"According to the best information that GAO could obtain," the congressional General Accounting Office recently published it's "Energy Task Force: Process Used to Develop the National Energy Policy" report concerning the Cheney led Energy Task Force. The troubling aspects of the report along with links to relevant documents can be found here.

The core problem:

"In developing the National Energy Policy report, the NEPDG Principals, Support Group, and participating agency officials and staff met with, solicited input from, or received information and advice from nonfederal energy stakeholders, principally petroleum, coal, nuclear, natural gas, and electricity industry representatives and lobbyists. The extent to which submissions from any of these stakeholders were solicited, influenced policy deliberations, or were incorporated into the final report cannot be associated with that process." .....

Since administration connections to energy interests in California and elsewhere is quite relevant in determining who is to blame concerning energy problems in CA and the Northeast, the lack of openness regarding industry insiders who influenced national energy policy is surely troubling. More broadly, it shows how not only does the administration work closely with industry insiders [the GAO report noted the task force only secondardly looked to academics and others], which is defensible, but is very wary of any oversight ... which is not quite so.

One of the new administration’s first major actions, on January 29, 2001 was to create a group of cabinet-level and other senior federal officials, chaired by the Vice President, to develop a national energy policy. Members of Congress were interested, pointing to the money used and federal law that gave them the right to ask for information. The GAO got involved per its investigatory role, as dicatated by law.

Unfortunately, the Vice President stonewalled, which (in the words of the report) "precluded [the GAO] from fully achieving our objectives in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards and substantially limited our ability to answer the questions you asked and the depth of our analysis."

Or, as Comptroller General David M. Walker recently noted: "This was the first time in the history of the agency that we were absolutely stonewalled and the first time during my tenure that we haven't been able to reach a reasonable accommodation with the subject."

Cheney wrote to Congress claiming to have fulfilled his obligations by supplying limited information. However, the GAO noted:

"The materials were virtually impossible to analyze, as they consisted, for example, of pages with dollar amounts but no indication of the nature or the purpose of the expenditure. Nor did the materials reflect any apparent expenses in connection with the work of the six assigned NEPDG support staff."

and wrote to Cheney (before he wrote to Congress saying he fulfilled his obligations) ...

"Because the relevance of these records is unclear, we continue to request all records responsive to our request, including any records that clarify the nature and purpose of the costs."

So, the Cheney letter to Congress was misleading, if not just plain false ...

This all occurred before 9/11 ... in February, 2002, "after exhausting the processes specified GAO’s access-to-records statute for resolving access disputes, the Comptroller General filed suit ... This was the first time that GAO had filed suit against a federal official in connection with a records access issue."

The GAO lost, but as I and others said at the time, the decision left a lot to be desired. Interesting tidbit: the district judge involved, a Bush appointee, was on the Starr Commission, and helped obtain information Clinton argued was protected by privilege. This time, vice presidential privilege somewhat factored into the equation, adding a bit of irony to the proceedings.

A core part of the decision was that the GAO, legislation giving them the right to investigate aside, did not have standing to sue. Congress itself might have had the right to ask for the information, but not the GAO. However, the GAO report notes:

On January 24, 2003, in response to erroneous statements in the district court’s December 9 opinion concerning the four Senators who had requested that GAO to pursue its evaluation of NEPDG activities, the Senators wrote to the Comptroller General confirming that they had made their January 22, 2002 request in their capacities as committee chairs. The Senators also confirmed that in making their request, they understood that if GAO were unsuccessful in obtaining the requested information from the Office of the Vice President, GAO would have no direct recourse other than to file suit to carry out the Senators’ request.

Anyhow, the GAO ... influenced by members of Congress ... decided not to sue. Partly, it was because private lawsuits openned up the possibility the same information would eventually be obtained anyway. [As the report notes, not yet] Also, by various means, some information was obtained. All the same, the word was that Republicans (who controlled Congress by this point) sent the message that if they pressed the issue, they would pay for it. So, caution being the better part of valor in their eyes, they decided to throw in the towel.

The overall lesson learnt here was that the administration worked closely with many industry leaders to formulate our national energy policy, but did not want to make public relevant information to the GAO, even though the executive never refused such an information request in the past. Thus, the administration went out of its way to stonewall and uphold secrecy, even though federal money was being spent, federal employees involved, and national policy being formulated. When Hillary Clinton tried something similiar in regards to health policy, she was raked over the coals. Hypocrisy alert!

As I said back in December, who will guard the guards? The GAO has such a role, it being the official investigative wing of Congress, but if the executive stonewalls, it obviously cannot fully do its job. And, if the Republicans controlled Congress, surely it will not do that much to investigate a Republican president.

Hopefully, "the best information that [we] could obtain" still is enough to point to the problems out there.