Jon Huntsman - Energy and the Environment

Summary

Governor Huntsman believes in man-made global warming and supports efforts to limit emissions with the purpose of addressing climate change through cap-and-trade and other mechanisms. As Governor of Utah, Huntsman signed the state onto the Western Climate Initiative. This group of states and provinces has the goal of establishing a price for carbon emission through a cap-and-trade system. Governor Huntsman touted bringing the state into this agreement in 2008 by noting that few other Republicans would have taken such a step.

Outside the WCI, Governor Huntsman embraced the values of a cap-and-trade system. In a 2008 debate, Governor Huntsman stated that carbon emissions led to polluted skys and climate change adn the only way to limit the emission of carbon was to put a cost on emitting it, and the best way to that was a cap-and-trade system.

During the 2012 election cycle, Governor Huntsman has backed off from promoting the absoluteness of climate change and has simply stated that a majority of scientists state that man-made global warming is real and he relies on scientific experts. He has stated that his views on cap-and-trade have not changed, but that economic realities have made the implementation of such a program infeasible.

Governor Huntsman has also stated that it would not be effective for the US to limit its carbon emission while other emittors such as China were not limiting their carbon emissions. 

Western Climate Initiative

In May of 2007, Governor Huntsman signed Utah onto the Western Climate Initiative. The Western Climate Initiative is a set of states and provinces in Canada, the US, and Mexico that have agreed to limit their carbon emissions. The official website for the WCI characterizes itself as follow:

A Comprehensive Initiative

The WCI Partner jurisdictions have developed a comprehensive initiative to reduce regional GHG emissions to 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and spur investment in and development of clean-energy technologies, create green jobs, and protect public health. The WCI Partner jurisdictions’ plan includes the following elements:

Using the power of the market

The central component of the comprehensive WCI strategy is a flexible, market-based, regional cap-and-trade program that caps greenhouse gas emissions and uses tradable permits to incent development of renewable and lower-polluting energy sources. The Design for the WCI Regional Program, released on July 27, 2010, provides a roadmap to inform the WCI Partner jurisdictions as they implement the cap-and-trade program in their jurisdictions. Those expected to implement the program when it begins in January 2012 comprise approximately two-thirds of total emissions in the WCI jurisdictions—a critical mass and a robust market for achieving significant GHG emissions reductions. When fully implemented in 2015, this comprehensive program will cover nearly 90 percent of the GHG emissions in WCI states and provinces.

Encouraging reductions throughout the economy

To reduce compliance costs and encourage emissions reductions, WCI Partner jurisdictions will issue offsets that represent a reduction or removal of one metric ton of CO2e and meet all recommended offset criteria. Offsets provide a flexible mechanism that reduces the cost of a cap-and-trade program by introducing a broader range of reduction opportunities, and reward emissions reductions in sectors such as forestry and agriculture that are not covered by emissions caps.

Advancing core policies and programs to speed the transition to a clean energy economy

The WCI Partner jurisdictions are also working together on core policies and programs that provide additional opportunities to address climate change and achieve related co-benefits of increased energy efficiency, increased renewable energy generation, improved air quality and reduced water pollution, job growth, and increased provincial, state and local revenue.

The WCI Partner jurisdictions’ comprehensive strategy is good for the environment and good for the economy. A recently-updated Analysis indicates that the WCI approach can reduce regional GHG emissions to 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and realize a cost savings through increased efficiencies and reduced fuel consumption. These results underscore that mitigation of GHG emissions and the move to a clean-energy economy is affordable, and can be achieved without negatively impacting the regional economy, and are consistent with other recent state and federal analyses of climate mitigation programs.

First Gubernatorial Debate

In June of 2008, Governor Huntsman participated in a Gubernatorial Debate on KUED and discussed his support of the "Western Initiative" for climate change legislation and measure to ensure renewable energy standards.

HUNTSMAN: "What other Republican ever would have embraced the western climate initiative? Recognizing climate change for what it is, embracing a cap and trade proposal, embracing a renewable portfolio standard, embracing standards for carbon emissions for the region and for the state. We have a goal for the state, by the way."

Second Gubernatorial Debate

In October of 2008, Governor Huntsman talks about his support for the "Western Initiative," his views on carbon pollution and climate change, and his support for cap-and-trade during a gubernatorial debate on KCPW.

Moderator: Governor, to the dismay of conservatives in the state legislature, you recently signed Utah on to the "Western Climate Initiative." Eventually, this will include a carbon emissions cap-and-trade program that some legislators believe could lead to higher utility costs and stifle business growth. How do you balance protection of the environment with protection of the economy, especially in these hard economic times?

Governor Huntsman: We have to make sure that we recognize a couple of important facts as we go forward. One of the facts of life for Utah will be that a very important engine of growth for us through the years will be the new innovations and technologies, and capital equipment surronding a new energy economy, a green energy economy. Things like carbon capture and sequestration.

Barack Obama talked about last night clean coal. How do you get clean coal? You get clean coal through carbon capture and sequestration, and the leading institute now doing this is at the University of Utah. Five to seven years from now when we're talking about power plants that are built the traditional way, they're going to have to employ these types of technology.

But in order to get to the heart and soul of carbon emission, which is a problem, because it leads to polluted skys, and air quality problems, and climate change, we must put a value on carbon. Until we put a value on carbon, we're never going to be able to get serious about dealing with climate change longer term.

Now, putting a value on carbon either suggests getting a carbon tax or going to a cap-and-trade system underway. We as western governors, and as the head of the Western Governors Association I am doing my best as the leader of this group to develop a comprehensive energy program that we are going to turn over to the next President of the United States, which will include issues of affordability, issues of energy independence, and issues of sustainability. When I speak about sustainability, I talk about a cap-and-trade system.

Time-Swampland

In May of 2011, Governor Huntsman was interviewed by Time Magazine for the Swampland section. He was asked about his previous support for cap-and-trade and his views on the environment. He noted that if 90% of oncologists were telling the world that something caused cancer, no one would question it.

You also believe in climate change, right?

This is an issue that ought to be answered by the scientific community; I’m not a meteorologist. All I know is 90 percent of the scientists say climate change is occurring. If 90 percent of the oncological community said something was causing cancer we’d listen to them. I respect science and the professionals behind the science so I tend to think it’s better left to the science community – though we can debate what that means for the energy and transportation sectors.

Matt [David, Huntsman’s communications director,] says you’ve changed your mind about cap-and-trade.

Cap-and-trade ideas aren’t working; it hasn’t worked, and our economy’s in a different place than five years ago. Much of this discussion happened before the bottom fell out of the economy, and until it comes back, this isn’t the moment.

Will it ever be the moment, though? The environment never takes priority because it never seems like something has to be addressed this quarter or else, but if you look at what’s happening to our planet…

If anyone knows about the need to clean up the planet, we do; we’ve been living somewhere [Beijing] where you feel like you’re killing your kids sending them out to school every day. But putting additional burdens on the pillars of growth right now is counter-productive. If we have a lost decade, then nothing else matters. Ask Japan about that.

George Stephanopoulis Interview

In May of 2011, Governor Huntsman was interviewed by George Stephanopoulis. He is asked about his previous support for cap-and-trade.

George Stephanopoulos: You invited the voters at that first event to look at your record. And by (UNINTEL) record, we see someone who supported civil unions for gay couples, supported having the children of illegal immigrants be able to pay in-state tuition in your state, supported cap and trade in the past as an energy policy. Every single one of those could be a big problem in the Republican primary. How do you deal with it?

Jon Huntsman: Well, first of all, I don't change on my positions. The circumstances change, like on cap and trade, for example. You know, today our focus -- although we all care about the environment, today our number one priority's the economy -- and we should not be doing anything that stands in the way of economic growth. And that which is going to move us forward in terms of expanding our economic base and creating jobs, period. That's not to say that all the while, you won't have people who are creating and innovating new approaches to dealing with emissions. That's going to continue.

George Stephanopoulos: But back in 2008, November of 2008, the beginning of the emissions, you said that dealing with those emissions was either going to take cap and trade or a carbon tax. Is that still true?

Jon Huntsman: And that was exactly what CEOs were saying, and that's exactly what all the experts were saying, and that's exactly what a whole lot of governors are saying at that point. The economy collapsed. We can no longer focus on that debate as aggressively as we did in years past. But that debate will continue because people care about the environment. But I suspect that the end point it's going to look a lot different than that original proposal. And we also have to remember, George, that this is an international challenge.

If we come up with our own approach, and if the Chinese who are now the largest emitters in the world don't go up with their own, if the Indians don't come up with their own, we're all downstream. And if we unilaterally disarmed, we're disadvantaged economically. That point comes home loud and clear when you're living in Beijing, the most polluted city in the world. And you step outside and say this is a huge challenge. And all of this gunk, all of these emissions, they're going somewhere. And everyone's downstream these days. It's got to be an international fix. 

Wall Street Journal Interview

In June of 2011, Governor Huntsman was interviewed by the Wall Street Journal and discussed his views on the need for energy independence and natural gas in relation to alternative energy. The text below is directly from the article and some of Governor Huntsman's statements are paraphrased.

Mr. Huntsman says, "Our priorities need to revolve around ensuring that we have a competitive environment that speaks to the attraction and aggregation of capital, the deployment of capital." To that end, he cites three policy goals: tax reform, regulatory reform, "and I want to mention a third I think is going to be extremely important for our economy long-term, and that's energy independence. It's a low hanging fruit." What comes next isn't quite what one expects. He's talking about natural gas.

"Everybody wants more sun, everybody wants to use more wind," for which they had special zones in sunny, windy Utah. "But it's going to take years and years to perfect those technologies and distribution systems. We're going to need a transitional product to get us from here to the decades of the future when these things will be more viable. I can't think of a better product than natural gas."

He thinks the recent natural gas finds in the U.S. "completely change how we operate and how we view our economy. I believe this is just revolutionary." He favors drilling to get it. "Why not take advantage of something we control, when it's derived from our reserves, it employs our people and enhances our economic base?"

He qualifies the "energy independence" goal: "Look, we're never going to be totally energy independent. You can talk in those terms but we're always going to be accessing raw materials from elsewhere in the world. But we can do better than 60% of imported oil."

Subsidies for energy? "I don't like subsidies. I'd like to see us phase out all subsidies. Maybe a nudge in terms of a tax incentive like we did in Utah to convert cars to natural gas." A great enthusiast of natural-gas-powered vehicles, Mr. Huntsman argues that his tax credit for them was a huge success in Utah: "They were in demand in such numbers that car dealers couldn't find any more natural-gas cars for sale in the U.S."

Reagan Debate

In September of 2011, Governor Huntsman participated in the Republican debate at the Reagan Library. He spoke about the additional costs of gasoline outside of the price that consumers pay at the pump and stated that the true cost of a gallon of gas was more like $13 dollars a gallon. He also stated that it was anti-science to go against 90% of climate scientists.

HARRIS: Governor Huntsman, everybody would like $2 gas, but is it realistic for a president to promise that?

HUNTSMAN: Of course not. We live in -- we live in the free- market economy. I'm not sure that dictating prices is going to get you anywhere.

But let's face the reality of where we are. This is a perfect example of where presidential leadership matters. To have a president who would actually walk out from behind the TelePrompTer, get out of the way, speak from your heart and soul, just tell us about...

(APPLAUSE)

... just tell us about where you want this country to go, in terms of what we have in such great abundance, tell us where we think we can find that which we have and convert it into jobs and expanding our industrial base, and reminding the American people that they're not paying $4 per gallon for gas. When you add up the cost of troop deployments, when you add up the cost of keeping the sea lanes open for the importation of imported oil, the bulk and distribution and terminaling costs (ph), it's $13 a gallon, so says the Milken Institute. And I say the American people have had enough. We need a president who's going to provide a little bit of leadership in getting us some direction and opening up the opportunities.  

...

HARRIS: Governor Huntsman, I'd like to get to you. I've got a question. Your chief political adviser has been quoted very prominently as describing the Republican Party as "a bunch of cranks," and said your opponents on the stage "make a buffet of crazy and inane comments." I'm sure that's insulting to some of these people up here.

We're now here face to face. Tell us which one of these people are saying crazy or inane things.

HUNTSMAN: Well, I'm sure you have John Weaver's telephone number. You can go ahead and give him a call.

HARRIS: OK.

HUNTSMAN: But let me just say --

HARRIS: Well -- hand on. Let's follow up on that, because you speak for yourself.

You yourself have said the party is in danger of becoming anti- science. Who on this stage is anti-science?

HUNTSMAN: Listen, when you make comments that fly in the face of what 98 out of 100 climate scientists have said, when you call into question the science of evolution, all I'm saying is that, in order for the Republican Party to win, we can't run from science. We can't run from mainstream conservative philosophy. We've got to win voters.

We've got to do what I did as governor, when I was re-elected. We reached out and we brought in independents. I got independents. I got conservative Democrats. If we're going to win in 2012, we've got to make sure that we have somebody who can win based upon numbers of the math that will get us there. And by making comments that basically don't reflect the reality of the situation, we turn people off.

Number two, we've got to have somebody who can lead. This president was successful in getting elected. He can't lead this country. He can't even lead his own party.

I'm here to tell you: I can get elected. I can bring the numbers together to make this successful in 2012. And I can lead based upon where I've been as governor.

Fox News / Google Debate

On September 22, 2011 Governor Huntsman participated in the Fox News / Google debate. He spoke there about his support for natural gas and subsidization of certain renewable energy products.

CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS: Bret, thank you. Good evening, candidates.

Governor Huntsman, in Utah, you offered millions of dollars in tax credits to promote clean energy. In June you said that as president you would subsidize natural gas companies. How is that different from the Obama administration, which gave the solar panel company Solyndra a half-a-billion dollars in federal loan guarantees, and as we all know, that company ended up bankrupt, and we taxpayers ended up on the hook?

FORMER GOV. JON HUNTSMAN, R-UTAH: Chris, first of all, it's an honor to be here in Orlando, home of my wife, the greatest human being I've known in 28 years.

We've learned some important lessons as this economy has spun out of control. We have some hard decisions to make. And we're not going to fix the problem. We're not going to be able to bring our people together in America until we fix the economy.

I'm convinced that part of the divide that we're experiencing in the United States, which is unprecedented, it's unnatural, and it's un-American, is because we're divided economically, too few jobs, too few opportunities.

We have learned that subsidies don't work and that we can no longer afford them. I believe that we can move toward renewable energy, but we're going to have to have a bridge product. Everybody wants to draw from the sun and draw from the wind, and I'm here to tell you that eventually that will make sense, but today the economics don't work.

We need something like natural gas. I've put forward an energy independence program, along with tax reform and regulatory reform. Just by drawing from natural gas, for example, you're looking at 500,000 to 1 million jobs over the next five years. It is ours, it's affordable, it has important national security implications, and we should begin the conversion process.

WALLACE: But just a 30-second follow-up, sir. In June, you told the New Hampshire Union Leader as president you would subsidies the natural gas industry.

HUNTSMAN: I would be willing to begin an effort, so long as there was a rapid phase-out. I do not like subsidies. I do not like long-term subsidies. But if there was some sort of way to get the ball rolling with a -- with a -- with a quick phase-out, I would be in favor of that.

RedState Interview

In December of 2011, Governor Huntsman was interviewed by RedState.com and discussed his previous statements concerning global warming and cap-and-trade.

Q. You had a tweet, I guess at the beginning of your campaign that said something to the effect of, that you believed the scientists on global warming, you know, “call me crazy,” I’m sure you probably remember the one I’m talking about. Would you retract that tweet if you had the opportunity now?

A. Uh, no, I wouldn’t redo anything that I’ve done. I, you know, I’ve made decisions at the time based on issues that were playing out and, uh, I don’t play the woulda, shoulda, coulda game. Uh, I make decisions based on discussions, or policy issues that were being deliberated at the time, and made a decision based on that. And so, I’ll let history decide whether that was a good thing to do, but it was from my heart. It was from who I am, and therefore I don’t regret it.

Q. With respect to how you would govern as President, in respect to global warming, would you permit your EPA to implement a cap-and-trade policy without authorization from Congress?

A. Uh, absolutely not. I’m not going to unilaterally disarm this country. Uh, cap and trade policies were derived from the Clean Air Act where they were actually based on free market principles in the 1970s. That’s what attracted some of us to the idea, that’s what attracted a lot of CEOs and a lot of experts to the idea. But it became, morphed into a tax [garbled]. But it wasn’t [garbled] unilaterally disarm this country or in any way hobble our economic prospects by putting in place a cap and trade program. While other countries are not willing to [garbled] the question [connection lost]
 

2012 Campaign Website Statements

TIME TO COMPETE
An American Jobs Plan

Energy Independence

50 years ago, President Eisenhower warned we should import no more than 20 percent of our oil; today we import 60 percent. Every year America sends more than $300 billion overseas for oil – much of it to unstable and unfriendly regimes. This threatens our national and economic security. 10 of the last 11 recessions were preceded by sharp spikes in the price of oil.

Governor Huntsman is proposing an "all of the above" policy, with two main elements:

First, we must expedite the review and approval of safe and environmentally-sound energy projects, including the development of North American oil and gas reserves; oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska; shale gas and oil in the U.S.; and Canadian oil sands.

Second, we must eliminate subsidies and regulations that support foreign oil and inhibit clean, domestic alternatives such as natural gas, biofuels and coal-to-liquid fuel.

America is drowning in competitive energy supplies from domestic sources. We must employ those resources, or risk allowing foreign nations to control our energy future.

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE PROPOSALS

Producing Our Own Energy Future

Streamline Approval for New Energy Production
America can and should produce more oil right here at home. There is no reason drilling cannot be safely conducted in the Gulf, across the states and in Alaska.

The current Administration is pursuing regulations that will hinder domestic energy development and cost thousands of jobs. Regulations and approvals for new wells and pipelines need to be streamlined and directed to "move at the speed of business."

The federal government's commitment to safety and the environment must no longer be distorted into a prohibition against American energy security. President Reagan created a mechanism for the swift resolution of regulatory delays without sacrificing safety concerns. The same must be duplicated again.

Break Down Barriers Blocking the Full and Safe Deployment of Fracking
A new technique for recovering previously inaccessible gas – combining hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") with high-technology horizontal drilling – has the potential to increase America's domestic production by 25 percent.

Critics are attacking fracking, but the practice has been used on more than one million currently producing wells – more than 35,000 per year – using a technology that has been perfected over 60 years. Because of fracking, the United States surpassed Russia as the world's leading producer of natural gas.

Federal guidelines regulating its application need to recognize the economic benefits and value of enhancing America's energy independence, while also weighing environmental concerns.

Embrace Emerging Technologies Like Coal-to-Liquid Fuel
Coal is one of America's most abundant energy resources and the mainstay of many communities. America has enough coal reserves to supply us for 300 years at current consumption. Yet in recent years, government regulations and litigation have attacked coal from every possible angle, destroying critical jobs and closing access to this critical domestic energy source.

Converting coal into a liquid fuel will alleviate our dependence on foreign oil while maintaining jobs and local economies, but this technology is not yet deployed. We must eliminate barriers to its full deployment.

Look North
Our dependence on foreign oil didn't develop overnight, and it won't end overnight. As a bridge, we must look north to Canada.

America imports twice as much oil from Canada as we do from Saudi Arabia, and our northern neighbor is increasing production every day. There are 170 billion barrels of recoverable oil in Alberta's oil sands deposits – more reserves than in all of Iraq.

However, lawsuits and legislation in the United States are attempting to block access to this resource from our neighbor and friend.

Others see the potential in these fields. China wants to invest in Canada's oil infrastructure. Meanwhile, the United States government is dithering over a pipeline's proposal to ship Canadian oil to the United States.

The federal government needs to assure Canada that American consumers are ready and willing to purchase the production of Alberta's oil sands. Every barrel from a friend is one less from a foe.

Eliminate Subsidies to Level The Playing Field for Domestic Fuels

Much attention has been paid, rightly, to the federal government's improper role in using subsidies to favor one energy resource over others. America's energy future must be based on a level playing field. But the playing field cannot be level so long as federal regulation erects or reinforces barriers to entry, which prevent a competitive market for competing fuels.

Ensure That Our Transportation Fuel Markets are Competitive
The current system of transportation fuels is essentially closed to newer competition because of (1) gasoline's near-monopoly in the distribution network for light-duty vehicles, and diesel's near- monopoly for heavy-duty vehicles; and (2) numerous regulatory barriers to entry.

Accordingly, to create a truly competitive energy market, the federal government must:

Commence expedited review of the transportation fuel distribution network by both the Federal Trade Commission and Senate Judiciary Committee (the concentration of distribution ownership is similar to the broadcast network domination in the early 1970s, which triggered market-opening FCC rules and an antitrust consent decree).

Eliminate all regulatory barriers to entry for competing fuels, and create a level playing field that allows competing fuels full access to the distribution grid.
Ensure open markets for natural gas and other alternative fuels in order to stabilize prices and provide a predictable investment environment.

Eliminate Regulations Preventing Energy Innovations and Competitive Transportation Fuels From Reaching Market

End the Regulatory Roadblocks Against Competitive Fuels Like Natural Gas
America has more natural gas than Saudi Arabia has oil. Yet on August 9th, the Department of Transportation and Environmental Protection Agency issued fuel efficiency rules that effectively bar heavy-duty vehicles – which consume 20% of our oil imports – from converting to natural gas.

The agencies did this even after conceding that "more alternative-fueled vehicles on the road would arguably displace petroleum-fueled vehicles, and thereby increase both U.S. energy and national security by reducing the nation's dependence on foreign oil."

Gov. Huntsman supports the repeal of these rules and others, which increase our reliance on foreign oil and discourage domestic job growth.

Spur Investment in Modernizing Our Power Grid
Federal regulations are hindering America's conversion to a fully modern "smart grid" system – something badly needed if the next generation, for example, chooses to charge electric vehicles in their garages at night.

Encourage State-Based Solutions
Methods of energy production vary greatly across the fifty states. The Northwest has world-class hydropower facilities, California leads the nation in geothermal, and more than 15 percent of Iowa's energy generation comes from wind. Despite this diversity, EPA rules prohibit states from coming up with their own ways to reduce pollution at the lowest cost to local businesses.

For example, EPA should revive state authority to allow centrally-fueled fleets to convert to cleaner alternative fuels to help meet our air quality standards at much lower cost to consumers.

Force Washington To Face Facts
The federal government is responsible for reducing obstacles to competitive markets that ensure a level playing field. Washington must base its energy policy on sound science, transparent government, and thorough public debate.

ENERGY SECURITY

To create jobs and strengthen national security, America must end the scourge of our addiction to foreign oil. 50 years ago President Eisenhower warned we should import no more than 20 percent of our oil; today we import 60 percent, much of it from unstable and unfriendly regimes.

America is drowning in energy resources, yet every year we send $300 billion – half our trade deficit – overseas for oil. That money should be going to American energy suppliers to create American jobs. Moreover, 10 of the last 11 recessions were preceded by sharp spikes in oil prices. When oil prices rise, and motorists and truckers have no choice but to pay more at the pump, it depresses economic growth. Today oil remains in the high 80’s despite a global recession. Imagine where prices will be when the global economy recovers.

Energy security can no longer be a catchphrase; it will be a driving force behind Governor Huntsman’s administration. He proposes an “all of the above” energy policy, with two main elements.

Breaking Oil's Monopoly: we must break oil’s monopoly and create a truly level playing field for competing transportation fuels to enter the marketplace. This includes eliminating the subsidies and regulations that support foreign oil and inhibit domestic alternatives such as compressed natural gas (CNG), electricity, biofuels, and coal-to-liquids, which are not price-controlled by OPEC. Energy security, as Winston Churchill once said, “lies in variety and variety alone.”

Increasing Domestic Energy Production: to end OPEC’s pricing and supply power and create jobs, we must increase the production of domestic energy sources. This includes expediting the process for reviewing and approving safe, environmentally sound energy projects, including the development of North American oil and gas reserves; oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska; shale gas and oil in the U.S.; and Canadian oil sands. Such an effort will dramatically lower our trade deficit and will grow our domestic manufacturing sector.

These reforms will not just promote national security; they will create American jobs. The current administration is pursuing regulatory policies that will effectively stop construction and prevent thousands of new jobs. At the same time, government has erected barriers to harnessing cheap, domestic supplies of energy. By removing those barriers and shifting our regulatory policy, we will build the foundation of affordable energy upon which American industry—especially manufacturing and transportation sectors––can grow.

The nation is drowning in competitive energy supplies from domestic sources. We must employ those resources, or risk allowing foreign nations to control our energy future.

BREAKING OIL’S MONOPOLY AND CREATING A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD

Much attention has been paid, rightly, to the federal government’s improper role in using subsidies to favor one energy resource over others. America’s energy future must be based on a level playing field.

But the playing field cannot be level so long as federal regulation erects or reinforces barriers to entry, which prevent a competitive market for competing fuels. Governor Huntsman’s energy plan will:

• Ensure That Our Transportation Fuel Markets are Competitivern
  • The current system of transportation fuels is essentially closed to newer competition, because of (1) gasoline’s near-monopoly in the distribution network for light-duty vehicles, and diesel’s near-monopoly for heavy duty vehicles; and (2) numerous regulatory barriers to entry.
  • Accordingly, to create a truly competitive energy market, the federal government must:rn
    • Commence an expedited review of the transportation fuel distribution network by both the Federal Trade Commission and Senate Judiciary Committee (the concentration of distribution ownership is similar to the broadcast network domination in the early 1970s, which triggered market-opening FCC rules and an antitrust consent decree).
    • Eliminate all regulatory barriers to entry for competing fuels, and create a level playing field that allows competing fuels full access to the distribution grid.
    • The federal government needs to ensure open markets for natural gas and other alternative fuels in order to stabilize prices and provide a predictable investment environment.
• End the Regulatory Roadblocks Against Competitive Transportation Fuelsrn
  • On August 9th, the EPA and DOT issued joint fuel efficiency rules that will bar heavy duty vehicles—which consume 20% of our oil imports—from shifting from petroleum to natural gas. The agencies did this even after conceding that “more alternative-fueled vehicles on the road would arguably displace petroleum-fueled vehicles, and thereby increase both U.S. energy and national security by reducing the nation’s dependence on foreign oil.”
• Spur Investment in Modernizing Our Power Gridrn
  • Federal regulations are not expediting America’s conversion to a fully modern “smart grid” system – something badly needed if the next generation, for example, chooses to charge electric vehicles in their garages at night.
  • In addition, completing new transmission lines to capture renewables from wind and solar would create thousands of new jobs.
  • We must move forward with a smart grid but be aware of the security demands required from the increased vulnerability to cyber attack inherent in such a grid.
• Invest in Basic Researchrn
  • The United States must prioritize long-term investment in research that can result in technical breakthroughs leading to the disruptive technologies that we need. This will mean continued support for non-commercial research at the Department of Energy, such as ARPA-E, the DOE’s version of DARPA, in order to pursue basic research not funded by the private sector.
  • We must not confuse pure research with often rent-seeking industrial policy such as the president’s fling with a specific technology like Solyndra.
  • We need a significant increase in federal funding for non-commercial basic research at our research universities.
  • The federal government should set up large prizes in the tradition of the famed longitude prize to better leverage private sector resources in supporting non-commercial research.
• Encourage State-Based Solutionsrn
  • Methods of energy production vary greatly across the fifty states. The Northwest has world-class hydropower facilities, California leads the nation in geothermal, and more than 15 percent of Iowa’s energy generation comes from wind.
  • Despite this diversity, EPA rules prohibit states from coming up with their own ways to reduce pollution at the lowest cost to local businesses.
  • For example, EPA should revive state authority to allow centrally fueled fleets to convert to cleaner alternative fuels to help meet our air quality standards at much lower cost to consumers.
• Nuclear Energyrn
  • Today nuclear energy generates approximately 20 percent of our electrical power – we should strive to increase its contribution.
  • Washington should begin to move forward with the next generation of nuclear technology including small modular reactors. Outside of meeting our own domestic demand, this will allow American firms to once again become competitive in a sector we once led.
  • We must resolve the storage issue by getting a politicized Washington out of the way and letting states move forward with locally driven plans for safe storage of nuclear waste.
• Force Washington To Face Factsrn
  • The federal government is responsible for reducing obstacles to competitive markets that ensure a level playing field.
  • Washington must base its energy policy on sound science, transparent government, and thorough public debate.

INCREASING DOMESTIC ENERGY PRODUCTION

• Streamline Approval for New Productionrn
  • America can produce energy safely and cleanly. The federal government’s commitment to safety and the environment must no longer be distorted into a prohibition against American energy security.
  • Many people are unaware that the United States is the world’s third largest oil producer. America can, and should, produce more oil right here at home. There is no reason drilling cannot be safely conducted in the Gulf, across the states, and in Alaska. Yet with only 3 percent of the world’s proven petroleum reserves, oil can’t solve all of our energy problems.
  • Every barrel of oil we drill at home is one less we have to import, but development of gas and oil reserves in the U.S. is severely hampered by a barrage of duplicative and dilatory hurdles. The result has been long-term delays and mounting barriers standing between us and future energy independence.
  • Every “homegrown” barrel of oil, cubic foot of natural gas, barrel of biofuel, or megawatt of power creates American jobs. And the money earned by American energy suppliers can be spent in American stores, saved in American banks, and invested in American communities and business.
  • Regulations and approvals for new wells and pipelines need to be streamlined and directed to ‘move at the speed of business.’ President Reagan created a mechanism for the swift resolution of regulatory delays without sacrificing safety concerns. The same must be duplicated again.
• Removing Barriers to Emerging Technologiesrn
  • Oil and Gas “Fracking”
  • A new technique for recovering previously inaccessible gas—combining hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) with high-technology horizontal drilling—has the potential to increase America’s domestic production by 25 percent. Fracking has been widely used to access vast natural gas deposits, with a high degree of success. Because of fracking, the United States surpassed Russia as the world’s leading producer of natural gas.
  • Critics are now attacking fracking, but the practice has now been used on more than 1 million currently producing wells- more than 35,000 per year- using a technology that has been perfected over 60 years.
  • “Fracking” has the potential to significantly increase domestic energy production while creating jobs at home. Federal guidelines regulating its application need to recognize the economic benefits and the value of enhancing America’s energy independence while weighing environmental concerns at the same time.
• Coal to Liquid Fuel (CTL)rn
  • Coal is one of America’s most abundant natural energy resources and the mainstay of many communities across the country. America has enough proven coal reserves to supply us for 300 years at current consumption. Yet in recent years government regulations and litigation have attacked coal from every possible angle, destroying critical jobs and closing access to this critical domestic energy source.
  • Converting coal into a liquid fuel would allow coal to be utilized as an alternative to foreign oil in transportation applications while maintaining jobs and local economies, but this technology is not yet deployed.
  • CTL could help alleviate our transportation infrastructure’s dependence on foreign oil, especially in regional markets in coal-producing states and strategic applications, such as with the U.S. military.
• Look North: An Energy Security Strategy Supported By Our Allies, Not Our Adversariesrn
  • America imports twice as much oil from Canada as we do from Saudi Arabia, and our northern neighbor is increasing production every day. Under current economic conditions, there are 170 billion barrels of recoverable oil in Alberta’s oil sands deposits – more reserves than in all of Iraq. However, lawsuits and legislation in the United States are attempting to block access to this resource from our neighbor and friend.
  • The United States is the largest consumer of oil produced from Canada’s oil sands, but others see the potential in these fields. China wants to invest in Canada’s oil infrastructure and to use that infrastructure to supply China with more oil. Meanwhile, the United States government dithers over a pipeline’s proposal to ship Canadian oil to the United States.
  • The federal government needs to assure Canada that American consumers are ready and willing to purchase the production of Alberta’s oil sands. Governor Huntsman will stand firmly behind the Keystone pipeline, creating thousands of American jobs while reducing our dependence on overseas imports. Every barrel from a friend is one less from a foe.

References

[1] Website: ABC News Article: Transcript: Exclusive Interview With Jon Huntsman Author: NA Accessed on: 08/17/2011

[2] Website: Wall Street Journal Article: A 'Conservative Problem-Solver' Author: DANIEL HENNINGER Accessed on: 08/17/2011

[3] Website: Time Swampland Article: Q&A: Jon Huntsman Author: MELINDA HENNEBERGER Accessed on: 08/17/2011

User Comments

• • Summary
  • Election Results
  • Controversies
  • Political Positions
  • Speeches / Debates