Romney Campaign Press Release - President Obama's Energy Policy is Not Working for America

**UPDATED** MEMORANDUM

To:                  Interested Parties

From:              Lanhee Chen, Ph.D., Policy Director

Re:                  An Updated Guide to President Obama's Energy Policy

Date:               March 12, 2012

Today the Obama Administration released a one-year progress report on its "Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future." This blueprint, which calls for higher taxes, higher spending, and more regulation and subsidies, has produced the results we would expect:

• Fewer leases and permits, and declining oil production, on federal lands
• Off-shore production in decline, with drilling equipment leaving for other parts of the world
• Gas prices skyrocketing and costing the average family thousands of dollars
• Power plants shutting down and threatening the reliability of the electric grid
• Electric vehicle sales missing targets by a factor of ten, leading to mass layoffs

Or, as the Obama Administration describes it, "significant progress."

The President has decided not to run on his actual record — a record of making energy scarcer and more expensive, disrupting the market with command-and-control regulation, and pursuing industrial policies that suppress free enterprise and block job creation. Instead, he is presenting himself to the American people as the Oil & Gas President. Recognizing that this may confuse members of the public who have actually paid attention to the President's past statements or his actions since taking office, the Romney campaign has prepared the following primer on the President's positions and record.

Given the President's argument that new oil production takes years to come online, how can he claim credit for the increase in production during his time in office?

Technically he is not claiming credit, he just calls the increase "a fact." Speaking of facts, note that while production is increasing on private lands, recent analysis shows that production is decreasing on public lands. In other words, somehow, in the midst of a revolution in new energy production techniques, production on the land controlled by the President is declining. If he had been able to implement his policies everywhere, production would be declining everywhere and gas prices would be even higher. Conversely, allowing the same activity on federal land that is permitted on private land should increase production immediately.

But what about his claim that "we've opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration"? He said that was "a fact," too.

He's right, that is also a fact. Here are some more facts: Those millions of new acres represent a more than fifty percent decline from the leasing rate in the Bush Administration. Even after land is leased, the Obama Administration has reduced the rate of permitting by more than one-third. Total leases and acres under lease have declined. Off-shore leasing and permitting is down by two-thirds.

Does this mean his claim about declining oil dependence is wrong, even though he handed out a chart to every attendee at a recent speech and discussed it again during a recent radio address?

Oil dependence is declining. But as he explains, increased production (for which he deserves no credit) is only "part of that." What accounts for the rest? As his Energy Information Administration points out, the "chief" reason for declining dependence is "a significant contraction in consumption" that "reflects the downturn in the underlying economy." At least that is something he can take responsibility for.

If President Obama thinks that future production from increased oil drilling will take too long to make a difference, why is he focusing on new technologies and CAFE standards that will take even longer to come online?

As the President emphasized, the potential of these new technologies is extraordinary. For instance, he said renewable energy has doubled under his administration. Admittedly, that claim is untrue. According to EIA, renewable energy is only up about 25% since the end of 2008. Perhaps he only meant wind and solar power.

Can wind or solar power have a significant effect on gas prices or oil dependence?

No. It is somewhat strange that he was talking about them. Let's instead look at the effect that new CAFE standards will have by 2025. President Obama says they will save each car owner $8,000 at the gas pump, and that's while only increasing the cost of the car by about $8,000. Beyond this savings, the higher fuel efficiency could also reduce consumption by two million barrels per day. Although it is true that we could also produce an extra two million barrels per day by 2025 by expanding exploration and production starting now, a production-led strategy might not achieve the President's goal of increasing government control over the private sector.

What about his "all-of-the-above strategy"? It seemed bold and forward-looking to announce that "we have to pursue an all-of-the-above strategy that helps develop every source of American energy. And we have to do it now."

We have already covered oil and gas, where he is slowing production and increasing taxes. We have also covered wind and solar, which have no relationship to transportation. Strangely missing from his list of "every source" of energy is coal. This may disappoint the hundreds of thousands of Americans whose jobs rely on the industry, and the tens of millions who rely on it for affordable electricity.

If the President doesn't think there are short-term solutions, opposes plausible long-term solutions, and is only paying lip service to an all-of-the-above strategy, what is his plan?

To accompany his CAFE standards, he has the Chevy Volt. He set a goal of one million electric cars on the road in 2015, and has already sold more than 8,000 Volts. He recently proposed increasing the subsidy for them, which seems particularly appropriate seeing as GM announced last week it was temporarily shutting down Volt production and laying off 1,300 workers due to insufficient demand. He has also proposed a $4 billion tax increase for oil and gas companies. (Although, at some point he may discover that the primary burden of his tax hike will not be on multinational giants with "tens of billions of dollars" in profits, but rather on the smaller, U.S.-based companies that are working to increase our domestic production, as well as on the consumers who will see prices increase.)

In summary, as with the President's plans for everything else, the plan here is selection of winners and losers, tax hikes for some, subsidies for others, and a bigger government in charge of it all.

Do I get another choice?

Yes. Visit www.MittRomney.com/issues/energy to learn more about Mitt's plan to streamline regulation, unleash production of all our domestic resources, and invest in genuine technological innovation for the future. Mitt's plan will place America on the path to a reliable, secure, affordable supply of energy.