ENERGY LEGISLATION IS UNCERTAIN THIS SESSION.

Three issues dominated last fall's presidential campaign: energy, education, and taxes. Of the three, energy is the only one thus far that has failed to see floor debate in either the House or the Senate. Yes, there has been debate on some smaller energy bills, such as the Electricity Emergency

Relief Act, which is designed to help California and other western states deal with their power supply and distribution problems, but comprehensive energy legislation appears still to be a ways off. In fact, it appears increasingly likely that a comprehensive bill will not pass either the House or the Senate this year.

Considering the different philosophies of the Democrats and Republicans--and who their major supporters are--it is easy to see why comprehensive energy legislation will be so difficult to pass. A comprehensive bill--one that increases supply, encourages conservation and efficiency, and increases transmission reliability--brings to a head the major differences among electricity generators, transmission companies, environmental groups, and groups representing the coal, nuclear, natural gas, and petroleum industries.

Republicans and Democrats have introduced comprehensive legislation in the Senate; House Republicans are working on theirs. The president issued his National Energy Policy in May.

All three plans deal with the question of increasing supply. The difference between the Republican plans and the Democratic bill tends to be what type of supply gets the most attention.

In the Democratic bill (S. 597), written by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), the new chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, renewable energy gets a lot of play, the result of a general belief among Democrats (and some Republicans) that not enough has been done to develop the nation's sources of renewable energy, such as solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal. Energy efficiency, through mandates and tax credits, and conservation also is a big part of the Bingaman bill, with both being touted as ways to reduce the need for additional supply.

But emphasis on renewables does not mean Bingaman believes the nation can rely just on those sources for its increased power needs. Nuclear power, for example, has been mentioned by the chairman as one important part of the nation's power mix, as has coal. Although many members of Congress tend to be skeptical about--or even downright hostile to--nuclear power, Bingaman has indicated that one of his committee's priorities this session will be to reauthorize the Price-Anderson Act, which limits liability for nuclear plant operators. The act is scheduled to expire this year. Without reauthorization of the act, there is virtually no way any utility would consider constructing a new nuclear power plant.

The Republicans' bill (S. 388) and the president's plan tend to emphasize traditional forms of energy supply, from nuclear power to clean coal to natural gas and petroleum, while placing less emphasis on renewables and efficiency. This stems from a belief that immediately supplementing the nation's energy supply requires increased use of traditional forms of energy, given that even if renewable energy use were to triple over the next decade, it still would account for just 6 percent of the nation's power supply.

The administration's plan would use royalties paid to the federal government by companies drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to pay for increased funding for renewable energy research and development. Despite their desire for additional funds, that approach is unlikely to be embraced in a Senate controlled by the Democrats.

The Bush plan also advocates expediting the permitting process to let plants be sited and brought online. In fact, the president signed an executive order requiring government agencies to do just that, while preserving health, safety, and the environment.

In an effort to bridge the gap and provide Congress with the expertise that can come only from those who actually work in the energy industry, the Council on Engineering's Energy Committee and ASME as a whole have weighed in with their energy recommendations this year, as well. In a March general position paper, the Society listed its "guiding principles" for energy policy.

These principles include "an adequate, sustainable supply of energy" for the economic health and security of the nation; a balanced fuel mix for power generation, including accelerating development of advanced energy technologies and renewable resources; an appropriate balance between the supply side (resource availability and distribution) and the demand side (conservation, use, and efficiency); ensuring reliability of the nation's power grid, and, like the Bush energy plan, a careful balance between licensing and permitting issues and environmental considerations.

The March paper was followed in June by a more comprehensive position statement by the Energy Committee, outlining the energy research and development needs of the nation for the next 20-plus years. Both papers are available online at www.asme.org/gric.

Francis Dietz works in ASME Government Relations in Washington, D.C.