Much has changed since the infamous Cheney Task Force produced its "National Energy Policy" in May, 2001.

Congress considers energy policy legislation only every ten years or so. The current cycle has lasted longer than would some of the policies under discussion. Congress is once again resuming the tired and touchy debate over a national energy policy. Their decisions will guide us through some of the most important years of the energy business, formative years for our energy future.

The trigger for congressional discussion of energy legislation, historically, is oil prices -- particularly those occasional sharp and memorable increases at the pump. Ironically, domestic policy can do little to control the price of the oil we consume, 59 percent of which is imported.

Clouding the meaning of "Energy"
Nonetheless, the majority of each proposed energy policy concerns petroleum in one way or another. Electricity is bundled into the discussion, with foreign oil and blackouts mentioned in the same breath, to the point that even some prominent figures seem to think our electricity comes from Middle East oil.

Our thirst for imported oil -- more than 10 million barrels a day -- does not come from our furnaces and factories. Almost all of that imported oil goes into our vehicles and comes out the exhaust pipe. Thus the emphasis on petroleum in past energy debates, to which electricity has been a postscript. No longer.

The rise of power
Electric power certainly is less of an afterthought in the current debate. Since the secretive beginnings of Vice President Cheney's energy policy consultations, much has happened to bring energy to the fore. In 2000, California became the poster child of regional energy crises. Energy-intensive businesses across the West suffered measurably from the sharp rise in power prices.

"Many of us in the Northwest are still feeling the effects of the skyrocketing of energy rates and the loss of 105,000 jobs during the 2000-2001 energy crisis," says Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. "Nucor Steel Mill, Seattle City Light's largest customer and part of the largest steel producer in the United States, saw their energy rates increase 59 percent as a result."

The blackouts of 2003 shined a spotlight on energy grid reliability and our utter dependence on electricity. New York restaurants alone reportedly lost millions of dollars. Then we watched as the lights went out across almost all of Italy, and wondered how soon it would happen again in the US. As oil prices responded to war in the Middle East, interest in renewable energy was, well, renewed.

After the events of September 11, 2001, the talk of renewable energy could not rise above the chanting to boost the security of the grid against terrorist attacks. Indeed, as long as our future energy comes from centralized generation, no matter how clean or from what fuel, its distribution system will be its weakness. In Cheney's infamous "National Energy Policy," published in May, 2001, the word "terrorist" does not appear. Six months later, grid security would be high on the agenda for electric energy policy discussions.

Three years, 80 hearings, no policy
In November, 2003, the House of Representatives culminated almost four years of work by passing a comprehensive energy bill entitled "Energy Policy Act of 2003," the fourth such bill to pass the House and not make its way into law. Energy policy was debated briefly in the Senate, before the session ended. The Senate then introduced a trimmed version by the same title in early 2004. It was never debated on the floor.

This history points out the complexity of crafting an energy policy that will gain bipartisan support in both houses of Congress. The House held 80 hearings and 179 hours of debate; a total of 279 amendments were considered.

Much of the controversy came from philosophical differences -- the balance of supply- and demand-driven measures, the conflict between regional interests and the national interest, the difficult choice between lifestyle and the environment.

The cost of the House-passed bill was the first issue to be dealt with in the Senate. The Senate version cut back on programs, reducing the total cost of the policy by about half. Another big concern was a "safe harbor" provision indemnifying producers of a popular fuel additive. Republicans wanted to add language that would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil and gas development.

Regarding electricity, the proposed Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) for utilities was a major concern. RPS requires utilities to provide a certain percentage of their power from renewable sources. This currently means adding mostly wind turbine facilities to the utility's portfolio of conventional generating plants.

Restarting the debate
In his 2005 State of the Union address, President Bush urged Congress to pass his proposed energy strategy, saying that the nation needs a supply of reliable, environmentally responsible energy.

"Nearly four years ago, I submitted a comprehensive energy strategy that encourages conservation, alternative sources, a modernized electricity grid, and more production here at home, including safe, clean nuclear energy," Bush said. "And my budget provides strong funding for leading-edge technology -- from hydrogen-fueled cars, to clean coal, to renewable sources such as ethanol."

At subsequent speaking opportunities, Bush has repeated that the energy legislation supports technological innovation, conservation and alternative energy. The administration's budget proposal, submitted to Congress in recent weeks, requests funding to match the energy plan.

"This is the first time I remember the President of the United States leading off a State of the Union address with the importance of an energy policy, and that's a good sign," says Rob Wallace, GE Energy's Director of Government Programs. "And they put money into their budget for the programs they're proposing, so they're walking the talk."

Discussion of energy policy legislation is due to start in February, 2005. The Senate's version is the likely starting point for discussions. How can four years of disagreement give way to a balanced, successful energy plan?

Read "Energy Policy: Outlook for Compromise."