We Have a National Policy ... or Not
When I wrote the other day that an energy conference staple is a call for a national energy policy, I suggested that the United States was too big and diverse to have a national consensus on what might be one of the most contentious issues we face. I also expected readers to weigh in and I wasn't disappointed.
Comments seemed to be divided into a couple distinct camps, which offered some reactions that might have been expected and even some that offered perspectives I hadn't considered. These comments forced me to reconsider my original ideas along with those suggested by conference speakers who inspired me in the first place.
The main camps could be described as those who agree with my thesis; and one was that we have policies but some people don't like what they are.
Tom Conroy, president and CEO of Wind Tower Systems, said that watching the United States define a policy over the past 30 years, let alone implement one, shows how impossible the task has become.
"In the U.S., 'national energy policy' efforts devolve into high-cost subsidy programs to the politically powerful and connected. These leading energy/oil companies are clearly not interested in changing the status quo, as that would present unacceptable risks to their businesses" he wrote.
Steve Rosenstock, speaking for himself and not the members of Edison Electric Institute, where he is manager of energy solutions, challenged my premise. He thinks we've had plenty of policies enacted over the last 35 years, from 1970s laws like the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, through the Energy Policy acts of the 2000s to the changes in the stimulus bill.
"We have had a lot of policies. It is just that some people don't like the current results of those policies, or don't think that things have changed fast enough," he wrote.
That's a point well-taken. Even if they were enacted ad hoc, or sometimes appear to be working at cross purposes, they do represent a policy. I suppose proponents of a national policy would prefer some coherent framework.
But the agglomeration of various laws is a policy, I suppose, just not an entirely rational one.
The editorial staff at RenewablesBiz.com is passionate about exchanging ideas and dedicated to promoting ongoing conversation about renewables and sustainable energy issues. We invite you to join and contribute to our online community. If you have an idea for an article or editorial contribution, please contact me via email, bopalka@energycentral.com, or phone, 860.633.0090.
Comments
I Have one Clue about National Energy Policy
Hi Bill,
The clue I have on national energy policy relates to the electric power market architecture and the associated market design. Although my work has concentrated on electricity, I think it might also be extended to water and gas structures and rules.
The federal state jurisdictional problem the U.S. has is the result of the century old and obsolete Investor Owned Utilities Architecture Framework (IOUs-AF) that was created by Samuel Insull. Avoiding federal regulation, Insull “… convinced state legislatures and city councils that electric service ought to be a monopoly,” as Gordon L. Weil wrote in his book “Blackout.”
Weil adds that “As Insull’s empire spread, he was wise enough to understand that the idea of a natural monopoly was fragile and could begin to cause a political backlash in state legislatures if it went completely unchecked. The Sherman Act, designed to tame the monopolies, had been passed late in the nineteenth century and it, too, could cause trouble. What Insull needed was political insulation from efforts to withdraw his monopoly rights. The solution was regulation…” In fact weil explains very clearly why it was state instead of federal regulation.
State regulation worked very well for all stakeholders, because the regulators had very little to do since they were operating under a system with a virtuous circle that enable lower rates year after year without consumers doing anything and state regulators doing very little. That system, which started to brake in the sixties and seventies, is still broken under arrangements with several vicious circles that mutually reinforce each other, making things even worst.
My work, which emerged as the Electricity Without Price Controls Architecture Framework (EWPC-AF), is about enabling a system with a virtuous circle to replace the IOUs-AF, where customers need to be active. I suggest that there is a need for an Energy Policy Act that is based on the EWPC-AF. To learn more about it, please take a look at the article EWPC article Is the Smart Grid that is Being Pushed a Costly Mistake?
The article’s summary says: "The main argument is that, by inaction, each State Government should be responsible to their constituencies for a very costly mistake that is being made by letting the smart grid process continue without giving State Regulators the proper mandate."
National Energy Policy
I’m not surprised you received a lot of response on your article. It is a very contentious subject and not much progress has been made to solidify a go forward position. Big Oil has spent over $100 million in 2009 on lobbying our elected representative and they are very influential. Yes, we have plenty of new legislation and some things don’t move very fast.
However, what is missing is an overriding master plan that pulls all the veracious complex pieces together in one strategy and creates a road map of how to implement a compressive solution that will provide affordable energy, clean the environment, create new jobs and help the economy recover.
My suggestion: create a grass roots coalition of energy practitioners that:
1. Reaffirms our National Energy Policy
2. Develops a National Energy Plan that provides a detailed step by step implementation plan describing what we need to do to create clean, affordable energy over the next two decades.
3. Communicates and reports status, progress, and issues on a regular basis to the American people.
Secretary of Energy Steven Chu has suggested we establish another “Manhattan Project”. He may be correct. It will take a very focused, disciplined approach to reap the full benefits from such a plan.