As Congress looks at ways to revise America’s energy policies, it’s worthwhile to assess some of the major proposals.

And The Associated Press has done that — in a way that deflates a lot of ideological balloons on both the left and the right.

Let’s look first at what the AP found with some key Democratic proposals:

•Windfall profit tax on oil companies. This would target record profits being reported by oil companies in an era of high prices.

But what would it accomplish? The taxes could be avoided if profits are directed toward refinery expansion or alternative energy development — something oil companies say they already are doing. There is also the danger oil companies could curtail activities in an effort to reduce their profits and therefore their tax liability.

We would add that any additional tax imposed on oil companies is likely to be passed on to consumers, raising the price at the pump.

•Prohibit price gouging and regulate energy market speculation. It may sound like a good idea, but defining gouging and proving it are both difficult. Such a rule also would require an investigatory arm of government that might cost more money than it would save.

Additional regulation for energy speculators might even out markets and costs, but it also could drive the practices overseas. Because petroleum is an international commodity, America’s ability to control speculation is limited. And, as with any regulation, too much may deter needed investment in exploration and drilling.

•Challenge OPEC by targeting price fixing. Energy experts see this as an exercise in political posturing, rather than sound policy. OPEC is ultimately beyond America’s regulatory grasp.

Meanwhile, here area some changes advocated by Republicans:

•Drill in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to increase U.S. production. This is an ongoing proposal that has gone nowhere, in part because of environmental concerns, but also because it would take 10 years to generate oil once drilling commenced. Its impact on consumer prices would be limited, as OPEC alters its production accordingly.

•Develop offshore oil and gas reserves. Coastal states tend to be strongly opposed to such drilling, fearful of the threat of spills that could harm the environment and damage the valuable tourist industry.

•Ease permitting for new refineries. Contrary to some arguments, there has been little industry interest in building new refineries in the U.S. The reason has nothing to do with regulation or environmental disputes. Rather, it’s more cost effective to upgrade and expand existing refineries than to build new ones.

So what is the answer to America’s energy problems if all of the above are so flawed? In the short term, government has little to offer in the way of solutions. Individuals wishing to cut their energy costs need to practice personal conservation. It’s as simple as that.

Longer term, government may be able to help through tax incentives and other programs that stimulate the development of alternative fuels and more efficient technologies. Tax policy ought to encourage innovation in these areas.