The generally adverse reaction to president Bush’s declared energy policy of dig and burn has prompted supporters including vice president Cheney to declare that anyone who thinks that the policy is all about supply ‘simply hasn’t read the report’.
But more typical was the view of Iowa state senator Mike Connolly, who with other senators had a preview of the president’s energy plan a few hours before it was officially announced and declared that it was “pretty much one sided. It concentrates on fossil fuels and gathering more energy, not on conservation. The energy plan has no focus.” Commentators who have read Cheney’s 105 point plan, and the resultant energy policy of this administration, are generally agreed – the references to conservation by reduced usage and exploitation of renewables that have been included are at best lip service – because this administration has already spelled out its attitude. If burning more fuel is cheaper than reducing demand, the conservation argument becomes an environmental one. Bush made his position plain during the Kyoto row – environmental issues can’t be allowed to handicap the ability of American companies to maximise profits.
Now, after years of under-investment in power plant, the new administration has inherited an energy deficit growing at an alarming rate – recent DoE projections predict an increase in natural gas demand of 17 per cent in the next ten years, and an even greater rise, 22 per cent, in electricity demand, driven partly by increased computer use. The corresponding rise in prices is expected to be 171 per cent. The US needs to start up a new plant every week for twenty years to meet demand and replace aging plant, according to VP Cheney. Bush’s response, following the recommendations of Cheney’s cabinet level energy task force, is to dig and burn his way out of trouble – more drilling for oil, more coal fired stations, more nuclear and hydro plants.
But if approved by Congress later this year – by no means a certainty given the new Democrat majority in the Senate – Bush’s plan will also soften environmentally based restrictions on oil drilling. The first area to lose its protection would be the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. Faced with the prospect of rising energy prices and a drag on the economy, the administration has turned to traditional forms of generation. Although come commentators suggested that energy prices increases might prompt energy saving measures, Cheney has already decried the usefulness of conservation, saying that although it might be a personal virtue, it was not a sound energy policy.
Renewables and conservation policies will be the real losers in the new policy. The DoE has already seen its budget for energy efficiency research cut by $500 million. Renewables research was cut by half, to $186 million. But positive news comes from the intent to upgrade the transmission network – a longstanding limit to efficient operation of the energy industry.
