Searching for the Keys to the Energy Puzzle

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
Add to Briefcase
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 »
ANNOUNCED BY SCARAMUCCI
Sarah Huckabee Sanders Is New Press Secretary
6 hours ago
THE LATEST
SAYS IT WAS “AN HONOR”
Spicer Staying on Through August
6 hours ago
THE LATEST
FIRST IN WEEKS
On-Camera Press Briefing Today at 2
7 hours ago
WHY WE CARE
HE LASTED SIX MONTHS
Sean Spicer Resigns
7 hours ago
THE LATEST

He resigned this morning, "telling President Trump he vehemently disagreed with the appointment of New York financier Anthony Scaramucci as communications director." Per Politico, "chief of staff Reince Priebus and chief strategist Steve Bannon" were opposed to the appointment, while "Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn, and Deputy National Security Adviser Dina Powell" were supportive..."Another White House official said Spicer was gracious while breaking the news of his departure, offered some praise for Scaramucci, while saying he would help with a transition."

Source:
STAFF IS PUSHING BACK
Trump Wants Scaramucci to Helm WH Communications
10 hours ago
THE LATEST

"President Trump is expected to announce that Wall Street financier Anthony Scaramucci will be White House communications director, according to two sources familiar with the planning. Trump has left the role open since Mike Dubke resigned in May, and the President has vented frequently to his friends about the performance of his press operation." According to NBC News, Steve Bannon and Reince Priebus are resisting the move.

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login