Over the past several years individuals and organizations across the political spectrum have called for a comprehensive national energy policy.
For example, the CEO of American Electric Power (AEP) recently called for a comprehensive, multi-decade policy, citing the power sector’s desire for regulatory certainty. “One of the biggest challenges [for AEP], certainly from a regulatory perspective,” he said, “[is that] regulations tend to change based upon what administration is in place. Really we do need an element of consistency there.”
Robert Rapier, author of the R-Squared column at Consumer Energy Report, also supports the need for more stable energy policies. “A sound energy policy should take into account the supply side, the demand side, and the possibility that projections will be wrong on one or both counts,” he writes. “Energy policy decisions must also factor in the impact on current and future generations, and they should be capable of weathering changing political climates.”
The Obama Administration has touted its “all of the above” energy policy, based on last year’s “Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future”.
Administration critics such as presidential candidate Mitt Romney have disparaged the Administration’s approach, focusing on what some see as restrictive regulations and unjustified support for clean energy technologies.
Is it true that the U.S. lacks an energy policy? What might a comprehensive national energy policy look like? Does the Obama Administration’s “all of the above” strategy constitute a national energy policy?
For several years I’ve been advocating “all of the above” as the best approach to an energy policy. I was cheered by the President’s first mention of the phrase in the recent State of the Union address. Unfortunately, the next day he began parsing the word “all” and I became somewhat less cheery. So here is what comprises my personal take on “All of the above” as a strategy: “Drill, Baby, drill!” “Green, Baby, green!” And most importantly, “Conserve, Baby, conserve!” In addition, a from-the-ground-up overhaul of energy regulation in the U.S. would is required.
This last is included for the following reason: BP’s Macondo blowout was as much the fault of a regulatory body asleep at the switch as it was due to the company’s culture of taking large safety and environmental risks in order to cut costs. BP’s S&E record was so egregious compared to their technological peers that they should not have been allowed to start the well. In the event, the government of the country that invented modern oil wells and developed much of the industry’s technology found itself lacking the internal expertise to know who to trust. We need a national regulatory body possessed of the knowledge to identify and direct correction of concerns regarding safety and environmental protection, then the politics to otherwise get out of the way.
I think the underlying challenge to a having a stable and coherent grand energy strategy is the lack of coherence about what we want our future to look like, and what factors are actually influencing it. If we want a future reality, we need to be informed and have no illusions about what our current reality is – and understand the transition needed to get from ‘now’ to ‘desired future’. To this end, I again state that we need a ‘national energy dialogue’ to go along with a national energy policy. Whether it comes from grassroots or top down, the dialogue needs to take place so people understand what the choices are, and what the factors are guiding those choices – choices about where the energy we use comes from, it’s environmental and economic impact, as well as how it shapes the future of our country and world.
This sounds like a lot of happy, fluffy, ideal future talk, but it’s a vital part to making decisions. As it stands, America seems to want to do well on the test, but it’s not going to class and doing the readings at night; so when exam-day comes, all that is written under the policy of “what should US energy policy be?” is some conviction or opinion-driven feeling about how things should be, rather than something planned and deliberated, acknowledging various difficulties and necessary maneuvers to overcome them.
I agree with Robert Rapier, as well as this “the CEO of American Electric Power (AEP) recently called for a comprehensive, multi-decade policy, citing the power sector’s desire for regulatory certainty” – multi-decade, comprehensive, absolutely. The obvious uncertainty and flux of the coming decades doesn’t mean we should plan less, but plan more and more carefully work out contingencies. There are so many factors affecting our current period, particularly in light of energy’s inherently international implications. Calamity cannot be avoided by trying to run away from it.”
Also, I agree with Joel. The BP example serves well, as does Fukushima – both things that improved regulations and more diligent, proactive management could have mitigated. Even the International Energy Agency’s recent report, entitled Golden Rules for a Golden Age of Gas, acknowledges shale gas and tight oil will require most sound of practices to effectively deal with growing energy demands. The IEA is looking ahead; the US should welcome their advice.
America needs desperately to uncouple political polarization and energy policy – which takes me back to my opening point of a national energy dialogue. Just like the US getting its credit rating reduced due to the uncertainty generated by the near-disaster on raising the national debt limit, this quarrelsomeness affects energy as well. Whatever the outcome, that a decision like what to do about Keystone XL is unfolding the way it has indicates a lack of a solid plan, no less a lack of coherent public opinion.
The more time without a plan, the more time wasted… and from a competition-based vantage, the more time competitors gain ground over the US’s lack of coherence. From the perspective that sees how important consistent, well thought out planning in terms of research and development, botched regulatory practices, and future energy markets, the more time wasted means the less future advantage the US could be putting itself in as time passes.
If we kept up the intensified focus that was in the US after the 1970′s energy shocks, we could have been in a different position now, forty years later. Yet now, again, new technology creates a buffer zone, potentially impeding the sense of urgency.
I would suggest a national energy policy understands this bit of history, and aims to position itself to a more advantageous future position in light of these many elements.
Agreed. Before we can get a policy we need energy goals to direct it. The latter can only be achieved by a dialogue involving people who represent a broad cross-section of points of view. What they ALL must have in common is a desire to make progress, the understanding that there are a number of differing viewpoints to be reconciled and a continuing sense of urgency that does not take the current market price of energy as its primary driver.
YES WE NEED A NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY.
My reasons for saying this are contained in the slides of the energy seminar I have presented at Cornell and the University of Maryland. I have intentionally not copyrighted this presentation to encourage people to extract whatever material they wish to use.
If you have questions or comments, please contact me.
Best,
Herschel Specter
mhspecter@verizon.net
Pingback: COMMENT: Does the US need a national energy policy? | Jesse Parent [INFLUENCE]
Pingback: OurEnergyPolicy.org | Energy Policy in a Single Stroke?