A new report from the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform details a disturbing “pattern of evidence” indicating that not only are the Obama administration’s energy policies responsible for higher oil and gas prices, but that the administration’s energy policy, in fact, is higher gas prices.
The report’s findings are the result of an extensive committee review of public records, policy analysis, statements and e-mails from administration officials, and reveal “a pattern of actions [that] shows the Administration is, in fact, pursuing an agenda to raise the price Americans pay for energy,” according to a copy of the report obtained by National Review Online.
“What President Obama failed to accomplish through the so-called ‘cap and trade’ program, his administration is attempting to accomplish through regulatory roadblocks, energy tax increases, and other targeted efforts to prohibit development of domestic energy resources,” the report concludes.
Among the report’s key findings:
-
Key administration officials, including President Obama and Energy Secretary Steven Chu have gone on record in support of higher energy prices as a means to promote “green” technology by making it more economically viable. The failed “cap and trade” legislation is a prime example of this approach. “The result of this government action is less production, higher costs for producers, and more expensive energy,” the reports states.
-
The United States currently boasts the largest domestic energy resources on earth — “greater than Saudi Arabia, China and Canada combined.” New technology has allowed for greater access to these resources — with the potential to increase domestic production by up to 40 percent — but government regulations threaten to severely limit or restrict development.
-
Despite the fact that the United States relies on carbon-based fuels for more than 80 percent of its energy needs, the Obama administration has been “aggressively suppressing” the utilization of these fuels.
-
Current administration policies have limited the domestic production of oil by restricting access to resources located along the outer continental shelf. Many of these restrictions were put in place before the disastrous Gulf oil spill.
-
Government agencies have stepped up efforts to regulate energy production indirectly through environmental restrictions, for example, by placing on the Endangered Species list certain animals that live in resource rich habitats, or “targeting independent energy producers for environmental concerns not related to their operations.”
-
President Obama’s proposal to increase taxes on the energy industry (and transfer some of the money to “green” energy) will severely impact the independent operators responsible for 95 percent of domestic oil and gas production. The proposed tax hikes would cost these firms a combined $12 billion in the first year alone.
-
Independent operators are responsible for 95 percent of domestic oil and gas wells and they currently invest 150% of their domestic cash flow back into future projects development. Tax increases proposed by President Obama, some of which would be transferred to “green” energy producers, would cost energy producing firms a combined $12 billion in the first year.
-
Many of the “green” energy sources promoted by the administration “create unintended environmental, security and economic consequences,” for example, by increasing the demand for Chinese “rare earth” materials, which subsequently boosts harmful coal production because that’s where more than two-thirds of China’s energy comes from.
According to the report, the administration’s “concerted campaign” to keep energy prices high extends “across government agencies” and constitutes a complete disregard for governmental transparency, much less the pocketbooks of all of those affected by the increased cost of energy. “An effort to intentionally raise the costs of traditional energy sources is a dangerous strategy that will harm economic recovery and job growth,” the report asserts. “If past statements of key administration officials are indeed reflections of the policies they are pursuing, this strategy is playing a quiet but significant role in the higher energy prices Americans are currently paying.”
The committee is releasing the report in conjunction with a hearing Tuesday morning titled “Pain at the Pump: Policies that Suppress Domestic Production of Oil and Gas.” Members will hear testimony from Lisa Jackson, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and David Hayes, Deputy Secretary at the Department of the Interior. The hearing, designed to examine the harmful effects of government regulation on economic productivity, is part of the House Republican majority’s recent efforts to promote the “growth” portion of its “cut and grow” agenda.
Can we get a link? This is verrrryyy interesting.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is a surprise? From the administration of "... energy prices would necessarily skyrocket"? He's proud of this.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNever mind. I didn't see that it was being released tomorrow.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnything emanating from a comittee that includes the title "House" is going to be as objective and unbiased as a Heritage Foundation rent-a-study.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusewell . . .duh
also: re: Frank1914: got any evidence to the contrary?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe moral of the story is that this is election campaign material, but not just over the specific issue. The moral of the story that every voter needs to have hammered in is that when people say things, we should expect them to mean it. Obama said "energy prices would necessarily skyrocket" and the MSM told us "Oh, relax, he doesn't really MEAN that! I mean, that'd be as stupid as promising to raise your taxes--and look how well that worked for Mondale!"
Somehow either we got stupider since Mondale or the MSM got more biased--maybe both. But this report shows that we should (a) actually VET candidates extensively and then (b) BELIEVE them when they said something THEN and not be in denial NOW. (Pawlenty re. cap-and-trade, Mitt re. govt. healthcare, etc. etc. etc. call your offices.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLight crude is looking like a pretty clear cut head and shoulders top at the moment. Look for it to drop to about 80$ a barrel or below in the coming weeks. If that happens the report will look silly and Obama will have a field day taking credit for lowering the price of oil.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFrank1914, both Chu and Obama are on record for wanting to artificially drive up traditional energy costs irrespective of market forces.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"A new report from the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform details a disturbing “pattern of evidence” indicating that not only are the Obama administration’s energy policies responsible for higher oil and gas prices, but that the administration’s energy policy, in fact, is higher gas prices."
I'm shocked! Shocked to see that a Republican controlled House Committee would come to this conclusion in a report! It may be true, but is it really Corner-worthy news? Let's have more analysis from the NRO staff rather than simply reposting GOP talking points, please.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe First Church of the Climate requires sacrifices: jobs, cash, prosperity. Your job and your wealth is no concern of the Church of the Climate. All will bow before the gods of Climate Change and give them their due, willingly or unwillingly. All (except the politically connected) will suffer.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLiving in an energy rich state, Wyoming, we have long understood the bias of our current president. He absolutely destroys not only the large oil companies, but all the small businesses in this area. Of course, the photos of Wyoming only include the mountains in isolated pictures, not the thousands of square miles of empty sagebrush land. We beg to let us work, but it sure isn't happening. I hope everyone who drives, flys or eats food from out of their home gardens likes the increased prices. They are totally crazy!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe policy of subsidizing unprofitable sources of energy with taxpayer money while making the economic choice (fossil fuels) artificially expensive IS the policy of this administration.
It's far more than a GOP talking point. It's an objective fact. Only a hopelessly biased media would allow the Democrats to occasionally pretend otherwise.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy not read the report and judge for yourselves?
One reason might be that for some reason the report doesn't appear to be available - why not?
I'd love to read it. I suspect what it says is true but I would like to see the evidence for myself.
D
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePoliticalScienceFiction - Actually, it's the policy of the U.S. government to make fossil fuels artificially cheap. We, the taxpayers, give the producers of fossil fuels (and renewable fuels) all sorts of subsidies. On top of that, the true costs of using fossil fuels (pollution, contamination of ground water, other environmental damage, etc) aren't included in the price of the fuel. All energy producers should be put on equal footing when it comes to U.S. policy; none of them should be given any subsidies or tax breaks.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@frank,
im with you, this report is bunk. energy prices havent been rising at all!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSam Hamilton: Why do you feel that energy companies alone amongst all companies, should not be permited any deductions?
You are aware that these so called subsidies that you keep whining about are what are called deductions in all other industries?
Do you deduct anything? If so, can I then go around whining about the subsidies that I am paying to you?
As to the alleged pollution, the energy companies are already required to clean up after themselves.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, considering what an over all benefit more CO2 in the atmosphere is, fossil fuel companies should be subsidized so that we can get more CO2 into the air faster.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusethat's the ticket Gary Bonds ... lets look at a technical chart pattern to guess price direction while ignoring supply and demand pressures ... that should work ...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGary B I would point out that much of the report deals with supply and not just prices ... Obama has been restricting supply since he took office when crude prices were in the $40-50 range ... does he get to take credit for it being at $70-80 (if your head and shoulders magic is correct) from that perspective as well ?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusethe report page ...
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse