Provided by the Center for a New American Security
Although existing structures would certainly work, we believe a National Energy Security Council has advantages. Creating a new White House office sometimes offer more symbolism than substance, and there are often better ways to elevate the importance of any given issue. In this case, however, the issue is unusually multidimensional -- energy is an economic, environmental, and security challenge that brings together domestic and international interests across all sectors of the economy. There are strong short-term risks and the potential for dramatic long-term dangers to the very way of American life. Moreover, market realities, such as today’s sharply falling oil prices, present stark public policy challenges for setting the nation on the right course. Truly, only strong presidential leadership can set the nation on the course to a long-term solution. There are precedents for a distinct office within the White House to coordinate energy policy.
Unfortunately, the precedents are not encouraging – but they are instructive. President Nixon hastily created an energy office in the White House in reaction to the 1973 oil embargo, but it clearly lacked resources and goals and was disbanded in about six months. A new Federal Energy Office (later changed to Administration) followed – this time led by a close Nixon advisor, William Simon, whose position was elevated to counselor to the President – and two-year statutory authority as an independent agency. By the end of 1974, Simon had been promoted to the Treasury Department, Nixon had resigned, and President Ford had very publicly fired another energy czar over policy disputes. The Federal Energy Administration took the brunt of Congressional, interdepartmental, and public dissatisfaction with federal energy policy, and was consistently criticized until President Carter and Congress rolled it into the newly- established Department of Energy in 1977. 
The offices fell victim to personality conflicts, controversies over policy decisions, poorly defined structures, roles and missions, and generally had little institutional heft or relationships to back up and execute their recommendations. They were essentially “czars without an empire.”
A better model for the new council is perhaps President Eisenhower’s original design for the National Security Council, with more grounding in the agencies and insulation from the daily grind. The office was intended to develop national strategy and track the implementation of that strategy, largely by incorporating the relevant government actors in the process. The Special Assistant to the President for National Security (later the National Security Advisor) focused on strategy development while a Staff Secretariat managed day-to-day government operations.
A National Energy Security Council that focuses on capturing the president’s vision in a strategy, leveraging and building on the competencies and relationships already in the federal agencies can play a crucial role in guiding the nation through a difficult and necessary transformation. To appropriately resource this organization, the EOP would likely have to shutter or move some White House offices into the agencies. There are many opportunities to do so without losing effectiveness; Freedom Corps, for example, is highly redundant with the Corporation for National and Community Service and the Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives and was largely created because of a State of the Union talking point.
We recommend that the Council itself be comprised of the heads of the frontline energy agencies, which would include: the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior, NASA, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of State. Other departments and offices would be convened along with the Council as needed, including FERC and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
At the November 24th CNAS workshop, attendees discussed the strengths and weaknesses of three models for how an NESC might be structured. One model was “solutions-oriented,” or aligned along the policy areas that will need to change in order to transform the American energy posture. This model would include senior directors in charge of: domestic policy; research, development, and deployment of technology; finance; business and public/private partnerships; international climate relations; and Congressional relations; plus a scientist and an economist. For another, “sectoral,” model organized according to federal agencies and the sectors they represent, the senior directors would include: commerce and industry; agriculture; transportation; science and technology; electric power; international relations; and defense.
A third, management-oriented model, loosely inspired by the original National Security Council model proposed by President Eisenhower, would have senior directors for: strategy and policy; planning and operations; management and budget; people and culture; and information sharing and partnerships.Some workshop attendees thought goal-oriented functions that are inextricably embedded in government operations were the most important focus; others thought the focus on guidance, making sure that resources (personnel and budgets) match the policy proposals, and tracking implementation were very important. Based on this feedback and prior analysis, CNAS proposes that a National Energy Security Council – or, for that matter, any EOP office charged with promoting a transformative energy policy – be built on a model that mixes management competencies with policy areas that require a particularly strong focus or the direct engagement of the president (such as international climate change negotiations). Specifically, the NESC should include a Principal Deputy who can oversee the operations of the Council itself, plus Senior Directors, presiding over small staffs, who would manage the following areas:
Implementation: coordinate with the agencies and OMB to match resources against the strategy and establish performance measures. Indeed, it is worth formalizing the relationship with OMB by making the program associate director (PAD) double-hatted. Indeed, OMB should also revive its role in providing coordination and oversight of energy programs across agencies. In the past four years, it has not been playing as active a role in coordinating federal energy programs as it has in the past. This office should collaborate closely with OIRA, as well. 
The Operations office would also coordinate with OPM and other offices on personnel policy to ensure that agencies have the human resources they need to carry out the policy, including incentives rewarding interagency coordination, which is crucial to developing and implementing a successful energy security strategy.Partnerships: orchestrate cooperation with Congress, state and local governments, NGOs, and the private sector in developing and implementing the national energy strategy.
International Negotiations: work with the State Department to develop and execute international climate negotiations and key energy agreements, including those in which the President will need to engage directly. This element is also drawn specifically from the President Elect’s November 18, 2008 remarks.