Use Katrina's example to change energy policy

Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said, "There are growing concerns that oil companies are making too much in profits at the expense of consumers." What he means, as Congress strives to look busy after Katrina, is that there is growing concern that the public sees Republicans who run Washington as accomplices in price-gouging by oil companies.

Even as gasoline prices rose by nearly 50 percent over the past year, Congress never gave itself or agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission the power to investigate the price structure of gasoline, heating oil, diesel fuel and natural gas. Instead, in the last energy bill, Congress gave energy companies -- already rolling in record profits -- a series of tax breaks while doing little to steer Americans away from the nation's growing dependence on oil, especially foreign oil.

Rather than promote conservation, Congress has focused on increasing U.S. production, which under the best of circumstances is an inadequate policy. Not only are Congress and the White House willing to risk environmental damage by allowing companies to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, they continue to propose plans to increase oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico closer to Florida's west coast. Given the disruption Katrina caused to oil production, refining and shipping, it is unwise to further concentrate energy dependence in the Gulf. Also, it never has made sense to risk a spill, caused by storm or accident, near Florida's tourist-magnet beaches.

The solution to U.S. vulnerability to fuel shortages from storms, runaway prices and declining oil reserves lies in long-range policy decisions about conservation, price gouging and alternative fuels. Some short-term solutions -- such as temporarily dropping red tape to increase the flow of foreign gasoline -- make sense. But it would not make sense to permanently drop environmental rules requiring refiners to alter gasoline blends to reduce emissions.

Reducing gasoline taxes, which is one of the most discussed short-term fixes, would be one of the most foolish. In Florida, Democrats want Gov. Bush to suspend state taxes, which probably would require legislative approval. "That is very good news for Floridians," Gov. Bush sniped, "because rhetorically (Democrats) have been opposed to tax cuts over the last seven years." The governor's response is as political as the Democrats' demand. His tax cuts mostly benefit Florida's wealthiest residents; a gas tax cut at least would be more equitable.

Nevertheless, gasoline taxes pay for necessary transportation improvements, and it would be a bad idea to encourage gasoline consumption at a time when supply could be a problem. Instead, keep pressure on Congress to stop being accomplices and start creating a sensible energy policy.