Comprehensive

National Energy Strategy

National Energy Policy Plan

Pursuant to Section 801

of the Department of Energy Organization Act

Washington, D.C.

April 1998

DOE/S–0124
Comprehensive National Energy Strategy

ii

I am pleased to convey the Department’s Comprehensive National Energy Strategy, pursuant to Section 801 of the Department of Energy Organization

Act. This Strategy is the result of an interaction

among the Department of Energy, other Federal

agencies, and the public at large through the hearing and comment process.

There are compelling reasons for a new and

comprehensive energy strategy at this time. First,

energy plays a vital role in our economy — accounting for over 7 percent of our gross domestic product, or about $2,000 annually for every man, woman,

and child in the United States. In addition, energy

is big business. The global market for energy supply equipment alone in 1996 was over half a trillion dollars.

Second, our national security depends on affordable and abundant supplies of energy.

Under every conceivable scenario projected by energy analysts, natural gas and oil will

remain a central part of our Nation’s energy future. As the world demand for oil grows, the

United States does not want to rely on any particular region of the world for imported oil.

Moreover, our own dependence on imported oil is expected to grow from 50 percent today

to 60 percent by 2010.

Third, we recognize that the environmental effects from production and use of energy

are significant. On a local level, we know that fossil fuel use is associated with regional haze

and smog. On a global scale, many experts believe that human activities associated with

energy production and use have significantly altered the composition of atmospheric gasses.

Lastly, the U.S. economy still has ample opportunity to make further progress in the

way we supply and use energy. Good public policy demands that we use our vital energy

resources as wisely as possible.

Message from the Secretary of Energy
Comprehensive National Energy Strategy

iii

We are at a historic moment when we have the flexibility to develop our responses to

the energy challenges we see. We are not facing an immediate crisis. Our economy is doing

well. Energy supplies seem ample. The environment is steadily improving. Our Comprehensive National Energy Strategy is a forward-looking effort that seeks to address the major

energy challenges facing the Nation and to provide the basis for guiding and directing

future action. The Strategy is based on five common-sense goals:

• Improving the efficiency of our energy system — for example, by widely deploying new

technologies to make more effective use of our energy resources.

• Ensuring against energy disruptions by reducing the threat of supply interruption and

increasing the security and reliability of our energy infrastructure.

• Promoting energy production and use in ways that protect our health and environment.

• Expanding future energy choices through wise investments in basic science and new

technologies.

• Cooperating internationally on energy issues to help develop the means to address

global economic, security, and environmental concerns.

This Strategy is the beginning of what I believe is a journey toward energy security,

economic expansion, and protection of our environment. We have constructed this Strategy

so the American people can track and measure our progress as we develop and implement

steps to achieve our goals.

I believe you will find this new energy strategy innovative and in the best interests of

the American people. I welcome your support.

Federico F. Peña

Secretary of Energy
Comprehensive National Energy Strategy

iv
Comprehensive National Energy Strategy

v

Contents

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

The Strategy at a Glance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

Comprehensive National Energy Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Energy — the Economy’s Lifeblood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

The U.S. Energy Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Energy Consumption. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Energy Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

A Changing Energy World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Global Economic Transformation and Energy Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Competition in the U.S. Electricity Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

International Response to Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Energy Technology: The Essential Basis for Progress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Proposed National Energy Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Goal I: Improve the Efficiency of the Energy System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Goal II: Ensure Against Energy Disruptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Goal III: Promote Energy Production and Use in Ways That Respect

Health and Environmental Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Goal IV: Expand Future Energy Choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Goal V: Cooperate Internationally on Global Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

A Shared Commitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Appendixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

A. The Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

B. The President’s Climate Change Technology Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Summary of Public Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Comprehensive National Energy Strategy

vi
Comprehensive National Energy Strategy

vii

When the Department of Energy

was created in 1977, the law

required that a “National Energy

Policy Plan” be regularly submitted to Congress. The President, the Department, the

Congress, and the American people have

all found this regular planning process useful, not only when energy prices have skyrocketed, as was the case when the first

policy plan was due in 1979, but also in

times like today, when energy supplies are

abundant and affordable. Although there

appears to be no energy crisis now, serious

energy issues remain to be addressed to

ensure that the Nation’s current and future

energy requirements can be met in a way

that continues to grow the economy while

improving protection of the environment

and the health and safety of the American

people.

This Comprehensive National Energy

Strategy sets forth a set of five common sense

goals for national energy policy [see box on

next page]. These goals are further elaborated by a series of objectives and strategies

to illustrate how these goals will be achieved.

Foreword

Taken together, the goals, objectives, and

strategies form a blueprint for the specific

programs, projects, initiatives, investments,

and other actions that will be developed and

undertaken by the Federal Government, with

significant emphasis on the importance of

the scientific and technological advancements that will allow implementation of this

Comprehensive National Energy Strategy.

Moreover, the statutory requirement of regular submissions of national energy policy

plans ensures that this framework can be

modified to reflect evolving conditions, such

as better knowledge of our surroundings,

changes in energy markets, and advances

in technology. This Strategy, then, should

be thought of as a living document.

Finally, this plan benefited from the comments and suggestions of numerous individuals and organizations, both inside and

outside of government. The Summary of

Public Comments, located at the end of this

document, describes the public participation

process and summarizes the comments that

were received.
Comprehensive National Energy Strategy

viii

The Strategy at a Glance

Goal I. Improve the efficiency of the energy system — making more productive use

of energy resources to enhance overall economic performance while protecting the

environment and advancing national security.

Objective 1. Support competitive and efficient electric systems.

Enact electric utility restructuring legislation, develop advanced coal/

gas powerplants, improve existing nuclear powerplants

Objective 2. Significantly increase energy efficiency in the transportation, industrial,

and buildings sectors by 2010.

Develop more efficient transportation, industrial, and building

technologies

Objective 3. Increase the efficiency of Federal energy use.

Adopt new/innovative energy-efficient and renewable technologies

Goal II. Ensure against energy disruptions — protecting our economy from external

threat of interrupted supplies or infrastructure failure.

Objective 1. Reduce the vulnerability of the U.S. economy to disruptions in oil supply.

Stabilize domestic production, maintain readiness of Strategic Petroleum

Reserve, diversify import sources, reduce consumption

Objective 2. Ensure energy system reliability, flexibility, and emergency response

capability.

Ensure reliable electricity/gas supply, refining and emergency response

Goal III. Promote energy production and use in ways that respect health and

environmental values — improving our health and local, regional, and global environmental quality.

Objective 1. Increase domestic energy production in an environmentally responsible

manner.

Increase domestic gas production, recover oil with less environmental impact,

develop renewable technologies, maintain viable nuclear option

Objective 2. Accelerate the development and market adoption of environmentally friendly

technologies

Increase near-term deployment, expand voluntary efforts, design domestic

greenhouse gas trading program, work with developing countries, design

international trading/credit system

Goal IV. Expand future energy choices — pursuing continued progress in science and

technology to provide future generations with a robust portfolio of clean and reasonably

priced energy sources.

Objective 1. Maintain a strong national knowledge base as the foundation for informed

energy decisions, new energy systems, and enabling technologies of the

future.

Pursue basic research, including research on carbon/climate; support energy

science infrastructure

Objective 2. Develop technologies that expand long-term energy options

Develop long-term options, such as fusion, hydrogen-based systems, and

methane hydrates, that can have major impacts

Goal V. Cooperate internationally on global issues — developing the means to address

global economic, security, and environmental concerns.

Objective 1. Promote development of open, competitive international energy markets,

and facilitate the adoption of clean, safe, and efficient energy systems.

Encourage adoption of favorable legal/policy framework in other countries,

promote clean/efficient energy systems and science/ technology collaboration

Objective 2. Promote foreign regional stability by reducing energy-related environmental

risks in areas of U.S. security interest

Prioritize concerns and develop cost-effective solutions
The U.S. Energy Landscape

1

Comprehensive

National Energy Strategy

Energy — the Economy’s

Lifeblood

A mericans share a desire for a high

quality of life, characterized by

good health, prosperity, security,

and a clean environment. Government seeks

to create conditions where these shared

dreams have the greatest chance of being

realized. Good energy policy can help us

achieve each of these facets of the American dream.

Energy is the lifeblood of modern economies. It powers our factories, heats and cools

our homes, and moves people and goods —

all with the flick of a switch or the turn of

an ignition key. The lifestyle U.S. citizens

enjoy, the envy of much of the world, was

built in large measure on reliable, affordable energy supplies.

Energy is a global commodity. The price

and availability of energy resources in one

region can have global implications. Complacency about energy availability was

shaken during the economic recessions that

followed the two oil shocks experienced in

the 1970s. The 1973 oil embargo and the

1978 Iranian Revolution showed how events

thousands of miles away and largely outside U.S. control can disrupt our daily lives

through impacts on energy markets and our

national economy. In general, rising energy

prices have tended to be associated with the

onset of subpar economic performance

[Fig. 1]. More recently, Operation Desert

Shield/Desert Storm in 1991 provided a vivid

reminder that energy security cannot be

taken for granted.

The 1970s also witnessed broad recognition of the environmental consequences

of energy use, such as urban smog and acid

rain. New laws were enacted to counter the

pollution from energy production and use.

These were effective in lowering emissions

and improving health, yielding substantial

benefits that far exceed the incurred costs.

This period also saw the dawning realization that greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel use could have global environmental

implications.

During the late 1970s, it became apparent that the decades-old regulation of many

energy prices was counterproductive and

that the Nation should pursue marketoriented approaches to energy supply and

use wherever possible. A consensus developed that competitive markets should be the

cornerstone of a successful energy policy,

but also that markets alone cannot be relied

upon to achieve all of society’s economic,

environmental, and security goals because

these societal benefits often are overlooked

by the private sector.

The role of government in energy is now

focused on the important tasks of improving the operation of competitive markets and

addressing the market’s inherent limits. This

combined approach allows markets to be

the key determinants of supply and demand,

while government supplements market
Comprehensive National Energy Strategy

2

forces through policies that bolster energy

security and provide for a cleaner environment.

In this context, the Federal Government

focuses on augmenting energy security by

maintaining the Strategic Petroleum Reserve,

coordinating emergency responses with our

allies in the International Energy Agency,

promoting increased domestic oil and gas

production and use of alternative fuels, and

maintaining military preparedness. The Federal Government also seeks to encourage

favorable conditions in energy-producing

regions of the world to facilitate access of

all oil and gas resources to global energy

markets. The Government reduces negative

environmental effects by regulating pollution, limiting access to environmentally sensitive public lands and waters, and setting

standards for energy use in consultation with

the private sector. And the Government ensures the flow of new and cleaner energy

technologies by funding energy research,

development, and demonstration, often in

concert with the private sector. Ultimately,

the continued development of new technologies that provide diverse energy sources,

improve the efficiency of end-use, and reduce the negative environmental effects of

energy production and use is the key to

maintaining our high quality of life.

Each day, most Americans depend on

the benefits of energy, without always being aware of the role it plays in sustaining

the quality of our lives. But this is not the

case for many low-income households.

While an average American family spends

less than 5 percent of its income on household energy, poor families spend more,

about 15 percent of income on home energy needs. This disparity is especially important during periods of energy price

volatility. If cold weather and low heating

fuel supplies cause heating fuel costs to

spike, more affluent households can afford

the increased cost. However, being cold is a

possible, or even likely, outcome in lowincome households without government

Figure 1

Relationship of world oil prices and U.S. gross domestic product (GDP), 1970–1996

Source: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 1996, Table 1.6 (GDP values

originally published by U.S. Department of Commerce).

International

events outside our

control have

caused sharp

increases in

energy prices,

which in turn

have been

followed by

slowdowns in the

U.S. economy.

1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Year

Crude Oil Prices (1996$/bbl)

% Change in Real GDP

Crude Oil

Price

(left scale)

% Change in Real GDP

(right scale)

Oil

Embargo

Iranian

Revolution
The U.S. Energy Landscape

3

action. That is why the Federal Government

provides funds to the States during such situations to help low-income families afford

basic energy purchases and why it provides

funds to weatherize homes to reduce the

burden of high energy costs on low-income

families.

The policy of establishing a relatively

circumscribed role for the Federal Government has proven adaptable to changing economic, energy, and environmental

circumstances. For example, by the late

1970s and early 1980s, succeeding Administrations allowed the price of oil products to

rise as world oil prices increased. This policy

encouraged consumers to reduce oil consumption and gave producers incentives to

boost production, both here and around the

world. From 1975 to 1985, U.S. energy consumption relative to the level of economic

activity decreased by about 25 percent; during 1985 alone, Americans saved more than

$100 billion (in 1996 dollars) in energy costs

thanks to the technological improvements

that occurred during this 10-year period.

These market adjustments ultimately helped

erode the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries’ (OPEC) monopoly power in

oil markets and paved the way for today’s

lower world oil prices.

The U.S. Energy Landscape

Given the central role of energy in

our economy, it is no surprise that

U.S. energy consumption has

grown with gross domestic product (GDP).

From 1970 to 1996, total U.S. primary energy consumption rose by almost 50 percent, from about 66.4 quadrillion Btu (quads)

to about 94 quads.1

 In the same time period, GDP more than doubled [Fig. 2]. This

energy and GDP relationship reflects improvements in the use of energy in this country as a result of technical progress and

changes in the composition of the U.S.

economy.

1

A quad (which is short for 1 quadrillion British

thermal units, or Btu) is a convenient, common

unit for measuring large amounts of energy derived from different sources or used in different

applications. A quad is approximately equal to the

heat content in 8 billion gallons of gasoline. The

electricity component of end-use energy consumption is accounted for in terms of “primary” energy

(the heat content of the fuel burned at the

powerplant), not the electrical energy finally “delivered” to the customer.

While U.S. energy

consumption

increased by

almost 50 percent

in the past

25 years, our

gross domestic

product more

than doubled —

a clear

indication that

we are using

energy more

efficiently.

Figure 2

Energy consumption and GDP, 1970–1996

Source: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 1996, Table 1.6 (GDP values

originally published by U.S. Department of Commerce).

1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Real GDP (Billion 1996$)

Quads

Total Energy Consumption (right scale)

GDP (left scale)
Comprehensive National Energy Strategy

4

Energy Consumption

Energy is consumed in the four basic demand sectors of our economy: transportation, industry, residential, and commercial

[Fig. 3]. In addition to energy used directly

by these sectors, large amounts of energy

are used to produce electricity.

Transportation accounts for about

26 percent of our Nation’s energy use.2

 The

transportation sector accounts for about twothirds of all petroleum use in the United

States.

Industry accounts for about 37 percent

of U.S. energy consumption. Industry relies

on a mix of fuels to produce a myriad of

products and services. Petroleum and natural gas continue to be the major industrial

fuels, together accounting for roughly

70 percent of direct consumption. Much of

About threefourths of the

energy consumed

in the United

States is used in

buildings and

industry.

Figure 3

Total U.S. energy consumption, by end-use

sector, 1996 (total: 94 quads)

Residential

19.4 quads

(21%)

Commercial

15.0 quads

(16%)

Industrial

34.8 quads

(37%)

Transportation

24.8 quads

(26%)

Note: Includes electricity generation,

transmission, and distribution losses.

Source: Energy Information Administration,

Annual Energy Outlook 1998, Table A2.

2

All statistics on current energy consumption and

production are based on Energy Information

Administration data for 1996.

the petroleum consumption in the industrial

sector is used as a raw material or feedstock.

The residential sector accounts for about

21 percent of total primary energy consumption. About 50 percent of all primary energy

consumption in the residential sector is used

for heating rooms and water; air-conditioning accounts for about 8 percent of consumption; and major appliances (refrigerators,

freezers, stovetops, ovens, washers, and dryers) are responsible for about 17 percent of

residential consumption.

The commercial sector accounts for

about 16 percent of total primary energy

consumption. The diversity of building types

found in the commercial sector and the variety of functions they perform create a broad

range of energy needs.

Energy Supply

America’s energy resources are extensive and

diverse. Coal, oil, natural gas, and uranium

are abundant, and a variety of renewable

resources are available in large untapped

quantities. The United States produces almost twice as much energy as any other

nation, and nearly as much as Russia and

China combined. Although our Nation uses

most of this energy domestically, it exports

considerable amounts of coal, refined petroleum products, and enriched uranium.

Domestic oil production accounts for

about 22 percent of U.S. energy production,

down from its share of 36 percent in the

early 1970s [Fig. 4].

Natural gas accounts for about 27 percent of U.S. energy production. Although

natural gas is produced in 33 States, Texas

and its neighboring States, combined with

the Federal offshore areas of the Gulf of

Mexico, account for more than three-fourths

of U.S. production.

Coal is the Nation’s most abundant fossil fuel resource and accounts for about

31 percent of U.S. energy production. U.S.

recoverable reserves of coal are greater than

in any other nation, and more than twice

those of China, the world’s leading coal producer. Every year, the United States produces

more than a billion tons of coal and exports

roughly one-tenth of this production to a
The U.S. Energy Landscape

5

variety of markets. It uses almost 90 percent

of the remainder to generate electricity.

Nuclear energy is the second largest

source of U.S. electricity, after coal, producing more than 20 percent of our electricity.

Renewable energy includes hydropower,

biomass (primarily wood and waste), geothermal, wind, and solar resources. These

sources currently provide almost 10 percent

of U.S. primary energy production. Although

more than half of the U.S. renewable energy produced is used to generate electricity, it is also used for transportation fuels

(such as ethanol), and for heating industrial

processes (such as wood waste in the paper

industry), buildings, and water. Renewable

sources of electricity are dominated by conventional hydroelectric power, which provides 80 percent of all renewable electricity

and 10 percent of total generation.

Electricity generation represents the conversion of energy from a primary source (fossil fuel, uranium, or renewable forms) into

a clean, easily transported, and flexible secondary energy source with innumerable

uses. U.S. electricity generation has grown

almost every year during the past four decades. The United States is the world’s largest producer of electricity, generating more

than all of western Europe and Japan combined. More than half of all electricity is generated by burning coal; about one-fifth is

derived from nuclear powerplants; renewable resources — primarily hydropower —

provide about one-eighth; and the

remainder is fueled by natural gas (about

9 percent) and oil (about 2 to 3 percent).

A Changing Energy World

Growing populations and rising living standards, economies in transition to market-based systems, and

increasing globalization of energy markets

demand greater flexibility and creativity in

government economic, environmental, foreign, and national security policies. Energy

policies, too, must be reevaluated in the

wake of the experiences of the 1990s. Three

preeminent challenges emerge: how to maintain energy security in global energy markets; how to successfully harness competition in electricity markets; and how to

respond to the threat of climate change.

Global Economic Transformation

and Energy Security

The end of the Cold War unleashed market

forces in one country after another, and many

countries are in the process of transforming

cumbersome, government-run energy sectors into private enterprise. Indeed, most of

the global energy economy is now directed

by market forces, as opposed to government

fiat. At the same time, economic policies in

the developing world have led to doubledigit growth rates, significant increases in

energy demand, and substantial inflows of

private capital to finance expanding energy

sectors. As a result, world energy use has

grown and its composition has shifted

[Fig. 5].

Projections of brisk growth in world oil

demand substantially change the energy

security outlook. In oil production, geology

A Changing Energy World

Figure 4

U.S. energy production, by fuel, 1996

(total: 72.6 quads)

Fossil fuels

account for

80 percent of the

energy produced

in the United

States (and

85 percent of the

energy we

consume).

Natural Gas

19.5 quads

(27%)

Coal

22.6 quads

(31%)

Petroleum

16.3 quads

(22%)

Nuclear

7.2 quads

(10%)

Hydroelectric

3.6 quads

Biomass (5%)

3.0 quads

Other (4%)

0.4 quad

(1%)

Source: Energy Information Administration,

Annual Energy Review 1996, Table 1.2.
Comprehensive National Energy Strategy

6

Figure 5

World primary energy use, 1970–1995

Although OECD

countries still

account for more

than half of

world energy

consumption,

energy use in

developing

countries

increased by 250

percent during

the past 25 years,

far outpacing the

growth rate

elsewhere.

Source: Energy Information Administration, International Energy Annual 1996,

Table E1, and unpublished data.

1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Quads

Developing Countries

Eastern Europe and Former Soviet Union

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)

is destiny. Roughly two-thirds of the world’s

proved oil reserves lie in the Persian Gulf

region. Even with development of the resources in the Caspian region, rapid growth

in world oil demand will likely be met primarily through growth in Persian Gulf oil

exports [Fig. 6]. Excessive reliance on a single

geographic area to satisfy increased world

demand for oil creates the potential for oilimporting nations to be vulnerable to supply disruptions and price volatility. This risk

can be minimized by coordinating policies

with our allies in the International Energy

Agency and by maintaining or enhancing

our Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Competition in the

U.S. Electricity Market

Closer to home, the success of deregulation

in the oil and natural gas industries, along

with the consumer benefits flowing from deregulation in other sectors once dominated

by regulated monopolies, has prompted consideration of deregulating major portions of

the Nation’s electric power industry. Federal legislation enacted in the late 1970s and

early 1990s has opened the wholesale

power-generation sector of this industry to

competition, and several States are in the

process of implementing competition in retail markets. While a few States with relatively high electricity rates have led the way

in aggressively pursuing competition, most

States have just begun to examine prospects

for competition to lower prices [Fig. 7].

International Response

to Climate Change

The 1990s have seen the global climate

change debate evolve from an issue discussed largely among scientists to one that

engages the collective attention of governments around the world. In December 1997,
The U.S. Energy Landscape

7

Figure 7

Electric power industry restructuring activities, showing current State average electricity rates

(cents per kilowatthour)

Note: Information current as of April 1998.

Source: Energy Information Administration and Energetics, Inc.

Most States are

actively pursuing

changes that will

bring greater

competition to the

electric power

industry — and

lower electricity

prices to

consumers.

A Changing Energy World

Figure 6

Persian Gulf share of world’s oil exports, 1970–2020

According to

Energy

Information

Administration

projections, oil

exporters in the

Persian Gulf are

on a path to

recapturing their

historically high

share of the world

oil market.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 1998, Figure 28.

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

Forecast

Year

Percent

History
Comprehensive National Energy Strategy

8

Figure 8

U.S. energy-related carbon emissions, 1980–2020

Without serious

efforts to change

our patterns of

energy production

and use,

U.S. emissions of

greenhouse gases

will continue on a

steady upward

climb.

Sources: Historical values are from Energy Information Administration (EIA), Annual Energy

Review 1996. Forecast values are from EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 1998, Table A19

(reference case projection).

the international community negotiated the

Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which

includes targets for developed countries for

reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Given

that more than 80 percent of human-made

greenhouse gas emissions are energy related,

and that energy consumption continues to

increase, energy policy has a new and demanding role [Fig. 8].

The Kyoto Protocol calls for the United

States to reduce its average annual emissions

to 7 percent below 1990 levels over the period 2008–2012 (measured net of baseline

adjustments for hydrofluorocarbons,

perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and

carbon sequestration). This target entails significant emissions reductions when compared with recent projections, though not

all of the reductions will come from energy

sectors. Thus, the Kyoto Protocol, if the

United States Senate gives its advice and

consent to ratification, may set our Nation

on a very different course toward an important and challenging goal. Attaining this target while preserving U.S. industrial competitiveness will require a blend of market-oriented policies with structured government

involvement. However, the United States will

not ratify the Kyoto Protocol without meaningful participation by key developing countries in the global response to the threat of

climate change. [See Appendix A for further

details on the Kyoto Protocol.]

Energy Technology: The Essential

Basis for Progress

Without energy technologies, a ton

of coal, a barrel of oil, a cubic

foot of natural gas, a ton of uranium ore, a stiff breeze, or the Sun’s warmth

cannot directly contribute to the prosperity

of modern society. With the very best technologies, however, society can use energy

resources efficiently and responsibly and

with great economic and environmental gain.

While economic and security challenges

continue to demand investment in a robust

Million Metric Tons of Carbon

Year

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

History Forecast
The U.S. Energy Landscape

9

energy research and development (R&D)

program, environmental challenges provide

special impetus for increased focus on

energy-related science and technology during the coming years. Energy use is the principal cause of local and regional air-quality

problems, such as the emission of fine particulates and the creation of smog and acid

precipitation from nitrogen and sulfur oxides. On a global scale, there is little doubt

that human activities associated with energy

production and use have, over the last few

decades, significantly altered the composition of atmospheric gases. In particular, the

concentration of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, has increased by a third over preindustrial levels. Once released, carbon

dioxide remains in the Earth’s atmosphere

for a century or more. The great majority of

involved scientists agree that “business as

usual” greenhouse gas emissions will lead

to significant increases in average global temperature and associated climate changes, although the magnitude and distribution of

the ecological and human consequences

remain the subject of research and debate.

Prudence clearly dictates that new technologies be developed to provide additional

options to meet evolving environmental,

economic, and security needs.

The imperative for embarking on a

strong technology program now is reinforced

by recognition of the long periods of time

associated with significant change in our

energy infrastructure. Research and development itself often takes one or two decades

to yield technological breakthroughs. The

life expectancy for major energy supply and

end-use technologies also extends to many

decades. Decisions made every day about

energy production and use commit the Nation to a certain energy path for what can

be a considerable period of time. To the

extent that economically attractive, clean,

and efficient technologies are chosen, both

the economy and the environment benefit.

Thus, a robust energy R&D program is

needed to enable us to achieve a healthy

and prosperous future.

Over the next 10 to 15 years, advances

in energy efficiency offer the greatest opportunity for serving environmental, economic, and national security goals. The scale

of potential gains is established by the magnitude of our Nation’s total energy expenditures (about $500 billion per year) or of total

manufacturing expenditures on energy

(about $100 billion per year).

Renewable energy technologies, those

that harness the enormous energy available

in natural systems, can be expected to make

major contributions to our Nation’s energy

portfolio in coming decades. They will help

meet energy needs in transportation, commercial and residential buildings, and industry with limited environmental impact. The

scale and timing of market penetration will

depend on further technological progress

and the evolving regulatory framework. In

addition, the continued operation and optimization of existing nuclear powerplants

through advanced technologies may be an

important contributor to meeting greenhouse

gas emission-reduction goals if issues such

as nuclear waste disposal and nonproliferation are resolved satisfactorily. In the longer

term, fusion energy could also contribute to

stabilizing and reducing the atmospheric

concentration of greenhouse gases.

Advances spawned through American innovation will range from improvements seen

directly in our everyday lives — much more

efficient light bulbs, cars, appliances — to

new approaches for large baseload energy

sources. The Nation must engage the talent

in our universities and national laboratories

to advance basic science and engineering

research and to partner with the private sector to develop and deploy new technologies. This is a central component of a

modern, forward-looking energy strategy.

Proposed National Energy Goals

The basic energy policy for the United

States in recent years has been to

rely on markets to allocate most

resources with selective government intervention to ensure that certain highly valued

societal needs — including the need for energy security, environmental quality, and enProposed National Energy Goals
Comprehensive National Energy Strategy

10

ergy research — are met. While this general

market-based approach to meeting energy

challenges has endured, the precise blend

of market reliance and government action

is subject to substantial debate. The debate

stems from different perceptions of market

shortcomings and risks, varying degrees of

emphasis on specific policy goals, as well

as disagreement over the best strategies to

be used.

In the past 5 years, the Administration

has pursued an energy policy that has provided substantial economic, environmental,

and national security benefits for the American public. This policy, however, has been

based on a legislative and regulatory framework last revised in the early 1990s. It is

now time to take stock of our Nation’s energy progress, identify the most substantial

challenges that remain, calibrate energy

policy goals to the new century, and propose long-term solutions.

In the context of pursuing a marketbased energy policy, this Comprehensive

National Energy Strategy proposes five specific goals for the Nation. These goals arise

out of the shared desires of all Americans to

improve the quality of life through higher

living standards, economic security, and a

clean environment. A common thread running through our national response to these

goals is development and deployment of

new technology, achieved through basic scientific and engineering advances. While

these goals are not new to this Administration, they are linked with specific proposed

strategies that reflect the evolving energy environment. The proposed goals are:

• Improve the efficiency of the energy

system — making more productive use

of energy resources in order to enhance

overall economic performance while protecting the environment and advancing

national security.

• Ensure against energy disruptions —

protecting our economy from external

threat of interrupted supplies or infrastructure failure.

• Promote energy production and use

in ways that respect health and environmental values — improving our

health and local, regional, and global environmental quality.

• Expand future energy choices — pursuing continued progress in science and

technology to provide future generations

with a robust portfolio of clean and reasonably priced energy sources.

• Cooperate internationally on energy

issues — developing the means to identify, manage, and resolve global economic, security, and environmental

concerns.

These goals are interrelated, with tension among some and opportunities for synergy among others. Nevertheless, pursued

simultaneously through a comprehensive

market-based energy strategy, the attainment

of these goals will produce payoffs greater

than the sum of their individual components.

These goals form a durable framework

against which future energy initiatives should

be judged to see if they are consistent with

the national interest.

The term “comprehensive” in Comprehensive National Energy Strategy does not

mean that every program, initiative, and technology that can help meet our national energy goals is included within these pages.

Rather, this document is intended to be a

blueprint. The Strategy will be used to coordinate energy-related programs, throughout

the Administration, that implement the overall energy strategy reflected in these pages.

It will specifically be used in developing future budgets, evaluating future legislative initiatives, and managing the Administration’s

energy-related programs.

Goal I

Improve the efficiency of the energy system — making more productive use of

energy resources to enhance overall economic performance while protecting

the environment and advancing national security.

To compete successfully in world markets and to improve living standards, the

United States must achieve more productive
The U.S. Energy Landscape

11

and efficient use of its energy resources, including its electricity infrastructure, its fossil

fuel reserves, and its productive capacity for

clean, alternative fuels. In addition, the Federal Government must find new ways to buy

and use energy. Among other things, these

actions also will help reduce reliance on

imported oil from unstable regions of the

world.

Objective 1. Support competitive and

efficient electric systems.

Strategy 1. Enact legislation to promote the

establishment of a competitive electric system with improved environmental performance. The Administration supports

comprehensive legislation that will promote

efficiency, increase use of renewable resources, reduce emissions, lower costs for

consumers, and allow electricity suppliers

to provide value-added services. The existing Federal regulatory framework impedes

the evolution of the electric marketplace. It

prohibits some desirable actions by regulators and corporate decisionmakers; it requires companies to take some actions that

are uneconomic; and it fails to give clear,

unambiguous guidance to Federal and State

regulators concerning who has authority to

do what in an industry that is undergoing

significant change. The Administration’s

Comprehensive Electricity Competition Plan

would correct these problems. This plan is

summarized in the box on this page.

Strategy 2. By 2010, demonstrate costeffective power systems that achieve electrical generating efficiencies greater than

60 percent using coal (compared with an

average of 35 percent today) and 70 percent

using natural gas (compared with about

50 percent today). Total fuel efficiency will

reach 85 percent in combined heat and

power applications. Expanded R&D can accelerate the availability of advanced turbine

and fuel cell technologies, which can be

combined to raise the efficiency of new

gas-fueled powerplants to 70 percent. These

technologies can also be combined with advanced coal technology, such as integrated

The Administration’s Comprehensive

Electricity Competition Plan

Goal I: Improve the Efficiency of the Energy System

The Administration believes that

Federal legislation is needed to

accelerate and guide the transition of the U.S. electric industry

towards greater reliance on competitive market forces. It has issued a Comprehensive Electricity

Competition Plan that outlines

detailed specifications for provisions that Congress should enact

in a single, comprehensive electric bill. The Administration expects that its plan will result in

substantial benefits for both the

economy and the environment.

These benefits include:

• Reduction in the Nation’s electric bill by at least 10 percent

(or $20 billion per year in current dollars).

• A significant down-payment

toward reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, with a

25-million to 40-million metric ton reduction in carbon

emissions projected in 2010.

• A substantial increase in the

use of nonhydro renewable

energy sources by 2010, more

than doubling the level of use

projected without the plan.

The plan would achieve these

benefits by:

• Establishing clear Federal

policy support for wholesale

and retail competition in the

industry.

• Maintaining flexibility for State

and local governments to develop approaches to retail

competition that reflect

unique local conditions.

• Maximizing consumer benefits

by providing mechanisms and

authorities to ensure that real

competition occurs, and by requiring uniform easy-tounderstand labeling that will

empower consumers to make

informed choices.

• Supporting low-income assistance, energy efficiency, renewable energy, and other

public benefits through a

Public Benefits Fund (PBF)

and a Renewable Portfolio

Standard (RPS).

• Reducing emissions through

competition, which encourages efficiency, green power,

and innovative services, and

through the PBF and RPS

proposals.

• Strengthening electric system

reliability while building on

the industry’s tradition of

self-regulation by requiring

key market participants (including Federal power systems) to join an organization

that would establish and enforce reliability standards

subject to the oversight of the

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission.

• Clarifying key authorities for

Federal and State agencies

with respect to governance

of the new electricity industry.

• Allowing existing public

power facilities used in competitive electricity markets to

retain tax-exempt financing.

• Providing trading authority

for nitrogen oxide emissions

to facilitate cost-effective,

market-driven reductions of

nitrogen oxides.

The plan removes barriers in existing Federal law that are impeding the transition to

competition, already under way.

The major provisions of law

were crafted in 1935, when

competition was not contemplated. Existing laws block economically desirable actions, fail

to give adequate guidance to

Federal and State regulatory

authorities regarding their respective jurisdiction under competition, and fail to give clear

policy guidance on many important new questions related to

competitive electricity markets.
Comprehensive National Energy Strategy

12

combined cycle, to achieve efficiencies of

more than 60 percent. Even higher thermal

efficiencies — over 85 percent — are possible for manufacturing applications that require both process heat and electricity.

In the nearer future, to meet new airquality standards for microscopic particulates

(PM2.5), enhanced R&D will seek ways to

reduce both primary particulate emissions

and emissions of sulfur and nitrogen oxides

that are precursors to secondary particulate

formation in the air. Also included in this

effort is development of technologies to meet

new standards for ozone and pending standards for visibility and air toxics.

Strategy 3. Improve the reliability and performance of the operating nuclear plants,

which number more than 100, to help meet

the Nation’s future electrical power needs

more efficiently. U.S. nuclear powerplants

should see improvements in operating capacity — as much as 10 percentage points

in the next several years (from 76 percent to

86 percent) — with further technological developments. A performance improvement of

this amount in the operating plants would

offset as much as 10,000 megawatts of new

electrical output capacity.

Objective 2. Significantly increase

energy efficiency in the transportation,

industrial, and buildings sectors by

2010.

Strategy 1. Develop more efficient technologies for the transportation sector. The U.S.

transportation sector accounts for two-thirds

of the Nation’s annual oil consumption and

depends on oil for 97 percent of its fuel.

Current trends in energy demand, particularly for oil, can be significantly altered by

developing enabling technology to support

commercialization of a personal vehicle capable of three times the fuel efficiency of

conventional vehicles by 2010; lighter,

cleaner heavy-duty vehicle engines; advanced aircraft engines and airframes; and

fuel cells for transportation use by 2005. To

ensure that more fuel-efficient vehicles enter the marketplace, the President has proCars of the Future

By 2010, you may be driving a

car that gets 80 mpg, emits virtually no pollution, has the acceleration, driving range, safety,

and other performance characteristics to equal the best of

today’s cars — and is still affordable.

Such dramatic progress will

come from totally reinventing

how vehicles are powered, and

from the use of advanced lightweight materials and aerodynamic designs in the body and

chassis. While the exact layout

needs further research, the cars

of the 21st century will likely

have an electric motor to drive

the wheels, with the electric

power coming from new powerplants — two promising technologies are an advanced

compression-ignition engine

combined with batteries, and a

space-age device known as a

fuel cell.

The design that features an

engine and batteries is furthest

along. Such vehicles with dual

power sources are called hybrid

vehicles; the primary power

comes from the engine, but the

batteries provide extra power acceleration and store any extra

electricity generated by the engine. These hybrids will get at

least twice the fuel economy of

today’s cars and have the potential to produce lower emissions.

Even higher efficiencies may

come from making these hybrid

vehicles of new materials, such

as carbon fiber composites, that

are lighter but stronger than

those used today.

Fuel cells require more development but offer additional

advantages. Technically, fuel

cells are not really engines, since

they convert a fuel such as hydrogen directly into electricity

without burning it, and the electricity is used by electric motors

to power the vehicle. Fuel cells

are much more efficient than any

engine. They can also use fuels

other than hydrogen, converting

them into hydrogen while giving

off only small amounts of pollutants. With no moving parts, fuel

cells are silent and potentially almost maintenance-free.

Both new approaches could

be used for a wide range of vehicles — from trucks, buses, and

commercial vehicles to passenger sedans and sport utility vehicles. And while lower fuel costs

will benefit the owners, the

broader national benefits could

be even more important. With

widespread use, both hybrids

and fuel-cell vehicles would reduce urban air pollution and cut

dependence on imported oil.

Fuel-cell vehicles, for example,

are expected to be 70 to 90 percent cleaner than today’s cars.

When they comprise just 10 percent of the U.S. vehicle fleet, they

would reduce oil imports by 130

million barrels per year. Higher

efficiencies also translate into

lower emissions of carbon dioxide, reducing pressures on the

global climate. Moreover, leadership in producing such vehicles, which are expected to be

popular around the world, could

prove a competitive advantage.

Although several auto companies in the United States and elsewhere have built prototypes of

these new vehicles, they are not

yet ready for commercial production and need further work. Fuel

cells, in particular, must be made

smaller, lighter, and less costly.

But the pace of development is

accelerating. Early in the 21st

century, these new vehicles are

likely to begin rolling off assembly lines and onto the highway.
The U.S. Energy Landscape

13

posed tax credits of $3,000 to $4,000 for

consumers who purchase advancedtechnology, highly fuel-efficient vehicles [see

Appendix B]. Research to improve the energy efficiency of other modes of travel is

also under way; for example, the Department of Transportation is developing fuel

cells for use in marine powerplants. Ways

to improve the operation of our transportation system are being developed to reduce

traffic congestion on highways and at airports.

Lastly, demand for transportation energy

can be fundamentally altered by developing communities that are less dependent on

automobiles. Sustainable community

development can offer residents a mix of

transportation services that make walking,

biking, and public transit viable alternatives

to drive-alone travel. The Department of

Transportation will work with local and State

decisionmakers to develop the tools and

resources required to encourage pedestrianand transit-oriented development and the

integration of a full range of transportation

alternatives.

Strategy 2. Develop more efficient technologies for the industrial sector. Industry consumes more than one-third of the energy

delivered in the United States. Developing

and implementing technology roadmaps

(detailed plans for research, development,

and deployment of industrial technology)

leading to a 25-percent reduction in expected

energy consumption of the six most energyintensive industries in the United States by

2010 is a key element for meeting this objective. These six industries are the forest

and paper products, steel, aluminum, metal

casting, glass, and chemicals industries,

which account for more than half of all

manufacturing energy use. Crosscutting technologies such as advanced turbine systems,

combined heat and power systems, advanced materials, and sensors and controls

will be part of this R&D effort to increase

energy savings and industrial productivity.

To accelerate their entry into the marketplace, the President has proposed a

10-percent investment tax credit for the purA Tale of Two Houses

Imagine two conventional frame

houses, both built onsite. Imagine they look the same and cost

the same. One house, however,

uses 50 percent less energy and

is more comfortable to live in

than the other, with no drafts or

cold walls yet with better ventilation. The difference is better

design, more insulation, better

windows, and smaller but more

efficient furnaces and air conditioning equipment — what is

known in the industry as “best

practices.” The more energyefficient house is clearly a better deal for the home buyer, if

requiring a more thoughtful effort on the part of the builder.

Nationally, the payoff is even

greater — reduced energy

needs, less pollution, less waste

of materials. Nearly 20 percent

of U.S. energy consumption, after all, occurs in the home. Under a joint government-industry

program, some 10,000 bestpractice homes are to be built

in the next few years.

But could houses become

even more energy efficient, even

more comfortable and convenient to live in? Might the house

of the future cut energy use even

further, to 25 percent of present

levels or less? Building scientists

and engineers think it’s possible.

To start with, the house of the

future is likely to be designed

and oriented on the lot to take

full advantage of the Sun — for

natural light, for heating, even

for generating its own electricity with photovoltaic roof panels. Equally important, the house

is likely to benefit from “mass

customization” based on computer-aided design tools, so that

it meets the needs and tastes of

different buyers — who can

even “walk through” the house

on a computer screen or a virtual reality display before the

design is final — yet is optimized

as a complete system to make

sure components work together

and to save costs, energy, and

materials.

The house of the future is also

likely to be built at least partly in

a factory, for better quality control and lower costs, and shipped

as modules or large components

to the site for quick assembly.

Building materials are lighter,

stronger, and more environmentally friendly. Paints, wall fabrics,

and carpeting do not emit organic

compounds.

Advanced high-efficiency

lighting is integrated with natural light and appliances with heating and cooling systems. The

house might not only generate

much of its own electricity — either from photovoltaic roof panels or from fuel cells — but might

also sell excess power to the electricity company. The warmth

from waste hot water and from

stale air flushed by the ventilation system is recaptured, and

waste water itself from sinks and

showers used for flushing toilets

or irrigating the garden.

Sensors throughout the house

monitor temperature, humidity,

light, and perhaps the presence

of people. Smart appliances and

house control systems adjust to

match the weather, occupancy

patterns, or the instructions of

their owners, turning on lights

when people enter a room or

preheating the oven or the

jacuzzi in response to a telephone or e-mail signal.

Making all these aspects of the

house of the future come together requires more research to

reduce costs and efforts to link

together the whole chain of suppliers and builders involved in

the housing industry. But the

technologies already exist, at

least in preliminary form. In perhaps a decade or two, look for

some radical improvements in

what’s offered in new housing

developments.

Goal I: Improve the Efficiency of the Energy System
Comprehensive National Energy Strategy

14

chase of combined heat and power systems

[see Appendix B]. In addition, governmentindustry cooperation helps to save energy

with the Motor Challenge program, Climate

Wi$e program, and others. These efforts help

ensure the use of best-practice technologies

and provide a more receptive market for advanced energy-efficiency technologies.

Strategy 3. Develop more efficient technologies in the buildings sector. America’s buildings, including heating and cooling

equipment, lighting, and appliances, consume 37 quads of energy each year, accounting for 39 percent of the Nation’s energy

bill. By 2010, research, regulation, and technology transfer — in partnership with industry, the research community and State and

local entities — can save 2 quads annually,

partly through avoiding the need for 150 billion kilowatthours of electricity and partly

through savings in natural gas. These partnerships can encourage innovation in building design and energy technologies and

deployment of efficient technologies, with

an emphasis on effectively integrating all elements of building energy use. In addition,

building-sector partnerships can contribute

to the development of more cost-effective

national standards and improved test procedures for energy-consuming appliances

and equipment. To spur the use of more

energy-efficient technologies in the buildings sector, the President’s proposed tax program includes a 20-percent credit (subject

to a cap) for purchasing energy-efficient

building equipment and a $2,000 credit for

purchasing energy-efficient new homes [see

Appendix B]. Also, government-industry cooperation helps consumers purchase energyefficient appliances and equipment through

labeling and the Energy Star program.

Objective 3. Increase the efficiency of

Federal energy use.

Strategy 1. Improve the efficiency of energy

use in Federal buildings. Executive Order

12902 calls for reducing energy use in Federal buildings by 30 percent by 2005, compared to 1985 levels. Since 1985, Federal

Self-Powered Buildings

Two decades from now, chances

are that many office buildings,

hospitals, shopping malls, and

other commercial buildings will

be self-powered, generating

most of their own electricity and

even selling excess power to the

electric company. The technological revolution at the root of

this transformation is the fuel

cell.

These devices, first used in

the space program, are now

coming down to earth, with units

of the size to power a commercial building already available.

Because fuel cells generate electricity by converting natural gas

or a similar fuel electrochemically, like a battery, they have

no moving parts and are silent.

In addition to electricity, they

produce heat and hot water and

thus could replace furnaces and

water-heating equipment. And

because they operate onsite,

there are no high-voltage transmission losses. Consequently,

fuel cells offer significant gains

in energy efficiency and major

reductions in pollution.

Fuel cells lend themselves to

a vision of a distributed power

generation system for the United

States, one that could significantly reduce the need for new

centralized power stations and

long transmission lines. With fuel

cells installed in or near commercial buildings and as neighborhood powerplants in

residential areas, the electrical

grid would serve mostly to help

redistribute excess power to areas where it is needed.

Based on its experience with

fuel cells, Southern California

Gas Company says that these

devices are especially useful in

facilities like hotels and hospitals that require power and hot

water at all hours of the day. The

water discharged from fuel cells

is extremely clean and needs no

treatment before use. In one

Hyatt facility, a fuel cell provided

20 percent of the hotel’s peak

electricity needs, 90 percent of

its space heating, and some of

its hot water.

Fuel cells are still relatively

expensive. Improved designs and

more automated production

techniques will be needed to

bring costs down by at least a

factor of two before widespread

use in buildings is likely. That

may happen as soon as the

middle of the next decade, technical experts say. Improvements

are planned both in the reformer,

which converts natural gas to

hydrogen, and in the fuel cell itself, which combines hydrogen

with oxygen from the air to generate power.

A crucial part of a fuel cell is

the electrically conductive material, or electrolyte, in which the

chemical process takes place.

One current design uses a phosphoric acid electrolyte and

achieves efficiencies of about

36 percent, but cells based on

several other materials are under

development and may achieve

efficiencies as high as 50 percent.

Overall efficiencies can reach

85 percent when the cell’s heat

output is also used.

With this potential for efficient, clean, distributed power

generation, it is no wonder that

fuel cells seem likely to transform

the way buildings get their power

in the 21st century. Some companies are already talking about

units small enough to power individual houses or even cars (see

Cars of the Future on page 12).
The U.S. Energy Landscape

15

energy consumption has declined by almost

24 percent. However, as the Nation’s largest

single energy user, the Federal Government

still spends roughly $8 billion each year on

the energy required to operate its facilities,

vehicles, and industrial equipment. Federal

leadership in developing the technical expertise, procurement practices, and financing mechanisms to improve the efficiency

of Federal buildings contributes to national

energy savings. The establishment of regional, streamlined energy savings performance contracts allows Federal agencies to

improve energy efficiency through privatesector investment mechanisms under which

initial installation costs are covered by future energy cost savings.

Strategy 2. Provide Federal technical support and leadership in adopting energyefficient and renewable technologies.

Procurement mechanisms that enhance

Federal agencies’ access to “lean, clean, and

green” products can accelerate widespread

adoption of newer technologies by providing demonstrations of enhanced

performance.

Goal II

Ensure against energy disruptions —

protecting our economy from external

threat of interrupted supplies or infrastructure failure.

Enhancing the security of global and domestic energy markets is one of the best

bulwarks against threats to our Nation’s continued economic prosperity. Disruptions in

world oil markets have contributed to several economic slowdowns since the early

1970s. Although we have made significant

progress toward reducing our vulnerability,

there are signs that this vulnerability could

increase in the future. The Administration

will continue a strong emphasis on emergency preparedness efforts, a renewed emphasis on the stabilization of domestic oil

production, and an increased attention to

the security of domestic energy systems and

related parts of the Nation’s critical infraGoal II: Ensure Against Energy Disruptions

structure. Actions taken to improve the efficiency with which energy is used will help

achieve this goal as well.

Objective 1. Reduce the vulnerability of

the U.S. economy to disruptions in oil

supply.

Strategy 1. By 2005, stop the decline in domestic oil production. By developing improved reservoir imaging technologies to

locate oil in deeper and more complex reservoirs, advanced extraction technologies to

boost recovery from mature reservoirs, and

environmental technologies to reduce the

cost of regulatory compliance, this effort will

boost domestic production. Working with industry partners, the effort will develop improved delivery and storage technologies to

help ensure a safe, reliable, and cost-effective

supply of petroleum products. The Department of Energy will support environmentally responsible development of leased

Federal lands for oil recovery. The Department and other Federal agencies will expand collaborative efforts with States to

ensure that Administration energy, Federal

land management, and environmental policies all adequately protect the environment,

but also are consistent and avoid duplicative and unnecessary regulations.

Strategy 2. Maintain readiness to address

threats and disruptions to world oil supplies.

Working with Congress to maintain the existing Strategic Petroleum Reserve sites and

inventory in drawdown-ready condition,

together with making investments in drawdown capability, provides a credible deterrent to international oil disruptions and may

mitigate economic impacts should such disruptions occur. Investments include completing, by fiscal year 2000, the Life Extension

Program to extend the life of this equipment

through 2025.

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is part

of a larger effort to coordinate responses to

petroleum supply disruptions with U.S. allies through the International Energy Agency.

The member countries, at the urging of the

United States, have evolved a consensus
Comprehensive National Energy Strategy

16

agreement that the proper role of governments is to let free markets balance supply

and demand for oil in an emergency, and

that the governments should supplement

supply early in emergencies from strategic

reserves. Acting together, the nations of the

IEA could inject 4 million to 5 million barrels per day of oil from their reserves into

the market while other action is taken to

address the cause of the disruption. Efforts

should be made to expand IEA membership

to broaden the scope of participation.

Strategy 3. Diversify sources of oil available

to world oil markets. By working with industry to increase sources of oil available

on the world market, the Department of

Energy, together with other Federal agencies, can enhance U.S. energy security and

global energy security at the same time.

Working to open more sources of oil in other

regions of the world can reduce the adverse

economic impacts that might be brought on

by a cut in supply in any one region.

Of particular importance to the expansion of world oil supply sources is the

Administration’s work in the Caspian and

central Asian region, home to large, still-tobe-developed reserves of oil and gas. While

the actual extent of Caspian region oil and

gas reserves (excluding Russia and Iran) is

not yet definitely known, most observers

believe the region could hold oil reserves in

the range of 100 billion to 200 billion barrels and gas reserves of 300 trillion to 600

trillion cubic feet. The Administration is

working to encourage the countries of that

region to adopt open, fair, and transparent

investment regimes that will create a favorable climate for U.S. companies to participate directly in the development of the

region’s energy resources. The Administration is also working with the countries of

the region to develop multiple transportation options for moving the region’s oil production out into world markets.

Currently, more than half of U.S. petroleum imports come from sources within the

Western Hemisphere, and the Administration is working to deepen energy cooperation in this area. The Secretary of Energy

Scanning the Earth for Oil

Like doctors using CAT scans to

look inside the brain, petroleum

geologists use computers and

seismic data to look deep within

the Earth for likely pockets of

oil or natural gas. And just as a

three-dimensional (3–D) CAT

scan image is assembled from

many separate x rays, 3–D seismic images assembled from

many seismic snapshots are now

a standard tool in the oil industry — one that has made it possible to recover more of the oil

in the ground.

Now a new seismic technique

is creating a stir. Known as 4–D

seismic, it allows petroleum geologists to track the movement

of oil or gas over time within a

reservoir. The new technique

compares several different 3–D

seismic surveys taken at different times to add a time dimension to the geologic portrait.

Developed by a consortium of

scientists at Columbia University

and five other academic institutions with support from the oil

industry and the Department of

Energy, the powerful new

method can even synthesize seismic data that are gathered with

different methods or not perfectly matched.

When the method was applied to the largest oil field in

the Gulf of Mexico, near Eugene

Island, it showed the drainage

of the field over time, except for

one intriguing situation. The 4–D

seismic picture showed an area

within the reservoir where no

depletion was occurring, despite

recovery from nearby wells. Suspecting that the anomaly represented an untapped pocket of

oil, the companies drilled a well

into it and hit paydirt — an estimated 2 million barrels of additional oil.

The prospect of finding such

overlooked pockets, especially

in existing oil fields that already

have production facilities in

place, is “like winning the lottery,” as one expert put it. Use

of the 4–D technique is spreading rapidly, the number of oil

fields employing it doubling every year. Moreover, experts expect this new seismic tool to

increase the amount of U.S. oil

and gas ultimately recoverable

from the ground by as much as

7 to 10 percent — boosting domestic reserves.

Engineering advances also

promise to boost the amount of

oil ultimately produced from below. Directional drilling rigs propel the drill bit with a motor

inside the pipe itself, deep underground; unlike conventional

drill strings propelled from the

top, directional drilling equipment can turn 90 degree angles

or even drill horizontally. New

sensors enable drills to reach a

precise location in an oil field

even several kilometers from the

wellhead.

Even more futuristic is the

equipment being developed to

exploit the oil industry’s last

great frontier — sea-floor deposits of oil and gas that lie beneath

more than a kilometer of ocean.

To get at these deposits, the oil

industry is developing remotely

controlled robot submarines that

operate on the sea floor to install and service wellhead production equipment and undersea

pipelines hundreds of kilometers

long.

Taken together, these new

tools may help to prolong domestic oil and gas production for

years to come, helping us to increase domestic oil production

and reduce U.S. vulnerability to

interruptions in imports of foreign oil.
The U.S. Energy Landscape

17

co-chairs, with his Venezuelan counterpart,

a Summit of the America’s “Regional Energy

Cooperation” initiative that opens an important avenue of dialog on energy with our

hemispheric neighbors.

Strategy 4. By 2010, develop technology

options to help reduce expected oil consumption by at least 1 million barrels per day. The

development of light-duty vehicles with

higher fuel economy, new technologies to

provide increased production of transportation fuels from biomass and natural gas, increased use of more efficient transportation

systems, and improvements in the efficiency

of oil use in industrial processes can all help

limit the expected growth in oil demand,

which otherwise would be supplied by increased oil imports.

Strategy 5. Reduce petroleum use in Federal transportation. Increasing the Federal

and postal fleet of alternative-fuel (natural

gas, electric, and biofuels) vehicles to 100,000

by 2005 will provide critical support for

emerging technologies and spur fueling infrastructure investments for these fuels.

Objective 2. Ensure energy system reliability, flexibility, and emergency response capability.

Strategy 1. Promote the reliability and flexibility of electricity generation, transmission,

and distribution. Highly reliable electricity

supply systems are vital to our national security, the well-being of our economy, and

the quality of life in an era marked by increasing technological sophistication. Reliability and competition in the electricity

industry can be compatible, but this result

will not be achieved automatically; it must

be made a design requirement for the public and private officials responsible for the

architecture of the new industry.

Accordingly, as part of the Administration’s Comprehensive Electricity Competition Plan [see box on page 11], reliability

standards would be established and enforced

by industry subject to the oversight of the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Strategy 2. Promote the reliability and flexibility of domestic oil refining, transportation, and storage. Flexible implementation

of new air emission regulations, together

with expanded R&D support for lowemission refinery technologies, can help

lower the cost of full environmental compliance, thereby minimizing adverse impacts

on the domestic refining industry. The Department of Energy will work with industry

and government regulators to meet increasingly stringent emission regulations more

cost-effectively, while meeting increased demands for lighter, high-value finished petroleum products. Specific research efforts

will address the new ozone/PM 2.5 standards; process modifications or technology

improvements in refineries to prevent the

formations of pollutants; use of ceramic

membranes to separate high-value hydrogen from low-value refinery gases to improve

product quality; and biochemical processes

to upgrade crude oil. Further, in cooperation with the President’s Commission on

Critical Infrastructure Protection (PCCIP) and

other Federal agencies, the Department of

Energy will determine the best approach to

enhance the security of the domestic oil refining, transport, and storage infrastructure.

The PCCIP effort represents the first coordinated, interagency effort to protect the

Nation’s critical infrastructure.

Strategy 3. Promote the reliability and flexibility of natural gas transportation and storage. This effort will reduce the costs and

increase the deliverability of the Nation’s

storage and delivery system to meet the projected growth in natural gas demand. Working closely with industry, the effort will

develop novel and advanced fracture

simulation technologies and improved

remediation treatments that will increase reservoir deliverability. R&D in improved gasflow metering and energy-measurement

technologies will provide real-time, automated monitoring of pipeline gas flow and

energy content, maximizing system capacity and gas sales to customers. The effort

will develop advanced storage technologies

to meet the specific storage needs of new

Goal II: Ensure Against Energy Disruptions
Comprehensive National Energy Strategy

18

and growing industrial and power generation markets, specifically the short-term or

hourly requirements of the power generation sector. Research in emission-detection

technologies will lead to development of

systems capable of covering larger areas

more cost-effectively and with greater accuracy than current technologies. Lastly, the

PCCIP effort will determine the best approach to enhance the security of the domestic natural gas production, transport, and

storage infrastructure.

Goal III

Promote energy production and use in

ways that respect health and environmental values — improving our health

and local, regional, and global environmental quality.

Climate change and other environmental issues present difficult challenges for the

energy sector. U.S. demand for energy, especially for clean and reasonably priced energy sources, is likely to grow over time.

New Clean Air Act requirements will impose

additional requirements and costs. Abiding

by the Kyoto Protocol will require the United

States to make significant changes in energy

use to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Substantial improvements in energy technology and flexible, market-oriented government policies will help grow the economy

while meeting our environmental goals. [See

Appendix A for a discussion of the Kyoto

Protocol.]

Objective 1. Increase domestic energy

production in an environmentally responsible manner.

Strategy 1. Support policies to allow domestic natural gas supply to grow by as much as

6 trillion cubic feet by 2010. About 60 percent of this growth will be used in

electricity-generating systems. Natural gas

technologies are the most economic fossil

fuel-based technologies for new capacity in

electricity generation. By developing improved reservoir-imaging technologies to

locate natural gas in deeper and more complex reservoirs, developing the drilling technology needed to reach those reservoirs,

researching advanced extraction techniques

to boost recovery from mature reservoirs,

and leading industry in developing technologies that can reduce the cost of environmental compliance, domestic natural gas

production can be significantly boosted. The

Department of Energy will support environmentally responsible development of leased

Federal lands for natural gas recovery. Lastly,

the Department and other Federal agencies

will expand collaborative efforts with States

to ensure that Administration energy, Federal land management, and environmental

policies all adequately protect the environment, but also are consistent and avoid duplicative and unnecessary regulations.

Strategy 2. Use advanced technologies to recover more oil from reservoirs without significant environmental degradation. The

development and use of advanced exploration and recovery technologies can result in

more than 400 million barrels of additional

cumulative oil production between now and

2005. Working closely with industry, this effort will foster the more widespread use by

industry of “best management practices” for

environmental protection. Advanced technologies will be developed to lower the cost

of drilling and production waste management, detection and control of air emissions,

treatment and disposal of produced water,

and management of naturally occurring radioactive materials. Credible scientific and

technical information will be developed to

serve as the basis for regulatory and compliance strategies. The Department of Energy

and other Federal agencies will expand collaborative efforts with States to ensure that

the Administration’s energy, Federal land,

and environmental policies are consistent

and to eliminate duplicative and unnecessary regulations.
The U.S. Energy Landscape

19

Strategy 3. Develop renewable electric energy technologies capable of economically

doubling nonhydroelectric renewable generation capacity to a total of at least 25,000

megawatts by the year 2010, and maintain

the viability of existing hydropower sources.

Expanded Federal R&D efforts in renewable

energy sources would encourage renewable

energy. Voluntary, cost-shared partnerships

with the Nation’s utilities, industries, States,

and the public will advance development

and deployment of clean, renewable energy

technologies. Improvements in the efficiency

and affordability of renewable energy

sources (such as wind energy, photovoltaics, solar thermal, geothermal, and biomass)

will make clean, cost-effective, and reliable

energy options more attractive in a competitive market, while also adding to the diversity of the Nation’s energy supply.

Technologies such as electric energy storage can increase the applicability of these

renewable energy sources. Extension of the

wind and biomass tax credit, which is part

of the President’s proposed tax package, will

promote further acceptance and use of these

renewable technologies [see Appendix B].

In addition, the Administration’s Comprehensive Electricity Competition Plan includes a

requirement that a specified percentage of

electricity sales be from non-hydropower

renewable sources.

The development of advanced hydropower turbines to repower existing dams

has the potential to avoid some of the environmental challenges posed by conventional

hydropower plants and extend the life of

existing hydropower plants to help preserve

their contribution to U.S. energy production.

The installation of photovoltaics and solar water heating systems on rooftops also

will contribute to this strategy. Photovoltaic

systems, including those that are incorporated into roofing materials, supply electricity directly to homes and other buildings and

offer a clean and renewable source of electricity for the Nation. Solar water and air

heating systems are equally attractive renewable energy options. To ensure that rooftop

solar systems gain more widespread use in

the market, the President has proposed a

15-percent tax credit for the purchase of such

equipment [see Appendix B]. The Federal

Government will work in partnership with

utilities, builders, solar equipment manufacturers, State agencies, cities, and financial

institutions to help meet the President’s goal

of installing 1 million photovoltaic and solar

water and air heating systems on the roofs

of buildings and homes across the Nation

by 2010. The Federal Government will take

the lead by installing 20,000 solar rooftop

systems on its own facilities by 2010.

Strategy 4. Maintain a viable nuclear energy option. Cooperation between the private and public sectors to avoid premature

shutdown of viable existing nuclear

powerplants and R&D into nuclear power

technology improvements can reduce greenhouse gas and other emissions from the

electricity-generating sector. Nuclear power

is an essential element in the overall energy

supply mix of the United States and the

world. An important issue impeding its

progress is the disposal of nuclear waste.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982

(Public Law 97–425) established the Department of Energy’s responsibility to provide

for the permanent disposal of the Nation’s

high-level radioactive waste and spent

nuclear fuel and directed that the owners

and generators of these wastes bear the costs

of their management and disposal. The current program focuses on completing the scientific and technical analyses of the Yucca

Mountain site, and if it is determined to be

suitable for a geologic repository, obtaining

a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Objective 2. Accelerate the development

and market adoption of environmentally

friendly technologies.

Strategy 1. Increase efforts to deploy climate-friendly technologies in the near term.

The President’s fiscal year 1999 budget

includes a $6.3 billion, 5-year plan to stimulate the adoption of climate-friendly technologies through a combination of increased

investments in research, development, and

Goal III: Promote Energy Production and Use in Ways That Respect Health and Environmental Values
Comprehensive National Energy Strategy

20

early deployment programs, plus tax incentives for climate-beneficial investments. [See

Appendix B for a discussion of the

President’s proposal.] This will accelerate the

diffusion and market adoption of new and

existing technologies in ways that generate

economic benefits while reducing greenhouse gases and other emissions.

Accelerated development of biomass liquid fuels technologies, along with new voluntary programs that foster rapid adoption

of alternative-fuel vehicles, could displace

100 million barrels of oil per year by 2005

and reduce expected energy consumption

in the industrial sector by as much as 2 percent by 2010. Liquid fuels produced from

biomass crops and agricultural residues provide a clean, affordable alternative to oil

consumption in the transportation sector.

Promoting the acquisition of newly developed alternative-fuel transportation technologies for government and private fleets,

through efforts such as the Clean Cities program, encourages more widespread use of

alternative fuels. Federal funding, leveraged

by significant private investment, can create

an infrastructure of corridors in which

alternative-fuel vehicles can readily find refueling stations, spurring the use of alternative transportation fuels in key regions.

Biomass energy systems for electricity

generation, such as systems for co-firing

energy crops with coal or for gasifying energy crops, potentially provide a clean, renewable alternative energy source. Since

bioenergy crops raised for biomass energy

systems absorb carbon during growth, their

use for transportation fuels or electricity generation can, in principle, yield little, if any,

net carbon dioxide over their life cycle. Displacing conventional fuels with biomass fuels can thus substantially lower greenhouse

gas emissions.

Strategy 2. Initiate sectoral consultations

with U.S. industry to promote expanded voluntary efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Administration will seek voluntary

pledges from major energy-using industries

to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, expanding on successful programs in the electric utility sector and other industries. The

Administration will ensure that those who

take early action will receive appropriate

credit for their actions. In addition, this environmental leadership will be afforded public recognition to help establish an example

for others to emulate.

Strategy 3. Design a domestic greenhouse

gas emission trading system that will help

meet binding emission targets in the most

cost-effective way. Domestic emission targets

likely will be met, in part, through a system

of emission allowance trading that builds

upon the successful experience in reducing

emissions associated with acid rain. A greenhouse gas emission trading system, however,

will be more complex and will require substantial analytical development for effective

implementation. This development will be

carried out by an interagency team with substantial input from the private sector.

Strategy 4. Participate in discussions with

developing countries regarding their commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,

primarily through climate-friendly technologies. An international response to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions will be most effective if it includes the participation of key

developing countries whose emissions are

large and rapidly growing. The President has

stated that the Administration would make

submission of the Kyoto Protocol for Senate

advice and consent to ratification contingent

on the meaningful participation of key developing countries.

The Administration is developing a diplomatic strategy to engage key developing

countries in a dialog that is intended to lead

to some of these countries taking on more

meaningful climate-change commitments.

The Administration expects to engage in bilateral and multilateral discussions through

various forums leading up to the Fourth Conference of the Parties in Buenos Aires in

November 1998. [See Appendix A for further information on the Kyoto Protocol.]
The U.S. Energy Landscape

21

Strategy 5. Promote international joint efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The

development of a viable international emission allowance trading system among developed countries and the expansion of

efforts to allow firms in developed countries to engage in emission reductions in developing countries while receiving credits

for these reductions are critical elements of

a globally cost-effective response to climate

change. The Kyoto agreement provides for

a system of international trade in emission

permits, but does not specify all the details

of such a system. The provisions that remain to be specified include monitoring and

reporting practices, methods of recordation

and reporting of trades, and compliance

matters.

Further specification is also needed on

procedures for banking unused credits, for

bringing additional Parties into the agreement, and for recognizing emission reductions before the start of the first budget

period.

It is widely believed that international

trading of greenhouse gas permits could

bring a wide range of low-cost carbon reduction opportunities to U.S. industries and

significantly reduce the cost of U.S. emission reductions.

Goal IV

Expand future energy choices — pursuing continued progress in science and

technology to provide future generations with a robust portfolio of clean and

reasonably priced energy sources.

The U.S. scientific enterprise is the largest and most successful in the world. Advances in science and technology are critical

to achieving our Nation’s economic, environmental, and security objectives. Because

competitive markets tend to underinvest in

critical research and development for longterm energy solutions, government R&D investments — often in collaboration with the

private sector — are needed to help ensure

a steady stream of innovation that benefits

the Nation and the world with improved energy technologies.

Goal IV: Expand Future Energy Choices

Objective 1. Maintain a strong national

knowledge base as the foundation for

informed energy decisions, new energy

systems, and enabling technologies of

the future.

Strategy 1. Develop science that supports

decisionmaking on future energy options, including the requirements of new energy system concepts and their anticipated effects on

human health and the physical environment. Energy production and use can result

in releases of chemicals, particles, radiation,

and other substances into the environment.

Improved understanding of energy-related

pollution (its generation, transport, interaction, and transformation pathways), as well

as development of validated scientific models

and methods for analyzing and predicting

the health and environmental consequences

of alternative energy options, will assist the

Federal Government and the private sector

in making informed energy investment

choices. In addition, computational and highspeed simulation tools are needed to analyze the performance of new energy systems

and the effects of modifying existing energy

systems. These tools will reduce the need

for costly test and pilot-scale facilities.

Strategy 2. Intensify basic research on global climate change and on long-term, innovative systems for carbon cycle management.

Research into new technologies to capture

and sequester energy-related carbon emissions could greatly expand the portfolio of

long-term technology options available to

manage the relationship between energy use

and greenhouse gas emissions.

Predicting and assessing the specific effects of greenhouse gas emissions and aerosols (small particles produced by fossil fuel

combustion that reflect solar radiation) on

climate will require improved understanding of the natural processes affecting climate

and of the ways human activities alter these

processes. Basic research on natural carbon

sequestration will advance understanding of

the flow of carbon between the atmosphere,

biosphere, and oceans. Research in these

topics will identify the natural cycles and
Comprehensive National Energy Strategy

22

human intervention opportunities that could

lead to cost-effective approaches to sequestering carbon emissions. The underlying science will contribute to U.S. leadership in

the development of new technologies.

Strategy 3. Conduct basic research that provides the foundations for long-term energytechnology breakthroughs. This strategy

supports high-priority research in energyrelated sciences while improving mechanisms that support multidisciplinary research.

We must develop and maintain a basic

research investment portfolio that ensures a

competitive U.S. position in those areas of

the natural sciences and engineering that are

relevant to energy resources, production,

conversion, and efficiency and to the mitigation of the adverse impacts of energy production and use. These sciences include

materials sciences, chemical sciences, nuclear

sciences, energy biosciences, structural biological and environmental sciences, genomic

sciences, computational and mathematical

sciences, engineering sciences, geosciences,

and fusion and fusion plasma sciences. Efforts will focus on developing this national

investment portfolio with a fuller understanding of the diverse research contributions by

government, academia, and industry. This

will require expanding research partnerships

to increase the leverage of our national science investments.

Strategy 4. Support a strong energy science

infrastructure. To conduct energy research

in the national interest, the Nation’s scientists in government, industry, and academia

must have access to modern, leading-edge

research facilities, including major scientific

user facilities and the Nation’s laboratories.

We should maintain and operate premier

national user facilities to serve researchers

at universities, national laboratories, and industrial laboratories, thus enabling the acquisition of new knowledge. Improving

access to these user facilities, both onsite

and remotely, by all qualified researchers

will foster research partnerships between the

public and private sectors.

Storing Carbon Naturally

Concern that Earth’s climate may

be changing has focused attention on emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse

gases arising from human activities. But those emissions are only

part of the story. Trees and other

plants absorb carbon dioxide,

soils sometimes emit it, and

oceans do both. These flows,

part of Earth’s natural carbon

cycle, are 10 times larger than

industrial emissions. Could forests be managed in ways that enhance the storage of carbon,

helping to offset human activities and hence to stabilize the

climate?

Ten years ago, not enough

was known about the dynamics

of forests to answer such questions. But a flurry of research,

and in particular new methods

of making direct measurements

of how much carbon dioxide

forests capture from the atmosphere, has begun to provide

some insights. And the Kyoto

Protocol provides ample incentive to probe further, because it

offers emission credits to countries that can either plant new

forests or “sequester” additional

carbon in existing forests.

Planting new forests to replace those cut seems straightforward. But which lands and

what species of trees will capture and store away the most

carbon? And which will offer the

most additional benefits — as a

source of commercial timber, as

improved wildlife habitat or watershed protection, as recreational opportunity? Studies now

under way, such as the hardwood seedlings planted on a

plot of frequently flooded land

by scientists from Louisiana Tech

University, are seeking answers.

In the Mississippi River Valley

alone, there are more than 4 million acres that not long ago held

bottom land forests, much of it

now abandoned bean fields and

other excess agricultural land.

Managing forests to maximize

carbon storage is more complex.

Planting quick-growing trees and

harvesting them for lumber on

short cycles, every 30 years or

so, might seem like an obvious

approach. The carbon in wood,

after all, is often stored as lumber in buildings or as paper in

libraries for decades. But when

forests are cut, carbon stored in

the soil as roots and other organic

matter begins to decay, releasing

large amounts of carbon dioxide.

Might different management

practices increase carbon sequestration? More research is needed,

but recent studies show that even

mature forests more than 200

years old are vigorously taking

up carbon, suggesting that very

long cycles may be better. Forestry management practices

could make a big difference in

how much carbon can be sequestered.

Still other approaches that

might enhance carbon storage

remain to be explored. Would

fertilizing forests help? Or how

about genetically engineering

trees to store more carbon in the

wood and less in the roots? Might

additional research find ways to

increase microbial production of

humus in the soil and to protect

it better from decomposition —

which could enormously increase

the storage of carbon in soils?

A changing climate itself could

become a major factor. Longer

growing seasons, more rain, and

higher levels of carbon dioxide — a nutrient for trees — in

the atmosphere could stimulate

growth and carbon storage, at

least in mid-latitude forests, for

many decades. In high-latitude

peat and permafrost forests, on

the other hand, there is suggestive evidence that higher temperatures will unlock large stores

of carbon in the soil, resulting in

additional emissions to the atmosphere.

There is still much to do to

fully understand Earth’s natural

carbon cycle. But because forests

might help restore that cycle to

balance by capturing a portion

of the carbon released by human

activities, as much as 30 percent

in some estimates, developing

such a strategy further seems a

high priority for research.
The U.S. Energy Landscape

23

Putting Superconductivity to Work

The discovery, in 1986, electrified

physicists around the world: superconductivity at temperatures

high enough that the phenomenon might become more than a

laboratory curiosity. A decade

later, explaining that phenomenon theoretically remains perhaps the preeminent unsolved

problem of condensed matter

physics.

Yet despite such unknowns,

there has been remarkable

progress toward practical applications. In 1997, industry manufactured more than 200 kilometers

of superconducting wire; underground superconducting transmission lines for electric power,

especially in urban areas, seem

likely to be a commercial reality

within a few years, with other

energy-related uses close behind.

To reach this point has required the cooperation of university, government, and industrial

scientists in a remarkable symbiosis of basic and applied research.

High-temperature superconductors are ceramics, brittle materials that at first seemed impossible

to form into wires at all. But a

solution was found by packing superconducting powder in silver

tubes and then processing the

tube into wire. Since 1993, electrical devices have been built and

tested using these “powder-intube” wires. More recently, researchers have found that thin

films of high-temperature superconducting materials deposited

on a metal strip were much more

flexible — a discovery that

opened up new approaches to

making superconducting wire.

Today, the powder-in-tube approach still dominates, but thinfilm processes for making wires

continue to evolve.

Even so, many prototype wires

initially could not carry large currents, because of internal defects

caused by disordered crystalline

segments, or “grains,” within the

material. But scientists with years

of experience in metal processing, knowing that thin films often

copy the internal patterns of the

material they form on, suggested

a way around the difficulty. They

pointed out that rolling the underlying metal strip would align its

“grains,” potentially creating an

ideal template for the superconducting material — and so it

turned out. Current densities improved.

The dialog between fundamental studies and practical

development has continued. To

understand complex superconducting materials better, scientists

have studied their structure,

seeking clues to their properties.

That required collecting data with

neutron beams, far more sensitive

than x rays when probing light

elements, such as the oxygen that

is a critical constituent of these still

mysterious new materials. It also

required exploring how these

materials behave in strong magnetic fields — since such fields can

stop superconducting behavior.

Insights from this research feeds

development of improved wire

manufacturing processes and industry teams working on applications for superconducting

wire — transmission lines, large

motors, transformers, energy storage devices with superconducting

bearings. The payoff is expected

to be substantial — prototypes are

being developed of virtually lossfree transmission lines and highcapacity underground cables,

more efficient electric motors that

are half the size of conventional

units, and devices that could store

large amounts of electric power

relatively cheaply.

There still are more problems

to solve before a full range of superconducting technologies can

be commercialized. More powerful research tools are being developed by Department of Energy

laboratories — a more intense

neutron beam at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, equipment that

can generate very strong magnetic

fields at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Industry teams are gearing

up to make even larger quantities

of superconducting wire. But the

electric power industry has begun

to assert that, early in the 21st century, superconductivity will

emerge from the laboratory and

add to the Nation’s energy options.

Integral to a strong energy science infrastructure is improved cooperation among

government, academia, and industry to promote the energy, math, and science awareness that will enable advanced education

opportunities and build institutional capacity for important research. Cooperative efforts will be undertaken to expand the range

of scientific and technical materials to educators and students, improve general math

and science awareness, and help cultivate

the next generation of world-class U.S. scientists and engineers.

Objective 2. Develop technologies that

expand long-term energy options.

Strategy 1. Develop long-term energy technologies that increase energy options, improve overall economics, use resources more

efficiently, and reduce adverse impacts of

energy supply and use. This includes the development of advanced renewable technologies, research into fusion and low-cost

proliferation-resistant nuclear fission reactor

technologies, assessing the development of

large, unconventional sources of methane

(such as methane hydrate), and development

of technologies for the storage, distribution,

and conversion of hydrogen.

Fusion energy has the potential to provide an economically and environmentally

attractive long-term option. Understanding

the physics of ignited, or self-heated, plasmas and developing the technologies essential for fusion energy are linked goals that

are achievable through the cooperative efforts of the world community.

Goal V

Cooperate internationally on global issues — developing the means to address

global economic, security, and environmental concerns.

The energy market is now a global market. How effectively the United States interacts on an international basis will, to a large

extent, determine how economically prosperous we remain domestically. CooperaGoal V: Cooperate Internationally on Global Issues
Comprehensive National Energy Strategy

24

tion with foreign governments on energy

regulations and laws, promotion and deployment of clean and efficient energy systems

worldwide, and international science and

technology cooperation aimed at maximizing benefits from Federal R&D funds will be

important in determining how well we succeed in achieving our energy, economic, and

environmental goals and objectives. The responsible transfer of energy technologies will

also play an important role in international

cooperative activities. International cooperation and collaboration will also be needed

to address global environmental issues such

as climate change.

Objective 1. Promote development of

open, competitive international energy

markets, and facilitate the adoption of

clean, safe, and efficient energy systems.

Strategy 1. Cooperate with foreign governments and international institutions to develop energy-sector laws, policies, and

regulatory processes for setting standards

and enforcing regulations. This strategy emphasizes the development and implementation of appropriate policies and regulations

through active and sustained participation

in multilateral international and regional forums, and through constructive bilateral engagement with key countries. The United

States is currently an active participant in

the International Energy Agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Nuclear

Energy Agency, Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), the Summit of the Americas, the G–8 Summit, and other multilateral

groups. In addition, new regional forums

with important energy programs (such as the

Southeast Europe Cooperation Initiative) are

emerging that offer new opportunities for

leadership.

Working with our neighbors in Mexico

and Canada, the Administration hopes to develop cooperative agreements among regulatory bodies to promote a North American

natural gas and electricity system that is reliable, nondiscriminatory, and responsive to

the marketplace. In the case of natural gas,

free trade exists between Canada and the

United States, and most regulatory differences have been resolved. Mexico is committed to creating an open-market system,

but some obstacles still exist. In the case of

electricity, all three countries are considering and making changes in their respective

electric power sectors.

Strategy 2. Promote deployment of clean

and efficient energy systems. By promoting

the export of clean, energy-efficient, and

cost-effective technologies through partnerships with energy industries, trade associations, and multilateral agencies, the Federal

Government can help private industry identify hundreds of millions of dollars in market opportunities each year. International

demand for electricity is expected to grow

substantially in coming decades, with high

demand for distributed non-grid-connected

renewable energy applications. By gaining

a substantial share of international markets,

U.S. industries can reduce the costs of clean

energy technologies.

Strategy 3. Promote international science

and technology collaboration to avoid duplication and maximize the national benefits of Federal R&D efforts. International

cooperation is, and will continue to be, a

vital part of our Nation’s science and technology programs. It is essential to our ability to participate in, for example, large-scale

experiments and to advance the goals of our

science and energy programs.

Participation in international collaborations allows the United States to develop

and promote clean, safe, and efficient energy technologies, remain a leader in basic

energy research, and promote U.S. national

security objectives. There are many ongoing collaborations in science and energyrelated fields. These include the

Russian-American Fuel Cell Consortium; the

International Thermonuclear Experimental

Reactor Project with the European Union,

Japan, and the Russian Federation; the Large

Hadron Collider program collaboration with

the European Physics Laboratory (CERN);

and the Next Generation Internet (NGI)

project, which will connect thousands of

teams of researchers spread across the world.

NGI is especially critical for international col-
The U.S. Energy Landscape

25

A Shared Commitment

laborations, where large, complex multidisciplinary problems require transfer of massive amounts of data in reasonable periods

of time.

Objective 2. Promote foreign regional

stability by reducing energy-related environmental risks in areas of U.S. security interest.

Strategy 1. Promote foreign capacity building and solutions to environmental security

concerns, integrating the capabilities of the

Department of Energy and other agencies,

foreign governments, the private sector, and

nongovernmental organizations. Identifying, assessing, and prioritizing environmental security concerns in selected world

regions of importance to the United States

will help point to cost-effective solutions to

potential threats to U.S. national security interests. Environmental threats that cross national boundaries around the world can have

a profound impact on the national security

interests of the United States. Recognition

of this reality has enlarged the focus of U.S.

foreign policy to embrace international environmental issues, and has spurred new

initiatives to prevent and remediate environmental degradation.

The Federal Government expects to address environmental security issues in partnership with the private sector and other

donor governments, as well as with foreign,

host governments. Areas of likely progress

include the safe handling and disposition of

nuclear materials, short- and long-term environmental management, energy resource

development, demand-side management

and efficiency, and modeling and assessments.

A Shared Commitment

Abroad consensus on overarching

energy policy goals does not

ensure achievement of better energy and environmental outcomes. The vast

array of participants in energy markets —

the private sector, nations and their government agencies, public and private research

facilities, advocacy groups, and individual

citizens — have differing and perhaps changing perspectives on their roles and actions,

even if they agree on the broad goals. Even

if the entire choir has the same songbook,

harmony will not result if everyone is singing from a different page. A fundamental

challenge facing the United States is to harmonize these potentially discordant interests

into making shared contributions to meeting the shared objectives.

The goals of the Comprehensive National

Energy Strategy require a shared commitment

if they are to be achieved. The various Federal agencies need to cooperate and coordinate activities in pursuit of these goals, with

involvement at all levels and by making use

of the unparalleled resources of the national

laboratories. Similarly, the several branches

of government must share in the belief that

pursuit of these goals is a priority when resource commitments are being made. The

commitment must extend beyond government to the private sector, which will be

engaged through public-private partnerships,

based on the recognition that meeting these

goals is in the long-term interest of everyone involved. The nonprofit sector, especially

universities, also must make a commitment

to pursue these goals in order to mobilize

the unique resources contained in these institutions. Communities also must share in

the commitment, for the benefits of meeting

these goals extend far beyond any single

business or individual. Finally, countries must

share in the commitment, for many of the

benefits are global in nature, and the resources and knowledge base to address these

goals generally are not concentrated solely

in the United States. These shared commitments will maximize the probability of being successful without devoting unreasonable

amounts of resources to this effort. If success is achieved, we will leave future generations of Americans a more livable country

and a thriving energy sector with a wide variety of affordable and safe energy

alternatives.

Appendix A: The Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change

27

Appendixes

Appendix A. The Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Appendix B. The President’s Climate Change Technology Initiative . . 33

Appendix A: The Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change

29

Appendix A: The Kyoto Protocol

on Climate Change

At a conference held December 1–11, 1997,

in Kyoto, Japan, the Parties to the United

Nations Framework Convention on Climate

Change agreed to a historic protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by harnessing the forces of the global marketplace to

protect the environment. The Kyoto Protocol makes a down payment on the meaningful participation of developing countries,

but more needs to be done in this area. Securing the meaningful participation of developing countries remains a core U.S. goal.

Emission Targets

A central feature of the Kyoto Protocol is a

set of binding emission targets for developed nations. The specific limits vary from

country to country, though those for the key

industrial powers are similar — 8 percent

below baseline emissions levels for the European Union, 6 percent for Japan, and

7 percent for the United States.

Emission targets are to be reached over

a five-year budget period as proposed by

the United States, rather than by a single

year. The first commitment period will be

the U.S. proposal of 2008–2012. The emission targets include all six major greenhouse

gases. (More precisely, the U.S. reduction

called for is 7 percent below a baseline of

1990 levels for the bulk of emissions and

1995 levels for three synthetic greenhouse

gases.) Some activities that absorb carbon,

such as planting trees, will be offset against

emission targets.

International Emission Trading

Under an emission trading regime, countries

or companies can purchase emission permits from countries that have more permits

than they need (because they have met their

targets with room to spare). This free-market

approach, pioneered in the United States,

will allow countries to seek out the most

economical emission reductions, substantially lowering costs for the United States

and others. Structured effectively, emission

trading can provide a powerful economic

incentive to cut emissions while also allowing important flexibility for taking costeffective actions.

The inclusion of emission trading in the

Kyoto Protocol reflects an important decision to address climate change through the

flexibility of market mechanisms. Led by the

United States, the Conference rejected proposals to require all Parties with targets to

impose specific mandatory measures, such

as energy taxes.

Joint Implementation Among

Developed Countries

Countries with emission targets may get

credit toward their targets through
Comprehensive National Energy Strategy

30

project-based emission reductions in other

such countries. The private sector may participate in these activities.

Clean Development Mechanism

The Clean Development Mechanism will allow companies in the developed world to

enter into cooperative projects to reduce

emissions in the developing world — such

as the construction of high-tech, environmentally sound powerplants — for the benefit of both parties. The companies will be

able to reduce emissions at lower costs than

they could at home, while developing countries will be able to receive the kind of technology that can allow them to grow more

sustainably. The Clean Development Mechanism will certify and score projects, and it

can also allow developing countries to bring

projects forward in circumstances where

there is no immediate developed country

partner. Under the Clean Development

Mechanism, companies can choose to make

investments in projects or to buy emission

reductions. In addition, Parties will ensure

that a small portion of proceeds is used to

help particularly vulnerable developing

countries, such as island states, adapt to the

environmental consequences of climate

change and to cover administrative expenses

for the operation of the mechanism.

With the Clean Development Mechanism, developed countries will be able to

use certified emission reductions from

project activities in developing countries to

contribute to their compliance with greenhouse gas reduction targets. Importantly,

certified emission reductions achieved starting in the year 2000 can count toward compliance with the first budget period. This

means that private companies in the developed world will be able to benefit from taking early action.

Developing Countries

Various provisions of the Kyoto Protocol,

taken together, represent a down payment

on developing countries’ participation in efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Clean Development Mechanism represents one way developing countries will be

engaged, as outlined above.

In addition, the protocol also advances

the implementation by all Parties of their

commitments under the 1992 Framework

Convention on Climate Change. For example, the protocol identifies various sectors (including energy, transport, and

industry as well as agriculture, forestry, and

waste management) in which actions should

be considered in developing national programs to combat climate change and provides for more specific reporting on actions

taken.

Securing meaningful participation from

key developing countries remains a priority

for the United States. The Administration has

stated that without such participation, it will

not submit the Kyoto Protocol to the United

States Senate for advice and consent to

ratification.

Meeting the Emission

Reduction Goal

A global solution is critical to the global threat

of climate change. This Administration pursues the most efficient approach to reduce

global greenhouse gas emissions. The nature of the climate change problem suggests

three basic methods to lower costs of achieving given levels of environmental protection. They can be characterized in terms of

three categories of flexibility: (1) “when” flexibility; (2) “what” flexibility; and (3) “where”

flexibility, which may be the most important of all. Such methods have long been

championed by economists interested in increasing the efficiency of protection. Economic studies have found that there are

many potential policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for which the benefits

outweigh the costs. The most efficient approach to slowing climate change is through

market-based policies.

According to a Council of Economic

Advisers analysis, the costs of greenhouse
Appendix A: The Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change

31

gas emission reductions called for under the

Kyoto Protocol are not very large (about

0.1 percent of GDP in 2010). Most of the

studies that show tremendous impacts on

the gross domestic product from imposition

of greenhouse gas emission limits ignore the

cost-reducing effect of emission trading.

They also ignore many benefits likely to result from reducing the threat of climate

change. This Administration’s policies on

R&D, tax incentives, and permit trading will

provide flexibility to meet the U.S. emission

targets. They also will allow markets to respond efficiently to find the least-cost approach in meeting the goals.

Appendix B: The President’s Climate Change Technology Initiative

33

Appendix B: The President’s Climate

Change Technology Initiative

Our overriding environmental challenge

tonight is the worldwide problem of climate change, global warming, the gathering crisis that requires worldwide action... .

We have it in our power to act right here,

right now. I propose $6 billion in tax cuts

and research and development to encourage innovation, renewable energy, fuelefficient cars, energy-efficient homes.

— President Bill Clinton, State of the

Union address, January 27, 1998

A $6 Billion Initiative Over 5 Years

To Cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Following the Kyoto Protocol negotiated in

December 1997, the Administration is proposing a new program of tax cuts and R&D

aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

The initiative amounts to $6.3 billion over

5 years.

$3.6 Billion in Tax Credits

The proposed package contains $3.6 billion

over the next 5 years in tax cuts for energyefficient purchases and renewable energy.

• Tax credits for fuel-efficient cars. The

tax package includes tax credits of $3,000

to $4,000 for consumers who purchase

advanced technology, highly fuel efficient

vehicles.

• Tax credits for rooftop solar systems.

Another tax provision provides a

15-percent credit (up to $2,000) for purchases of rooftop solar equipment — to

provide incentives for meeting the Million Solar Roofs goal.

• Other tax credits for energy efficiency. The tax cuts also include a

20-percent credit (subject to a cap) for

purchasing energy-efficient building

equipment, a $2,000 credit for purchasing energy-efficient new homes, an

extension of the wind and biomass tax

credit, and a 10-percent investment credit

for the purchase of combined heat and

power systems.

$2.7 Billion in New R&D Spending

The package also contains $2.7 billion over

the next 5 years in additional R&D spending — covering the four major greenhouse

gas emitting sectors of the economy (buildings, industry, transportation, and electricity), plus greenhouse gas removal and

sequestration, Federal facilities, and crosscutting analyses and research. Selected examples of the R&D effort include:

• Partnership for a New Generation of

Vehicles (PNGV). PNGV is a 10-year

government-industry R&D partnership to

develop the technologies needed for a

new generation of attractive, affordable
Comprehensive National Energy Strategy

34

vehicles that can achieve three times the

fuel efficiency of 1994 models while meeting all applicable safety and environmental standards. The President’s budget

request calls for a $50-million increase in

fiscal year 1999 for PNGV, to $277 million. Similar joint efforts are proposed to

develop more efficient diesel engines for

both light and heavy trucks.

• Renewable energy. Expand research

partnerships for key renewable technologies such as wind, photovoltaics, geothermal, biomass, and hydropower to

accelerate price reductions and improve

performance.
Summary of Public Comments

35

 Summary of

Public Comments

Contents

An Introduction to the Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Overarching Themes — Putting a Human Face on Energy Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Summary of Responses by Goal and Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Goal I: Improve the Efficiency of the Energy System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Objective 1. Support Competitive and Efficient Electric Systems . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Objective 2. Significantly Increase Energy Efficiency in the

Transportation, Industrial, and Buildings Sectors by 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Goal II: Ensure Against Energy Disruptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Objective 1. Reduce the Vulnerability of the U.S. Economy to Disruptions

in Oil Supply. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Objective 2. Ensure Energy System Reliability, Flexibility, and Emergency

Response Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Goal III: Promote Energy Production and Use in Ways That Respect

Health and Environmental Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Objective 1. Increase Domestic Energy Production in an Environmentally

Responsible Manner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Objective 2. Accelerate the Development and Market Adoption

of Environmentally Friendly Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Goal IV: Expand Future Energy Choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Objective 1. Maintain a Strong National Knowledge Base as the

Foundation for Informed Energy Decisions, New Energy Systems,

and Enabling Technologies of the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Objective 2. Develop Technologies That Expand Long-Term Energy

Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Goal V: Cooperate Internationally on Global Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Objective 1. Promote Development of Open, Competitive International

Energy Markets, and Facilitate the Adoption of Clean, Safe,

and Efficient Energy Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Objective 2. Promote Foreign Regional Stability by Reducing

Energy-Related Environmental Risks in Areas of U.S. Security Interest . . . 56

General Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Public Comments Database Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Comprehensive National Energy Strategy

36
Summary of Public Comments

37

 Summary of

Public Comments

An Introduction to the Process

The Comprehensive National Energy

Strategy constitutes the 1998 National

Energy Policy Plan as required by

Section 801 of the Department of Energy

Organization Act. The Act requires the President to submit a proposed National Energy

Policy Plan to Congress and to —

seek the active participation by regional,

State, and local agencies and instrumentalities and the private sector through public hearings in cities and rural communities

and other appropriate means to insure that

the views and proposals of all segments of

the economy are taken into account in the

formulation and review of such proposed

Plan. [42 USC 7321 SEC.801 (A)(2)]

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

released a draft Comprehensive National

Energy Strategy (CNES) to the public on

January 30, 1998. DOE followed the release

of this document with three public hearings

in cities and rural communities in the United

States to provide an overview of the draft

CNES by DOE officials and to solicit comments on the draft CNES.1 Information on

the dates and venues of the CNES public

hearings as well as a solicitation for comments on the draft CNES were made via

newspapers, professional and trade newsletters, public notices, and the World Wide

Web. DOE received comments on the draft

CNES via oral and written testimony, e-mail,

fax, and mail. Comments were received during the period from February 1, 1998, to

February 27, 1998.

This addendum to the report summarizes the public comments that DOE received

in response to the draft CNES.

Methodology

Solicitation of comments for the draft

CNES was accomplished by posting

announcements, notices, and bulletins in various media, including newspapers,

professional and trade newsletters, public

notices, and the World Wide Web. A notice

was published in the Federal Register on

January 15, 1998,2

 announcing public hearings on the CNES. A CNES information page

was also posted on the DOE Website on

February 5, 1998 (http://www.hr.doe.gov/

nesp/cnes.html). The page included the Federal Register notice, latest information about

the hearings, the draft CNES document, and 1

 The Department of Energy convened hearings in

Houston, TX, on February 12, 1998; Davis, CA,

on February 13, 1998; and Washington, DC, on

February 19, 1998. A total of 192 people attended

the hearings, and 58 of them spoke. 2

 Notice published in Volume 63, Number 10.
Comprehensive National Energy Strategy

38

several options for sending comments to

DOE.

There were 313 comments received during the comment period on the draft CNES,

including 29 comments from the Davis, CA,

hearing; 19 comments from the Houston,

TX, hearing; 35 comments from the

Washington, DC, hearing; and 38 by mail

or fax, 42 by e-mail, and 150 responses to a

response form published on the CNES information page on the DOE Website. The

comments collected were compiled into four

comprehensive databases, one of which included all of the Website, e-mail, fax, and

mail responses, and three separate databases

for oral comments received at each of the

public hearings. Except for the hearings, the

comments in the databases were organized

by goals, objectives, and issues, with the options to sort and query for the purposes of

statistical analysis and organization.

Public Hearings — Building on Our

Commitment to Openness

Three public hearings were held in February 1998. At these hearings, DOE invited the

public to give oral testimony and to submit

written comments. The hearings were

chaired and convened by the Secretary,

Deputy Secretary, and Undersecretary of

Energy. They addressed the need for a proactive energy strategy and distinguished the

CNES from previous energy policy plans.

Senior DOE officials representing the Offices

of Fossil Energy, Energy Research, Energy

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and Policy

and International Affairs provided an overview of the draft CNES document. The Chair

opened the floor for public comments.

Participants in the public hearings included State and local officials, professors,

scientists, researchers, managers, educators,

technicians, activists, private citizens, utility

representatives, private and commercial industry representatives, public-interest

groups, environmental organizations, community action organizations, organized labor, specific technology advocates, and other

stakeholders and interested parties.

Of the 313 total CNES respondents,

19 percent provided oral testimony at the

three public hearings.

Electronic Responses — Linking the

Public With Their Government

The CNES information page was posted on

the DOE Website. It included the draft CNES

document, the Federal Register notice, content and logistics information on the hearings, and a comment form (questionnaire).

The Website questionnaire consisted of

12 open-ended questions for soliciting input and general comments on each of the

five goals in the CNES document.

Of the 313 respondents, 48 percent provided comments in response to the Internet

questionnaire and 13 percent provided comments by e-mail. Of the respondents who

indicated how they found out about the

Website, 35 percent found out by word of

mouth, 16 percent from surfing the Web,

11 percent from professional or trade newsletters, 11 percent from public notices, 2 percent from newspapers and magazines, and

24 percent from other sources. Other sources

included personal, group, and bulletin

e-mails.

Written Responses

The participants in the public hearings were

asked to fill out questionnaires and submit

them at the hearing or to mail or fax hardcopy comments to DOE. General written

responses were also submitted by mail and

fax in response to the information released

on the draft CNES. Written responses submitted at the hearings accounted for

8 percent of all responses. Written responses

submitted by mail or fax accounted for

12 percent of the submissions.

Public Interest in the CNES

Website respondents were asked, “What

portion of the draft CNES interests you most?”

The possible responses, corresponding to

the five draft CNES Goals, were:

• Improve the efficiency of the energy

system.
Summary of Public Comments

39

• Ensure against energy disruptions.

• Promote energy production and use in

ways that reflect human health and environmental values.

• Expand future energy choices.

• Cooperate internationally on global issues.

• Other.

Approximately 44 percent of the respondents indicated an interest in two or more

of the five draft CNES Goals, and about

56 percent focused their interest on a single

Goal. Further, only 20 percent selected

“Other,” indicating an interest in an energy

issue not covered by the draft CNES. Also,

Website respondents were asked if they

would like a response to their comments,

and 78 individuals said “yes.”

Overarching Themes — Putting

a Human Face on Energy Policy

I

n reviewing and summarizing the public comments received on the draft

CNES, several overarching themes

emerged. These were much broader in scope

than any of the CNES Goals. These comments reflect fundamental issues and values that respondents believe form the

foundation for sound public policy. These

overarching themes address questions of

ethics, equity, and the role of government.

Ethics

Ethical considerations were included in many

of the comments. These considerations focused on the responsibility incumbent upon

Americans to consider the welfare of future

generations in current policy decisions. Several comments expressed the notion that the

draft CNES is too shortsighted. The “longterm” objectives of the document look only

10 to 20 years into the future. Due to the

finite nature of many of our energy resources, it is necessary for sound public

policy to consider future generations. Conservation of finite resources and research

and development of new technologies to

allow future generations access to a variety

of energy options was particularly noted as

an area of concern.

With no qualifying timeframe, the CNES

states that coal, oil, gas, and uranium are

abundant in America. This may be true in

the near term for some of these fuels, but

not for all. Eventually, however, this is not

likely to be true for any of them. The latter

situation is the basis for conservation of

resources beyond our lifetimes that is addressed only by a strong ethical position

concerning our responsibilities to future

generations far into the future.

— Carl Walter

Further, comments advocated consideration of the environmental impacts of our

energy choices. The perceived impacts of

these choices included degrading the natural environment and losing valuable genetic

resources by destroying habitats in our

search for conventional energy sources.

We have to address this energy situation

now or the long-term outlook will be a

degraded quality of living on the planet ...

for future generations.

— Thomas J. McGeachen

Finally, concerns were raised about our

ethical obligation to those beyond our borders. These comments centered on the projected exponential population growth and

the low standards of living in many areas of

the developing world.

Equity

The concept of equity, while closely tied

with ethical considerations, was included in

numerous comments. Concern was expressed that energy policy should benefit

all Americans, and that the policy instruments

and strategies we employ should not have

disproportionate adverse effects on any demographic group or region. These concerns

about equity included economic, social, and

environmental impacts.
Comprehensive National Energy Strategy

40

[H]as CNES missed anything? I think our

strategies ... [are] ... missing the people.

— Elena Vergara,

Chicano Family Center

Equity was considered to be of paramount importance to many respondents.

One even volunteered the following

language for a sixth CNES Goal to address

the issue:

Ensure the economic and environmental

benefits and costs of energy policies are

shared equitably (e.g., among different regions, among urban, suburban, and rural

environs, between low v. high income and

large v. small consumers).

— Thomas C. Adams, III,

North Carolina Department of Commerce

Those concerned about energy equity

among the poor, disadvantaged, elderly,

underprivileged, and handicapped recommended that the draft CNES include more

information about the effects that the proposed energy strategy would have on these

groups of “energy-vulnerable citizens.” Comments also suggested the adoption of explicit language that recognizes the

vulnerability of low-income households to

fluctuations in energy costs, as these costs

make up a larger proportion of their household expenditures.

Several individuals expressed concern

that the interests of the poor are not adequately considered in the draft CNES. Continuation and improvement of Federal and

State assistance programs such as weatherization, assistance in paying utility bills, and

support for Tribal utilities was advocated by

some, while others voiced concern over the

continuation of utility-sponsored publicassistance programs in the wake of electricity restructuring.

In addition to these issues of economic

equity, concern over the impact of pollution from energy generation was expressed.

Role of Government

Concerns over the government role in determining energy policy and strategy were

included in many comments. Several diverse

views were expressed regarding whether

there should be an energy policy, who within

government should set energy policy priorities, and the types of activities that should

be undertaken to implement or encourage

these priorities.

Some comments recommended that

there should be no energy policy and that

market forces should drive energy choices.

Other commenters suggested the dissolution

of the Department of Energy. Some comments advocated a limited energy policy.

These comments favored a role for government that includes establishing fair rules and

regulations and letting market forces drive

energy choices and policy.

Several comments advocated a more

comprehensive approach to energy policy

and strategy. Some recommended restructuring the Department of Energy to include

only civilian energy programs and relegating all defense-related programs to a separate organization. Others recommended the

appointment of an “Energy Czar” to coordinate energy policy across Federal agencies.

Finally, others recommended direct intervention in markets and command and control

measures to dictate energy policy to the

Nation.

No consensus was expressed about who

within the Government should determine

energy policy. Comments ranged from support for significant Federal involvement to

State control to local-level decision authority. Some comments even supported energy

planning and policy at a global level. Many

commenters advocated collaboration among

several levels of government to ensure that

policy meets the needs of every community.

Those who advocated a Federal role in

energy policy expressed divergent views

about the types of activities that the Gov-
Summary of Public Comments

41

ernment should undertake. Some supported

central energy planning, while others supported a regulatory role. Many encouraged

the Government to act in the “public good,”

pursuing various objectives like supporting

research and development, promoting public

education about energy-related issues, and

enacting policies to protect citizens. Many

comments suggested that the Federal Government and the Department of Energy

should lead by example.

The Federal role is to provide long-term

support and regulatory consistency so that

private investments can be made under a

predictable environment.

— James E. Quinn

[The United States should] support research

with a 20–50 year payoff period that will

really solve energy, national security, and

environmental problems...

— David Hammer

[I]nternational competition has long recognized the importance of government guidance and funding in both general and

energy research and development. They

are growing in leaps and bounds where

we are floundering, especially in regards

to new nuclear energy production sites.

— Hamilton T. Hunter

Summary of Responses

by Goal and Objective

Many respondents to DOE’s request

for comments on the draft CNES

addressed specific goals and objectives included in the document. Several

comments, however, held implications for

multiple goals. To accurately and fairly reflect the comments received, the summary

responses have been organized by CNES

goal and objective and have been repeated

as they apply to each new goal.

Due to the sheer volume of comments

received, it was necessary to qualitatively

group and summarize issues. This required

that the responses be grouped by common

theme. Specific recommendations, especially

those regarding programmatic decisions and

funding levels, have been incorporated thematically in the summary, but are not explicitly stated in this document.

Goal I

Improve the efficiency of the energy

system — making more productive use

of energy resources to enhance overall

economic performance while protecting

the environment and advancing national

security.

Objective 1. Support competitive and

efficient electric systems.

Several comments indicated that economic efficiency and energy efficiency are

often not the same. It is important, according to these comments, that economic good

sense be used in determining the desirable

level of energy efficiency. These comments

suggested that the CNES should not recommend use of energy-efficiency technologies

that are exorbitantly priced and realize only

marginal improvements.

[P]ortions of the draft strategy appear to

confuse the concept of energy efficiency

and that of economic efficiency. The most

energy-efficient technology is not necessarily the most economically efficient. This

is a matter for markets to sort out, not

government.

— Dr. Len Bower

Deregulation of Electricity. Comments regarding the deregulation and the restructuring of the electric utilities expressed

divergent opinions. The key issues raised in

this discussion included who should institute reforms, the appropriate type of reforms,

and what the impacts of these reforms would

be. Most comments on this issue recommended that the Federal Government address deregulation in a cautious and well

thought-out manner, considering all of the

implications of their actions. Much attention
Comprehensive National Energy Strategy

42

was given to the issue of recovering stranded

costs and honoring prior agreements.

Advocates of Federal deregulation legislation commented on the need for a firm

date by which all restructuring would be

completed. Additional comments encouraged DOE to move the Administration to

create a comprehensive bill that would

ensure reciprocity for electricity suppliers to

sell power across State lines.

This pursuit of a fully competitive power

market is an absolutely appropriate and

timely goal.... Progress will depend on the

meaningful actions of the Department. As

we all know, a statement in a planning

document, no matter how important that

document is, is not equivalent to leadership. And leadership is what this issue demands.... If the Administration believes in

competition, then it needs to act like it.

— Eugene F. Peters

Advocates of State-initiated reforms argued that each State must have the latitude

to institute reforms on its own time schedule and to the extent that is appropriate for

that State. Comments also explicitly declared

the need for legislation at the Federal level

to grandfather the actions taken already at

the State level.

Retail customers should also have the ability to choose among providers and services

under restructuring programs developed

and implemented at the State level. Accordingly, the Federal Government should afford States the flexibility to determine retail

energy policies, including the content, extent, and pace of restructuring.

— Margaret Welsh,

Executive Director of the

National Association of Regulatory

Utility Commissioners (NARUC)

The mechanics of restructuring were also

a key issue in many of the comments on the

draft CNES. Many commenters advocated

fully competitive power markets; in contrast,

other comments advocated a power market

that reflects social values. Proponents of fully

open competitive markets raised issues regarding real unbundling of generation and

transmission systems and the tax preferences

given to municipal power companies

through tax-free bonds.

Another commenter noted that the draft

CNES probably did not address electric cooperatives for political reasons. The

commenter stated that the Federal Government offers low-interest loans to cooperative electric utilities under a rural

electrification program that largely completed

its mission decades ago.

Some proponents of an open system

advocated a fuel-neutral policy that would

allow the market to select the fuel mix. They

argued that cheap energy is key to our domestic economy. An independent petroleum

producer’s representative noted that an increase in electricity rates would hurt their

production due to electricity’s large share

of their production costs.

[Making our] energy cheaper and more

abundant than any other country’s is what

will make the difference in keeping the

U.S. economically viable.

— George Larson

Other comments advocated a less open

approach to deregulation. These comments

addressed the need for total cost pricing for

fuels and reflecting social values in fuel

sources. These advocates of “green pricing”

supported targeting environmentally friendly

technologies in the fuel mix. One commenter

from a municipal utility district indicated that,

based on a survey of customers, there was

support for green pricing even though it

marginally tended to increase electricity

costs.

Concerns over possible impacts from

electricity restructuring included loss of universal service, loss of utility-sponsored

public-assistance programs, negative environmental impacts, inequity in cost savings,

and decreased system reliability.
Summary of Public Comments

43

Adequate planning by DOE and others

was called for to ensure that deregulation

does not undermine the reliability of the U.S.

electric power system. Several comments

supported the formation of an independent

reliability commission. Some comments supported the formation of a “self-regulating

reliability organization,” while others recommended formation of regional organizations.

Universality of service and equity of savings was raised as another key concern.

Many commenters expressed the need for

any deregulation legislation to guarantee

continued electric service at affordable rates.

One commenter indicated that the focus for

deregulation should not be on low rates,

but on the total bill an individual receives

each month for service. With large consumers able to bargain with producers for low

rates, individual consumers may bear the

burden of higher electric costs.

Allow free market competition, but set

baseline requirements that all competing

energy providers must meet in order to

operate.

— Public Hearings

The perceived environmental impacts of

deregulation were addressed in several comments. With the advent of a cost-driven selection of fuel and generation facilities,

several commenters were concerned that

there would be an increase in the utilization

of older, less environmentally friendly generation facilities. In fact, several comments

noted that electricity with the lowest cost

per kilowatthour is generated at old coalfired plants, several of which do not have to

meet Clean Air Act standards due to

grandfathering clauses. On the other hand,

a number of comments expressed the concern that Federal restructuring legislation not

be used as a vehicle to carry out environmental agendas.

Concern was expressed over the unbundling of natural gas from electricity in the

wake of opening electricity markets. It was

noted that 98 percent of our public gas systems are served by one pipeline, and while

market forces are good, they only work

when there is competition. Stakeholders recommended that DOE continue to regulate

natural gas supplies to public gas systems

and that only local authorities should decide whether to unbundle gas and electric

rates.

Electric and gas consumers should have

access to adequate, safe, reliable, and efficient energy services at fair and reasonable prices at the lowest long-term cost to

society. At the same time, we believe that

consumers must have the ability to choose

their providers and the services those providers will give.

— Margaret Welsh, NARUC

Coal. A variety of opinions was expressed

regarding the improvement of efficiency and

the reduction in environmental impacts of

existing coal-fired plants. These opinions

ranged from closing the current plants to

continuing current operations. Pollution from

burning coal was of concern to many of

those responding.

Other commenters expressed that additional research and development (R&D)

should be funded to increase the efficiency

of the extraction process and reduce environmental effects from coal extraction and

consumption. It was suggested that DOE

should work to deploy and encourage clean

coal technologies abroad, where older technologies are currently used, thereby reducing emissions. Ethanol co-firing was

suggested to reduce environmental impacts

and greenhouse gas emissions. One individual noted that the CNES should include

more discussion concerning better methods

of using coal in existing utility and industrial boilers. One viewpoint was expressed

that coal can reduce dependence on imported oil.
Comprehensive National Energy Strategy

44

The recent focus on global climate change

studies has shown that fossil fuels, and

especially coal, will continue to be used in

the future. And we ask that, given the role

of coal, the Department should not just

admit or accept but actively champion a

vigorous R&D program in the use of coal

in an environmentally friendly manner.

— Richard Bajura,

Director of the National

Research Center for Coal and Energy

at the University of West Virginia

Additional comments suggested that an

extensive emission trading approach to environmental regulation could reduce emissions of many pollutants.

Natural Gas. Several individuals made

comments similar to the following: natural

gas “is both abundant and clean burning.

Government should do all it possibly can to

encourage industrial users as well as citizens to switch from coal and heating oil to

natural gas. Producers of natural gas should

be encouraged to explore for natural gas”

and “[a]uto manufacturers should be encouraged to produce autos which run on natural gas through tax incentives.”

Other commenters felt that the United

States should “open natural gas markets into

cities. The differential between natural gas

sold in the marketplace and the price it is

sold to the consumer is too high.”

A new natural gas technology that recaptured most gases was mentioned. Increased funding for R&D in alternative

energy technologies, diversified fuel sources,

and increased environmental constraints was

suggested. It was also suggested that natural gas could be used to generate electricity

without forming common pollutants through

a “green power system.”

Hydroelectric. Many respondents addressed the issue of hydroelectric energy.

Most comments mentioning hydroelectric

power felt that it was a relatively cheap and

environmentally friendly form of power.

Comments noted that if we are to increase

the efficiency of hydropower facilities by

2010, the CNES needs to state that it is done

with the involvement of the facility

customers.

Some commenters felt that the number

of hydroelectric sites should be increased

in the United States, while others felt that

hydroelectric facilities should not be built

because of expense and environmental damage. The issue of licensing and relicensing

hydropower facilities was raised by several

respondents. Some felt that, due to the

unpredictability of licensing and relicensing

requirements, it would be difficult to attract

the capital to develop new hydro facilities.

Nuclear Energy. Many responses “for” and

“against” nuclear energy were received. Several of those responding felt that the draft

CNES did not include enough reference to

nuclear energy, especially as a long-term

goal (see Goal IV). Most scientists and researchers that responded supported nuclear

energy and stated that the United States

needs to develop a strong nuclear policy in

regard to facility life, safety, waste disposal

and control, and supply. One commenter

urged that the CNES should include more

references to the nuclear power industry.

Another emphasized that the Federal Government needs to reduce the impediments

to the construction of new nuclear

powerplants. One suggested that the move

to nuclear energy should be a means of

building a nuclear-based “hydrogen

economy” where nuclear energy is used to

dissociate water into hydrogen and oxygen.

One commenter explained that nuclear

energy can help meet clean-air commitments

and has a lower environmental impact than

other energy sources. He recommended that

DOE renew its nuclear program. Without this

action, nuclear energy’s share of U.S. generated electricity will fall from 20 percent today to just 9 percent in 2020.

Advocates of nuclear energy pressed for

additional DOE-funded R&D of new reactor technology and improvement in the licensing process for current facilities and

construction of new nuclear reactors. Nuclear

energy was presented as one of the only

viable solutions to growing world energy
Summary of Public Comments

45

demand that would not contribute significantly to environmental problems. It was

noted that good results were achieved in

DOE’s Fuel Recycling Program before funding was cut, and continuation of the program was recommended.

Many comments maintained that there

was a contradiction in Administration policy

with regard to continued use of existing

nuclear facilities. Some observed that while

DOE had a legal obligation to accept nuclear

waste in January 1998, it had not yet made

arrangements to do so, possibly causing

several plants to close because they have

no remaining storage capacity onsite. It was

recommended that DOE develop an interim

storage facility.

A concern was expressed that the United

States is losing its technical advantage in the

nuclear field through declining educational

infrastructure. It was recommended that DOE

provide funding for the development of the

next generation of nuclear facilities.

Several individuals opposed the continuation of nuclear energy. The focus of these

comments was related to the dangers imposed on the public by nuclear energy technology. Many commenters, who advocated

the phasing out of all nuclear energy technology, cited the nuclear waste issue and

stated that subsidies for nuclear energy and

fossil energy should be funneled into renewable energy technology R&D. Concerns

about the transport of spent nuclear fuel

were also expressed.

Some commenters suggested that exploring other nonnuclear forms of energy

and improving the current technologies

would be a wise strategy. Nuclear issues are

further discussed in Goals III and IV.

Objective 2. Significantly increase energy efficiency in the transportation,

industrial, and buildings sectors by

2010.

Most comments related to this objective

tended to focus on how the objective would

be best achieved. On the regulatory side,

several commenters recommended mandating higher mileage ratings for vehicles, setting higher codes and standards (presumably

for buildings and consumer appliances), and

taxing low-efficiency goods. Suggested

market-based strategies included providing

incentives to manufacturers, sellers, and consumers of very high-efficiency products,

encouraging cogeneration, and promoting,

rewarding, or funding efforts to improve

efficiency and develop alternative fuels.

Commenters felt that the government should

be promoting use of mass transit, bicycles,

and walking as alternative forms of

transportation.

Transportation. DOE was encouraged to

continue support for the development of alternative fuels to meet transportation demands, citing goals set under the Energy

Policy Act in 1992.

Several individuals suggested that tax

incentives for industry and private individuals could be used to accomplish this objective. Specifically, tax benefits could be

extended to the auto industry to promote

advancements in energy efficiency and pollution control. Commenters also suggested

that individuals who carpool to work could

receive a tax credit as an incentive to reduce fuel consumption. Individuals also

suggested that tax incentives or economicassistance packages could be developed to

encourage domestic oil production because

it is currently “more economic to purchase

foreign oil.”

The Administration was criticized for a

perceived elimination of the natural gas

vehicle program. It was strongly recommended that DOE work to revise the draft

CNES to include substitution of nonpetrol

fuels for vehicles, expand the Partnership

for a New Generation of Vehicles, correct

problems with the Federal fleet, deny petition for 80-percent petroleum fuels to be

considered alternative, and work with legislators to introduce meaningful incentives for

alternative-fuel vehicle development.
Comprehensive National Energy Strategy

46

... the Administration’s most significant vehicle development program, the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles, has

announced that it will focus on gasoline

and diesel technologies. In fact, natural gas

has been dropped from this program, even

though the use of natural gas and other

alternative fuels and advanced hybrid and

fuel-cell vehicles would reduce reliance on

imported oil and provide substantially

greater environmental benefits.

— Gilbert Sperling,

General Counsel for the

National Gas Vehicle Coalition

It was stated that education is a key issue in changing attitudes about transportation technologies. Another suggestion was

made for a higher gasoline tax to pay for

more consumer energy education programs.

One commenter stated they would “like to

see the DOE address the strategic implications of our automobile-based transportation system.” The commenter also stated that

“it seems ... that a lot of energy usage, monetary expenditures, and environmental damage can be attributed to the operation of

personal automobiles and the maintenance

and building of our highway system.”

One viewpoint was expressed that electric vehicles (EVs) could assist in achieving

all of the draft CNES goals. Increased Federal fleet purchases of EVs, increased tax

credits for EVs, establishment of financial

incentives for EVs, and hybrid vehicle development with grid connectability were all

advocated. Several speakers encouraged

DOE to work on the development, deployment, and commercialization of electric and

other alternative-fuel vehicles.

It was noted that the goals of the Energy Policy Act have not been met. “Our

Federal fleet has been sadly lagging in its

adoption of alternative-fuel vehicles of all

kinds, but most notably the electric and hybrid vehicle.” This commenter felt that DOE

should have a moral obligation to at least

influence other Federal agencies in the use

of alternative-fuel vehicles. It was strongly

urged that part of the policy statement

should be a revitalized effort to bring the

Federal fleet into compliance with the goals

of the Energy Policy Act. Specifically noted

was a $90 million infrastructure development

effort established through the Energy Policy

Act that has not been appropriately funded.

Alternative Fuels. Individuals from the scientific and research community would be

interested in seeing the Federal “[G]overnment come to the forefront in the search for

alternative electric energy sources outside

of the mainstream arena, and fund those

areas that show promise.” They also suggested that the United States move away

from fossil fuels and into renewable energy.

Commenters felt that the government should

provide subsidies or incentives for alternative energy sources such as renewable

energy.

Others recommended that DOE support

the development of biodiesel, asserting that

this domestic energy source could reduce

the environmental impacts of the transportation sector while increasing domestic farm

income. Still others advocated the development of biomass-based ethanol to replace

large amounts of fossil fuels. Commenters

noted that agricultural fuels such as ethanol

and biodiesel should play an important role

in the CNES. They also encouraged DOE to

resume R&D support for ethanol. It is believed that the program will only be successful if there is a continuous commitment

to alternative fuels and tax credits are

assured.

The benefits of fuel cells in meeting U.S.

energy needs and not causing environmental damage were mentioned. Increased funding for R&D programs focused on fuel cells

and the use of fuel-cell vehicles in the Federal fleet were suggested.

Industrial and Building Efficiency. Many

commenters encouraged increased funding

to improve the efficiencies of the current

power system and machinery and appliances

that use that energy. Others encouraged the

development of financial mechanisms that

would lower the cost of efficiency improvements, so-called “shared savings.” Tax breaks
Summary of Public Comments

47

for installing solar energy technologies were

also suggested.

A comment that occurred repeatedly was

to use R&D and technology to advance efficiencies and to increase funding in the R&D

arena. Stronger DOE R&D efforts in the area

of infrastructure and transportation research

were advocated, as was more research into

more efficient power transmission and utility company efficiencies. A commenter also

noted that the draft CNES needs to define

“efficiency.” Another person stated that

Goal I, Objective 2 in the draft CNES would

not be met without “aggressive policies.”

The objectives and strategies under your

Goal I, Mr. Secretary, primarily emphasize

supply technologies. We need tangible strategies for the demand side as well. Under

Goal I, Objective 2, I recommend a new

strategy to ... “promote and achieve significantly improved end-use energy efficiency.” New energy-efficiency standards

for our Nation’s buildings, appliances, lighting, heating, ventilation, and airconditioning systems, [and] industrial

motors would prove highly effective .... I

notice that in your energy strategy, you

have included standards for full-size automobiles under your Goal I, namely that

the cars should achieve an 80-mile-pergallon level by a certain year. And, therefore, we think such an approach could be

extended to the appliances and the motors and lighting and all the other areas

that I’ve summarized.

— Ed Meyers,

Commissioner,

D.C. Public Service Commission

In addition to improving energy efficiency in the buildings, transportation, and

industrial sectors, many comments suggested

using “clean” generation technologies and

improving the efficiency of the transmission

system through superconductor technology.

Goal II

Ensure against energy disruptions —

protecting our economy from external

threat of interrupted supplies or infrastructure failure.

Objective 1. Reduce the vulnerability of

the U.S. economy to disruptions in oil

supply.

Public comment was generally supportive of Objective 1, particularly maintaining

and filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve

and guarding against the impact of oil supply disruptions. Several commenters stated

that petroleum is a vital energy source for

the United States. They explained that it is

necessary for DOE to reach out to the petroleum industry in the development of new

technologies to mitigate the environmental

impacts of petroleum usage and production.

Oil producers expressed some dissention.

They explained that there are many geographically diverse sources of oil and that it

is economically more beneficial to use inexpensive foreign sources than to develop

more costly domestic sources.

Disruption Response. One commenter

stated that the size and scope of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve should be increased

to be “commensurate with current levels of

domestic crude oil consumption. At the

present time, assets of the Reserve, both storage facilities and stored oil, are being sold

to finance the Reserve’s operations.” The

result is that the Reserve is “far less capable

of ameliorating disruptions in crude oil imports than it was intended to be when it

was originally conceived, and its capacity is

continually being eroded, primarily due to

budgetary considerations rather than concerns relating to energy policy.” A group of

independent oil producers recommended

that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve be

stocked with oil equal to a 90-day supply,
Comprehensive National Energy Strategy

48

taking advantage of current low oil prices

to buy reserves rather than sell them. One

commenter stated that there are reasonable

oil disruption scenarios that could last one

or two years, and that DOE should develop

plans to “provide compensatory mechanisms

that will reduce the economic and environmental damage should a disruption occur.”

Several offered detailed recommendations in support of Objective 1, including

finding technologies to recover oil from

lower grade sources, such as heavier crudes

and tar sands; R&D of in-situ microwave

retorting of oil-shale; sponsoring relevant

R&D at universities and National Laboratories; continuing to sponsor DOE programs

such as the Reservoir Class Demonstration

Program and the Advanced Computational

Technology Initiative; tax incentives for oil

exploration and development; converting the

Strategic Petroleum Reserve to private ownership and operation; and the development

of an Office of Refining Technologies within

DOE to focus on the refining industry. One

Member of Congress wrote that the Administration must “lower taxes, reduce regulation, and lower the burden of government

on our domestic oil and gas industry.”

Expansion of Domestic Oil Supply. One

speaker at a public hearing recommended

that DOE play a larger role in providing information on oil and gas reserves. He advocated a national repository system for

domestic data, explaining that the large oil

and gas companies have shifted their focus

from domestic to overseas production and

that unless DOE steps in, the domestic data

they have collected will be lost.

An association of independent oil producers from 33 States stressed that DOE

should focus on “preserving the 700 million

barrels of annual production from marginal

wells” in light of the low current market

prices that make much of marginal-well production uneconomic. This association recommended that DOE again review the

recommendations of the National Petroleum

Council on marginal wells. Another individual commenter suggested that DOE work

to create tax credits when crude-oil prices

fall to protect this source of domestic

production.

Global Concerns. The focus of comments

was mostly domestic, as opposed to global.

Of those who took a global perspective, a

few commenters advocated development of

resources and energy trading outside the

Middle East, in addition to developing strategic partnerships with friendly Arab nations.

Another requested that DOE inform the

public on how the Caspian Sea oil deposits

can affect the cost of U.S. energy and that it

maintain vigilance on resource developments, disruptions, and economic issues

globally.

Representing members of the petroleum

industry, two commenters pointed out the

impact of unilateral economic sanctions

against foreign countries on access to promising exploration areas outside the United

States, and its hindrance to American global

competitiveness. A major petroleum industry trade group recommended that the CNES

recognize the potentially adverse treatment

of foreign source income (including the restrictions placed on the use of the foreign

tax credit) on limiting the global activity of

U.S. firms, as well.

Access to Federal Lands. Opinion on access to Federal lands for resource exploration to boost domestic supply was sharply

divided. Several commenters were in favor

of increasing access to these resources, while

several others were opposed. An example

of commenters in favor of opening up these

lands:

Access to development of Federal lands in

Alaska and the offshore are critical to reversing the decline in domestic oil production and to increasing the Nation’s gas

supply. These goals are achievable only if

the Federal Government reconsiders its current policy pertaining to access of these

areas.

— Independent Petroleum

Association of America
Summary of Public Comments

49

Failure to acknowledge the critical role of

Federal lands to future domestic energy

supply prospects compromises the seriousness of the draft strategy document.

— American Petroleum Institute

And in support of the opposing position:

We have four major recommendations.

First, the CNES should have as an explicit

goal decreasing the threats posed by oil

and gas exploration and development to

America’s most sensitive and environmentally important lands and waters. Second,

the CNES should do nothing to promote

... development of still pristine Federal

lands and waters in the Arctic. Third, the

CNES should specifically recommend the

permanent protection of the coastal plain

of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Fourth, it should acknowledge the importance of the National Petroleum Reserve–

Alaska as a ‘strategic reserve’ that should

only be tapped in times of a national energy emergency.

— Alaska Wilderness League,

Natural Resources Defense Council,

N. Alaska Environmental Center,

U.S. Public Interest Research Group

One commenter suggested that DOE

open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the

National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska, and

California offshore oil fields for exploration

only to private companies who have a

“proven record of responsible operation.”

A representative of independent petroleum producers took specific issue with the

royalty collection program currently being

administered by the Minerals Management

Service, supporting legislative proposals to

switch to a royalty-in-kind system where

producers hand over a portion of production from Federal lands as payment.

Technologies to Limit Growth in Oil Demand. Several commenters supported the

strategy of developing technologies to limit

the growth of oil demand. Nuclear fusion

was also advocated by several as an additional energy source to complement

renewables in limiting growth in oil demand.

Some commenters wanted DOE to increase

funding for heavy-oil research to prevent

further loss of technological knowhow and

that funding for coal or light-oil research

could be reduced to compensate.

Additional Input. Opinions also differed

on means to meet Objective 1. Some

commenters suggested more emphasis on

decreasing oil consumption, via use of alternative energy technologies, and less emphasis on increasing production. Another

requested that the United States maintain a

strong oil and gas industry by reversing policies that currently provide incentives for

“major oil companies to move overseas to

escape ‘punitive’ environmental regulations

and taxes.”

Non-technology solutions to reducing

usage were also offered, such as a carbon

tax coupled with offsetting reductions in

other taxes to make impact revenue neutral, or a tax only on imported oil.

Cautions by some commenters included:

• Balancing an oil production increase with

the goal of the Kyoto accords.

• The downside of increasing U.S. production in peacetime is depletion of domestic resources that may be needed in

emergencies. One individual suggested a

better strategy might be to develop technology for enhanced oil recovery, but

leave the oil in the ground until it is

needed for emergencies and use foreign

supplies before depleting U.S. supplies.

• Goal II’s aim of ensuring against energy

disruptions by developing new technologies to increase coal production may conflict with Goal I’s effect of reducing the

demand for coal and reduce incentives

for increased coal production, “despite the

fact that it [coal] is the largest fossil fuel

reserve in the U.S.”

Objective 2. Ensure energy system reliability, flexibility, and emergency response capability.

Commenters were generally positive in

their responses to Objective 2, focusing on
Comprehensive National Energy Strategy

50

recommendations for reducing electrical service disruptions through greater system reliability and the importance of distributed

power generation.

In the discussion of electricity restructuring (Goal I), many comments were made

regarding ways to ensure the reliability of

electricity supply.

Reducing Disruption of Service. A research scientist suggested building more redundancy into the energy network and

alternative routes for energy when there is

a disruption. One company recommended

that Objective 2 should include comprehensive measures to address grid reliability management, technological and institutional

issues that will result from restructuring, and

existing gaps in system reliability.

An individual also stated that Goal II,

Objective 2, should add a new Strategy 4:

Increase use of renewable energy and energy efficiency in the U.S. to help ensure

against energy disruptions. Another suggested that a separate strategy be created

for distributed power and cogeneration,

emphasizing reliability and market niche applications. This latter strategy would encompass technologies for rapid restoration of

power in the event of natural or man-made

interruptions.

One commenter cautioned DOE to

monitor the effects of electricity deregulation on power availability and reliability and

be prepared to impose a “moratorium” on

deregulation if it threatens the reliability of

the grid.

A hydropower industry group asserted

that hydropower, under direct U.S. control

and not subject to price and availability fluctuations, offers much in maintaining system

reliability and should be considered a priority in the CNES.

The Federal Government has the responsibility to make sure power and energy will

be available and uninterrupted through

redundancy ...

— Dennis Baker

Distributed Power Generation. Several

commenters explained that through utilization of current distributed generation capacity, the United States could meet much of its

growing energy needs. One commenter

went as far as recommending that the United

States phase out dependency on the centralized power grid completely over the next

generation or two.

A few individuals suggested instituting

policies to restructure cities to reduce urban

sprawl. One person, representing a private

company, stated that “load control, load

shedding, voltage control, and capacitor

control are key to electric utilities being able

to respond quickly to emergency situations.”

A few individuals advocated the use of

micro-turbines to serve the distributed generation niche. In addition, the use of hybrid

power systems, and especially fuel cell use

in these systems, was advocated. Also mentioned was dispersed generation, with

backup generators located at sensitive locations such as hospitals, which would create

a higher utilization factor, and the use of

hard circuitry to avoid high-tech terrorism.

An individual expressed concern that

adequate metering and submetering technologies were needed in Federal facilities

to provide accurate numbers for efficiency

modeling and to verify energy consumption

reductions.

Emergency Response Capability. Several

commenters also addressed response to

emergencies, with suggestions such as the

sharing of manpower resources between

States in case of emergency and redundancy

built into the energy network so that there

are alternative supply routes when disruption occurs in one area.
Summary of Public Comments

51

Goal III

Promote energy production and use in

ways that respect health and environmental values — improving our health

and local, regional, and global environmental quality.

The scope of Goal III — spanning natural gas, oil, nuclear, and renewable energy

technologies; deployment of environmentally friendly technologies; and domestic and

international greenhouse gas reduction efforts — contributed to the diversity of comments received on this Goal. An attempt is

made below to summarize as much as possible the wide variety of viewpoints and

subjects the public addressed in their comments.

An overall comment was offered by one

utility: promoting energy production and use

in the manner stated in Goal III “will result

only if all fuels and energy sources are

treated equitably and the scientifically based

health and environmental standards are applied to all fuels and uses” to prevent skewed

application of environmental requirements

and disruption of the free market.

Objective 1. Increase domestic energy

production in an environmentally responsible manner.

Most comments were directed toward

issues in Objective 1. The concepts of sustainable development and sustainable living were mentioned several times by

commenters. Another suggested that stricter

enforcement of pollution laws be carried out.

One warned that major (energy) construction projects such as dams should not be

undertaken unless it can be first proven that

alternate sources of energy cannot meet the

energy demand. Another commenter recommended that DOE fund long-term scientific

research on environmental issues and leave

regulation to local authorities.

Mitigation of Environmental Impacts

from Energy Production. The specific environmental issues raised included concern

over climate change and meeting the

challenge set forth for U.S. greenhouse gas

emission reductions, and advocacy of environmental regulations which “make sense”

for the particular technology and locality.

Several speakers raised climate change concerns as they explained why the technology they advocate should play a substantial

role in the Nation’s energy strategy. Individuals advocated outreach and collaboration with industry in the development

and implementation of environmental

regulations.

Developing Renewable Electric Generating Technologies. One State’s energy commission noted that the renewable energy

portfolio standard mentioned in this Objective was a hotly debated issue. Some States

have adopted different methods to encourage renewable energy projects, and the commission recommended that the CNES

recognize other approaches that advance

renewables. A Southern utility holding company noted its opposition to the renewable

portfolio standard in the CNES, expressing

support for renewables through appropriations and tax credits provided elsewhere in

the CNES so electricity producers do not bear

the cost burden.

The hydropower industry registered its

request that the CNES address hydropower

explicitly in Goal III, Objective 1, and lessen

the regulatory burdens and costs that are

causing renewable energy generated from

hydropower to decline.

Developing Renewable Technologies.

Many speakers advocated increased R&D

spending for renewable energy technologies.

Some individuals thanked DOE for its openness in dealing with industry, while others

stated that DOE had not spent enough on

renewable energy. One commenter highlighted the role renewables can have globally in meeting energy demand and

reducing environmental impacts of energy

consumption.

Some commenters supported subsidies

to renewable resource energy providers and

a reduction in subsidies to fossil-fuel burners. Several commenters advocated increased

government support of sustainable renew-
Comprehensive National Energy Strategy

52

able energy, including a mandate that all

Federal facilities purchase green power.

Concerns over environmental impacts of

energy production focused on the need for

improving energy efficiency and increasing

use of renewable energy technologies. Two

individuals discussed three key points:

(1) the need to increase funding for renewable energy technologies research, development, and deployment; (2) the need to

improve energy efficiency in order to decrease energy intensity and avoid environmental impacts; and (3) the need to phase

out older coal-fired powerplants grandfathered under the Clean Air Act. Through

adoption of these three measures, the

commenters contended that the United States

could regain its technological lead in renewable energy and reduce both economic and

environmental costs of energy production

and consumption. One individual explained

that renewable energy technologies will not

be able to supply sufficient generation capacity to meet the Nation’s growing energy

needs.

Several commenters want to expand

R&D and funding in the area of windmills

and solar panels for energy production.

Commenters would like to see mention in

the CNES of solar technologies used in desert

regions and particularly Southern states.

Several individuals commented that tax

breaks could be given to private citizens for

installing energy-saving technologies such

as solar panels. One individual was concerned that under current IRS tax laws (Form

3468) he could not earn a tax break for installing a solar-electric power system on the

roof of his house. He stated that the system

is designed to operate for more than 30

years, costs about $10,000 to install, and has

been working “flawlessly” since installation

last year. The commenter felt that current

tax laws stifle widespread implementation

of technologies such as solar-panel systems.

Several commenters stated that installing

solar and similar systems would help the

United States shift from dependence on foreign energy supplies to a more independent posture.

Wilderness/Indian Land Protection and

Protection of Natural Resources. One

commenter noted that drilling for oil should

not take place in wilderness areas (Arctic

National Wildlife Refuge) or roadless areas,

while a few promoted drilling in offshore

areas near California. One individual stated

that public land should be for the public

and “not for the profit of large companies.”

Comments were similar in nature to those

received for Goal II (discussed above).

Maintaining a Viable Nuclear Energy

Option. With regard to Strategy 4 under Objective 1, commenters suggested reducing

the impediments to construction of new

powerplants and allowing “reasonable” licensing extensions for existing plants. Another suggested an evaluation by the

National Academy of Engineering of the current safety of nuclear plants to contribute to

public confidence.

As in other goals, the lack of mention of

fusion as a viable nuclear option in the draft

CNES was noted several times by

commenters. Another recommended continued R&D on the liquid metal-cooled breeder

reactor.

Several commenters felt that the inability of generators to ship radioactive waste

in certain areas or the inability of geologic

repositories (that is, Yucca Mountain and the

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant) to accept the

waste will have a major impact on the U.S.

nuclear power industry and research facilities. One commenter recommended that

“nuclear waste should be managed ... by

an entity entirely accountable to the public

whose health is at risk ... but should be

entirely paid for by the nuclear industry....”

Objective 2. Accelerate the development

and market adoption of environmentally

friendly technologies.

Environmentally Friendly Technologies.

A commenter offered that such technologies have value only if driven by “the artificial force of Federal regulation,” and that

DOE should examine the extent to which
Summary of Public Comments

53

Objective 2 would meet the quantitative

goals for reducing greenhouse gases (presumably under the Kyoto Protocol).

A geothermal energy public-private partnership stressed the inclusion of geothermal in equipment tax credits. On a related

note, the partnership expressed a concern

that all tax credits may be too high, possibly

inciting a boom-bust cycle such as the one

witnessed with the solar tax credits of the

1970s.

Similarly, a fuel cell trade association

pointed out the benefits of fuel cells in terms

of lower carbon dioxide emissions, and their

recyclable nature, and requested that DOE

continue funding the Direct Fuel Cell stack

technology development and demonstrations in government installations.

Climate Change. Many speakers expressed

concern over climate change. One person

explained that the market should drive energy choices and that energy markets and

the technology focus necessary to meet

Kyoto obligations are at odds. Several

commenters were opposed to the Kyoto

Protocol while many others were in favor

of it. Some comments indicated that DOE

should focus on developing an energy policy

and not on meeting Kyoto Protocol objectives. One suggested that the Protocol was

adopted using unproven assumptions and

deserves further study.

The electric utility industry was very disturbed by the inequitable treatment which

the U.S. was able to negotiate in the Kyoto

treaty on climate change. There are a number of technology transfer and international

trading and joint implementation programs

that would create positive incentives for

all parties. The command and control approach, which was negotiated in Kyoto, is

unequitable and unworkable. All countries

should be active participants in any global

climate treaty....

— Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Other comments dealt with greenhouse

gas trading or greenhouse gas reduction in

the United States or internationally: through

carbon dioxide trading, incentives for new

energy technologies that greatly improve

local public health, and minimizing local,

regional, and global pollution. One State’s

energy commission recommended that a

separate CNES be devoted to developing the

science of climate change as a basis for devising sound solutions.

Another commenter supported DOE’s

efforts to combat climate change and encouraged promotion of voluntary programs,

with agencies working as equal partners in

identifying and implementing voluntary

measures in the public sector as well. He

also recommended that participants in these

programs be given credit for early actions.

In contrast, a university environmental policy

center noted that limitations of voluntary

greenhouse gas reduction programs may

require mandatory greenhouse gas reductions throughout industries to ensure that

all companies are on a level playing field.

Another commenter supported action to

mitigate the effects of climate change. In his

opinion, only nuclear energy will be able to

meet demand without increasing greenhouse

gas emissions. One commenter felt the draft

CNES placed too much emphasis on greenhouse gas.

Commenters noted that the United States

needs to work together with other countries to keep pollution standards high and

to form international partnerships. One responder would like to see the United States

“make significant contribution to improving

energy generation methods for all countries

if we want to improve the global environment.”

The most important thing government can

do is to ensure that technology is freely

shared globally.

— Roger Altobelli
Comprehensive National Energy Strategy

54

Finally, one commenter felt that Goal

III, Objective 2, Strategies 4 and 5 (participating in negotiations with developing countries, and international joint greenhouse gas

reduction efforts) might be more appropriately placed in Goal V.

Goal IV

Expand future energy choices — pursuing continued progress in science and

technology to provide future generations with a robust portfolio of clean and

reasonably priced energy sources.

Some commenters suggested that costs

for R&D and future energy expansion should

be shared by the Federal Government and

private industry because industry directly

benefits from government research. One

commenter felt that the draft CNES should

place emphasis on “power production” research rather than just general “scientific”

research. A few commenters also felt that

research should support efforts in areas of

unconventional or nontraditional research;

they urged DOE and the Federal Government to be “open-mined” when it considers

funding innovative energy projects.

Objective 1. Maintain a strong national

knowledge base as the foundation for

informed energy decisions, new energy

systems, and enabling technologies of

the future.

One commenter suggested that Goal IV,

Objective 1, Strategy 1 be modified to include the phrase “fusion energy research,”

after “renewable technologies.” Several

commenters stated that National Laboratories should be doing high-risk R&D driven

by an industrial advisory committee as has

been previously proposed. One person

would like to create centers of excellence in

the National Laboratories to allow continuity of work — given adequate funding —

while another would like to see the National

Laboratories made more efficient and competitive. One person stated that bureaucracy

and huge overheads stifle the Laboratories.

Another commenter suggested that Goal

IV, Objective 1, Strategy 3 be modified to

read, “Research into the properties of matter in extreme states can feed into future

innovation in energy technologies.” Several

people noted that fusion is important in light

of “President Clinton’s recent speech at the

AAAS meeting in which he highlighted fusion energy as one of the key future benefits of scientific research. Fusion is also an

important element of the recent report from

the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.”

A commenter noted that Objective 1,

Strategy 2 should include a review of the

status of knowledge about the effects of

greenhouse gases by a prestigious body,

such as the National Academy of Sciences.

Several commenters stated that Objective 1 should also mention increased basic

education for children and the general public. A few commenters stated that Goal IV,

Objective 1, Strategy 4 should mention more

universities and private industry to conduct

research instead of the National Laboratories that tend to be more costly. In addition,

commenters recommended that DOE partner with universities to develop technology

and use a streamlined “unsolicited proposal”

approach to accelerated R&D funding.

Objective 2. Develop technologies that

expand long-term energy options.

Commenters were generally supportive

of the range of conventional and alternative

energy options. Numerous commenters

noted that DOE should add “fusion” to Goal

IV, Objective 2 as a long-term energy option. Various commenters supported funding more research on fusion and cooperation

with Japan and Europe. Commenters realize that fusion is a “cleaner” way of producing electricity than standard fission reactors.

[T]he ability to conduct long-term research

in the area of power has been severely

hampered at a time where such an effort

is needed most.

— Fernando Alvarado
Summary of Public Comments

55

The fact that the nuclear power system is

being downplayed or ignored in this country as compared with other countries that

have used it to full advantage has left us

behind. Not being able to successfully address waste disposal issues from this power

source is not advancing our country’s energy independence. Fusion power should

be strongly supported as well as any other

methods that appear possible. Without

broadening our base through research now

will cost the next generations that will have

to develop these alternatives. The government should be much more proactive on

this issue.

— George Larson

Other specific suggestions included increased support for R&D and a cooperative

arrangement with industry and utilities on

hydrogen-electric automotive systems. Restoration of funding magnetic fusion, including the International Thermonuclear

Experimental Reactor (ITER) and support to

the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory for

Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor upgrades was

also mentioned. One commenter suggested

high-risk R&D at National Laboratories

driven by industrial advisory committees. A

commenter noted that DOE should “develop

a broad portfolio” of energy-related R&D

activities. On the dissenting side, one

commenter noted that “looks to me that there

is an uncritical worship of technology in this

proposal, it looks like this document expects

miracles from research.”

Many speakers and commenters advocated continued or expanded R&D in a variety of areas. Generally these comments

focused on the particular technology an individual advocated. One commenter recommended that DOE look into zero-point

energy and referred to a specific technology for harnessing this energy source called

the “N” machine. He challenged the Secretary of Energy to fully investigate this technology and let the American public know

about it.

Another commenter encouraged DOE to

form an office for emerging technologies.

The commenter explained that truly new

groundbreaking technologies would emerge

only when an office is established to engage scientists and researchers who are on

the fringe of technology. The commenter

explained that much of the research that is

currently done in DOE is mainstream and

these fringe researchers need an environment in which their work is taken seriously

to flourish and publicize their achievements.

Goal V

Cooperate internationally on global issues — developing the means to address

global economic, security, and environmental concerns.

Objective 1. Promote development of

open, competitive international energy

markets, and facilitate the adoption of

clean, safe, and efficient energy systems.

Of the total number of comments, concern over open and competitive international

markets received the fewest. Most of these

comments stemmed from the petroleum industry and are captured in the Goal III discussion of embargoes and foreign tax credits.

Other comments included support for

the transfer of environmentally sound technologies to the developing world. A representative of the coal industry advocated the

export of clean coal technologies to large

coal users, like China, to help reduce global

levels of pollutants. Similar environmental

technology transfer suggestions were made

in regard to other fuel sources.

Several commenters suggested that the

United States increase international cooperation in research of future energy sources.

Other commenters noted that a “World Wide

Web” of electricity or a global energy network should be included in the draft CNES.

This approach is described as using electricity generated anywhere on the globe, allowing increased access to renewable energy

resources, to meet world energy demand.

The commenters noted that this approach

would allow peak demand for electricity to

be spread more evenly due to time-zone

differences.
Comprehensive National Energy Strategy

56

One speaker suggested that an increase

of U.S.-Mexico energy trade (importing oil

from Mexico to the United States) would help

stem the tide of migration into the American Southwest by providing employment in

Mexico.

[D]eveloped and third-world nations

[should] commit to a goal of increased energy efficiency and reduced pollution.

— Thomas J. McGeachen

One individual made the point that in

the current atmosphere of environmental

concern, environmental policy would become the de facto energy policy if a clear

energy policy was not defined. He explained

that with the outcome of the Third Conference of the Parties to the United Nations

Framework Convention on Climate Change

in Kyoto and its significant implications for

the energy sector in the United States, it is

imperative that DOE define an energy policy

which ensures energy security and diversity.

A commenter also stated that the CNES

should acknowledge that excess fissile material from the United States and Russia could

have an impact on energy resources and the

energy market.

Several commenters expressed an interest in seeing DOE cooperate and support

international fusion development research.

Some of these commenters would like to

see the United States build the International

Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER)

project for fusion research, preferably in the

United States, and felt that building the ITER

would assist with fighting global warming

by implementing a clean energy source internationally.

Objective 2. Promote foreign regional

stability by reducing energy-related environmental risks in areas of U.S. security interest.

Several commenters noted that Goal V,

Objective 2 is actually foreign policy and

belongs in a State Department document,

not a DOE document. One comment cautioned that global cooperation under no circumstances is basis for weakening, waiving,

or authorizing exemptions for U.S. Federal,

State, or local environmental regulations.

On the environmental security side,

commenters recommended International

Atomic Energy Agency monitoring of nuclear

reactors to insure that no diversion of strategic nuclear materials takes place, ratifying

the Kyoto Protocol, and requiring developing countries to abide by regulations set for

industrial countries.

General Comments

Process

On balance, respondents were pleased with

the variety of ways input was solicited for

the draft CNES. There were two key criticisms of the process. Several comments indicated that the review period for the draft

CNES was too short. In order to provide a

careful technical review of the document, a

longer review period would be needed.

Additional comments were received that indicated that the public should be given more

advance notice of hearings.

Document

Again, comments received about the document were generally favorable. Several comments complimented the concise readability

of the document and its “framework” structure. Some comments about the document

were negative. These included remarks that

the document was light on analysis and specifics. Others characterized the document as

blindly optimistic. Several other comments

were critical of the document, implying that

the reliance on technology to solve grave

problems is not realistic. Several comments

focused on the need to provide rationale

for the specific targets set by the document.

Some commenters offered practical advice

on technical matters, including the units of

measure used for calculations.

Miscellaneous Comments

The most important energy-related activities

the Federal Government should pursue? A

wide variety of recommendations was re-
Summary of Public Comments

57

ceived in response to this question, including: strong support for renewable energy;

development of hydrogen-based vehicle

technology; reducing environmental regulations so that new generating plants and

oil refineries can be built; a national Net

Energy Billing policy; increased vehicle gasoline mileage efficiency requirements and

nationwide vehicle emission controls; and

to go slow on utility deregulation.

Any other comments on the draft CNES?

Similar to the previous question, a variety

of responses emerged. They included: subsidies to renewable energy providers and

reduced subsidies to fossil-fuel consumers;

specific targeting of hydrogen as a fuel; loadcontrol switches; pursuing magnetized target fusion (MTF).

Energy Conservation by Adopting a 4-

Day Work Week. One commenter noted that

energy conservation could be accomplished

by adopting a 10-hour a day, 4-day work

week. Adoption of such a policy saves energy by reducing the electrical power used

at the business place, reduces travel to and

from work, and reduces frequency of emissions from vehicles.

Commenters also suggested reprioritizing DOE funding to support (1) subsidies

for alternative energy sources, (2) basic research on oil recovery and geothermal and

field testing of new technologies, (3) R&D

in energy efficiency, (4) energy management

projects in Federal agencies, or (5) focusing

more of the DOE budget to Goal I and less

on defense-related missions.

Commenters stated that alternative technologies should be nonpolluting and affordable. Many comments focused on why a

specific technology should be included in

the draft CNES. They included advocates of

coal, nuclear energy, fuel cells, electric vehicles, hydrogen fuels, fusion technologies,

distributed generation, the “N” machine, renewable energy technologies, petroleum,

and natural gas. Most of these speakers recommended that DOE continue to work

collaboratively with industry and fund research efforts for technology development

and pollution mitigation.

Several commenters felt that the draft

CNES should contain more information related to the demand side of energy. Another

commenter felt that the draft CNES was a

DOE energy strategy and not a national energy strategy; the commenter also noted that

the draft CNES should take into account

cooperation with other Federal agencies,

including the Environmental Protection

Agency, the Departments of Commerce,

Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, et al.

Others recommended that the United

States provide more support through existing institutions such as the Agency for International Development and grants to other

nations, and support the United Nations, the

International Energy Agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the

Nuclear Energy Agency.

One former assistant secretary of energy

stated: “The draft CNES prepared by DOE is

inadequate and totally unacceptable. In

short, it is irresponsible, it should be considered a ‘religious tract’ rather than a realistic and enduring plan for our national

critical supply of reliable energy at reasonable prices.”

Other miscellaneous comments included

one person noting that it is difficult to pursue efficiency and equity issues at the same

time. Sometimes two programs are needed

rather than one.
Comprehensive National Energy Strategy

58

Ed Meyers D.C. Public Service

Commission

Marcus Milling American Geological

Institute

Eugene F. Peters Electric Power Supply

Association

Richard Schulze Alliance for Sound

Nuclear Policy

Ron Simard Nuclear Energy Institute

Megan Smith American Bioenergy

Association

Gilbert Sperling National Gas Vehicle

Coalition

David Swanson Edison Electric Institute

William Thomas Proposition One

Thomas Valone Integrity Research

Institute

Leroy Watson National Biodiesel Board

Margaret Welsh NARUC

Marc Yaker Electricity Consumer

Resource Council

Maria Abarca AAMA

Pete Altman Sustainable Energy and

Economic Development Coalition

Don Demoore Houston Independent

School Systems

Steve Layton Equinox Oil Company,

National Stripper

Well Associations

Greg Lucero IBEW

Fred McGuire

Cathy Minceberg Houston Independent

School Systems

Darrell Rangnow Valero Energy

Joe Rubio Neighborhood Center,

Incorporated

Richard Shaw Harris County AFL-CIO

Tom Smith I Am A Public Citizen

John Stauffacher NGC Corporation

Bob Stout Mitchell Energy, Domestic

 Petroleum Council

Elena Vergara Chicano Family Center

Rube Williams Texas A&M University

Donald Fontenot Private company

Fawn A. Boyd Vigil

Robin Tyner U.S. Navy

Charles DeLuca Private company

Louis M. Castanier University

Kuenzli Nino, MD, PhD University

T J Gilmartin

Dave A. Merrill Private company

Public Comments Database Summary

Greg Ashley Cutler-Hammer

Richard Bajura National Research Center

for Coal and Energy at

West Virginia University

Bud Beebe Sacramento Municipal

Utility District

Steven Bloxham Compressor Control

Dorothy Brownold Private Citizen, Peace

Activist

Paul Craig Sierra Club

Winifred Detwiler Sacramento-Yolo Peace

Action

Stephen Doyle Clean Energy Systems

William Keese California Energy

Commission

Daniel Kramer California Independent

Petroleum Association

Julee Malinoski-Bell California Electric Transportation Coalition

Tsvi Meidav TransPacific Geothermal

Corporation

Todd O’Connor Edison Technology

Solutions

Alan Pasternak Lawrence Livermore

National Laboratory

Catherine Reheis Western States Petroleum

Association (WSPA)

Carl Walter Professional Engineer

Robert Wichert Breakthrough Technologies Fuel Cells 2000

David C. Williams Private Citizen

Bertram Wolfe Consultant

Dr. Ali Allison Engine Company

Richard Bajura Director of the National

Research Center for

Coal and Energy

Len Bower American Petroleum

Institute

Bob Cave American Public Gas

Association

Douglas Durante Clean Fuels Development

Coalition

Dave Goldstein Electric Vehicle

Association

Charles Goodman

Burl Haigwood Clean Fuels Foundation

Adam Kolton Alaska Wilderness League

Richard Lawson National Mining

Association

John Lichtblau Petroleum Industry

Foundation

Name Organization Name Organization
Summary of Public Comments

59

Name Organization Name Organization

Public Comments Database Summary (continued)

Gary Lehnertz Private company

Bernie Miller Private company

Sharron Brown Private company

Russell Stein Private company

Donald Fontenot Private company

Jo Ann Coulter Wientjes Government Contracor

Hugh Bahar University

Terry R. Galloway Private company

George Larson Private company at

government site

Matt Bjork Lawrence Berkeley

National Laboratory

Tony Bartoletti Lawrence Livermore

National Laboratory

Mike McMorris

Hamilton T. Hunter Federal government

Robert Marsh Retired

Ellis M. LeBouef Private company

Roger Blanchard University

Ronald C. Kirkpatrick University

Robert Bourque

John Oberlatz

Kevin Eber Non-profit organization

Wanda McMurray Non-profit organization

Brian Bowman Private company

Richard L. “Scott” McKie Private company

Roger Blanchard University

Mark Haynes

Leo D. Campbell Tribal Utilities

Marge Wood University

R. Tomlinson Private company

Ronald C. Kirkpatrick

Ned R. Sauthoff University

Tom Smith

Robert Wichert Private company

James C. Liles Private company

Rube B. Williams University

Ellen Thomas Non-profit organization

Roger Altobelli Management Canada

Tom Brand Federal government

Robert J. Goldston University

National Research Center National Research Center

for Coal and Energy for Coal and Energy

Fermin Viteri Clean Energy Systems

Edison Technology Edison Technology

Solutions Solutions

Carl E. Walter, P.E.

Fernando L. Alvarado University

Donald Beeler Private company

Bard Jackson Federal government

Fernando Alvarado University

M. J. Plodinec University

W. Heidbrink University

Charles Skinner University

James E Quinn Retired

Jeffrey Harris University

William Becker Federal government

Mike I. Green Lawrence Berkeley

National Laboratory

Peter Smith Private company

Wayne Evelo Federal government

George Holz Private company

Nancy Christopher Private company

Dennis Baker University

David L. Brimberry Private company

Thomas J. McGeachen University

W. Kenneth Davis

Michael Powers

Tony Bartoletti

Stephen O. Dean

Anna R. Mosqueda

Hank

Judy Jordan Non-profit organization

Chris Toussaint Private company

Michael E. Frankle Private company

N7THQ Private company

Frederick J. Sparber Retired

Dennis C. Lee Private company

Michael Randall Private company

Ed Wall Federal government

Greg Swift GO CO national lab

Akira Kawasaki Private company

Robert Horst Private company

Marilyn Dinger Self-employed

Chris Sakata Private company

Christian Steffek Non-profit organization

A. Melchizedek Private company

Glen Wurden Federal government

David Mikkelsen University

Edmund J. Synakowski University

David Hammer Private company

Jerry Levine University

William B. Harrison, III University

Allan Reiman University

Mike Beer University

Roy Little Private company

David Akers Private company

Marlin E. Schmidt Fed. Govt. Contractor

Kathryn Houser, Ph.D. Private company

Integrity Res. Institute Integrity Res. Institute

M. Breazeale Private company

David Crockett Williams

Lawrence Goldstein PIRINC

John Hughes Utility
Comprehensive National Energy Strategy

60

Dennis Baker DOE Contractor

Richard Lawson Natl. Mining Assn.

Canadian Assoc. of Canadian Assoc. of

Petroleum Producers Petroleum Producers

American Superconductor American Superconductor

 Corp. Corp.

State of Hawaii State of Hawaii

Natural Resources Natural Resources

Defense Council Defense Council

Union of Concerned Union of Concerned

Scientists Scientists

Martha Diane Wilhelm

Thos. Dugan Dugan Production Corp

Tsvi Meidav Trans-Pac. Geothermal Corp.

Bruce Bentley

D. Boneau Yates Petroleum Corp.

Raymond L. Murray

Ronald L. Holton

Daniel S. Richmond Uplands Resources Inc.

Brent Schkade

Dan A. Sanchez

Patrick Bailey

Curt McClymond

Joe Iannucci

Paul Moroz

George McKee University

Natural Gas Supply Assn. Natural Gas Supply Assn.

Ctr. for Energy & Envi. Ctr. for Energy & Envi.

Policy, U. of Del. Policy, U. of Del.

New York Mercantile New York Mercantile

Exchange Exchange

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Alaska Wilderness Alaska Wilderness

League, et al. League, et al.

American Forest & American Forest &

Paper Assn., Inc. Paper Assn., Inc.

Alaska Forum for Envi. Alaska Forum for Envi.

Responsibility Responsibility

Independent Petroleum Independent Petroleum

Assn. of America, et al. Assn. of America, et al.

Natl. Hydropower Assn. Natl. Hydropower Assn.

Dan Kramer Calif. Ind. Petrol. Assn.

Western Interstate Western Interstate

Energy Board Energy Board

Assn. of Home Appliance Assn. of Home Appliance

 Mfgrs. Mfgrs.

Independent Petro. Independent Petro.

Assn. of Mtn. States Assn. of Mtn. States

California Energy California Energy

Commission Commission

F. McGuire Houston Industries Inc

Name Organization Name Organization

Public Comments Database Summary (continued)

C. Boardman

W. Guyker Utility

Coalition 21 Coalition 21

Jim Gay Natl. Biodiesel Bd.

John Lichtblau PIRINC

David L. Swanson EEI

Gil Sperling NGVC

Marcus Milling AGI

Edward Meyers PSC of DC

Keith Rule National laboratory

Joe Rubio, Ph.D. NCI

C. Hansen IOGCC

Thos. C. Adams, III N. Carolina State

government

League of Women League of Women

Voters of Oregon Voters of Oregon

T. Rhodes University

Craig Cox Private company

Morris Altschuler Retired

Martin F. Huebner P.E. Non-profit organization

Charles S. Federle Private company

Pastor D. C. Curtright Clergy

Gary L. Troyer DOE Contractor

John J. Wollan Private company

A. Kearns

Mohammad A. Chowdhry

Peter Meisen GENI

Ed Wall

Brett E. Chapman University

Douglas Durante CFDC

Edwin D. Sayre Retired

Gerald R. Grow, Met. E.

Mitchell Swartz Private company

Mark Corley Private company

Princeton Plasma Princeton Plasma

Physics Laboratory Physics Laboratory

Fisher, Sheehan & Colton Fisher, Sheehan & Colton

Daman Walia, Artech Inc. Private company

Thos. Valone Integrity Research

Institute

Morris Altschuler Retired

Edw. A. Reid, Jr. American Gas Cooling Ctr

Dennis Baker

Walter Epp

W. Thomas

Doug McCune Princeton Plasma Phy. Lab

Colorado Springs Utilities Colorado Springs Utilities

Walter Epp

State of Wisconsin State of Wisconsin

Clark D. Harrison CQ Inc.

Dan Fiscus University

Gary W. Scronce
Summary of Public Comments

61

Name Organization Name Organization

Public Comments Database Summary (continued)

American Petroleum American Petroleum

Institute Institute

Alaska Wilderness Alaska Wilderness

League, et al. League, et al.

Natl. Assn. of Natl. Assn. of

Regulatory Util. Regulatory Util.

Commissioners Commissioners

Edison Electric Edison Electric

Institute Institute

Calif. Public Utility Calif. Public Utility

Commission Commission

Natural Gas Vehicle Natural Gas Vehicle

Coalition Coalition

Cinergy Corp. Cinergy Corp.

American Public Power American Public

Power Assn. Power Assn.

Geothermal Energy Assn. Geothermal Energy Assn.

Process Gas Con. Process Gas Con.

Group & AISI Group & AISI

CellNet Data Systems, Inc. CellNet Data Systems, Inc.

American Nuclear Society American Nuclear Society

Exxon Co. USA Exxon Co. USA

Leo A. Schrider Belden & Blake Corp.

Hal Fox Journal of New Energy

Paul Liepe Geothermal Heat Pump

Consortium

Chas. Goodman Southern Co

Gary L. Troyer

Matthew D. Diehl, PE

Bertram Wolfe

Eugene F. Peters Elec. Power Supply Assn.

Francis C. Fogarty

Rick Lewandowski

George Freund

Joy Myers

Shelly And Jenny

Bob Hulse

ENRON Corp. ENRON Corp.