Editorial: Common sense on energy use

Saturday, Feb. 10, 2001 | noon

Out-of-control fuel costs have caused the federal government and statehouses, including here in Nevada, to seek long-term strategies that will ensure a more reliable supply of energy. Cheap energy during most of the 1990s silenced any meaningful debate in this area, but the California energy crisis and exorbitant electricity and natural gas prices elsewhere in the nation have placed this issue center stage. While there has been a flood of ideas about what to do, many of them not only won't have much impact on the shortages occurring now, but some of them could also harm the environment.

In Washington, D.C., Sen. Frank Murkowski is expected this week to formally introduce what he says is comprehensive energy legislation that could also help alleviate California's crisis. Some details of the Alaska Republican's plan already have emerged, and they're abysmal. For instance, Murkowski supports drilling for natural gas and oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. This wouldn't do one thing to solve California's current predicament, and drilling would endanger sensitive lands and wildlife in the area. Murkowski also wants to increase the use of nuclear energy, which he dubs a clean source of fuel. Of course, Murkowski neglects to mention that the waste generated from nuclear power just happens to be man's deadliest. Murkowski's solution for ridding himself of that problem is to bury it inside Nevada's Yucca Mountain, which is one of the nation's most dangerous geologic places to store nuclear waste.

Murkowski's energy plan is nothing more than payback for the oil, gas and nuclear power industries, which are big Republican campaign contributors. Despite the pitfalls of Murkowski's legislation, the temptation will be great for the Republican-controlled Congress to pass some of these measures since lawmakers know that consumers are worried by rising energy costs. Still, not only would most of Murkowski's ideas be useless in the short term, but they also would wreak havoc to the environment over the long run.

It would be much better for Congress to take a measured approach, one that does support responsible energy development, acknowledging the need to protect the environment. For example, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., has introduced legislation that would expand federal tax credits to the producers of renewable energy, such as solar, geothermal and wind. Making clean energy less expensive won't alone solve our energy woes, but it is a key component of the appropriate mix of energy sources that are needed. Another important policy consideration that should receive bipartisan support is a renewed emphasis on conservation -- something that has received short shrift in the past decade with energy so relatively cheap.

Meanwhile, one of the biggest complaints from energy producers is the long time it takes to get approval from federal and state agencies to build power plants. In response, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management is working to streamline its permitting process so that these plants can be built more quickly. Currently the BLM has proposals for seven natural-gas plants and one wind-powered plant in Southern Nevada. The Legislature also is considering legislation that would accelerate the state's permitting approvals. It's critical, however, that the federal and state governments adhere to their commitments that they won't allow a streamlining application process to weaken environmental standards.

It is essential that policymakers acknowledge that there is no magic bullet that will end the energy crisis overnight. That is the first step in arriving at common-sense, environment-friendly policies that increase the supply, and ease the demand, of energy use in this nation.