Copyright 2002 Journal Sentinel Inc.  
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (Wisconsin)
May 2, 2002 Thursday FINAL EDITION
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 18A

LENGTH: 398 words

HEADLINE: Congress runs out of energy

BYLINE: FRANZEN

BODY:
Last fall, the Bush administration launched a spirited effort to develop a national strategy for dealing with future energy supply challenges. This spring, it appears that the best Americans can hope for from Congress is a national energy tactic, something that will win a battle here or there but will not win the war.

Two bills -- one from the House and one from the Senate -- are headed for a conference committee, where representatives and senators will try to reconcile the bills' differences. The House bill concentrates a little too much on domestic production of oil and gas while it gives scant attention to conservation and alternative energy sources.

But the Senate bill doesn't do much of anything. Senators declined to include a proposal to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which was a good thing. But they failed to raise fuel economy standards for cars and sport utility vehicles and to increase the efficiency of air conditioners by 30%. They agreed to require power companies to use more renewable fuels, then weakened the requirement. The bill pays lip service to concerns about global warming and repeals some long-standing consumer protections against utility company abuses.

Only in a fairy tale could those kinds of compromises be seen as "just right." In the real world, most people call them "useless."

Democratic senators rationalized their support of the bill by saying that compromises had to be made if anything was to get done. Well, compromises were made, yet it still appears that nothing will get done. Yes, there are some good things in the Senate bill, but even they don't come cheap; the measure will cost $14 billion in tax incentives split about evenly among energy production, conservation and renewable energy support.

Still, the Senate bill is marginally better than the House bill, which would cost about $35 billion in tax incentives, most geared toward fuel production.

But the fact is that neither bill is a winner. Neither gives the nation a definitive long-term strategy to secure its energy needs and reduce its reliance on foreign oil. Given a vote, we'll simply abstain.

At this juncture, it would be better to chuck both measures into the Capitol's recycling bins and start over, with a commitment by the administration and Congress not to rest until they can agree on a winning strategy.



LOAD-DATE: May 2, 2002