With chances higher than they have been in years that the US Congress will enact an energy policy worthy of the name, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has set a cynical trap.
The energy policy task force headed by Vice-Pres. Dick Cheney will officially publish its proposals this week. By all accounts, the program will focus on development of energy supply, a fundamental policy area urgently needing attention.
The DNC, loath to grant the Bush administration any type of policy victory, will try to mire the energy plan in political sensitivities about campaign finance. Its concern is the crucial 2002 election, not energy supply.
The payback ploy
Under the DNC strategy, congressional Democrats will portray policies oriented to energy supply as recompense for energy-company political contributions in last year's presidential election. DNC articulated the theme in a section of its review of President George W. Bush's first 100 days in office, entitled Top 10 Paybacks to the Energy Industry.
"One of the most obvious and recurring themes of Bush's first 100 days has been the extraordinary influence the oil and gas industry has had in the new administration," says the preamble to this section, which notes that oil and gas interests contributed more than $3 million to Bush's election effort. "In exchange, Bush has rolled back regulations issued by the Clinton administration on such things as air conditioner efficiency, as well as breaking his campaign promise to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.
"Bush has proposed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and national monuments. Bush has taken a back seat when it comes to the energy crisis California is experiencing while cutting funding for energy conservation programs. He has also repaid top donors, lobbyists, and industry officials with key positions through his administration."
Democrats will try to cast discussion about energy policy in this mold. It's a desperate strategy. Oil and gas companies should turn it to the advantage of progress toward adoption of meaningful policy.
They should begin by acknowledging that Bush has indeed requited the contributions that came his way during the campaign from the energy industry. But he didn't do so with specific policy initiatives. He did it simply by not being Al Gore.
The former vice-president's weird views on energy and the environment promised more of the supply antagonism that came to characterize the Clinton administration's approach to energy. Energy-industry support of Bush-or any challenger to Gore-was defensive in nature. As long as Clinton held office and Gore had any chance of winning the election, the energy industry's priority had to be stopping the damage.
Current market conditions validate the concern. Gasoline prices are high largely because Clinton-era regulatory excesses created a tangle of refining and distribution bottlenecks. New regulations not yet in effect will aggravate the problem.
Also, despite feverish drilling, questions loom over adequacy of natural gas supply. Yet some of the best prospects for major discovery remain off limits to operators. Land lock-ups expanded during the Clinton administration, which found new ways to deny Americans the benefits of resource development on federal acreage.
An energy system working at the limits of capacity screams-through zooming prices-for removal of impediments such as these. To encourage supply development is therefore totally appropriate.
And for an energy policy that encourages supply, the time is right. High prices and an electricity crisis in the US West give energy the public attention it needs to provoke action by Congress. The groundwork is in place with comprehensive energy bills already in Congress. The Cheney proposal will add momentum.
Democrats, though, lie in wait with the "payback" brand. Supporters of supply-oriented energy policy will have to clear the hurdle quickly.
Quick action
Congress must act on energy this year if it is to act at all. Its summer recess approaches. Once drafted and introduced, legislation will need committee work, floor discussion, votes, and reconciliation between House and Senate versions. It's a tall order.
The impetus, however, is strong. The US needs an energy policy that addresses its growing requirement for affordable energy. Against the need, the DNC's resort to campaign-finance cynicism looks like the ploy of a group devoid, where energy is concerned, of constructive ideas.
