WTI Crude

Loading...

Brent Crude

Loading...

Natural Gas

Loading...

Gasoline

Loading...

Heating Oil

Loading...

Rotate device for more commodity prices

Alt Text

OPEC Steals The Headlines As Trump Effect Abates

Energy markets have already shifted…

MasterResource

MasterResource

MasterResource is a blog dedicated to analysis and commentary about energy markets and public policy.Precisely because energy is the lifeblood of the modern economy –…

More Info

Correcting Obama's Anti-Energy Agenda: The American Energy Act

The Obama Administration has been implementing an anti-energy agenda since coming to Washington. From day one, Obama and his “dream ‘green’ team” have worked to increase the cost of traditional energy to reduce usage and try to make uneconomic consumer-rejected energy (wind, solar, ethanol, electric vehicles) more economic.

The effects of these policies are now playing out in front of the American people: rising energy prices, tens of thousands of jobs destroyed, and increasing dependence on foreign state-owned energy companies. In response, the free market community has been playing defense.

But even before Obama, multiple-hundred-page interventionist legislation has been signed time and again by Republican presidents. (And it was Republican Richard Nixon who began the era of energy politicization with his wage-and-price-control program despite being elected on a platform to roll back government.)

What would actual free-market energy legislation look like? To start this process, the Institute for Energy Research recently offered model legislation –The American Energy Act. This bill would get rid of unnecessary regulations, increase domestic energy production, create millions of jobs, and lower the price of energy for all Americans.

Unlike the president’s approach of subsidizing politically-favored industries with billions of taxpayer dollars, the American Energy Act would not cost taxpayers one dime. In fact, it would increase the federal government’s tax revenues by increasing domestic economic activity.

Here are ten ways in which the American Energy Act will correct the mistakes made by President Obama’s anti-energy administration:

1. Expedite Energy Permits

Obama: Current law enables the Obama Administration to draw out the permitting process without limit. This forces energy companies and American workers to sit idle for months, waiting to hear whether or not the permit will be granted. The longer an application sits in Washington, the more money it costs our economy in lost productivity and lost wages for workers.

American Energy Act: The Act requires that within thirty days of receiving an application, the responsible agency must issue the permit or return it to the applicant with instructions on any steps they could take for the permit to be issued.

2. Create Regulatory Certainty

Obama: Companies must spend millions of dollars in compliance costs to apply for a federal permit to explore for or produce domestic energy. After satisfying the many demands of federal regulators, the Obama Administration is currently able to apply new regulations retroactively to companies that have already secured permits. As a result, companies function in an environment of constant regulatory uncertainty.

American Energy Act: The Act prevents any new regulations from being applied to projects that have already been issued permits to operate. This common sense reform will protect contracts between the government and producing companies and will develop regulatory certainty which is essential to encourage robust domestic energy production.

3. Allow Development of Oil Shale

Obama: Despite the fact that America’s oil shale contains over a trillion barrels of oil – four times as much as Saudi Arabia, one of the Obama Administration’s first actions was to cancel leases in the West that would have allowed research, demonstration, and development of these resources. In February 2011, the administration further delayed development by ordering another review of current rules for oil shale development. While the U.S. dithers, Estonia and China are moving forward with their own domestic oil shale resources.

American Energy Act: The Act forces the Department of the Interior to follow the law of the land as written in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This would allow for American companies to invest in America’s massive oil shale resources, bringing thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of economic activity to the U.S. The Act also gives permitting authority to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission – which is tasked with reviewing and permitting for most other energy projects – instead of the Department of Interior.

4. Stop EPA’s Attempted Takeover of Hydraulic Fracturing

Obama: In President Obama’s ‘Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future,’ he insists that the federal government must have an increased role in regulating hydraulic fracturing. This would be achieved by increasing EPA’s role in state water regulations.

American Energy Act: Hydraulic fracturing has been used over one million times over the past fifty years. Yet, not one incident of water contamination has ever been proved by any government agency or outside organization. Recognizing that the ability to regulate this process at the state level has proven incredibly successful, the Act protects each state’s rights as the primary regulator of hydraulic fracturing.

5. Allow Energy Production in Alaska

Obama: The Obama Administration, like previous administrations, has continued to delay energy production in Alaska. As a result, the Trans Alaska Pipeline System, which could be delivering two million barrels of oil per day to the continental U.S., is flowing at less than one-third capacity and forcing the U.S. to spend over $51 billion per year on imported oil.

American Energy Act: Recognizing that Alaska is home to over 40 billion barrels of oil and 200 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, the Act removes barriers to production there. Environmental analysis of energy production in Alaska has been the world’s most exhaustive. The Act recognizes these studies as authoritative and puts an end to further delay and regulatory barriers.

6. Enhance Energy Production in the Outer Continental Shelf

Obama: Each president after Ronald Reagan has leased less taxpayer-owned federal offshore acres than the previous. The Obama Administration has leased the smallest amount of offshore acres in recent history. Currently, 97 percent of the outer continental shelf (OCS) is off limits to energy production.

American Energy Act: The Act requires that the Secretary of Interior ensure that at least ten percent of the OCS is being leased for the production of energy. This would open up enormous energy potential (over 85 billion barrels of oil) while still leaving 90 percent of federal lands and waters untouched at any given time.

7. Protect States’ Rights to Regulate Water

Obama: The Environmental Protection Agency leaked a document in February 2011 stating that “the agencies expect that the number of waters found to be subject to [Clean Water Act] jurisdiction will increase significantly…” under their definition of ‘navigable waters’. This will lead to increased EPA control over waters on state and private lands – even mud puddles – that have never been the business of the federal government.

American Energy Act: States should have primacy to regulate waters within their state borders, especially wholly intrastate waters. The Acts gives precedent to the states to carry out local and state water laws.

8. Codify ‘Energy Effects’ Requirement

Obama: Various agencies of the Obama Administration, including EPA and BOEMRE, have proposed or imposed new regulations on energy production in the U.S. These agencies did not issue any corresponding report that explained the new regulations’ effects on energy supply, distribution, or use, despite the requirement to do so according to Executive Order 13211.

American Energy Act: The Act codifies Executive Order 13211 and requires any agency that promulgates new regulations on energy production to issue a report on how its new regulations would affect energy supply, distribution, and use. This will give Americans a better understanding of how the regulation will affect end-use consumers.

9. Reinstate Yucca Mountain Project

Obama: In 2009, President Obama stopped all development of the Yucca Mountain complex as a repository for spent nuclear fuel, giving the project only enough funding to cover the costs of answering questions from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This decision ultimately put a stop to the only legitimate option for long-term spent fuel disposal.

American Energy Act: The Yucca Mountain project has received billions of dollars for research and development. To stop the project on political grounds is indefensible. The Act declares Yucca Mountain to be the repository site for the nation’s radiological material, unless it is found to be unsuitable by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

10. Require Congressional Approval for Costly Regulations

Obama: Currently, EPA does not take into account the full scope of the economic impacts that the agency’s new regulations would cause. Recently, EPA assistant administrator Mathy Stanislaus testified that his agency did not know how many jobs would be destroyed by his agency’s new regulations. Also, EPA’s endangerment finding on carbon dioxide does not account for the massive costs and negative consequences that would result from regulating and limiting carbon dioxide emissions.

American Energy Act: The American people should not be subject to the whims of unaccountable bureaucrats at EPA or any other federal agency. The Act requires Congressional approval for all regulations with an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. This will ensure that America remains a representative government instead of government by fiat.

By. Robert Bradley Jr.

This article was provided by MasterResource




Back to homepage


Leave a comment
  • Anonymous on June 02 2011 said:
    I wonder how many times I have told the story about the American business executive who called me a 'fool' in Vienna because of my favorable comment about shale oil.Well, he was right. On that particular subject I was a fool, and the business in this article about a massive exploitation of shale oil is strictly off the wall.I won't comment on the rest of this article, however my general feeling is that our president doesn't have more than a clue or two where energy matters are concerned, but he isn't alone there. Hearing Angela Merkel talking about increasing Germany's "comparative advantage" by eliminating nuclear and replacing it by wind and things made me realize that nonsense is endemic when it comes to this subject.
  • Anonymous on June 02 2011 said:
    wow a 10 points agenda on how to keep destroying the planet. Economy and jobs creation trounce any environmental issues, a corporations delight. Who care about clean air, water, safe food, those non sense ideas, as long as I can drive my F150 to the mall, we`ll be alright.
  • Anonymous on June 03 2011 said:
    Destroying the planet Mr Armageddon51 said. It was nuclear that gave Sweden the welfare and quality of life that was admired and respected from the ski slopes of Åre to the Capetown naval yard.Who destroyed that? Well, it was the eko-nuts, Third World groupies and assorted free worlders. No, we dont want to destroy the planet, and renewables and alternatives are at least as important as nuclear, probably more, but not any and all renewables and alternatives. What about helping to figure out the relevant renewables and alternatives instead of bitching and griping about "environmental issues", or leaving the figuring to scientific geniuses like George W.
  • Anonymous on June 03 2011 said:
    Frack, Drill baby drill, build more nukes, and finsh Yucca Mountain... We need to stop purchasing energy from countries that don't like us!!!!@ armageddon51: Keep drinking your cool-aid!!! And, don't stop there... If you don't like civilization, find a plot in the woods and live off the land with no electricity, no running water, no cars, and no internet... Especially the later so we don't have to hear from you!
  • Anonymous on June 16 2011 said:
    OK, all you in favor of this article. Have you seen the movie about fracking, Gasland, and would you really want them to do it in your back yard. Also, would you move near Yucca Mountain? This is not empty land, but Indian land. Haven't we done enough to them? And, how can you talk about letting the oil industry have it's way without regulations after the BP disaster? And, how can you talk about Sweden's successful Nuclear Experiment, when we have an example of an unsuccessful one in Japan this year? Part of the problem in Japan was that they didn't know what to do with the waste rods. This is still a problem for us too.

Leave a comment




Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News