Washington Post A Better Energy Bill Monday, March 11, 2002; Page A20 AS THE SENATE opened debate on an energy bill last week, the White House fired a shot across its bow. The bill on the Senate floor is not comprehensive energy legislation, said the Office of Management and Budget, because it doesn't do enough to increase domestic oil production, failing in particular to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. The administration opposes the higher automobile fuel efficiency standards that are in the bill, and it objects to a provision that would require facilities that emit large quantities of greenhouse gases to register those emissions. The administration is right that the House and Senate are heading in different directions, but it's wrong on the relative merits. The pro-conservation tilt of the Senate bill makes it the better measure. It's possible neither version will become law. While all sides agree on substantial sections of the legislation, divisions over Arctic drilling and fuel economy are deep. Even if the Senate can pass a bill, it is likely to be so different from the House version that a conference committee will have trouble bridging the gaps. The issues that were driving debate when President Bush put his energy plan together last year have faded: Prices for oil and natural gas are down, and California no longer is suffering from rolling blackouts. Since Sept. 11 the rallying cry is national security. But it's worth remembering that both drilling in Alaska and auto fuel efficiency standards would take years to bear fruit. And neither the House bill nor the measure now before the Senate would make the country energy independent. Imported oil now provides 57 percent of U.S. needs; left unchecked, imports are expected to make up two-thirds of consumption by 2020. The energy measures aim to reverse that trend, but the best either side predicts from the range of measures in either bill is to bring imports back under 50 percent of consumption, not eliminate them. As long as the economy and most modes of transportation rely on oil, America will remain economically tied to the world oil market. But it makes ecological sense to reduce dependence on oil, foreign or domestic, and on other fossil fuels, so there's merit in the Senate bill's emphasis on conservation, new technology and new sources of energy. Raising auto fuel efficiency standards, unchanged since 1985, would help. So would the bill's proposed tougher efficiency standards for new air conditioners and its demand that, by 2020, 10 percent of electricity come from renewable sources; several states already have used this kind of requirement to boost generation from wind and other renewable sources. As debate opened Wednesday, Alaska's Sen. Frank Murkowski broadly described these initiatives as an "unacceptable intrusion of the federal government into the marketplace." But they're no more of an intrusion than the Republicans' tax breaks for drilling. The difference, as Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) said, is that his bill's incentives seek to bring about change that wouldn't occur otherwise. The Republican-favored approach renders more profitable activity that likely would take place anyway, or (as in the case of Alaska) encourages activity that we'd be better off without. ### - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to: [log in to unmask]