Refuge decision caters to oil companies, say critics

By Cat Lazaroff

Washington, DC, Aug. 2 (ENS)— The US House of Representatives passed an omnibus energy bill early this morning that would authorize opening a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil and natural gas exploration. The controversial legislation would also promote so-called clean coal technology, and provide tax breaks for the nuclear power industry. After almost 12 hours of debate, the House voted 240 to 189 to pass the legislation (HR 4), combining four separate energy measures into a sweeping bill that includes many of the proposals included in President George W. Bush’s national energy plan unveiled in May. “Tonight’s House passage of comprehensive, balanced energy legislation is a tribute to President Bush’s leadership and a tremendous victory for America, for the economy, and for the environment,” said Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham. “Congressional action on the President’s National Energy plan, just a few months after its unveiling, is an important step toward meeting our long term energy needs and reducing our dependence on foreign sources of energy.” However, the bill is likely to face strong opposition in the Democratically controlled Senate, which has already expressed its intention to reject efforts to open the ANWR to oil drilling. “While we are profoundly disappointed that the House turned its back on the pristine Arctic Refuge and the will of the American people, we are optimistic as the fight heads to the Senate,” said Carl Pope, executive director of the conservation group Sierra Club. “Drilling in the Arctic Refuge won’t address our nation’s energy needs or make a dent in gas prices.” Calling the House action “the best vote that big oil’s money could buy,” Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife called the bill “staggeringly irresponsible,” and, “stuffed to the brim with giveaways to wealthy oil and coal companies, and shortsighted rollbacks of rules that protect wildlife and the environment on public lands across this country.” The energy bill would provide $33.5 billion in tax credits and other incentives over the next 10 years, with about 80 percent going to boost domestic energy production and the remainder targeted for energy efficiency, conservation and environmental protections. Part of those funds would come from expected lease revenues from opening the North Slope of ANWR to energy exploration. An amendment to the bill directed the federal share of new ANWR energy production receipts would go toward two funds: The Renewable Energy Technology Investment Fund and the Royalties Conservation Fund. “If passed, federal receipts from environmentally safe energy production on a small portion of ANWR will help explore for new energy technologies for our long term energy security and help protect our environment for future generations of American families,” said Interior Secretary Gale Norton. The oil industry would get major boosts from the bill, gaining access to ANWR and other public lands for new exploration, and winning a waiver of all federal royalty payments for oil and natural gas drilling projects in the Gulf of Mexico. “Big Oil called out their big guns and their big money on this vote,” said the Sierra Club’s Pope. “Americans want a balanced approach that gives us quicker, cleaner, cheaper and safer solutions, such as energy efficient technologies, renewable power and responsible production.” In an additional defeat for environmentalists, the bill mandates only a small boost in the fuel efficiency of sport utility vehicles (SUVs). Though House Democrats and environmental groups had pressed for an amendment that would have made SUVs and other light trucks abide by the same gas mileage standards as automobiles, the House instead ordered SUV gasoline use to be reduced by just five billion gallons over a six year period. A recent National Academy of Sciences report concluded that the auto industry could improve the fuel efficiency of SUVs by as much as one third over the next 15 years without raising overall costs for consumers. The House bill would expand federal support for so called clean coal technologies, which aim to reduce the pollution emitted by coal burning power plants. Through tax incentives and enhanced research and development programs, the bill would guarantee that coal continues to be used by the electricity industry, despite cleaner burning alternatives. In another boost for the coal industry, the bill would require the Department of the Interior to review all public lands, other than national monuments, parks or wilderness areas, for their potential for coal and renewable energy development. The nuclear industry would also gain a slew of new tax breaks to extend the operation of existing nuclear power plants. In a nod to supporters of energy conservation, the bill would expand assistance programs that aid low income households in paying for weatherizing their homes, and provide new tax credits for consumers that buy hybrid gasoline electric vehicles, energy efficient appliances, and residential solar panels. But House Democratic leader Richard Gephardt noted in a speech before the vote that the bill “provides less than 20 percent of tax breaks to renewable energy and energy efficiency.” “Over 80 percent of the tax breaks go to oil, gas, coal, nuclear and other big energy special interests who support the House Republican leadership,” Gephardt added. “Oil and gas companies making record profits could reap billions of dollars from the Republican energy bill.” Environmental groups vowed to step up their lobbying efforts against the bill, and to publicize the failure of a majority of House members to listen to the nation’s desire for a more balanced energy policy. “The American people deserved more principled, more responsible environmental leadership than they received today from a majority of House members,” said Betsy Loyless, political director of the League of Conservation Voters (LCV). “With the exception of a large, bipartisan core group of representatives — like Edward Markey, Nancy Johnson, Jay Inslee, Sherwood Boehlert, Nick Rahall, John Lewis and Christopher Shays — the House failed to truly represent the environmental priorities and values of most Americans.”

Clean Air Act review could dismantle pollution control

By Danielle Knight

Washington, DC, Aug. 1 (IPS)— President George W. Bush’s request to review the Clean Air Act — considered one of the most important US environmental laws — could halt government efforts to stop some of the world’s largest energy companies from polluting, warn health and environmental advocates. When the White House unveiled its National Energy Policy in May, Bush directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Energy to conduct a 90-day review of the impact of the Act’s regulations on coal, gas and oil power plants. At issue is a section of the law called New Source Review, which prohibits power-plant operators from expanding old plants without also installing state-of-the-art pollution control devices. Utility companies are lobbying heavily to dismantle this part of the law because if the regulations are upheld and enforced, it could cost the industry tens of billions of dollars to upgrade their facilities. The EPA is suing many of the companies for violating the Act. Bush is also calling on the Department of Justice to review these lawsuits. Environmental and health advocates describe the New Source Review as the Act’s heart and lungs. Recommendations stemming from the Bush review are expected Aug 17. “The Bush plan would gut the Clean Air Act as well as create more pollution,” says Peter Altman, coordinator of the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development Coalition based in Houston, Texas. Altman was among environmental activists from the heavily industrialized states of Texas and Louisiana, who descended on the capital this week to urge lawmakers to halt Bush’s proposed review. Many, like Altman, came from Houston, site of numerous oil refineries including the country’s largest, operated by ExxonMobil. The average refinery, they say, releases about 250 tons of toxic emissions, including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and small particles that hinder proper breathing. LaNell Anderson, an activist with the Texas Bucket Brigade, an environmental community organization named after the bucket devices it uses to test the state’s air quality, lives near several refineries and chemical facilities. She blames air pollution for the cancer that killed her mother and the immune system diseases that she, her sisters, and her husband have suffered. “We are being asked to sacrifice our children and our families to corporate profits,” says Anderson. “We cannot stand any more from these lawless refineries.” The roots of the conflict over the Act stretch back to 1977, when energy companies won an exemption for their older power plants. Industry argued that these aging facilities would soon be retired and pollution controls for these plants would be too costly. To date, few have been closed. According to the EPA, several older refineries have expanded in recent years without installing modern pollution controls — a violation of the New Source Review requirements. “Polluters have broken the law for years and are trying to get their tickets fixed,” says Arlene Polewarczyk with the Clean Air Clear Lake group, also based in Houston. “It’s our health that’s getting run over in the process.”

Cheney declines to give congress energy documents

By Randall Mikkelsen

Washington, DC, Aug 6— Vice President Dick Cheney has declined to turn over documents sought by Congress in an inquiry into how the Bush administration’s energy policy was formed, according to letters from Cheney released last week. Cheney said in letters to the House of Representatives and the Senate that the request for meeting records of President George W. Bush’s energy task force, which was headed by the vice president, “would unconstitutionally interfere with the functioning of the executive branch.” An aide to California Democratic US Rep. Henry Waxman, one of the lawmakers who originally requested the information, said Cheney appeared to be heading for a legal showdown. “It looks like they are sort of intent on going to court,” said the aide, speaking on condition of anonymity. A senior Cheney aide said Cheney’s office had already provided “substantial information” and that the task force had acted properly. Cheney’s office said the letters were delivered to Congress Thursday night, ahead of an Aug. 7 deadline for a response and the same day as the US House of Representatives approved legislation embodying major elements of the energy plan that task force developed. “Preservation of the ability of the executive branch to function effectively requires respecting the confidentiality of communications among a president, the vice president, the president’s senior advisors and others,” Cheney’s letter said in an attached appendix. It said the General Accounting Office (GAO) lacked authority to investigate the performance of the president or vice president in carrying out their constitutional duties. The request was made by Comptroller General David Walker, head of Congress’ General Accounting Office, which had been asked by Waxman and Michigan Democratic Rep. John Dingell to investigate the work of the energy policy task force. The force has been criticized for its closed-door meetings and meetings with industry officials as it developed the energy policy Bush unveiled May 17. Bush called for stimulating production of coal, oil and nuclear power as well as conservation measures. Cheney in June turned over records relating to the costs of the energy task force, but the GAO sought additional records, raising the possibility of taking the issue to court. The agency sought names of people attending the energy policy group meetings and of panel staff workers. It also sought records of meetings that energy panel staff or Cheney had with people to gather information relevant to the energy plan.

Source: Reuters