Udall's U-turn on US oil

Mark Udall's message to Colorado voters is crystal clear: just tell me want you want to hear, and I'll say it. Here's a congressman who built his reputation as an uncompromising environmentalist, who has consistently opposed domestic energy exploration, and who has blocked construction of new refineries to make American energy supplies more secure.

Now, Udall wants us to believe that he's suddenly seen the light.

"We've got to produce our own oil and gas, right here in our country," he says in a new commercial paid for by his U.S. Senate campaign. Just what Colorado needs: another politician who will sell his soul to attain higher office.

Over the years, Udall's record on domestic energy production has been much more dogmatic than pragmatic, more extremist than centrist. He's voted to:

· Block drilling for American oil in Alaska or off shore at least nine times.

· Deny tax deductions for production of U.S. oil and gas, thereby putting American companies at a financial disadvantage versus their competitors in the Middle East, Russia and South America.

· Declare oil cartels like OPEC to be in violation of U.S. antitrust law, even though most high school seniors - not to mention Members of Congress - are smart enough to know that our laws do not apply to foreign oil companies.

· Oppose making abandoned military bases available for construction of new oil refineries, oblivious to the reality no new American oil refineries have been constructed since 1976, increasing our dependence on foreign refineries.

The Denver Post described Udall's U-turns as "sharp turnarounds for a man who has made the expansion of renewable energy a cornerstone of his career." The Politico, a Washington, D.C.-based journal, called the flip-flop "a clear shift from his previous opposition to such measures."

So, Colorado voters who are fed up with $4-a-gallon gasoline should ask themselves: Why does Mark Udall now claim to support domestic production of oil and gas? And does he truly mean it?

The most obvious answer to the first question is polling. In June and July, Udall held as much as a 10-point lead over his opponent, former Congressman Bob Schaffer. That lead evaporated in two more recent surveys.

A Rasmussen poll shows that 65% of Coloradans want to make increasing energy production the top priority over reducing energy consumption.

As to the sincerity of Udall's conversion, only the commercial paid for by his senate campaign backs him up. All other evidence suggests that this is a poll-driven conversion of political convenience.

Udall's own campaign website dwells on developing wind and solar power but says little about developing new sources of oil and gas. Instead, the Udall website falls back on old liberal canards, like "we cannot drill our way to energy security" and "not every place that can support oil drilling should be drilled."

That message falls flat with Coloradans who like the idea of renewable energy but also want affordable and reliable oil and gas in the meantime. Consider, also, Udall's five-point plan to address rising gas prices, posted on his congressional website. Four points do nothing to increase domestic energy resources. A fifth supports drilling off the shore of Cuba, but it is contained in a bill sponsored by Udall which hasn't even received a congressional hearing since it was introduced over a year ago.

If Udall were serious about developing domestic energy, wouldn't he have demanded a vote on his own bill before allowing Congress to take its summer vacation? Instead, Udall was campaigning in Colorado when a vote to consider a genuine domestic energy bill fell short by just one vote.

Finally, it would be foolish not to acknowledge that Udall's wife spent 20 years working for Sierra Club, whose webpage features a petition congratulating Speaker Nancy Pelosi for adjourning without bringing oil exploration to a vote.

Mark Udall hasn't changed his stripes. That's great news for his Boulder liberal base, but it's bad news for Coloradans who want affordable gas prices.

Lewandowski the myth-buster

When oil is not in the headlines, wind and solar energy gets the ink. Renewable energy is seen by some as the fix for a world fouled by carbon emissions. Government subsidies and credits are up for grabs by utilities abandoning fossil fuels and “greening up” their power sources. Most states mandate renewables in their power mix. Oilman T. Boone Pickens has weighed in with his own wind-based plan. Can there be any doubt about the causes and solutions to America’s energy nightmare? Indeed there is some doubt, and in Colorado, world-class skeptics find great comfort in Stan Lewandowski, Jr., General Manager of the Intermountain Rural Electrification Association Cooperative in Sedalia. Larger-than-life, he is a philosophical brother-in-arms to Ayn Rand’s Ellis Wyatt, (Atlas Shrugged), who torched his oil fields rather than knuckle under to government regulations.

Lewandowski is nothing if not colorful on energy. He recently snubbed Governor Ritter’s invitation to join a utility task force seeking ways to reduce carbon emissions. To Stan, Al Gore’s credibility matches that of Saddam Hussein. He views An Inconvenient Truth as a timely fabrication supported by incomplete data and designed purposely to shut off rational debate on global warming. When researching the Kyoto Accords and extrapolating for the unlikely impact of full compliance, Stan’s arithmetic shows a minimal impact (four tenths of one degree Fahrenheit) on global temperatures by the 22nd Century.

So it should come as no surprise that he would routinely quote Oklahoma Senator James Imhofe by saying that the threat of catastrophic climate change is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people”. It could easily have been his line. Give him a few more minutes and he’ll make a compelling case to prove it too. All this while reliably delivering electricity to Colorado as cheaply as it comes.

Lewandowski is no masked man, but nibbles at the edge of legendary status after 34 years in his IREA position, providing electricity to 137,000 customers in central Colorado. The Polish Catholic son of a union steward out of South Chicago, his working class values are those of Harry Truman’s Democratic Party, his inspiration, the life of John F. Kennedy. More than a few of his relatives were fingerless or amputees who barely survived the rough and tumble industrial life of his neighborhood. His maternal grandmother raised nine children by herself after her husband was killed by a freight train.

Stan’s movement rightward began with a growing disillusionment in his twenties, and he was deeply shaken by JFK’s 1963 assassination. Working the REA’s D.C. beat at the time, he witnessed firsthand, the uneasy crosswinds of change ushered in by Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society entitlement programs. His epiphany moment with the imperious LBJ and his changing party principles is told in a story about Johnson walking across the White House lawn. A marine salutes the President and says, “Your helicopter’s ready sir”. The President’s response is “They’re all my helicopters son”.

Call him a Conservative or a Libertarian; he’ll likely smile at either label. There’s no mistaking his managerial goal: providing reliable electricity at a low cost. IREA never raised it rates from 1982 to 2004 and recently refunded over $9 million to customers. Yet, in an age that ruminates about social justice and egalitarianism, he’ll also tell you that social services are nowhere in his contract to deliver. This impolitic thinking makes Mr. Lewandowski a hot potato in these parts.

He rankles environmentalists with a well-articulated, firmly entrenched belief that coal-fired plants are a critical interim bridge to America’s strategic long-term energy calculus. At the very least, any limitations on the construction of coal-fired plants will exacerbate looming capacity problems, reduce the U.S. standard of living, and have a crippling effect on the economy.

Lewandowski supports nuclear power unequivocally, noting that not one American has ever died from an accident at a nuclear power plant. On the other hand, Stan has a healthy skepticism about the prospects of wind and solar power, seeing them as impractical in the near term and maybe forever. The unvarnished facts are that wind is unreliable, far from power grids, and needs to be backed up by high-cost gas-fired plants to provide uninterruptible service to customers. Wind proponents make no mention of this collateral data. When additional distribution lines are factored into already enhanced capital outlays, project costs can become prohibitive.

The crowning insult to environmental interests was his July 2006 letter sent out to all 900 energy cooperatives in the U.S. It sounded a clarion call, alerting them to the implications of global warming “alarmists” and the attendant economic costs of greenhouse gas regulation and cap and trade schemes. Lewandowski’s arguments were extensive, well-reasoned and backed up by 31,000 other scientists who have rejected outright, the assertion that global warming is a human-controlled, carbon-based phenomenon.

Lewandowski never backs down. Even after his enemies in the green press skewered him for spending IREA cooperative funds to buttress his politico/economic points, he is unbowed. The fire in his eyes is sharply kindled. Maybe it’s just that he’s a grown-up city kid, spoiling for a good fight.

In rejecting the catastrophic impacts of greenhouse gases, Stan uses a non-emotional, clinically frank style buttressed by government and industry statistics. He brings the core argument home as a pocket-book issue, of late harshly criticizing the economic impact of the proposed Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act.

The bill’s basic mechanism allows for the establishment of carbon emission limits for all businesses that are sharply reduced over time. Corporations not in compliance would be required to buy or trade for costly permits to ensure continued operations, the effect of which is an indirect tax transfer that would be passed on to consumers. If the bill passes, Stan cites the following economic consequences in his July Watts and Volts newsletter:

 Household income reductions of up to $7,328 by the year 2030 (U.S. Energy Information Administration).

 A $1.21 Trillion increase in energy prices between 2009-2018 (Congressional Budget Office)

 The loss of 3-4 million jobs and electricity price increases of 77-129% by 2030 (National Association of Manufacturers)

At 70, Stan still delivers jolting roundhouse blows to the opposition. In the same newsletter article, he quotes Vaclav Havel, President of the Czech Republic. “The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy, and prosperity at the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism”.

Provided he stays robust and his wife and family are in good health, Stan will remain influential, principled, courageous, and perhaps, even victorious. He is not the insensitive maverick his detractors would have you believe. Truth be told, his flip side is a study in compassion and empathy.

Ask any employee, customer, or his union. No arbitration for 15 years and no grievances that anyone remembers either. A remarkable 25% of all employees have over 20 years of tenure, with 12 of them over 30.

A revealing vignette involves an Ethiopian friend, Wondalem Wolde, earlier employed as a doorman. While visiting D.C. years ago, Stan left his room for a cigar. Outdoors, he struck up a conversation with a young immigrant chasing his own American dream. Stan listened intently, gave him his card and told the man to look him up if his vision took him to Colorado. Indeed, it eventually did. Stan got him a job as a meter reader and one later for his wife as a receptionist. Wondalem is now a mechanic and his family successes have allowed him to sponsor 15 other relatives from the impoverished Horn of Africa.

In Douglas County, Stan is still “The Man”, a JFK profile of integrity and balance. His prediction is that global warming and its attendant insanity will collapse under the weight of its own irreconcilable science and economics. While we cannot be absolutely certain he is right, none here doubt him or his principles.

Joe Gschwendtner is a Castle Rock businessman and free-lance writer.

Paris for President

As everyone knows, celebrity heiress Paris Hilton recently made a video response to that McCain ad likening Obama's celebrity status to that of both Ms. Hilton and Britney Spears. (If you missed the McCain ad because you have been hiding under a rock, you can view it here.) McCain's commercial which calls into question Obama's glittering fame as a criteria for leadership has gained the McCain camp some serious publicity and a jump in fundraising. But Hilton's video response has also caused quite a stir. Not only is it mildly humorous and definitely entertaining. It also proposes an energy policy that combines the best elements of the rival presidential contenders.

Hilton's "hybrid" energy policy calls for offshore drilling just long enough to buy us time to begin creating alternative energy vehicles that could be produced in Detroit--thus helping to revive the one-time vibrant automobile industry there. See the video for yourself.

I never thought I would say this, but on energy policy, I vote Paris Hilton. Though to be fair, the policy she is outlining is closer to McCain's than Obama's plan--and my suspicion is that in coming months the Obama camp will move closer to the Hilton plan... who knows, they might even chose her for Veep.

I wonder what Britney Spears will have to say about this.

Energy: Salazar enabling Chavez?

Writing in today's Washington Post, Sen. Ken Salazar (D-CO) cynically disparages the idea of opening up Colorado’s vast oil shale reserves as a way to lower the price of gasoline for American drivers (“Heedless Rush to Oil Shale,” July 15, 2008). However, even Sen. Salazar admits that new oil-shale technology currently being developed is “far more promising” than earlier efforts and that energy companies are having success in devising “a way to heat the rock that holds the oil and force the oil up and out of the ground.” Yet he supports a federal moratorium on oil shale development in Colorado, offering one excuse after another about the viability of the technology.

Of course, Sen. Salazar has also repeatedly voted against opening up the far reaches of the deserted northern Alaskan wilderness to energy exploration, and he refuses to support efforts to lift the Congressional ban on drilling for oil and gas on the Outer Continental Shelf of the United States. Do those ideas also represent “putting the cart before the horse” on untested technologies? Of course not. The only conclusion we can draw from his record is that he opposes increasing the supply of domestic oil – wherever or however it is proposed.

The fact is Colorado is sitting on one of the world’s largest deposits of oil. The Green River Basin in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah has an estimated 1.7 trillion to 2. 1 trillion barrels of oil. This accounts for 62% of worldwide oil shale reserves, which amounts to over 800 million more barrels of oil than the world’s proven oil reserves.

Our current energy challenges are mainly a product of the simple law of supply demand – increasing demand, and not enough supply. Cynical excuses for why every proposed way to increase supply isn’t going to lower the price of energy one cent. We’ve been suffering under that kind of cynicism for decades and the result has been that we are more dependent on foreign oil than ever. Those who, like Senator Salazar, continue this pessimistic approach to our oil crisis continue to hamstring our economy and assure that our reliance on oil from the Middle East and Hugo Chavez will remain for decades to come.

Energy: Goldmine for GOP

As the shock waves from $4 per gallon gasoline impact every segment of U.S. society the decades-old taboo against even discussing new offshore oil drilling has been decisively shattered. This wholly unexpected development now offers an extraordinary political opportunity to John McCain and the Republican Party, but only if they have the courage to boldly seize it. The 1981 federal ban on new offshore drilling was a remarkable victory for the radical environmentalists who have long been a dominant element in the Democratic Party. However this Petroleum Prohibition era has only been sustained because the Republican party meekly went along with it even during the years they controlled both the Congress and the White House.

Now mounting public anger and frustration and the resultant rapid shift in opinion polls have suddenly transformed the political dynamics of energy policy.

In the space of one week both President Bush and Senator McCain announced support for offshore drilling- sort of. Previously Bush had ignored this option and McCain had flat out opposed it. While they now favor a reversal of the 1981 ban, they’ve tried to straddle the issue by saying that ultimately individual states should decide on drilling.

This tepid Republican support for new drilling is welcomed by Democrats who genuinely fear the political consequences of the Republicans making this issue a high priority and sticking with it right through to November.

As opposition to drilling is a hot button liberal issue Obama had to oppose lifting the federal ban. Disingenuously he claimed that new drilling wouldn’t lower gas prices and insisted that a “windfall profits” tax was the best option. He’s betting that a continued demonization of “Big Oil” will prevent the people from seeing that failed government leadership is the real villain of the piece.

The companion strategy to new drilling is a dramatic build-up of U.S. nuclear capacity beginning with a demolition of the absurd approval process for new nuclear plants. Democrats are badly split on this issue. Those who obsess on global warming and the carbon emissions, they see as the cause are newly responsive to nuclear as a “clean” alternative. Obama’s history is pure anti-nuclear but in an effort to bridge this Democratic divide he has lamely promised that as President he would commission a “study” of the subject.

Greatly damaging to Democrats has been the torrent of discussion and new information on energy issues. The public is learning things that had been de facto “unmentionable”: the vast size of untapped U.S. oil reserves both land and sea, the superb safety record of new drilling technology, the stunning success of France with nuclear power, and the pathetic track record of so-called “alternative” sources of energy.

Democratic Congressional efforts to push a “windfall profits” tax or demonize “speculators” have collapsed even at their own hearings where the GAO and the Congressional Budget Office poked large holes in both ideas. At last Congress seems to be catching up to the public in understanding that the real problem is one of supply falling way behind demand.

Democratic disunity and growing public awareness and frustration on energy give Republicans a golden opportunity to seize control of the debate on domestic policy. Energy is clearly the hinge on which the future of the U.S. economy is now swinging. It also couples naturally to national security which is McCain’s great strength.

The only thing that seems to be preventing McCain from embracing and fully exploiting this emerging new political dynamic is a stubborn adherence to long held views (e.g. ANWR) and fear of being called a flip-flopper.

Douglas Mac Arthur famously said that the very best campaign plan is outdated following the first day of battle. Great leaders improvise and adapt as conditions on the ground change.

McCain and every other Republican candidate should ride this issue not briefly or half-heartedly but aggressively and continuously. The power of this issue can super-charge McCain’s chances of victory and dramatically improve Republican chances at every level.

Even more importantly this single issue represents a once in a generation opportunity to utterly transform the future prospects of America’s economy and its national security.

In throwing off the self-imposed shackles of the past and liberating the immense latent power of the U.S. economy we shall again validate the prophecy of Ronald Reagan that “It will always be Morning in America”.