Editorials

Without the benefit of a scientific poll, there is a feeling most Americans, especially drivers, think opening the way for more domestic drilling and building new refineries is the most sensible way to respond to soaring oil prices.

On the other hand, few people believe increasing taxes on domestic oil producers and new federal mandates and controls would help, and many think it likely would make things worse.

Yet, almost every new energy proposal that gets serious consideration in the present Congress looks very much like the ones legislators have adopted for years have led to today’s short supplies and soaring prices.

The energy bill getting the biggest push by Democrats in Congress is the Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008 (S. 3044), introduced by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid D-N.Y. It repeats the mistakes of the past by adding constraints that will discourage domestic energy supplies.

Taxes on domestic oil production would be raised and price-gouging legislation would be imposed. Also, the legislation picks winners and losers among energy alternatives.

A simple assessment of the Reid bill by Ben Lieberman, a senior energy and environment analysts at The Heritage Foundation: “(It) is an anti-energy bill that will only add to already-high energy costs.” So far, Senate Republicans have managed to prevent approval.

Distinguishing good energy policy from bad energy policy is not difficult, Lieberman said. Good policy leads to more supplies of affordable energy and bad policy leads to less.

Fewer restrictions on domestic oil drilling tops the list of needs for a good national energy policy. America remains the only oil- producing nation that has placed a substantial amount of its energy potential off limits.

Included on the list of forbidden territory for drilling is a few thousand acres of Alaska’s 19.6 million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). This small portion of ANWR is believed to contain 10 billion barrels of oil — an amount equivalent to 15 years of imports from Saudi Arabia.

Fears oil-drilling activities would spoil this sparsely populated and seldom visited territory is ludicrous to East Texans.

Even more oil is located in other restricted areas throughout the United States, as well as in the 85 percent of America’s Outer Continental Shelf that is off limits to drilling. Environmental concerns are instrumental in the drilling ban, but improvements in technology have greatly reduced the above-ground footprint and the risk of offshore spills. Any new drilling would be subject to the world’s strictest standards.

A new argument of those who oppose opening these sites to drilling is that it wouldn’t have much impact on prices for 10 years. Drilling advocates say it would start helping much sooner. And if drilling had been allowed 10 years ago, today’s prices likely would be more reasonable.

The negative impact of more bad energy policy bills would be felt quickly.

Some proposed bills in Congress would move in the right direction.

The American Energy Production Act of 2008, introduced by Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., and the Affordable Fuel for Consumers Act of 2008, introduced by Rep. Phil English, R-Pa, seek to free domestic energy supplies by undoing past constraints, including eliminating restrictions on domestic oil production.

Both bills would move to get government out of the way, let the free market work and allow more domestic production.

It clearly is important for America to move to more diverse energy sources, including nuclear, wind, solar and clean coal. Some new discoveries also could emerge. Both government and private industry are investing in this effort, but no one can seriously doubt oil, gas and coal will remain the dominant sources of energy in the short term.

Congress has helped create the big energy problems America now is experiencing. Now it needs to contribute to a solution rather than continuing the same failed approach.

Removing government barriers to increasing the domestic supply of energy would be a welcome and meaningful first step.

()