Copyright 2002 The Denver Post Corporation  
The Denver Post
March 3, 2002 Sunday 1ST EDITION
SECTION: PERSPECTIVE; Pg. E-04

LENGTH: 734 words

HEADLINE: Energy bill debate promises to be heated

BYLINE: Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,

BODY:
It's finally here. The comprehensive energy bill that so many  of us have long awaited has finally been introduced in the U.S.  Senate. The debate to follow is likely to prove the most  contentious of the 107th Congress.

As someone who has a seat on the Senate Energy Committee and the  goal of making sure America's energy policy is as solid and smart  as it can be, you can bet I'm going to be monitoring this debate  closely and stepping in when needed.

Right now, the energy bill is more a vehicle to force  votes on certain issues in an election year than a valid attempt  to improve our national energy security. Rather than craft a  balanced bill in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee,  Democrats have chosen to strip the bill out of committee and  instead draft a bill behind closed partisan doors. This is not the  way to ensure the future of our nation's energy concerns, nor is  it the way to craft law.

Environmental fanaticism is at the top of my list of  concerns. As it stands today, this bill does not pay as much  attention to the economy and national security as it does to  unfounded environmental concerns. As our nation enters what will  probably be a long and costly fight against terrorism, this bill  must not continue to be commandeered by environmental extremists  with inflammatory agendas set on waging their own war in the name  of all things 'green.' It is essential that the provisions in the  final bill do not force Americans to pay a high price for  questionable and uncertain benefits.

Also, this bill forces electric utilities and the gas and  oil industries to comply with unfair standards and to try to meet  unrealistic expectations. When industry is required to reach  unobtainable standards, as is the case here, the extra cost of  complying with the new regulations put in place to meet those  standards is passed on to the consumers. That means consumers end  up paying a lot for benefits they don't even get.

This bill ignores what people want and then penalizes them  for their personal preferences. For example, the legislation would  raise fuel-efficiency standards for cars, light trucks and SUVs to  35 mpg by 2013. Currently, cars must average 27.5 and light trucks  and SUVs average 20.5 mpg. Saving fuel only sounds like a good  idea until more facts are revealed. The popularity of SUVs  demonstrates that the vast majority of Americans want larger,  safer, more powerful vehicles.

Moreover, a National Academy of Sciences report showed that such  a command-and-control increase in standards would reduce vehicle  weight, jeopardizing safety and resulting in more traffic deaths.  I support conservation proposals when they are reasonable. In this  case, the likely loss of human life could never be justified.

This bill also has a variety of global climate change  provisions that support the Kyoto Protocol and directly conflict  with President Bush's position.

During the debate, a key fact must be kept in mind: The release  of greenhouse gases is directly attributed to economic output and  growth. Therefore, if the Kyoto Protocol's inflexible and  unreasonable reduction schedule were implemented in the United  States, our nation would have voluntarily reduced its economic  growth. This bill would force a plan that the president has  rejected, shrink the national economy and result in the loss of  countless American jobs.

In the past, I have supported opening the Arctic National  Wildlife Refuge, and I will again. I've been to the area and seen  for myself how small the parcel of land that would be affected  actually is. Also, I've had lengthy chats with those who will be  most affected: the Inupiate Eskimo people who live in the Kaktovik  Village, which falls within the boundaries of ANWR. As a vocal  advocate of Indian issues and a leader on the Senate Indian  Affairs Committee, I strongly believe in the right to self  determination. The federal government should not tell a native  people what to do with its own land.

As we move forward in the debate, you can be sure that I  will keep the most important objective in mind: the welfare of  Colorado energy consumers and the security of America's future.

U.S. Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell is a Republican from Ignacio.

LOAD-DATE: March 04, 2002