OPINION: Lack of cohesive energy policy is a massive political failure

Frank G. Zarb was energy czar for President Gerald Ford.

Concerned about our country's energy situation? Don't worry, it will be OK . . . in about 30 years. That's how long it will take for the current mix of green energy initiatives to make a difference, because we don't have specific goals and we don't have a national energy policy.

In the mid 1970s, President Gerald Ford concluded that the nation needed to reduce its imported oil consumption by 3 million barrels a day. Ford submitted a comprehensive package of legislation, with the intent of reducing oil imports within 15 years and kick-starting a long-term alternative energy capacity. He sought 200 new nuclear power plants, 250 new coal mines, 150 clean-coal fire plants, 300 new refineries, 20 major new synthetic-fuels plants, an insulation program for millions of homes, and much higher vehicle mileage standards.

As Ford expected, only a small part of the legislation was enacted into law, but he planned to get a bigger chunk of it done after he was elected. You know how that turned out.

Since then, very little has been accomplished. Jimmy Carter said all the right things but avoided the hard stuff. Presidents Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and both George Bushes made energy policy too low a priority.

The course we are on now would have us cruise into 2040 on the hopes that some of the green power initiatives - now in their early stages - really take hold and produce enough competitively priced energy to make a difference. It's not a very good bet.

It is now clear that if the Ford program had been enacted, we would not have an urgent need for an energy plan today - and I doubt we'd be in Iraq.

It doesn't look as though the current Congress has the interest or ability to attempt to make up for lost time. But there are concrete steps our lawmakers should be taking.

First, they need to set specific goals, with a timetable, to reduce the nation's imported-oil consumption. Once there's an agreed-upon target, it's time to debate the tools to get from here to there.

Expandoil drilling in some now-restricted areas. The Obama administration has pledged to open new offshore areas, but it's been too short on specifics. We will still need detailed objectives and more information about the areas affected and the required environmental protections. Thirty-five years ago, there were major differences on these matters between producers and environmentalists, but that gap has narrowed considerably. An expanded drilling effort is now more feasible.

Take advantage of our massive domestic supply of natural gas. We need to shape public policy to encourage investment in a natural gas transportation system, and provide incentives for the automobile industry to manufacture natural gas-fueled vehicles.

If this is to work, oil companies will need to invest in the infrastructure required to enable motorists to fuel up easily. Some argue this will be harder than replacing gasoline-fueled vehicles with electric ones. It's too early to know for sure, so the Department of Energy should be developing a process to help guide the choice.

Experts say that at the current rate, it's going to be many, many years before we have the commercially viable technology to burn coal with substantially lower carbon emissions. That's not acceptable. We must increase clean coal production, along with mine safety. An upfront investment here will bring benefits to consumers for many years. It has to be a national priority.

The solar power industry has grown more than 30 percent in the past five years. We need to take a fresh look at programs that can bring down the cost of solar equipment so it can be a nonsubsidized alternative fuel.

The United States should review government programs to help this industry develop more quickly and to encourage the evolution of economically friendly solar equipment.

At its current rate, wind powerinstallations will take 20 years to make a significant difference in our energy supply. That timetable can and should be improved.

Nuclear poweris one of the most promising sources of energy and could make a big difference within a relatively short time frame. But the government needs to establish mechanisms so that utilities can site these facilities without endless delays. And the government should shorten the licensing period if the technology proposed has previously been approved by nuclear regulators.

The French government has successfully implemented standardized design for nuclear power plants. Regulators thoroughly vetted and approved the design and construction of a state-of-the-art plant, and utilities using the same specifications go through a rigorous - but shortened - licensing process.

President Barack Obama has committed loan guarantees for two new reactors in Georgia. That's a good - but very small - start. This sector can be the most important contributor to our energy security, and it deserves a comprehensive hearing and major enabling legislation. Now is the time.

Appliance labeling and efficiency standards for automobiles have made a difference in energy consumption, but the only thing that has really been effective in forcing conservation has been price. Sport utility vehicle sales fell in the summer of 2008, for example, when gas prices hit $4.35 a gallon on Long Island. The problem is that the volatility of oil prices has caused investment in energy-efficient cars, factory equipment and construction to start and stop.

In the 1970s, Ford considered placing a floor on oil prices and guaranteeing to the private sector that the price of a barrel would increase every year for the next 20 years. That would have given the private sector enough certainty to make more substantial energy-production and conservation investments. But then - as now, in a weak economic climate - higher gasoline and fuel oil prices were nonstarters for a politically sensitive Congress. If we're going to bring conservation to a new level and make developing new technologies economical, however, we're going to have to think of ways to constructively increase the cost of energy.

I consider the country's lack of a cohesive energy policy over the past several decades to be the largest public policy failure of our time. Whether you're a consumer, a producer, an environmentalist, a Democrat, a Republican or an independent, you have to agree on the urgency. It's clear that if we have a disruption to our supply of oil from the Middle East, the only available tool is the military.

Need I say more?