American politicians act like children when it comes to
crafting energy policy, says former Shell President John
Hofmeister. And it needs to stop.
The last month was a big one for energy. Oil prices reached
two-and-a-half year highs; Japan dealt with a nuclear power
plant on the verge of a meltdown; the one-year anniversary of
the Gulf Oil disaster neared; and the International Energy
Agency, historically known as an interest group for oil
producing nations, issued a report calling a more aggressive
build-out of clean energy to offset declining oil production and
climate change.
And what did policy makers in Washington, DC do?
The House of Representatives
passed a bill stripping the Environmental Protection
Agency's ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions;
Republicans in the House and the Senate
crafted legislation that would abandon a 2007 law –
signed by then-President Bush and supported by lightbulb
manufacturers – that created better efficiency standards
for lightbulbs through 2014; and in a final dig to
Democrats, Republicans
repealed the Greening the Capitol Initiative and
brought back Styrofoam cups and plastic utensils to the
cafeteria in place of biodegradable ones.
With the geopolitical, environmental and social
consequences of our energy choices mounting, it seems
policymakers still can't get beyond tit-for-tat politics
and make serious decisions.
“Both sides have taken out their fiddles, and they're
fiddling...while Rome burns,” says John Hofmeister, the
former President of Shell Oil, founder of Americans for
Affordable Energy and author of the book,
Why We Hate the Oil Companies.
“I see every evidence that these folks are going to
stumble and bumble, and fight one another like
kindergarten children...That's not good enough. We need
to do better,” he says.
Since Richard Nixon first proposed becoming energy
independent in the mid-seventies, we've gone through
eight presidents and 19 congresses – with very little to
show for it. Although the scale of biofuels, wind, solar
and geothermal is much greater today than it was 35
years ago, the U.S. is further away from energy
independence than ever.
Hofmeister says both parties are to blame.
On the left (which he calls the “Ludicrous Left”),
the aversion to hydrocarbons of any kind creates
unrealistic expectations about how quickly the energy
system will shift. Hofmeister believes renewables should
be developed as quickly as possible for environmental
and energy-security reasons, but also believes that
coal, oil and gas will continue to be an important part
of the mix for economic reasons.
On the right (which he calls the “Reckless Right”),
the lack of attention to competitive renewable
alternatives means that we fail to create a consistent
environment for long-term investment, thus perpetuating
an antiquated energy system in need of serious reform
and allowing environmental problems to mount.
“What the political parties have done is create an
either/or mantra for the future of energy...but it's
good politics. So we're letting 'good politics'
determine our energy and environmental future...I'm
offended by the lack of attention to the nation's
needs.”
The closest thing Americans have gotten to a
comprehensive energy plan is Obama's
“Sputnik Speech” in January's State of the Union
address, in which he called for 80% clean energy by
2035. But Hofmeister says there's a big difference
between a vision and a plan. Obama may have a vision, he
says. But he does not have a comprehensive plan to
achieve that vision.
So how could government create a fair, long-term plan
in such a partisan atmosphere? Take the responsibilities
out of the hands of Congress.
Since his book was released, Hofmeister has been
traveling the country advocating for an independent
regulatory body, called the Federal Energy Resources
System, that would control energy policy much like the
Federal Reserve manages monetary issues. Members of the
commission would hold 14-year terms and would not be
influenced by the political winds of the day.
Rather than rely on the dozens of executive and
congressional agencies that currently formulate policy,
the Federal Energy Resources System could dictate
infrastructure investments, incentive levels, energy
quality standards, permitting and siting requirements,
as well as address environmental and scientific issues
that get politicized by lawmakers.
It's a great idea in theory, but it hasn't gotten
much traction in Washington yet.
“Policymakers and K Street lobbyists hate what I'm
proposing,” says Hofmeister. “It takes away their
authority...If 19 Congresses can't get the job done,
don't tell me the 20th Congress will – I
don't believe you. I think we've proven this isn't going
to work.”
Meanwhile, as the political mess in Washington gets
worse, business leaders in the clean energy space – one
of the fastest growing sectors in the U.S. – are finding
it difficult to plan beyond the end of the year when
federal incentives may again come to a halt.
We may not have a comprehensive energy strategy to
keep America competitive. But at least members of
Congress can rest easy knowing that they're upholding
the American Way of Life by clutching onto their
incandescent lightbulbs and plastic silverware.
For more on how Hofmeister's plan could work,
listen to this week's
Inside Renewable Energy podcast linked above.