When President Clinton announced last week the release of 30 million barrels from the nation’s strategic petroleum reserve, it was hailed by supporters as necessary policy to prevent shortages in the upcoming heating season, blasted by opponents as cynical pandering to win northern votes in the ongoing election season. Both sides agreed, however, that adding the equivalent of less than two days’ consumption to the marketplace would have little, perhaps no, effect on prices.

So in the last few days oil futures have tumbled by more than $3, to the $32 range. Dire predictions of $40 barrels by mid-winter are giving way to projections around the mid to upper 20s. It figures that the one thing both sides agreed on may be the one thing that won’t happen. It also figures that the two sides, represented by the major party candidates for the White House, agree that the United States needs an energy policy and then steadfastly refuse to describe exactly what such a policy might be. Instead of specifics, the public is forced to listen to an argument over whether the lack of an energy policy is the fault of seven years of Clinton-Gore or of nearly 30 years neglect by a succession of administrations and Congresses.

If there is any issue in need of specifics, this is it. There is no great philosophical conundrum to sort out here, just the details of how this country can assure itself of reliable power, realistically priced and wisely used, now and into the future.

But instead of details, the public gets Al Gore stirring up resentment against Big Oil, George W. Bush acting as though the Clinton administration invented policy manipulation. Dick Cheney claiming his strong financial ties to the oil industry don’t matter because he’s not a public official yet. It’s all quite entertaining, but hardly enlightening.

If, as Gov. Bush vaguely suggests, oil companies need incentives to expand exploration, production and refining capacity, he should explain precisely what those incentives – presumably a mix of tax breaks and environmental law changes – should be. Vice President Gore has long talked in greenish generalities. It’s time to fill in the blanks – presumably a mix of policies to discourage excessive consumption and to rewards for conservation and the development of renewable power. Mr. Cheney probably should just stay out of it.

The American public does not need to be reminded that incumbents, at all levels of government, often use their positions to advantage at elections time. It certainly does not need to be reminded that oil company executives do not lie awake at night fretting about the comfort of low-income New England households. It needs details, nuts-and-bolts specifics, of what a sound energy policy should be. That figures to be the one thing it won’t get.