Many senators stay in the Senate for decades, once seated they seem to have the same kind of longevity that our Supreme Court has, some of those Senators have over time taken up the issue of energy (and other) policy. It seems that the Administration may not be the best place to work on long-term policy, but rather the Senate maybe the best place to focus policy discussions. It is one of the most stable institutions in Washington.

If it were my work to do, I would find two or three senators who are solidly interested in Energy policy, I would prefer one or more from each major party and work with them to craft a long-term energy policy/vision. No single part of industry will get everything they want – wind, solar, nuclear, coal, petroleum and natural gas all need to have a piece of the energy mix moving forward, not be the only solution in the policy. In 2007 much of the energy policy was focused on Hydrogen and fuel cells, today that is not a top priority. In 2009 it was electric vehicles. Too often the policy like terms in Washington is short term, rather than long term.

I would argue that a vision of the year 2050 and a set of policy goals for 2050 should be a core focus of any Energy Policy. The goals should not be by fuel or technology, but rather by what the customer gets – e.g. reliable or low cost or pick your term. I believe only the Senate has the stability to do this sort of a document.

I would also argue that as soon as tax policy, subsidies, investments, or other dollars are attached to the bill that the 2050 vision, no longer be a 2050 vision and energy policy. A pure policy document should set out the goals, and then allow other bills to setup the mechanisms to reach those goals on a shorter term basis.