Is America's energy policy getting on right track?

Aug 31 - Deseret News (UT)

Energy policy has been of far greater concern to President Obama than to his recent predecessors in the White House, reflecting the emergence of climate change as a central issue today.

Yet his administration has pursued an "all-of-the-above" energy strategy that advances all energy resources, from oil and gas to nuclear power and renewables, without consistently indicating a priority among them.

Of course, the president's policies reflect political reality today, where Congress is polarized over energy issues and climate change. Any president must work with other policymakers to do what is politically and economically feasible at the time.

Despite these constraints, President Obama's energy policies on the whole are balanced and forward-looking. They move the nation in the right direction of reducing reliance on fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas as we come to terms with climate change.

What has he done? He has helped to revive the nuclear power industry with federal loan guarantees, and for the first time in over three decades, new plants are under construction. They are very expensive, but the industry's renewal could lead to cheaper and safer reactor designs that offer an alternative to fossil fuels, which supply over 80 percent of the energy we now use.

The president also has fostered an increase in hydraulic fracturing for oil and natural gas on public lands, and he has supported offshore oil and gas drilling, combined with regulatory reforms. This includes drilling in the Arctic and off the Atlantic coast, although not nearly to the extent that the oil and gas industry has sought.

One result has been abundant, cheaper and cleaner natural gas that is rapidly replacing dirtier coal as the fossil fuel of choice for power plants.

There also has been a 94 percent increase in domestically produced oil during Obama's tenure. As a result, the U.S. is now much less dependent on imported oil.

The president has strongly backed permitting for large wind and solar installations on public lands in the West, and he has supported generous DOE funding for a range of promising new energy technologies, especially renewables.

On the whole the program has been remarkably effective, and federal, state and private investment together have led to a 252 percent increase in solar and wind power since the president took office.

Two key energy-related regulatory decisions also stand out. The administration's new vehicle fuel economy standards already have improved miles per gallon - up 21 percent - and urban air quality, with much more to come. New efficiency standards also are being developed for heavy trucks and buses.

Similarly, the EPA's new Clean Power Plan for coal-fired power plants is likely to reduce climate-altering carbon emissions and improve air quality.

The plan calls for cutting emissions of carbon dioxide by 32 percent by 2030 and increasing use of renewable resources for electricity generation, with many choices left to the states.

According to the EPA , the public health and climate benefits greatly outweigh compliance costs while also creating thousands of new jobs.

The EPA also has proposed new regulations to cut methane leakages from oil and gas production by 40 to 45 percent by 2025.

Environmentalists argue that these and other restrictions on energy production do not go far enough. They also think that the expansion of oil and gas fracturing might well offset many of the gains from the president's other climate change initiatives.

There are many possible impacts from all of these decisions. So we can only judge the ultimate balance represented by Obama's energy policies over time.

Michael Kraft is professor emeritus of political science and public and environmental affairs at the University of Wisconsin - Green Bay .

By Jack Gerard

Tribune News Service

For decades, U.S. presidents have made achieving American energy security a top priority.

Now, thanks to the nation's historic energy resurgence, we finally have the capability to make good on the promise. But the Obama administration is turning a blind eye to the once-in-a- generation opportunities before us.

The failure to approve the Keystone XL pipeline is a symbol of a national energy policy headed in the wrong direction. The pipeline represents a major leap forward for energy security, adding 830,000 barrels of oil per day to our supply.

If that's not enough, look to the original Keystone pipeline, which recently delivered its one billionth barrel of oil.

Unlike Keystone XL, the first leg of the Keystone system wasn't turned into a political football. It received a presidential permit in less than two years and has been safely operating for five.

Since then, the Keystone system has contributed almost $200 million in property taxes and generated 14,000 construction jobs in 11 states and provinces. The economic impact of the Keystone XL expansion would be even greater - supporting 42,000 jobs that would put $2 billion in workers' pockets.

But all that is being held hostage in the interests of placating a small minority of protestors who are vastly outnumbered.

American workers are also missing out because of the nation's outdated export policies. Banning crude exports might have made sense in the wake of the 1970s oil embargo. But now that the United States leads the world in oil and natural gas production, it's become a costly relic.

A recent Harvard Business School study found that lifting export restrictions could add $23 billion to the GDP and around 125,000 new U.S. jobs by 2030. Numerous studies project that allowing crude exports will result in lower gasoline prices for American drivers by further stabilizing world crude supply.

Leon Panetta , CIA director and secretary of defense under President Obama , and Stephen Hadley , national security adviser under President George W. Bush , joined forces for an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal stating, "The moment has come for the U.S. to deploy its oil and gas in support of its security interests around the world."

Instead of focusing on "how much military power should be deployed to the Middle East ," they write, "America's abundance of oil and natural gas" should be recognized as "a powerful, non- lethal tool" for advancing our security interests. As we move closer to lifting the ban on Iranian oil resources, restricting American competitiveness and influence by banning our own exports makes even less sense.

On top of policies that restrict energy opportunities, an onslaught of new regulations threatens to stifle production outright.

Even though ozone levels have dropped 33 percent since 1980, the Obama administration is finalizing new standards that could restrict virtually any economic activity - from building highways to hospitals.

Further tightening standards to levels close to or even below naturally occurring background levels of ozone could cost the economy $140 billion per year and put millions of jobs at risk, according to a study from the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM).

With Congress considering the first major energy legislation since America's energy resurgence began in earnest, we have the opportunity to get U.S. energy policy back on track - creating thousands of jobs and making the nation more secure in the process. It's time to move energy policy into the 21st century.

Jack Gerard is president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute , the national trade association that represents all aspects of America's oil and natural gas industry. A native of Idaho , Gerard holds a B.A. in political science and a law degree from George Washington University .

www.deseretnews.com

http://www.energycentral.com/functional/news/news_detail.cfm?did=37218294