August 20, 2019

Green energy company fights for life after getting billions from feds

Abengoa, a renewable energy multinational company headquartered in Spain, has been a favorite of the Obama administration in getting federal tax money for clean energy projects.

Source: Green energy company fights for life after getting billions from feds | Fox News

Share

Taxpayers Subsidizing Energy Companies BIG TIME

Now that we live in a post-normal era, where black is white, white is black, up is down, good is bad, etc. etc., we should, by deductive reasoning, rephrase the statement that President John F. Kennedy made at his January 20, 1961 Inaugural Address, and now coin it as: Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country is going to do to line the pockets of fake green energy companies.

We are being raped, robbed, insulted, lied to, murdered, tortured and basically pissed on, and nobody says a word. A smidgen of complaints here and there based mostly on just ignorant parroting of what some other idiot said, but nothing of an substance.

In the meantime, bend over because “government” (thievery of my money) subsidies is out of control and producing nothing. As Al Gore said the other day, there’s a lot of money to be made by lying about climate change and those that don’t go along should be punished.

In the meantime, go ahead and believe the lies that America isn’t interested in burning fossil fuels anymore. Go ahead.

“At the request of Congress, the Energy Information Administration (EIA), an independent agency of the U.S. Department of Energy, evaluated the amount of subsidies that the federal government provides energy producers for fiscal year 2013, updating a study that it did for fiscal year 2010.[i] Over a 3-year period, from fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2013, total federal electricity-related subsidies increased from $11.7 billion to $16.1 billion, an increase of 38 percent over the 3-year period. The largest increases in federal energy subsidies were in electricity-related renewable energy, which increased 54 percent over the 3-year period, from $8.6 billion to $13.2 billion.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Apple Fights Transparency Over Green Energy

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Transparency Urged for Apple at Shareholder Meeting Today

National Center for Public Policy Research Pushes Proposal Requiring Apple Board to Reveal Possibly Risky Investments in Renewable Energy

Investments Are Risky Because They Are Subsidized by Tax Dollars

As Popularity of Causes Such As Global Warming Wane, Voters May Reduce Support for “Green” Energy Subsidies, Harming Apple

In Verbal Joust Last Year, Apple CEO Tim Cook Told National Center He Doesn’t Care About “Bloody Return on Investment”

So Will Apple “Go Green” Even if the Taxpayers Don’t?

If Apple Does, What Are the Costs to Shareholders?

If It Doesn’t, Was Tim Cook’s ‘Bloody ROI’ Boast Merely PR and Greenwashing?

Apple Went to Securities and Exchange Commission to Block National Center Proposal From Appearing on Proxy Statement, But Lost

So Apple Shareholders Will Vote on Transparency Proposal Today

Cupertino, CA/Washington, DC – The National Center for Public Policy Research is urging the tech giant Apple’s investors to vote in favor of the National Center’s shareholder proposal today at the Company’s annual shareholder meeting.

The proposal calls on Apple’s board to increase transparency regarding risks posed, if any, by the company’s extensive alternative energy projects.

Apple fought the National Center at the Securities and Exchange Commission to get the proposal blocked, but the SEC sided with the National Center.

“Apple has undertaken expensive alternative energy investments,” said National Center Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof, Esq., “and alternative energy investments can be risky. As our proposal notes, federal, state and/or local policies subsidizing such investments, and upon which company business plans rely, can be repealed or altered. The shareholders deserve to know how much of Apple’s business plan relies on these taxpayer subsidies, and how much shareholders would be hurt if government policies were to change.”

The National Center’s shareholder proposal, says, in part:

The Securities and Exchange Commission has recognized that climate change regulations, policy and legislation pose a business risk to companies. One risk is that federal, state and/or local government policies, adopted in whole or in part due to climate change concerns, that subsidize renewable energy and upon which company business plans rely may be repealed or altered.

These changes in policy may be significant, and may come with little advance notice to the company.

Shareholders request that the Board of Directors authorize the preparation of a report… disclosing the risk to the company posed by possible changes in federal, state or local government policies in the United States relating to climate change and/or renewable energy.

The National Center’s complete shareholder resolution, and Apple’s response to it, can be found on pages 62 and 63 of the company’s proxy statement, which is available for download here.

“If Apple’s ‘green’ projects are a truly sound investment, or if it genuinely does not care about what Tim Cook calls the ‘bloody ROI,’ it won’t matter to Apple whether the government heavily subsidizes alternative energy. Alternatively, if Apple is relying heavily on preferential government policies to make its green investments financially sound, investors have a right to know,” said Danhof. “So do taxpayers.”

At last year’s Apple meeting, Cook became angry when Danhof asked about the company’s green investments. As the National Center explained in a press release following last year’s meeting:

Danhof also asked Apple CEO Tim Cook about the company’s green energy pursuits. Danhof asked whether the company’s environmental investments increased or decreased the company’s bottom line. After initially suggesting that the investments make economic sense, Cook said the company would pursue environmental goals even if there was no economic point at all to the venture. Danhof further asked if the company’s projects would continue to make sense if the federal government stopped heavily subsidizing alternative energy. Cook completely ignored the inquiry and became visibly agitated.

Cook suggested that if investors care only about return on investment, they should divest their shares in Apple. Cook’s outburst was covered in nearly 8,000 media stories, was the subject of at least one graduate school business course and become part of the business press lexicon.

Earlier this year, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg responded to an analyst’s question about why investors should care about the social media giant’s efforts to connect African countries by shooting back that “[i]t matters what kind of investors we have.” CNN Money and other business publications dubbed Zuckerberg’s reaction to be his “Tim Cook moment.”

“Last year, my question about whether Apple’s alternative energy investments served a legitimate business purpose put Tim Cook on a fence. He could continue Apple’s public relations mantra that Apple is all about saving the environment, or he could have said at least some of Apple’s alternative energy efforts are greenwashing on the taxpayer’s dime,” said Danhof. “It is clear why Cook choose to double down on Apple’s public relations campaign. Apple has done a marvelous job of claiming to be a socially conscious company that cares for people and the environment.”

“If Tim Cook was being honest when he said Apple doesn’t operate its business with any concern for ‘bloody’ return on investment, then he should happily say that Apple will invest in alternative energy at all costs. He should say that, even if federal and local governments remove all perks and tax breaks for renewable energy projects, Apple will continue to spend its investors’ money on risky solar and geothermal schemes,” said Danhof. “Until Cook does that, his episodic meltdown last year was nothing more than theater.”

In a break from its tradition of generally accepting all properly-presented shareholder proposals for inclusion in its proxy statement, Apple’s legal team repeatedly petitioned the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission this year for the right to omit the National Center’s proposal from its proxy materials altogether. Through multiple rounds of legal back-and-forth, the National Center won the right to have Apple’s shareholders vote on its proposal. To view the full legal exchanges between the National Center and Apple, click here.

The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project is the nation’s preeminent free-market corporate activist group. In 2014, Free Enterprise Project representatives participated in 52 shareholder meetings advancing free-market ideals in the areas of health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, food policies, media bias, gun rights, workers rights and many other important public policy issues.

Tomorrow’s Apple meeting will mark the fourth shareholder meeting attended by National Center representatives in 2015.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Sign up for free issue alerts here and go here to make a tax-deductible contribution to help us fight for liberty.

Share

Fish and Wildlife Projects Canned In Favor of “Green” Projects

“It appears the federal agency entrusted with protecting fish and wildlife in the U.S. has a new mission – to promote and further wind and solar energy projects on public lands, despite the cost to fish and wildlife programs.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is one of several agencies under the umbrella of the Department of the Interior (DOI). In recent years DOI has evolved into a vehicle to further the Obama administration’s push for “clean” energy, using the more than 500 million acres the Department manages to further this goal.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

No Money for Free Market Investment but Millions for Environmentalism

*Editor’s Note* Below is a copy of a press release I received yesterday from the National Center for Public Policy Research. One of their members attended a Bank of America shareholders meeting and the CEO was asked why Bank of America claims to have no money for free market investments but has millions to spend on environmental issues and anti-coal business. As one would expect, no real answers were given. Of note, I found it “snickerable” to read the comments about the environmental whackos in attendance singing songs, etc.

Charlotte, NC / Washington, DC – At today’s annual Bank of America shareholder meeting in Charlotte, N.C., an attorney with the National Center for Public Policy Research criticized Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan for caving to left-wing race bullies and dropping its membership the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) a venerable network of conservative state legislators.

Bank of America dumped ALEC after a concerted effort by Color of Change, Common Cause and the Occupy movement to defund ALEC by intimidating its corporate members.

“Mr. Moynihan gave no definitive answer as to why the company dropped ALEC,” said National Center Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof, who questioned Moynihan today.

“Mr. Moynihan basically answered me by saying, paraphrased, we take into consideration all factors when we make decisions, and when we make decisions, we consider all factors, including what groups we are part of,” added Danhof. “That tells us nothing.”

An audio recording of Danhof’s question and Moynihan’s response is available on YouTube here.

“The decision to drop ALEC – combined with the company’s green energy spending – has made it clear that Bank of America is willing and able to do the bidding of the extreme left.”

“Bank of America is lending corporate clout to radical groups making outrageous and unfounded claims against conservative and free-market organizations. Bending to the twisted will of radical left organizations is not a solid business strategy,” said Danhof. “If Bank of America is content to do the bidding of extreme race-baiters, shareholders may want to avoid investing in this company until its leaders recommit to free-market causes.”

And even though ALEC stopped working on the voter integrity issue, Color of Change still has an entire section of its website dedicated to defunding the venerable organization, titled “Tell Corporations: Stop Funding ALEC.”

“It appears Color of Change’s true mission is to gin up false racial narratives to defund conservative and free-market causes,” noted Danhof. “But we will not be silenced.”

Partly in response to corporate members dropping their memberships in ALEC, the National Center announced a new Voter Identification Task Force. In short order, the National Center has become a leading national voice for voter integrity.

Danhof also asked Moynihan why he was spending so much shareholder money on green energy programs.

“Considering that Bank of America has claimed in the past that it dropped ALEC for budgetary reasons, it seems odd that the company has allocated $70 billion for green projects including $100 million for grants to groups who are working to reduce fossil fuel usage,” said Danhof. “When I asked Moynihan if he would provide a list of these organizations who receive this gift of shareholder money, he refused to answer the question. It appears Bank of America hopes to hide these donations from the public and the company’s shareholders.”

“The larger point I was trying to bring to managements’ attention is that doing the bidding of left-wing radicals is a never-ending endeavor – environmental zealots are never satisfied,” added Danhof. “This was borne out at today’s meeting where Bank of America’s leadership touted their $70 billion commitment to green programs, yet scores of environmental activists were at the meeting and protesting outside demanding ever more. And if history is an indicator, they will likely get their way.”

Danhof noted that a huge portion of the meeting’s time was dedicated to listening to a series of anti-coal zealots, who dominated the question-and-answer period by making mini-speeches in lieu of questions about why Bank of America should not do business with the coal industry. “These speeches went on and on; perhaps 75% or even 90% of the question-and-answer time of the meeting was taken up by these anti-coal activists,” said Danhof.

“The anti-coal activists even included two rabbis, a woman from Boston and a man, and a minister from somewhere local,” added Danhof. “The female rabbi ended her ‘question’ by singing an Appalachian song of some kind. She was actually a pretty good singer, but a lot of these anti-coal people were just loons.”

A copy of Danhof’s question at today’s shareholder meeting, as prepared for delivery, can be found here.

The National Center for Public Policy Research is a Bank of America shareholder.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than 4 percent from foundations, and less than 2 percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors. In 2012-13, zero percent of its contributions have come from the fossil fuel industry or related foundations.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share