Counterpoint to Heritage on DOE cuts

Last week, I reported briefly on a policy report released recently by the Heritage Foundation calling for what I believe to be drastic and dangerous cuts to the Department of Energy. Today, my colleagues and I produced an expanded and thorough response to Heritage (PDF), combating their claims that private enterprise can most effectively operate in the energy sector without much or any government support.

We argue that the Heritage report contains numerous inconsistencies and inaccuracies, such as:

• Heritage cites several ventures as evidence of independent private sector efforts to develop next generation energy technologies that in fact each received public support.

• The report wrongly suggests that DOE budget expenditures are prime targets for substantial deficit reduction.

• The report uses out-of-context figures to exaggerate the relative magnitude of DOE’s budget.

• The report is inconsistent in its support and understanding of the DOE’s role in enhancing energy security.

• The report assumes a zero-sum competition between government and private investors rather than acknowledging the long and successful history of public-private partnerships.

• Selective and prejudicial history is applied to suggest that government research has little to no commercial aim or value.

• The report relies on the unfounded assumption that the private sector is, and should be, largely responsible for energy research, commerce, and infrastructure.

• Heritage acknowledges the role of government in advancing a national interest not met by the private sector, yet claims that the government is not equipped to do so.

• Heritage is inconsistent in applying their support or opposition to federal programs supporting clean energy innovation.

• Heritage wrongly suggests that the private sector invests sufficiently in energy innovation.

The rebuttal has been published by ITIF, the Breakthrough Institute, and Americans for Energy Leadership. Check it out.