Newly passed energy bill will help little, critics warn

DALLAS — As consumers struggled with rising energy costs, President Bush and Congress set out at the start of the decade to change the course of U.S. energy policy.

Among the top priorities: reducing dependence on foreign suppliers, increasing domestic energy supplies and mitigating frequent price spikes.

Today, consumers face even higher energy prices. And many of the long-sought goals may require another try.

The energy bill that cleared Congress Friday — and that Bush is expected to sign next week — represents a major political accomplishment after years of failure.

But the nation's first comprehensive energy legislation in 13 years, critics say, will do little to change the nation's energy course.

"This bill represents essentially more of the same, with just more subsidy," said Jerry Taylor, director of natural resource studies at the Cato Institute, the libertarian think tank.

Proponents of the legislation say it will boost energy production by offering subsidies for newer energy sources, loan guarantees for the nuclear industry and a host of other incentives to help oil, natural gas and coal projects. Conservation and efficiency measures are intended to mitigate demand.

Comprehensive energy legislation was one of Bush's top policy goals when he took office in 2001 amid rising commodity prices.

At the time, crude oil traded around $30 a barrel. Oil closed Friday at $60.57.

The United States today imports 58 percent of its oil, a figure that's only expected to increase. Debate about energy policy has focused on the need to reduce dependence on oil imports for national security and environmental concerns.

But even that goal may have been flawed, said Michelle Michot Foss, head of the Center for Energy Economics at the University of Texas at Austin.

"It's an unrealistic expectation," she said. "The world of energy is an efficient place. It makes sense to have open, international trade to procure what we need."

Environmental groups and many Democrats called the legislation a missed opportunity to address the transportation sector, which accounts for more than two-thirds of U.S. oil consumption. Measures to raise fuel-efficiency requirements were voted down during energy-bill negotiations.