Weekly Political Roundup — Undercurrents
Posted July 17, 2009 at 8:28 am 
Filed in: For the most part, it’s been a quiet week when it comes to energy security legislation on Capitol Hill. Health care is getting the lion’s share of time and attention (with Supreme Court nominations also taking some air out of the room on the Senate side). That said, as is often the case, the backroom maneuvering and negotiating continues.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid suggested on Wednesday that he may try to move a stand-alone bill to encourage the purchase of vehicles fueled by natural gas along with the refueling infrastructure needed to support them. He is already a cosponsor of this legislation – the NAT GAS Act – with Senators Menendez and Hatch. While there is nothing inherently wrong with this concept, it is incomplete. There may in fact be a place for natural gas vehicles in our transportation future; the idea makes some sense when it comes to large corporate fleets. But for the majority of individually-owned cars and trucks, there are some roadblocks. First, as Reid recognizes in his bill, is the lack of infrastructure. Second is the danger of substituting dependence on one fossil fuel-oil-with dependence on another-natural gas.
A stand-alone vehicle bill that can be passed quickly could be just what the doctor ordered. But what would be far more beneficial is a comprehensive bill, including support not just for natural gas vehicles and infrastructure, but also for electric vehicles that can be powered by a wide variety of domestic fuels over an infrastructure that already at least partially exists.
Speaking of transportation, the House and Senate continued this week to disagree about the timing of transportation reauthorization legislation. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is eager to move on the bill this year. In the Senate, however, the Environment and Public Works Committee has jurisdiction, and with climate change already on EPW’s plate, Senators seem inclined to leave transportation for next year. This is a debate the energy world would do well to watch-after all, true energy reform by necessity must include major changes to our transportation system. Some of the most important upcoming energy policy debates may in fact occur in the discussion over transportation reauthorization.
Finally, it is worth pointing out that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to its credit, continues to pay attention to energy security issues. This week, they heard testimony from U.S. diplomats about ways to bolster energy security through foreign diplomacy. While the attention they are paying the issue is laudable, it is important to note that not all ideas labeled ‘energy security’ are equal. Bolstering the efficiency of oil-producing nations-which the committee discussed-may be laudable, but so long as we continue to use oil, would it not make the most sense to produce more at home and thus be less dependent on other nations altogether?
Previous Post
February 3, 2012
January 29, 2012
January 26, 2012
