Nation's energy needs demand bolder action
7:02 PM 8/14/03

The U.S. House and Senate seem committed to producing an expensive disappointment for an energy bill. Here's what should happen instead.

A federal energy policy including four key programs outlined below would provide the United States with greater energy independence at less risk to the environment.

A strategy to encourage new-technology cars and trucks. Transportation accounts for nearly two-thirds of U.S. oil consumption. This is where to look for a way to get the most bang for our buck in energy policy.

The energy bill is likely to offer modest support for hydrogen fuel cells, which hold great promise for the future, and ethanol, a fuel from renewable sources that can reduce reliance on petroleum. But bolder steps are needed.

The first step should be significant tax incentives to promote the manufacture and sale of cleaner-running, more efficient hybrid cars and trucks. Hybrids combine gasoline or diesel engines with electric motors.

The Energy Future Coalition, a group with members ranging from the Big Three automakers to the Sierra Club, recommended a $10 billion investment in government-sponsored research and tax incentives to jumpstart the country's transition to new-technology vehicles. In contrast, the House energy bill provided $18.7 billion in tax breaks, mostly for the oil, natural gas and coal industries.

A fuel tax increase. An increase in the federal gasoline tax, or a new tax on fuels based on carbon content, should be adopted with new money earmarked for investment in the new technologies required to provide a secure, clean energy supply. In view of the sluggish economy, a delay in the effective date of the tax increase, and a phased-in introductory period, would be prudent.

A "cap and trade" system to reduce air pollution. The goal would be to establish a market-based strategy to cut overall air pollution by capping emissions at progressively lower levels. Companies cutting pollution beyond an established cap could build up credits. They could then sell the credits to companies unable to meet their caps. Thus, businesses would have a profit motive to cut pollution. But, businesses unable to cut pollution could preserve jobs by buying credits.

Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., proposed a "cap-and-trade" plan, but the Senate rejected it.

A "smart grid" for electricity transmission. A "smart grid," to be developed over the next 20 years, would employ new technologies to make the nation's electricity more secure against terrorist threats and better able to deliver power efficiently.

The "smart grid,' another recommendation from the Energy Future Coalition, is a bolder version of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's plan to create a nationwide electricity transmission grid - a plan at which the Senate and House have balked.

The energy bill is now in the hands of a conference committee of House and Senate members assigned to hash out differences between bills passed by the House and Senate. The House bill was chiefly a collection of favors to the oil and natural gas industry that will cost the treasury more than it will yield in energy benefits. The Senate simply passed the same bill it passed a year ago as a ploy to let the conference committee write the legislation.

Let's hope the next Congress can do a better job of steering the country toward a safe, clean and reliable supply of energy for generations to come.