OnTheIssuesLogo

Mike Pence on Energy & Oil

Republian nominee for Vice President; Governor of Indiana; former Representative (IN-6)

 


Fighting climate change should not increase utility rates

Q: Do you believe think human-induced climate emergency is a threat to the United States?

Pence: We will always follow the science on that in this administration. What we won't do -- and the Clean Power Plan was all about that -- was hamstring energy in this country, raising the cost of utility rates for working families across this country while other nations like China and India absolutely do nothing or make illusory promises decades down the road to deal with it.

Source: CNN State of the Union 2019 interview , Jun 23, 2019

Climate change is not an emergency

Q: Do you believe think human-induced climate emergency is a threat to the United States?

PENCE: What I will tell you is that we will always follow the science on that in this administration.

Q: The science says it is.

PENCE: What we won't do -- and the Clean Power Plan was all about that -- was hamstringing energy in this country, raising the cost of utility rates for working families across this country...

Q: But is it a threat?

PENCE: What we have said is that we're not going to raise utility rates. America has the cleanest air and water in the world.

Q: That is not true. We don't have the cleanest air and water in the world.

PENCE: We're making progress on reducing carbon emissions. The answer, though, is not to raise the utility rates of millions of utility rate payers across the country.

Source: CNN "SOTU" 2019 interview series , Jun 23, 2019

Support wind, nuclear, fracking, and offshore drilling

Q: Should the government give tax credits and subsidies to the wind power industry?

Mike Pence's answer: Yes

Evan McMullin's answer: No

Tim Kaine's answer: Yes

Donald Trump's answer: No, and the government should never support unproven technologies

Gary Johnson's answer: No

Q: Do you support the use of hydraulic fracking to extract oil and natural gas resources?

Mike Pence's answer: Yes

Evan McMullin's answer: Yes

Tim Kaine's answer: Yes

Gary Johnson's answer: Yes, but increase oversight

Donald Trump's answer: Yes

Q: Should the U.S. expand offshore oil drilling?

Mike Pence's answer: Yes

Evan McMullin's answer: Yes

Tim Kaine's answer: Yes

Donald Trump's answer: Yes

Gary Johnson's answer: Yes, and deregulate the energy sector

Q: Do you support the use of nuclear energy?

Mike Pence's answer: Yes

Evan McMullin's answer: Yes

Tim Kaine's answer: Yes

Source: iSideWith.com analysis of 2016 presidential hopefuls , Nov 1, 2016

Coal miners want an American energy policy

Union members don't want a president who promises to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business. Those miners want an American energy policy, and they know that Donald Trump digs coal.
Source: Speech at the 2016 Republican National Convention , Jul 20, 2016

Climate change is not a resolved issue in science

Pence was asked if he is "convinced that climate change is man-made." Pence responded: "I don't know that that is a resolved issue in science today. Just a few years ago, we were talking about global warming. We haven't seen a lot of warming lately. I remember back in the '70s we were talking about the coming ice age." [MSNBC.com, 2/21/14]

Pence similarly stated on the May 5, 2009, edition of MSNBC's Hardball that "I think the science is very mixed on the subject of global warming."

In July 2014, Pence sent a letter to Indiana's congressional delegation encouraging them to defund the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan, which fights climate change by placing the first-ever federal limits on carbon pollution from power plants. Pence has since indicated that he will comply with the Clean Power Plan if it is upheld by the Supreme Court, but Indiana remains one of the states challenging the plan's legality. [The Hill, 7/10/14; Post-Tribune, 6/25/16; ClimateWire, 2/26/16]

Source: Media Matters, "What Media Should Know," on 2016 Veepstakes , Jul 14, 2016

Sued Obama administration on Clean Energy Plan

Indiana needs to reduce carbon dioxide energy emissions by 37% over the next 15 years to meet CO2 reduction goals. However, Gov. Mike Pence is again in the way.

Instead of being proactive and taking the responsibility for the rapid transition to renewable energy, Pence is suing the Obama administration's Clean Energy Plan. Pence [prefers] procrastination and nuclear power. This is a needless delay and outright abdication of our energy future to private gain over a public emergency. The federal energy plan should restructure our energy industry to go around state and private corporate impediments to clean renewable power.

By democratizing Indiana Michigan Power Co. and other antiquated power organizations with public and cooperative majority ownership we can exceed our federal energy goals. By 2030 we can extend 3 planned direct current power transmission lines from the wind energy belt across Indiana and greatly reduce our dependence on coal. [Pence opposes those].

Source: Fort Wayne News-Sentinel, "Letter to the editor" , Jan 4, 2016

Against Obama's plan to battle climate change

Indiana will not comply with President Barack Obama's plan to battle climate change by requiring reductions in emissions from coal-fired power plants, Republican Gov. Mike Pence said Wednesday. The proposal as currently written, known as the Clean Power Plan, will make Indiana electricity more expensive and less reliable and hurt economic growth in Indiana and across the nation, Pence wrote in a letter to Obama.
Source: Orange County Register on 2016 Indiana Governor race , Jun 24, 2015

All-of-the-above energy strategy instead of EPA over-reach

Because low-cost energy is vital to our economy, we need an all-of-the-above energy strategy, including energy efficiency. But know this, Indiana is a pro-coal state, and we must continue to oppose the overreaching schemes of the EPA until we bring this war on coal to an end.
Source: State of the State address to 2015 Indiana Legislature , Jan 13, 2015

All-of-the-above American-made energy strategy

The American people deserve more access to American energy. High energy prices hurt everyone, especially those with low incomes, and weaken our overall economy. I support an "all of the above" energy strategy that reduces prices at the pump and the cost of utilities in homes and businesses. It would increase the supply of American-made energy, improve conservation and efficiency, and promote new and expanding energy technologies. An "all of the above" approach will solve our energy crisis by unlocking our nation's rich natural resources.

Creating a national energy tax through cap and trade legislation will not lower energy costs or create a cleaner environment. A true energy solution will allow the American people to utilize all of our domestic resources, while developing new technologies. Such a plan would lower energy costs and put the American people back to work.

Source: House of Representatives website mikepence.house.gov , Jan 8, 2012

Voted YES on opening Outer Continental Shelf to oil drilling.

Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:
[Rep. Young, R-AK]: The Americans suffering from $4 a gallon gas today must feel like they're experiencing a sense of deja vu. In 2008, when gasoline prices reached a record high of $4.11 per gallon, the public outcry forced Congress to act. That fall, Congress lifted the offshore drilling ban that had been in place for decades. Three years later, most Americans would likely be shocked to learn that no energy development has happened in these new areas.

Opponent's Argument for voting No:
[Rep. Markey, D-MA]. In the first 3 months of this year, Exxon-Mobil made $10 billion off of the American consumer; Shell made $8 billion; BP made $7 billion. So what are these companies asking for? These companies are now asking that we open up the beaches of California, Florida & New England to drill for oil. People who live near those beaches don't want oil coming in the way it did in the Gulf of Mexico. Right now, those oil companies are centered down in the Gulf of Mexico. People are concerned because those companies have blocked any new safety reforms that would protect against another catastrophic spill. We have to oppose this bill because, first of all, they already have 60 million acres of American land that they haven't drilled on yet, which has about 11 billion barrels of oil underneath it and an equivalent amount of natural gas. This bill is just a giveaway to Exxon-Mobil and Shell.

Reference: Reversing Pres. Obama's Offshore Moratorium Act; Bill H.1231 ; vote number 11-HV320 on May 12, 2011

Voted YES on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases.

Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:
[Rep. Upton, R-MI]: This legislation will remove the biggest regulatory threat to the American economy. This is a threat imposed not by Congress, but entirely by the Obama EPA. This administration wanted a cap-and-trade system to regulate greenhouse gases, but Congress said no. So beginning in early 2009, EPA began putting together a house of cards to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide. The agency began with automobiles, declaring that their emissions endangered public health. That single endangerment finding has since been used by EPA to launch an unparalleled onslaught. The result, two years later, is a series of regulations that will ultimately affect every citizen, every industry, really every aspect of our economy and way of life.

Opponent's Argument for voting No:
[Rep. Waxman, D-CA]: This bill is a direct assault on the Clean Air Act. Its premise is that climate change is a hoax and carbon pollution does not endanger health and welfare. But climate change is real. It is caused by pollution, and it is a serious threat to our health and welfare. We need to confront these realities. American families count on the EPA to keep our air and water clean. But this bill has politicians overruling the experts at EPA, and it exempts our biggest polluters from regulation. If this bill is enacted, the EPA's ability to control dangerous carbon pollution will be gutted.

Reference: Energy Tax Prevention Act; Bill H.910 ; vote number 11-HV249 on Apr 7, 2011

Voted NO on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution.

Congressional Summary:Requires utilities to supply an increasing percentage of their demand from a combination of energy efficiency savings and renewable energy (6% in 2012, 9.5% in 2014, 13% in 2016, 16.5% in 2018, and 20% in 2021). Provides for:
  1. issuing, trading, and verifying renewable electricity credits; and
  2. prescribing standards to define and measure electricity savings from energy efficiency and energy conservation measures.
Amends the Clean Air Act (CAA) to set forth a national strategy to address barriers to the commercial-scale deployment of carbon capture and sequestration.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Rep. ED MARKEY (D, MA-7): For the first time in the history of our country, we will put enforceable limits on global warming pollution. At its core, however, this is a jobs bill. It will create millions of new, clean-energy jobs in whole new industries with incentives to drive competition in the energy marketplace. It sets ambitious and achievable standards for energy efficiency and renewable energy from solar, wind, geothermal, biomass so that by 2020, 20% of America's energy will be clean.

Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. BOB GOODLATTE (R, VA-6): I agree that this bill has very important consequences, but those consequences are devastating for the future of the economy of this country. It's a fantasy that this legislation will turn down the thermostat of the world by reducing CO2 gas emissions when China & India & other nations are pumping more CO2 gas into the atmosphere all the time. We would be far better served with legislation that devotes itself to developing new technologies before we slam the door on our traditional sources of energy like coal and oil and and nuclear power. We support the effort for energy efficiency. We do not support this kind of suicide for the American economy. Unfortunately, cap and trade legislation would only further cripple our economy.

Reference: American Clean Energy and Security Act; Bill H.R.2454 ; vote number 2009-H477 on Jun 26, 2009

Voted NO on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets.

Congressional Summary:Extends the tax credit for producing electricity from renewable resources:

Proponent's argument to vote Yes: Rep. RICHARD NEAL (D, MA-2): This bill contains extensions of popular tax incentives that expired at the end of last year. This needs to get under way. The R&D tax credit is important. This bill includes a number of popular and forward-thinking incentives for energy efficiency. This is a very balanced bill which does no harm to the Federal Treasury. It asks that hedge fund managers pay a bit more, and it delays an international tax break that hasn't gone into effect yet. It is responsible legislation.

Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. DAVE CAMP (R, MI-4): We are conducting another purely political exercise on a tax bill that is doomed in the other body because of our House majority's insistence on adhering to the misguided PAYGO rules. The Senate acted on a bipartisan basis to find common ground on this issue. They approved a comprehensive tax relief package containing extenders provisions that are not fully offset, as many Democrats would prefer, but contain more offsets than Republicans would like. Why is this our only option? Because the Senate, which has labored long and hard to develop that compromise, has indicated in no uncertain terms that it is not going to reconsider these issues again this year.

[The bill was killed in the Senate].

Reference: Renewable Energy and Job Creation Tax Act; Bill H.R.7060 ; vote number 2008-H649 on Sep 26, 2008

Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation.

OnTheIssues.org Explanation: This bill passed the House but was killed in the Senate on a rejected Cloture Motion, Senate rollcall #150

Congressional Summary: A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide Tax incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, and to provide individual income tax relief.