It’s either “A Bipartisan Strategy to Meet America’s Energy Challenges,” prepared by a group of leading energy experts or a “Blueprint for Tax/Consumer-Funded Boondoggle….funded by left-wing foundations,” depending on whose press release you are reading.

The “Strategy” released Wednesday by a group calling itself the National Commission on Energy Policy is billed as a long-term U.S. energy strategy that promotes national security, economic prosperity, and environmental safety and health. The Commission is a non-profit organization funded by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The Pew Charitable Trusts, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, and The Energy Foundation.

It was immediately panned by The Competitive Enterprise Institute and a group calling itself United for Jobs. All of this is directed toward the revival of the energy bill, expected early in the next session of Congress.

The report, “Ending the Energy Stalemate: A Bipartisan Strategy to Meet America’s Energy Challenges,” estimates that the approximately $36 billion generated by its proposed sale of greenhouse gas emissions permits to power generators and industrials over 10 years will fund its extensive energy program.

It calls for doubling government investment in energy research and development and imposing mandatory curbs on greenhouse gas emissions by 2010 to head off global warming. Higher auto fuel efficiency standards, also to be installed by 2010, would be part of the campaign to reduce the use of oil and cut carbon dioxide emissions.

“Political and regional polarization has produced an energy stalemate, preventing America from adopting sensible approaches to some of our biggest energy problems,” said John W. Rowe, commission co-chair and chairman and CEO of Exelon Corp. “Our Commission reached consensus on effective policies because of a willingness to take on cherished myths from both right and left. We believe that this package of recommendations can be of value to Congress and the administration in energy legislation next year and beyond.”

“Taken together, the Commission’s recommendations aim to achieve a gradual but decisive shift in the nation’s energy policy, toward one that directly addresses our long-term oil, climate, electricity supply, and technology challenges,” said William K. Reilly, former Environmental Protection Agency administrator and Commission co-chair. “Oil reliance is a fact we will face for some time. So we recommend incentives to spur global oil production, to increase domestic vehicle fuel economy, and to increase investment in alternative fuels. Our climate change plan would both limit greenhouse gas emissions and cap the costs of doing so. At the same time, it provides incentives for low- and non- carbon sources like natural gas, renewable energy, nuclear energy, and advanced coal technologies with carbon capture and sequestration, as well as for increased efficiency of energy end use. We are proposing programs that can work in the real world.”

“The problems of high energy costs, oil dependence and global climate change will not go away on their own. The Commission’s package of bipartisan recommendations can strengthen the economy while beginning to tackle America’s long-term energy security and environmental challenges,” Reilly continued.

Under the strategy, which took two years to complete, the federal government would spend a total of $12 billion on clean coal and emissions capture technology ($7 billion), advanced nuclear reactor research ($2 billion) and development of hybrid gasoline-electric cars ($3 billion). The group also recommends the government provide support for building an Alaskan natural gas pipeline and address obstacles to the siting and construction of infrastructure needed to support increased imports of LNG. It also calls for steps to protect critical energy infrastructure from “accidental failure and terrorist threats.”

To enhance U.S. oil security, the Commission recommends:

The Commission estimates its recommendations could reduce U.S. oil consumption in 2025 by 10-15% or 3-5 million barrels per day. On the oil supply side, the Commission believes the U.S. government should apply diplomatic pressure to encourage nations with significant but underdeveloped oil reserves to allow foreign investment in their energy sectors to increase and diversify global oil production.

For renewable energy the commission recommends:

To strengthen energy supply infrastructure, the commission recommends:

In addition to Reilly, the commission of 16 energy experts is co-chaired by Exelon Corp. Chairman John Rowe and John Holdren, professor of environmental policy at Harvard University. It includes Republican and Democratic politicos from the first Bush administration and from the Clinton administration, as well as the president of the United Steelworkers of America and former ConocoPhillips Chairman Archie Dunham.

Even before the report was issued the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute was describing it as “a range of anti-energy policies designed to raise energy prices, restrict consumer choices, and expand government control over energy use,” put together by “an energy policy group created and funded by left-wing foundations.”

“The self-appointed, self-styled ‘National Commission on Energy Policy’ is a lobby for special interests and big government masquerading as an official-sounding panel of unbiased experts,” said Myron Ebell, CEI Director of Global Warming Policy. “The commission was designed to promote taxpayer-subsidized industries and environmental extremist causes at the expense of consumers.”

And another group, calling itself United for Jobs, said the strategy amounted to “a backdoor energy tax” that would cost jobs, hurt small businesses and the U.S. economy.

“The NCEP plan would require ‘government investment,’ or taxpayer dollars, to administer an emissions trading program that will place even more costs on the public with no real net benefit in addressing climate change,” said Karen Kerrigan, President & CEO of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council), and United for Jobs co-chair.

A United for Jobs study recently claimed that more than 600,000 jobs would be lost by implementing the cap and trade proposed within the McCain Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act. “This plan amounts to a backdoor energy tax focused solely on the financial gains from emission trading and provides no long-range solutions,” Kerrigan said.

United for Jobs is a project of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council and USA Next.

©Copyright 2004 Intelligence Press Inc. All rights reserved. The preceding news report may not be republished or redistributed, in whole or in part, in any form, without prior written consent of Intelligence Press, Inc.