Stop Misleading Energy Pipedreams!

Dear Subcommittee on Energy & Power and Energy and Commerce Committee,

On Tuesday April 17th, 2013, the Subcommittee on Energy & Power passed the Northern Route Approval Act 17-9 and sent it to the full Energy and Commerce Committee. The Subcommitte passed this Act a day before the highly publicized State Department hearings that took place in Nebraska surrounding the controversial Keystone Pipeline.

We ask you to think beyond the misleading chatter that frames the debate and this Act.  The author of this Act, Rep. Lee Terry (R-Neb.) declares in the legislation that the delivery of oil from Canada’s tar sands to refineries in the United States “is in the national interest because of the need to lessen dependence upon insecure foreign sources.”

This is misleading for two reasons:

1. oil and energy are global markets which set prices based on global supply and demand and the production of the Keystone pipeline still leaves energy and gasoline prices dependent on other oil producing countries and global demand;

2. global supply shocks in these insecure foreign sources will still affect the US, because of the very nature of the markets being global, no matter where the US gets oil.

We remind you that we don’t want to be misled into conclusions based on distracting statements that suggest that energy “independence” substitutes for real energy security. If committee members want to solve energy dependency, you would better serve us by decreasing industry and consumer reliance on oil and gasoline given their market structures. Stop prolonging domestic energy insecurity, no matter the source.

Additionally, if Rep. Terry wants to compare the Congressional mandate that brought the Alaska Pipeline of 1972 into being after it was steeped in the controversy in its time, it would also be responsible to include the well-documented negative impacts of population growth and commercial growth on natives, economy, workers and the environment of Alaska from that fast tracked pipeline production.

Finally, this bill decrees, "No Presidential permit shall be required for the pipeline." How can he state in one breath that the pipeline is in our national interest so that we can depend less on insecure foreign sources and in another breath tell the established authorities who handle national interest by the nature of the authority vested in them, that they won't have to provide permission for a pipeline of national interest?

We expect more energy security and no misleading reasons for granting the permit by Congressional fiat when it is against our national interest to promote a pipeline that will provide a false sense of security and prolonged domestic energy insecurity. The potential for environmental hazards is as great or greater as the fast tracked Alaska pipeline in the 1970s that has seen multiple pipeline spills. It's as hazardous as the recent Arkansas spill that left homeowners wondering about their insecure economic and quality of life standards.

Don't underestimate environmental groups' results that the pipeline will carry and emit the equivalent of at least 181 million metric tons of carbon dioxide each year. In our world that considers our future, we are citizens and countries who are making changes to make a better world for tomorrow. We do it to avoid the same mistakes of the past that include relying too heavily on fossil fuels, in part because of their emissions and transportation problems.

As representatives acting in our interests, you should promote responsible policies and commit to realizing our spirit of global dependability in providing energy security and stop fast tracking misleading projects, when it takes a lot more action and thought to really compete globally. We are bound to make this world better together.