OPINION
Two lengthy defenses of Eric Barlow’s energy record have arrived at what their author seems to view as a remarkable and startling discovery: his 2003 congressional testimony discussed property rights, water, and responsible development. Readers of my original article already knew that because I told them.
I also did something Commissioner Marti Ertman’s responses largely overlook: I asked Barlow to respond and published his answer in its entirety. He had the opportunity to explain his testimony directly to my readers. My request of him, though not published in my original article, was direct: “I am writing a piece on Eric Barlow's advocating for the end of fossil fuels in 2003 testimony to Congress. If you would care to comment the deadline is 5pm today.”
In reply, here is what he said:
“Calling my 2003 testimony anti-energy is simply false. I explicitly supported responsible energy development while standing up for Wyoming landowners and protecting our water. Supporting Wyoming energy and protecting property rights are not mutually exclusive. These discussions continue today for other energy and indsustrial [sic] sectors.”
Clearly, I didn’t refer to him as being “anti-energy,” he did. That was his complete response, including the original spelling. Furthermore, The Open Range Record provided a direct link to Barlow’s 2003 Congressional testimony. To characterize my reporting in my podcast episode or in my well-researched article as taking Mr. Barlow out of context is, frankly, disingenuous at best.
Barlow denied my clear reading of his testimony. He did not explain away his words that prompted it. Ms. Ertman has now spent considerable effort establishing that most of the testimony concerned the effects of energy development on landowners. Granted. My article expressly acknowledged those concerns. But counting paragraphs does not settle the original argument, especially when the disputed language appears in its conclusion.
Barlow introduced that paragraph as his “final point.” He then called for America to “move beyond nonrenewable sources of energy” and said the role of fossil fuels should be one of “transition and not reliance.”
A conclusion ordinarily gathers an argument’s essential points and leaves the audience with its intended takeaway. It is where a writer tells readers what the preceding discussion ultimately means. Rhetorically, the ending carries particular weight because it is the thought the audience remembers. Those few congressmen listening to Pat Sweeney read Barlow’s letter remembered the ending and not the middle of it.
Barlow chose to end with a national energy prescription. After explaining the problems he associated with development, he called for abandoning reliance on fossil fuels. That went considerably beyond requiring a company to reclaim a well site.
Commissioner Ertman concedes that those words are authentic. Her disagreement concerns how much significance readers should attach to them. I attach considerable significance to the conclusion and “final point” Barlow deliberately delivered to Congress.
Ertman’s voluminous follow-up offers stronger, albeit misleading evidence: Barlow co-sponsored legislation establishing a presumption against retiring generating facilities. That belongs in any serious discussion. My original article likewise acknowledged his claimed accomplishments supporting coal, including severance-tax efforts and an amendment he said enabled additional production.
But supporting existing plants does not necessarily represent a repudiation of his earlier position. A transition requires something to operate during that transition. Keeping a plant open today is entirely compatible with believing the country should eventually stop relying on the fuel that powers it. Despite a copious number of paragraphs, Ertman leaves my central question unanswered: Does Barlow still hold the position he expressed in 2003? His lengthy environmental activist record suggests that he does. But Commissioner Ertman doesn’t mention that well-documented article either.
Then there is HB200—Reliable and Dispatchable Low-Carbon Energy Standards. Ertman attempts to explain that carbon capture was supposed to extend coal’s operating life. She also makes the dubious claim that the technology’s expense, feasibility, and economic consequences are separate questions. Separate from intent, perhaps. They are indivisible, however, from the question of whether the policy actually helps coal. A study in 2022 noted that this bill would likely increase electricity rates by 237%.
While in Jackson last week, Mr. Barlow told a crowd that the bill was passed while “The Administration” was moving toward carbon capture and lowering CO2 emissions. HB200 was passed in March of 2020 while Donald J. Trump was still president—a full 8 months before the 2020 election. President Trump was not making, nor has he ever made any move to reduce CO2. Barlow used “the administration”: to justify a vote that it wouldn’t have had anything to do with.
It’s interesting that Commissioner Ertman essentially accuses me of taking Barlow out of context in his 2003 comments to Congress. That’s exactly what she does to me. In her interminable response, she makes this claim:
“Iverson makes an interesting argument about the timing. Donald Trump was president when the bill passed. Trump certainly wasn't leading a federal charge to eliminate coal, and nobody sitting in the Wyoming Legislature could possibly have known who would win the presidential election that November. Both things are true. But I'm not sure they tell us much about why Wyoming passed HB 200.”
She is right about one thing: my argument doesn’t make much sense when you leave out half of it. Barlow misled the crowd in Jackson, and Ertman misled her readers by only printing part of what I said and wrote.
A mandate cannot be judged solely by the reassuring language used to sell it. If compliance makes electricity less competitive, the stated intention to preserve coal does not settle whether the policy undermines its future. That requires evidence about costs and results—evidence that my article clearly provides.
Barlow was given an opportunity to address the central issue. He answered with a defense of responsible development that my article printed in full. The question about his chosen destination of a country without fossil fuels is where he ended.
Ms. Ertman asks us to read the entire record. Agreed. Include his favorable votes. Include his explanation. Include the costs of his policies. And when reading his testimony, keep going to the conclusion. That is where Barlow told Congress he wanted Wyoming and the country to go. That’s also what Ertman is asking you to ignore.