Energy from efficiency

President Bush yesterday began in earnest a campaign to revise nearly everything his young administration has said about the value of energy efficiency and conservation. The sincerity of his campaign might be measured by this question: Will the nation invest in efficiencies and conserve where it can and build more generation and distribution lines only where it must or will it produce as much energy as possible and conserve only where convenient?

This is much more than a matter of emphasis. It indicates whether the administration cares about the harmful effects that burning fossil fuels have on human health and the environment, and would suggest whether the president is interested in the many advances in energy efficiency in the last two decades, since the last time the nation had a comprehensive policy on energy. Certainly, the early comments from Vice President Cheney, a White House spokesman and the president himself did little but disparage conservation.

But that was before the presidential pollsters heard from the public. So doubtful are voters that the energy crisis identified by the Bush administration should be solved by wide-ranging mining and drilling that both House Democrats and Senate Republicans have rushed in with their own conservation plans to either expose or cover the gaps in the Bush plan. The public is doubtful, though, not merely because of the politics involved but because of its own experience with advances in home products that use energy more efficiently – lights, refrigerators, dryers, windows, doors, furnaces, dishwashers, water heaters, etc – and by the experiences of government and industry.

For instance, the Energy Department not long ago modeled modest and optimistic forecasts for affordable energy efficiency in a report called “Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future,” finding that the 1,300 new power plants Vice President Cheney said were needed by 2020 might really be whittled down as low as 700 if greater efficiency and conservation were used. This conclusion was echoed by utilities in a recent New York Times story. Seattle City Light, which serves a city of about half the population of Maine, estimates that it has saved enough power over two decades to run the city for 18 months. The Potomac Electric Power Co. invested $360 million in conservation over the last decade, which the company reports was less expensive than building two new plants it otherwise would have needed.

Major auto manufacturers, such as Ford and Toyota, and oil and chemical companies, such as Shell and DuPont, are making serious investments that increase energy efficiency and curb pollutants that lead to climate change. Partly they say they are doing this to avoid more stringent federal regulations, but they also report the changes can save money without sacrificing the quality of their products. Efficiency and conservation are good for business.

President Bush’s proposal plays a numbers game with conservation, counting the number of programs like credits for renewables and fuel-efficient cars vs. the amount of new production it is supporting. The plan’s details, however, give far more weight to increased production, without adequately addressing the effects of pollution, the problems of siting plants and transmission lines or the competitive losses to the nation as others develop more efficient strategies for industry.

But the president still has time and opportunity to expand on the conservation strategies he has included. It is a chance he should seize. There are plenty of reasons to build new plants and increase production – the generous donations from energy firms to presidential and congressional races need not be squandered. But there are equally or more compelling reasons to push greater efficiency and conservation. If health and the environment aren’t high on the White House’s list of priorities, helping industry become more cost-efficient should be reason enough.