A STARK DISTINCTION ON ENERGY POLICY: PERRY VS OBAMA

The Enterprise Blog

A stark distinction on energy policy: Perry vs. Obama

By Kenneth P. Green

October 14, 2011,

The Perry campaign released its plan for “Energizing American Jobs and Security” today, and it’s hard to imagine a sharper contrast between the Perry and Obama vision for America’s energy policy:

Where the Obama administration has labored to shift America’s historically free-enterprise energy economy over to a federally planned economy, the Perry plan explicitly repudiates a federal role in energy planning;

Where the Obama administration has stated that higher energy costs were acceptable (even desirable) as a means of reducing America’s energy use, Perry’s plan make ensuring energy affordability and reliability a top priority;

Where the Obama administration has set greenhouse gas control as the highest priority for energy policy, the Perry plan specifically repudiates greenhouse gas controls as a useful pursuit;

Where the Obama administration has tried to pick which energy technologies will win in the market, Perry’s plan calls for the elimination of subsidies to specific types of energy; and

Finally, where the Obama administration has tried to use the EPA to implement an agenda rejected by Congress, Perry’s plan calls for a massive restructuring of the EPA:

In order to create a functional system that protects both the environment and jobs, we must dismantle the EPA in its existing state, and build a new, more effective organization that addresses national or regional issues that individual states cannot address on their own. Our reconstructed, limited EPA would be dramatically reduced in size and influence, returning more power of regulation and up to 60% of the current federal budget to state governments. The EPA must be an organization serving in a research and advisory role, with enforcement powers that are limited to national or regional issues for which the individual states seek arbitration or assistance. The EPA would no longer impose one-size-fits-all restrictions on mandatory technology implementation or maximum emissions limits.

The Perry energy plan is extremely ambitious, and the Perry campaign must know that some components, like the EPA restructuring plan, would never get through Congress, even under unified Republican control. The idea that much of the Perry plan could be done with “the stroke of a pen” is wishful thinking. But if the goal of the Perry campaign was to draw a clear distinction between their vision of America’s energy future and that of the Obama administration, they certainly hit their target:

Affordable, reliable energy is vitally important to domestic job creation, our economy, and our national security. America’s current energy needs far surpass our domestic energy production. This energy deficit puts U.S. leaders and consumers under the influence of volatile global markets, which are often controlled by nations who are unfriendly to U.S. interests. While our country is blessed with abundant natural energy resources, poor policy decisions force us to import energy while our own resources go undeveloped. We can and must maximize American energy production. We must also be vigilant against energy restrictions that seek to steer our economy toward more expensive, less reliable sources of energy, and maintain a balanced energy portfolio.

Share

Leave a Reply

Search All Posts
Categories