participation, Feinberg assured confidentiality of all claims. While overall statistics of the process will become public, the GCCF will not share any of that information so as to connect it with any one individual or business. He even showed surprising flexibility by encouraging cash-only workers to apply, with whatever form of evidence they could use to verify such an income. Even those who may not be direct victims of the spill, such as manufacturers of oil industry parts and local fishing lodge owners were encouraged to apply for compensation for lost business.

While he defended the work of BP thus far, he was willing to acknowledge that the company had been less reliable at handling business claims. This failure became evident during the question-and-answer period. Two business attendees, including Mitchell Mark, President of SNEE Chemical Company, voiced frustration at not having their claims handled. Mark has 25 workers depending on him, and yet he has been waiting for two months to see any compensation.

Most audience questions revolved around the level of compensation, although one man, overcome with frustration, simply wanted to know whether the process was going to improve. “It’s going to get better,” Feinberg reassured the audience.

Many claimed that this was to be a bumper summer catch. Therefore, averages from the past few years may not be accurate, along with varying prices. “Show me!” Feinberg responded repeatedly. “I’m not going to deal in speculation – we can’t just do this on a handshake – but if you have evidence to justify such a claim, let’s see what you have.”

These questions brought forth many of the challenges associated with handling compensation, including whether the income is taxable and whether alternative employment ought to be deducted from payments. While Feinberg did respond to these questions, some points remained unclear. Still, the facility is being set up, and Feinberg estimates that it will be ready to go in the first or second week of August.

Although no one in the audience addressed Feinberg on the matter of fraudulent claims, he did mention it as a grave concern. When interviewed afterwards, he explained that the Department of Justice’s Criminal Fraud Division would “examine any suspicious claims.” Additionally, “built into the process of the claims procedure, [will be] our own experts and consultants examining these claims for fraud.” However, he is yet to appoint a leader for or arrange such a unit within the GCCF.

Fergus Hodgson is the capitol bureau reporter with the Pelican Institute for Public Policy. He can be contacted at fhodgson@pelicaninstitute.org, and one can follow him on twitter.

BP falling behind on compensation pledge

As part of the $20 billion claims fund, BP announced it would make payments of $5 billion by the end of the year – a rate of more than $800 million per month and almost $30 million every day. However, almost a month has passed since the June 16 pledge, and still the Deepwater Horizon Disaster Victim Compensation Fund (VCF) is yet to make its first payment.

Since the initial explosion, BP has paid out $162.7 million. These payments, however, are not part of the VCF. With $5 billion set aside for this year and another $15 billion for the next three years, BP and VCF administrator Kenneth Feinberg have a vast bridge to gap. Feinberg does not expect the VCF to write any checks until August.

BP says it has a 1,400 member team and 35 field offices set up to process claims. BP spokesman, Max Macgahan, explained that the current, rate of compensation is due to the company “transitioning to and establishing the details of a new process for claims,” and they still “intend to cover all legitimate claims, without limit.”

Local husband-and-wife commercial fishers, on condition of anonymity, defended BP and their experience with the claims process. While the claims process may take time, they say, “BP is not the enemy,” and both have received compensation checks. They see rampant fraudulence, though, particularly from part-time residents or those from out-of-state. They fear that a quickened process would only encourage more dishonest behavior.

Even if the rate of compensation increases, the significance of the $20 billion remains cryptic, because total claims could go higher or lower. At best, it is a time-delayed supply of funds for compensation. While willing to declare unlimited liability for damages, Mr. Macgahan did not know of any BP contingency plan for claims beyond $20 billion, and he did not wish to speculate regarding the fate of any unspent money. “[The quantity of compensation] is a great unknown at this stage… let’s just get the program up and running, and then we’ll see about left over funds.”

BP and the White House describe the fund as an independent arbiter that will accelerate the claims process and allow both BP and victims to avoid the courts. Feinberg has stated that individuals will get a better deal and save costs by dealing with his new organization. But for now the VCF’s structure and process remain unclear. Once the process gets underway the $20 billion question will be whether the fund can deliver quickly on deserving claims while screening out fraudulent ones.

Fergus Hodgson is the capitol bureau reporter with the Pelican Institute for Public Policy. He can be contacted at fhodgson@pelicaninstitute.org, and one can follow him on twitter.

Judge Feldman’s decision accurately pointed out how “arbitrary and capricious” President Obama’s decision to issue the moratorium was, and aptly pointed out its ruinous effects on “the local economy, the Gulf region, and the critical present-day aspect of the availability of domestic energy in this country.” The implications of the moratorium would be devastating for the Gulf economy, which already faces a bleak future for its seafood industry.

Further, it is important to consider the significance of this victory for the states against an ignorant and fickle presidential decision. This decision, albeit a temporary one, is nonetheless a triumph for the individual states over politics and bureaucracy, and will help to ensure the survival of Louisiana’s economy. More developments regarding Judge Feldman’s decision, notably the inevitable appeal, are to come, but for now this is a pivotal step in reversing the ever-increasing encroachment of the Federal government against economic liberty.