THE QUEST FOR ENERGY CONSENSUS

April 9, 1990
How should the U.S. assess the national energy strategy under construction by the federal government? Energy Sec. James D. Watkins has a suggestion. "If we can finish a product that will make everybody equally unhappy," he said last week when his department published its interim report, "we will have done our job."

How should the U.S. assess the national energy strategy under construction by the federal government? Energy Sec. James D. Watkins has a suggestion. "If we can finish a product that will make everybody equally unhappy," he said last week when his department published its interim report, "we will have done our job."

Watkins doesn't mean that, of course. He means quite the opposite. On orders from President Bush, he is trying "to build the national consensus necessary to support this strategy and to make this strategy a living and dynamic document, responsive to new knowledge and new ideas, and to global, environmental, and international changes." So a Department of Energy team has spent the last 8 months collecting the public comments that fill the energy strategy interim report.

To be sure, consensus is a virtuous goal. But it won't propel automobiles or trucks. It won't fuel aircraft engines or heat buildings. It won't prevent electric power interruptions in the Northeast. And it won't produce effective policy because it can't reach to the complex realms where energy solutions dwell.

SUPERFICIAL CONSENSUS

Everybody wants cheap, infinitely available, nonpolluting energy that never blows up buildings, accidentally catches fire, or shocks people. Everybody supports conservation. Everybody wants a cleaner environment. Superficial consensus is easy. Come December, DOE can give the President recommendations stressing energy efficiency, safety, and environmental protection. But how will the government assure U.S. consumers of ready access to affordable energy? That's the central issue of energy policy. And DOE is only glancing at it in its crusade for holy consensus. The administration is peddling process, not policy.

It has its reasons. For the time being, energy carries political weight only in its role as environmental antagonist. Supply isn't an issue because there's no shortage. Attention to future supply would start fights over oil and gas leasing, plant siting, and other necessities. So who needs it? There are no political careers at stake. There is no public uproar over surging U.S. dependence on foreign oil, plummeting domestic oil production, or looming electricity shortages. And there will be no public uproar until those problems become crises. Then it will be too late.

Then, now, and in the meantime, consensus won't matter. Assurance of future energy supply is a constant national challenge that becomes only more troublesome while policy makers have their heads turned. When officials finally do concentrate on supply, they will find antileasing and no-growth activists no tamer than before.

PROBLEMS WON'T WAIT

Bush is wasting the time of his energy secretary and his country. Instead of chasing a futile consensus, Watkins should be designing policies that encourage development and delivery of all forms of economic energy. He should be promoting the vision of a smooth transition to future fuel markets dominated by renewable energy. He should be advocating rapid assessment and development of all energy resources and technologies that make economic sense or show reasonable promise. And he should be resisting any effort to place the government back in the business of selecting fuels, setting prices, controlling demand, or allocating supply.

The U.S. needs an energy policy oriented to future supply and a strong leader, like Watkins, to design and implement it. It can't afford to wait for a consensus that never will happen. Consensus energy policies end up long on consumerism and environmentalism and short on energy. Consensus energy policies don't work.

Copyright 1990 Oil & Gas Journal. All Rights Reserved.