Watching Government Energy directions

WithPatrick Crow from Washington, D.C.
[email protected]

Whenever factions disagree with what an administration is doing-or more commonly, not doing-regarding an energy issue, they tend to complain the government lacks an energy policy.

Protests like those prodded the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations to draft energy policies and objectives on paper.

Now the Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission is complaining of a void in federal energy policy, and through the auspices of the National Governors' Association, plans to propose an agenda to fill it.

To its credit, the Energy Department has an open mind about the effort. Kyle Simpson, associate director for energy programs, said last week that DOE welcomes Iogcc's input.

He told the Natural Gas Roundtable of Washington, "I think the work they're doing is good. We've encouraged them to do this."

Simpson said DOE is interested to see what ideas Iogcc and the governors come up with.

But he observed that it is very difficult to craft an energy policy that will please all interest groups.

Simpson outlined the Clinton administration's energy program: the "least, most cost-effective regulation," recognition of public concerns about energy issues (such as offshore drilling), an international policy that diversifies U.S. energy sources, encouragement of alternative fuels, and "serious and well-funded" energy research and development.

"That to me is not a bad energy policy. It just doesn't fit everybody's specific interests."

Global warming

Simpson, DOE's point man on oil and gas issues, also sought to ease the industry's worries that the administration's willingness to negotiate reductions in greenhouse gases (including carbon dioxide) portends a serious threat to hydrocarbon use.

Fearing a carbon tax proposal, American Petroleum Institute officials have called the global warming issue "the greatest long term threat to our industry" (OGJ, Nov. 18, p. 24).

Simpson said everything in the global climate change negotiations depends on definitions of scientific and technical terms, and industry should not be too alarmed yet.

He said DOE officials are trying to "take the language of climate change out of diplomaticspeak...and put it in English. One of the real important things is getting people speaking language we all can understand."

Simpson said the interpretation of terms such as "binding" and "enforceable" could mean the difference between heavy-handed or reasonable rules in the U.S.

He said, "We believe there is a global warming problem...but we know that we can't cripple the economy in getting to solutions. And we're very bullish on the role technology can play."

Tax question

Simpson said any global warming proposals must be economically justified, and must be reasonable enough to persuade Congress to ratify the treaty.

Asked if a carbon tax was on the table, he replied, "Not anywhere I've seen. The question of taxes is well premature."

Simpson said the first step is to define the problem and then determine reasonable time frames to deal with it. After that, he said solutions can be discussed.