Looking for energy in all the wrong places: Congress can't seem to get a grip on issues. (Green Matters: Environmental Policies).(Brief Article)(Column)

Anyone who sincerely hoped that some significant environmental good would come the latest energy fracas in Congress must surely be disappointed. As we write, the final version of the legislation hasn't been written, but the direction is unambiguous.

First, the House passed a bill that was denounced as a sop to industry, with too much emphasis on traditional energy sources. Now, the Senate seems intent on eviscerating its own energy bill, one that initially had some promise. A conference committee will try to work out the differences, but it's probably not worth the trouble.

CAFE, Anyone?

Higher fuel efficiency (CAFE standards) for cars, SUVs, and other light trucks isn't likely to be part of the final legislation. Renewable energy proponents lost a battle to significantly boost solar, wind, bio-mass, and other alternative power industries. The debate on drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is still on the horizon as we write this, though we can't imagine why.

The Energy Information Administration (EIA), the independent statistical and analytical agency within the Department of Energy, concludes that drilling in the refuge would have only a negligible effect on oil imports when refuge oil production reaches its expected peak in 2020 (Effects of the Alaska Oil and Natural Gas Provisions of H.R. 4 and S. 1766 on U.S. Energy Markets, SR/OIAF/2002-02).

The production from the refuge is projected to reduce the net share of foreign oil used by U.S. consumers in 2020 from 62 to 60%, the agency says. Oil from the ANWR would reduce oil imports by no more than would a 3-mile-per-gallon increase in fuel efficiency, Paul Krugman writes in the New York Times.

And it's not just Congress. Environmental news is not good anywhere in the nation's capital. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) most likely will relax enforcement of a key provision--the new source review rule--of the 1977 Clean Air Act, the Washington Post reports. The EPA's top enforcement officer resigned in disgust. It's rumored that the Bush administration may have had a hand in trying to oust a respected top scientist on an international global warming panel.