WASHINGTON – Despite repeated calls by President Bush and members of Congress to decrease U.S. dependence on oil imports, a major energy bill that appears headed for passage this week would do nothing to reduce the country’s need for foreign oil, according to analysts and special-interest groups.
The United States imports 58 percent of the oil it consumes. Federal officials project that by 2025, the country will have to import 68 percent of its oil to meet demand. At best, analysts say, the energy legislation would slow that rate of growth of dependence only slightly.
“We’ll be dependent on the global market for more than half our oil for as long as we’re using oil, and the energy bill isn’t going to change that,” said Ben Lieberman, who follows energy issues for the conservative Heritage Foundation. “There are a few measures to increase domestic production, … and that would not do much.”
Negotiators worked into the night Monday to iron out differences between the House- and Senate-passed versions of an energy bill that has been high on the president’s agenda since shortly after he took office in 2001 and created an energy task force headed by Vice President Dick Cheney.
The legislation would create billions of dollars’ worth of tax breaks and other federal subsidies to encourage oil and gas production, to reduce pollution at coal-burning power plants and to encourage energy conservation. The bill also would require the use of billions of gallons of ethanol and other fuels derived from agricultural products.
Lawmakers appeared close to resolving a dispute over whether to protect producers of the gasoline additive methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) against product-defect lawsuits. Senate negotiators have refused to support the House-backed provision. The Senate blocked final passage of an energy bill in 2003 after a similar provision was added.
But the emerging package does not do what some analysts said would have the greatest impact on reducing U.S. oil demand and cutting imports: Require an increase in fuel-efficiency standards for trucks and cars. Under strong pressure from the automobile industry, the House and Senate rejected higher efficiency standards. Lawmakers argued that doing so would require redesigns that would make vehicles unsafe and result in a loss of manufacturing jobs – arguments sharply disputed by advocates of fuel efficiency.
“The single biggest step that Congress could take to reduce our oil dependency is to significantly increase the fuel economy standards of the cars and trucks that Americans buy and drive,” said Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, which works on environmental issues.
As oil prices soared during the past year, and remained above $50 a barrel for weeks, lawmakers have raised increasing concern about being reliant on foreign oil, particularly from the Middle East.
Some lawmakers say there will be plenty in the legislation to address the problem of dependence on foreign oil. The White House has not analyzed how the legislation would affect reliance on imports, spokeswoman Dana Perino said.
“Both bills will improve the nation’s energy security by expanding the use of new technologies increasing the diversity of renewable energy sources and reducing energy consumption through greater conservation and energy efficiency,” she said.
The United States consumes more than 20 million barrels of oil a day, an amount forecast to grow steadily. The Senate version of the legislation included a provision calling on the president to reduce oil consumption by 1 million barrels a day by 2015, but the measure is nonbinding. The Bush administration opposed the provision, saying it would require increasing fuel-efficiency standards beyond what technology would allow at an affordable price.
The provision that would have the biggest impact, analysts agreed, is a requirement for the United States to increase the amount of ethanol and other agriculture-derived fuels. That would offset some gasoline use, they said.
The Senate version, which requires more ethanol or agriculture-derived fuels than the House bill, would cut oil imports by 80,000 barrels a day by 2012, according to government estimates. That would mean oil imports would be about 0.8 percent less than they otherwise would have been in 2012.
The energy legislation would provide tax breaks and other subsidies that supporters say would encourage increased domestic oil production to further reduce reliance on foreign oil. Domestic production has been declining for years.
Bush has pushed to open Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, to tap what geologists say is one of the few remaining areas of the country that hold promise for major new production. Without that new drilling, net oil imports would be 68 percent in 2025, according to the Energy Department’s Energy Information Administration. With drilling in the refuge, net oil imports would account for 64 percent of consumption in 2025, according to the EIA.
A provision to open the refuge – a highly contentious issue because of strong opposition from environmentalists and many Democrats – is unlikely to be included in the final version of the energy bill. But such a measure has been included in budget language, and final votes are expected in September.
The energy legislation calls for money to be spent on research into hydrogen, alternative fuels, efficiency and technology, which supporters said could ultimately help reduce oil consumption. The Senate version calls for tax breaks for hybrid vehicles, which supporters said would help reduce oil demand.
Environmentalists cited a provision of both bills that they said would result in more oil consumption: extension of a provision that allows automakers to receive fuel economy credit – and increase production of less-fuel-efficient vehicles – for producing vehicles that can run on either gasoline or a fuel blend of 85 percent ethanol even if owners use only gasoline.
Local journalism is essential.
Give directly to The Spokesman-Review's Northwest Passages community forums series -- which helps to offset the costs of several reporter and editor positions at the newspaper -- by using the easy options below. Gifts processed in this system are not tax deductible, but are predominately used to help meet the local financial requirements needed to receive national matching-grant funds.
Subscribe now to get breaking news alerts in your email inbox
Get breaking news delivered to your inbox as it happens.