Kenneth Medlock, senior director at the Center for Energy Studies, testified before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Small Business on June 17. Medlock testified for the committee’s hearing, “Crude Intentions: The Untold Story of the Ban, the Oil Industry and America’s Small Businesses.” He discussed the latest CES study, “To Lift or Not to Lift? The U.S. Crude Oil Export Ban: Implications for Price and Energy Security,” which analyzes the economic and energy security impacts of the 40-year-old ban on oil exports.

This study examines the effects of lifting the 40-year-old U.S. crude export ban on crude pricing, energy security and energy sector investment. It includes a statistical analysis that explains what the relationship would be between the prices of crudes of different qualities in an unconstrained setting, which, according to author Ken Medlock, is important to providing a more accurate assessment of the impact of current U.S. policy.

Fossil fuel subsidies have allowed energy exporting countries to distribute resource revenue, bolstering legitimacy for governments, many of which are not democratically elected. But subsidy benefits are dwarfed by the harmful consequences of encouraging uneconomic use of energy. Now, with consumption posing a threat to long-term exports, governments face a heightened need to raise prices that have come to be viewed as entitlements. While reforms of state benefits are notoriously politically dangerous, previous experience shows that subsidies can be rolled back without undermining government legitimacy — even in autocratic settings — given proper preparation.

Experts from the Baker Institute Center for Energy Studies examines issues in global energy.