May 23, 2001 (UPI) -- Differences in Republican and Democratic energy policies are becoming apparent, and while drilling for oil and gas in environmentally sensitive areas and California price caps may get the most attention, legislation affecting other issues will have a bigger long-term impact.

President Bush has framed the debate as one involving balancing energy needs with environmental protection.

"America must have an energy policy that plans for the future but meets the needs of today," Bush said. "I believe we can develop our natural resources and protect our environment."

Democrats criticize the Republican plan for not addressing short-term electricity and gasoline prices. Republicans say the Democrats do not understand how energy markets operate. Future environmental impacts have been the subject of intense debate and disagreement.

Throughout the drama, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and global warming remain an issue. On the crucial topic of CO2 emissions, Democrats are proposing a presidential commission study climate change and make recommendations. Republicans are going to recommend incentives for voluntary reductions, through a bill Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, plans to introduce, according to a committee aide.

Bipartisan legislation from 15 senators proposes rolling back power plant emissions, including CO2, to 1990 levels by 2020. One source close to the process said the president eventually will need to support some form of caps on CO2 emissions.

Although both major political parties talk about the need for increased efficiency, conservation, renewables and research, actual legislative proposals most likely will differ in the specific amount of support proposed.

In the next few months, many voters may begin to ask themselves questions such as: What is the effect of raising vehicle mileage standards to an average of 40 miles per gallon versus 27.5 miles per gallon? What is the overall effect on America's energy situation between making an appliance 30 percent more efficient versus 20 percent more efficient? What is the difference between allocating $10 million to wind generation research as opposed to $20 million?

The general answer to these questions is that there are gigantic differences in oil and energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions resulting from these relatively small variations.

Some of the biggest energy savings could be realized by increasing the average miles per gallon required for cars, vans, sport utility vehicles and light trucks. Democratic aides for the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources say Democrats want to limit increases in these vehicles to a 5 percent rise by 2008.

The Republicans say they want to wait until this summer, when the National Academy of Sciences finishes a study of the effect of setting mileage standards, often referred to as CAFE, for corporate average fuel economy.

A bipartisan bill introduced by Sens. Olympia Snowe, R- Maine, and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. proposes to raise the SUV/light truck mileage from 20.7 mpg to 27.5 mph, eventually reducing U.S. petroleum use by one million barrels a day and oil imports by 10 percent. CO2 emissions would be cut by about 4 percent. It is possible, however, to go much further than the bipartisan bill.

Howard Geller, of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, says increasing the required gas mileage standards for cars over the next 12 years, from 27.5 to 44 mpg, and light trucks and SUVs from 20.7 mpg to 33 mpg, would cut U.S. petroleum use by billions of barrels of oil a year.

Appliance efficiency will be another key issue. The Clinton administration issued a rule to increase the efficiency standard for air conditioning for homes by 30 percent. It was rolled back to 20 percent by the Bush administration.

Patricio Silva, of the National Resources Defense Council, says that a 10 percent difference would translate into the need for 46 fewer 300-megawatt generating plants over a 20-year period. CO2 emissions would be affected and consumers would realize savings.

Aides for both parties on the Senate Energy Committee say there is bipartisan support for increasing appliance efficiency but exactly how much the respective parties support it will be extremely significant.

One high profile energy debate concerns drilling in national monuments and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Republicans want to open portions of some national monuments to drilling, along with the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Most Democrats oppose the ideas.

Another lightning rod is the proposed use of price caps on electricity prices to help California. Most Republicans and the administration adamantly oppose caps. A Republican aide on the Senate Energy Committee provided United Press International with a position statement saying: "The best thing we can do for consumers to prevent future price spikes and electricity blackouts is invest in the energy supply and infrastructure we need to meet demand - - (to) quickly enact a comprehensive energy policy."

Democrats on the committee favor using price caps and put out a statement that they "support the use of existing authority to assure just and reasonable prices for wholesale electricity until the California Market becomes functional."

On nuclear power and waste, Senate Energy Committee Democrats issued a statement comparing their position to the Republican position. The words are essentially identical: "The President (the Democrats) support(s) research on advanced technologies for nuclear power and want safe disposal of nuclear waste."

Many scientists are alarmed at the administration's proposal to renew interest in certain forms of nuclear reactor fuel processing, called pyroprocessing, that produce large amounts of atomic bomb-grade plutonium. Both Presidents Ford and Carter rejected this technology, as did Congress in 1994.

Both parties claim to support tax incentives for renewable energy, such as wind and solar. According to Alden Meyer, government relations director for the Union of Concerned Scientists, "With federal leadership, the U.S. could obtain 20 percent of its power from renewables by 2020."

Democrats would fund each year through Department of Energy programs. Republicans link funding to the bidding process for drilling in ANWR, an approach viewed with disdain and contempt by many in the environmental community.

Discrepancies in claims have appeared around the crucial low income home energy assistance program, LIHEAP, with Democrats saying Republicans have reduced funding it, while Republican aides to the Energy Committee insist the money will match the proposal by Democrats.

When money starts to run out of LIHEAP, states begin to raise participation eligibility limits so only the neediest can apply. Both parties say they support increased funding of the weatherization assistance program.

A Republican aide on the Senate Energy Committee says Murkowski plans to combine much of the existing legislation now before Congress and move it out of committee by mid-June. It would be a combination of a bill by Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., Murkowski's bill, the president's plan and other pending energy bills.

Copyright 2001 by United Press International.