*Update* Does the U.S. Chamber need to do some homework?

March 21, 2011

Energy

Correction:

A gentleman from the Chamber e-mailed me this morning (March 22) to say that his organization’s report states that a cut-off date of March 2010 was used.

Because the Kemper project and Gulf LNG “were not complete as of March 2010-in fact, they’re not complete as of today-they were included. The third project, Grand Gulf Nuclear Plant, was included because progress was suspended, as is the case today,” said <!– /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:”Cambria Math”; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1107304683 0 0 159 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:””; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”,”serif”; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; font-size:10.0pt; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”,”serif”;}
Ross Eisenberg, Counsel and Committee Executive of Environment and Energy of the Chamber, via a spokesperson.

I stand corrected. However, it would have been convenient if the Chamber had bothered to mention that somewhere in their misleading press release, which opens with: “The U.S. Chamber of Commerce released a first-of-its-kind economic study identifying three stalled energy projects in Mississippi that the organization says in aggregate are costing the state’s economy $14.8 billion in GDP and 27,300 jobs a year … .”

Eisenberg went on to note correctly in his e-mail that Mississippi has a more lax regulatory environment when compared to other states.

“If anything, this illustrates that Mississippi is a place that energy projects face less of a struggle getting past many of the regulatory impediments plague (sic) projects in other states. I can think of few other states where both an LNG facility and IGCC plant were actually moving forward. If you want to see a stark comparison, check out the data for California,” he said.

Only time will accurately tell whether various energy projects in Mississippi produce the number of jobs projected and provide Mississippians with a net benefit.

By Amy McCullough

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as part of its Project No Project initiative, has released a first-of-its-kind economic study identifying three stalled energy projects in Mississippi that the organization says in aggregate are costing the state’s economy $14.8 billion in GDP and 27,300 jobs a year that could be created during the construction phase of these projects alone. (Story.)

The three Mississippi projects it mentions are:

* Grand Gulf Plant, Port Gibson Nuclear (Entergy Mississippi)
* Gulf LNG Energy, Jackson County Natural Gas
* Mississippi Power, Kemper County IGCC Plant Coal

Maybe the Chamber should do its homework.

The Mississippi Power Kemper project is under construction. How does that qualify as a “stalled” project?

Gulf LNG also appears to be under construction.

, , , , , ,

One Response to “*Update* Does the U.S. Chamber need to do some homework?”

  1. msu_scrappy Says:

    The website does report that both the Mississippi Power Kemper and the Gulf LNG projects are in progress, even noting the Gulf LNG appears to be on progress.

    The following statements in the reports executive summary may also be helpful to the reader (and blogger):

    “As noted above, we do not believe that all of the subject projects will be approved or constructed even in the absence of any legal and regulatory barriers. Also, as with all economic forecasts, we recognize that there is an element of uncertainty. This could be true here because, to our knowledge, this is the first empirical study to quantify the macroeconomic and employment impact of the regulatory barriers imposed on the development and operation of so many energy projects. Consequently, we believe additional work is needed to improve the list of energy projects and to refine this study’s methodology. Among other things, future work could attempt to quantify other potentially lost benefits such as the economic impact of increased domestic energy supplies and associated reductions in consumer prices due to greater amounts of available energy.

    “Notwithstanding the above caveat, we believe this study provides an instructive and statistically defensible picture of the potential for corrosive economic and employment impacts that can arise from significant project obstacles such as inefficient regulatory processes, including attendant lawsuits and threats of legal action.” —> there argument here is the delays in implementation, regulatory approval, legal actions, etc. have a cost. they don’t say that they won’t be constructed (they state Kemper and Gulf LNG are in progress while the Grand Gulf Nuclear appears to be temporarily suspended), but that the costs of regulatory actions and legal actions have slowed implementation.

    “Moreover we believe the data demonstrates these impacts are substantial. Furthermore, because we have, for example, excluded domestic on- and off-shore oil and many natural gas projects from our study cohort, we have substantially underestimated the impact of the regulatory barriers and other project impediments. In other words, this is a conservative analysis.”

    It does not appear the blogger did their full homework.

Leave a Reply