This will be EPIC’s final Weekly Political Roundup of 2009, so it seems like an opportune time to review the last 12 months of energy security debates, discussions, regulations, and legislation.  Our question is, was it a good year for energy security?  The answer actually is not a simple one.

On the one hand, crucial progress was made in many areas.  In the Senate, Senators Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and George Voinovich (R-OH) introduced the National Energy Security Act, a comprehensive energy security bill, in the spring.  Many aspects of that legislation proved to be models for the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee as it considered its own bill over the summer.  Ultimately, the Energy Committee reported out a bill that, though not perfect, offered important progress on a wide range of crucial energy security issues. 

On the House side, progress was not as obvious, but it existed nevertheless.  The Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill included several provisions that will promote the electrification of short-haul transport, but it falls somewhat short of a comprehensive energy security bill.  Legislation introduced in May by Congressmen Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) and Tim Murphy (R-PA) includes many provisions similar to the Senate Energy Committee’s comprehensive bill.  Unfortunately, there is no clear avenue for progress on the Abercrombie-Murphy bill in the House at this juncture.

The other side of Pennsylvania Avenue was not absent in the energy security realm.  Only days after being sworn in, President Obama announced the swift enactment of an aggressive schedule for implementing the historic fuel economy standards passed into law in 2007’s Energy Independence and Security Act.  The Obama administration also directed stimulus funds to energy security initiatives, including $2.4 billion in grants for advanced battery and electric drive programs.

Does this mean 2009 was a good year?  Ultimately, though this progress was important, it needs to be examined in context.  The overwhelming majority of the energy policy discussion in Washington in 2009 was related to climate change.  As always, this blog takes no position on legislation to limit carbon emissions except this: that such legislation should not be mistaken for nor come at the expense of measures to decrease our dependence on oil.  Passing cap-and-trade or some other form of carbon mitigation policy may or may not be good for the nation in and of itself, but if its domination of the discussion takes away from the urgency of energy security, then we risk leaving a vitally important job unfinished.

Ultimately, if we were to grade energy security efforts this year, we might be forced to give an ‘incomplete.’  This is not to take away from significant progress, particularly in the Senate.  But we have all seen legislation come out of committee and languish, or be irrevocably transformed, or—less frequently—simply be voted down.  We have done much to set the table in 2009, but there is still much work to be done in 2010 to achieve true gains in energy security.

Previous Post  

Next Post

Weekly Political Roundup
September 3, 2010

Greenpeace versus Greenland
September 2, 2010

Political Roundup
August 27, 2010