|
As debate on a
national energy plan continues, LCV will work to hold
Bush and his administration - along with Congress -
accountable for their environmental policy decisions, be
they good or bad. Americans want and deserve an energy
policy that is both environmentally and economically
responsible, not one that primarily caters to the energy
industry interests that donated millions of dollars to
Bush's 2000 presidential campaign and would like to see
the public maintain its dependence on their dirty
sources of power.
The Bush
administration's national energy proposal, while
promoted as a comprehensive way to increase the nation's
fuel sources, protect the environment and reduce U.S.
dependence on foreign oil, largely focuses on ways to
spur exploration and production of domestic oil and gas
and increase the use of coal and nuclear power. The
White House plan calls for the construction of more than
1,000 new power plants over the next 20 years,
increases in coal production and use, a long-term shift
to nuclear energy, and more domestic oil and gas
drilling in some of America's most precious wilderness
areas, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and
the Rocky Mountains. Following is a summary of key
provisions in Bush's energy plan.
Oil & Gas
Drilling | Electricity
Production | Renewable
Energy | Air
Pollution
Learn More:
A Balanced, Responsible
Energy Policy
Following the
Money
OIL & GAS
DRILLING
The Bush
administration's energy plan encourages increased
domestic oil production, whether that means using new
technology to enhance oil and gas recovery from existing
wells; modifying federal land-use plans that currently
restrict energy development; developing economic
incentives for offshore oil and gas development; and/or
opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other
federal lands to oil and gas drilling. The plan also
calls for more natural gas pipelines and for
"streamlining" the permit process to build more
refineries.
The Bush
proposal suggests that greater oil and gas exploration
in the Arctic Refuge and elsewhere will help lower gas
prices at the pump, and reduce reliance on foreign oil.
They also suggest that increased production will help
correct California and other states' electricity
problems. However, in the case of the Arctic Refuge, the
U.S. Geological Survey estimates that the average amount
of economically recoverable oil from the Arctic Refuge
is little more than six months worth of U.S. supply. In
addition, it would take nearly ten years to bring to
market any oil found in the refuge. As for the potential
impacts of this oil on electricity prices, less than one
percent of California's electricity is generated from
oil, while the average across the U.S. is only three
percent. As a result, opening the Arctic Refuge to
drilling would have virtually no impact on electricity
supply, nor will it have any impact on current gasoline
prices.
Bush's
recommendation that the Interior Department review other
federal lands for possible exploration, potentially
threatens areas of the Rocky Mountains, roadless areas
of national forests, some of the nation's national
monuments and millions of acres of land currently under
consideration for permanent wilderness protection.
According to The Wilderness Society, proposals to
provide the oil and gas industry "with more 'access to
public lands' ignores the amount of land already
available for that purpose." Already, of the 116.5
million acres of land managed by the Bureau of Land
Management, more than 110 million acres are open to oil
and gas leasing. There are also numerous ongoing and
extensive exploration activities taking place on these
lands.
ELECTRICITY
PRODUCTION
Electricity
production is another major component of the Bush
administration's energy plan. The proposal largely
focuses on ways to increase the use of coal and nuclear
power in electricity generation and includes
recommendations to open more land for the construction
of up to 1900 new power plants over the next two decades
and to streamline the licensing process for nuclear
power plants. Environmentalists argue that energy
efficiency measures could cut the need for up to 610,
big 300-megawatt plants. Many also question the need for
further nuclear power plants, saying the burden should
be on the nuclear industry to prove that nuclear power
is cost-effective and safe before new power plants are
built. While the Bush proposal calls for the
establishment of a national repository for high-level
nuclear waste, there is currently to long-term storage
for the hazardous material.
The Bush plan
also calls $2 billion in funding for so-called "clean
coal" technology over the next ten years. The
environmental community opposes federal funding of
"clean coal" technologies because it encourages the
continued use of an extremely polluting energy source.
The burning of coal, even so-called "clean coal,"
significantly contributes to acid rain, mercury
pollution and global warming, while coal mining poses
serious threats to the environment, ranging from water
pollution to habitat destruction. Environmentalists also
oppose federal "clean coal" funding because it uses
taxpayer dollars to subsidize an industry that is
capable of supporting its own research costs and diverts
efforts away from development of cleaner, alternative
energy technologies.
The White House
proposal recommends the development of a North American
Energy Framework to "expand and accelerate" cross-border
energy investments, gas pipelines and electricity grid
connections with Canada and Mexico. Environmental and
public health laws in both countries are less strict
than in the U.S. In addition, it calls for the enactment
of comprehensive electricity deregulation legislation, a
surprising recommendation in light of California's
current electricity problems that have been largely
blamed on the state's deregulation law. The plan would
also streamline licensing processes for hydropower
projects. According to American Rivers, streamlining the
hydropower relicensing process would offer virtually no
energy supply benefits, while posing a threat to fish
and wildlife habitat and community waterfront
properties.
RENEWABLE
ENERGY
The Bush
administration energy plan provides few provisions for
promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy
technologies. The plan includes provisions to extend the
existing wind power tax credit and supports tax credits
for electricity produced from solar and biomass. It also
calls for the creation of an income tax credit for the
purchase of alternative-fuel vehicles; would expand both
the Department of Energy's "Energy Star" efficiency and
"Energy Star" labeling programs; and would review
whether to strengthen corporate average fuel (CAFE)
economy standards. The proposal also calls for federal
agencies to "responsibly conserve" energy use at their
facilities.
However, the
Bush energy proposal ties a large portion of funding for
basic alternative energy research with the use of bid
bonuses from exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge - a seemingly contradictory provision that would
use money from oil drilling in one of the nation's last
remaining wild places to promote environmentally
friendly fuel production. In addition, the plan's calls
for an increased focus on renewable and alternative
energy technologies is undermined by the
administration's recently released 2002 budget proposal,
which cuts Department of Energy funding for renewable
and alternative energy sources by 37 percent. Solar
research funding would be cut by nearly 54 percent,
while geothermal, hydrogen and wind research programs
would all be cut by 48 percent. Funding to encourage the
building of energy-efficient homes and offices and to
reduce energy use at steel, glass, pulp and paper and
refining companies would also be reduced under the
budget proposal.
AIR
POLLUTION
The
administration proposes requiring electric utilities to
reduce emissions and improve air quality. Dubbed the
"multi-pollutant" strategy, the administration's plan
would encourage the development of legislation
establishing mandatory reduction targets for sulfur
dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury - three harmful
pollutants emitted from coal-burning power plants. The
legislation would phase-in emissions reductions, allow
utilities to make modifications to their plants without
fear of new litigation and provide market-based
incentives, such as emissions trading and carbon
credits, to help industry achieve the required
reductions. Facing pressure from industry and
anti-environment leaders in Congress, Bush earlier this
year reneged on a campaign promise to include the
regulation of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in this
plan. The environmental community supports industry-wide
reductions of all four pollutants because such caps
would further reduce smog and acid rain and help to slow
the effects of global warming. Caps on these pollutants
would also help the energy industry in planning for
long-term investments in clean-up technology and new
generating plants.
However, the
Bush energy also plan takes aim at an important clean
air rule, called "new source review," which safeguards
the environment and public health against vast increases
in pollution when oil refineries, power plants and other
industrial facilities are expanded without modern
pollution controls. According to the Natural Resources
Defense Council, "the Bush energy plan appears to invite
oil, utility, and coal industries, the Department of
Energy, and other agencies to weaken Clean Air Act rules
and interfere with pending enforcement
cases." | 
.gif){kind=spacer}
