Justin Sykes

Obama's Carbon Rule Much Worse for States than Originally Anticipated

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Justin Sykes on Tuesday, September 8th, 2015, 12:53 PM PERMALINK

Last month the Obama Administration and EPA released the final version of their so-called “Clean Power Plan,” which seeks to regulate carbon in the U.S. While the President and his army of EPA bureaucrats tout the “flexibility” of the carbon rule, the reality is the rule is anything but flexible and will hits states the hardest. Projections show the finalized version of the carbon rule will have a much more devastating impact than originally expected in the proposed version.

For states, the finalized rule means massive energy rate increases and compliance scenarios that will prove crushing for their economies. The carbon rule offers two compliance scenarios, both of which are practically unworkable for states and will send energy rates skyrocketing.

It is projected that over 40 states will see double digit rate increases under the carbon rule, inevitably killing thousands of jobs and pushing integral industries to search for lower energy prices, potentially oversees. 

Worst of all is the impact the carbon rule will have on 22 states that were blind-sided by much more stringent emissions reduction targets in the finalized rule than in the proposed rule. Twenty-one of these 22 states enjoyed average electricity prices 12% below the national average last year. More stringent targets however mean residents will be paying more for energy and sectors such as manufacturing could soon leave states for more affordable climates.

For instance the reduction target originally proposed for North Dakota was 11%, yet the target contained in the finalized rule is almost 50%. Iowa, Kentucky and Wyoming were originally projected to see targets just below 20% but the finalized rule requires well over 40% reduction targets for each. States such as Indiana, Kansas, and Montana also saw their compliance targets roughly double in the final rule.   

Furthermore, in drafting the final rule, the assumptions made by Obama and the EPA are not only illogical but extremely misleading. In the final version the EPA assumed that roughly 100 GW of coal would inevitably be retired by 2020, even without the carbon rule. 

This assumption however is much larger than the 66 GW the EPA originally projected in the proposed rule or the 55 GW the Energy Information Administration projected. By assuming more coal retirement in the final version absent the carbon rules enactment, the EPA tries to misrepresent the actual impact the carbon rule will have on the industry.          

The final version of the rule also assumes that 41,000 MW of renewables such as wind would come on line by 2030. The EPA claims such sources would replace roughly 38,000 MW of coal the Agency projects will be retired during the same period.  However this swap is not only wildly impracticable but doesn’t take into account the unreliable nature of wind.

Because wind generation is so sporadic it is estimated that for such a drastic shift in energy supply to be effective over 170,000 MW of wind would actually be needed, as opposed to the 41,000 MW the EPA projects. The feasibility of doing so would require over 20 million acres of wind generation, a landmass the size of 16 million football fields or roughly the State of Indiana.    

As unclear and unforthcoming as the President and the EPA have been in disclosing the impact the final carbon rule will have on states, the one thing that is clear is a majority of states will be hurt. For the 40 or so states that will see double digit rate increases, or the 22 states facing compliance targets well above those initially projected, this rule will prove an economic disaster that ripples across the U.S. 


Photo Credit: Sal

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


By unelected bureaucracy, IL Dooshee means to do away with the states once and for all. As a constitutional law student he has studied the ways to go around elected officers of the government.......with their help of course.

Guy Daley

And Americans will overlook this in favor of more popular subjects like flag burning, encroachment by China, Russia, gay marriage and other BS that doesn't affect their pocketbook.

Gina McCarthy on Obama's National Energy Tax: "Minority communities will be hardest hit."

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Justin Sykes on Friday, August 21st, 2015, 2:10 PM PERMALINK

This month President Obama and the EPA released the final version of their “Clean Power Plan,” or as more aptly referred, the new “National Energy Tax.” The rule seeks to limit carbon in the U.S., and by the EPA’s own projections the benefits will be negligible, reducing global temperatures by 0.018 degrees by 2100 and sea level rise by a mere 0.20 millimeters by 2050. 

While the environmental impact of the carbon rules is virtually non-existent, the impact on American families will be disastrous. Projections show the carbon rule will likely increase electricity rates in the U.S. by double digits in over 40 states. Such rate increases amount to a regressive tax on the nation’s most vulnerable.

The overwhelmingly regressive nature of the carbon rule is why leaders in Washington, such as House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), have chosen to describe the rule as “Obama’s National Energy Tax.” 

In a recent panel discussion in D.C., EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy admitted the disparate impact the new carbon rule would have stating, “We know that low-income minority communities would be hardest hit.” For once, Administrator McCarthy has chosen to be direct and open about what the rule really means for America’s most vulnerable populations. 

As Americans for Tax Reform has previously pointed out, and EPA Administrator McCarthy has now confirmed, the effects the new carbon rule will have on low-income and minority communities will be particularly devastating.

According to recent reports by the National Black Chamber of Commerce, American minority communities will see jobs losses, reductions in household income and increased poverty rates that are far above the national average.

The report found that as a result of the regressive nature of Obama’s carbon rules, by 2035 African-American communities will see cumulative job losses of almost 7 million. For Hispanic communities the losses will be well over 12 million.

Similarly, median household income for African-Americans would decrease by $5,000 over the next 20 years and Hispanics would see losses greater than $7,000. The carbon rule will also lead to skyrocketing poverty rates for Hispanics, who will see poverty rate increases above 26 percent. For African-Americans the report found poverty rate increases of over 23 percent. 

Administrator McCarthy and President Obama seem all to comfortable sacrificing the livelihoods of millions of hard-working Americans for essentially non-existent benefits. Sadly as a result of the carbon rules, some of America's most vulnerable could now find themselves thrust into poverty, many of whom have just managed to pull themselves out.


Photo Credit: Chesapeake Bay Program 

More from Americans for Tax Reform

There are no related posts.

Top Comments

USPS Post Half a Billion in Losses Despite Billions in Subsidies

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Justin Sykes on Thursday, August 13th, 2015, 10:28 AM PERMALINK

While government bureaucrats are notoriously inefficient at their core missions, such as the EPA polluting the Animus River, the one thing they are consistently efficient at is losing taxpayer dollars. In addition to the EPA’s recent bungles, the U.S. Postal Service this week continued its long tradition of hemorrhaging money.

This week the Postal Service reported a net loss of $586 million for the third quarter of fiscal 2015. The USPS’s ability to lose over half a billion dollars in just three months would almost be impressive if it wasn’t a detriment to American taxpayers. The fact is the USPS receives roughly $18 billion in taxpayer-backed subsidies annually yet is still failing.   

Despite this massive multi-billion dollar subsidies crutch, the Postal Service continues to prove incapable of financial accountability. The third quarter losses this week are not only a massive bureaucratic failure but also mean the Postal Service has now posted revenue losses 25 out of the last 27 quarters.

Given the $1.5 billion dollar losses posted in the previous quarter, 2015 could be the 9th consecutive year USPS has suffered multi-billion dollar losses. The Postal Service is now averaging about $5.5 billion in annual losses and within the last decade the Post Office endured over $47 billion in losses, a number that is only slated to grow.

As troubling as such massive losses are, the more troubling fact is the USPS machine is able to push on despite the overwhelming lack of fiscal accountability. Alternatively, if the Post Office were a private company it would have been bankrupt decades ago and a more efficient service would have taken its place.

Sadly, there is little motivation for efficiency or accountability when government bureaucrats know they have an $18 billion dollar taxpayer-sewn safety net to catch them. The truth is as long as billions keep flowing from the government losses will continue, and American taxpayers will be expected to keep footing the bill for these bureaucratic boondoggles.     


Photo Credit: MoneyBlogNewz

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

Sally Davidow

ATR’s latest salvo against the public Postal Service is based on a myth propagated by Postal Service’s chief rival, United Parcel Service (UPS). The suggestion that the Postal Service receives taxpayer subsidies is preposterous. The Postal Service funds its operations solely on the revenue it receives from the sale of postage and services.

The primary cause of the Postal Service’s “losses” that ATR cites is the congressional mandate, implemented in 2006, that requires the Postal Service to pre-fund healthcare benefits for future retirees – 75 years
in advance – at a cost of approximately $5.5 billion per year. This is a burden no other government agency or private company bears.

If not for that requirement, the Postal Service would have done quite well financially over the past few years: Based on its operations, the Postal Service has earned a surplus of $1.2 billion so far this fiscal year; it had a surplus of $1.4 billion in fiscal year 2014, and $600 million in fiscal year 2013.

ATR advocates eliminating the Postal Service – which is mandated by the U.S. Constitution – in favor of a private mail system, although it offers no support for its assertion that a “more efficient service” would replace it. Would FedEx and UPS serve rural areas and low-volume neighborhoods?
Probably not. They would serve only those areas where they could make a profit.

By contrast, the Postal Service isn’t in business to make a profit. Its purpose is to serve the American people – a goal ATR and every
American should support.


No, it doesn't. Operating costs all come from mailing revenues. In instances where a USPS branch is in a federal building the space is leased from GSA.

Janet Jamison

The Postal Service receives NO government subsidies and makes all its money from postage, shipping and postal products sold. This article is written by those who wish to tap into (and ultimately privatize) the rich motherlode known as USPS. The Postal Service is also hamstrung by the requirements of The Postal Reform Act of 2006 which requires the set aside of 5.5 billion dollars per year for 10 years so as "to prefund benefits for employees" who have not yet been born...and there's little doubt that those dollars are held in the same safe place where Social Security funds are kept...The major threat faced by the USPS is toxic stories like this one which perverts the truth and attempts to poison the public perception as to the worthiness of the Postal Service. If you talk trash and lies long enough about anything, you can justify destruction of anything. It's obvious to me that ATR will write or say anything to achieve their objectives.

ATR Statement on Obama's Finalized Carbon Emissions Rule

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Justin Sykes on Monday, August 3rd, 2015, 11:05 AM PERMALINK

This week the Obama Administration and EPA unveiled the final version of their carbon emissions rule under the Clean Power Plan. The finalized carbon rule will not only prove disastrous for American consumers and the economy, but is the greatest example of executive overreach to date. 

ATR President Grover Norquist issued the following statement today on the release of final rule:

“The President and EPA's Clean Power Plan is all burden with little or no benefit. For a promised 0.02 degrees decrease in global temperatures by 2100 and a reduction in sea level the thickness of 3 sheets of paper the President is willing to enact certain damage to American jobs and growth.  The rule is projected to cost more than  $350 billion, destroy hundreds of thousand of jobs annually and cause double-digit electricity rate increases in over 40 states.  The president is trying, late in his term, to create a "legacy" at the expense of the future of working men and women in America.”  

The carbon rule, which imposes inflexible and economically irresponsible reduction targets for each state, originally sought a 30 percent emissions reduction goal nationwide. However the final rule unveiled this week increased the reduction goals to 32 percent, a move that will surely exacerbate the disastrous economic impacts originally projected. 

The impact of increased rates and job losses under the rule will prove particularly devastating to the millions of low and middle income Americans already struggling under the President’s failed policies. American families with average household incomes of less than $25,000 spend an estimated 17 percent of their budgets on energy. A double-digit increase in energy costs will force many families to choose between necessities such as shelter and medical care, and putting food on the table each month. 

The final rule is also an outrageous affront to state sovereignty by threatening to impose a federal implementation plan if states fail to submit their own. States are now tasked with determining how best to defend their rights and protect residents from the widespread impacts of the rule.

A number of state Attorney Generals have already pledged to file lawsuits challenging the EPA’s authority to implement the rules, with more states expected to join in following this week’s release.  President’s Obama’s own legal mentor, Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, has even challenged the legality of the rule saying: 

“The Proposed Rule lacks legal basis and represents an improper attempt by EPA unilaterally to remake a vast portion of the American economy on the basis of hitherto obscure provisions of the Clean Air Act” and that it “is a remarkable example of executive overreach and an administrative agency’s assertion of power beyond its statutory authority.”    

The carbon emissions rule is devastatingly bad policy that threatens to compromise grid reliability, increase electricity rates and destroy the livelihoods of millions of hard working Americans. Even though the final rule has been released, the fight is far from over.

Americans for Tax Reform encourages lawmakers and state officials to continue to push back against the EPA and Obama Administration’s unconstitutional affront to state sovereignty and American prosperity. 


Photo credit: Justin Brown

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

Obama's Birthday Wish List: Job Losses and Increased Poverty Rates

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Justin Sykes on Thursday, July 30th, 2015, 3:24 PM PERMALINK

Next week the Obama Administration and EPA will release the final version of the Clean Power Plan (CPP). In support of the rule, the President and EPA routinely cite to the benefits the CPP’s carbon emissions regulations will have on the American public and environment.

Yet such “benefits” are tenuous at best, largely based on questionable science and seldom founded in reality. The EPA’s own projections show the rule would amount to a 0.02 degrees Celsius difference in world temperatures by 2100 and sea level reduction equivalent to the thickness of three sheets of paper. 

However in stark contrast, the impact the President’s carbon regulations will have on Americans, especially the country’s most vulnerable are all too real. Consensus shows and the EPA has even agreed that the carbon regulations will lead to higher energy rates across the nation. Indeed double-digit increases are expected in over 40 states. 

While the President and his Capitol Hill cronies may not be impacted by rate increases, many of the countries most vulnerable will not be so lucky. A recent report by the National Black Chamber of Commerce found that the President’s carbon regulations could prove devastating for minority communities.

The Chamber’s report looked at job losses, decreased household income and increased poverty rates due to the carbon rule. The report showed that 200,000 African-American jobs would be lost just in 2020. During that same period over 300,000 jobs would be lost in Hispanic communities. The cumulative impact by 2035 would be almost 7 million African-American jobs lost and over 12 million for Hispanics. 

Additionally, the report projected that the carbon regulations would reduce median household income for African-Americans by more than $5,000 within the next 20 years. For Hispanics the impacts would be even worse, with reductions over $7,000.

However the most troubling finding of the report was the impact on poverty rates resulting from reduced income and job losses. For African Americans the poverty rate is slated to jump by 23 percent and Hispanic poverty would grow by 26 percent.       

It appears that the Obama Administration and the EPA are more than willing to ignore such devastating impacts, all in the name of preserving the President’s legacy. In fact it is rumored the final rule may be released on President Obama’s birthday, August 4th.

Sadly, while the President is blowing out his candles next week, many of the country’s most vulnerable will be preparing for the worst. Thus on behalf of the millions of Americans soon to be teetering on the brink of poverty as a result of the Clean Power Plan…Happy Birthday Mr. President.  


Photo credit: Steve Jurvetson

Top Comments


IMHO, the congress, even with its current make-up (Republican "control"), is more and more worthless to those of us who continually work to pay our bills and stay off the govt. teat.
Meanwhile, the free-loading gimme-crats are loving every second of the wealth re-distribution and pushing, no, agitating for more.


"A recent report by the National Black Chamber of Commerce found that the President’s carbon regulations could prove devastating for minority communities." - cue the race-baiting community agitators who will begin their rants in 4, 3, 2...something like -

"We need to make sure the fed. govt. takes care of the 'black folk' who will be adversely affected by these higher energy costs!" And yet it was Obama himself who declared, "My plan makes energy prices necessarily skyrocket." - https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Let the riots (against the white middle class) begin!


EPA Employment Prevention Agency

Speaker Boehner Endorses Lifting the Crude Export Ban

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Justin Sykes on Thursday, July 30th, 2015, 9:18 AM PERMALINK

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) this week came out in support of lifting the decades old ban on the export of U.S. crude oil. 

Speaking at a press conference on Wednesday, Speaker Boehner stated, “Lifting the ban would create an estimated 1 million jobs here at home, jobs that would frankly get created in every state. It would help bring down prices at the pump for consumers, and it will be good for our allies.” 

Since the 1970's the U.S. has had a ban in place on the export of crude oil. The ban was originally enacted to protect U.S. supplies in response to decades of declining domestic production and issues in the international oil market. 

Yet in recent years the U.S. has experienced a renaissance in energy production, thanks in part to improvements in extraction and exploration methods, and it is increasingly evident the ban is no longer justified. As Speaker Boehner alluded, the economic benefits of lifting the ban would ripple throughout the economy and extend to all states, not just producers.

An overwhelming number of studies project lifting the export ban would create hundreds of thousands of jobs annually, increase household income for millions of Americans and lower domestic fuel prices. A recent study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) stated that lifting the ban would increase the “size of the economy…employment, investment, public revenue and trade.”

The Speaker’s support finds widespread, bipartisan company with a growing number of those in Congress. On the House side Congressman Joe Barton (R-Tex.) has introduced legislation to lift the ban and Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) are leading a similar effort in the Senate.

Speaker Boehner’s endorsement for lifting the ban is a productive step forward. Americans for Tax Reform encourages members of Congress to follow the Speaker’s lead in supporting an end to this outdated relic of 1970’s era policy.


Photo credit: USDA

Top Comments


American oil is a national security resource, and should not be exported. Period.

Mortem Omnibus Prōgressivus

Subheadline: US Chamber of Commerce against Crude Export Ban.

Tommy Rayfield

As badly as the US needs oil, why would they export a single drop?

Obama Carbon Regulations could leave Manatees out in the cold

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Justin Sykes on Wednesday, July 29th, 2015, 9:50 AM PERMALINK

President Obama and the EPA are expected to unveil the final version of their Clean Power Plan (CPP) next week. While criticism of the rule has centered on the economically disastrous impact the CPP’s carbon emissions regulations will have, some in Washington are crying foul for a different reason – that the regulations could leave hundreds of Florida manatees out in the cold…literally. 

It’s no secret the President’s carbon regulations will force the premature retirement of coal-fired power plants across the U.S. In fact the President seems wholly indifferent to the thousands of jobs and livelihoods he’s destroying. However what the President and EPA did not count on is that some of the power plants that will be shuttered are integral to the survival of hundreds of Florida manatees.              

The issue stems from the fact that the warm-water discharge from some Florida coal-fired power plants, such as Florida’s Big Bend Power Station, has become home to hundreds of West Indian manatees. The manatees are drawn to the warm-water discharge for a nearly six-month period in the winter.

In fact, as reported by the Washington Times, the Big Bend Power Station actually created a “Manatee Viewing Center” in 1986 with nature walks and observation platforms for visiting tourists. Thus the likely closure of such plants under the Clean Power Plan would have a profound impact on the manatee populations that rely on such sanctuaries to survive during the winter months. 

However in drafting the soon to be released Clean Power Plan, the President nor EPA took these impacts into consideration as would otherwise be required under the Endangered Species Act.

“This is troubling for the manatee, but even more disturbing is the possibility that the Obama administration would strategically disregard the law when it serves their interests or the President’s legacy,” said Julia Bell, press secretary for the House Natural Resources Committee.

The EPA has deflected charges the Agency failed to take into account the impact on certain endangered species like the Florida manatee, instead arguing the choice to close such power plants will be left to the states. However this argument holds little water given the Clean Power Plan’s compliance standards leave states with almost no “choice” but to shutter the plants.

While the outcome of this dilemma is still unclear, what is overwhelmingly clear is that nothing, not the destruction of thousands of people’s livelihoods or even the Endangered Species Act, will prevent the President from doing what he has to do to preserve his legacy.     


Photo Credit: Psyberartist

Top Comments


If you could JUST FIND a gay or transgender Manatee we could get Obama to do an executive order to protect them...or at least a federal judge to do an order to intervene for them while a study was done.

Tom Magee

I'm no fan of the regressive, de-industrilization, so called 'progressives' but these manatees are no different than birds congregating around a snack bar at the airport. Using progressive, heart strings tactics to save the industrial revolution just doesn't seem right, IMO. We need no excuses to keep our way of life going.


I say save the manatee. Not as cuddly looking as a polar bear. So won't get the press. No pictures of a shut down coal plant with manatees on the shore shivering. They are big majestic beasts, maybe we can get solar heating for their winter havens.

Blumenthal Amendment Destroys Trade-in Value and Consumer Choice

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Justin Sykes on Wednesday, July 22nd, 2015, 1:06 PM PERMALINK

This week the Senate will likely vote on an amendment being offered by Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) that would make it illegal for dealers to sell a car with an open recall. While at first this sounds reasonable, the reality is this amendment would apply to any and all recalls, some as insignificant as a misprinted owner’s manual.

The consequences of Blumenthal’s amendment would be a blanket restriction leaving not just dealerships holding the bag but American consumers. In fact the most burdensome impact would be on millions of average Americans who suddenly find their cars with zero trade-in value. It would also prevent consumers from buying some models even though the recall is extremely trivial. 

The truth is while safety recalls receive the most attention, the majority are unrelated to safety. For example some KIA models were subject to recall because the tire pressure sticker was misprinted. General Motors also saw a recall of Camaros because “the air bag warning label on the sun visor may peel off.”

Although it is good for consumers to be well informed, enacting overzealous restrictions that blanket the automobile industry and consumer trade-ins is not an approach founded in logic.

For instance a more common sense approach would be to have dealers disclose open recalls at the point of the sale. This would allow consumers to decide whether something as trivial as a misprinted label is important enough to deter purchase. This is exactly how the free market is supposed to work.

Senator Blumenthal’s amendment assumes to little of consumers and market forces. The Senator’s amendment would limit consumer choice and destroy the trade-in value for millions of Americans. Lawmakers in Congress should take action and oppose this illogical and economically detrimental amendment. 


Photo credit: Thomas Hawk

Top Comments

ATR Urges Congress to let the Solar Investment Tax Credit (ITC) Expire

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Justin Sykes on Monday, July 20th, 2015, 2:43 PM PERMALINK

Americans for Tax Reform today sent a letter to members of Congress urging them to allow the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for solar energy to expire. 

Originally enacted in 2006, this 30 percent commercial and residential credit was intended to facilitate a fledgling solar industry. Yet in recent years solar has sufficiently matured and the time has come for  these taxpayer backed handouts to end.  

Congress now has a great opportunity to clean up America's tax code and begin peeling back government policies that unfairly pick winners and losers - simply by taking no action. Below is the full text of the letter: 

Dear Senators:

 On behalf of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), and millions of taxpayers nationwide, I urge you to allow the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for solar energy to expire. 

The ITC was never intended to be permanent but has received repeated extensions over the years. Congress is under no obligation to continue to extend temporary tax policy; simply because the ITC is law in 2015 does not justify the tax credit’s existence indefinitely. 

ATR supports allowing the ITC to expire and also urges lawmakers to oppose the inclusion of “Commence Construction” language that some are advocating for, which is a thinly veiled attempt for a backdoor extension of the credit. Allowing the ITC to continue disadvantages energy consumers by skewing America’s energy market, unfairly picking winners and losers and distorting our tax code. 

Originally introduced in 2006, the 30 percent credit for commercial and residential solar was intended to facilitate a fledging industry. Since then, the solar industry has sufficiently matured and its power generation is even mandated in a number of states.

Relying so heavily on the ITC, the solar industry has put Congress in the awkward and ill-suited position of deciding whether Americans will consume more or less solar energy. America’s energy markets are enormously complex systems, which function most efficiently without government’s distortive policies.

Burdened with political considerations, the federal government is ill-equipped to determine what source of energy Americans should use. With the federal ITC set to expire at the end of 2016, Congress has a great opportunity to cleanup America’s tax code and begin peeling back government’s distortive policies – simply by taking no action.


Grover G. Norquist                                                    



Photo Credit: Brookhaven National Laboratory 

Top Comments


Hmmm... this would have more credibility if it called for eliminating *all* tax credits related to energy - but it doesn't. I smell an agenda here...


Yeah, isn't this a tax increase?


You've got to be kidding me. Only the solar energy investment credit?! What a phony.
First the legislative shenanigans in Kansas and Louisiana and now this?! How is this guy still relevant?!

ATR Supports Lifting the Crude Export Ban

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Justin Sykes on Wednesday, July 15th, 2015, 10:12 AM PERMALINK

Americans for Tax Reform today sent a letter to members of Congress urging them to support H.R. 702, a bill introduced by Congressman Joe Barton (R-Tex.), which would repeal the outdated federal ban on crude oil exports. 

The current ban on the export of crude oil is a relic of 1970's policy, enacted in response to fears of a domestic energy shortage. Yet today this outdated ban is no longer justified with domestic production at an all time high and the U.S. now one of the world's leading producers.

H.R. 702 would repeal this outdated ban and allow the U.S. to fully realize the economic benefits of the ongoing renaissance in domestic energy production. Below is the full text of the letter:

Dear Congressman:

On behalf of Americans for Tax Reform I urge you to support H.R. 702, a bill introduced by Congressman Joe Barton (R-Tex.), which would repeal the outdated federal ban on crude oil exports.

The current ban on the export of crude oil is a relic of 1970’s policy, enacted in response to fears of a domestic energy shortage. Nearly four decades later domestic production is at an all time high and the U.S. is now one of the world’s leading producers of oil and natural gas. In fact, production in a number of individual states is outpacing some of the world’s top energy-producing nations. 

This renaissance in domestic production has led to a decline in U.S. dependence on foreign imports and an increasing domestic supply. As a result the U.S. has shifted from a nation concerned over energy scarcity in the 1970’s to a nation of energy abundance today.

Allowing the export of U.S. crude would lead to growth in the energy sector, the benefits of which would ripple throughout the economy. Studies show lifting the ban would add hundreds of thousands of jobs annually and billions to GDP while also reducing domestic gas prices. Allowing crude exports is also projected to have far-reaching impacts in virtually every state, not just producers, as a result of the sprawling production supply chain.

H.R. 702 would allow the U.S. to fully realize the benefits of increased domestic energy production. Specifically, H.R. 702 would prohibit federal officials from imposing or enforcing any restriction on the export of crude oil and would require the Secretary of Energy to study and make recommendations on the appropriate size and composition of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.  

H.R. 702 also comes at an extremely important time with the U.S. moving to lift sanctions on Iran that would allow for increased exports of Iranian crude, a move that would put the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage.

It is for these reasons that I urge you to support H.R. 702 to lift the ban on crude oil exports.



Grover G. Norquist                                                     


Photo Credit: Nicolas Raymond

Top Comments