Monday, September 1, 2003
Pass energy bill, minus silly politics
Energy-policy talking points will trip off the tongues of congressional representatives returning to the capital this week. Let's hope that, after a long recess, their brains engage with their mouths.
The disruptions created by the Northeast blackout brought fresh attention to energy issues last month. The blackout also gave at least some momentum to the faltering national energy bill that the Bush administration has long sought.
That's legitimate. It's generally better to make conscious decisions rather than simply drift into indecision.
But the substance of the choices matters, too -- very much in this case. Unless Congress keeps in mind the whole energy picture rather than just the headlines about blackouts, the bill could end up worse than inaction.
A Senate version of the energy bill isn't great, but it does try to balance environmental, consumer and energy production concerns. The House version, unfortunately, looks very much like a dream of the energy industry and the White House. It calls for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, more electricity deregulation and massive tax breaks for oil companies. The measure, in fact, is much like the National Energy Plan that Vice President Dick Cheney developed in secret sessions.
Shortly after the blackout, a congressional agency documented Cheney's stonewalling about energy policy planning. He may even have misled Congress. The congressional General Accounting Office said that despite the vice president's representation to Congress that he had been "responsive" to requests for documents containing expenditures on planning, the agency received only 77 pages, mostly of little use. Among them were "four pages containing indecipherable scribbling."
The GAO said officials actively sought industry lobbyists' views while paying less attention to meeting experts, policy groups and citizens. But the report said the agency could not determine to what degree, if any, the outside views shaped the energy plan.
As the GAO notes, Cheney's denial of information is unprecedented. That should give pause to lawmakers. If the details eventually emerge from private parties' court challenges, members of Congress who support the energy bill may share in whatever embarrassment lies in the records.
Perhaps oddly, Cheney continues to block access to the documents at the very moment that the blackout has focused interest on energy supplies. If the record does show a fair, reasonable, decision-making process, the administration's proposals would gain in public support.
As this newspaper suggested recently, the blackout sent a clear message that the public and policy-makers should be open to changes in delivering electricity to consumers. That includes looking at some additional steps toward deregulation or privatization.
But the British blackout last week provides a reminder that America enjoys generally well-designed regulations regarding electric supplies. The mayor of London suggested the trouble there could stem from inadequate investment on the part of Britain's privatized electricity market.
If Congress moves ahead with energy legislation, lawmakers must think carefully. Their plan will help the country, or hurt the American public.