The new committee tackling energy policy in Augusta is misnamed. Tapped as the “Joint Committee on Maine’s Energy Future,” the panel’s real job is fixing Maine’s problematic energy present, especially its household super-dependence on one heating source: oil.

When No. 2 heating fuel peaked at $4.80/gallon last year, Maine’s oil-dependency was laid bare. Eighty percent of homes use it, most of which are older. The state was so focused on oil heat that options, like wood, were unresearched. Essentially, Maine was oil blind.

And there is no question that if oil had reached its feared trajectory – $6, $7, $8/gallon – the consequences would have been catastrophic. The recession, ironically, prevented that from occurring, as the foundation crumbled under the world’s oil market just in time for winter.

It’s foolish to believe this is a permanent arrangement. Maine doesn’t control petroleum prices. When the costs spike again, a recession will not provide safety again. The ramifications under this scenario – a sputtering economy, with rising commodity costs – are untenable.

The stimulus package passed by Congress has appropriated millions for weatherizing homes in Maine; in turn, the state must insulate itself against another oil crisis by drafting policies, quickly, to help heat Maine homes and businesses in more diverse and efficient ways.

Last week, the committee heard from Les Otten, the ski mogul turned pellet furnace magnate who chaired the state’s wood-to-energy task force in 2008. His business is heating but his mind is on energy policy; he wants Maine to warm from within, with wood from its forests, burned by homegrown systems like his and others developed by in-state manufacturers.

His ideas are sound, as one plank of a broader energy platform that gets Maine off its oil-dependence and onto a diverse diet of sources, whether natural gas, pellets, high-efficiency oil, wind, solar, electric or geothermal. It’s here the legislative committee can make real headway.

When oil peaked, not only Maine’s dependence was obvious, but also its shortcomings. The state could only assume a defensive posture, with its strongest shield the pouring of additional millions into low-income heating assistance, a stopgap measure.

The state could not offer, in broad enough terms to be effective, incentive programs for investment into alternative or higher-efficiency systems. There were programs targeting lower-income homeowners, but this was aid for a small piece within a widespread problem.

Maine has a problem – 80 percent of its homes are heated by a single-source, leaving them and the state uninsulated against the market volatility that defined 2008. Protecting against recurrence of those prices is a priority, if not top priority, of this committee.

After all, Maine’s energy future is coming, regardless.

It’s the present that needs fixing.