« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Support Bob Latta’s Comprehensive Energy Production Bill

The Republican Study Committee has struck again.  While Republican House leaders are tepidly tiptoeing around energy policy with an incremental approach, RSC Energy Task Force Chairman Bob Latta (R-OH) is pushing a comprehensive energy production bill.  The Consumer Relief for Pain at the Pump Act, H.R. 1777, would open up thousands of acres worth of drilling fields, extirpate onerous regulations from the backs of our energy producers, strike out at the heart of the domestic environmental legal defense fiscal terrorist community, expedite the oil refinery application process, and streamline the land leasing process.

This bill directly addresses all of the obstacles to oil, gas, and shale exploration; it would create thousands of real jobs, and reduce the cost of energy to consumers.  Being that oil is the lifeblood of the economy and is used for so many vital products and services, this bill would help reduce production and delivery costs of virtually every durable good, spawning unprecedented economic growth.  As an added bonus, it would eliminate many jobs of Democrat environmental agitators and oil rig-chasing attorneys.

Most importantly, this legislation would open up 2,000 acres of ANWR for development of its estimated 10 billion barrels of oil and 35 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.  This is something that other Republican leaders have abdicated in the face of visceral opposition from the left.  In light of record gas prices and other residual inflationary pains to consumers, this is not a time to go wobbly on ANWR.

Here are some of the key proposals in H.R. 1777 from Congressman Latta’s press release:

  • Repeals the Obama permatorium on America’s outer continental shelf;
  • Opens up ANWR to exploration and production;
  • Establishes a streamlined process for permitting and lease sales;
  • Increases access to onshore oil, including shale oil;
  • Blocks burdensome and unnecessary regulations; and
  • Simplifies the judicial review process to limit frivolous environmental litigation on leases and permits that would indefinitely halt energy production.

A detailed analysis of the bill can be found here.

We will never find more favorable economic conditions in which we can articulate bold differences in energy policy and pass comprehensive legislation.  Democrats will invariably regurgitate their ignorance of market forces by declaring ANWR and the OCS to be but a drop in the bucket, an inconsequential solution to high energy prices.  However, American consumers are all too painfully aware of how a cessation of production of the mere 1.5 billion bpd induced one of the most precipitous spikes in oil prices in recent memory.  Bob Latta’s bill would free more oil, gas, and shale from federal bondage than the sum total of Libya’s exports.  The announcement of drilling operations alone would have an immediate effect on gas prices in such a sensitive market.  The doors of price volatility and futures markets swing both ways.

Call your member of Congress and request that they follow through on their platitudes about energy production and agree to co-sponsor H.R. 1777.  Ask Republican leaders to prioritize this legislation through the committee process.  Let the Democrats try to obstruct us and we’ll hang their destructive energy policy like an albatross around their necks in 2012.

Cross-posted to Red Meat Conservative

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • juumanistra

    While Republican House leaders are tepidly tiptoeing around energy policy with an incremental approach, RSC Energy Task Force Chairman Bob Latta (R-OH) is pushing a comprehensive energy production bill.

    Don’t get me wrong, mind you: It takes several productive steps on the oil and gas development front, including expediting judicial review of energy projects and appropriating funds for F-T work. And while I think the name’s atrocious, it actually is what it says on the tin, a fairly clean bill focused on removing obstacles to increases in the domestic supply of oil and gas.

    But let’s not mince words: While it is a fine oil and gas bill, it is not in any way a comprehensive tackling of energy policy. There is no attempt to rein in NRC; no tackling of the grid transmission regulatory thicket; no attempt to rationalize the myriad and divergent subsidization regimes for power producers; and certainly no attempts to reform the root causes of systematic abuse by the green litigants’ bar, NEPA and citizen-suit provisions. It’s more of the “tepid tiptoeing” that the leadership is decried to have been under the thrall of, picking an area ripe for exploitation given the political climate and keeping the bill’s scope within fairly narrow confines.

    Not that I’m objecting. I’ll gladly take the half-loaf of anyone in the Republican party advancing something that isn’t “more of everything!”

    • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ dhorowitz3

      about as comprehensive as you can get. It tackles ANWR, OCS, lawsuits, and refinery applications; much more so than anything else out there.

      Yes, there are other important parts to energy legislation such as coal and reining in the NRC. However, we can’t touch every last facet of energy policy. This bill is much bolder than some of the other current onse.

      As for the name of the bill, Ha! the Dems give their bills such Orwellian names, why not shove it back at them?

      • juumanistra

        But it’s also not nearly as aggressive as the GOP House’s Roadmap to America’s Energy Future, which was released last July: I’d rather have liked to see that modernized, myself. But I’m not too terribly picky: The decent ideas, such as those relating to drilling and removing the synfuels provision, show up here. (The item that warmed the cockles of my heart — the legislative demand that NRC license 7 new commercial-grade reactors a year for the next thirty years or else — does not, which is not bad politics given the latest bout of radiophobia kicked up by the Sendair earthquake.) And it’s also not nearly as comprehensive one can get: Simply put, one can touch any aspect of electricity generation and be more comprehensive. It’s a nice start, but intellectual honesty ought to compel us to note that it smacks more of incrementalism than revolution. (Which, as a good Burkean, I’m all for.)

        I get upset by names that are too cute for their own good, either by overstating their breadth or wading into Backronym Hell. I long for the days when this would’ve been the Petroleum Act of 2011 or the Latta-Akin Act. (To borrow the first cosponsor’s name I could find.) Life was simpler when legislative titles were describing what was in the bill rather than how the bill was protecting us or trying to come with a useful abbreviation of it.

  • rabidf16

    Instead of legislating what can and cannot be done from Washington, how about a bill (that has nothing to do with energy on its face) that gets the federal government out of the states? Several Republicans are floating ideas of giving federal land back to the states. I would take it one step further. Most countries recognize an economic exclusion zone (EEZ) in the waters off of a sovereign country, in which that country has exclusive rights to develop it economically. The zone is 200 miles or the mean point between two countries when less than 400 miles separates them. I suggest that the federal government give exclusive rights of our EEZ to the state that has ocean for a border. If California doesn’t want off shore drilling, fine. But Alaska can do all it wants to. And Hawaii can ban shark cages if it wants to. Most problems have a federalist solution. This is one of them (well, partially, since it doesnt help Colorado develop oil shale on federal land).

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    of course it is going nowhere until we can get a conservative congress and administration, but lets start pushing it now.