A fair assessment of the energy bill that plodded out of committee in the Senate this spring was that expectations for it were very low and it met them. No standards for renewable energy, minor incentives for efficiency, more favors for oil and coal, no recognition that climate change is an issue worth considering. Amendments on these topics could help, and in surprising example this week, might even help noticeably. An amendment, which passed 99-1, would direct the administration to find ways to reduce the nation’s oil consumption by 1 million barrels a day by 2013.

All new production of oil comes from foreign sources, so this proposal also reduces dependency on nonindigenous sources – 1 million barrels, for example, is about half what the United States purchases from Saudi Arabia per day. Overall, the nation consumes about 19 million barrels of oil daily now; the White House would be required by next year to have plans in place to reduce consumption from a reference level of 22.97 million barrels, according to a 2013 projection from the federal Energy Information Administration. The EIA estimates the range in use between 22.26 million and 23.92 million barrels a decade from now, so the actual cut likely would be somewhere between 300,000 and 2 million barrels.

The measure – sponsored by Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and co-sponsored by Sens. Susan Collins, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania – is important because it has the strong possibility of remaining in the bill as it moves to conference with the House. Stronger legislation, for instance in the form of improved fuel-economy standards, will have a much harder time passing.

In a dismal year for energy conservation, this measure reinforces the idea that more production of energy is not the sole answer to creating energy security. And as Sen. Collins correctly noted, “Reducing our energy consumption by one million barrels per day will help keep energy prices down and will keep billions of American dollars here at home.”

It also establishes precedent. After trying to guess for the last couple of years what the White House would consider an acceptable way to save on oil, the measure lets the administration choose on its own. Conservation advocates can keep careful watch on the means proposed and the likely results and, perhaps, find ways to work with the White House. That will hardly end the years-long battle between an administration determined to emphasize production and advocacy groups that demand greater energy efficiencies, but these days it is the best deal going.