U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

81–810 PDF 2013

AMERICA’S ENERGY REVOLUTION: A NEW 

PATH TO JOBS AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JUNE 26, 2013 

Serial No. 113–7 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Budget 

( 

Available on the Internet: 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/committee.action?chamber=house&committee=budget 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET 

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin, Chairman 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

JOHN CAMPBELL, California 

KEN CALVERT, California 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

TOM MCCLINTOCK, California 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

DIANE BLACK, Tennessee 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

ALAN NUNNELEE, Mississippi 

E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana 

LUKE MESSER, Indiana 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland, 

Ranking Minority Member 

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington 

BARBARA LEE, California 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York 

MARK POCAN, Wisconsin 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

AUSTIN SMYTHE, Staff Director 

THOMAS S. KAHN, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held in Washington, DC, June 26, 2013 ................................................. 1 

Hon. Paul Ryan, Chairman, Committee on the Budget ................................ 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Hon. Chris Van Hollen, ranking minority member, Committee on the 

Budget ............................................................................................................ 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 6 

Additional submissions: 

Letter, dated June 20, 2013, CBO cost estimate on H.R. 2231: 

Offshore Energy and Jobs Act ....................................................... 53 

Follow-up letter, dated July 11, 2013, from Mr. Weiss ................... 56 

John W. Larson, vice president, Economics and Country Risk, IHS ........... 7 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8 

Daniel J. Weiss, senior fellow, Center for American Progress ..................... 11 

Prepared statement, Internet address to ................................................ 13 

Martin J. Durbin, president and CEO, America’s Natural Gas Alliance .... 13 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 15 

Hon. David N. Cicilline, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Rhode Island, prepared statement of ...................................................... 52 

(1) 

AMERICA’S ENERGY REVOLUTION: A NEW 

PATH TO JOBS AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room 210, 

Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Paul Ryan, [chairman of the 

Committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Ryan, Price, Garrett, McClintock, 

Lankford, Black, Flores, Rokita, Woodall, Blackburn, Walorski, 

Rice, Williams, Van Hollen, Schwartz, Pascrell, Ryan of Ohio, 

McDermott, Cicilline, Lujan Grisham, Huffman, Blumenauer, 

Schrader. 

Chairman RYAN. Good morning, everyone. The hearing will come 

to order. Before we turn to our hearing, I would first like to recognize a very special person who has meant a lot to this Committee 

over the last 12 years. I would like to recognize Marsha Douglas, 

who will be retiring at the end of this week. Marsha served both 

sides of the aisle as our chief administrator for the past 12 years. 

And while Chris and I do not agree on everything; it is true. We 

do not agree on everything. We do agree on Marsha Douglas. Marsha, you have been such a phenomenal asset to this committee. 

Your institutional knowledge will be sorely missed. And on behalf 

of the entire committee, I want to wish you and your husband all 

the best in your upcoming retirement. Thank you, Marsha, appreciate it. 

Chris? 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I just want to 

underscore what the Chairman said, that we are united on some 

things, and that is in our support for and respect for Marsha Douglas. And as you said, Mr. Chairman, she has done a great job helping members of this Committee on both sides of the aisle and our 

staff, and has been a professional throughout. And we really wish 

you the very best in your retirement. Congratulations. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, if I may. 

Chairman RYAN. Sure. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, Marsha is a reflection about the 

staff. And while we are talking about staff, Mr. Chairman, I implore you, I implore you and the Ranking Member to do everything 

you can. These staff members have not had a raise in over three 

years. And I do not think it is inappropriate or out of order to bring 

it up. 

Chairman RYAN. It is, actually. 
2 

Mr. PASCRELL. No, let me continue. 

Chairman RYAN. No, sorry. We are going to start with the hearing. I thought you were going to talk about Marsha. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Just a point. 

Chairman RYAN. No, the gentleman is not recognized to get into 

other issues. Thank you for your kind comments on Marsha. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Oh, this is very much the issue, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman RYAN. Gentleman is out of order. That was off to a 

good start. 

Good morning, everybody. I want to thank our witnesses. I want 

to thank Marty Durban, John Larson, and Dan Weiss for coming 

with us today. We are happy to have you, and we look forward to 

your testimony. This is a very important topic. 

Now, energy is not really a big part of the federal budget. It is 

a huge part of the family budget. We feel the pinch every time we 

fill up our gas tank, every time we pay our heating bills. Fact is, 

energy is critical to our economy. And we cannot get out of this fiscal mess unless we have economic growth. And energy production 

fuels economic growth. It creates jobs, it increases wages, and it 

shrinks the deficit without raising taxes on anyone. 

Energy production is one of the best tools we have to grow the 

economy and to pay down the debt. So today, we are going to learn 

more about it. The change has been swift. Thanks to new technology, we can tap resources long thought out of reach, and we can 

do it in an environmentally-responsible way. We can drill sideways 

and not just downward. We can break free deposits locked in hard, 

dense shale. And as a result, one study says our oil and natural 

gas reserves are over one-third larger than previously thought. We 

are already seeing the benefits. We are importing less oil, we are 

exporting more natural gas, and, most importantly, we are putting 

more people at work in America. 

Take North Dakota. The Bakken shale has been home to an economic boom. Employment in the area has grown by over a third. 

The average pay has risen by over 50 percent to more than 

$50,000, and all working families are benefitting, not just those in 

the energy sector. North Dakota is creating more jobs and betterpaying jobs in fields like construction, transportation, and food 

services. One McDonald’s is offering new hires a $300 signing 

bonus. And the surge of production is lowering our energy prices. 

It is a boon for families, especially the poor. 

The news from North Dakota is very encouraging. I wish I could 

say the news from Washington was the same. While production on 

state and private lands is up since 2009, production on federal 

lands is down. Now it is true that production is higher than it was 

in the last year of the Bush administration. But let’s take a very 

close look at these numbers. In 2008, production on federal lands 

was rising. We were ramping up production, as we had been for 

years. Then, in 2009, President Obama took office, and he hit the 

brakes. He started taking federal lands offline and slowly decreasing their output. By 2011, his policies began to take effect. 

Ever since then, production on federal lands has been falling. 

The private sector is moving full steam ahead, but the president, 

he is keeping his feet firmly on the brakes. It is not just an accident. Just yesterday, the president announced yet another attempt 
3 

to limit energy production. In fact, one of his advisors recently 

called for a, quote, ‘‘war on coal,’’ end quote. The way the president 

seems to see it, we can do better only if some of us do worse. While, 

if you ask me, the president’s proposal is a solution in search of a 

problem. 

This Administration seems intent on picking winners and losers 

in the energy sector. It wants to subsidize its favorite industries, 

and it wants to regulate others out of existence. But we should support working families’ livelihoods. We should not obstruct them. 

And there are some concrete steps that we can take. Number one: 

We should open more federal lands to production. Number two: We 

should shorten the wait time for drilling permits. Number three: 

We should speed up the approval of a process for natural gas exports. Number four: We should resist the calls to impose punitive 

taxes on energy production. If we take these steps, we can help 

lower energy costs for working families. We can expand paychecks. 

We can reduce our reliance on foreign oil. Think of what that 

would do for our foreign policy challenges. And, finally, we can 

make a serious dent in the deficit. That is what matters here in 

the budget committee. 

Mr. Larson’s company, IHS, has estimated that shale, oil, and 

gas production will increase government revenues at all levels, 

local, state, and federal, hear this, by $2.5 trillion between 2012 

and 2035. Think about that. 

I am especially interested in hearing your thoughts on how energy production will help the federal budget in particular. This is 

an historic opportunity. It presents a basic choice. Do we let the energy revolution take its course, or do we cut it short? 

We have it right in front of us. It could do wonders for our economy, wonders for families. The fact is we can grow the economy 

right now, without raising anyone’s taxes, without increasing 

spending, without writing new regulations, if we just let working 

families do their job and get these jobs. That is the course we 

should take. With that, I would like to recognize the ranking minority member, Mr. Van Hollen, for any comments you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Ryan follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL RYAN, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET

Good morning, everybody. To start, I want to thank our witnesses: Marty Durbin, 

John Larson, and Dan Weiss. We’re happy to have you. And we look forward to your 

testimony. 

Energy isn’t a big part of the federal budget. But it’s a huge part of the family 

budget. We feel the pinch every time we fill up a tank of gas. The fact is, energy 

is critical to our economy. We can’t get out of this fiscal mess without economic 

growth. And energy production fuels economic growth. It creates jobs. It increases 

wages. And it shrinks the deficit—without raising taxes on anyone. Energy production is one of the best tools we have to grow the economy—and to pay down the 

debt. So today, we’re going to learn more about it. 

The change has been swift. Thanks to new technology, we can tap resources long 

thought out of reach. And we can do it in an environmentally responsible way. We 

can drill sideways—not just downward. And we can break free deposits locked in 

hard, dense shale. As a result, one study says our oil and natural-gas reserves are 

over one-third larger than previously thought. We’re already seeing the benefits: 

We’re importing less oil. We’re exporting more natural gas. And most importantly, 

we’re putting more people to work. 

Take North Dakota. The Bakken Shale has been home to an economic boom. Employment in the area has grown by over a third. The average pay has risen by over 

50 percent—to more than $50,000. And all working families are benefiting—not just 
4 

those in the energy sector. North Dakota is creating more jobs—and better-paying 

jobs—in fields like construction, transportation, and food services. One McDonald’s 

is offering new hires a $300 signing bonus. And the surge in production is lowering 

energy prices. It’s a boon for all families, especially the poor. 

The news from North Dakota is very encouraging. I wish I could say the same 

for Washington. While production on state and private lands is up since 2009, production on federal lands is down. Now, it’s true that production is higher than it 

was in the last year of the Bush administration. But let’s take a close look at the 

numbers. 

In 2008, production on federal lands was rising. We were ramping up production—as we had been for years. Then, in 2009, President Obama took office—and 

he hit the brakes. He started taking federal lands offline—and slowly decreasing 

their output. By 2011, his policies began to take effect. Ever since then, production 

on federal lands has been falling. The private sector is moving full-steam ahead. But 

the President is keeping his feet firmly on the brakes. 

It’s not an accident. Just yesterday, the President announced yet another attempt 

to limit energy production. In fact, one of his advisers recently called for a, quote, 

‘‘war on coal.’’ The way the President sees it, we can do better only if some of us 

do worse. Well, if you ask me, the President’s proposal is a solution in search of 

a problem. This administration seems intent on picking winners and losers. It wants 

to subsidize its favored industries—and regulate others out of existence. But we 

should support working families’ livelihoods. We shouldn’t obstruct them. 

And there are some concrete steps we should take. Number one, we should open 

more federal lands to production. Number two, we should shorten the wait time for 

drilling permits. Number three, we should speed up the approval process for natural-gas exports. And number four, we should resist calls to impose punitive taxes 

on energy companies. If we take these steps, we can help lower energy costs for 

working families. We can reduce our reliance on foreign oil. 

And finally, we can make a serious dent in the deficit. Mr. Larson’s company, 

IHS, has estimated that shale-oil and gas production will increase government revenue at all levels—local, state, and federal—by $2.5 trillion between 2012 and 2035. 

I’m especially interested to hear your thoughts on how energy production will help 

the federal budget in particular. 

This is a historic opportunity. And it presents a basic choice: Do we let the energy 

revolution take its course? Or do we cut it short? The fact is, we can grow the economy—right now—without raising anyone’s taxes, without increasing spending, without writing new regulations—if we just let working families do their job. That’s the 

course we should take. 

With that, I recognize the ranking member, Mr. Van Hollen, for his opening remarks. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to join the 

Chairman in welcoming all of our witnesses today to talk about 

this very important issue of our energy future, and its impact on 

the economy and job growth. I should say at the outset that the 

most immediate measure that this Committee and this House could 

take right now to eliminate the drag on the economy is to replace 

the sequester. And we have tried now eight times to get a vote to 

do just that. The Congressional Budget Office predicted that, as a 

result of the sequester, we will see 750,000 fewer American jobs by 

the end of this calendar year. That is a self-inflicted wound. It 

should be unacceptable to all of us. We should go to conference, as 

the law says, and start resolving those issues right now. 

Now the future of energy production in this country is a huge opportunity, and that is why the president has put forward his allof-the-above energy strategy to focus on all homegrown American 

energy sources. So let’s look at the facts. U.S. oil production is at 

its highest level since 1992. The Energy Information Administration has shown that the annual oil production from federal lands 

and waters has been higher every year under President Obama 

than the last year of the previous administration. And we are seeing a revolution in this country of natural gas production. Federally-supported technology and the ingenuity of the technology com-
5 

munity has helped our businesses drill more effectively and extract 

more natural gas. In just seven years, U.S. natural gas production 

has increased 27 percent. 

We have seen the first two nuclear reactors in a generation approved in February 2012. And as a result of federal and state policies, and the ingenuity of the private sector, we have seen a dramatic jump in the production of renewable energy. In just the last 

four years, we have doubled the amount of electricity generated 

from the wind and the sun. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that in 2011, there were 3.4 million clean energy jobs, an increase of 158,000 from the year before. Those are jobs manufacturing wind turbines, installing solar panels, and other jobs in that 

sector. 

Now many of our Republican colleagues say they want to have 

an all-of-the-above energy strategy, but what they are really calling 

for, in most instances, is a fossil-fuels-only approach. And that was 

reflected in the fact that their presidential candidate in the last 

election opposed federal incentives for the production of wind energy. A lot of governors from a lot of those states, like the governor 

of Iowa and others, said it was important for jobs in their states. 

But the position taken at the federal level by many of our colleagues is no to federal investments in clean energy policy. 

And, in fact, if you look at the budget of our Republican colleagues, they are slashing by 50 percent important national investments in clean energy technologies. That is not an all-of-the-above 

energy strategy; that is a status quo energy strategy. And it is incredibly short-sighted for two reasons. One is it totally ignores the 

costs of doing nothing when it comes to global climate change. We 

know there are huge costs attached to that. Just ask the insurance 

companies. We see a greater frequency and intensity of major 

weather events, whether they are droughts, whether they are forest 

fires as a result of the droughts, whether they are floods; a whole 

series of events that have a price. And so doing nothing in that 

area has a cost. 

Secondly, our major economic competitors, countries like China, 

countries like Germany, recognize the importance of investing in 

clean energy technologies as an important market globally for the 

future. And right now, the Chinese are investing more in that sector than we are. 

I believe, as do hundreds of American businesses who recently 

signed a statement saying that the United States should rise to the 

occasion and challenge that dealing with global climate change is, 

at the same time, a huge economic and jobs opportunity for the 

United States. And we should not shy away from that challenge. 

And that is why we should, Mr. Chairman, adopt what is truly an 

all-of-the-above energy strategy to develop responsibly homegrown 

energy sources, and, at the same time, make better use of the energy we have by taking steps to prevent wasteful practices. And by 

doing that, we can make sure that the energy we do produce goes 

further, and, at the same time, increase jobs and save consumers 

a lot of money. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I hope we will, going forward, change at least 

what has been the pattern in this House of Representatives, and 
6 

truly focus on all those energy sources, not simply a one-dimensional fossil fuel strategy. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Van Hollen follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, RANKING MEMBER, 

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to join the Chairman in welcoming all of our witnesses today to talk 

about this very important issue of our energy future and its impact on the economy 

and job growth. 

I should say at the outset that the most immediate measure that this Committee, 

and that this House, could take right now to eliminate the drag on the economy is 

to replace the sequester. And we have tried now eight times to get a vote to do just 

that. The Congressional Budget Office predicted that, as a result of the sequester, 

we will see 750,000 fewer American jobs by the end of this calendar year. That’s 

a self-inflicted wound that should be unacceptable to all of us. We should go to conference as the law says, and we start resolving those issues right now. 

Now, the future of energy production in this country is a huge opportunity. And 

that is why the President has put forward his all-of-the-above energy strategy, to 

focus on all homegrown American energy sources. So, let’s look at the facts: U.S. 

oil production is at its highest level since 1992; the Energy Information Administration has shown that the annual oil production from federal lands and waters has 

been higher every year under President Obama than in the last year under the previous administration; and we are seeing a revolution in this country of natural gas 

production. Federally supported technology and the ingenuity of the technology community has helped our businesses drill more effectively and extract more natural 

gas. In just seven years, U.S. natural gas production has increased 27 percent. 

We have seen the first two nuclear reactors in a generation approved in February 

2012. And as a result of federal and state policies and the ingenuity of the private 

sector, we have seen a dramatic jump in the production of renewable energy. In just 

the last four years, we have doubled the amount of electricity generated from the 

wind and the sun. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that in 2011 there were 

3.4 million clean energy jobs—an increase of 158,000 from the year before. Those 

are jobs manufacturing wind turbines, installing solar panels, and other jobs in that 

sector. 

Now, many of our Republican colleagues say that they want to have an all-of-theabove energy strategy, but what they are really calling for, in most instances, is a 

fossil fuels-only approach. And that was reflected in the fact that their presidential 

candidate in the last election opposed federal incentives for the production of wind 

energy. A lot of governors from a lot of those states, like the governor of Iowa and 

others, said that it was important for jobs in their states. But the position taken 

at the federal level by many of our colleagues is no to federal investments in clean 

energy policy. And in fact, if you look at the budget of our Republican colleagues, 

they are slashing by 50 percent important national investments in clean energy 

technologies. That is not an all-of-the-above energy strategy—that is a status quo 

energy strategy. 

And it is incredibly shortsighted for two reasons. One is it totally ignores the costs 

of doing nothing when it comes to global climate change—we know there are huge 

costs attached to that. Just ask the insurance companies. We see a greater frequency and intensity of major weather events, whether they’re droughts, whether 

they’re forest fires as a result of the droughts, whether they’re floods—a whole series of events that have a price. And so doing nothing in that area has a cost. 

Secondly, our major economic competitors—countries like China, countries like 

Germany—recognize the importance of investing in clean energy technologies as an 

important market globally for the future. And right now, the Chinese are investing 

more in that sector than we are. 

I believe, as do hundreds of American businesses who recently signed a statement 

saying that the United States should rise to the occasion and challenge, that dealing 

with global challenge is at the same time a huge economic and jobs opportunity for 

the United States. And we should not shy away from that challenge. 

And that is why we should, Mr. Chairman, adopt what is truly an all-of-the-above 

energy strategy to develop responsibly homegrown energy sources, and at the same 

time make better use of the energy that we have by taking steps to prevent wasteful 

practices. And by doing that, we can make sure that the energy that we do produce 

goes further, and, at the same time, increase jobs and save consumers a lot of 

money. 
7 

So, Mr. Chairman, I hope we will, going forward, change at least what has been 

the pattern in this House of Representatives and truly focus on all of those energy 

sources, not simply a one-dimension fossil fuel strategy. 

Thank you. 

Chairman RYAN. Thank you. We will proceed in the order in 

which we see. We will go with Mr. Larson, Mr. Weiss, and Mr. 

Durbin. I would ask each of you, if you do not mind, to summarize 

your testimony in five minutes so we can get to the questions, and 

your full testimony will be included in the records. So, Mr. Larson, 

the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN W. LARSON, VICE PRESIDENT, 

ECONOMICS AND COUNTRY RISK, IHS 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Chairman Ryan, Ranking Member Van 

Hollen, and distinguished members of the Committee on the Budget. It is an honor to speak with you today. I think as an economist, 

this is one of the areas when I talk about what is going on in the 

broader U.S. economy, that we really get to get excited about the 

opportunities that are out there today. The United States is clearly 

in the midst of an unconventional revolution of oil and gas that is 

fundamentally changing our energy position in the world. It is improving global competitiveness for the United States, and it is helping to stimulate a manufacturing renaissance. 

Since 2009, our company, IHS, has engaged in several studies to 

better understand the economic contributions associated with this 

revolution. And we will be releasing a further study in July that 

looks at the specific implications for the manufacturing sector. 

However, the impacts that we have quantified so far are impressive. At a national level, this unconventional exploration and development activities supports 1.7 million jobs in 2012. And by the end 

of the decade, that will grow to 3 million jobs. 

In the process, it is also generating significant government revenues. Nearly $62 billion in total government revenues are for federal, state, and local in 2012. That will grow to $111 billion in annual revenues by the end of the decade. And as Chairman Ryan, 

you pointed out, that will accumulate from 2012 to 2035 to $2.5 

trillion in government, federal, state, and local revenues. 

There are also significant implications for states as well. In fact, 

nearly 1.1 million jobs and $19 billion in state and local taxes can 

be found in the 21 states represented by the members of this very 

Committee. And states do not necessarily have to have a play within their geographic boundaries to enjoy these economic opportunities. The benefit is recognized through a very long supply chain 

that supports this unconventional activity. In fact, nearly 30 percent of the jobs identified in our study were in states with no appreciable unconventional activity. 

For example, in Wisconsin, an important supplier of sand and 

machinery to the unconventional industry, Wisconsin, in 2012, enjoyed 20,000 jobs and $330 million in state and local taxes due to 

this unconventional activity. Similarly, in Maryland, a state with 

long supply chains that also support this activity, there were 

12,000 jobs and more than $240 million in taxes and revenue. And 

lastly, in New York, a state which currently bans unconventional 

activity, these supply chains supported 44,000 jobs and $1 billion 
8 

1 John Larson is the Vice President and global leader for customized analytic and economic 

solutions within IHS Economics & Country Risk Group. 

in state and local taxes, particularly in areas like real estate, finance, and insurance. 

Equally impressive for the larger macroeconomic effects attributed to the savings brought about by lower natural gas prices and 

corresponding electricity prices. In our study, we identified how 

these lower natural gas prices will increase industrial production 

2.7 percent by 2015, and 4.7 percent by 2035, as manufacturing industries that are energy-intensive take advantage of our comparative advantage. 

And these have real pocketbook effects on average American families, as they enjoy these lower prices, which cascade through the 

economy, resulting in savings to consumers in annual disposable 

income, which will be up $1,000 by 2015, with approximately 121 

million American households; the savings of $1,000 per average 

household equates to $121 billion in aggregate savings to those 

households. 

Where does this mean for manufacturing specifically? Well, there 

are several factors that are contributing to the shift in the delicate 

balance in favor of onshoring and fueling the resurgence of manufacturing. First, the global wage rate for many offshoring locations 

have significantly outpaced U.S. wage increases and narrowed the 

gap, making the United States more competitive on a per-hour 

basis. Second, in an increasingly-advanced manufacturing world, 

technology is shifting the balance away from the importance of lowcost labor and towards high-skilled work forces, which the U.S. enjoys a comparative advantage in. And third, a rapidly evolving energy landscape is fundamentally shifting traditional economics 

around supply chains. 

Higher oil prices, which have tripled in the last decade, have significantly increased transportation costs, making offshoring less attractive. In the U.S., unconventional revolution is creating significant competitive advantages for energy-intensive industries, and 

industries that reply upon natural gas derivatives and feedstocks. 

And as a result, companies are now committing or planning to commit to hundreds of billions of dollars in new investments in this 

country, both domestic and foreign direct investment. 

Although this unconventional revolution has already had a major 

impact, fundamentally transforming U.S. energy supply and contributing to the growth in government revenues, manufacturing, 

and the wider economy, its significance will continue to grow as it 

continues to unfold. These hearings provide a timely opportunity 

for assessing that impact and significance in its many dimensions. 

And I am pleased to respond to the Committee’s questions. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Larson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN W. LARSON, VICE PRESIDENT, 

ECONOMICS AND COUNTRY RISK, IHS 1

Chairman Ryan, Ranking Member Van Hollen and distinguished members of the 

Committee on the Budget, it is an honor to speak with you today about America’s 

new opportunity—the economic growth and employment being fueled by our country’s unconventional energy revolution. 
9 

2 IHS, America’s New Energy Future: the Unconventional Oil and Gas Revolution and the 

United States Economy, vol. 1 National Economic Contributions (October 2012) and vol. 2, State 

Economic Contributions (December 2012). 3 Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review (May 2013). 

4 IHS, America’s New Energy Future: the Unconventional Oil and Gas Revolution and the 

United States Economy, vol. 1 National Economic Contributions (October 2012) and vol. 2, State 

Economic Contributions (December 2012). 5 IHS, America’s New Energy Future: the Unconventional Oil and Gas Revolution and the 

Manufacturing Renaissance, vol. 3 (July 2013) 

The United States is in the midst of an unconventional revolution in oil and gas 

that, it becomes increasingly apparent, goes beyond energy itself. Since 2009, our 

company has engaged in several studies to better understand and accurately quantify the dramatic economic contributions associated with this unconventional revolution. Today, the exploration and production industry driving this unconventional 

revolution supports 1.7 million jobs across a vast supply chain—a considerable accomplishment given the relative newness of the technology. That number could rise 

to 3 million by 2020. In 2012, this revolution added $62 billion to federal and state 

government revenues, a number that we project could rise to about $111 billion by 

2020.2 What is now becoming clear is that the lower costs of energy brought about 

by this abundant growth in energy supply is helping to stimulate a manufacturing 

renaissance and improve the competitive position of the United States in the global 

economy and further stimulating job creation in the United States. 

WHERE DID THE UNCONVENTIONAL REVOLUTION COME FROM?

The unconventional revolution has unfolded rapidly. As recently as just a half-decade ago it was widely assumed that a permanent era of energy shortage was at 

hand. The country, it seemed, was on a path to spending several hundreds of billions of dollars more every year on imports to meet oil and natural gas demand. 

How different things look today. 

US crude oil output, after a nearly 40 year decline, has increased dramatically— 

by 46 percent since 2008.3 Net petroleum imports have fallen from 60 percent of 

total consumption in 2005 to 36 percent in the first four months of 2013. The decline 

is due, in part, to moderating energy demand during the slow recovery in the wake 

of the Great Recession. Greater fuel efficiency in autos and a slowing of the growth 

in total vehicle miles will continue to constrain the growth of demand. However, the 

decline in imports has also been achieved through significant supply side changes 

resulting from that dramatic increase in U.S. oil production. The largest element of 

this increase in production comes from what has become the newest major advance 

in energy development: tight oil. In fact, oil imports in 2012 would have cost the 

United States around $70 billion more and increased our trade deficit a little over 

13 percent were it not for the increase in production capacity brought about by tight 

oil since 2008. 

With respect to natural gas, in just seven years, US natural gas production has 

risen from 51 billion cubic feet (bcf) per day to 66 bcf per day—a 27 percent increase. This rapid rise was driven primarily by shale gas production. In 2000, shale 

gas accounted for just 2 percent of total natural gas production. Today, shale gas 

accounts for nearly 44 percent of total natural gas production. This rapid rise in unconventional production has also enhanced US energy security. Five years ago, due 

to constrained production, the United States seemed locked into importing increasing amounts of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and was heading towards spending as 

much as $100 billion dollars annually on future imports. Now, these newly unlocked 

resources ensure that the United States will need, at most, minimal LNG imports 

to balance supply with demand. Instead of debates over US imports, there is the 

prospect of exporting some of the domestic surplus, as well as the potential for using 

natural gas in some classes of vehicles. 

WHAT IS THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE UNCONVENTIONAL OIL AND GAS REVOLUTION?

While various states had begun to home in on the economic development aspects 

of shale gas and tight oil, it was only in last several years that its significance for 

the national economy started to come into focus. We have undertaken a series of 

studies to assess the economic impact of the unconventional revolution. The first 

two—released late last year—examined the national and state-by-state impacts.4 We 

are now extending that study to assess the impact on manufacturing—which will 

be released in July, 2013.5

So far, this unconventional revolution is supporting 1.7 million jobs—direct, indirect, and induced. Looking towards the future, the industry will continue to contribute to strong job growth bringing the total to 3 million workers by the end of 
10 

6Producing states are defined as those that are part of the 20 largest unconventional oil and 

natural gas producing plays in the US Lower 48, such as the Bakken and Marcellus Shale plays. 

Non-Producing states are not part of the 20 largest unconventional oil and natural gas producing plays in the US Lower 48 and are not part of an emerging oil or natural gas play in 

the 2012 to 2035 forecast horizon. These states may be part of plays that are currently producing oil and/or natural gas, but nevertheless are classified as non-producing states, because 

current production is relatively small and the prospect for future unconventional production is 

unknown. 

this decade. At a time of great concern about the federal budget, it is also important 

to note the important revenue implications associated with this energy revolution. 

Total revenues flowing to governments from unconventional activity amounted to 

$62 billion last year and will rise to $111 billion by 2020. This does not include revenue from traditional oil and gas activity. By 2035, unconventional activity is expected to have generated nearly $2.5 trillion in cumulative government revenues 

since 2012. 

It is also notable that, owing to the long supply chains, the job impacts are being 

felt across the United States, including in states without significant shale gas or 

tight oil activity.6 That is to say, when it comes to unconventional activity, a state 

does not need to have a major unconventional play within its geographic boundaries 

to benefit economically from the activity. In fact, nearly 30 percent of all jobs associated with the unconventional energy revolution are found in states with no appreciable unconventional activity. For example: • Wisconsin is an important supplier of the special sands required in unconventional extraction using hydraulic fracturing techniques. Machinery manufacturers in 

the state also provide significant oil and gas field machinery to the unconventional 

activity around the country. As a result, in 2012 Wisconsin’s economic activity associated with unconventional production directly and indirectly supported nearly 

20,000 jobs and generated $330 million in state and local taxes. • In Maryland, the 2012 economic activity associated with unconventional activity indirectly supported nearly 12,000 jobs while generating more than $240 million in 

taxes for state and local governments. • In New York, a state that currently bans unconventional activity, 44,000 jobs along with $1 billion in state and local taxes can be attributed to activities supporting the supply-chain associated with shale gas and tight oil in other states 

across the country in 2012. 

A key reason for the profound economic impact of the unconventional activity is 

the fact that it combines a capital-intensive industry with a broad domestic supply 

chain. The United States is a leader in all aspects of the unconventional industry, 

which means that most of its suppliers are domestically-based, and that means a 

larger portion of the dollars spent are supporting domestic jobs in trucking, steel 

fabrication, aggregates, heavy equipment manufacturing, hotels, housing, and restaurants, among others. 

But there is now an even bigger positive impact for our economy that is beginning 

to be recognized. In addition to these specific contributions to the economy, there 

are larger macroeconomic effects attributed to the savings brought about by lower 

natural gas prices and corresponding electricity prices. In our study, The Economic 

and Employment Contributions of Shale Gas in the United States, we identified the 

following two important macro-economic implications stemming from lower natural 

gas prices: 

• For U.S. based industries, the abundance of affordable natural gas means lower 

input and feedstock prices. As a result, industrial production—the measure of output from manufacturing, mining, and utility industries—will increase 2.7 percent by 

2015 and 4.7 percent by 2035. 

• For households, these lower prices cascade through the economy, resulting in 

a $926 increase in annual average disposable income between 2012 and 2015. By 

2035, annual average disposable income per household will have increased by more 

than $2,000. 

MANUFACTURING RENAISSANCE?

The impact on manufacturing is notable. Several factors are shifting the economics in favor of on-shoring and fueling the resurgence of manufacturing in the US. 

First, global labor wage rates for many off-shoring locations have significantly outpaced US wage increase, narrowing the wage gap. Second, in an increasingly advanced manufacturing world, technology is shifting the balance away from the importance of low cost labor toward higher skilled workforces. Third, a rapidly evolving energy landscape is fundamentally shifting the traditional economics around 

supply chains as: 
11 

7 American Chemistry Council, Shale Gas, Competitiveness, and New U.S. Chemical Industry 

Investment—An Analysis of Announced Projects (May 2013) 8 IHS, Energy and the New Global Industrial Landscape: a Tectonic Shift? (January 2013), 

p. 2. 

(1) higher oil prices, which have tripled in the last decade, are altering transportation costs and compelling companies to site manufacturing locations closer to end 

markets making off-shoring less attractive; 

(2) the unconventional revolution in the US, which has ushered in a new era of 

affordable and abundant domestic natural gas, is creating significant competitive 

advantages for both energy intensive industries and industries that rely upon natural gas derivatives as critical feedstock to production. 

As a result, companies are now committing or planning investments that in total 

appear to range into hundreds of billions of dollars.7 The US chemical industry is 

particularly well positioned to capitalize on the benefits of this unconventional revolution. This industry is highly energy intensive using energy inputs, mainly natural 

gas and natural gas liquids, as both the major fuel source and feedstock. The US 

chemical industry’s feedstock prices are now among the lowest in the world. As a 

result, the US is gaining a decisive competitive advantage in the cost of producing 

basic petrochemicals like ethylene, ammonia, methanol, and their downstream derivative products. 

A large number of chemical companies, for instance, have announced plans to 

build or expand facilities in North America with capital expenditures totaling close 

to $100 billion.8 Will all be built? Time will tell. But what is striking is that, just 

five years ago, these companies would have scoffed if they had been told that they 

would be investing back into the United States. The investments are coming both 

from US based companies, which are ‘‘on-shoring’’ in response to lower energy costs, 

and from foreign companies. Examples include: • General Electric which has announced more than a dozen new manufacturing 

plants or expansions of existing facility including: (1) a locomotive plant in Texas; 

(2) an aircraft engine composites factory in Mississippi; and (3) appliance and lighting facilities in Alabama, Kentucky, and Ohio. • Caterpillar, which is investing $120 million in a new Victoria, TX, plant to 

make excavator machines—these devices will replace excavators formerly manufactured at a Caterpillar facility in Japan and shipped to the US. • Ford, which announced plans to bring back approximately 2,200 parts production jobs to the United States. 

CONCLUSION

Altogether, the unconventional oil and gas revolution has already had major impact in multiple dimensions—beginning with U.S. energy supply and costs and now 

extending to government revenues, manufacturing, and the wider economy. Its significance will continue to grow as it continues to unfold. These hearings provide a 

very timely opportunity for assessing that impact and significance in its many dimensions, and I am pleased to respond to the committee’s questions. 

Chairman RYAN. Thank you. Right in time, too. Mr. Weiss. 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL J. WEISS, SENIOR FELLOW, 

CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS 

Mr. WEISS. Chairman Ryan, Ranking Member Van Hollen, and 

distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

The subject of today’s hearing is America’s Energy Revolution: A 

New Path to Jobs and Economic Growth. To most Americans, the 

energy revolution has three main components. First, responsibly 

develop the energy resources of today while using them more efficiently. Second, invest in the new, cleaner energy technologies of 

tomorrow, and funding them with ending tax breaks for big oil 

companies. Third, reduce the public health and extreme weather 

threats posed by toxic and carbon pollution generated by the production and combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas. 

I will briefly review the Obama Administration’s all-the-above 

strategy that meets these three goals. First, responsibly develop 
12 

the resources of today. As the Chairman noted, U.S. oil production 

is at its highest since 1992. Oil production for federal lands and 

waters is higher three of the last four years under Obama than 

under the last three years of his predecessor. And the Congressional Budget Office says that 70 percent of the oil and gas on federal lands is already open for development. This oil production increases boosted direct oil and gas employment by 155,000 people, 

or 11 percent, over the last four years. 

Because of the increase in domestic production, last year, the 

United States imported only 40 percent of its oil, compared to 57 

percent in 2008. And coal mining jobs grew by 6 percent between 

2008 and 2012, according to the Labor Department. And we are 

using these resources more efficiently. When the new fuel economy 

standards are fully implemented in 2025, we will use 2 million 

fewer barrels of oil per day, and drivers will save the equivalent 

of $1 per gallon of gasoline. Under the Recovery Act, we weatherized one million low-income homes to make them more efficient, 

which will save each family $400 on their utility bills every year. 

Second, we need to invest in clean energy technologies that create jobs, and we could fund this by closing special oil tax breaks. 

As previously noted, the governors of Iowa, Oklahoma, and Kansas 

have supported federal investments in wind energy, which has led 

to growth in that field. Renewable electricity generation has doubled over the last four years, and there are 200,000 employees in 

the wind and solar industry. The Labor Department recently determined that in 2011, 3.4 million jobs were associated with the production of green goods and services. And we can pay for additional 

clean energy investments by the elimination of tax breaks for big 

oil. The five biggest oil companies made $250 billion in profits in 

the last two years, and as of the end of 2012, had $70 billion in 

cash reserves. They do not need their share of $40 billion in tax 

breaks for big oil companies. 

Third, we need to protect public health from pollution and extreme weather. The pollution reductions from the mercury air 

toxics standards for coal-fired power plants will save 11,000 lives 

annually, and prevent hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks 

and hospitalizations. 

Yesterday, President Obama announced his plan to reduce carbon pollution from power plants by enforcing the Clean Air Act. 

Power plants are the largest uncontrolled domestic source of climate pollution. These reductions are essential to meet our obligation to the next generation to reduce the threats to public health 

and avoid the future growth of destructive extreme weather. 

President Obama has successfully pursued an all-of-the-above energy strategy by increasing oil production, reducing oil imports and 

use, and protecting public health from pollution. In contrast, the 

House of Representatives has only supported one element of an allof-the-above strategy: the expansion of oil and gas production. For 

instance, just last week the House Appropriations Subcommittee on 

Energy and Water proposed to cut investments in clean energy in 

half, and reduce investment in breakthrough clean energy technology research investments by 80 percent in its FY 2014 spending 

bill. And as Mr. Van Hollen noted, the budget sequester has hin-
13 

dered oil production for public lands due to funding cuts at the Department of Interior that have slowed lease approval. 

The House of Representatives has ignored oil use reductions, 

slashed investments for new clean energy technologies, and would 

eviscerate public health protection from pollution. This is an oilabove-all strategy that would benefit big oil companies at the expense of everyone else. Hopefully, the House of Representatives 

will join President Obama in supporting a true all-of-the-above energy strategy. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Weiss may be accessed at the following 

Internet address:] 

http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/ 

Weiss_Testimony.pdf 

Chairman RYAN. Thank you. And it cannot be said that we do 

not encourage a wide range of views here. Mr. Durbin. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. For the record, it is because you let us pick 

a witness. 

STATEMENT OF MARTIN J. DURBIN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AMERICA’S NATURAL GAS ALLIANCE 

Mr. DURBIN. Chairman Ryan, Ranking Member Van Hollen, and 

members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am Marty Durbin, president and CEO of 

America’s Natural Gas Alliance. ANGA represents North America’s 

largest independent natural gas exploration and production companies. 

We work with industry, government, and customer stakeholders 

to ensure the continued availability and increased use of our natural gas resources for a cleaner and more secure energy future. I 

appreciate the opportunity to join this conversation on how domestic energy production is revolutionizing the path of jobs and economic growth for our country. 

Just as natural gas is today a foundation fuel in terms of our energy use, so is the natural gas industry a foundational engine of 

U.S. job creation and economic growth. Mr. Larson’s already laid 

out the economic contributions from employment to capital investment to government revenue. These contributions are made possible by technological innovations led by hydraulic fracturing and 

horizontal drilling that allow our nation to safely and responsibly 

access vast domestic reserves of shale gas that typically lie a mile 

or more below the earth’s surface. 

Our natural gas resources exist in such abundance that the U.S. 

has transitioned in just a handful of years from being a net importer of natural gas to now being the world’s largest producer of 

this clean energy source. And there is now broad consensus that 

the U.S. has enough natural gas to meet our nation’s growing energy needs for generations to come. 

Unique among our nation’s energy choices, natural gas is used in 

every sector of our economy, from electric power generation and industrial feedstocks to residential and commercial uses and transportation. 
14 

With market forces driving this dynamic, natural gas is delivering substantial contributions to core national priorities. Among 

the highlights, this industry contributes $113 billion annually to 

federal, state, and local government budgets, funding critical government priorities. It supports 3 million American jobs. It is projected to help create nearly a million additional jobs in the U.S. 

manufacturing sector alone by 2025. It is primarily responsible for 

a reduction in U.S. power sector carbon emissions to levels not seen 

since 1994. And along with rising domestic oil production, natural 

gas is helping lead our nation to energy self-sufficiency and 

strengthen our energy security. 

This impressive performance is made possible not only by the 

abundant supplies of natural gas, but also by policies that encourage safer, responsible development with appropriate state-led oversight of this clean, low-cost American energy source. To maximize 

these benefits to our nation, government should exercise caution in 

imposing unnecessary costs on an American industry that is providing so much economic value. Given the extraordinary contributions that American natural gas is making to our nation, we must 

ensure that federal policy allows this incredible record of success 

to continue. 

Two areas of significant potential impact are tax policy and export policy. Natural gas development is a highly capital-intensive 

industry. Like all other capital-intensive industries, cost recovery is 

critical to its success. Cost recovery is not a handout, a loophole, 

or a subsidy. So, for example, erasing the intangible drilling cost 

deduction would have a significant negative impact in both the 

short term, primarily on U.S. manufacturing and industrial consumers who rely on affordable natural gas to remain competitive, 

and the long term, where it is projected that such a move would 

actually decrease government revenue significantly beyond a 10- 

year time horizon. 

Export policy presents another opportunity to signal to the marketplace that the U.S. government is disciplined and consistent, 

both in its support of natural gas and the principles of free trade. 

The Department of Energy’s approval of the Freeport, Texas LNG 

export terminal is a positive sign. Timely approval of the remaining 

export permit applications is needed to continue this progress, improve the U.S. trade balance, and make significant headway toward the bold national objective of doubling U.S. exports during 

this decade. 

Natural gas is one of the bright spots in our economy. Free trade 

principles, technology advances, and fair tax policies will allow us 

to continue the success story. 

So, thank you, again, for the opportunity to appear before you. 

Our industry is proud of the contributions we make for our nation, 

and we stand ready to work with this Committee, the Congress, 

and the Administration to ensure a path forward that allows natural gas to continue as a foundation of U.S. job creation and economic growth for decades to come. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Durbin follows:] 
15 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARTIN J. DURBIN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

AMERICA’S NATURAL GAS ALLIANCE

Chairman Ryan, Ranking Member Van Hollen and members of the committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of America’s Natural Gas Alliance 

(ANGA) and its member companies. 

My name is Marty Durbin. I am President and CEO of America’s Natural Gas 

Alliance, which represents North America’s largest independent natural gas exploration and production companies. Our mission is to promote the growing demand 

for and use of our nation’s vast domestic natural gas resources. In pursuing this 

mission, ANGA works with industry, government and customer stakeholders to ensure the continued availability and increased use of our natural gas resources for 

a cleaner and more secure energy future. 

I appreciate the opportunity to join this timely discussion on how the nation’s vast 

domestic energy resources are revolutionizing not only the energy game, but also the 

path to jobs and economic growth for our country as a whole. 

SUMMARY

Just as natural gas is a foundation fuel in terms of our energy use, so is the natural gas industry a foundational engine of U.S. job creation and economic recovery. 

The industry contributes $113 billion annually in government revenues, supports 3 

million American jobs and contributes $440 billion each year to the nation’s economy.1

This contribution is made possible by technological innovations, led by hydraulic 

fracturing with horizontal drilling, that are allowing our nation to safely and responsibly access vast domestic reserves of shale gas that lie typically a mile or more 

below the earth’s surface. Our natural gas resources exist in such abundance that 

the United States has transitioned in just a handful of years from being a net importer2 of natural gas to the world’s largest producer of this clean energy source.3

There is now a broad consensus that the U.S. has enough natural gas to meet 

our nation’s growing energy needs for generations to come. This abundance has 

made possible stable, affordable prices for natural gas consumers. Unlike any other 

fuel, natural gas is used in every part of our economy—electricity generation, residential and commercial uses, manufacturing feedstock and energy needs, as well as 

transportation fuel—allowing natural gas to deliver value throughout the fabric of 

our entire economy. 

America’s newfound abundance of natural gas has fundamentally transformed the 

outlook not only for our economy, but also for our nation’s energy security. Market 

forces are helping deliver substantial contributions not only to the U.S. Treasury 

but also to core national priorities. Among the highlights, natural gas: 

• Contributes $113 billion annually to federal, state and local government budgets; 

• Supports 3 million American jobs; 

• Is projected to help create nearly 1 million U.S. manufacturing jobs by 2025;4

• Is primarily responsible for a reduction in U.S. power sector carbon emissions 

to levels not seen since 1994;5

• Along with rising domestic oil production, is delivering profound strides in the 

nation’s energy self-sufficiency and security; and 

• Is delivering $926 in annual savings to the average U.S. household—savings in 

both electricity and home heating costs. And, this figure is expected to grow to more 

than $2,000 per year by 2035.6

This impressive performance is made possible not only by the abundant supplies 

of natural gas, but also by policies that encourage safe and responsible development 

with appropriate state-led oversight of this clean, low-cost American energy source. 

To maximize these benefits to our nation, government should exercise caution in 

imposing unnecessary costs on an American industry that is providing so much economic value. To do so would have a negative ripple effect through our economy and 

diminish the contributions our natural gas industry can make not only to government revenues but also to the U.S. economic recovery as a whole. 

DOMESTIC ENERGY DEVELOPMENT A RARE BRIGHT SPOT IN U.S. ECONOMY

Shale energy, including both domestic natural gas and oil development, has been 

one of the brightest spots in our economy over the past five years. 

The growth we’ve seen and the opportunity ahead come from the development of 

so-called ‘‘unconventional’’ natural gas resources, chief among them shale gas. Shale 

gas was 35% of natural gas production in 2011, and it’s predicted to reach 52% by 

2040.7
16 

To offer a sense of the magnitude of this opportunity: In 2011, total capital expenditures for the natural gas industry as a whole reached $109 billion.8 In 2025, 

that figure will rise to $123 billion—for shale and other ‘‘unconventional’’ natural 

gas resources alone. 

This is an economic stimulus that will provide significant additional revenues to 

government at all levels. 

In addition, roughly half of all natural gas-related jobs today are powered by shale 

resources. More than 800,000 additional jobs will be created by 2025—again by 

shale and other unconventional natural gas resources alone.9 It should be further 

noted that the high quality of jobs created through shale gas is reflected in aboveaverage pay—with direct jobs spread across 31 shale gas-producing states paying 

$23-plus per hour. 

U.S. EMPLOYMENT—UNCONVENTIONAL NATURAL GAS (2010–2025)10

2010 2015 2020 2025 

Direct .............................................................................................................. 237,968 333,776 403,472 400,958 

Indirect ........................................................................................................... 327,000 479,488 593,817 598,497 

Induced ........................................................................................................... 443,693 650,185 797,485 812,499 

Total .................................................................................................. 1,008,661 1,463,449 1,794,774 1,811,954 

In addition to those employed directly in the natural gas industry, indirect employment tallies those who work in related industries in the natural gas supply 

chain. Induced jobs represent jobs created by the spending of the first two categories. These are conservative figures that do not take into account the many unrelated American industries that are flourishing in an environment of low-cost natural 

gas. These include the estimated one million manufacturing jobs that are forecast 

to be created through 2025 because abundant, affordable natural gas is making 

American workers and U.S. companies more competitive in the global marketplace. 

NATURAL GAS CONTRIBUTES $113 BILLION ANNUALLY IN GOVERNMENT REVENUES

In 2011, natural gas contributed nearly $113 billion in government revenues. In 

addition to $53 billion to the U.S. Treasury, this included $58 billion in contributions to state and local budgets11—helping fund schools, law enforcement, hospitals 

and other local priorities. For this reason, you see governors across the political 

spectrum, from red states and blue states alike, enacting laws and regulations that 

encourage responsible energy development in their states. Additionally, the government—like all natural gas consumers—has enjoyed substantial savings from reduced operating costs associated with low-cost natural gas. 

Here is the 2011 breakdown of government revenues from the total natural gas 

industry:12

• Federal Taxes: $53 billion 

• State and Local Taxes: $58 billion 

• Federal Royalty Payments: $2 billion 

• Total: $113 billion 

Similar to the employment and capital expenditure projections, shale gas will 

drive future growth in government revenue contributions at all levels of government. In fact, federal, state and local government revenues from shale and other 

unconventional gas production will almost double from 2010 to 2025.13

GOVERNMENT REVENUES—UNCONVENTIONAL NATURAL GAS (2010–2025)14

[$ Billions] 

2010 2015 2020 2025 

Federal Taxes ................................................................................................. 16.5 24.2 29.7 30.3 

Corporate Taxes (federal) ..................................................................... 3.7 5.5 6.7 7.0 

Personal Taxes (federal) ....................................................................... 12.8 18.7 23.0 23.3 

Federal Royalty Payments .............................................................................. 0.9 1.2 1.2 1.5 

State and Local Taxes ................................................................................... 16.4 23.9 28.8 31.1 

Corporate Taxes (state & local) ........................................................... 10.5 15.6 19.0 19.7 

Personal Taxes (state & local) ............................................................. 2.2 3.2 3.9 4.0 

Severance Taxes (state & local) ........................................................... 2.6 3.6 4.1 5.0 

Ad Valorem Taxes (state & local) ........................................................ 1.1 1.6 1.8 2.3 
17 

GOVERNMENT REVENUES—UNCONVENTIONAL NATURAL GAS (2010–2025)14—Continued 

[$ Billions] 

2010 2015 2020 2025 

Total Government Revenue ............................................................... 33.8 49.3 59.8 62.9 

AMERICAN NATURAL GAS ABUNDANCE KEY TO U.S. ECONOMIC RECOVERY

In setting sound fiscal policy, it is imperative to consider not just industry jobs, 

investment and government revenue, but also the far more broad and positive impact that abundant, affordable natural gas is having throughout our economy. 

Unique among our nation’s energy choices, natural gas is used in every sector of 

our economy, through its prominent roles in electricity generation, industrial and 

manufacturing fuel uses (generally referred to as ‘‘feedstock’’), residential and commercial uses and as a transportation fuel. 

Natural gas accounts for more than 25% of our total energy use in the United 

States. The fact that domestic dry gas production has increased 20% since 2008,15

and wellheadprices have been reduced by roughly half since 2008 has had a profound effect on the competitiveness of a wide variety of American industries. 

ELECTRICITY GENERATION

• Natural gas accounts for 24% of our electricity generation as of 2012;16

• Electricity users on average have saved 8% since 2008 thanks to reliable, abundant and affordable supplies of natural gas;17 and 

• Natural gas’ cleaner profile across a broad array of emissions is allowing utilities throughout the country to more cost-effectively achieve environmental goals. 

MANUFACTURING FEEDSTOCK

• Natural gas accounts for 26% of energy used in the industrial sector, including 

feedstocks;18 and 

• More than $110 billion of new or expanded manufacturing projects have been 

announced through 2018 with low natural gas prices cited as the reason for the additional capacity.19 This is a manufacturing renaissance including chemicals, plastics, fertilizer, steel, aluminum, tires and more. 

RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL USES

• Natural gas accounts for 64% of energy used in heating;20

• Natural gas consumers have saved more than 30% in heating costs since 2008. 

This includes savings related to space and water heating, as well as appliances, 

such as stoves and gas dryers, and these savings free up cash flow to spend elsewhere.21

TRANSPORTATION

• Natural gas comprises 0.1% of energy used in transportation. However, its use 

in this sector is expected to grow significantly over the next decade;22

• Natural gas is the lowest cost transportation fuel available on the market today. 

Between 2010 and 2012, the average price of compressed natural gas was $1.20 

less than the gasoline gallon equivalent;23

• For this reason, leading U.S. companies from Waste Management to AT&T to 

UPS are converting their vehicles to run on affordable, American natural gas; 

• Additionally, one in five city transit buses now run on natural gas, with one 

in three new transit bus purchases being CNG vehicles;24

• Up to 30% of the nation’s trucking fleet may run on natural gas by 2020;25

• And, just yesterday, ANGA unveiled four demonstration dual-fuel passenger vehicles. They run on both gasoline and natural gas. Their purpose is to show the potential range of consumer choices—from luxury SUV to muscle car to commuter vehicles—that have the performance American consumers expect, while adding the 

fuel efficiency and significant cost savings that natural gas has to offer. 

STRONG NATIONAL INTEREST IN CONSTRUCTIVE POLICIES

Given the extraordinary contributions that American natural gas is making to our 

nation, we must ensure that federal policy allows this incredible record of success 

to continue. Two areas of significant potential impact are tax policy and export policy. 
18 

Natural gas development is a highly capital-intensive industry, and like all other 

capital-intensive industries, cost recovery is critical to the industry’s success; it is 

not a handout, a loophole or a subsidy. Erasing the Intangible Drilling Costs deduction would have a significant negative impact in both the short term—primarily on 

U.S. manufacturing and industrial consumers who rely on affordable natural gas to 

remain competitive—and the long-term, where it is projected that government revenue would decrease significantly beyond a 10-year time horizon. 

Export policy is another opportunity for the government to signal to the marketplace that U.S. policy is disciplined both in support of natural gas and in support 

of the principle of free trade. The Department of Energy’s approval of the Freeport, 

TX, LNG export terminal is a positive sign. Timely approval of the remaining export 

permit applications is needed to continue this progress, improve the U.S. trade balance and make significant headway toward the bold national objective of doubling 

U.S. exports during this decade. Without affordable and abundant natural gas, this 

topic would not even be part of our nation’s dialogue. Free trade principles, technology advancement and fair tax policies will allow us to continue this success story. 

CONCLUSION

Natural gas is one of the bright spots in our economy, and it’s important that we 

pull in a consistent and constructive direction to continue this progress. ANGA’s 

member companies are part of an industry that contributes $113 billion per year 

to federal, state and local government. Equally important, our industry supports 3 

million American jobs.26 Natural gas also is making strides in the nation’s energy 

security, and it is a primary reason that U.S. energy sector carbon emissions are 

at 20-year lows. We believe that allowing markets to continue to deliver this huge 

stimulus to communities across the nation is an essential component in our ongoing 

economic recovery—and will ensure an appropriate balance that both delivers ample 

revenues to government and ensures natural gas can continue to be a foundation 

of U.S. job creation and economic growth for decades to come. 

ENDNOTES

1 ‘‘The Contributions of the Natural Gas Industry to the US National and State Economies’’ 

ANGA/IHS, 2012. 2 AEO 2005 vs. AEO 2012. 

3 ‘‘Annual Energy Outlook’’, EIA, 2013. 

4 ‘‘Shale Gas: A Renaissance in US Manufacturing?. National Association of Manufacturers 

and PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2011. 5 EIA June 2012 Monthly Energy Review. 

6 ‘‘Economic and Employment Contributions of Shale Gas in the United States.’’ IHS, 2011. 

7 EIA Annual Energy Outlook: 2013 Early Release. 

8 ‘‘The Contributions of the Natural Gas Industry to the US National and State Economies,’’ 

ANGA/IHS 2011. 9 ‘‘The Economic and Employment Contributions of Unconventional Gas Development in State 

Economies,’’ ANGA/IHS, 2012. 10 ‘‘The Economic and Employment Contributions of Unconventional Gas Development in 

State Economies,’’ ANGA/IHS, 2012. 11 ‘‘The Contributions of the Natural Gas Industry to the US National and State Economies,’’ 

ANGA/IHS, 2011. 12 ‘‘The Contributions of the Natural Gas Industry to the US National and State Economies,’’ 

ANGA/IHS, 2011. Note: This study covers the natural gas industry as a whole (onshore and offshore, conventional and unconventional resources. 13 ‘‘The Economic and Employment Contributions of Unconventional Gas Development in 

State Economies,’’ ANGA/IHS, 2012. 14 ‘‘The Economic and Employment Contributions of Unconventional Gas Development in 

State Economies,’’ ANGA/IHS, 2012. Note: This is a tally of government revenues associated 

solely with unconventional natural gas development. As such, these figures represent a subset 

of overall natural gas industry government revenue contributions, which totaled approximately 

$113 billion in 2011. 15 ‘‘Annual Energy Outlook,’’ EIA, 2013 & ‘‘Annual Energy Review,’’ 2012. 16 ‘‘Annual Energy Outlook,’’ EIA, 2013. 17 ‘‘Annual Energy Outlook,’’ EIA, 2013 & ‘‘Annual Energy Review,’’ 2012. 18 ‘‘Annual Energy Outlook,’’ EIA, 2013. 19 Company announcements, 2011 through May, 2013. 20 EIA, ‘‘Annual Energy Outlook,’’ 2013 & ‘‘Annual Energy Review,’’ 2012. 21 EIA, ‘‘Annual Energy Outlook,’’ 2013 & ‘‘Annual Energy Review,’’ 2012. 22 EIA ‘‘Annual Energy Outlook,’’ 2013. 23 Compiled data from ‘‘Clean Cities Alternatives Fuels Price Reports’’, June 2010 to July 

2012. 24 ‘‘Transit on the Cutting Edge of Clean Technology,’’ American Public Transportation Association, September, 2012. 25 ‘‘Energy 2020: Independence Day,’’ Citigroup, 2013. 
19 

26 ‘‘The Contributions of the Natural Gas Industry to the US National and State Economies,’’ 

ANGA/IHS, 2011. 

Chairman RYAN. Thank you. Since you just finished last, Mr. 

Durbin, I want to ask you a couple questions about natural gas and 

about permitting. In 2012, the average application to permit to drill 

on federal lands was processed in 228 days; 4,256 total permits 

were looked at, approved, in that year. By comparison, in 2007, we 

had 196-day average turnaround for permits, and 7,124 total permits. So that means the BLM, the Bureau of Land Management, 

is taking 16 percent longer to do 60 percent of the work. 

By contrast, states have a different track record. Their processing times are far, far faster: North Dakota, 10 days; Ohio, an 

average of 14 days; Colorado, an average of 27 days. So we have 

got 10- to 27-day turnaround on permits in these states, and 228- 

day average turnaround in the federal government. What is the difference? What is the justification or the reason, in your estimation, 

for the huge difference in turning these permits around? And more 

importantly, what is the range of estimates on what we now think 

we have on federal lands versus, say, where we were in just 2007? 

Mr. DURBIN. Well, thanks for question, Mr. Chairman. And I 

think there is no question that the, you know, permitting timelines 

are one of the significant factors in providing certainty for the industry. And I think that one of the distinctions you can make here 

is that in the states where we are operating, in many cases, you 

have got a regulatory structure in place that has traditionally regulated oil and gas, you know, production. So, frankly, I mean, that 

is a good story. Then, you know, out at the state level, they have 

got the appropriate expertise, and they know their, you know, they 

know their state geology and hydrology and all the rest, and are 

able to, you know, to be, frankly, just to be more efficient in approving of the permits. 

You know, we are not seeing that at the federal level, and certainly that is an area where we would like to continue to working 

with the Administration, with BLM, to find how can we find ways 

of making that process more efficient. We are clearly seeing more 

of the production move to where the permitting is easier. 

Chairman RYAN. And so that is basically the question, then. So 

there are only so many rigs that are going to be available, only so 

much drilling that will occur. And so if it is a 10-day turnaround 

in some state, and a 228-day turnaround in the federal government, is the federal government not basically missing out on those 

kinds of revenues that we would get through royalties and leases, 

because the path of less resistance, the easier way to go, the natural place to deploy your capital and your rigs is on private lands, 

say, North Dakota, versus BLM land because it is fewer and it is 

longer. And so then we are basically forgoing a lot of revenue that 

could come to the government. Our last transportation bill said, 

‘‘Put those resources, those federal revenues that come from oil 

leases and royalties, into the Highway Trust Fund to help us with 

infrastructure.’’ 

So are we basically making a choice here, maybe not intentionally, through the regulatory process to forgo that revenue for 

the federal government and push this drilling into the private 

area? 
20 

Mr. DURBIN. I think there is no question that a speedier, more 

certain process at the federal level would result in greater production on those lands. 

Chairman RYAN. Mr. Larson, your firm is very well-known for its 

econometric models. It is widely cited, used quite a bit. I was really 

moved by these numbers. I come from Wisconsin. We do not have 

shale, so where I come from, people do not realize that there may 

be a benefit, other than lower gas and oil prices, people do not realize that there is an actual direct benefit. You said there were 

20,000 jobs in my state connected to this? Thirty percent of the jobs 

created in your model are from areas in the economy that are not 

directly related or not from states that have this. Can you elaborate on that? 

Mr. LARSON. Yeah, basically what we do is we look at the very 

supply chains that support the upstream exploration and production activity, and so obviously, as you are going out and doing these 

exploration and production activities, you need to acquire a pipefitting machinery, power generators, sand, aggregate gravel cement 

casing, and so there is this vast supply chain across this country. 

The beautiful thing is, as Mr. Durbin alluded to, is this is a homegrown technology, and so what it means, when you look at sort of 

how the dollars flow through our economy, those dollars are being 

spent domestically on the providers of this technology here. 

And so when we looked at our models, we found that the supply 

chains reached far into all these other states. And so even though 

you do not have a geographic play in your boundary, you do get to 

tap into that supply chain, and, as I indicated, 20,000 jobs in your 

state, and about $330 million in tax revenues, by virtue of some of 

the leading areas, like sand, and aggregate, and machinery within 

your state in particular. 

Chairman RYAN. So your model says 1.7 million jobs tied to this 

industry in 2012 going up to 3 million by the end of this decade? 

Mr. LARSON. That is correct, yes. 

Chairman RYAN. So I want to get a sense of the revenue. So this 

is where we kind of come in here in the Budget Committee, which 

is, we have sort of old methodologies and old revenue numbers with 

respect to what we could actually bring into the federal government 

to help us with our deficit and debt reduction. You mentioned $2.5 

trillion in revenue between 2012 and 2035. Can you break that 

down? I know that is all levels of government. Do you have a 

breakdown between state and local and federal? 

Mr. LARSON. Yes, so what you are going to see is just roughly 

a split of about 50/50, so you are going to see that split roughly in 

half. One of the primary drivers of the source of revenue is corporate, and then personal income tax, and so that is where most 

of the revenue happens to be coming from, but you can basically 

split that number into about 50/50 between the federal, and then 

the state and local. I do not have the disaggregation between the 

states, though, and the local. 

Chairman RYAN. Okay, right, so about 1.25 trillion to the feds 

through expanded use. 

Mr. LARSON. That is correct, roughly. That is correct. 

Chairman RYAN. Give me a sense of how this helps the average family. Give me a sense of, you mentioned $1,000, walk us through 
21 

how this works for the average family, and what I am most concerned about is how does this affect low-income individuals who 

live on total disposable income, who do not have savings, who are 

living on complete disposable income? How does this help them? 

How is this, this breakthrough boon, not just for the industries involved, or not just for governments, but how does it help the average consumer, particularly low-income people? 

Mr. LARSON. Sure, a couple of examples. First, when you think 

about energy, it is in inelastic demand. It is something we have to 

have. So when you look at your disposable income, you do not pick 

and choose how much you allocate to energy. You really have to 

have energy; it is just a necessity, and so there is a fairly high demand for it there. When you look at that $1,000, those savings are 

recognized to families of all incomes by virtue of the fact that we 

have lower energy prices flowing through this. So it could be direct 

consumption, so individuals who heat their homes through natural 

gas, or cook through natural gas, or things of that nature; less direct through power gen, which we have seen prices come down as 

a result of this unconventional revolution, or the supply chain of 

the material that is produced through these activities. 

So you think about the petrochemical industry, which now has 

a lot cheaper feedstock and derivative that goes into all these goods 

and services we consume; those savings are passed on to consumers 

as well. So you see this downward pressure on the price of goods 

in the broader economy by virtue of this. So there is one example. 

The other example I point to is, the supply chain I talked about, 

the reason that we see these jobs spread across the country, expands into jobs that many people do not think of touching immediately the energy industry. And so you pick a state like North Dakota, an example that you used, Chairman Ryan. Individuals in 

North Dakota are enjoying what we call the induced effects of the 

earnings of those who are directly employed in this exploration and 

production, or in the supply chain, their income, they go out and 

they spend to live in that economy, and they are employing people 

who are waiters, waitresses, small businesses, and so there is a 

broad reach to all individuals in American society from this. 

Chairman RYAN. Yeah, so one of the things that we are particularly sensitive, where I come from, in my state, we have more jobs 

per capita tied to manufacturing than any other state in the country. I think Indiana, I think we have some Hoosiers here, I think 

Indiana has more manufacturing total, but in the Midwest, we basically make things. And one of the problems we have seen over, 

say, since the mid-’90s on, is a lot of manufacturing going overseas, 

for labor and other reasons, tax policy. But we are witnessing a 

sort of resurgence of our manufacturing industry. We are seeing 

some of our manufacturing coming back, and among the reasons 

they seem to cite is more stable natural gas, more stable input 

prices. So that, to me, says that there is not only a win-win, but 

a win-win-win, in the fact that this can help us bring back the resurgence of our manufacturing sector. 

I just want to ask you one quick question about natural gas and 

jobs, Mr. Durbin. You said that through shale gas production the 

pay for these jobs averages around $23 an hour. That is, you know, 

about three times the minimum wage. Is that typical for these 
22 

kinds of jobs, and what kinds of jobs are you talking about when 

you mention this? 

Mr. DURBIN. It is an average, but it is typical. I mean, you can 

look at anything, you were mentioning in North Dakota, and that 

may be an outlier, but even there you can, with a high school diploma and you have a CDL license, you can be making $90,000 a 

year in North Dakota. But that is, again, even acknowledging that 

may be an outlier, throughout the industry the average numbers, 

the oil and natural gas industry, especially in the upstream side, 

does pay above average wages. And they are jobs that are not only 

good jobs coming into the company, opportunities to move up, but 

jobs available for almost every educational level. 

So, again, it is an opportunity that, from an employment standpoint, that is very broad, now across the country. The oil patch is 

now all over the country. So we have got the opportunity here to 

grow employment in this sector, very good-paying jobs, opportunities for advancement, almost any education level. 

Chairman RYAN. Thank you. Mr. Van Hollen. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And as the Chairman pointed out, the development of natural gas in the country has 

improved our competitive position. You do see more manufacturers 

moving back to the United States to take advantage of that, and 

that is all good news. 

I would point out that as of right now, 83 percent of the government lands, federal lands that are being leased, are not being produced. In other words, they are not being productive. People are 

not drilling for oil and gas on those lands. The Republican bill that 

is coming to the floor of the House this week would essentially 

open up all of our outer continental shelf to drilling for oil and gas, 

without having learned any of the lessons from the big oil spill in 

the Gulf, and, as I pointed out, that is at a time when we have already got lots of federal lands that have been leased that are not 

being produced at all. 

Now, and I would also say that despite the fact that that Republican bill would essentially open up all the outer continental shelf, 

according to the Congressional Budget Office, and I would like to 

submit this for the record, Mr. Chairman, the 10-year savings from 

that, 10 years is $1.5 billion in terms of the federal government. 

Well, obviously, every cent counts, but that is not a dramatic increase. In contrast, we have proposed that we eliminate the subsidies for the big four integrated oil and gas companies as part of 

our sequester replacement bill, and use some of those funds to reduce the deficit but also to invest in some of these cleaner technologies of the future that have been demonstrated to also generate 

and create jobs. 

And I would just point out, Mr. Chairman, that President Bush 

said, when he was in office, and I am quoting, ‘‘I will tell you with 

$55 oil, $55 a barrel of oil, we do not need incentives to the oil and 

gas companies to explore. There are plenty of incentives.’’ That was 

at $55 per barrel; we are now at $105 per barrel. And in the Committee that is supposed to make tough choices on behalf of the 

American public, I would think that we would decide to get rid of 

those taxpayer subsidies and put them to a higher purpose, and 

yet, at this very moment, I believe, over in the Appropriations 
23 

Committee, as a result of the budget that passed this Republican 

House, they are dramatically cutting our investment in cuttingedge research in clean technologies, an 81 percent cut, as Mr. 

Weiss pointed out, in the account that funds cutting-edge technologies in clean energy. An over 50 percent cut in the energy and 

efficiency investments, and that is compared to last year. 

So that just seems to me counterproductive at a time when our 

major economic competitors are moving forward in this important 

space. And Mr. Weiss, I would ask you if you could, just to talk 

about what Germany is doing, what China is doing, and the risk 

to the United States of falling behind in this important area of energy production. 

Mr. WEISS. Thank you, Mr. Van Hollen. Many of our economic 

competitors are investing heavily in their domestic clean energy industries. In 2011, for the first time since President Bush left office, 

the United States actually invested more in clean energy than 

China, but China was back ahead of us again in 2012. In Germany, 

they are one of the leading countries for the production of solar energy and solar equipment, even though Germany has less sunshine 

than any state in the union except for Alaska. In fact, Germany, 

last year, had 20 percent of its electricity generated by renewable 

energy; of course, so did Iowa. And so it is happening, but we need 

to keep investing in those technologies to create jobs. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. One of the things we have done in this country 

as a matter of public policy is to try to encourage the development 

of fledgling industries, and then when they become more mature 

industries, they are more on their own in the free market, as it 

should be. Could you talk about the mismatch in terms of our public investment through various incentives? Between oil and gas, 

which I think everybody would agree is a mature industry; I do not 

think anybody can suggest that the big four integrated oil companies are going to do less if they do not have the benefit of these 

big taxpayer subsidies. In fact, their executives, just a few years 

back, testified to such. But the cost of not investing in these other 

areas, and the negative impact, we will see if we cut, for example, 

the ARPA-E budget, which is the advanced research budget at the 

Department of Energy, by 81 percent, as the Republican budget 

would have us do. 

Mr. WEISS. Yes, in fact, 35 years ago there was concerns about 

a natural gas shortage in the United States, so the Department of 

Energy, working with private gas companies, worked together to 

develop the horizontal drilling and advanced fracking technology 

that we are now using for the shale gas revolution; that was due 

to public-private partnership led by federal investment. The Nuclear Energy Institute recently did a study and found that over the 

last 60 years, we have invested $7 in the oil and gas industry for 

every $1 that we have invested, through subsidies and other supports, tax breaks and the like, $7 for oil and gas, $1 for renewable 

energy. 

And it seems to me as you noted, that since oil and gas is a very 

mature industry where the five largest integrated companies have 

$70 billion in cash reserves where they spend one-third of their 

profits buying back their own stock, they do not need the $2.5 billion a year they get from the taxpayers in order to continue to be-
24 

come successful companies. In addition, it is important to note that 

those same companies are producing less oil now than they did six 

years ago even though they are making more money, and that is 

because through nothing of their own doing, oil prices have risen 

and gasoline prices have risen, so they can make more money producing less oil. They do not need these $2.5 billion a year from us. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Weiss. Mr. Durbin, I mean, 

your organization, and, again, I think that natural gas development has been good for American competitiveness; you are not opposed are you to investing in clean energy technologies, I mean, in 

that kind of research, are you? 

Mr. DURBIN. No, certainly not. We are not opposed to investing 

in clean energy technology. In fact, one of the facts of the matter 

is, if not for natural gas, you will not have solar and wind power 

out there. Because when the sun is not shining and the wind is not 

blowing, you know, we are providing that backup power. So you do 

not have one without the other. 

But you have also got to look at the scale, and if we want to 

power this economy going forward, we are simply not going to be 

able to do it with solar and wind. And even as the president pointed out yesterday, you know, since 1994, we have seen natural gas 

production increase greatly, which, principally, through market 

force has now driven economic growth, created jobs, lowered emissions to the same level we had in 1994, while lowering family energy bills and putting us in a position to play a global role in energy policy, which helps us on a trade standpoint. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I agree with what you just said, and, as you 

said, the president indicated yesterday he thought there was a very 

important role for natural gas as part of an all-of-the-above energy 

strategy. The reason I ask you the question is because you look at 

the budget that is moving through this House, you see dramatic 

cuts in the kind of investment in clean energy technology. And I 

would just ask you if you are familiar with the Department of Energy’s SunShot initiative, which, as I understand it, is designed to 

make sure a natural gas-fired power plant can burn 20 percent less 

fuel using concentrated sunshine. It seems to be a great example 

of the mix of solar and natural gas. Are you familiar with that 

project? 

Mr. DURBIN. I am not familiar with it. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Weiss, if you could just respond? 

Mr. WEISS. Yes, one thing that is important to note is, the program that is developing advanced storage for electricity technology 

is the ARPA-E program that you mentioned just a minute ago that 

is going to face an 80 percent budget cut under the Appropriations 

bill, and that program, by the way, was signed into law by President George W. Bush back in 2007. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Weiss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank all the witnesses. 

Chairman RYAN. Mr. McClintock. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Larson, we 

just heard the Administration’s energy policy described as ‘‘all of 

the above.’’ Would you describe that as ‘‘all of the above’’? 

Mr. LARSON. Well, I think there is a role for all the energy 

sources to play. 
25 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. No, no, that is not what I asked. Is this Administration approaching the most plentiful resources that we have 

available, oil, gas, and coal, as an all-of-the-above strategy? 

Mr. LARSON. I would just say that all these resources that we 

currently have, the endowment we have, would have to be considered as opportunities. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Durbin, would you describe these as an 

all-of-the-above strategy? 

Mr. DURBIN. Well, my concern, clearly, there are laid-out roles 

for many different types of energy. Again, my concern is that we 

have got all of these benefits coming from domestic production, but 

then we see policies that may undermine our ability to continue 

that progress, both through tax proposals and other. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. It is not only not promoting an all-of-the-above 

strategy, it is actually obstructing an all-of-the-above strategy. Is 

that fair to say? 

Mr. DURBIN. I do not know if I would go that far, but I think 

there certainly are concerns of being able to develop our policies 

going forward. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. We are told that we need to ‘‘invest,’’ in 

quotes, heavily in wind and solar because these are new fledgling 

industries, but was solar photovoltaic cells not first invented by 

French physicist Edmund Becquerel in 1839, Mr. Larson? 

Mr. LARSON. Yes, solar has been around for a while, that is correct. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. And in nearly 175 years of scientific advancement, research development, and god knows how much in public 

subsidies, have we yet invented a more expensive way of producing 

electricity? 

Mr. LARSON. As an economist I cannot comment on that. I just 

do not know the answer to that. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well, let me ask you this. Well, Mr. Durbin 

you alluded to this, not only is solar much more expensive than 

conventional sources, and wind much more expensive, and so we 

pay a great deal more for them just to begin with; on top of that, 

they are intermittent sources. Now we operate on an integrated 

grid, meaning that the amount of electricity put on the grid has to 

constantly match the amount of energy being drawn, or the grid 

simply collapses. Is that correct? 

Mr. DURBIN. Correct. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. And because solar photovoltaic does not work 

very well in cloudy conditions, for example, if a cloud passes over 

a solar array, its energy production immediately drops to zero. 

Does that not mean that we have to back up every watt of this 

intermittent electricity with a watt of reliable electricity by spinning turbines 24/7, ready to produce electricity at a moment’s notice, so we are paying twice for that electricity at once, inflated 

prices for solar and wind to begin with? 

Mr. DURBIN. That is correct. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. And secondly, on top of that, we have got to 

keep conventional turbine generators moving constantly, ready to 

back up that unreliable power at a moment’s notice. So we are paying twice for that power, is that correct? 

Mr. DURBIN. Correct. 
26 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. But then on top of that, we also have transmission problems; because of the nature of solar and wind electricity, we cannot transport them long distances over conventional 

lines. Do we not have to then construct high-voltage direct current 

lines to move this electricity over any kind of significant distance? 

Mr. DURBIN. Yes. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. So we are paying, then, for a third time a 

brand new transmission system for the sole purpose of carrying 

this extremely expensive and unreliable power from where it is 

produced to where it is consumed. Is that correct? 

Mr. DURBIN. That is correct. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Does it make much sense to you for the federal 

government to be obstructing the vast amounts of conventional energy that we have right within our own borders, while, at the same 

time, lavishing public funds on unreliable and extremely expensive 

forms of electricity generation that have been around for, in the 

case of solar, for 175 years, and have not yet proven themselves 

after all that time? 

Mr. DURBIN. Clearly demonstrates the need to find a balance 

here, where these other energy sources may make sense, in niche 

applications, or, you know, in particular regions around the country. But again, just to be able to provide the energy needed by such 

an enormous economy, and that we now have the opportunity with 

natural gas, domestic natural gas, to provide that cleanly. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Consumers are watching their electricity 

prices skyrocket specifically because of these policies, and it is 

about time that they were fully informed what is causing that pain 

every time their utility bill arrives in the mailbox, and it is precisely these policies supported and promoted by this Administration and its adherence in this Congress. I yield back. 

Chairman RYAN. Thank you. Ms. Schwartz. 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Thank you very much, and I appreciate this 

hearing. As you can imagine, being from Pennsylvania, I am keenly 

interested in natural gas and the role it will play and can play in 

moving our economy, and offering us a cheaper energy source, and 

also in, well, in growing jobs. I certainly have been to visit one of 

the drilling sites in Pennsylvania, up in northeastern Pennsylvania, and got to see, actually, people working on the drilling rigs, 

and climbed up myself, got on one of those asbestos jumpsuits that 

you have to wear to do that. I will say there were jobs created and 

impressive skilled workers. None of them happen to be Pennsylvanians; that is a concern to us. They were all from, actually, this 

happened to be a Canadian company, on that drilling rig. So that 

is an issue for these homegrown jobs for us. 

But I certainly, in contrast to the previous speaker, I do believe 

very strongly, as do I think many Pennsylvanians and many Americans, that it is important to reduce carbon emissions and to have 

a diversity of energy sources. I think that it is extremely important 

to us; we might not actually be doing the drilling as it was pointed 

out, of natural gas, without an interest in new sources of energy 

and an ability to go get it. So that gas was there for a long time, 

we just did not have a financially-feasible technology to go and drill 

it. 
27 

I think that Mr. Durbin might want to speak to that, but the fact 

is that we are moving in a very important direction in terms of energy efficiency and renewable standards that are growing a marketplace for cleaner technologies; that wind, and solar, and hydro, 

and biofuels all have great potential to be a part of our portfolio 

of energy sources. I think all of you, at least two of you would agree 

to that. There is no question. 

But it is not mutually exclusive. Natural gas is important, it is 

a cleaner fossil fuel, and that is important to us, and it does have 

the opportunity, should we have distribution lines, being able to get 

to businesses, and homes, and transit, I mean, being able to convert some of our homes and businesses, and I suppose having distribution lines matters quite a bit. Not all of that is done yet, by 

any means, and I imagine you would be interested in that. And I 

will say that the technology and the growth in the way we do the 

drilling, and also distribution and use of natural gas is something 

I hope we continue to invest in and grow as well. 

But as I say all that, as we do need this mix of a cleaner fossil 

fuel and these renewables, there is a major concern on the part of 

Pennsylvanians and most Americans, that we should do this right, 

that the development has to be done right; that we need to be able 

to assure Pennsylvanians, we are in the thick of this, that our 

health will not be impacted, that their health will not be impacted, 

that our water will not be contaminated, and that we will be able 

to say that. It is one of the reasons that I have signed on to the 

FRAC Act, which requires disclosure of chemicals and transparency 

about what is in the water and what comes out of the water that 

is used to get this natural gas. There are issues raised about air 

quality, due to methane emissions, and, of course, the issue of deforestation. 

So my question really is, as we move forward to capture this very 

important natural gas, and to use it to drive the economy, and 

lower prices, and grow jobs in Pennsylvania and across the country, 

how do we assure, how can we be assured, and I think this is a 

question for Mr. Durbin, that all producers of natural gas are acting responsibly, that the regulations reflect our best science, that 

enforcement and monitoring natural gas extraction, and distribution, and use are truly safe. And I think we are at a point where 

we cannot yet say that, and I really wanted to offer you the opportunity to share, I hope, in this mission to do this responsibly, and 

do this drilling responsibly, and use natural gas responsibly. 

Mr. DURBIN. Sure, if I could respond. The good news is, the industry agrees completely, we have to do this right. And the fact is, 

they are. No activity is zero risk, but I think Pennsylvania is a perfect example of where things are going right. Former Governor 

Rendell, I think, did a spectacular job of setting up a regulatory 

structure so that the production that takes place in that state is 

done and is regulated well at the local level. You have got experts 

on the ground. They made changes to the existing regulatory structure to help address specific concerns that came up through development in the state of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania regulators 

continue to look closely, all along the way, with regard to whether 

it was water contamination, they have changed regulations there, 

and the industry has complied. 
28 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. So we are moving forward being able to say we 

are going to learn from experience, we are going to be able to 

change those regulations, and, of course, monitor them as well. And 

you agree with all of that? 

Mr. DURBIN. Exactly. That is exactly how it has been done and 

how it will be done going forward. Now your point before about employment as well, again, Pennsylvania is also an incredible example of the number of jobs that have been created there. And I would 

say, I will not dispute that you were on a site where you may not 

have seen some Pennsylvanians. But having worked very closely 

with the building trades in Pennsylvania, Frank Sirianni is the 

head of the Building Trades Council in Pennsylvania, I think he 

will tell you, in fact, his words to me were, they hope that if New 

York eventually gets rid of the moratorium, that his brothers and 

sisters in New York start complaining about how many Pennsylvanians are coming to New York. 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. I look forward to working with you in the future. 

Chairman RYAN. Thank you. Ms. Black. 

Mrs. BLACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate you, 

Mr. Chairman, having this discussion that is so important as we 

look at jobs and the kind of jobs that can be created and the spur 

of the economy by the energy industry. 

I want to go back Mr. Durbin to what the Chairman began his 

questioning, and that relates to the process of getting the approvals, and the amount of time that it takes for a state versus the 

amount of time it takes for the federal government. As the Chairman says, an average of 30 days, process permitting, in a state, 

and with the federal government, it is about 228 days. We know 

that states are doing permitting processes on their own lands, on 

their state lands, and, obviously, they have federal land there. 

States have done a very good job in this permitting; they have been 

good stewards of the environment, and they have shown that they 

are efficient and timely in doing so. 

My question for you is, would it not make sense to, since the 

states, given their track record, very good track record on the environmental issues and their efficiency, would it not make sense to 

give them the ability to be able to do the permitting of the federal 

land that is within their state? 

Mr. DURBIN. Well, again, as we talked about before, this clearly 

cries out for greater attention to figure out why there is such a 

huge discrepancy between the timing from the state level and the 

federal level. And I do think that there is got to be, at the very 

least, much closer coordination between the federal regulators and 

the state regulators. There is just no reason for such an enormous 

discrepancy in the timelines for getting a permit approval. So just 

as we see, because there are other environmental statutes that are 

implemented at the state level, again, there are lessons to be 

learned here, and I think this is an area of great opportunity to 

have that conversation going on between the states, the federal 

agencies, and the industry. 

Mrs. BLACK. Well, I hear you say that there are lessons to be 

learned, and that we need to continue to look at it, but do you see 

any downside on allowing states being given the authority through 
29 

the federal government to make sure that everything the state is 

doing is in coordination with the state? Do you see any problems? 

Mr. DURBIN. No, I do not see a downside because, again, we work 

very closely with the states, and do feel that they do a very good 

job. 

Mr. WEISS. Ms. Black, may I address that? 

Mrs. BLACK. Yes, you may. 

Mr. WEISS. Thank you. First, I would like to interject, I know 

that the Chairman is very data-driven, and I try to be as well. I 

would like to interject some data from the Congressional Research 

Service on the very question of delays which CRS found, the delays 

have been cut almost in half between 2006 and 2011 for permitting. Secondly, CRS concluded that you cannot compare permitting 

on state and private lands with federal lands because the laws are 

different. Federal lands are designed for multiple use, which not 

only includes resource development, but also hunting, fishing, hiking, recreation, et cetera. And so therefore, the federal government 

has to look at more criteria than the states do because they only 

look at, many states, at one thing, which is research development. 

Thank you. 

Mrs. BLACK. Well, I thank you, Mr. Weiss. I am not an expert 

in this area by any means, but my reading on this topic does show 

that, given the fact that the states have done such a good job in 

the environmental, and, certainly, your point is well taken that 

there are lands and specific things on those lands, but if there were 

a council or some way that there could be an approval by the state 

under their processing with the federal government, it seems to me 

that we would move things along a lot faster, and therefore have 

more jobs, which, obviously, in the economy, this is very important 

to us. I yield back. 

Chairman RYAN. Thank you. Mr. Pascrell. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, your 

party is bringing two bills to the floor this week, which would once 

again seek to recklessly expand offshore drilling: H.R. 1613, the 

Outer Continental Shelf Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreements 

Authorization Act; H.R. 2231, the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act. 

Contrary to what many of my colleagues would have us believe, the 

president has pursued an all-of-the-above energy plan, which has 

included a vast expansion of oil and gas production. I share his belief that we need to make use of all the resources available to us 

while we transition to renewable sources of clean energy. We must 

make sure that all of our energy production is conducted in a very 

specific manner, which does not pose undue threats to our environment and our health from oil spills to climate change. 

In my home state of New Jersey, we have a vibrant tourism industry centered at our shore, as well as a thriving commercial and 

recreation fisheries. Currently, we are still working to recover from 

Hurricane Sandy, which brought tremendous devastation. The people of New Jersey know that we cannot bring deep-water drilling 

for oil and gas to our shores. The risk of a catastrophic oil spill 

shutting down portions of our beaches is just too great. Thousands 

and thousands of New Jerseyans rely on healthy shore and environment for their livelihoods, far outweighing the benefits of off-
30 

shore drilling, which produces more profits for Wall Street than 

community jobs. 

Mr. Weiss, the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act, H.R. 2231, includes language which would force the Secretary of the Interior to 

conduct Lease Sale 220. This parcel of sea off the coast of Virginia 

is less than 100 miles from the Jersey Shore. Unilaterally opening 

up the Atlantic Ocean for drilling creates unacceptable risks for 

communities up and down our coast, and yet we are talking about 

trying to get the most out of this, the most benefit for everybody, 

and the Administration’s policy, and I have certainly not been an 

advocate on many of the Administration’s proposals for energy or 

the environment, but they have committed to ensuring that American taxpayers receive a fair return from the sale of public resources. 

As drafted, the revenue-sharing provisions in H.R. 2231 would 

ultimately reduce the net return to taxpayers in the first place 

from development of the federal resources leased under this bill, 

2231. Consistent with the president’s budget, the Administration 

looks forward to working with the Congress, they have said this, 

they have written this, to improve the return to taxpayers from 

federal energy development through royalty reforms—you heard 

the Ranking Member speak of that before—incentives to diligent 

development, which we are doing to some degree. Talk about obstructionism. Talk about restrictions. We narrowed the incentives 

to diligent development of oil and gas rather than expanding them, 

and the improvements to revenue collection processes, which are 

not found, by the way, in 2231. 

Now, Mr. Weiss, with nearly 83 percent of the technically recoverable offshore oil reserves in the United States already available 

for leasing, correct me if I am wrong on the number, 83 percent, 

adequate opportunities for energy development already exist. It is 

a hoax. You are listening to a hoax. That is what we are dealing 

with. 

Eighty-three percent of that specific area is available. Does it 

make sense to push open new areas of our oceans to oil and gas 

exploration when we can invest in finding alternatives for the future? How do you respond to that? 

Mr. WEISS. Thank you, Mr. Pascrell. Not only is the vast majority of the offshore oil already open for leasing, but, in fact, according to the Department of Interior, 70 percent of the offshore acres 

that are already under lease are inactive. In other words, oil companies are sitting on the leases. 

Mr. PASCRELL. And why are they doing that? 

Mr. WEISS. The reason for that is once they have a lease, the 

value of the oil that is in that lease can accrue to their valuation 

of their company, which helps increase their stock price even if 

they do not develop it. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Does that have anything to do with the cost of the 

product and the final analysis? 

Mr. WEISS. I am not sure how they calculate it, but certainly, as 

oil prices go up, the value of that oil goes up, and so, in fact, we 

have got lots of resources that are already open, lots of resources 

under lease that are not being developed, and that is where we 

ought to focus, rather than on these other areas that have not yet 
31 

been developed that have economic value to keeping them for fisheries, and tourism, and whatnot. Thank you. 

Chairman RYAN. Thank you. Mr. Flores. 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it is fitting that 

this hearing is being held today, which is the fourth anniversary 

that the House of Representatives passed Cap and Trade. That was 

the single act in 2010 that caused me to think about running for 

Congress because I did not want to see our country, particularly 

our government here in Washington, send 10 million to 20 million 

jobs to other countries. 

So I am an accountant by training so I would like to look at the 

sources and uses of funds when you talk about taking taxes from 

one group, and then turning around and making investments in 

another group. So let’s go through the details here real quick. 

Mr. Larson, you are an economist, correct? Okay. So let’s assume 

that we raise taxes on American energy. What is the impact on 

American paychecks? Are they going to be higher or lower? 

Mr. LARSON. Yeah, in general, you will see costs of taxes passed 

onto the consumers because of the inelastic demand. 

Mr. FLORES. And what is the impact on American jobs? 

Mr. LARSON. It is going to depend on how it impacts what we will 

call the economically recoverable reserve base, and the economics 

of that activity, and so if that tax increases the cost or breakeven 

point on those economic resources, it would reduce resource discovery and production. 

Mr. FLORES. And that would reduce our GDP. Presumably, then 

deficits would go up. Family energy costs would go up. What is the 

impact of higher energy taxes on American manufacturing jobs? 

Mr. LARSON. Well, it is a global economy, and as I mentioned in 

my statement, you know, there is a delicate balance of a lot of different factors that contribute to manufacturing in this country. You 

look at global wage rates, you look at transportation costs, you look 

at our energy cost domestically; all of those factors are in a balance 

of making decisions to invest or not. 

Mr. FLORES. Right. Let me give you another personal example. 

In Jewett, Texas, Nucor Steel has a great operation where they recycle steel and make it into a usable product again. Because of the 

boom in natural gas drilling and the supply of natural gas, their 

cost per ton is down a dollar. That makes them more competitive 

on the international stage. Also means more great manufacturing 

jobs, not only in my district, but in Texas, but in this country. 

So let’s talk about the uses of all this tax money that the other 

side talks about in their all-of-the-above energy solutions. They 

want to make investments. Let’s go through the status of some of 

the investments. How many jobs were created by the $1.9 billion 

that was lost in Solyndra, Beacon Power, Evergreen Solar, Spectra, 

Rod-Fisk [spelled phonetically], Geronimo, WaterBound, Abound 

Solar, ECOtality, MXenergy, and Schneider Electric? How many 

jobs do we still have from that investment? 

Mr. LARSON. Our company did not investigate, do a study on 

that, so I do not know. 

Mr. WEISS. Mr. Flores, I happen to know the number. 

Mr. FLORES. I will get to that in a minute. 

Mr. WEISS. Okay. Thank you. 
32 

Mr. FLORES. Let me give you the job metrics that came from the 

DOE study. It said that the Department of Energy has spent $11 

million per green job created since 2009. They spent $26 billion of 

taxpayer money, and created 2,298 jobs. Mr. Larson, how long can 

we survive as an economy spending $11 million to create a job? 

Mr. LARSON. Obviously, you want to be efficient in your creation 

of jobs. That is important. 

Mr. FLORES. Okay. That is good. So that gets us kind of to what 

the overall arching theme is: Who is better at making investments 

in different things? I mean, you heard the other side virtually saying the federal government should take full credit for fracking. I 

agree that there was some basic research dollars invested in 

fracking, but who took it to the next stage? It was private industry 

that took it. It was private industry that took it. 

So, you know, the U.S. government can invest in basic research, 

it can invest in applied research, it can invest in venture capital, 

and also in private equity types of investments. But where is it 

that the federal government does the best, Mr. Larson? 

Mr. LARSON. In terms of? 

Mr. FLORES. Spending the dollars. It is in basic research. 

Mr. LARSON. Yeah, that is correct. 

Mr. FLORES. I mean, we have already seen what it has tried to 

do in applied research. We have tried to see what it did in venture 

capital with Solyndra and its brothers and sisters. The reason this 

is important to me is that I am the largest producer of residential 

solar power in Brazos County, Texas. I did it because I could afford 

it. I did it because I am a little bit kind of a geek on that type of 

stuff. And I can tell you that because what it costs, net of any benefits that were received, it will never, ever pay out for me. 

So the question is, why would Congress decide that it can be so 

smart that it wants to impose those costs on every ratepayer in the 

country? Why would it want to impose those costs on the taxpayers 

of this country? And the question is, it should not, and I am going 

to stop it. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman RYAN. Mr. McDermott. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I started politics in 

the last energy rush. It was called nuclear energy. I was in the ’70s 

in the state of Washington where the boom and bust of the Washington public power system left its mark. We are now in an energy 

rush here, and it is not surprising to hear the same oil and gas refrains. We have been giving them breaks since 1913, and if it were 

not for the harmful health and environmental effects of these fuels, 

it would make sense. But we know what CO2 is doing, and the 

president has rightly proposed an all-above strategy. 

Now, I would not advocate that we stop all drilling or abandon 

coal, but we have to mitigate the damage. I have proposed two bills 

that address these: a sensible carbon tax at the well head, or at 

the mine mouth; and a coal bill that would address the environmental and health costs of transporting coal all across the country 

to ship to the Chinese. But as we explore our options for America’s 

energy future, I hope partisanship will not stand in the way and 

blind us to the president’s message, and would be willing to look 

at all the options. We cannot let tradition or worse, special interests, dictate our interests. 
33 

Solar energy, we have heard it kicked around here, I am sorry 

Mr. McClintock left, and my friend is still sitting here, but is very 

much in our future. It is the cleanest and most abundant renewable energy source available. We put a slide up and if you look at 

those columns, the top part, the light blue part is the part of solar 

energy. That is the production, and it is growing. In the last few 

years, you have had exponential growth installed capacity by the 

colleague, and 2013 is on track to have another record year. 

Now, right now, we have enough solar capacity to power more 

than 1.3 million average houses in this country. At the same time, 

costs are falling. The average price of solar panel has dropped 60 

percent since 2011, and, not surprisingly, this growing industry is 

good economics. And you will see the second slide, in 2012, the 

solar industry poured more than 119,000 workers in the United 

States. That is up from 13 percent in 2011. 
34 

I also want to put another slide up there, and that one is for 

solar reserve. I heard this business about when the sun don’t shine, 

there ain’t no electricity from solar. That is not true. That is a 

myth. 

We are proving it right in Tonopah, Nevada, which is very close 

to Mr. McClintock’s district. Again, I am sorry he is not here. They 

are producing on-demand stored solar energy. At this plant, they 

have 600 workers on the ground, and have created 4,300 indirect 

and direct induced jobs. They generate more than $73 million in 
35 

local and state taxes in their first 20 years of operation, and all in 

all, they will generate over $750 million in private capital investments in Nevada. If growing the jobs is not enough then let’s take 

the world seriously here. 

Consider the next slide. China has invested $34 billion in government-backed financing for solar manufacturing, as compared to our 

$1.3. If you go to Beijing, on some days, you cannot drive your car 

because the air is so bad; they know what is happening, and they 

are reacting to it, and in the United States, we are sitting here sort 

of saying, well, we have got this natural gas thing, and it is great. 

Let’s go for it. But it still produces CO2, folks. It is not clean energy. It is not sustainable. It is not going to stop the growth of CO2 

in the atmosphere. 

Now, I have a question, and I suppose, Mr. Durbin, it is really 

directed to you. Will you guarantee to Ms. Schwartz and I that 

there is no foreseeable detrimental health effects in the fracking 

process? 

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. McDermott, I do not think any energy source 

can make that guarantee for you. What I can guarantee for you is 

that the industry has committed doing it safely and responsibly, 

and working with the governments at the state level and the federal level to make sure it is well-regulated. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. You do not want to work with this federal government. This Congress has tried to repeal EPA about two dozen 

times because they do not want to the federal looking at the world. 

And the fact is, you are trying to move down to the states where 

you know you can manipulate. 

Mr. DURBIN. That is just not fair, Mr. McDermott. We have got 

federal laws that we have to follow for all of our production, okay. 

So, now, we do believe that the regulation is best done at the state 

level, but that does not mean there is no federal regulation. We 

have still got all kinds of federal laws that we have adhere to for 

every one of the wells that we drill. 
36 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We could have another discussion on this. 

Chairman RYAN. Yes. Thank you for your question. Mr. Williams. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yeah, Mr. Durbin. Thank you for being here. Appreciate what you are doing. I am from Texas. Barnett Shale, Eagle 

Ford, Cline are all normal names to us back home. I have seen 

what the industry can do as far as creating jobs and more taxpayers. 

I, like so many of the people here, believe in all-of-the-above approach, an all-American approach. The difference is I believe the 

federal government has no role in it. I believe the private sector 

will decide where we need to be the next 25, 50, 100 years, and I 

offer you to continue to work on that so we do not have the 

Solyndras of the world fighting the fossil fuel questions. 

I guess my question would be to you, Mr. Weiss. You know a lot 

about the industry. Have you ever been in the industry? Have you 

ever been in the private sector? Have you ever been on a rig? 

Mr. WEISS. Yes, I have been in the private sector. No, I have not 

been on a rig, but my family, like yours, is in the auto business. 

I have a father-in-law and brother-in-law who are both auto dealers. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, you and I are probably going to agree on a 

lot of things then. 

Mr. WEISS. I hope so. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. You talked about the CAFE standards. Well, the 

CAFE standards, if they go to where this Administration wants 

them to go, will they create jobs or lose jobs? 

Mr. WEISS. They will create jobs, according to studies that have 

been done. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. So people continue to buy more expensive vehicles 

because of this? 

Mr. WEISS. People will actually save money on their vehicles, 

$8,000 over the life of a car, in lower gasoline purchases. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is fine. Another question is you have talked 

about big oil. What should big oil make? You are concerned about 

the cash they have in the bank and their profits. What do you 

think big oil should make? 

Mr. WEISS. I think every company in the United States ought to 

be entitled to a fair profit. But the big five oil companies in the last 

two years have made $250 billion in profits. They are sitting on 

$70 billion in cash reserves. They do not need $2.5 billion a year 

from taxpayers in special tax breaks. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. You talked about they need to pay more taxes. So 

you think their cash should go to the government rather than 

R&D, research and development, and that will create more jobs? 

Mr. WEISS. They are not investing in R&D, sir, for the most part. 

They are investing some, a small amount, but a third of their profits go to buying back their own stock. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Let me tell you. This is America. Profit is a good 

word. Okay. 

Mr. WEISS. It is. But they do not need tax breaks on top of the 

huge profits, sir. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. The next question I have is why, since you are in 

the car business, why are electrical cars not selling versus gas-pow-
37 

ered vehicles, and why has the government had to put so much 

subsidies to get them off the car dealers’ lots? Why is that? 

Mr. WEISS. Well, first of all, the sales of the plug-in hybrid Chevy 

Volt and the all-electric Nissan Leaf have outstripped the sales of 

the Prius and Insight, which were the first hybrid cars in America. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is like saying 100 percent of nothing is nothing. 

Mr. WEISS. Well, now, there is over a million of those cars on the 

road now. It is a startup technology that takes time. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. But why is there government subsidy? 

Mr. WEISS. Because there is a social benefit to our nation of 

using less oil. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Now, the next thing I want to ask you is, Apple 

makes more than big oil. What should their taxes be, and what 

should their cash in the bank be? 

Mr. WEISS. I am not familiar at all with the finances of Apple, 

so I will let others address that. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, it is public. It is public, so maybe you can 

research that and get back with me. 

Mr. WEISS. I will be happy to. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Living in Texas, I am unaware of any jobs created 

by wind, solar, bio, et cetera compared to oil and gas. How do the 

jobs created by those energy sources create to what we are creating 

in oil and gas? 

Mr. WEISS. Well, first, I do not have the state-by-state numbers. 

Texas does get over 10 percent of its electricity from wind. It is important to note that the 1.6 million oil and gas jobs nationwide, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics, half of those jobs are people 

working in service stations. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. But there is more people generated by oil and gas 

than the others, I think you would agree with me there. 

Mr. WEISS. Right now, there is. But, remember, half of the 1.6 

million are people working in service stations. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. All right. Another question. Should the Keystone 

Pipeline be approved, and add 42,000 new jobs and create more 

taxpayers to help reduce the deficit? 

Mr. WEISS. According to the State Department, Keystone Pipeline will create 35 permanent jobs, less than the roster on a football team, and only 3,500 temporary jobs. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thirty-five permanent jobs? 

Mr. WEISS. Thirty-five permanent jobs, according to the State 

Department. That is less than the roster of a football team. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I see. Well, should the pipeline be built? That was 

my question. 

Mr. WEISS. I believe that it is all risk and no reward for the 

American public, as you know, Mr. Williams. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. No, I heard you. Without the success of the energy industry, what would you think our economy would look like? 

Mr. WEISS. The energy industry is incredibly important. But remember, there are costs to how we do business right now that are 

not being paid for: in healthcare costs, in premature deaths, in extreme weather events of a kind that hit Mr. Pascrell’s district last 

year. 
38 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, okay, you know, do you think bio, wind, and 

solar could pay $15 at McDonald’s? Do you think it could create 

five-figure salaries to drive trucks? Do you think it could help build 

roads and give charitable contributions to the economy? 

Mr. WEISS. Absolutely. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. When? 

Mr. WEISS. They are already doing it now. But they are new industries. They are growing. It is like oil and gas a hundred years 

ago. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I hope your family keeps selling. I yield back. 

Mr. WEISS. Thank you very much. 

Chairman RYAN. I just want to correct the record. There are 53 

people on a football team in the NFL, all right? 

Who is next? Mr. Cicilline. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I ask 

unanimous consent that my opening statement be included as part 

of the record. 

Chairman RYAN. Yes. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you. 

I think the witnesses for being here, and if I can put some of 

your testimony into a budget context, since this is the Budget Committee. Some of the testimony today argues that further domestic 

development of fossil fuels would generate dramatic increase in 

government revenues and reduce the deficit. For example, in his 

testimony today, Mr. Larson projected that federal and state government revenues could increase to about $111 billion by 2020 with 

a pro-development strategy. But it seems to me that this projection 

fails to net out the costs associated with this strategy. 

The National Academy of Science has estimated total non-climate 

change-related damages associated with energy consumption from 

fossil fuels, and more than $120 billion annually, mostly derived 

from health and wellness issues caused by air pollution. In addition, the federal government spends billions of dollars to ensure 

against risks associated with climate change, invest in mitigation, 

and provide disaster assistance to industries affected by carbon pollution-related damages. In the last year, we have also lost revenues 

from industries like agriculture, fisheries, and tourism in regions 

that have been devastated by the effects of climate change. 

So, I am wondering, Mr. Larson, if your forecast takes into account these very real costs associated with fossil fuel production, 

along with the potential increases in government revenues? 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you for the question. So, first, let me just 

characterize the nature of our study was not pro-growth; it was on 

the current status quo of the current regulations as they stand 

today, so it was basically the development that we have currently 

seen today. 

Mr. CICILLINE. But my question is, in the calculation, do you 

take into account the costs associated with this strategy? 

Mr. LARSON. We include in the calculations the regulatory costs 

associated with the underlying activity that is required to ensure 

that activity is done in a responsible fashion. 

Mr. CICILLINE. That is not my question. I am not talking about 

the regulatory costs; I am talking about the impact that we know 
39 

from places like the National Science Academy, the cost on health, 

on public health. 

Mr. LARSON. So, yes. Those are externalities. Those are not included in this. But let me just say, the number you cited the tax 

revenues; that did not include the GDP impacts, or the other contributions from the industry. 

Mr. CICILLINE. So, Mr. Weiss, in your estimation, if we include 

healthcare costs, these externalities, the economic damages, and 

the other externalities that I have just described, would increasing 

our reliance on oil and gas expand or reduce the federal budget deficit in the long term? 

Mr. WEISS. Well, I would have to look at the numbers, but I 

think that, certainly, externalities need to be included. Interestingly enough, not including externalities, right now, wind and solar 

power are cost-competitive with new coal-fired or natural gas 

power. So the reason why there is a disparity is that the coal 

plants, which are very costly in terms of health damages, are 45 

years old on average. They paid for their land. They paid for their 

facility. All they are paying for is their fuel and their labor, and 

so that is why there is this disparity in cost. But for new power, 

it is equal, not even including externalities. Thank you. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you. Now, staying within the budget context, I would like to talk for a moment about some of the benefits 

that we already provide the oil and gas industry. For example, at 

the first quarter of 2013, the big five oil companies are on pace to 

earn a combined $120.8 billion in profits. And as my colleague said, 

I do not have any problem with people making profits, but according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, these same five companies 

pocket $2.4 in tax breaks every year. And I know, Mr. Durbin, 

many of your members are smaller companies. Would you say that 

this subsidy to the most profitable oil companies is the most effective use of the taxpayer resources in order to promote your industry and your members? 

Mr. DURBIN. I am glad you asked the question because there are 

no subsidies. That word keeps being used, but the companies involved, whether it is the big five, the big four, or everyone else 

here. 

Mr. CICILLINE. I called them tax breaks. 

Mr. DURBIN. Well, you also used the word subsidies. 

Chairman RYAN. Let the gentleman answer your question. 

Mr. DURBIN. Either way, these are provisions in the tax code 

that are available to all taxpayers, all average businesses. Even 

some of the legislation introduced earlier this year, you have time 

to offset sequester, you know, cuts by taking it out of some of the 

oil and gas industry. In each case, you look at where they went into 

the tax code, and whether it was Section 199, LIFO accounting, or 

the duel-capacity provisions, those are available to average taxpayers, average businesses, so it points out the fact that these are 

not special breaks for the oil and gas industry. These are widely 

available, and in the case of our member companies that are doing 

the natural gas production, the cost recovery is what is so critical 

to maintaining our ability to keep reinvesting in this country, creating those jobs, bringing cleaner energy. 
40 

Mr. CICILLINE. Well, I would like to close, Mr. Chairman, by saying the Budget Committee is responsible for examining the impact 

of energy policy, and it would have on a wide range of issues, and 

before we focus exclusively on expanding the fossil fuel industry, 

we should evaluate the real cost of carbon pollution, wasteful tax 

subsidies, and unused public land. 

Chairman RYAN. Gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. Lankford. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you. I need to just mention a couple 

things. It is the benefit of being here through a lot of the questions. 

The thought of the Keystone Pipeline creating 35 jobs or 35,000 

temporary jobs does not connect with the people in Seminole County where the southern part of the Keystone Pipeline is already 

under construction in my district. And I can take you to the restaurants, to the little Western wear store, to one business after another that is seen incredible impact of that, and the thought that 

you are going to have a 2,500-mile pipeline overseen by 35 people 

managed on the line, cutting trees, dealing with all the issues you 

have to do on managing the line, inspecting it, running the pig 

through; that you can do that with 35 people begs reality. And so 

there are issues that are there in the middle of all this. Also, the 

comment about the fact that energy companies are not doing a lot 

of R&D, they are doing a miniscule amount; Mr. Durbin, for the 

energy companies, how much R&D are they doing? 

Mr. DURBIN. I do not have a specific number for you, but the oil 

and natural gas industry, for capital expenditures here in the U.S., 

larger than any other industry out there. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Right. The last number that I saw is that the private oil and gas companies are doing 10 times the R&D on renewable fuels than what the federal government is, yet the federal government is the one that is always standing up saying they are 

doing all the research on it, but the majority of that research is actually being done by energy companies. 

And also, this ongoing conversation that is happened today that 

is a comparison of ‘‘we do not get enough government revenue in 

this’’ overlooks the reality that the American people’s revenue is 

what we are after. This sense that we cannot get enough federal 

tax dollars in from this, and so we should not do this, I think we 

should first look and say, the people in our districts all across 

America, will they benefit from this? Is energy less expensive for 

them? Will this help them afford gas? Will this help them afford 

groceries? Is this better for them and for their children long term? 

Those are questions that have to be answered as we go through 

this. 

I am also astounded by the amount of conversation that has happened through the course of the day today that I want to be able 

to come back on. In 1979, Jimmy Carter, in his famous malaise 

speech, said we have got to get our nation off of oil and get to more 

coal usage. And so he made this big shift to saying we have got to 

use more coal. We have got to get off natural gas because we are 

running out of natural gas, so we can do that. He also, during that 

speech, promised that by the year 2000, with the policies that were 

set in place, by the year 2000, 20 percent of America’s electricity 

would come from solar power. Mr. Larson, do you happen to know 
41 

the percentage of America, of our energy, that comes from solar 

power at this point? 

Mr. LARSON. No, I do not have that number off the top of my 

head. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Weiss? 

Mr. WEISS. It is a little bit less than 1 percent, but remember, 

those policies were extinguished in 1981 with the next administration. So it is unfair to hold his speech to that standard. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Well, I would be glad to be able to extend out his 

policies and to be able to show you all the details on that. It is not 

the issue of the policies; it is the technology. So to say if we had 

dumped more federal dollars in in 1981 that this technology would 

have come from the private sector, we are in the same boat right 

now. We are in a situation where I am not opposed to the use of 

all different types of fuels. 

Mr. WEISS. Well, Iowa gets 20 percent of its electricity from 

wind. 

Mr. LANKFORD. That would be great. How many acres would it 

take of solar and wind to get 20 percent of New York City’s power 

from solar and wind? 

Mr. WEISS. I have not looked at that, but, you know, we have got 

to also have transmission. That is important, too. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Durbin, do you know how many acres it 

would take to be able to do 20 percent of New York City? 

Mr. DURBIN. I do not know the number. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Do you know how many acres it takes of solar 

or wind to be able to offset one natural gas power plant in the 

small scale? 

Mr. DURBIN. It is significant, and that is the issue. 

Mr. LANKFORD. It is about 20,000 acres. About 20,000 acres are 

needed to be able to replace one small natural gas power plant, and 

if you put a wind or a solar facility for gathering electricity, you 

also have to do a natural gas facility, or a coal facility, or something else. So you are not really replacing, you are just adding to 

it. You just took 20,000 acres of American land offline to do that. 

So this consideration of, you know, what do we do, one or the 

other? You also have to take in the reality of what do you do for 

land usage in the days ahead. How many acres do you really want 

to take offline on this? 

Let me ask you a question as well. Mr. Durbin, what is your 

thought about exporting of natural gas? 

Mr. DURBIN. Well, I think it is a great question, and the fact that 

we now have such an abundance of natural gas here is the only 

reason we can even have the discussion about whether or not we 

should be exporting LNG. And I think there is no question we 

should be exporting LNG. As I mentioned in my testimony, it is a 

good sign that DOE has now approved two permits for export facilities. Our preference is, you know, approve all of them that meet 

the criteria. Now let the market figure it out how many are going 

to be built. And let’s provide this as another outlet to help us with 

balance of trade and creating jobs here, both for the facilities themselves, for the production, provides greater certainty to the producers themselves. So I think we stand in a very strong position 
42 

to be, you know, a global natural gas, you know, provider, especially to our allies. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman RYAN. Thank you. Mr. Huffman? 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have waited around 

here not because I have any searing probative questions of the witnesses, but rather to express a little bit of dismay as a freshman 

member of Congress and of this Committee. The testimony that we 

have heard, the statements that we have heard today are very familiar to me. In fact, it is deja vu over and over and over again 

because I am also a member of the Natural Resources Committee, 

and we have seen this theater in hearing after hearing in that committee, where witnesses from the oil and gas industry are brought 

in, and in the face of all sorts of irrefutable fact, they talk about 

how there are all these problems with this Administration’s energy 

policy that are holding back growth. 

When we actually look at the fact, and hear from people like CRS 

that have used the right baselines and benchmarks, we know irrefutably that production is up, that times, frankly, in this industry 

have never been better. Profits are up. We are on the verge of becoming an energy net exporter for the first time in a generation because of the policies that we have had in place under this Administration. And yet we continue to have these pep rallies for the oil 

and gas industry while real problems are simply, for some reason, 

off the table. We do not even have a conference committee so we 

can move forward and try to negotiate a federal budget, but we are 

here to have a pep rally for the oil and gas industry who is experiencing record profits. 

We have got student loan interest rates about to double in less 

than a week, but we are not talking about that, and the overhang 

of that rising student loan indebtedness on our economy. We are 

talking about something that has the public leases that might be 

made available would have a tangential, at best, effect on our economy because we already have all sorts of public leases that are not 

even being used under the policies of this Administration. We are 

not talking about any number of things like the sequester and the 

people that are actually suffering. We are here to talk about folks 

who are experiencing record profits. 

So I guess I just want to express dismay as a member of Congress who would like to see this body solving problems instead of 

rehashing these type of pep rallies for highly-profitable industries 

that we have seen in the Natural Resources Committee. We will go 

on this week to have a similar experience with a bill to expand oil 

and gas drilling off our coast and in the Arctic that has no chance 

of becoming law, and in the face of all that theater, there are real 

problems that we need to be solving, we need to be working together. 

And I just want to express my hope that the next time we come 

together, we might be able to talk about something like the budget. 

We might be able to have conferees that can actually go to work 

on getting things done. We might be able to talk about solutions 

to the student loan indebtedness problem, or maybe even the real 

costs that some of our failed energy policies are foisting on the federal government, such as the fact that we are experiencing more 
43 

severe weather incidents that have costs of greater than a billion 

dollars than ever before, and the federal share of picking up the 

tab for that is rising very dramatically. We do not ever seem to talk 

about things like that. 

So I would invite any of the witnesses who perhaps want to 

speak about the cost of a failed climate policy and an energy policy 

that has swung too far in the direction of carbon emissions and fossil fuels. 

Mr. WEISS. Thank you, Mr. Huffman. In the last two years, the 

United States has experienced 25 extreme weather events that 

each caused at least $1 billion worth of damages for a total price 

tag of $188 billion, and that also includes 1,100 fatalities. During 

this time, the federal government spent $136 billion in disaster relief and recovery. Meanwhile, we spent only $22 billion, or about 

$1 for every six for recovery, to help make communities more secure from future extreme weather events. So it has a huge impact 

both on our economy and on the federal budget. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman RYAN. Thank you. Mr. Rokita? 

Mr. ROKITA. I thank the Chairman. I thank the witnesses for 

coming today. It has been very educational. I appreciate it. One of 

the programs that I have started in my office is called Red Tape 

Rollback, and it is my commitment to focus on what I see as the 

second Constitutional duty of Congress, equally important to passing laws, and that is to oversight the executive branch, and particularly in terms of regulations. So this Red Tape Rollback program allows me to account to my voters and taxpayers for what we 

are doing in that regard. 

And one company in particular comes to mind during this discussion. It is called Buzzi Unicem USA. It is in Greencastle, Indiana, 

and they are a cement plant. And they burn probably 100,000 tons 

of coal per year, and in doing so, create something called fly ash. 

Now fly ash is valuable. They reuse it. Yet the EPA has recently 

started hearings to regulate fly ash. You know, if the regulation is 

carried out, this would cause this company to have to ship this fly 

ash out, which is inherently less safe than if they burned it and 

reused it safely within the plant. 

So this is expensive. It costs jobs, it makes electricity more expensive. So to Mr. Durbin and Mr. Larson, I would ask, and I know 

at least one of you is an expert in natural gas, but what other regulations are out there that come to mind that are hurting jobs and 

costing more, making this cost more for energy? Mr. Durbin? 

Mr. DURBIN. Well, Mr. Rokita, not to cite specific regulations. 

Mr. ROKITA. No, I would like you to, if you know of any. 

Mr. DURBIN. Well, but, and I will have to play a little bit of the 

new person card, having just started at ANGA in the last two 

months, but, again, our members are directly involved in the productions, in the exploration of productions, you know, both on public lands and private lands. So, you know, clearly, they have been 

very focused on BLM rules with regard to the hydraulic fracturing 

that are still, you know, being proposed, and as we have talked 

about, you know, earlier, just some of the permitting opportunities 

for us to streamline that permitting process. So, I mean, that is 

where I would put it. 
44 

Mr. ROKITA. Okay. And then, now, your testimony does talk 

about that, but would you mind getting more specific with me as 

you get more comfortable with the job, and reply in writing so I can 

work on some of these? 

Mr. DURBIN. I’d be happy to. Sure. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you. Mr. Larson, do you have anything to 

add? 

Mr. LARSON. No, I think as our study looked at, we basically 

looked at sort of the processes that they have currently have unfolded, and we feel that with the current regulatory system that is 

in place, you know, the opportunities that we see now are being 

managed responsibly and can unfold in that path. So I could not 

point to any specific regulations at this time that I feel would need 

to change. 

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Larson, sticking with you, as you may know, the 

recent city report estimated that increased energy production and 

the associated benefits will increase real GDP from 2 to 3.3 percent 

by 2020, above what would have otherwise been the case over the 

same period. Familiar? 

Mr. LARSON. Yes. 

Mr. ROKITA. Do you have any estimates on how increased production will affect GDP? 

Mr. LARSON. Yes, our estimates are in a similar range, so we are 

seeing a similar impact to GDP. You know, the interesting thing 

will be really looking at how the trade will unflow, and how much 

that will impact GDP. Obviously, GDP net trade and imports are 

a key component of that GDP number, so as we looked at it, we 

sort of looked at a very similar number by 2020, and a lot of that 

will be driven by both the domestic manufacturing resurgence and 

our trade positions that we will enjoy. 

Mr. ROKITA. Okay, I appreciate it. I yield back. 

Chairman RYAN. Mr. Woodall? 

Mr. WOODALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. Mr. 

Weiss, it was actually your testimony earlier that brought me back 

to the hearing today, and I appreciate it. 

Mr. WEISS. I am glad to hear. 

Mr. WOODALL. If you are wondering if you had an impact today, 

you absolutely did on me. A couple of things. I noticed in your testimony that you said between 2008 and 2012, non-hydrorenewable 

energy resources doubled in that period of time. 

Mr. WEISS. Correct. 

Mr. WOODALL. My recollection is that our hydro resources, 

though, dwarf all of those other renewables combined. 

Mr. WEISS. Yes. Right now renewables are, I think, slightly more 

than 4 or 5 percent of our total electricity generation. Hydro, I believe, is about 8 or 9 percent of our electricity generation. 

Mr. WOODALL. And do you know how much our hydrogeneration 

capability grew over that same period of time? 

Mr. WEISS. I am not under oath, so I will say I believe it was 

static, but I would have to check. 

Chairman RYAN. We can swear you in if you’d like. 

Mr. WEISS. I am sorry? No, that is okay. 

Chairman RYAN. All right. 

Mr. WOODALL. I believe it was static also. 
45 

Mr. WEISS. Yes. Although the president, you know, yesterday, I 

believe, in his plan proposed to increase hydroelectric generation 

from existing dams. 

Mr. WOODALL. From existing dams? 

Mr. WEISS. That is correct. 

Mr. WOODALL. I think one of my great frustrations, I am, you 

know, a conservative Republican from the deep south. Nobody 

plays outside more than I do, and I am not embarrassed to talk to 

folks about environmental protection issues because, again, no one 

is more interested in protecting the Chattahoochee National Recreation Area than those of us who live and play along the Chattahoochee National Recreation Area. Again, my recollection is we are a 

net energy importer today, still bringing in oil from around the 

globe. Thinking about our collective concern about climate change, 

are you aware of any nation from who we are importing oil that 

does a better job of environmental protection than we do here in 

the States? 

Mr. WEISS. Well, I do not believe so, because the three biggest 

importers are Canada, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia, and I believe 

that we have a better regime in many ways, although Canada has 

stricter power plant rules, and I believe they are phasing out their 

coal-fired power plants in Canada. So I would have to say Canada 

does in some areas. 

Mr. WOODALL. So when it comes to where we are going to develop new exploration, if we care about protecting the earth together, it seems to make sense that we would do more exploration, 

more production here, North America, the U.S. and Canada, so 

that we would be less dependent on folks that we know do not do 

it in as an environmentally-sensitive way as we do, but when I 

read through the testimony, I do not see your support for doing 

those things, again, that we can agree we do better than anybody 

else does. 

What I found in two and a half years in Congress is we tend to 

focus on those things that divide us. I have always said, ‘‘Get me 

to energy independence, and I will talk about whatever mix of energy you want to do, but until we get to energy independence, I 

know I am importing it from people who care less about the planet 

than I do.’’ Why can we not get together on doing that production 

here that we know will do it in an environmentally-sensitive way 

up until we get to that energy independence threshold? 

Mr. WEISS. You know, I totally agree with you, Mr. Woodall, and, 

in fact, I think we ought to be able to agree that, let’s develop our 

oil resources in the Gulf of Mexico in places that are already open 

where 70 percent of the leases that are held by oil companies are 

not being developed. Well, let’s have, as Mr. Markey has proposed, 

a ‘‘use it or lose it’’ policy. Let’s have them either, you know, they 

get the leases, you know, do their exploration to see if there are 

resources there, have them develop them. If not, they lose the 

leases. 

Mr. WOODALL. And tell me about that. Again, for folks who agree 

on the need to protect the planet, why is it more desirable to encourage BP to develop in this currently undeveloped lease lot than 

to develop in this as yet unleased lot? If it is going to be new development in either case, why would we not leave it to oil and gas pro-
46 

fessionals to develop in whatever the areas there are where they 

believe those fields will be most productive? 

Mr. WEISS. Well, the good news is, it is like really setting in the 

banks, it is because that is where the oil is. You know, the Department of Energy said the vast amount, I believe it is about threequarters, a little bit less, of our offshore oil resources are already 

open for development, and companies already have leases on them, 

but they are not developing them. Let’s get them to develop them, 

or give back the leases so somebody else can. 

Mr. WOODALL. But allowing them to lease more areas for more 

development disadvantages the environment how? 

Mr. WEISS. Because places, like in the bill that is going to be considered on the floor of the House, is going to open up development 

into very economically-sensitive areas, and areas, for example, off 

the coast of Virginia where we also have a national security interest in being able to make sure that our ships from the Norfolk 

Naval Yard are able to do their military exercises and whatnot. So 

let’s focus where the development already is. 

Chairman RYAN. Ms. Blackburn. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thought it was interesting. Mr. Huffman talked about having a pep rally. I think 

that some of us need to be having a pep rally for the American 

worker, and for American jobs, and for American energy independence around this place. I do not understand this negative attitude 

that some people bring to these Committee hearings. Good Lord, 

have mercy. 

As vice chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I look at 

the issues you are dealing with, and I have a couple of specific 

questions I want to get answered and on the books. But Mr. Weiss, 

I am going to come to you. Mr. Markey is supporting the use it or 

lose it policy. You know, a lot of people could not activate into those 

leases because of lawsuits. Would you favor doing away with environmentalists being able to throw these lawsuits on those that are 

trying to do exploration work that have these leases? 

Mr. WEISS. Absolutely not, because these are waters that belong 

to all Americans, not just those who lease for the resources underneath it. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Resources do belong to all Americans. You are 

exactly right. So what ties up the hands of so many of these oil 

companies is the fact that you have got these environmentalists 

who go out here, and they sue, sue, sue, sue, sue to get what they 

want, to slow progress, and to cause the expenditures of hundreds 

of thousands of dollars in fighting these lawsuits over years and 

years and years. So, therefore, it is not something that could be 

done in an expedient or an affordable manner. 

Mr. Durbin, has energy production increased on federal land 

under this Administration or not? 

Mr. DURBIN. Well, again, as the Chairman pointed out in his 

opening statement, we have seen production go down on federal 

lands during this Administration. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Okay, I think that it has gone down by about 

6 percent; in natural gas production, it has declined about 21 percent. Is that correct? 

Mr. DURBIN [affirmative]. 
47 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Okay. Mr. Weiss, did you have something you 

wanted to add? 

Mr. WEISS. Yes, if you do not mind. Thank you. That is not correct. According to the Energy Information Administration, oil and 

gas production from offshore and public lands is higher in all four 

years of this Administration. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. That was not my question. It was federal land 

production. 

Mr. WEISS. That is what I said. Federal lands and waters. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Federal lands. 

Mr. WEISS. Oh, federal lands only? It has also been higher than 

the previous administration. I would be happy to submit this for 

the record if you would like. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I think that you should submit it to the record 

because what we have is that it has declined 6 percent, and that 

natural gas has declined 21 percent. And then let’s talk about private land, what the production has done on private land under 

these policies. 

Mr. DURBIN. Well, again, as we discussed earlier in the hearing, 

I think that, you know, we have seen private and state land production increase significantly, and that is, again, not only the resource being there, but the certainty of the regulatory process and 

the streamlined permitting that allows the industry to, you know, 

to get in and produce these lands. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Okay, thank you. 

Mr. LARSON. It is up 36 percent on non-federal lands. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. On non-federal lands? 

Mr. LARSON. That is correct. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Larson, one of the things that we hear at 

Energy and Commerce in the Commerce Manufacturing and Trade 

Committee is people who are offshore in manufacturing or have 

had to offshore would like to bring that back on shore. They are 

concerned about IP protections or lack thereof in certain components of the world, and they would love to come back with that. 

So talk to me a little bit about natural gas prices and the impact 

that that is having on domestic manufacturing, what you are seeing there. 

Mr. LARSON. Yes. So domestic natural gas prices, basically, you 

could look at them as roughly a third, on average, of our global 

competitors, and so it is creating a strong resurgence in manufacturing, and as you point out, there are a lot of different reasons 

right now behind this. I would characterize what is going on domestically with our natural gas prices as a necessary but not sufficient component to onshoring. It is something that if you look at 

the various components of a desire to protect IP, desire to shorten 

supply chains, a desire to have production near end markets so 

that you can speed your research and development, and you look 

at sort of tax regulations and other factors as well as energy, all 

of those combined have sort of developed in a way now that with 

this energy opportunity and lower costs, it is really contributing 

this now breakeven point where you are seeing onshoring return. 

And we do see a significant increase in the industrial production, 

particularly in those energy-intensive industries, the chemicals, the 
48 

petrochemicals, the downstreams. And so those will really be the 

forerunners of this manufacturing renaissance in this country. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman RYAN. Thank you. Dr. Price. Oh, yeah, that is right. 

Ms. Walorski. 

Mrs. WALORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen, for your remarks today. My question kind of goes back to 

what the Chairman was asking when we were talking about manufacturing jobs in places in the Midwest. I am from Indiana, and 

coal plants in Indiana are the heart of Indiana’s economy; provides 

almost 90 percent of Indiana’s electricity. Almost 30 percent of Indiana’s GDP is from manufacturing. This is dependent upon coalfire/electric generation. So when we talk about jobs in the state of 

Indiana, we are right smack dab in that situation. I am talking 

about coal, primarily coal. 

So based upon what the president talked about yesterday, what 

technology is there that is in place today to allow coal plants to 

keep operating while meeting new emission standards that will be 

mandated by the president’s new energy proposal? Anybody? Go 

ahead. 

Mr. WEISS. Well, first, I just want to say that my wife is an 

alumni of Indiana University. 

Mrs. WALORSKI. All right, she is a Hoosier. 

Mr. WEISS. She is a Hoosier and I am a Wolverine, so sometimes 

we battle during basketball season. 

Mrs. WALORSKI. That is great conversation. 

Mr. WEISS. But in any event, the technologies that exist today 

that could help companies reduce their emissions is energy efficiency because some utilities, like Duke Energy, are helping their 

customers use less electricity, which, in fact, reduces emissions. So 

that is existing technologies today that could help them reduce 

their carbon pollution. 

In addition, we have, in the past, supported investments in carbon capture and storage technology that would help companies 

burn coal 85 to 90 percent cleaner, but, unfortunately, they are 

very expensive. You know, the Waxman-Markey Bill that passed 

four years ago today, as someone pointed out, would have included 

billions of dollars to help subsidize the development and commercialization of carbon capture and storage technology for big coal 

plants, but, unfortunately, because that did not become law, there 

has been really no money besides what was in the Recovery Act 

that has helped subsidized that. 

Mrs. WALORSKI. Let me ask you this. In the state of Indiana, we 

have coal gasification. And coal gasification, at the time, was state 

of the art, breakthrough technology, and still, we use it today. Do 

you see coal gasification being able to pass the test of the new 

emissions in the Obama plan? 

Mr. WEISS. Well, the Obama plan basically does not exist yet. 

What he did yesterday was say, ‘‘We are going to start to develop 

that plan.’’ But yes, coal gasification can have a role. In addition, 

there is a technology called co-firing, where you take some biomass, 

twigs, leaves, and all of that stuff, and add it to your coal, and that 

will also reduce emissions. So yes, there is an array of technologies. 

One other technology that exists that will help reduce emissions is 
49 

investments in solar and wind electricity because that is another 

technology that exists today. It is cost-competitive right now compared to new coal or natural gas plants, and it will also help reduce 

emissions. 

Mrs. WALORSKI. Well, my concern still, though, is jobs because 

these are gigantic; when you are speaking of these costs, these are 

gigantic costs. And when we talk about these kinds of costs in a 

place like Indiana, we are talking about huge jobs and a huge degradation in jobs. We are also talking about, we have one of the lowest utility rates in the nation, which has helped us become, really, 

the fifth state in this entire nation on job creation. 

So my concern is back to this issue of overregulation. In a state 

that is a manufacturing state, in a place where you are driven by 

coal, how in the world does a state like ours survive with an overreaching hand into regulation? Because, I mean, from anybody’s 

perspective, have not we seen, and have not we seen from what you 

guys have studied, that overregulation continues to decrease jobs 

in places like manufacturing? 

Mr. WEISS. Actually, it has not. The Bureau of Labor Statistics 

looks at this every quarter, and the last quarter that they have 

data for found that for the 400,000 new unemployment claims that 

were filed, I believe 726, or less than two-tenths of 1 percent, were 

due to government regulation of any sort: environmental, health. 

Mrs. WALORSKI. Sorry to interrupt, but I would say those twotenths of 1 percent have been streaming into my office, and they 

are all from the state of Indiana, because I have heard all of them. 

Mr. Durbin? 

Mr. DURBIN. Well, again, I am obviously here on behalf of the 

natural gas industry and have nothing to say against the coal-powered plants, and I understand and acknowledge the need for us to 

have a diverse fuel portfolio for power generation. But I will say 

that, you know, natural gas does provide another opportunity here 

to have not only an abundant, affordable fuel source that is going 

to be able to provide, you know, the power for all of that manufacturing in Indiana, but also with reduced emissions. 

Mrs. WALORSKI. Yeah, I appreciate it. Mr. Larson? 

Mr. LARSON. I think we have not looked at the proposals around 

the coal, obviously, but I think there are two important points I 

would just illuminate on. The first is, obviously, any time you take 

capital and retire it, there is a loss to society from the early retirement of capital that has to be quantified and evaluated. That is the 

first. 

The second thing is there is clearly a value in power generation 

diversity, and when you look the ability to commit to different fuel 

switching as hedges against price shocks is a very important component of our power gen capability that we have inherited today, 

and it is an important thing to evaluate in any policy that would 

change that diversity. 

Mrs. WALORSKI. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman RYAN. Thank you. Dr. Price. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank you 

for holding this hearing. I think it is hugely important. This nation 

has been blessed with remarkable resources, and the fact that policymakers, some policymakers in this town, do not want to utilize 
50 

those in a responsible, environmentally-sensitive way to the benefit 

of all citizens is really astounding. 

Our friends on the other side talk about them having an all-ofthe-above energy plan, and the president having an all of the above 

energy plan, and that may be technically accurate. The problem is 

it is none of the below. Nothing do they desire below the ground, 

and so the challenges that we have got can be met with the remarkable resources that we have, but we are not being able to utilize them. 

I think it was Mr. Rokita who asked you, Mr. Weiss, about why, 

maybe it was Mr. Woodall, why not open up new offshore leases, 

and he says, ‘‘Well, the reason that the current leases ought to be 

utilized because that is where the oil is.’’ Mr. Weiss, do you have 

any idea how much production, energy production, oil production, 

was in South Dakota 15 years ago? 

Mr. WEISS. No, but I do know that 20 percent of their electricity 

now is from wind energy. 

Mr. PRICE. That was not the question. That is all right, though. 

Mr. WEISS. Well, you asked me about energy production in South 

Dakota, and that wind energy electricity did not exist. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Weiss. 

Mr. WEISS. Sorry. Sorry. Go ahead. 

Mr. PRICE. The jobs that have been created in South Dakota, the 

remarkable ability of that state to turn around its economy, it has 

been phenomenal, phenomenal with the use of resources. The fact 

of the matter is we did not know 15 years ago what kind of energy 

resources there were in South Dakota, in North Dakota. And the 

fact is that we do not know what is off the shore either. But there 

are people who do, and they say that there are great opportunities 

there to be able to utilize the remarkable resources that are offshore in an environmentally-sensitive way, in a positive way, to not 

only bring about energy production, but to create jobs and to improve the economy. 

Can you pull up the slide, because I want to talk very briefly 

about the Keystone Pipeline because I think the number of jobs 

that it would create and the amount of revenue that it would bring 

in to the federal government is remarkable. These are current pipelines in the United States, oil pipelines underground. Mr. Weiss, do 

you know which one is the Keystone Pipeline? 
51 

Mr. WEISS. Well, it is hard to see because my eyes are getting 

bad, but I believe it would show the southern leg from Cushing, 

Oklahoma down to the Gulf Coast, which is under construction. 

The northern leg is not under construction, so it ought not be on 

that. 

Mr. PRICE. The fact of the matter is that Keystone does not show 

up there. 

Mr. WEISS. Right, that is what I said. 

Mr. PRICE. Yeah, because it had not been built yet. But the important point of this slide is that look at the number of pipelines 

that are under land right now. We have got an opportunity to gain 

significant increase in job creations, significant increase in the ability to refine North American fuel, and we are letting it stand by 

the wayside, not because, not because there is an environmental 

problem. There is a political problem. In fact, Keystone was accepted all the way up every single chain of the policy side in this Administration until it got to the political question, and then they 

said, ‘‘No, we cannot do that.’’ And the nation understands that. 

The nation understands that this Administration is blocking job 

creation and blocking energy production in this country for political 

reasons; not policy reasons, political reasons. 

Mr. Larson, I am amazed by those who do not talk about the economics of this situation as well, right now with offshore energy production being significantly limited. And there is a recent study 

that, I believe by Wood Mackenzie, that says that the policies that 

promote domestic development of oil and natural gas including access to offshore federal areas that have been kept off-limits could 

create 1 million new jobs and generate $127 billion in revenue to 

the federal government. You talked about GDP. Would you touch 

on the revenue creation for the federal government if we were to 

open up these areas? 

Mr. LARSON. We have not looked at all these offshore potentials. 

I will say that we did a study that looked at the Gulf of Mexico 

in particular, and found just the Gulf of Mexico in what is currently under development down there, it is contributing about 

560,000 jobs and $70 billion a year in annual revenue. So, you 
52 

know, that just gives you an idea of the scale of what the offshore 

opportunity looks like from an economic context, but we have not 

looked at the other areas that are under question for opening up. 

Mr. PRICE. And the economic benefit to the United States of increasing domestic energy production, fossil fuels, as long as it is 

done in an environmentally-sensitive way is real, correct? 

Mr. LARSON. It is. I mean, so you can look at where we were, the 

roughly 1.8 million barrels in unconventional oil that we could develop last year, probably about $70 billion in offset for imported oil. 

So that drops right down to your bottom line of your GDP, and, obviously, it is allowing us to meet domestic demand and fuel domestic jobs to meet that demand. 

Mr. PRICE. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Makes sense for workers, 

makes sense for the government. 

Chairman RYAN. Thank you. This is very helpful. I appreciate 

the numbers we have been presented to the Committee. It is very 

illustrative of what the potential is. We need some more perspective like this because the CBO has been a little low on the numbers, from what we can tell. I appreciate the perspective from the 

industry, and I appreciate the perspective from your community as 

well, Mr. Weiss. So thank you very much, everybody, for this hearing. Hearing is adjourned. 

Mr. WEISS. Thank you for having me. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cicilline follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID N. CICILLINE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

Thank you Mr. Chairman. First, I want to thank our witnesses for being here 

today to discuss a wide range of topics related to our nation’s energy policy. 

If I can, I’d like to put some of your testimony into a budget context. Some of the 

testimony today argues that further domestic development of fossil fuels would generate dramatic increases in government revenues and reduce the deficit. For example, in his testimony, Mr. Larson projected that federal and state government revenues could increase to about $111 billion by 2020 with a ‘‘pro-development strategy’’. 

On the surface, this looks like a potential way we could shrink our nation’s budget 

deficit. But I wonder if this projection is really taking into account the billions of 

dollars in costs associated with carbon pollution and the already tremendous subsidies we provide to fossil fuel companies both through our tax code and access to 

our public lands. 

After all, the Budget Committee is responsible for examining the impact any energy policy would have on a wide range of costs, across the federal government. 

First, it may be useful to discuss some of those hidden, external costs that result 

from a singular focus on increasing fossil fuel production. For example, in 2010, the 

National Academy of Sciences estimated total non-climate change related damages 

associated with energy consumption at more than $120 billion in one year. And this 

is non-climate change related, meaning it is mostly the result of health and wellness 

costs. 

We know air pollution leads to higher rates of mortality and respiratory problems. 

As a result, the federal government oftentimes picks up the tab for hospital admissions, increased expenditures on medications and many other health costs associated with carbon pollution. 

In addition, the economic damages associated with fossil fuel emissions and the 

resulting changes in our climate are far-reaching. Carbon pollution has imposed real 

costs on many natural industries, including our nation’s fisheries and agricultural 

economy. 

Damages from climate change also impact our tourism economy and the resilience 

of businesses. Just ask local businesses on the Jersey Shore still recovering from 

Hurricane Sandy or folks affected by the BP Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Let’s 

not forget that the federal government spends billions of dollars to insure against 

these risks, invest in mitigation and provide assistance to industries affected by climate change related damages. 
53 

These are the real costs associated with a fossil fuel development strategy. And 

it comes on top of the $120 billion in health care and other non-climate change related costs. 

Any honest budget projection should account for these real, tangible costs. The 

numbers demonstrate that it may be worse for the bottom-line than you seem to 

imply. 

In addition, a constant, singular focus in Congress on expanding our fossil fuel 

capabilities has led to some real waste. For example, after the first quarter of 2013 

the big five oil companies are on pace to earn a combined $120.8 billion in profits. 

And yet, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, these same five companies 

pocket $2.4 billion in tax breaks every year. 

In addition, last year the Department of Interior issued a report assessing how 

many federal lands leased for oil and gas development remain idle. The amount of 

waste is staggering. Out of 36 million acres leased offshore, only about 10 million 

acres are active meaning 72% of these acres are fully idle. Onshore, an additional 

20.8 million acres, or 56% of leased acres, are not active. Moreover, approximately 

7,000 approved permits have not yet been drilled. These lands are an important, 

tangible asset. 

In the end, focusing so intensely on promoting additional development of fossil 

fuels has prevented us from diligently monitoring the investments both in terms of 

land and tax subsidies that we are providing the oil and gas industry. And it is preventing us from truly evaluating the costs associated with carbon pollution. 

I hope, today, we can assess the budgetary impact of further oil and gas production thoughtfully, honestly, and with a real understanding of the math and facts on 

the ground. If we do that, I think we will all come to the conclusion this is a bad 

deal. 

[Additional submissions of Mr. Van Hollen follow:] 

June 20, 2013. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

H.R. 2231: Offshore Energy and Jobs Act 

As ordered reported by the House Committee on Natural Resources on June 12, 2013 

SUMMARY

H.R. 2231 would revise existing laws and policies regarding the development of 

oil and gas resources on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). It would direct the Department of the Interior (DOI) to adopt a new leasing plan for the 2015–2020 period, require auctions of leases in certain areas in the Atlantic and Pacific OCS, and 

reduce the department’s discretion regarding which regions would be included in future lease sales. Under this bill, some of the offsetting receipts from leases issued 

in newly available areas would be spent, without further appropriation, to make 

payments to states. Finally, H.R. 2231 would direct DOI to collect fees from certain 

firms that operate in the OCS and to implement various administrative reforms. 

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 2231 would reduce net direct spending by $1.5 

billion over the 2014–2023 period. Pay-as-you-go procedures apply because enacting 

the legislation would reduce direct spending. In addition, CBO estimates that implementing the bill would cost $40 million over the 2013–2018 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. Enacting this bill would not affect revenues. 

H.R. 2231 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no costs on state, 

local, or tribal governments. 

ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 2231 is shown in the following table. The 

costs of this legislation fall within budget functions 950 (undistributed offsetting receipts) and 300 (natural resources and the environment). 

[By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars] 

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2014–2018 

CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDINGa

Estimated Budget Authority ..................................................... ¥55 ¥70 ¥90 ¥265 ¥190 ¥670 

Estimated Outlays .................................................................... ¥55 ¥70 ¥90 ¥265 ¥190 ¥670 
54 

1For more information about factors affecting OCS leasing activity, see Congressional Budget 

Office, Potential Budgetary Effects of Immediately Opening Most Federal Lands to Oil and Gas 

Leasing, August 2012. http://go.usa.gov/bQwH 2 CBO’s estimate of the receipts from leasing in the Atlantic and Pacific OCS are roughly proportional to the bonus bids that CBO expects will be collected over a comparable period of time 

for regions in the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico and the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas in 

Alaska, which are available to be leased under current law and policy. The estimate also assumes that the pace of leasing would be consistent with past trends for areas with undiscovered 

resources that are geologically dispersed over large areas. Finally, based on the conclusions of 

a 2011 report sponsored by the American Petroleum Institute, CBO assumes that the amounts 

paid by bidders per barrel of oil equivalent (BOE) for resources in the Atlantic and Pacific would 

be about half the amounts expected to be paid for resources in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. 

[By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars] 

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2014–2018 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Estimated Authorization Level .................................................. 5 15 15 5 3 43 

Estimated Outlays .................................................................... 1 14 15 7 3 40 

a. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 2231 would reduce direct spending by $1,515 million over the 2014–2023 period. 

BASIS OF ESTIMATE

For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 2231 will be enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2014 and that the necessary amounts will be appropriated for 

each fiscal year. 

Direct Spending. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 2231 would reduce net direct spending by $1.5 billion 2014–2023 period. That estimate reflects the budgetary effects of provisions that would change the terms and procedures governing the OCS 

leasing program, authorize direct spending for payments to states, and require firms 

to pay annual fees for federal inspections of their operations in the OCS. 

Payments for OCS leases and the proceeds from inspection fees would be recorded 

in the budget as offsetting receipts, which are treated as a reduction in direct spending. Because oil and gas production usually occurs several years after a lease is 

issued, CBO expects that most of the estimated increase in offsetting receipts over 

the next 10 years would result from bonus bids and rental payments. Most royalty 

collections associated with those leases would occur in later years. Such estimates 

are subject to considerable uncertainty, however, because the legislation would affect leasing activity in areas that have not been available for oil and gas development for more than 25 years.1

OCS Leasing Activity. H.R. 2231 would revise DOI’s current leasing plan for the 

OCS and limit the department’s future discretion in determining where and when 

auctions for access to those leases should occur. CBO estimates that implementing 

those changes would increase gross offsetting receipts by $1.2 billion over the 2014– 

2023 period above the amounts expected under current law. 

Under current law, most OCS leasing decisions are made administratively—in 

consultation with industry and states—for five-year planning periods. H.R. 2231 

would reduce that administrative discretion by requiring DOI to auction leases for 

at least half of the available acreage in areas that the government estimates to contain certain quantities of oil or gas resources. In addition, the department would 

have to conduct three specific lease sales within two years of enactment: one off the 

coast of Virginia, one off the coast of South Carolina, and another for leases in the 

Santa Barbara and Ventura basins in the California OCS that could be developed 

by using existing offshore facilities or from onshore drilling sites. Finally, DOI 

would be required to adopt a new leasing plan for the 2015–2020 period that would 

replace the current leasing plan for the 2012–2017 period. 

Leasing in the Atlantic and Pacific OCS. Enacting H.R. 2231 would primarily affect leasing activity in the Atlantic and Pacific OCS. CBO estimates that implementing the bill would increase gross offsetting receipts from leasing in those areas 

by about $1.0 billion over the next 10 years relative to our most recent baseline estimate of receipts under current law. This estimate of receipts attributable to the legislation reflects CBO’s expectation that such leasing would generate proceeds of 

about $1.8 billion over fiscal years 2014 through 2023 under the bill.2 However, 

CBO expects a portion of that amount—$0.8 billion—will be collected under current 

law. CBO’s baseline estimate is less than the amount we estimate from enacting 

H.R. 2231 for two reasons. First, the current leasing plan for the 2012–2017 period 

does not include any auctions in the Atlantic and Pacific OCS. Second, the prob-
55 

ability of such leasing occurring after 2017 under current law is uncertain because 

federal and state administrative policies toward leasing change over time. 

Leasing in Other OCS Regions. H.R. 2231 also would affect leasing in areas that 

are temporarily unavailable because of statutory or Presidential restrictions. The 

Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, for example, prohibits leasing of about 

4.4 million acres in the eastern and central Gulf of Mexico until June 30, 2022. In 

addition, the Bristol Bay area in the North Aleutian Basin in Alaska was withdrawn from consideration through 2017 by the President. CBO estimates that requiring auctions after such restrictions expire would increase gross offsetting receipts by about $0.2 billion over the 2018–2023 period. Most of that increase is estimated to result from additional leasing activity in the Gulf of Mexico in fiscal year 

2023. 

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 2231 would have no effect on proceeds from 

areas that are included in the current leasing plan for the 2012–2017 period because 

DOI routinely auctions more than half of the available acreage in those areas. Those 

areas include the central and western Gulf of Mexico and the Beaufort Sea, Chukchi 

Sea, and Cook Inlet in the Alaska OCS. 

Receipt Sharing. H.R. 2231 would authorize certain payments to states affected 

by OCS activities in areas that would be made available for leasing by this bill and 

that are outside the central and western planning areas in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Under H.R. 2231, the percentage of lease payments paid to states would depend on 

the location and timing of the lease sales. For example, Virginia, South Carolina, 

and California would receive 37.5 percent of the gross proceeds from the three auctions specified in the bill. Elsewhere, states would receive a 12.5 percent share of 

the gross proceeds from eligible leases issued under the five-year plan that would 

take effect in 2015; 25 percent from leases issued under the subsequent five-year 

plan; and 37.5 percent from leases issued thereafter. 

CBO estimates that the receipt-sharing provisions in H.R. 2231 would increase direct spending by $0.3 billion over the 2014–2023 period. That estimate reflects 

CBO’s expectation that such payments would be limited to leases issued in areas 

that are not included in DOI’s current leasing plan for 2012–2017, such as the Atlantic and Pacific OCS. Under this bill, funds would be disbursed to states the year 

after receipts are collected. 

Inspection Fees. H.R. 2231 would direct DOI to collect annual fees to cover the 

cost of inspecting OCS facilities and drilling operations, subject to certain conditions. The bill would specify the amounts due for various types of activities and 

would allow DOI to adjust those fees for inflation in future years. Amounts collected 

under the bill would be deposited in a new fund in the U.S. Treasury and would 

be available to DOI if appropriated in annual appropriation acts. DOI’s authority 

to collect the fees would expire at the end of fiscal year 2022. 

Based on information from DOI, CBO estimates that collecting the inspection fees 

in H.R. 2231 would increase offsetting receipts by about $0.6 billion over the 2014– 

2022 period, after adjusting for inflation. The appropriation act for fiscal year 2013 

authorized DOI to assess and collect similar inspection fees, but that authority expires at the end of this fiscal year. For this estimate, CBO assumes that the inspection fees authorized by H.R. 2231 would take effect in fiscal year 2014 and extend 

through fiscal year 2022. 

Spending Subject to Appropriation. CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 2231 

would cost about $40 million over the 2014–2018 period, assuming appropriation of 

the necessary amounts. Based on spending patterns for similar activities, CBO estimates that DOI would spend about $32 million over the 2014–2018 period to develop a new five-year plan and complete the environmental, geologic, and economic 

assessments associated with conducting lease sales in new areas. 

In addition, H.R. 2231 would establish two new executive positions at DOI, an 

Under Secretary and an Assistant Secretary, who would oversee the development 

of mineral resources on federal lands. The bill also would require the agency to administer drug tests for certain employees who do work related to DOI energy programs. Based on information regarding the salaries for executive positions and support staff within the federal government and the cost of providing drug tests at 

other federal agencies, CBO estimates that implementing those provisions would 

cost about $1 million a year over the 2014–2018 period. 

Other provisions would codify organizational changes that were implemented by 

DOI in 2012, subject to certain modifications. Although the duties of the bureaus 

created by the bill would be similar to those established under current law, H.R. 

2231 would assign different names to two of the three entities. Based on information 

from DOI on the cost of the previous reorganization, CBO estimates that implementing those name changes would cost a total of about $3 million over the next 
56 

1 Energy Information Administration, ‘‘Sales of Fossil Fuels Produced from Federal and Indian 

Lands, FY 2003 through FY 2012,’’ (2013), available at http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/ 

federallands/pdf/eia-federallandsales.pdf. 

five years because the agencies’ websites, regulations, and administrative personnel 

materials would need to be formally modified. 

Finally, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 2231 would have no significant 

effect on the discretionary cost of inspecting OCS operations over the 2014–2018 period but would change the budgetary treatment of certain inspection fees. In recent 

years, the authority for DOI to collect fees for OCS inspections was provided in annual appropriation acts, and the proceeds were netted against the discretionary appropriation. Under H.R. 2231, the proceeds from such fees would be treated as a 

reduction in direct spending until the fee provisions in the bill expire at end of 2022. 

PAY-AS-YOU-GO CONSIDERATIONS

The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or revenues. The net 

changes in outlays that are subject to those pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in 

the following table. 

CBO ESTIMATE OF PAY–AS–YOU–GO EFFECTS FOR H.R. 2231 

[As ordered reported by the House Committee on Natural Resources on June 12, 2013] 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars 

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2013–2018 2013–2023 

NET INCREASE OR DECREASE (Ø) IN THE DEFICIT 

Statutory PayAs-You-Go 

Impact .......... 0 ¥55 ¥70 ¥90 ¥265 ¥190 ¥155 ¥155 ¥155 ¥140 ¥240 ¥670 ¥1,515 

INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND PRIVATE-SECTOR IMPACT

H.R. 2231 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

ESTIMATE PREPARED BY: 

Federal Costs: Kathleen Gramp (OCS leasing activities); Jeff LaFave (DOI reorganization) 

Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Melissa Merrill 

Impact on the Private Sector: Amy Petz 

ESTIMATE APPROVED BY: 

Theresa Gullo 

Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis 

July 11, 2013. 

Hon. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Ranking Member, 

House Committee on the Budget, 210 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 

20515. 

DEAR RANKING MEMBER VAN HOLLEN: Thank you very much for the opportunity 

to testify at the Budget Committee hearing on ‘‘America’s Energy Revolution: A New 

Path to Jobs and Economic Growth’’ on June 26th. I was honored to be included 

in this important discussion, and I thought that the hearing was very productive. 

Several committee members raised questions about domestic oil and gas production from federal lands and waters. I would like to submit the following information 

for the hearing record that addresses these questions. 

The Energy Information Administration report ‘‘Sales of Fossil Fuels Produced 

from Federal and Indian Lands, FY 2003 through FY 2012’’ determined that oil production from federal lands and waters has been higher during every year of the 

Obama administration compared to 2008, the last year of the Bush administration.1

The average annual oil production from federal areas is also higher under President 

Obama compared to President Bush. EIA reports that from 2009-2012 oil production 

from federal lands and waters averaged 648.8 million barrels per year compared to 
57 

2 Ibid. 

3 Adam Sieminski, Testimony before the Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, August 2, 2012, available at http://www.eia.gov/pressroom/ 

testimonies/sieminski—08022012.pdf. 4Marc Humphries, ‘‘U.S. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production in Federal and Non-federal 

Areas,’’ (Congressional Research Service, 2013), available at http://energycommerce.house.gov/ 

sites/republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/files/20130228CRSreport.pdf. 

an annual average of 623.5 million barrels from 2003-2008—a four percent increase 

during the current administration. 

CRUDE OIL PRODUCTION FROM FEDERAL LANDS AND WATERS, FY 2003–FY 2012 

Year Crude oil & lease condensate (millions of barrels) 

2003 ..................................................................................................................... 679 

2004 ..................................................................................................................... 670 

2005 ..................................................................................................................... 638 

2006 ..................................................................................................................... 571 

2007 ..................................................................................................................... 618 

2008 ..................................................................................................................... 565 

2009 ..................................................................................................................... 647 

2010 ..................................................................................................................... 723 

2011 ..................................................................................................................... 629 

2012 ..................................................................................................................... 596 

Source: Energy Information Administration2

Although natural gas production on federal lands has been lower under President 

Obama compared to President Bush, it is because newly available shale gas resources are largely on state and private lands. 

In 2012, Adam Sieminski, the administrator of the Energy Information Administration, testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee that: 

Because the shale resource basins are largely outside of the Federal lands, so too 

is shale production. In this case, the geology is working in favor of non-Federal landowners.3

Additionally, an assertion was made during the hearing that the process for approving oil and gas permits on federal lands has become longer. A 2013 Congressional Research Service analysis ‘‘U.S. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production in 

Federal and Non-Federal Areas’’ examined this concern. CRS determined that the 

process has significantly improved under the current administration. 

In 2006 it took the BLM [Bureau of Land Management] an average of 127 days 

to process an APD [application for drill permit], while in 2011 it took BLM 71 days. 

In 2006, the industry took an average of 91 days to complete an APD, but in 2011, 

industry took 236 days. 

Some critics of this lengthy timeframe highlight the relatively speedy process for 

permit processing on private lands. However, crude oil development on federal lands 

takes place in a wholly different regulatory framework than that of oil development 

on private lands. * * * a private versus federal permitting regime does not lend 

itself to an ‘apples-to-apples’ comparison.4

If you have any questions about this information or my testimony, please contact 

me. Thank you again for the opportunity to present our views before the House 

Budget Committee. 

Sincerely, 

DANIEL J. WEISS, 

Senior Fellow and Director of Climate Strategy. 

cc: Chairman Paul Ryan; Hon. Honorable Marsha Blackburn 

[Whereupon, at 12:09 p.m., the committee adjourned subject to 

the call of the Chair.] 

Æ