News Home

Foxx Report: The "No Energy" Bill

New legislation fails to address pressing energy needs

By Congresswoman Virginia Foxx

Folks in the Fifth District and across the U.S. have come to rely on low energy prices. As we entered the 21^st century gas prices were at historic lows and policies to encourage alterative fuel sources were not national priorities. But the world has changed dramatically.

Demand for energy surged as the booming global economy sent nations scrambling for more and more energy. Exploding demand ushered in record energy prices. The United States, accustomed to low prices, had not pursued alternatives; prices at the pump climbed to previously unthinkable heights.

As prices rose the Republican Congress began crafting policies to encourage research and development to help increase our energy supply and reduce surges in demand. Now much of this forward thinking progress has been undone in a much-touted House energy bill that did nothing to move us toward energy independence. The cumulative effect was merely a new batch of regulations and taxes. So it's a bit of a mystery why it's been referred to as an energy bill. A more accurate description would be the "No Energy Bill.”

This legislation brings us no closer to the goal of energy independence. It looks to uncertain energy efficiency to solve the energy riddle, while turning a blind eye to our need for more energy. It pushes America further away from ending our reliance on foreign oil sources by placing new burdens and taxes on companies who want to develop oil and natural gas sources right here in the United States. Revealingly, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposed the bill because it "fails to produce a singe kilowatt of energy" and "threatens to reduce (and in some sectors eradicate) energy production."

At a time when America's reliance on foreign oil has serious national security, economic and environmental implications, we need more than tired, knee-jerk tax hikes on domestic oil producers. Instead we must pursue alternative sources of energy and maintain economical sources of natural gas and oil.

The time and investments required to implement new technologies are expensive and involve local political and economic considerations. In light of this, it is foolish to curtail our domestic oil and natural gas production abilities.

Today's global economy won’t wait while we secure our energy supply and develop alterative energy sources. For example, Asia already uses more oil than North America and promises to gobble up ever larger shares of the global energy market. False trust in energy efficiency alone will not keep gas prices low and electricity affordable amidst global competition. If we adopt policies that restrict our ability to tap domestic supplies and then limit ourselves to alterative sources in the early stages of development, we place our nation at a severe competitive disadvantage.

In other words: higher prices and potential energy shortages.

The “No Energy Bill” operates on the flawed premise that we don’t need new domestic oil supplies. Instead of encouraging secure, safe and environmentally sound sources of oil or natural gas, it assumes alternative fuels and energy efficiency can meet our energy needs. This is not yet the case. Such an assumption is blind to an economy that uses 146 billion gallons of gasoline each year.

We should think twice about slapping ever more taxes on American oil producers and denying them access to our nation's supply of available energy. And perhaps we should reconsider legislation that makes it more expensive to build new nuclear plants and refuses to address a coal-to-liquid pilot program to test the feasibility of such technology as an alternative to imported oil.

A realistic energy bill should take a two-pronged approach. It should create breathing room for additional energy supplies and technology (whether ethanol, oil, wind or fuel cells) and it should promote energy efficient practices throughout the economy. Supply and demand, that fundamental economic principle, dictates such a double-edged policy. Promoting only energy efficiency addresses the demand side of the equation, while creating incentives for new fuel addresses only the supply side of the equation. We can and must do both.

Bringing new fuels to the marketplace and reducing energy demand is the best way to create a secure and affordable energy future for America. I hope Congress can pass an energy bill this fall that envisions an energy efficient and environmentally responsible future attuned to the growing energy needs of our vibrant economy.

Virginia Foxx is a United States Representative from North Carolina’s Fifth Congressional District. You may contact her office toll free at 1-866-677-8968 or e-mail her from her website, www.foxx.house.gov.