|
Energy bill unlikely to help at the gas pump, critics say
The White House and lawmakers of both parties
praised the measure, but a number of critics said it only
marginally improves U.S. energy policy. And a few said the
legislation could make it worse. In a rare show of bipartisanship, the Senate approved the
measure with an 85-12 vote with both Illinois senators voting
yes. Its more than 1,200 pages include $18 billion in tax
breaks, a requirement that Americans use more fuel with corn-based
ethanol and provisions to produce clean-coal technology and
revive nuclear energy. Although both houses have passed energy bills,
Congress has major hurdles to clear before approving final
legislation. In particular, tough negotiating will be required
to settle differences between the two measures. Ethanol consumption One major sticking point involves the amount of ethanol
use that would be required across the nation. The Senate
bill would double the amount of ethanol consumption from
4 billion gallons a year to 8 billion gallons by 2012, while
the House bill would raise it to 5 billion gallons. Another controversial issue is a House provision to protect
major oil companies and gasoline refiners from lawsuits over
MTBE, or methyl tertiary butyl ether, a gasoline additive
that has contaminated drinking water in hundreds of communities. In addition, the Senate bill does not contain a provision
to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to
oil and gas drilling, while the House measure calls for developing
the refuge--a move strongly opposed by environmentalists. The Senate approved drilling in the refuge separately as
part of its budget, which cannot be filibustered. The issue
could be resolved through the budget process and not in the
energy legislation. President Bush praised the Senate's action, saying it would
help economic growth by addressing the causes of high energy
prices. He urged the House and Senate to resolve their differences
quickly "and get a good bill to my desk before the August
recess." False hope With the price of crude oil at about $60 a barrel, and Republicans
in control of Congress and the White House, the GOP faces
pressure to come up with an energy policy. That has been
one of Bush's top priorities since taking office. But several energy analysts across the political spectrum
said rhetoric tying the bill to lower gas prices represents
false hope. Saad Rahim, an energy analyst at PFC Energy, a Washington
consulting firm, said the bill fails to do what is most required--reduce
the demand for gasoline in the United States. No action was
taken to require U.S. automobile companies to produce a larger
number of energy-efficient cars, he noted. Ben Lieberman, an energy analyst at the conservative Heritage
Foundation, said that by requiring the nation to use more
ethanol, the Senate bill promotes higher, not lower, gasoline
prices because the fuel would be costlier to produce. Jerry Taylor, an energy expert at the Cato Institute, a
libertarian think tank, said Congress probably would be better
off passing no energy bill at all if this measure is the
best it can do. "It will waste money to no good effect," Taylor
said. Philip Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust,
an environmental organization, said: "Congress and the
president are now going to try to convince the public that
they have done something about gasoline prices just because
they passed a bill that has something to do with energy.
But there is nothing in this bill that will help struggling
consumers who have shelled out an average of $100 more at
the pump in the first six months of the year." Philip Verleger, a Colorado energy consultant, also criticized
the big subsidies in the bill and doubted the legislation
would do much to relieve America's heavy energy use and its
supply situation. Most analysts interviewed said $60-a-barrel
oil would do more in the long run to increase supplies and
reduce demand than Congress' legislation. But William Pizer, an energy expert at the think tank Resources
for the Future, said that even if the bill does little to
reduce the price of gasoline in the short run, the measure
contains some useful provisions, such as providing tax credits
for consumers who buy hybrid cars and strengthening regulation
of the electricity industry. Pizer praised a "renewable energy standard," which
would require electricity suppliers to obtain 20 percent
of their supplies from renewable sources such as wind, solar
or geothermal power. While the Senate rejected curbs on carbon
emissions, it passed a toothless resolution saying Congress
should enact mandatory provisions to reduce emissions believed
to cause global warming. Nuclear, coal subsidies The Senate legislation provides generous subsidies for
the nuclear and coal industries. Rahim, the Washington consultant,
said the subsidies for developing clean-coal technology could
pay off because America has so much coal, but he and others
acknowledged it would take a long time to make the technology
economically viable. With subsidies, tax credits and loan guarantees, the bill
seeks to spur development of an advanced nuclear power plant,
but several analysts said they doubt reviving the nuclear
power industry is economically feasible any time soon.
|
|||||||||||
