Proposing Real Answers to Energy Security

It is with amusement that I read your Dec. 16 editorial, “Reality Test for Energy Plan.” If “reality” is the test, it would help if you acknowledged President Bush’s real energy plan. Our national energy plan was not premised, as you assert, on a short-term crisis; rather, it was based on a 20-year forecast of demand rising faster than supply.

You also wrongly state that we have never defined “energy security.” But it’s clear in our plan. The best way to think about promoting energy security is the familiar concept of spreading risk. There are three ways we can do just that.

First, we need a diversity of fuels. And we need a multiplicity of sources from all over the world, not just the Middle East. Second, arguing about the production of energy versus efficiency is a recipe for inaction. We need both. Third, we need to modernize our energy infrastructure. Because this system now runs at full capacity, even the slightest disruption can send prices soaring.

Finally, you say we have described the proposal to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration as a measure to “give us quick national energy security.” We’ve never said that, period. But had we acted in 1987, when the idea was first proposed, we would now enjoy the benefits that accrue when you add significant supply to a commodity market--that is, you would severely diminish anyone’s ability to hold us hostage. That’s energy security.

Spencer Abraham

U.S. Energy Secretary

Washington