Stop the Energy Bill!
The Bush/Cheney Energy Plan in Action
Ask Your Senators to Support the Energy Bill Filibuster!
By Mike Ewall, 215-743-4884, catalyst@actionpa.org
Founder, Energy Justice Network
June 2002 (updated October 2004)
Download the Energy Bill:
For copies of the energy bills from the 2001-2002
legislative session, click here to jump to the bottom of this page.
|
Please, ask your 2 U.S. Senators to support the filibuster of the Energy Bill.
A sound energy policy would focus on conservation, efficiency and CLEAN renewables (like wind and solar -- no "biomass" incinerators) and that we need a clean fuels policy that reduces our oil consumption and moves us towards CLEAN hydrogen fuel cells (using hydrogen separated from water with wind and solar electricity).
The National Energy Bill does just the opposite. In November 2003, the bill came dangerously close to passing the Senate -- the last remaining obstacle before going to Bush's desk for a signature. Attempts were made in February 2004 to attach the energy bill to a "must-pass" transportation bill. After that failed, the energy bill was reintroduced as Senate Bill 2095, a "slimmed down" version of the bill that still retains every bad idea except for the controversial MTBE liability waiver.
For an overview of the history of the Energy Bill up until late January 2004, read THE ENERGY BILL: The Environment’s Worst Nightmare.
OCTOBER 2004 UPDATE: The Energy Tax section of the energy bill was passed after being amended onto a corporate tax bill. See the text of the legislation here: HR 4520. See how your senator voted.
News Articles:
Analyses of the Energy Bill:
25 Problems in the Energy Bills
Written for 2002 bills, may not exactly describe the 2003 bill
NOTE: The 2003-2004 Energy Bill, though it excludes Arctic Refuge drilling, contains many new provisions which make it even worse than the previous session's energy bill. Some of these newer issues are described in the Analyses links above. |
2002 House Bill |
2002 Senate Bill |
2003 Energy Bill |
|---|
| Deregulation |
|---|
|
Forced Deregulation & More Enrons: The bill would force the roughly 30 states which have not deregulated their electric utility industry to do so. It would also further deregulate the already troubled electricity industry by repealing the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA), an important consumer protection law. If PUHCA had been enforced and not recently weakened, the Enron collapse would never have occurred. PUHCA places ownership restrictions on giant electricity companies and restricts the ability of companies to make investments that divert resources away from their primary responsibility: serving electricity customers. Also, the bill would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the power to condemn land for building power transmission lines.
|
n/a | II.B. | Section 1263 |
|---|
| Nuclear Power & Waste |
|---|
|
New Nuclear Reactors Mandated and Funded: The Senate bill awards nuclear power unprecedented tax breaks and subsidies, committing $1.3 billion to nuclear research, development and deployment. It nationalizes nuclear power by giving taxpayer money and federal land to the nuclear industry to research and "deploy" new nuclear reactors. It grants a blank check to fund the nuclear industry's dream... their vision of 50,000 megawatts of new nuclear generation by 2020, covering up to 50% of the cost of establishing new reactors during most of the initials stages of development (all but construction) while streamlining the approval process by greatly reducing public comment.
To quote the "purpose" section of the energy bill:
"The program shall aggressively pursue those activities that will result in regulatory approvals and design completion in a phased approach, with joint government/industry cost sharing, which would allow for the construction and startup of new nuclear plants in the United States by 2010."
The bill refers to the Department of Energy's Nuclear Power 2010 Program, which in turn, refers to Nuclear Energy Institute's Vision 2020:
"The nuclear industry responded to the National Energy Policy with "Vision 2020", which sets the goal of 50,000 megawatts of new nuclear generating capacity added to the U.S. grid by 2020. The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) took a lead role in formulating Vision 2020 and has established an Executive Task Force on New Nuclear Power Plants to help guide near term industry activities toward that goal...
"The [Department of Energy] has coordinated its efforts with those of NEI and its Executive Task Force on New Nuclear Power Plants, to ensure compatibility with ongoing industry activities. The recommendations in this Roadmap are complementary to NEI efforts and are essential to achieving Vision 2020."
[From pages 1-2 of A Roadmap to Deploy New Nuclear Power Plants in the United States by 2010, Volume I, Summary Report]
The House version doesn't go nearly as far to promote nuclear power, but it still provides money and tax breaks to the industry and provides for research into the building of new commercial nuclear reactors on existing Department of Energy sites.
|
Sec. 308 | Sec. 514 | Sec. 925 |
|---|
|
Price-Anderson Reauthorization: Enables new nuclear reactors to be built by extending nuclear insurance liability caps until 2012 (the existing, aging reactors are grandfathered in and would still be covered if the Price-Anderson law is not renewed). DOE contractors get an extension indefinitely. While U.S. accident liability is capped at $10 billion, accidents outside of the U.S. are capped at only half a billion. Since cost estimates of a catastrophic nuclear accident range as high as $600 billion, the public could end up covering a large part of such costs. The current law amounts to a 3.4 billion dollar per year insurance subsidy for the nuclear industry, skewing the electricity market in favor of nuclear energy. In the renewal language, new modular reactors are allowed to pay less insurance premium than old reactors.
|
n/a | V.A. | Sec. 601 |
|---|
|
Nuclear Proliferation: So-called "recycling" of high-level nuclear radioactive waste is an extremely dirty process otherwise known as reprocessing, which creates huge amounts of nuclear waste, including plutonium which is a nuclear weapons proliferation risk. The bills would fund fuel recycling research, reversing a long-standing U.S. policy against reprocessing of irradiated nuclear fuel. The ban on reprocessing technology must remain. Nuclear waste must be regarded as a hazard, NOT a commodity. Reprocessing facilitates the stealing of nuclear bomb material and has proven to be a health hazard at the facilities which attempt it. Reprocessing plants in France, England and Japan have proven to be extremely dangerous and polluting. France and Japan have already shut down their plants.
|
Sec. 2321 | Sec. 515 | Sec. 926 |
|---|
|
Uranium Sales: The Senate bill language authorizes sale of many types of uranium waste products, including "depleted" uranium, which has been used to make "armor-piercing" ammunition which has caused permanent contamination in Iraq, Kosovo and possibly Afghanistan as well as contributing to Gulf War Syndrome in U.S. vets. Uranium stays radioactive for billions of years and, when DU munitions are fired, they pulverize upon impact, spreading fine radioactive dust into the air, land and water. The bill also authorizes sale of other extremely hazardous forms of uranium, such as uranium hexafluoride.
The House bill language includes $10 million for each of the next three years for the uranium mining/processing industry plus another $800,000 for uranium conversion.
|
Sec. 305 | Sec. 511 | Sec. 630 |
|---|
|
Nukes in Space: Research money is used to further the agenda to nuclearize space by setting up nuclear power projects for use in satellite and space missions. This is dangerous and not necessary (solar works quite well, even in deep space missions, as shown by the European Space Agency). There have already been accidents with plutonium on-board failed space missions where the radioactive contamination has landed back on earth. Under the "Enhanced Nuclear Energy Research And Development" section of the bill, one of the 6 goals of the program is to "ensure that our nation has adequate capability to power future satellite and space missions."
|
n/a | Sec. 1241 | |
|---|
|
Nuclear Fusion: Funding for an experimental fusion reactor is also provided in the energy bill. Fusion has been a pie-in-the-sky promise for many years and has done little more than eat research money. What IS known for sure is that fusion reactors would be extremely expensive (just like the fission reactors are), would still rely on centralized large power generation, and still generate nuclear waste. The fusion experiment that used to exist in New Jersey was dismantled and shipped across the U.S. to be dumped in a nuclear waste dump in Washington state. Fusion reactors generate tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen which is very hard to contain (it's a gas) and is a major health problem, causing cancers and leukemia. Fusion reactors also often need the more wasteful fission technology to get the reaction started. Since much cleaner and cheaper technologies exist, there is no need to be exploring the false hope of fusion anymore.
|
B.V. | Sec. 1254 | Sec. 951-953, 960 |
|---|
| Fossil Fuels (Coal / Oil / Gas) |
|---|
|
"Clean Coal" Research and Subsidies: There is no such thing as "clean" coal, since it necessarily involves the devastating impacts of mining (in West Virginia, entire mountains are being dismantled and then dumped into stream beds known as "valley fills"). The polluting elements in coal (mercury, sulfur, chlorine, fluorine, natural radioactivity and more) don't disappear for the sake of "clean" coal. The technology might displace them into the ash or other waste streams, but they don't conveniently go away. They should be left in the ground, as we move into the 21st century and leave unnecessary old technologies like coal in the history books where they belong. Enough money has been wasted on "clean" coal research already.
Sec. 1237 of the 2002 Senate bill (no longer specifically mentioned in the 2003 bill) specifically authorizes $125,000,000 in loans "to the owner of the experimental plant constructed under United States Department of Energy cooperative agreement number DE-FC22-91PC99544." The DOE agreement number is actually misprinted in the bill (DOE doesn't have a project for that number). The real number is DE-FC22-91PC90544, which refers to plans to restart the experimental 50 MW Healy Clean Coal Project in Healy, Alaska, a slagging combustion plant which only ever operated for 90 days in 1999. It would burn waste coal and sub-bituminous coal from the Usibelli Coal Mine, one of the major mines in Alaska. The "owner" refered to in the bill is the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority.
|
Sec. 3117 & 5003 | XXII | Sec. 401-404, 411-413, 934, 935, 3101, 1351-1353 |
|---|
|
Toxic Wastes to be "recycled" into Concrete for Government Buildings: Industrial wastes, including the highly toxic fly ash captured in the pollution control equipment of coal-fired power plants could be "recycled" by mixing it into concrete and cement. This would pose a hazard to construction and demolition contractors and local communities. Government agencies would be required to give priority to purchasing this sort of concrete/cement. The government shouldn't be helping the coal industry sweep their toxic waste literally "under the rug" into the foundations of our buildings.
|
n/a | Sec. 920 | Sec. 110 |
|---|
|
Subsidies for Oil/Gas Drilling: Billions of dollars of subsidies and research money would be provided for drilling in our coastal waters, including "ultra-deepwater" drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and "unconventional" drilling on land (such as deep diagonal drilling that would be used to drill for oil and gas under the Great Lakes). The Senate bill also provides for research and tax breaks for coalbed methane drilling. Such drilling is destroying farms and the rural ecology of states like Wyoming and Montana and even eastern states like Pennsylvania. Tax credits are even granted for oil and gas drilling in marginal wells, subsidizing otherwise unprofitable drilling operations. Under the 2002 House bill (Sec 6223), "unwarranted" denials and stays on drilling on federal lands would be eliminated.
|
B.IV.B-C, C.III. & F.II. | VI. & XXIII. | Sec. 301-359 |
|---|
|
Drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: The House bill contains a provision that would allow oil and gas exploration, development and production in the Refuge. Although the controversial ANWR provision was defeated in the Senate bill, the conference committee may still include ANWR drilling in the final bill. Ironically, if this happens, it may be the only hope of defeating the entire bill if it gets out of conference committee (since the Senate may vote it down in order to make an election year issue of it).
|
F.V. | n/a | |
|---|
|
New Alaskan Pipeline: 10 billion dollars would be spent to build a new pipeline for natural gas from Alaska, increasing U.S. reliance on fossil fuels and creating yet another appealing, centralized terrorist target.
|
n/a | VII. | Sec. 371-386 |
|---|
|
Support for Dirty "Alternative" Fuels, Part 1 -- Coal-to-Oil Refineries:
Tax credits and research & development money would be provided for "alternative" fuels such as the liquefied-coal diesel fuel which would be produced by the "coal-to-oil" refinery planned for Schuylkill County in eastern Pennsylvania (the nation's only anthracite mining region). The mining barons behind the project plan to market it as "Ultra Clean Fuel."
Also, Section 806 of the 2002 Senate bill instructs government agencies to fuel its vehicles with "alternative" fuels as defined in section 32901(a)(1) of title 49, United States Code. This definition includes "coal-derived liquid fuels."
|
Sec. 2004.a.4.C. | Sec. 1231.b.4. & 2310 | Sec. 701, 937 |
|---|
| Waste / Incineration / Biomass / Biofuels |
|---|
|
Support for Dirty "Alternative" Fuels, Part 2 -- Trash/Sludge-to-Ethanol: Subsidized loans would be provided for the contruction of "trash-to-ethanol" projects like those proposed in Alabama, Indiana, Lousiana, New Hampshire, New York, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and elsewhere. Some of these proposed facilities would also involve the use of sewage sludge. The Senate bill would also redefine the Renewable Fuel Program of the Clean Air Act to include ethanol fuels derived from wastes.
|
Sec. 603 | Sec. 820 & 820B | Sec. 1513 |
|---|
|
Trash Incinerator Subsidies / Bogus Renewable Portfolio Standard: The bill includes a federal purchasing requirement of energy from "renewable" sources defined to include trash incineration and other "biomass." The 2002 bill required that electric suppliers have 10% "renewables" in their mix by 2020. However, "renewables" are defined to include trash incinerators! Trash incinerators are the largest known source of dioxin (the most toxic class of chemicals known). They are the 2nd largest source of mercury pollution. They turn trash into toxic air emissions and toxic ash, making the landfills that take their ash more dangerous than they'd otherwise be. They compete with recycling and are financial dinosaurs (as the state bailout of NJ's 5 incinerators under Christie Whitman's governorship showed). The energy bill also supports other forms of incinerators through its very dirty definition of "biomass" which allows construction/demolition wood waste burners, animal factory waste burners and other extremely polluting incinerators to be classified as "renewable" and therefore compete with truly clean renewables like wind and solar.
|
n/a | Sec. 264 | Sec. 203 |
|---|
|
Tax Credits for Poultry Waste Incinerators: A British company (Fibrowatt) is seeking to build turkey and chicken factory waste incinerators in about ten states. The energy bill contains a "three-year extension of credit for producing electricity from wind and poultry waste." Extending the wind energy tax credit is a wonderful idea, but applying this to burning poultry factory wastes is crazy. Among other things, chickens and turkeys are fed arsenic as a growth-promoter. These "arsenical" drugs are used widely throughout the industry and much of the arsenic ends up in the animal's waste. The U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. EPA are starting to get concerned about how much arsenic is being dumped on farm fields as this animal waste is applied as fertilizer. Burning that waste would only serve to move these contaminants into the air. This isn't the sort of "green" energy that should be getting tax breaks.
|
n/a | Sec. 1901 | Sec. 1302, 1501 |
|---|
|
Tax Credits for Other Incinerators: Through the elusive term "biomass," tax credits are extended to other forms of incinerators as well, including those that burn construction/demolition wood wastes, which are quite contaminated with metals like lead, mercury, chromium and arsenic as well as chlorine chemicals which produce dioxin when burned. Thankfully, trash incinerators aren't included in this tax credits section of the bill, but many other polluting incinerators will be propped up by this clause.
|
Sec. 3102 | Sec. 1902 | Sec. 1302 |
|---|
|
Carpet Burning in Cement Kilns: In the guise of recycling, the House bill would fund a cement company to experiment with burning post-consumer waste carpet in cement kilns as an "alternative energy source." Cement kilns already burn coal and sometimes tires and/or hazardous waste. It is inappropriate to be burning any wastes, especially those which can be recycled. True recycling of post-consumer carpet (like Interface Corporation is already doing) is the real answer. Destroying these resources by incineration is not recycling and makes a mockery of the term "alternative" energy.
|
Sec. 801 | n/a | Sec. 966 |
|---|
|
Tax Credits for Toxic Sludge Products: Sewage sludge comes contaminated with all sorts of household and industrial toxic chemicals. The energy bill provides tax credits for burning this very dangerous waste stream to produce electricity. It also encourages those who "process" this toxic sludge into a "marketable product" (it's commonly used in fertilizer products) by extending tax credits to those who make electricity from digested sewage gas at these "recycling" facilities.
|
n/a | Sec. 1906 | |
|---|
|
Bioenergy & Biotech - Genetically-Engineered Trees and Beyond: Using terms like bioenergy, biofuels, biopower, and biorefineries, the energy bill would fund genetic engineering research programs, including programs like the Genome For Life Program (2002's energy bill promoted the Plant Genome Program of the National Science Foundation, which has sponsored research into the genetic engineering of trees). The 2003 bill specifically advocates the use of genetically engineered trees to suck up toxic and radioactive contaminants from the ground, and would likely end up with those plants being burned for "green" energy, thus releasing those contaminants into the air. This "GE tree" research is highly controversial and is a very risky area of biotech development. Some of the GE tree research is being done with the goal of creating quick-growing, "Roundup-Ready" (pesticide-resistant) poplar trees that could be harvested in order to be burned for "green energy" as a "biomass" fuel.
|
Sec. 2221 | Sec. 1221 - 1222 | Sec. 919, 959 |
|---|
|
Tax Credits for Burning of Toxic Landfill Gases: Tax credits designed mainly to help promote wind development will be extended to continue their use in also promoting the burning of toxic landfill gases as a "renewable" energy resource. Unfortunately, there are not even any requirements that the hundreds of toxic contaminants in landfill gas be filtered out before the gas is burned (landfill gas is not simply "methane"). EPA's own documents show that burning landfill gas is dirtier than natural gas and even - by some measures - dirtier than burning coal. Landfill gas is the primary energy source that has undercut wind power development in recent years, since it's widely allowed to be marketed as a "renewable" resource, leading companies to use it as a cheap way to obtain "renewable" energy to sell to gullible consumers.
|
Sec. 602 | Sec. 261 | Sec. 202, 203, 1302, 1345 |
|---|
| Transmission / Misc. |
|---|
|
Powerlines on Amtrak Lines between Washington, DC and New York State: Research money is allocated for a "northeast corridor" project to run some sort of powerlines along Amtrak right-of-ways. Rather than building new power lines (especially so close to where people spend time), we should be moving away from centralized power production and long-distance transmission. Enhancing the existing transmission system (which other parts of the bill would do), decreasing electric use through conservation and efficiency (which the bill also has good goals for) and increasing our reliance on decentralized power generation (like wind and solar, which the bill doesn't support as much as it ought to) would ensure that additional major power transmission systems aren't needed.
|
n/a | Sec. 1703 | |
|---|
|
Harming the Great Lakes: There are plans for natural gas pipelines and electric power lines to be built across Lake Erie and possibly other Great Lakes. These plans would involve jet-trenching of the lake bottom, which - like many water bodies - is heavily contaminated with industrial toxins which have been dumped over the years. Massive amounts of this toxic muck would be stirred up, re-contaminating the lake, which has taken years to become as clean as it now is. The energy bill would fund studies that would be used to promote the plans for these damaging power projects.
|
n/a | Sec. 1706 | |
|---|
|
More Gas Pipelines (and Underground Storage?): The Senate bill calls for development of an interagency effort to expedite the environmental review and permitting of natural gas pipeline projects. Also, Sec. 778 (Sec. 1602 in 2003 bill) initiates a study of natural gas shortages, in which the authors are to determine "the feasibility and advisability of a Federal strategic natural gas reserve system." The study seems designed to conclude that such a system is needed. There have already been proposals for underground storage of natural gas in upstate New York and probably elsewhere.
|
n/a | Sec. 721 | Sec. 350, 351 |
|---|
|
Nanotech Research Without Strings: Significant funding is made available for nanotechnology research. Nanotech (the manipulation of matter at the atomic level) has implications that are both promising and dreadful, depending on how it's applied. Funding should not allow for tech transfer of nanotech research without serious public oversight into how the technologies are deployed. While there are exciting and Star Trek-like technological potentials from nanotech, modern history has shown that corporations can't be trusted to develop technologies with the public interest as a higher priority than profits.
|
n/a | Sec. 1252 | Sec. 951, 956, 957 |
|---|
Many existing laws would be altered by an energy bill.
Here are tools for looking up federal bills and laws:
Last modified: 11 December 2004
Return to Energy Justice Home
http://www.energyjustice.net/energybill/
|