PACE in National Journal: Is Obama’s Blueprint Built to Last?

Late last week, the National Journal asked its panel of energy experts what the President’s State of the Union address means for the energy agenda. Among the numerous responses from across the nation was a piece by PACE Executive Director Lance Brown entitled “Obama’s Blueprint: Built to Last?” This response appears below.

Last week, President Obama’s State of the Union address touted an economic blueprint for an “America Built to Last.” But unless that blueprint includes overturning recent regulations implemented by the Environmental Protection Agency, our economy will continue to suffer. While President Obama and the EPA continue to defend new rules like Utility MACT, consumers can look forward to higher costs and less reliability.

The president’s address also included a number of sound bites on energy, including pledges to install renewable power on federal lands and to launch new initiatives to boost renewable power use in the military branch. Instead of focusing on common-sense initiatives that will lower the price of energy for Americans, the administration stubbornly continues to pursue renewable power experiments that make little sense in the current economic reality.

According to a recent report by Bloomberg News, Spain has halted subsidies for renewable energy projects in an effort to rein in the nation’s spending. Spain was among the first nations in the world to aggressively subsidize renewable energy projects, often cited by renewable advocates in the United States as a policy model for American lawmakers. Just days prior to Spain’s announcement, the German government announced it would phase out all national subsidies for renewable power by 2017. And yet President Obama continues to position America as a leader in the “clean energy race?” Mr. President, it’s time we start learning from the mistakes of others.

We have real opportunities here at home to make American less reliant on foreign oil – opportunities that have been rejected simply for political gain. The Keystone XL is but one example. As the USA Today editorial board put it, Obama’s decision “exemplifies the continuing fecklessness of U.S. energy policy.” And yet – at the same time – the president moves forward with Arctic drilling. I applaud the administration on this decision, but it’s time to stop talking from both sides of our mouths. To reject a stable, reliable and vast source of energy that Keystone XL would provide while advocating for new energy initiatives is counterproductive and unrealistic.

If we’re going to move forward, we need energy policy based on reality rather than focus groups.

Read Brown’s response online here.