Home >  Nation & World >  U.S. News

Sunday, June 01, 2003

By Ann McFeatters, Post-Gazette National Bureau

WASHINGTON -- Having lowered taxes and in a mad dash toward what they hope will be a month of vacation in August, senators return to work this week after their Memorial Day recess to tackle another tough issue -- a bill that would create a controversial new national energy policy.

Two years ago President Bush demanded that Congress pass an energy policy centered around more drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The energy industry was elated, but the reaction from environmentalists and other sectors of society was as if he had lit a match in a dry national forest. The Senate, under the leadership of Democrats at the time, refused to act. In January Bush again demanded action in his State of the Union speech.

Now, in the aftermath of Sept.11 and the war in Iraq, backers of the Bush policy are more confident. Americans are newly concerned about dependence on foreign oil. Studies say the energy industry is particularly vulnerable to terrorism. Republicans now control both houses of Congress and the House already has passed Bush's plan.

Airlines remain in financial straits, in part due to fuel costs, and the summer vacation gas crunch is starting.

So it is no wonder that the 12 Republican members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, now under the control of Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., ran over the opposition of the 11 Democrats on the committee and recommended the Senate pass Bush's plan.

Backers hope Democratic farm state senators will be lured into supporting the bill because it promotes a renewable form of gasoline from ethanol, made from corn. Midwestern farmers favor that provision, although environmentalists complain that it's a giveaway to farmers and that producing ethanol uses about as much oil as it produces for gasoline.

While environmentalists like some aspects of the Bush proposals, such as mandates for more fuel-efficient household appliances, they are unalterably opposed to most of them.

They note that the national energy policy proposed by Bush is based on the recommendations of a task force on energy headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, who came to the White House from the oil industry. And they blame Cheney for the proposal to drill for oil and gas in the Arctic wildlife refuge.

In March the Senate narrowly defeated that provision. But that does not mean the president's policy is dead; the House legislation would allow for drilling. If the Senate passes an energy bill, even without the drilling provision, it could still be resurrected in a conference committee between the House and the Senate.

Earlier this year, advocates of key energy policy changes showed their clout on Capitol Hill. They pushed through legislation to permit more logging in national forests, to allow exploratory drilling in the Arctic refuge and to trim the National Park Service's budget.

Backers of the Bush energy policy argue there is a looming crisis. By 2020, the Energy Information Administration predicts, the demand for electricity in the United States will jump by 43 percent. Because of public nervousness about safety, new nuclear reactors have been delayed. Meanwhile, gas-guzzling SUVs clog the highways.

Critics say the bill the Senate is considering does not include a long-term plan for reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Nor, they say, would it reduce the burning of fossil fuel, which pollutes the air. Also, the bill's detractors call it a budget-busting giveaway to various components of the domestic energy industry because it includes such things as subsidies for the nuclear power industry.

With great fanfare Bush has touted research on hydrogen fuel cells, proposing in February a $1.2 billion research program called "FreedomCar" to develop practical hydrogen-powered vehicles. About $720 million was new money. But many experts think a hydrogen breakthrough, at least for powering vehicles, is years away. Environmentalists are pushing for more fuel-efficient cars and contend the Bush proposals don't go far enough to nudge Detroit into the next generation of fuel-efficient cars and trucks.

The pro-business National Center for Policy Analysis argues that parts of the energy bill under debate would "restrict economic growth and reduce consumer choice." It opposes curbs on pollutants that contribute to global warming, mandates for renewable energy technology and the upholding of "outdated corporate average fuel economy standards" for vehicles.

The depth of emotion over the highly complicated energy bill was evident a few days ago when senators erupted in anger over changes in a Smithsonian Institution exhibit of photographs showing the natural beauty of the Arctic wildlife refuge. The pictures were moved to a basement and lengthy captions shortened.

Democrats suggested it was a political move to downgrade the exhibition because of the political controversy over the refuge. Republicans angrily denied the charge.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., says the Bush administration and its supporters in Congress are "set on rolling back 30 years of environmental progress."

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., new chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has said he thinks that is nonsense. But in a speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, he said, "You can't run the most heavily industrialized nation in the world on windmills."

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham says the administration is not waiting for Congress to act but is implementing much of the national energy policy plan in bits and pieces. Earlier this month, he said, "Twenty years from now, when the principles outlined two years ago in the president's national energy policy have transformed the energy world, the energy security and environmental questions that preoccupy us today will be fading as prominent national concerns."