A History of U.S. Energy Policy in the 21^st Century

September 1, 2008
During the campaign for the 2000 elections, George Bush, recognizing problems with our country's then current energy policies (or more accurately, lack thereof), made promises to address all of the issues and present a comprehensive solution.  He correctly predicted that our lack of a comprehensive energy policy would lead to even more problems than the rising cost of gasoline, heating oil, and electricity we were facing at the time.

Within a couple of weeks of taking office he set up a task force, led by Vice President Cheney, called the National Energy Policy Development Group, to define a realistic set of solutions to our then current and future energy needs.  President Bush presented a well balanced National Energy Policy in May of 2001 that honestly addressed our needs and provided environmentally sound solutions that included domestic oil production, refining, nuclear, coal, renewables, conservation, and efficiency.  Regardless of its merits, it never really stood a chance.

Why, you might ask.  To answer that question, you have to put things into a little historical context:

This was right after Bush beat Gore in the closest Presidential election ever; it required intervention by the Supreme Court.  Most Democrats felt they had been cheated, many still do.  In any event, they were not prepared to cooperate in any way with the new administration or the Republican controlled House and Senate.

It was during the height of global warming alarmism with the release of the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC in January of 2001 and all of the scary scenarios the report predicted.  The Democrats, backed by their powerful environmental lobby, believed they were in a position that did not require compromise on anything to do with fossil fuels.

It was also a time of rolling blackouts in California.  The problem was mostly California’s own fault for not building new power plants in the state, closing down existing plants, and relying on electricity imported from somewhere else.  However, the Democrats demanded price caps and federal regulation to ensure that California got all the electricity it needed at cheap prices and the President refused.

Finally, it was released right before Jim Jeffords defected from the Republican Party and returned control of the Senate to Democrats.  That was the deathblow.  Without control of the Senate, it would be nearly impossible to get comprehensive energy legislation passed or even brought up for a vote in light of all the other issues the Democrats and environmentalists had with the new President.  It did not matter that the plan addressed environmental concerns; the Democrats were not prepared to give Bush or the Republicans any domestic policy victories.

After the release of the energy policy report, it was derided by the Democrats and environmentalists.  They called it payback for campaign contributions, complained that the oil industry was consulted but not environmentalists, and vowed that they would never allow drilling in ANWR, as was called for in the President’s plan.  Environmental groups even filed suit against the administration to try to force them to reveal the inner workings of the task force and their contacts with the oil industry.  The case was finally decided in the administrations favor by the Supreme Court in June of 2004.

In response, the Democrats offered their own plan, which consisted of increasing production on already leased areas, conservation, ethanol mandates, energy efficiency, hybrid cars, higher CAFE standards, renewable energy mandates, and urging the President to demand OPEC increase production.  Not coincidently, the exact same proposals they offered in 2008 as the entire world was reeling from high oil prices that ended up hitting $147 per barrel and gasoline prices in the U.S. peaking at over $5 per gallon in some areas.

Needless to say, since we still do not have a comprehensive energy policy, the Democrats had their way.  With crude oil, gasoline, and other energy prices falling somewhat after peaking in 2000, the public outcry had subsided enough to allow a successful filibuster of the administration plan by Senate Democrats in 2001 and again in 2002. 

After the 2002 elections, when the Republicans regained control of the Senate, they immediately took up the measure again.  Unfortunately, they still did not have enough votes to invoke cloture and overcome another filibuster of the administration plan in 2003, still leaving us without a comprehensive energy policy.  Not giving up, the Republicans tried anew in 2004 with the measure passing in the House of Representatives for the fourth time, yet still not even getting the opportunity for an up or down vote in the Senate.

In 2005, stymied by more filibuster threats and desperate to pass some kind of energy legislation in the face of rapidly rising oil prices, Republicans caved in to the Democrats hardball political tactics and eventually gave them almost everything they asked for and got very little in return; it certainly it wasn't enough to prevent oil prices from continuing their ascent.

Dissatisfaction with the Iraq war and the failure to pass a comprehensive energy plan; one that actually encouraged significantly more domestic oil production, the only thing that could possibly even slow down the rate of increase in oil prices, the Republicans would lose the 2006 elections in a lopsided rout.  The Democrats had successfully managed to hang high oil and gas prices around congressional Republicans necks.  This was quite a feat considering that it was their obstructionism on increasing supply that got us from about $20 per barrel oil prices when President Bush took office to nearly $70 during the summer of 2006 and over $50 at the time of the 2006 election.

With their new majorities in both houses, Democrats were able to continue their efforts to block any attempts to increase domestic production in 2007, even as gas prices continued rising.  In December of 2007, they passed the rest of the energy policies they wanted and then some, including a massive increase in ethanol mandates, more energy efficiency and conservation measures, tire efficiency standards, and much higher CAFE standards.  They named it the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

It would appear that the oil exporting countries and the rest of the oil-consuming world were not at all impressed with the Democrat's conservation, efficiency, renewable electricity mandates, and ethanol mandates as our countries only energy policies.  Oil prices rose from about $82 when the 2007 energy bill was signed to over $145 in the summer of 2008.  As gas prices were nearing $4 a gallon during the spring of 2008, Republicans started a "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less" campaign to try and force a vote on expanding domestic production, including offshore drilling.  As gas prices rose above $5 in some areas of the country and the public rallied behind the drilling campaign, it appeared that the democratic leadership would have to allow a vote, which was virtually certain to pass.  Instead they adjourned the congressional session and took their August recess as planned, although many Republicans did stay in Washington as a protest.