Contents
page
Executive Summary
President Bush's energy plan offers a smorgasbord of incentives
for the energy industry, emphasizing the need to increase domestic
fossil fuel supplies and renewing a commitment to nuclear power. The
administration's proposal -- prepared by Vice President Cheney's
energy task force -- also includes modest proposals related to
energy efficiency and renewable energy sources. However, it is clear
that, as Mr. Cheney stressed in a recent speech, the Bush
administration views conservation as perhaps a "sign of personal
virtue," but "not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive
energy policy."
"Slower, Costlier and Dirtier: A Critique of the Bush Energy
Plan" was drafted by a team of NRDC experts, drawn from each of
NRDC's program areas. It is intended to be a guide to some of the
most critical environmental, health and energy issues affected by
the administration's proposal. It responds to statements made by
senior administration officials during the development of the plan,
and a preliminary review of the report itself. In days to come, NRDC
will continue to review the text of the Bush plan, and will provide
additional analysis as necessary.
Our review shows that the Bush energy policy is fundamentally
flawed. The Bush plan would provide no short-term relief for
Americans struggling to pay their gasoline and electric bills this
summer. And, over the long-term, it would increase pollution,
despoil the environment, threaten public health and accelerate
global warming. Moreover, it would have no impact on energy prices,
and no practical effect on U.S. dependence on foreign sources of
oil. Who would benefit? The oil, coal and nuclear industries that
shoveled millions of dollars into Bush campaign coffers.
Fortunately, there is a better way. Our nation can meet its
energy needs without undermining environmental safeguards or ruining
the last remaining pristine wilderness areas in the country. The
cornerstone of a responsible approach is increased energy efficiency
and fuel efficiency that relies on readily available, cost-effective
technologies. Correspondingly, NRDC and other environmental groups
call for reducing U.S. reliance on the dirtiest fossil fuels -- coal
and oil.
Although Vice President Cheney claims we have to build 1,300
electric power plants over the next 20 years, a November 2000
Department of Energy report found that energy efficiency and
renewable power sources could meet 60 percent of the nation's needs
for new power plants.
Increasing the energy efficiency of appliances would also save
money and reduce air pollution. Unfortunately, President Bush chose
to weaken the efficiency standards for new air conditioners issued
by his predecessor, a step that by itself will force construction of
more than 40 power plants by 2020, cost consumers as much as $900
million in higher electric bills in that year, and generate an extra
180 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2
) emissions over the next three decades.
Finally, the administration seems content to wait and study the
need for increasing fuel economy of the nation's cars, light trucks
and sport-utility vehicles. NRDC believes that it is time to move
beyond studies. Improving average fuel economy to 40 miles per
gallon would save 15 times more fuel than might be economically
recovered from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -- a proposal
that has been a cornerstone of the administration's energy policy
for months.
The bottom line is that the quickest, cleanest and cheapest way
to meet our energy needs is a program that improves energy
efficiency, increases fuel economy, and invests in renewable energy
sources.
It is doubtful such views received a fair hearing at task force
meetings. The conclusions of the Cheney task force are a product of
an undemocratic process. When NRDC filed a Freedom of Information
Act request for documents identifying members of the task force and
the calendars of task force members, the Department of Energy denied
the request.
Ironically, the administration of President George H.W. Bush
published its National Energy Strategy 10 years ago, and did not
shroud its development in secrecy. The first Bush administration
held 18 public hearings throughout the nation, and reflected a
"national commitment to greater efficiency in every element of
energy production and use."
Forbes magazine said in May that "there is no energy crisis and
there is little reason to expect there will be. Conservation is a
big part of the reason why. While California's blackouts are in the
headlines, the Golden State's problems are local and, indeed, do not
even cover all of California." The magazine went on to say that
there is no supply problem, that between 1980 and 2000 energy
consumption increased only 25 percent while gross domestic product
jumped 90 percent, and over those two decades energy prices rose by
49 percent while nonenergy prices increased by 119 percent.
Crisis or not, we welcome the opportunity for a public debate
over America's energy future. But that debate has to be an open,
democratic and honest one, free from the taint of backroom deals and
political payoffs. From our initial review, the Cheney task force
recommendations fall far from that measure. The Bush energy plan
would fulfill the wildest dreams of the oil and coal industries at
the expense of public health and the environment. Nevertheless, we
remain hopeful that the coming months of public debate will open the
doors to a new national energy policy -- one that meets our energy
needs and improves environmental quality and the health of our
citizens.
In the pages that follow, NRDC presents of summary of the Bush
energy proposal's most critical components. NRDC's key critiques and
alternative approaches are summarized below:
Overall Impacts
The Bush plan will accelerate CO2 emissions that cause global warming,
damage public health, and scar the landscape, but it will not solve
America's energy problems. It won't keep the lights on in California
this summer, it won't lower consumers' energy bills, and it won't
protect the environment.
Coal
The Bush plan is a bad idea for America's health
and environment. It would allow poorly controlled and already dirty
coal-fired plants to increase their pollution dramatically and
unnecessarily, and it would expand our reliance on the dirtiest form
of power generation. Leaning more heavily on coal for power
generation means more deaths from particulate air pollution and more
poisoned water and more scarred land. The Bush administration also
ignores the fact that energy efficiency and renewable power could
satisfy as much as 60 percent of projected increased demand for
electricity over the next 20 years.
As described more fully in the electric power section, the Bush
energy plan promotes a 10-year, $2-billion subsidy for so-called
"clean coal" technology, first proposed in the president's budget.
Even if the Energy Department's research and demonstration targets
are met, proposed "clean coal" plants still will emit more pollution
than alternative technologies -- natural gas plants and renewable
power sources. While the plan says the objective is to make
coal-fired electricity less polluting, the president's budget
documents reveal that the goal is the "expansion of coal use for
power generation in the United States" (emphasis added). Expanding
coal use will further increase CO2
pollution from electricity generation.
Drilling in the Arctic Refuge
The case for drilling in
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge makes no sense. Drilling would
do nothing to resolve the current California energy crisis, and
would do virtually nothing to meet America's long-term energy needs.
Plus, the administration overstates how much oil could be pumped
from the Arctic Refuge. In fact, there is only a six-month supply of
economically recoverable oil in the refuge's coastal plain. The Bush
plan to drill in the Arctic Refuge would cause permanent and
unnecessary environmental damage, would do nothing to address
America's long-term need for greater energy efficiency, would not
affect the price of gasoline at the pump, and would not
significantly reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
Drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)
The Bush
plan calls for a review of statutes, regulations and executive
orders pertaining to Outer Continental Shelf activities, and broadly
recommends that the interior secretary examine impediments to
federal oil and gas leasing on public lands, which include offshore
areas. This recommendation sets the stage for lifting the OCS
moratoria that protects the East and West Coasts, Alaska's Bristol
Bay, and most of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico off Florida from new
leasing. It also could lead to actions that would weaken
environmental safeguards and the ability of states to object to
harmful OCS activities off their coasts.
There is no justification to lift the OCS moratoria. NRDC also
opposes offshore oil and gas activities in other sensitive areas not
protected by the moratoria, including the Sale 181 area off Florida
and the OCS off Alaska. Drilling in these areas poses unacceptable
environmental risks of oil spills, air and water pollution, seismic
impacts and onshore damage. Drilling is not necessary, given that
government estimates show 60 percent of the untapped economically
recoverable oil and 80 percent of the untapped economically
recoverable natural gas on the OCS are located in areas that are
currently open to the oil industry.
Drilling on Public Lands
The Bush plan would be a
recipe for widespread industrialization of rural areas across the
Rocky Mountain states. It would also cause widespread damage to
publicly owned resources -- including spectacular wildlands, habitat
for deer, antelope and other species, as well as air quality,
visibility and water quality. We don't need to drill in sensitive
areas. The vast majority of the public lands managed by the Bureau
of Land Management in the Rocky Mountain states -- about 95 percent
-- are open for leasing and development. In addition, the quantity
of gas closed to development in the Rockies amounts to less than 2
percent of the nation's total gas resources. Millions of acres of
federal lands are already under lease for coal, oil and gas.
Electricity Infrastructure America does not need to override
state and local decision-making to spur a massive expansion of its
power transmission lines as the Bush administration has proposed.
Such development threatens environmentally sensitive areas and is
not necessary because extensive transmission lines are being built
already. Greater power line capacity could also be achieved by
technology upgrades. Regulatory rollbacks proposed by the Bush
administration to speed up line construction are unnecessary and
could prove to be environmentally harmful.
Electric Power
The Bush energy plan takes aim at a key
clean air rule, called "new source review," which safeguards public
health against vast increases in pollution when power companies
expand their plants without modern pollution controls. The Bush
energy plan invites the oil, utility, and coal industries, the
Department of Energy, and other agencies to weaken Clean Air Act
rules and interfere with pending enforcement lawsuits. The
administration should not disrupt enforcement of the law. Power
companies should continue to be required to install state-of-the-art
pollution controls when they expand their plants and increase
pollution significantly.
The Bush energy plan is a recipe for more pollution and higher
utility bills. It is founded on a supply-biased forecast of the
country's need for 1,300 new power plants. However, an alternative
policy, emphasizing energy efficiency and renewable power, could
dramatically reduce the number of power plants needed, lower
Americans' electric bills by $30 billion per year, and significantly
cut all forms of power plant pollution, including carbon dioxide.
According to a November 2000 Department of Energy Report, "Scenarios
for a Clean Energy Future," which the Bush administration has
ignored, energy efficiency and renewable power can meet 60 percent
of the nation's need for new electric power plants over the next 20
years. Moreover, an energy policy that takes advantage of efficiency
and renewable energy sources could lower Americans' electric bills
by $30 billion per year, cut CO2
pollution by one-third, and slash emissions of other
pollutants in half.
Under the Bush plan, the power sector's contribution to global
warming will grow ever larger each year. Because President Bush
abandoned his campaign promise to curb power plant emissions of
CO2 , his energy plan now offers only
a vaguely defined "three-pollutant" plan that, without CO2 , meets neither environmental nor
business needs. This three-pollutant plan will not stop power plant
CO2 emissions from rising -- indeed,
the Bush plan envisions a 35 percent increase in power plant CO2 emissions by 2020.
Fuel Economy for Vehicles
Americans are facing the
prospect of record-breaking gasoline prices this summer, yet the
Bush plan does nothing to help consumers now -- or more important,
to ensure improvements in the fuel economy of the cars that
Americans will buy in years to come. The tax credits for hybrid and
fuel cell vehicles proposed in the Bush plan are helpful to spur
expanded use of these technologies, but they are no substitute for
across-the-board increases in fuel economy standards.
While the traditional surge in summertime driving means there's
little that can be done to reduce gas prices this July 4th weekend,
the Bush administration should move quickly to close the SUV
loophole immediately -- and then increase overall fuel economy to 40
mpg over the course of the decade. Doing so would save more than 50
billion barrels of oil over the next 50 years -- more than 15 times
as much oil as is expected to be economically recoverable in the
Arctic Refuge. In contrast, the Bush plan merely follows the law in
directing the Department of Transportation to consider a forthcoming
report by the National Academy of Sciences.
Nuclear Power
As part of its new energy policy, the
Bush administration wants to try to revive the moribund nuclear
power industry, despite its unacceptable risks and high costs.
Trying to solve U.S. energy problems by increased reliance on
nuclear energy will be too costly for the environment, public health
and consumers. The Bush plan fails to address the four major
obstacles that have dogged nuclear power for decades: Nuclear power
poses long-term proliferation risks; reactor safety issues remain
unresolved; the United States has no long-term plan for storage of
radioactive wastes; and the nuclear power industry is not
competitive with a host of cleaner and cheaper technologies and
requires continued federal intervention to survive.
Oil Refineries
As mentioned above, the Bush energy plan
takes aim at a key clean air rule, called "new source review," which
safeguards public health against vast increases in pollution from
oil company plans to expand their plants without modern pollution
controls. Essentially, the administration is inviting the oil,
utility and coal industries, the Department of Energy, and other
agencies to weaken Clean Air Act rules and interfere with pending
enforcement cases. The administration should not disrupt enforcement
of the law. Oil refiners should continue to be required to install
state-of-the-art pollution controls when they expand their plants
and increase pollution significantly.
Reformulated Gasoline
The Bush energy plan seeks to
reduce the number of so-called "boutique" fuels that are sold in
many regions of the country to help battle air pollution. NRDC
supports a shift to a regional or national specification for
reformulated gasoline -- so long as this common-sense approach does
not compromise critical health protections provided by cleaner
gasoline. NRDC does not support allowing dirtier fuels simply to
increase oil company profits.
Renewable Energy
The Bush plan offers limited support
for renewable energy technologies, despite their enormous potential
-- and even though renewable energy technologies such as wind and
solar are the fastest growing energy sources in the United States
and the world today. One reason for their emerging success is that
they can be brought online very quickly to help California and other
states meet their power needs. For example, a 300 megawatt (MW) wind
farm project on the Oregon-Washington border was announced earlier
this year, as was a 260 MW project at the Department of Energy's
nuclear test site in Nevada. Both should be supplying badly needed
power to the Western grid before the end of the year.
Back to
contents page