Guest opinion submitted by Idaho Senator Mike Crapo

In January 2007, a gallon of gas cost an average of $2.21. At the end
of June 2008, 18 months later, the average cost was $4.15. More than
any other factor, the basic principles of supply and demand for this
global commodity-oil-have put steady upward pressure on prices. The
plausible solution to the problem of high fuel costs is to take policy
steps that affect supply and demand factors. Frankly, had Congress
passed progressive energy legislation five or ten years ago, we'd likely
be better off today. We can't change the past, but we can do something
about the future. Aggressive exploration, research and development and
conservation measures enacted now will generate beneficial energy supply
changes over time.

Solutions are anything but simple, and multiple efforts must be
undertaken simultaneously. Together, these changes provide a better
outlook for our energy security.

* Fully utilize coal-to-liquids technology for U.S. coal
reserves (projected four percent reduction in oil imports by
2022);
* Drill off shore and in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge,
and develop oil shale;
* Research and develop renewable energy resources including
nuclear, geothermal, biofuel, solar and wind (non-hydropower
renewables account for about four percent of our current energy
supply);
* Increase energy efficiency and conservation for buildings, all
transportation modes and industrial processes.

I co-sponsored the Gas Price Reduction Act of 2008 (GPRA) because it
provides a range of policy answers to the problem of high fuel costs.
GPRA includes deep sea exploration off the Pacific and Atlantic coasts;
oil shale exploration in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming; support for
research and development efforts of batteries for electric vehicles; and
funding for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to help it better
review and enforce commodity market rules and regulations and increase
transparency of these markets.

Of particular interest to many Idahoans, we've had encouraging nuclear
energy developments. In a Zogby poll of 6,200 U.S. adults, close to 70
percent indicated support for nuclear energy. This is heartening; it
suggests a considerable shift in national sentiment toward support for
nuclear energy. The 2005 Energy Bill provides loan guarantees,
production tax credits and risk insurance to the first few nuclear
reactors built. The Department of Energy is expected to receive $900
million for its nuclear energy program this year. The Idaho National
Lab (INL) is involved in research on the Next Generation Nuclear Plant,
and $196 million is slated for this program at INL.

Despite the promise of new energy resource development, there are no
easy answers for today's pain at the pump. The price of gasoline
reflects crude oil costs, refining costs, distribution and marketing and
taxes. The cost of crude oil-the largest percentage of the cost of
gasoline-is affected by market reaction to world events including
political stability of oil-producing nations, the dollar's value (which
is now historically low) and increased demand pressure from developing
countries whose economic growth has exploded in recent years. Many of
these circumstances are out of our control. However, this doesn't mean
that we have to adjust or learn to accept the outrageous cost of
gasoline today. It does mean we will have to take action to regain
control of energy prices.

A former Saudi oil minister was quoted as saying: "The Stone Age did
not end because we ran out of stones." In the same way, we need not run
out of oil to end excessive dependence on it. If we support ingenuity
and reduce barriers to research and development on alternative energy
resources and traditional sources, we can create an affordable,
sustainable, environmentally-friendly energy supply.