Candidates Show Energy … Are They Showing Us an Energy Plan?

Both John McCain and Barack Obama have a lot of energy. And they like to talk about energy policy. But what I’d like to see is some more energy spent on energy policy: Not just hot air but real, focused attention on long range solutions and not short term fixes.

Talk about scoring easy points. Most Americans care about energy issues and they are desperately seeking leadership. We recently polled 1000 adults, some our customers and some not, to learn what they thought about the candidates’ energy platforms. Results: Not pretty.

Here is a sample of what we found:

• 80 percent of Americans feel the government is responsible for resolving energy issues;
• 83 percent feel America does not have a clear energy policy;
• Only 57 percent believe that either candidate has an effective energy policy;

Only 26 percent are confident that either candidate can help fix our nation’s energy problems.

Imagine that: Americans are split on almost everything, but they are united in this: There is a vacuum of leadership on energy.

Neither party has a monopoly on wisdom. The survey shows that only 29 percent of Democrats are confident in either of the candidates’ energy policies, while 24 percent of Republicans have a similar view. Only 20 percent of those identified as Independents have confidence in the candidates’ energy plans.

In the meantime, 84 percent of Republicans, 83 percent of Democrats and 83 percent of Independents said that America had no clear energy policy.

Is government the answer? Or should we leave it to private enterprise. Most Americans believe it is the government’s responsibility to help Americans deal with the energy issues: 88 percent of Democrats agree that the government needs to play a role, compared to 73 percent of Republicans and 78 percent of Independents.

I tend to agree that government must play a role. After all, government exists for a reason. To protect the defenseless, to advance the public welfare, to make investments that are greater than any mortal can make alone (with the exception of Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, perhaps). If left to the marketplace, the wealthiest communities would have lots of electricity and the poorest would be heating their homes with coal stoves. Free enterprise is great in theory but needs to be tempered sometimes by regulation.

We’ve heard lots of talk about solutions: Everything from “drill, baby, drill” to pump up our tires. Politicians seem to think that the way to show leadership is to promise lower energy prices the way they promise lower taxes. The survey underscores that Americans are not fooled by easy fixes. They know that we live in a world of energy shortage and that price volatility will not go away overnight.

Let’s treat our nation’s energy addiction with the same seriousness as we treat substance abuse. Some solutions may be more painful than others. At the risk of rubbing somebody the wrong way, here are a few ideas:

Provide tax credits for on- and off-shore natural gas exploration. We are undermining our national security interests and bankrupting our economy by sending billions of dollars abroad for crude oil and natural gas exploration, production and distribution. Let’s do everything we can to keep the funds at home.

• Tax carbon consumption or adopt cap and trade. Cheap prices, not high prices, are the cause of most of our energy woes.
• Extend and expand tax credits and deductions for energy efficiency: spray foam insulation would reduce many homeowners’ consumption by up to 30% within a year. Solar panels are almost cost-effective and consumers need to start to install them now.
• Simplify permitting for new transmissions lines and for wind and solar development. NIMBY (not–in-my-backyard) concerns will always slow down change but the public interest demands that local, partisan concerns be preempted by the greater good.
• Expedite nuclear power plant licensing and development. France generates over 75% of its electricity from nuclear power and has escaped many of the risks posed by Russian natural gas supply and OPEC crude oil pricing.
• Permit offshore exploration and drilling, subject to prudent steps to protect our fragile ecosystems like coastal beaches.
• Permit drilling in the tiny area of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge and grant rights-of-way for transportation to the Lower 48.
• Provide investment tax credits and tax deferrals for new energy technologies. I do not think government try to choose which technologies will work; most new breakthroughs come out of basement and garage laboratories, not government-sponsored programs. But new business ventures should not be strangled in the crib by burdensome regulation and tax policy.
• Fund an international institute of applied energy science and technology. Among other things, the institute could help ensure that new technologies receive patent protection but also that licensing is prudent and cost-effective. We are at risk because of our dependence upon oil. Europe is at risk because of its dependence upon Russian natural gas. The world’s climate is at risk because of nitrous oxide emissions. We need to accelerate the dissemination of scientific research and technological developments.
  

My prescription is sure to offend a lot of people. But it will also provide widespread benefits. We need to compromise and give a little or we will never get the policy we need. It may be the very definition of a good deal: equally good and equally bad for everybody.