Searching for the Keys to the Energy Puzzle

None

A supply boat, lower left, passes an oil production platform in the Gulf of Mexico May 26, 2010. Offshore oil production and drilling structures dot the Louisiana coastline.    UPI/A.J. Sisco..
National Journal
Amy Harder
See more stories about...
Amy Harder
Sept. 15, 2013, 8:40 a.m.

At pan­el dis­cus­sions, key­note ad­dresses, and con­ver­sa­tions across Wash­ing­ton, it’s a ubi­quit­ous idea: We need a na­tion­al en­ergy plan!

I have been asked many times wheth­er I think the coun­try needs such a plan (or strategy or blue­print; choose your fa­vor­ite rel­ev­ant noun). It’s a con­veni­ent, catchall, feel-good phrase that gen­er­ally means: Wash­ing­ton, get your act to­geth­er on en­ergy and cli­mate policy.

With the Sen­ate de­bat­ing its first en­ergy bill in six years, hype around a “na­tion­al en­ergy plan” is run­ning high. It shouldn’t be. This en­ergy-ef­fi­ciency bill, which has just one — one! — man­dat­ory pro­vi­sion, is a tiny sliv­er of any sort of na­tion­al en­ergy strategy.

“It’s not com­pre­hens­ive en­ergy re­form by any stretch,” said former Sen. Byron Dor­gan, D-N.D., of the ef­fi­ciency bill. “But giv­en the lim­it­a­tions of what might or might not be pos­sible in the Con­gress, it’s worth do­ing.”

The whole concept of a na­tion­al en­ergy plan is a bit mis­placed. And when people ask me wheth­er I think we need a na­tion­al en­ergy plan, I an­swer in two ways.

First, I an­swer with an­oth­er ques­tion: How do you define a na­tion­al en­ergy plan? I can’t an­swer a ques­tion whose premise lacks a defin­i­tion. In this case, the defin­i­tion de­pends on who you ask.

To vir­tu­ally all Re­pub­lic­ans and many Demo­crats rep­res­ent­ing en­ergy-in­tens­ive states and dis­tricts, the crux of a na­tion­al en­ergy plan means ex­pand­ing oil and nat­ur­al-gas drilling off­shore and on pub­lic lands, re­lax­ing reg­u­la­tions, and min­im­iz­ing the fed­er­al role as much as pos­sible.

To many Demo­crats and oth­ers con­cerned about cli­mate change, a na­tion­al en­ergy plan might be bet­ter called a na­tion­al cli­mate and en­ergy plan. That could take the shape of a cap-and-trade sys­tem that caps the amount of green­house-gas emis­sions com­pan­ies can emit. Con­gress tried but failed to pass such a pro­pos­al dur­ing Pres­id­ent Obama’s first four years in the White House. Or it could mean a car­bon tax, which has gained trac­tion among think tanks in re­cent months. Or it could mean reg­u­la­tions, which Obama has vowed to use to tackle glob­al warm­ing with Con­gress stalled.

As long as most Re­pub­lic­ans and Demo­crats define a na­tion­al en­ergy plan in these widely dif­fer­ent terms, find­ing agree­ment on just one plan will re­quire sig­ni­fic­ant com­prom­ise on both sides.

The second thing I say in re­sponse to a ques­tion about wheth­er the coun­try needs a na­tion­al en­ergy plan is that we already have one. You just may not like it very much. This plan is made up of a patch­work of policies put in place largely by the pair of en­ergy bills that then-Pres­id­ent Bush signed in­to law in 2005 and 2007 at a time when Wash­ing­ton was try­ing to be­come more en­ergy in­de­pend­ent. These policies in­clude the re­new­able-fuel stand­ard, which has come un­der in­tense bi­par­tis­an scru­tiny in the last year, and stronger fuel-eco­nomy stand­ards, which Obama in turn made even more am­bi­tious. A host of tax in­cent­ives, both tem­por­ary (like the wind pro­duc­tion tax cred­it) and per­man­ent (sev­er­al oil and nat­ur­al gas tax de­duc­tions) also shape our na­tion’s en­ergy plan.

“Any­body who says we don’t have a plan — yes of course we have a plan,” said Chris Miller, who un­til earli­er this year was the top en­ergy and en­vir­on­ment aide to Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Harry Re­id, D-Nev. “This is our plan un­til something new passes Con­gress and is signed by the pres­id­ent.”

That’s easi­er said than done, es­pe­cially giv­en how much has changed in the past six years. The gov­ern­ment warned in 2007 that the na­tion was run­ning out of nat­ur­al gas. Today, some people ar­gue we have a sur­feit of it. In 2005, we im­por­ted 60 per­cent of our oil; today, it’s down to 40 per­cent. The term “frack­ing” was as­so­ci­ated with Star Trek, not oil and nat­ur­al gas. Glob­al green­house-gas emis­sions are at a re­cord high, even though U.S. emis­sions are down in the last six years. Layered on top of this sea change in en­ergy are polit­ics much more averse to any­thing that ex­pands gov­ern­ment in­volve­ment or deals with cli­mate change.

The bet­ter ques­tion to ask is wheth­er we need a new na­tion­al en­ergy plan, in light of the new en­ergy — and cli­mate — land­scape. While it may not seem like it, Wash­ing­ton is de­bat­ing all of this a lot: The House En­ergy and Com­merce Com­mit­tee is craft­ing le­gis­la­tion to re­form the re­new­able-fuel stand­ard. The En­vir­on­ment­al Pro­tec­tion Agency is craft­ing rules con­trolling car­bon emis­sions from power plants. If or when Wash­ing­ton tackles com­pre­hens­ive tax re­form, the en­ergy in­dustry will have much at stake.

“I think we have vari­ous en­ergy policies, all of which ad­dress a dif­fer­ent part of the puzzle that we’re work­ing through,” said former Sen­ate En­ergy and Nat­ur­al Re­sources Chair­man Jeff Binga­man, D-N.M. “The idea that we’re go­ing to have a 25-word solu­tion to our en­ergy prob­lem is not real­ist­ic.”

The 30-page en­ergy-ef­fi­ciency bill the Sen­ate is de­bat­ing — or try­ing to de­bate, if Re­pub­lic­ans al­low it — is a very small piece of this puzzle. But if you can’t (yet) agree on the big pieces, you should start with the small ones.

What We're Following See More »
TAKING A LONG VIEW TO SOUTHERN STATES
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
2 days ago
THE DETAILS

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Source:
‘PITTING PEOPLE AGAINST EACH OTHER’
Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Source:
THE TIME IS NOW, TED
Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Source:
CHRISTIE, BUSH TRYING TO TAKE HIM DOWN
Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Source:
7 REPUBLICANS ON STAGE
Carly Fiorina Will Not Be Allowed to Debate on Saturday
1 days ago
THE LATEST

ABC News has announced the criteria for Saturday’s Republican debate, and that means Carly Fiorina won’t be a part of it. The network is demanding candidates have “a top-three finish in Iowa, a top-six standing in an average of recent New Hampshire polls or a top-six placement in national polls in order for candidates to qualify.” And there will be no “happy hour” undercard debate this time. “So that means no Fiorina vs. Jim Gilmore showdown earlier in the evening for the most ardent of campaign 2016 junkies.

Source:
×