A Washington Post editorial (27 January 27 2007, page A20) evaluated the energy discussion in the State of the Union address. Sadly, the Post did not contrast the President's proposals with the earlier House action that will damage US energy prospects (http://thomas.loc.gov.h.r.6.EH).

Unlike the House, the President proposed a comprehensive package, not a punitive one. He spoke of energy interdependence and reduced reliance on unstable or unfriendly suppliers; he did not lay our pipe dreams about energy independence. He called for major conservation (20% of gasoline use in 10 years through changes in Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency Standards. He said we need more nuclear power and clean coal transmission plants, and to update America's electrical infrastructure. He sought environmentally responsible increases to domestic oil and natural gas exploration and production, and implementation of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, his Advanced Energy Initiative and the Global Nuclear Partnership.

He called for renewable and alternate fuels rather than simply throwing money and mandates at ethanol or wind. He laid out incentives rather than subsidies or punishment, and asked Congress to remove earmarks that transmogrify authorizations for energy spending.

The President's proposals balance supply, demand, new technology, new approaches to efficiency and conservation, and funding responsibility. The seek international cooperation rather than isolationism, reject empty promises and rely on a comprehensive approach to policy.