One of the biggest complaints heard in Washington over the past several years has been that the United States lacks a national energy policy, a plan to prepare for a future in which energy needs continue to grow because of an exploding technology sector that consumes ever-increasing gulps of electricity.

It has been estimated by the Energy Information Administration that the Internet alone now accounts for nearly 10 percent of the nation's electricity demand. In his speech, the President announced that he has directed Vice President Cheney and several cabinet secretaries to work together to develop a national energy policy.

By now, we're all familiar with the energy-related troubles facing our nation. Whether we live in California or not, we've all experienced some sort of energy-related inconvenience. In addition to the unprecedented rolling blackouts in California, significantly increased gasoline prices and sky-high natural gas bills have plagued much of the nation this winter.

Because of these events, there is a growing consensus in Congress and around the nation that more must be done to increase the supply of energy in the United States. As the President stated in his address to Congress, "Our energy demand outstrips our supply. We can produce more energy at home while protecting our environment, and we must." But while there is an awareness that something must be done, there are serious differences about exactly what.

The President made it clear during his campaign that he strongly favors opening up a small part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska for oil exploration. That proposal has drawn howls of protest from environmental groups and many in Congress, including some members of the President's own party. One Senator has vowed to filibuster any attempt to allow drilling in the Alaskan refuge, and legislation has been introduced in the House and Senate to grant the reserve wilderness status, placing it off limits to exploration.

Sen. Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, along with Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and Sen. John Breaux (D-La.), recently introduced the National Energy Security Act of 2001 (S.389). The bill revolves around the goal of reducing the nation's dependence on foreign oil from its current level of about 56 percent, to 50 percent by 2011. Without action by the Congress, dependence is projected to rise to 65 percent by 2020.

Upon release of the bill, Murkowski commented, "At no time in our history have we relied upon others for more of our energy supplies, while producing a smaller percentage of the energy that we consume." While acknowledging that not every provision of the bill will survive the debate in Congress, Murkowski said, "We have a start. We have to recognize É that we have an energy crisis in this country, and it is not unique to one area."

On the surface, S.389 seems to provide something for everyone. For traditional power sources, the bill would increase funding authorization for the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative, the Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization Program, and the Nuclear Energy Technology Development Program. It would also direct the Secretary of Energy to implement a power plant improvement initiative to demonstrate commercial applications of new technologies to advance the efficiency and environmental performance of plants in coal-fired power plants.

The bill would provide tax incentives for the use of renewable energy sources such as solar and wind, and would also provide for tax credits toward residential energy efficiency improvements. It also would give states and localities "alternative fuel vehicle credits" for improvements they make in the alternative fuel vehicle infrastructure.

Finally, in an effort to improve the natural gas transportation infrastructure (a welcome effort for those who heat their houses with natural gas), the bill would try to expedite construction of natural gas pipelines and increase funding for research and development.

Several environmental groups were sharply critical of the Murkowski bill, however, and complained that in addition to opening the Alaskan refuge to drilling, which is anathema, the bill is heavy on support for traditional energy sources, and light on support for renewable energy, energy efficiency, and energy conservation.

The Energy Committee of ASME's Council on Engineering is currently reviewing S.389 and will provide comments to the Senate Energy Committee. The Energy Committee also is working on a comprehensive position statement outlining the energy research and development needs of the nation over the next 20 years. That statement is expected to be released shortly.

In the interim, the committee issued an energy policy statement that supports much of what Murkowski's bill aims to accomplish.

Francis Dietz works in ASME Government Relations in Washington, D.C.

home | features | news update | marketplace | departments | about ME | back issues | ASME | site search

© 2001 by The American Society of Mechanical Engineers