(7 of 10)
Carter, a former nuclear engineer, and Schlesinger, the onetime head of the AEC, might have been expected to put more emphasis on the development of nuclear power as a major part of the solution to the U.S. energy shortage. Not so. Apparently frightened about the possibility of reactor byproducts falling into the hands of irresponsible governments or bomb-building terrorists, Carter has already chopped $200 million from Ford's leftover budget for the development of advanced breeder reactors, which produce bomb-grade plutonium even as they produce energy. The Schlesinger program will call for a modest acceleration in the building of present fission reactors and will place great emphasis on safety precautions. But it will also call for a standardized design intended to speed construction. Owing to a maze of regulations and community misgivings, it now takes up to eleven years to build a reactor in the U.S., v. only 3½ in Japan. Schlesinger's team hopes that standardizing reactor design will shorten construction time.
APPLIANCE STANDARDS
Strict guidelines will be laid down to force appliance makers to produce highly efficient irons, hair dryers, refrigerators, electric ranges and the like. In the long run, thriftier appliances will help consumers to offset, at least in part, rising energy costs. Stringent efficiency standards will also be mandated for factory equipment.
On the whole, this program is indeed comprehensive, and its thrust is in the right direction. But it contains some serious errors and omissions that ought to be rectified. They fall into three main categories:
1) The program relies too much on federal direction, too little on the forces of the free market. Rule 1 in energy conservation is that while people may for a while obey presidential exhortations to set thermostats at 65°, they will not cut back on energy use in the long run unless waste is made prohibitively expensive. Rule 2 is that energy companies will not invest the huge sums needed in costly domestic exploration for oil and gas unless they are assured of a profitable return. The best way to follow both rules would be to enact a relatively speedy dismantling of federal price controls and the awesome masses of red tape that have grown up around them. That would have to be accompanied by some measures to ease the blow to the poor—perhaps by a system of discount gasoline and heating stamps that would unfortunately entail the same red tape and possible abuses as food stamps.
Until Carter and Schlesinger settle on just what kind of decontrol they will recommend, no one can judge the program's adequacy. But the portents are not favorable. The idea of keeping a "cap" on prices is unwise. It would interfere with what should be a prime goal of decontrol: letting the market adjust prices so that a B.T.U.* would cost roughly the same whether it was produced by burning oil, gas, coal or whatever. Only in that way can the U.S. get the most efficient use of fuels.