The Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth is a bunch of right-wing pollutocrats

Fourteen men representing the Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth (AEEG) are meeting with Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), John Kerry (D-MA), and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) to negotiate the terms of comprehensive climate and clean energy legislation.  Brad Johnson has the background of this remarkably non-diverse group.

Per Matt Yglesias’s note that the “male-dominated nature of Wall Street is a source of dysfunction,” meet the AEEG:

Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth
Left to right, top to bottom: David N. Parker, Ed Hamberger Jr., Evan R. Gaddis, Rich Nolan, Jay Timmons, Marv Fertel, Erik Heilman, John S. Shaw, R. Bruce Josten, Thomas R. Kuhn, Mark Maslyn, Jack Gerard, James C. May, Dave McCurdy.

The AEEG is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce-managed working group of the trade associations representing America’s carbon-pollution industries, founded in 2001. Five of these AEEG representatives sit on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Association Committee of 100, helping shape the organization’s policy.

Five of the groups are suing to block the Environmental Protection Agency’s scientific finding that greenhouse gases are harmful pollutants “” the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Petroleum Institute, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Portland Cement Association, and the American Farm Bureau Federation. The American Petroleum Institute ran an astroturf campaign against the House climate legislation last year, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce called for a “Scopes monkey trial” on the science of climate change.

The least conservative of the industry lobbyists are Dave McCurdy of the Alliance of Auto Manufacturers, a former New Democrat congressman from Oklahoma (and Wonk Room guest blogger), and former general Evan Gaddis of the National Electric Manufacturers Association. Seven of the lobbyists were George W. Bush contributors, and two others “” Erik Heilman and Rich Nolan “” were Republican staffers. The overall political contributions of these fourteen men is whoppingly Republican, either as a direct contribution or funneled through conservative industry political action committees. They’ve donated $326,497 to Republican candidates compared to $100,346 to Democrats, more than a three-to-one ratio:

Contributions from AEEG Representatives

The Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth representatives meeting with Sen. Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman:

Industry Representatives at Climate Negotiations
Representative Title Organization Pct D
Marv Fertel director and CEO Nuclear Energy Institute 13
Evan Gaddis president and CEO National Electrical Manufacturers Association 47
Jack Gerard president and CEO American Petroleum Institute 20
Ed Hamberger president and CEO American Association of Railroads 5
Erik Heilman senior director of government affairs American Forest & Paper Association N/A
Bruce Josten executive vice president for government affairs U.S. Chamber of Commerce 14
Tom Kuhn president Edison Electric Institute 28
Mark Maslyn executive director of public policy American Farm Bureau N/A
James C. May president and CEO Air Transport Association 33
Dave McCurdy president and CEO Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 76
Rich Nolan vice president of government affairs National Mining Association 0
David N. Parker president and CEO American Gas Association 27
John S. Shaw senior vice president of government affairs Portland Cement Association 0
Jay Timmons executive vice president National Association of Manufacturers 2
Pct D: Percentage of political contributions to Democrats.

This is a Wonkroom repost.

4 Responses to The Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth is a bunch of right-wing pollutocrats

  1. Jeff Huggins says:

    Brad or Joe or etc. —

    You mention that five of the groups (including the API) are suing to block the EPA’s scientific finding that greenhouse gases are harmful pollutants.

    Can you please clarify the basis (or bases) of the suit?

    In particular …

    Is the API arguing that greenhouse gases are not harmful pollutants, period?

    Or, are they saying (or leaving open) that greenhouse gases are harmful but that the EPA does not have the jurisdiction or standing to make such a finding?

    Or, is the basis of the suit some other purely technical matter, e.g., jurisdiction or process or whatever?

    Could you (or one of your policy or legal experts) let us know, please?

    It matters, because (of course) the largest member of the API (or at least the largest member of that industry) is ExxonMobil, and I always like to try to figure out the degree to which they are being consistent (rarely) or inconsistent and deceitful (often, in my view). I’d like to understand the basis of the API’s suit and then compare that to other statements from ExxonMobil and also to what ExxonMobil implies (to the public) in its ads.



  2. Leif says:

    It would sure be nice if they would make room for “Humanity” at the table. A chair for Lester Brown, comes to mind. Obviously some prominent women to give voice to the other 50% of humanity. A minority or two. Even our very own Joe Romm would add a bit of spice.

    Obviously “spice” is not the goal, self perpetuation and enrichment is.

  3. James Newberry says:

    This is only one example of who the three senators are listening to (invested ideological “stupid white men”) in determination of our energy/economy future. This is like making a decision on the Titanic, based on the owners desire for speed, to keep rudder amidship and full steam ahead so we can cut the global warming iceberg in half and escape sinking the ship of state. Of course, several other scenarios are apparent.

    Where is my atomic bailout bucket? Must be downstairs in the floodwaters. Anyone have a (black) rock to set on fire? Oh right, in the 22nd century the idea that mined matter is an “energy resource” will seem insane, as trillions of dollars of magnificent world realestate become submerged. All hail the religion of extraction economics, an idea whose time on earth will expire (along with blessings like biodiversity and glacial waters).

  4. Fredo says:


    The associations are challenging the endangerment finding based on the science. They are arguing that EPA disregarded contrary evidence, and accepted now-discredited evidence (see “climategate”), and thus the finding that GHGs endanger human health and welfare was arbitrary and capricious.

    In other words, they’re hoping to get that “monkey trial” after all.

    As a matter of administrative law it’s a real shot in the dark- there is almost no way a court is going to even get to a serious evidentiary hearing on the science, much less overturn EPA. Agencies traditionally have broad discretion to make much more tenuous finding than this. Mostly it’s a political/media move and a chance to delay and waste taxpayer-funded resources on defending against their frivolous garbage.