U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Reports

Reports

Report

Previous Energy Institute reports have provided both quantitative and qualitative detail with respect to how the dramatic increase in natural gas (and oil) production in the United States over the past half-decade has benefited businesses, consumers and communities across the nation.

These benefits have come in many different forms, from energy-usage cost-savings for consumers exceeding several thousand dollars per household per month, to the creation of millions of jobs and the lowering of the country’s greenhouse-gas emissions profile to levels not seen since the mid-1990s.

Report

While the regulatory approach to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the United States has largely focused on the power and transportation sectors, it’s clear that substantial reductions by the industrial sector would be needed to meet President Obama’s pledge under the Paris Agreement. This report summarizes a study conducted by NERA Economic Consulting on the potential impacts to the U.S. economy of regulating industrial sector GHG emissions.

Report

The Obama Administration made an international pledge to reduce U.S. net greenhouse gas emissions 26% to 28% below their 2005 level by 2025. It also endorsed an eventual goal of an 80% reduction in emissions by 2050.L

The administration has argued accomplishing these goals will be good for the economy and create millions of good paying middle class jobs. If this all sounds too go to be true, that is because it is. And the evidence comes from the unlikeliest of sources . . . the Obama Administration.

Report

This paper marks the fourth in a series of reports produced by the Energy Institute being released this fall, each taking a substantive look at what might have happened in the past – or could happen in the future – if certain energy-related comments and policy prescriptions put forth by prominent politicians and their supporters were actually adopted. We’re calling it the Energy Accountability Series.

Report

This paper marks the third in a series of reports that we will be releasing this fall, each taking a substantive look at what might have happened in the past – or could happen in the future – if certain energy-related ideas and policy prescriptions put forth by prominent politicians and their supporters were actually adopted. We’re calling it the Energy Accountability Series. Certainly, one doesn’t need to look far these days to find platforms or outlets that claim to be definitive “fact-checkers” of all manner of utterances candidates make on the campaign trail.

Report

America’s relatively recent energy revolution has fundamentally transformed the way we find, access, transport, and consume the energy resources that power our economy. Moving from an Era of Energy Scarcity to an Era of Energy Abundance has caught many by surprise and upended global energy markets.

Report

What if energy production was banned on federal lands and waters? It would be devastating to the U.S. and particularly felt in states like Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico, as well as the Gulf of Mexico region.

Report

In May 2016, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) issued its Annual Energy Outlook 2016, which includes model runs with and without the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Power Plan (CPP) final rule. The EIA analysis provides an independent look of the impacts CPP will have on the economy and energy markets in the United States.

While there are many aspects of EIA’s analysis worthy of review, this report focuses on four main areas:

Report

This fourth edition of the International Index of Energy Security Risk (International Index) provides an updated look at energy security risks across different countries for the years 1980 through 2014. The risk index scores calculated for the United States and 24 other countries that make up the Index’s large energy user group: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom.

Report

How the final Clean Power Plan uses unreasonable renewable energy assumptions to increase the stringency of state emissions requirements.