Reply to Rep. Neugebauer on His Energy Policy

Randy,

I like your form letter below. You seem to have a clear understanding of our energy problems.

With your cosponsoring the several energy bills in the House, you're on the right track. However as I said in a previous communication, it's a long way from an approved House Bill to a final law. We need a more effective way to override or counteract the continuing negative Executive Orders of the President. Anything you can do through the Supreme Court?

One item I take exception to, in your form letter, is your accent on energy conservation. This is a defeatist attitude based on the presumption that energy is limited (particularly oil) and that we should make every effort to conservation. While almost anyone will agree that we don't want to waste anything, and that we can conceive of running out of oil, there is every reason to believe that this could be a long time in the future and that the development of subsequent technologies will serve as replacements. I think the proper attitude should be a more positive approach that the market demands now more gasoline at low prices, and the US government should not be an impediment to that development. Please see what you can do with that more positive approach.

ACS

-----Original Message-----

Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 12:14 PM

To: 'Arthur Sucsy'

Thank you for contacting me about the cost energy. I appreciate knowing your views.

The American economy depends on a reliable supply of fossil fuels, and that isn’t going to change in the near future. At a time when consumers are paying $4 or more for a gallon of gasoline, Congress and the Administration should encourage domestic energy production to relieve prices at the pump. Unfortunately, President Obama’s moratorium on offshore drilling has killed thousands of jobs and drastically reduced production in one of the largest energy-producing regions in the United States. As a result of the moratorium and continued permitting delays, U.S. offshore oil production is expected to be down 13 percent in 2011. Producers will lose approximately 375,000 barrels of oil every day this year.

With soaring gas prices affecting every American family, it is imperative that we start increasing oil production here at home. I have cosponsored a number of bills that would accomplish this goal:

· H.R. 49, the American Energy Independence and Price Reduction Act, which would direct the Secretary of Interior to implement a competitive leasing program for oil and gas exploration and development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), and would authorize the Secretary to designate up to 45,000 acres of the Coastal Plain in Alaska as a Special Area where drilling is permitted;

· H.R. 840, the SECURE Act, which would allow pre-approved oil and gas permit holders to conduct all operations under the terms of the permit without further delay;

· H.R. 993, the Lease Extension and Secure Energy Act, which would extend certain Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) leases for oil and gas development.

· H.R. 1287, the 3-D, Domestic Jobs, Domestic Energy, and Deficit Reduction Act of 2011. This bill would start lease sales in the OCS, open ANWR for production in an environmentally sensitive way, expedite the development of America’s vast western oil shale resources, update and streamline the permitting process for energy leases and expedites environmental litigation, and compel the State Department to issue all permits necessary to move forward with the Keystone XL Pipeline Project, which would bring over a million barrels of oil a day from Canada’s oil sands and North Dakota’s Bakken formation to U.S. consumers.

I also cosponsored and voted in favor of H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, which passed the House by a vote of 255-172 on April 7, 2011. This bill would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) under the Clean Air Act. It would block the Agency’s attempt to extend an unprecedented level of control over vast sectors of the U.S. economy through unilateral regulation of GHGs, which amounts to a massive energy tax on all Americans.

Additionally, on May 5, 2011, I voted in favor of H.R. 1230, the Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act, which passed the House by a vote of 266-149. This bill would establish statutory deadlines that require the Secretary of Interior to conduct four lease sales originally established under the 2007-2012 five-year plan in the Gulf of Mexico and offshore Virginia. The original plan enacted under the Bush Administration included these lease sales, but they have been delayed or cancelled under the Obama Administration. Specifically, the bill requires the Secretary to conduct proposed lease sales #216 in the Central Gulf of Mexico, #218 in the Western Gulf of Mexico, #220 on the Outer Continental Shelf off the shore of Virginia, and #222 in the Central Gulf of Mexico.

Without increasing domestic oil production, we stand little chance of easing prices at the pump. Instead of picking winners and losers in the energy sector and preventing producers from developing the resources we have readily available in the U.S., the Obama Administration should support policies that would lower the cost of gasoline, create jobs, and get our economy back on track.

However, the market for oil is extremely complex and the price of gasoline is dependent on a wide variety of factors that are not entirely under our control. While increasing domestic production will create additional supply that can lower energy prices, there is no immediate fix available to fully ease the burden of high gas prices that most Americans face. Prices at the pump in the United States rely heavily upon world oil supply and demand, geopolitical events, and investments in commodities futures. Global crude oil and liquid fuels consumption grew to record levels in 2010, reaching 86.7 million barrels per day. The Energy Information Agency expects this number to increase by 1.5 million barrels per day in 2011 and an additional 1.6 million barrels per day in 2012. Demand for oil is expected to continue to rise dramatically over the next few decades.

It is unlikely that increases in production will be able to match this growth in consumption for very long. If demand continues to outpace supply, prices will continue to rise. For this reason, energy efficiency and alternative technologies are a worthy goal. Unfortunately, most of the technologies that are readily available on the market today are either too expensive or not efficient enough for most consumers to justify purchasing. For example:

· Electric vehicles rely on heavy government subsidies and still end up costing more in the long run than an efficient gasoline-powered vehicle in the same class;

· Hybrid vehicles also have higher initial investments, but may make sense for consumers with certain driving habits;

· Research in hydrogen fuel technology has proven to be inefficient and dangerous, and is no longer considered a viable alternative to gasoline-powered vehicles by experts in the industry;

· Ethanol, which is cheaper per gallon than gasoline because of heavy government subsidies and tariffs, slightly buffers cost increases in crude oil;

· Natural gas may very well become a reliable fuel source upon which Americans can rely while alternative technologies are developed and perfected. Natural gas burns cleaner than oil and the relatively low cost may make it an attractive alternative to consumers.

Providing government subsidies to inefficient technologies can actually be counter-productive. By artificially creating lower prices for a product, the government is tricking the market to believe that the technology is cheap enough to survive competition. This removes the strong incentive for a company to make the product cheaper and more efficient. In fact, it can actually stifle innovation since the product can have relative success while becoming completely dependent on government aid. Instead of pretending that the technologies we have now can solve the energy problems of the future, we must let the market lead companies into developing more cost-effective options.

There is no silver bullet that is going to solve the energy problems we face today. Americans may want to consider consuming less in whatever way makes sense for them: purchasing more efficient vehicles, driving less, or using alternate modes of transportation. In these tough economic times, Americans and the federal government both must find way to do more with less. Energy consumption is no exception.

Please be assured that I will continue to work with my colleagues here in Congress to create sound and practical energy policies for the United