Reality Test for Energy Plan

Seven months ago, President Bush released his energy plan on a doomsday note. This was, he said, the worst crisis since the 1970s. “If we fail to act, this great country could face a dark future.” It was a grim picture of dwindling supply in the face of soaring demand, of California-style blackouts and economy-crippling prices. Worst of all, the United States risked putting its energy security in the hands of countries that did not wish it well. Imagine Saddam Hussein holding us hostage for Iraqi oil.

“Energy security” was the byword, escalating recently to the idea of “energy independence.” But guess what’s happened? The law of supply and demand went to work. Prices went up, the search for oil boomed. But then, without a whisper of federal intervention, too much oil came on the market and prices plummeted. We’re awash in cheap oil again, in part, of course, because of the economy’s dip.

The power blackouts stopped before the print was dry on the Bush plan. California now is saddled with excess power the state can’t sell for half its cost. World oil prices averaged $17.64 a barrel in early December, down more than 25% from last January. And while Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney called for a crash increase in domestic oil production, the Oil & Gas Journal reported earlier this month that U.S. drilling activity declined to 928 exploratory rigs at work, down 24 from the previous week. When oil prices soar, and they are sure to eventually, the drill rigs will move to the field again.

The Bush plan, developed by Cheney with the help of many of his old energy industry buddies, included some dubious moves, such as reviving and expanding nuclear power and greater use of coal and hydroelectric power. Where are we going to build more nuclear plants, more dams?

There never was a definition of “energy security,” no outline of just what mix of fuels the nation needed, in what quantities and by when. There still isn’t, although an Energy Department spokeswoman said last week that such an outline is being worked on.

National energy independence is a simpler idea, but an impossible one as long as the United States relies so heavily on fossil fuels. Fifty-two percent of our crude oil comes from other countries, much of it from places like the North Sea and Venezuela, not just the volatile Middle East. More oil can and should be found and recovered domestically, but U.S. reserves are a negligible slice of the world total.

The greatest flaw of the energy plan is its demand to drill for oil in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the nation’s last large undisturbed ecosystem. Only Alaska could give us quick national energy security, Bush said. That was flimflam from the beginning.

The immediate crisis is gone. By the time the Alaskan oil could arrive--in eight to 10 years--the nation could develop a long-range strategy that includes fossil fuels, alternative and renewable fuels, expanded conservation and higher auto mileage standards, particularly for sport-utility vehicles and light trucks.

Of course future shortages are likely, as are market aberrations like those that caused California blackouts. Full-on war in the Middle East could raise energy havoc. The nation needs an energy plan able to survive all manner of shocks. But it should be focused on long-term realities, not an abundant and reckless past.