Natural Resources Defense Council plan emphasizes renewables and efficiency

Although the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) plan, A Responsible Energy Policy for the 21st Century, is dated two months ahead of the “National Energy Policy” Report of the National Energy Policy Development (NEPD) Group (which they refer to as the Bush-Cheney plan), it clearly presents itself as one of “two distinct visions of an energy policy for the United States. One vision [the Bush-Cheney plan] focuses chiefly on extracting as much energy as possible, mostly in fossil fuel form . . ., in hope that supply can catch up with demand.” This “alternative version . . . emphasizes efficient use of energy, and places priority on using energy resources that are least damaging to our environment.” (p. 1)

The NRDC plan consists of four short chapters, an introduction bearing the same title as the parent document, followed by chapters on oil, electricity, and natural gas. The first chapter discusses ways of reducing energy demand through more efficient use are discussed, among them more energy efficient buildings, appliances, and transportation, and arranging housing to make it more conducive to mass transit. The central message of the chapter on oil is very straightforward: don't drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). According to the United States Geological Survey, the oil there could provide for the U.S. at its present rate of oil use for only six months, and more oil could be saved over the next fifty years (the period over which ANWR oil would be available) by requiring energy efficient tires (1.7 times as much) and 39 mile per gallon standards for all personal vehicles (15 times as much). “. . . the United States could have a much greater impact on oil prices worldwide by cutting American demand than it could by trying to increase domestic supply. . . . untapped energy efficiency is in great supply, while untapped U.S. oil is increasingly rare.” (p. 11)

Like the Bush-Cheney energy plan, the chapter on electricity opens with an assessment of California's electricity woes but arrives at a completely different proposal to deal with them. To the NRDC there is no acceptable “clean” coal or nuclear technology to generate electricity. Natural gas is acceptable but only as a transition technology. Ultimately, after energy efficiency measures have been maximized in order to minimize electricity demands, our electricity needs shall be met by renewable means, of which “wind and landfill methane are the most economically competitive and promising renewable technologies.” (p. 22) Additional efficiencies can be provided by distributed power and combined heat and power generators (interesting, both cited in the Bush-Cheney plan). The transition to renewable electricity generation can be facilitated by "public goods or system benefits charges and renewables portfolio standards. (p. 24)

Although natural gas can meet all our heating, electricity, and transportation needs, converting a third of our coal-burning power plants to natural gas would increase the demand for it by 36%. On the other hand, “construction of energy efficient buildings and . . . manufacturing energy-efficient heating and water-heating equipment” could save the natural gas equivalent of half our coal-burning power plants. Most of the chapter on natural gas focuses on the environmental devastation brought by extracting natural gas. The essence of the NRDC plan is captured in the following sentences from its closing paragraph: “Eventually the United States will have no choice but to turn to greater energy efficiency and renewable sources of power. . . . Precisely when they come to grips with that reality -- this year, 10 years from now, or 20 years from now -- will determine how smoothly the transition will go for consumers and industry alike.” (p. 32) The NRDC energy plan is available on-line at the NRDC website: www.nrdc.org