In his first energy speech of his second term, "President Barack Obama tried to move past partisan fights over energy policy on Friday with a modest proposal to fund research into cars that run on anything but gasoline." The "modest proposal"-an Energy Security Trust (or EST)- was developed by a collaboration of high-volume oil consumers and military leaders concerned about U.S. energy security-put forth through a report titled "A National Strategy for Energy Security: Harnessing American Resources and Innovation." The unique backgrounds of the advocates garnered attention from both sides of the aisle. However, a key component of the Trust was omitted from the President's speech: increased domestic energy development-the piece that, according to one of the idea's developers, was designed to win bipartisan support and "keep both sides engaged."

In response to Obama's presentation of an EST-which would set aside royalties from oil and gas extracted on federal lands and direct them toward research and development for transportation technologies that reduce our dependence on oil-House Speaker John Boehner's office says: "For this proposal to even be plausible, oil and gas leasing on federal land would need to increase dramatically. Unfortunately, this administration has consistently slowed, delayed and blocked American energy production."

Obama's speech touted America's growing "energy future:" "We produce more oil than we have in 15 years. We import less oil than we have in 20 years. ÉWe're producing more natural gas than we ever have before." This is true, however Boehner is correct.


Advertisement

A new report from the Congressional Research Service "confirms what many have known to be true." Marc Humphries, author of "U.S. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production in Federal and Non-Federal Areas," says: "All of the increase (in oil and natural gas production) from FY2007 to FY2012 took place on non-federal lands, and the federal share of total U.S. crude oil production fell by about seven percentage points. É the regulatory framework for developing resources on federal lands will likely remain more involved and time-consuming than that on private land."

Increasing resource development on federal lands is one of the key features of the EST-the funds set aside for the trust would come solely from new development. Yet, Friday's speech never mentioned that.

I had a post-speech conversation with Sam Ori, Director of Policy for Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE)-the organization responsible for the Energy Security Leadership Council (about which Obama spoke) and the idea for the EST. While SAFE is pleased that its policy proposal has been picked up by the Administration, Ori said: "The speech is not the final place. If the EST doesn't offer new oil and gas development on federal lands, the Republicans won't sign on." Ori emphasized that in order for the EST to be a success, it needs to have something that is "attractive to both sides." The alternative energy research is the carrot for the left and the increased drilling is there for the Republicans. Ori also emphasized that the EST is for research and development of technologies that will lessen our dependence on oil, not deployment of said technologies.

In Friday's speech, he pointed to SAFE's proposal when he said: "let's take some of our oil and gas revenues from public lands and put it towards research that will benefit the public so we can support American ingenuity without adding a dime to our deficit."

Senator Lisa Murkowski disagrees.

Robert Dillon, spokesperson for the Senator told me: "The president hit on a good idea when he called for a trust fund to promote energy innovation. But unlike Sen. Murkowski's proposal, he would not enable new energy production to pay for it. The president says he wants to divert a share of the royalties from offshore production that has already been factored into the budget, which could mean either deficit spending or less funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. More likely, the president's real plan is to raise taxes on oil and gas. There's a better way that not only funds investment in research, but also addresses our need for affordable and abundant energy. It's Sen. Murkowski's plan. We hope the president will embrace it."

If Obama was truly "seeking to build some common ground on energy," he should have included both sides of the equation; incorporating both increased drilling and R & D "investment." Instead, he continued to put partisan considerations before the national interest.

SAFE's EST, which aims to bring both sides together for "energy security," is admirable. If shuttling some of the funds from new development - that the government already collects (not a new tax) - toward research and development will cause this administration to finally "stop being an obstacle," I am all for it. However, I hate that we have to bribe them to do what they should have been doing all along.

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens' Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). Together they work to educate the public and influence policy makers regarding energy, its role in freedom, and the American way of life. Combining energy, news, politics, and, the environment through public events, speaking engagements, and media, the organizations' combined efforts serve as America's voice for energy.