Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search


A supply-side plan for US energy

Bush gives a nod to conservation, but he relies on market forces and new production.

By Abraham McLaughlin Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor / May 18, 2001



WASHINGTON

President Bush's new energy policy is, in many ways, a bold plan to reshape America's energy landscape.

Skip to next paragraph

It would put controversial new emphasis on drilling for oil and gas on federal lands and on boosting coal and nuclear power.

Yet observers also see it as carefully calibrated to reflect the political and economic realities of the times. In a historical sense, for instance, it's far less dramatic than both President Nixon's 1971 price controls and President Reagan's '80s-era deregulation.

Instead, the plan pushes America further along an energy-policy path it started down two decades ago - toward reliance on free-market forces, not government dominance and regulation.

And while it raises the ire of environmentalists by proposing drilling in Alaska's arctic refuge, it also includes specific nods to conservation, like a tax credit for those who buy hybrid or fuel-cell cars.

The report is cautiously crafted to avoid the mistakes of President Clinton's 1993 healthcare plan. That plan called for new government regulation of an industry, and was criticized as being so complex and detail-ridden that Congress was loath to tackle it. By contrast, the Bush energy policy will, if anything, loosen government contols - and it has few specifics, numerical targets, or deadlines that could swamp it amid legislative squabbling.

The unknowable variable now, though, is how fast market forces will work to shrink fuel prices and ease consumer worries. Republicans up for election in 2002 - that is, all GOP lawmakers in the House and at least 18 in Senate - would like some assurance that they won't be punished at the polls if Bush doesn't respond convincingly enough to this year's energy crunch.

Overall, the report rules out a major government role in energy. "We've pretty much agreed that things like price controls don't work," says Jay Hakes, who until recently headed the Energy Information Administration here. But, he adds, the US public is of two minds on the topic. "When things go bad, we say, 'Where's the government?' "

To the degree that Bush proposes intervention by Uncle Sam, his favorite tool is tax credits - financial breaks for companies and individuals who buy, say, fuel-efficient cars or who invest in wind power, for example. But his plan rejects the more dramatic steps such as electricity price caps - which Democrats championed in an alternative plan they unveiled this week.

Bush is also trying to strike a balance between big impact and political viability. The memory of Hillary Rodham Clinton's big-content healthcare plan, a dismal failure politically, still haunts Washington. Consequently, the Bush plan is light on action that requires Congress - and is filled instead with items that use presidential or Cabinet fiat. Of the report's 105 recommendations, 73 are directives to federal agencies. Just 20 require congressional action.

The conservation element

In package and presentation, the plan is designed to blunt the biggest criticism: that it's a drill-and-dig strategy unconcerned with conservation, renewables, and the environment.

Yesterday in St. Paul, Minn., Bush implored Americans to stop seeing this as an either-or choice. "The truth is, energy production and environmental protection are not competing priorities. They're dual aspects of a single purpose - to live well and wisely upon the earth."

His plan calls for $5 billion in new spending over 10 years, mostly in tax credits for conservation, renewable-energy sources such as wind and solar power, high-mileage vehicles, and power plants that use organic waste.

Critics point to Bush's budget proposals for next year, which would cut spending on energy-efficiency research by 29 percent and renewable-energy research by 32 percent.

Neither does the plan directly address gas-guzzling automobiles. It calls for more study of whether to raise fuel-efficiency standards, including for SUVs. This could be a difficult issue for Bush, because it involves some of his biggest corporate supporters (the oil industry and automakers) and millions of SUV owners.