tv U.S. Energy Policy Jack Gerard Press Conference CSPAN January 9, 2017 4:14am-4:55am EST
if you have any questions we're happy to answer them. thank you all. [applause] [indiscernible conversation [inaudible conversations] >> happy new year. thank you for being here today. i think you have all probably heard my remarks and comments. let's open it to questions. i will let eric decide who gets to ask the questions. i have a two-part question
related to the issues of trade and tax holocene. you mentioned this in your speech today. the blueprint tax plan includes a border tax which would people whopenalize are importing into this country to prevent companies from relocating overseas and selling their goods back to the u.s. what's your understanding of how that would affect the importance of the products and the second part of that, with all the talk about trade policy, we are seeing an increased flow of gasoline and natural gas , particularly mexico. are you concerned about how the trade discussions might affect
that possibility? >> i've been active in promoting lng permits for the natural gas. we believe that it's a great opportunity. as they mentioned today, perhaps in our lifetime and for the first time ever we will get a chance to be a potential net energy exporter for the united states. that is a big deal. that's a significant opportunity. as it comes to trade management, the issue is a very significant opportunity cost what happens is we reduce american clean burning natural gas. talk about issues like climate and some of the questions raised earlier we can help contribute to that on a global scale based on the energy that we've produced right here at home, so we are all about free trade and all about those opportunities as you know and as you mentioned right now there's a lot moving in mexico as it
relates to how they are getting started and moving up. we are still concerned about that in the blueprint that has been produced in the house, and we are getting some analysts us to see what it would do or what impact it might have. we haven't concluded that analysis yet. we've been talking to many bipartisan basis, many on capitol hill in the concern of letting them know we won't be back with that further analysis. at importsok particularly as it relates to energy, we had our you to those in the united states, particularly the foreign crude. we are bringing in a product producing for domestic or global production. so yes, we are concerned about it and we have taken a hard position that we are going to be looking at that particularly in the broad context of health reform.
>> jenniffer with bloomberg news. follow-up on that question. how do you recognize the important role that energy plays as the rate is lower enough to compensate. deductions. in following up on infrastructure, there is some on out there that the republican final could actually make the delays longer under donald trump. i'm sure you feel the prescription is for streamlining the permanent. >> as it relates to the tax
policy, our view is people should be treated equitably, equally, and fair. some policies of the past moving back three or five years, some of the targeted negative ways and industry. the approach is currently offered in the house but more importantly, it recognizes the capital intensive nature of the oil and gas industry. we are not unique in that as an industry that we are highly capital intensive and put a put a lot of steel in the ground and spent a lot of money if you will and invest a lot of dollars developing the energy that many of us take for granted each and every day. so the recognition of that is important and we believe the framework is currently constituted and at least acknowledges that approach for expansion purposes. so, as this unfolds, as it begins to move forward, we will have more to say about it. the framework under the leadership and the speaker's leadership, unlike some of the proposals, acknowledge
our capital-intensive nature. and to the need to not hurt that or chill that in terms of providing investments right here at home bringing the dollars to produce and put people back to work once again is all about the consumer and the american people. so we believe all policies will be looked at through that lens. >> the first question comes from the financial times. your line is open. >> good afternoon, thank you for taking the question. i just wanted to ask about the priority when you talk about regulation and when you talk about the new positions, the 145 new regulations proposed. if you were to pick one or two or three of them that were particularly problematic and damaging to the industry, what do you think of the ones the administration should be focusing on first? >> i think first and foremost, thegreat wording --
, weeria we will look at will look at what is necessary are redundant,es conflicting, confusing. when we think of regulation we talk about smart regulation and common sense regulation. and, that is the criterion whereby we judge these proposals. we know there is an appropriate role for the federal, state and local governments to play in terms of regulating activity but it should be smart and it should be necessary so going more to the specific look at what has been taking place on methane and increasing the production in this country it's been dropping yet for whatever reason the government has chosen to come in now and regulates the activity that we are demonstrating is improving on a day-to-day basis. another example is our offshore
air will doing a study to determine if there is any onshore impact of offshore missions. they haven't even concluded the study yet to determine if there is any impact. but they've already put out the regulation to regulate the activity. unnecessary. those are the type of issues we will be looking at first and foremost. another example that's out there states have regulated this activity and they should continue to regulate it as a primary leader, it if you will. those, as we look at regulations imposed, we will at thoset and foremost that are not common sense and are not necessary and are necessarily imposing costs on american consumers. >> thank you for taking the
question. pennies star with cns news. i want to ask if you plan to meet with the president and what would be the top priority to talk about, and would that include the pipeline and the dakota access? >> yes. >> we will meet with with every one who will visit with us, regardless of the political persuasion and other status in the administration or theregulatory bombings. we continue to have ongoing dialogue with everybody if you will talk about the importance of energy. to your question, infrastructure is a key part of it. at the end of the day we are a major producer in the world's leader in natural gas. the we've got to be able to move the product efficiently. as i mentioned earlier the reasons that he shows that there
is a potential $1.1 trillion in private sector investment just building energy infrastructure in the united states. that would be invested over about a dozen years over ten, 12 years timeline. now, think about that as i said in my prepared remarks, that is three times larger than the highway bill that was passed in 2015. that's nothing against the highway bill. it is a simple contextual acknowledgment if you take that activity and whatever else they do on infrastructure, you add to it the energy infrastructure potential that is all private-sector dollars and we have a huge opportunity to do with the american people told us to do just a month ago. create well-paying middle income jobs, in our case, well-paying jobs. we pay well above the national average. put people to work and provide reliable energy. that's what you see orphans from the building construction trade units today. we are all in this together to help the american people to
provide these good paying jobs to provide the low-cost energy that too often we take for granted. so infrastructure is a priority. i think the president elect is already focused on that and i hope that he will turn his attention to some of those projects that could be improved and immediately put back to work thousands of people, putting in place if you will, the infrastructure necessary to move the product. >> on the renewable fuel standard, i understand the decision is about changing the point of obligation as a distraction from the significant congressional reform or repeal altogether. the president elect having the top regulatory adviser in the white house i cannot protest to call to change precisely that point of obligation issue.
what is your message to the incoming white house on this particular issue at the point of obligation thank you. >> the point of obligation concerned his reflection of the underlining broken window fuel standard. it's a reflection of what's wrong with the way the renewable fuel standard for structured. we should either repeal would or significantly reform it. if we repeal it or significantly reform it, the expectation is that it will be addressed as part of the larger issue. members, by partisans had a proposal that would cap or limit the land to 9.7%. i expect that or something similar would be introduced soon, and you would see a broad bipartisan support to support the renewable fuel standard. so rather than get off of the needs to fix these individual challenges associated in the renewable fuel standard, our
view is that we should go right in and acknowledge ten years ago as well-intentioned well intentioned as it was, it is dysfunctional today, doesn't work today and it needs to be repealed or reformed. that is our message and i hope we will be able to collaborate on it and come to the conclusion that fixed the issue as opposed to putting a different band-aid on the symptoms. >> back to the phones. is on thext question state impact. the line is open. >> you spoke about the oil and gas being part of the climate change solution. burning gas.leaner theyou also mentioned
methane regulation is something you don't support. environmental regulators are developing new rules with this. can you explain how these two things work because i think the regulators would say that this is an important way to realize the benefits of the natural gas. >> you look at the science and the data, and what it shows you is that even though we had a significant increase in methane emissions overall continue to go down. so what are we trying to regulate and accomplish? primarily methane is what we capture. we are highly incentivized to capture it all so we can bring it to the marketplace. this particular case, whether we are posing a necessary regulation that adds the cost to the process or delays and permits that doesn't address the underlining issue we believe that we should focus merely on a the primary reason we are at a low today is because we have produced more clean burning tural gas and we are consuming more cleaner burning natural gas. it is pretty fundamental. we've demonstrated a success and
show a trendline that is very positive. i understand why critics might want to come and regulate around \want to come and regulate around the issue but fundamentally, we are moving in the right direction on both fronts. so, let's talk. let's be constructive. let's have smart regulation and common sense regulation that continues those downward emissions while at the same time producing clean-burning natural gas. which has brought us lower carbon emissions in the united states. states.
that is a perfect example and i believe it is consistent in the broad vision. we want to work with regulators in pennsylvania and the states one of the leaders in natural gas production something people wouldn't have thought about ten or 15 years ago. it is a real opportunity not only to create those jobs and hopefully we will be able to move more of that up into the northeast region where they pay the highest rate of electricity in the country because they are unable to move some of that low-cost affordable reliable natural gas up to the new england and middle east. -- up into new england and the northeast. >> politico magazine. pretty soon congress or the house will be voting on the rule rule. you seem to be walking a line or trying to walk a line in your speech on regulation or not all regulation. where do you come down on those changes and how the executive branch regulates moving through
the house this year? >> we are supportive of these and let me tell you why. there is a fundamental issue we've not talked about much. when you look at that reduction act or whatever the most recent title is that they've introduced, it is a fundamental issue between the separation of powers between the congress and the administration or the executive branch. fundamentally, what they are trying to accomplish is to move the role back to the congress to determine what the law should be and they execute the laws wall that the congress is saying we are going to write the law so we are supportive of those measures to get back to the people's house and the senate. that is where policy should be decided. unfortunately, some of these efforts to go it alone have exacerbated the challenge and i think that's why you see more of that for the branches of government if you will to hold back their power and authority as the true legislators in our society. so, we support those efforts to
say that's where the policy should be written. it should be written in the congress and worked out in the senate and the house and then eventually produced to see if the executive or administration signed it or not there is a broad debate in the issue in a lot of public policy questions what is the role for the regulatory agencies are they able to go out and write the rules any time they want, and i think here the legislative branch is saying that is our responsibility which we agree that should be taken back to the legislative process for the final decision so we support those efforts overall. >> bill homeland with s&p global markets. for the first time and [inaudible]
current -- for the first time in a long time, you have a party that is more friendly in the energy industry andrepublican party that now controls all houses of the government probably the supreme court. and the best i hear from you is you want to a few roles change. i am thinking there has got to be something missing. where is the big change? dogs i think that was the first 100 days question. here.'s not play small what are you looking to change in the next four years? >> in response to your question first and foremost we need to take it back to the foundation and ask the american people why did i say that, because what the american people said a month ago was this talent needs to operate more effectively and efficiently than it has and what the public is saying as i shared with you some of the polling data, we want america to be an energy superpower.
so what does that mean? we need to focus on the continental shelf. we need to focus on these regulatory activities and onshore activities. we need to look at the or whatever itme might be to determine what needs to be done to regulate smartly and with common sense but yet achieve our potential as a world energy superpower. this is something none of us would've predicted a short time ago. this opportunity is unique, maybe once in a lifetime. we should come together as a nation now and say, look, there
is potential opportunity. how do we achieve this maximum positive affect for the american people. at the end of the day, if those numbers clearly point out they one is to produce our energy. transfer it domestically to infrastructure bills. with state-of-the-art, world-class, second to none refinement. we are the leaders. how do we achieve what the american people want. how do we bring low-cost affordable energy.
we should not forget the manufacturing renaissance in the united states is primarily driven by low-cost, affordable, energy. specifically natural gas. i used to be in the chemical industry many years ago as most of you know. this was at $13 and it made it difficult to compete anymore. now we are down to two dollars or four dollars each and it is a very different dynamic. we are less concerned about republicans and democrats. we believe we should go back in the direction of the american
people and say, how do we achieve this potential for the benefit of all of us and for the world. 1.2 million people in the world do not even have electricity. think of the longer-term vision. export to some of those parts where people are lifted from poverty. i have been down there. i have seen those conditions. i know what that is like. livest me tell you, those are different today. why? because they have the energy. they have what they need. not everyone does. the united states can be a leader in this. speaker ryan talks often about poverty.
what better industry would you want then an industry that puts 50% more than the average wage in this country. those are the kind of jobs we want and all we have to do is have a vision for energy policy that allows us to put our people and at to pay them well the same time bring in reliable and. it is a win-win. so, over the next two or three or four years, all of those can addressed. our industry as part of that solution and we are proud to say that. >> let's go to the phones. >> sure next question comes from claudia at national post. >> thank you for taking my call. i am in calgary and there is quite a bit of nervousness here about president tromp.
the industry in canada is going to be having higher taxes for regulation. of how it isview gasly integrated with the industry and how it will fare ?nder a trump administration >> as you stated, north america is highly integrated and becoming more integrated. say how itcult to will fare in canada under the new president. i will say probably the same as the domestic industry will fare. it playsso say how into that broader economic
competitiveness knowing the oil and guest industry is a major economic driver in canada. my expectation is a will find synergy between the two nations or the three nations, including mexico. as we look at it long-term, the american energy infrastructure is truly innovative. when it comes to safety, best practices, environment, the american petroleum institute, many of you may not be aware, is a leader in developing best practices for industries around the world. operate in canada, mexico, elsewhere, our safety practices are developed working with the .est minds in academia and, accredited by an outside accreditation body. we develop those on a global
scale. so the general practices of industry whether it is canada, the united states or others in the world, they tend to operate under those same standards of test practices. so a trump administration, i think that is more dependent on canadian policy then u.s. policy. >> hello. i am with reuters. is talking about the aca, a bill that has a large impact. how would you like to see the law changed and what could it mean to going forward? typically doapis not participate in that because we have so many other issues to overcome. ourend to discipline activities for most of our issues directly. so other issues, our members are
primarily represented by others. health groups, labor groups, etc.. so we don't generally participate in that. what prescription do you want to see at first? a lot of the pipelines have protesters. how do you think the industry is going to handle the protesters in north dakota and and general can you give more clarity? >> i think it has worked. obviously the administration has decided. i think it is very unfortunate and the past year or two, our aew is that it is science-based data organization to determine if people should qualify, etc.
i hope it would be less and secondarily, as it relates to other industries around the country, the american people of said lot unclear. it does not mean everybody agrees. there is a very small vocal minority that has very different views as to what the energy policy should be. there are some whose focus is extreme and thinks we should not produce any fossil fuels. life, you look at our can just go around and count everything in this room, everything, probably is derived from fossil fuel products. there will be some who are extreme and continue to have that but our view is the future in fossil fuel. it will continue to be the
dominant energy source well into the feature. the experts, including this administration will to you by 2040, 60% of our energy will still be derived from oil and gas. keep in mind we are interconnected. truerongly support a strategy of all of these. coal, it isoil and all part of the process. we will have to create more energy as our population grows and the world population grows as well. so together, collectively, we could be the answer to that rate in the usa. that is where we need to focus. there will always be some who take objection to that. respectbe the first to
their right to their views. but when it comes to the rule of law, we need to honor the processes so we do not create mayhem. >> matthew daly at the associated press. thank you for this event. am asking about your wish list question. obviously, mr. tilson from it ask on is going to become the next secretary of state. what do you say to people who are worried the trump administration will be dominated by the oil and gas industry? foremost i think the individuals you just mentioned, these are world-class americans if you want fast experience. example, hery for
knows a lot about the issues. i commend to administration for identifying individuals with skill sets that can represent the american interest not only at home but abroad. i think that is very positive for this country and i think longer-term, you see that is the way this will play out. whoever they work for, they were for the american people under the current administration and i believe that is what they will do and do it well. for others, i will be concerned. we shall take a deep breath and collaborate. learn how to work together. our goal is smart regulation. common sense regulation. that is what we have to focus on. agrees onody everything so there is still work to be down but i think
culled ass could be we see what really happens as opposed to what might happen. two quick -- >> two quick questions. how much is it improving and [indiscernible is there any reason to expect this will be more effective than previously? >> it is difficult to predict do. opec will i won't even speculate on that. but i think what is significant and it goes back to your first question, if you look at the the oil andtrend in gas industry, most of our
members who are doing the planning and a 10, 20, 40 year multiyear,e are multimillion dollar, capital-intensive investments. they look through, if you will, some of the trend and industry. thought three or four or five years ago that opec would be having these conversations and the reasons they are having them. the world order as it relates to energy has fundamentally changed. ae united states is becoming player on the global scale. that is what we should focus on. there are some things and lives we can change, and we should focus on what we can do domestically. we have vast resources for technologies and techniques, that will allow us to be a major producer.
it it rings down energy cost. focus on areas of home, where it willtime be difficult to predict. benefit at the broader to the country and the future opportunity for this country. it is very significant. let's keep our mind on that. let's keep our mission on the long term of. hopefully it will eventually settle out and we will know our places. >> last question. >> hello object. i'm with usa today. you had no mention at all of climate change. what is your view on climate change in do you still think there is a need for the u.s. too
sick to its obligations under the power clock accord. >> i think i talked about a lot of that change. today we arethat at a five-year low in our current emissions. i think that is one issue that is often forgotten. we need to get beyond the simplistic conversation about liars, believers, where we stand. and really focus on what is place. carbon emissions in the united states, we now lead the world in carbon reduction. we are one of the largest economies of the world. no one thought it possible. in our view, that is where we should focus. ,here we have common ground
that allows us come together and far, we we have come so the globalat is vision for that. exporting that, as many of our friends and allies around the world say. send a short energy. that is what we should be talking about. i believe it is time for conversation around climate to take a step forward and get off the simplistic who believes and who denies. that is why my remarks focused on, what do we really see and what is really happening. i think the president lost an opportunity to hold up a great success story. we are one of the world's wegest economies and what have been able to achieve
through modern techniques and technology will allow us to develop this fast resource of natural yes we have right here at home. historic significant, item we should take advantage of. think of the global environment in this context. we are part of this solution, let's go out and work on this solution. on lamenting, focusing solutions. that is why we immediately jumped into the conversation. we are part of the conversation, we have more. we take second seat to no one but we have to if all the conversation to a more constructive place that brings us together as americans as opposed to our differences. our view ised,
harrison missed an opportunity to talk about what we are doing in the united states. we will leave it up to them. folks, in the private sector, through it hasty and innovation not been implemented yet. for example, the clean power plant, we have achieved at least half the reductions in carbon administrations that a clean power plant was supposed to bring us. to look at you have those innovative private-sector solutions that have been brought to us by producing our abundant natural gas. we are part of the solution. to solutions. we will lead the way with collaborative work.