Next BIG battle: the Energy Bill...just say NO!

[G_j]

NO energy bill would be light years better than what they've been cooking up as a field day for energy interests and polluters.
Might as well be written by the energy lobbyists (oh that's right, it is being written by them).

`````
April 22, 2005

U.S. House Approves Regressive Energy Bill

By a vote of 249 to 183, the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday
approved the omnibus energy bill (H.R. 6, "The Energy Policy Act of
2005"), which included over $8 billion in energy tax breaks, the vast
majority of which will go to the polluting fossil fuel and nuclear
industries.

Prior to approval of the bill, the House voted down several amendments
to strike some of the most controversial language in the bill, including
a measure giving legal protections to manufactures of a fuel additive,
MTBE, that has polluted groundwater. The House also opposed an
amendment to strip language would allow the federal government to trump
local and state governments in the siting of liquified natural gas (LNG)
import facilities. Efforts to preserve the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge (ANWR) from oil and gas exploration were also defeated. "AMENDMENTS" section below to see how your representative voted on these
and other items.]

To see how your representative voted on H.R. 6, go here:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll132.xml

Energy legislation will be taken up by the Senate in May. If the
Senate approves an energy bill, its version will be reconciled with the
House version in a conference committee, after which a common bill will
be voted on by each house of Congress. CALL YOUR SENATORS and urge them
to oppose any legislation similar to the House energy bill. your senators via the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121]

==========

BACKGROUND ON H.R. 6
Despite the myriad reasons that this bill was rejected previously, the
recently-passed bill is composed of more of the same bad policies that
support the fossil fuel and nuclear industries -- plus some new harmful
provisions -- with even fewer policies that would promote renewable
energy, energy efficiency, conservation, and improved automobile fuel
economy.

This backwards, misguided, industry-designed bill includes the
following provisions:

* Repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA), a vital
protection for consumers of electricity, which would allow for the
expansion of deregulation and more Enron-style schemes
* Limits the ability of states to have adequate jurisdiction over the
permitting and siting of liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities, which
are extremely volatile and dangerous
* Gives a liability waiver to the producers of MTBE, a gasoline
oxygenate and known groundwater polluter, and shifts the cost of cleanup
to taxpayers
* Opens up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil and gas
exploration
* Authorizes the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Nuclear Power 2010
program to spur the development of new nuclear power plants, and its
Generation IV program to develop new reactor designs, through a
government-industry "cost sharing" schemes
* Authorized over $2 billion for research and development into nuclear
power generation and risky waste reprocessing
* Authorizes $1.1 billion for a nuclear-hydrogen cogeneration project
to create hydrogen fuel using nuclear power, a travesty of clean energy
goals
* Extends liability protections for nuclear plant operators through the
reauthorization of the Price-Anderson Act, covering reactors licensed
for the next 20 years

==========
==========

AMENDMENTS

The following amendments and motions would have stricken some of the
most egregious regressive measures in H.R. 6:

MTBE
Rep. Lois Capps' motion to strike a measure giving legal protections to
manufactures of the fuel additive MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl-ether)
that has polluted groundwater. Capps asserted that the measure amounted
to an "unfunded mandate" because it would require states and local
governments to clean up MTBE pollution. Failed 213-219:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll129.xml

LNG
Rep. Michael Castle's amendment to strike language in the bill that
"would preempt the authority of state and local governments to ensure
that liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities are sited in areas where
they do not pose a threat to public safety." Failed 194-237:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll131.xml

ANWR
Rep. Edward Markey's amendment to "strike the provisions that will
allow oil and gas exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge."
Failed 200-231:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll122.xml

REVENUE FROM OIL DRILLING ROYALTIES
Rep. Raul Grijalva's amendment "to strike section 2005 which requires
the Secretary of the Interior to suspend the collection of royalty
payments to the Treasury for offshore oil and gas production on the OCS
in the Gulf of Mexico." Failed 203-227:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll128.xml

==========

The following progressive amendments were rejected:

FEDERAL POWER ACT
Rep. John Dingell's amendment to "increase penalties for violations of
the Federal Power Act and authorize the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission to refund electricity overcharges." Also maintains the
Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA) and "directs the SEC to
review utility holding companies' status under PUHCA to prevent them
from wrongly claiming exemptions." Failed 188-243:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll123.xml

FUEL ECONOMY
Rep. Sherwood Boehlert's amendment "to direct the Secretary of
Transportation to increase fuel economy standards from today's average
of 25 miles/gallon to 33 miles/gallon over 10 years." Failed 177-254:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll121.xml

RENEWABLE ENERGY
Rep. Timothy Bishop's amendment to "reduce dependence on nonrenewable
energy sources." Failed 170-259:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll118.xml

CONSERVATION
Rep. Henry Waxman's amendment to "require the Administration to take
'voluntary, regulatory, and other actions' to reduce oil demand in the
U.S. by 1 million barrels per day from projected levels by 2013."
Failed 166-262:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll117.xml

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Rep. Alcee Hastings' amendment "to expand the definition of
environmental justice; to direct each Federal Agency to establish an
office of environmental justice; to reestablish the interagency Federal
Working Group on Environmental Justice; and to require that Executive
Order 12898 remain in force until changed by law." Failed 185-243:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll130.xml

**********


*** P R E S S R E L E A S E ***

For Immediate Release: June 22, 2005
Contact: Michele Boyd [phone]; Erica Hartman [phone]

Nuclear Industry to Receive More Than $10 Billion in Tax Breaks and
Subsidies in Senate Energy Bill

Public Citizen Says Nuclear Power Doesn't Deserve More Taxpayer
Handouts; 50-Year-Old Industry Should Stand on Its Own

WASHINGTON, D.C. - In a new cost analysis of the Senate energy bill,
Public Citizen today said that the nuclear industry would stand to gain
more than $10.1 billion in subsidies and tax breaks, as well as
unlimited taxpayer-backed loan guarantees and other incentives.

"The government should not be promoting the construction of new
reactors, which will only add to the nuclear waste and security problems
while costing taxpayers billions," said Wenonah Hauter, director of
Public Citizen's energy program. "The nuclear industry is demanding
cradle-to-grave subsidies, and the Senate energy bill is an attempt to
give it to them."

The $10.1 billion includes $5.7 billion in production tax credits and
$4.4 billion in various subsidies, but does not include the potential
costs of loan guarantees or the Price-Anderson Act, which puts taxpayers
on the hook for potentially billions in cleanup costs in the event of a
major accident or terrorist attack on a reactor.

The production tax credits equal 1.8 cents for each kilowatt-hour of
electricity from new reactors (up to 6,000 megawatts) during the first
eight years of operation - costing $5.7 billion through 2025, according
to the Energy Information Administration. However, only $278 million
through 2016 is counted in the $18 billion in tax breaks in the bill,
because most of the nuclear credits would be claimed after 2016. This
means that the true cost of all the tax breaks, including those for
non-nuclear industries, is more than $24 billion.

Separately, the loan guarantees in the Senate bill could prove
extremely costly to taxpayers. According to the Congressional Budget
Office (CBO), the risk of loan default by industry would be very high --
"well above 50 percent" -- leaving the public to pay as much as 80
percent of the cost of building a reactor. This provision authorizes
"such sums as are necessary," but if Congress were to appropriate
funding for loan guarantees covering six nuclear reactors, this subsidy
could potentially cost taxpayers $6 billion (assuming a 50 percent
default rate and construction cost per plant of $2.5 billion, as the CBO
has estimated).

Other subsidies for the nuclear industry in the Senate energy bill
include:

* Reauthorization of the Price-Anderson Act, extending the industry's
liability cap to cover new nuclear power plants built in the next 20
years, which means in the event of an accident or attack, taxpayers
would be liable for the remainder of the cost, estimated to be $600
billion for a single serious accident (2004 dollars).

* Authorization of more than $432 million over three years for nuclear
energy research and development, including the Department of Energy's
Nuclear Power 2010 program to build new nuclear plants, and its
Generation IV program to develop new reactor designs. Half the cost of
applications for new reactors would be paid for by taxpayers, estimated
to be as much as $87 million per reactor.

* Authorization of more than $1.25 billion from FY2006 to FY2015 and
"such sums as are necessary" from FY2016 to FY2021 for a nuclear plant
in Idaho to generate hydrogen fuel. Hydrogen could be a clean fuel of
the future, but using nuclear power to produce it negates the benefits.


Existing reactors have been heavily subsidized for decades, receiving
56 percent of the federal energy supply research and development funding
between 1948 and 1998, capped insurance rates and limited liability in
the case of an accident, and billions in taxpayer bailouts in the 1980s.


"Despite a pro-nuclear push by the Bush administration and some members
of Congress, nuclear power is not an acceptable option for the future,"
said Hauter. "We have 'been there, done that' and it has been a failure.
After more than 50 years, the problems of nuclear power are far from
solved. In fact, they are more widely recognized than ever."

In March, e-mails were released indicating that government scientists
falsified data related to water infiltration and climate modeling for
the proposed Yucca Mountain waste dump site; investigations are still
ongoing. Also, recent reports by the National Academy of Sciences and
the Government Accountability Office pointed out security
vulnerabilities of the highly radioactive waste stored at reactor sites.
The energy bill contains no requirements for improving security at these
sites.

Nuclear power has made headlines this year as proponents attempt to
convince a wary public that nuclear energy can solve the global warming
problem. Last week, nearly 300 environmental and public interest
organizations sent a letter to Congress flatly rejecting nuclear energy
as an "acceptable or necessary" solution to combat rising temperatures
on the planet because it is an expensive, dangerous and polluting
technology.

"We urge the Senate to remove these unjustifiable subsidies, tax breaks
and loan guarantees from the energy bill," Hauter said. "After 50 years,
the nuclear industry should stand on its own. Instead of endless
subsidies to nuclear companies, Congress should dedicate funds to
harness the promise of energy efficiency and renewable technologies,
such as wind and solar energy."

Last month, Public Citizen released a new fact sheet series outlining
the five fatal flaws of nuclear power: cost, waste, safety, security and
proliferation (to read them, go to www.citizen.org/cmep/fatalflaws. ) For
more information about the subsidies and other incentives in the Senate
energy bill, go to
http://www.citizen.org/documents/senatebillnukeprovisio... . For a
copy of the statement opposing nuclear power, go to
http://www.citizen.org/documents/GroupNuclearStmt.pdf .

Yesterday, the Senate added Sen. Chuck Hagel's climate change
amendment, which authorizes additional financial assistance through
2010, including direct loans, loan guarantees, a line of credit and
production incentive payments, that could include new nuclear power
plants.

###

Public Citizen is a national, nonprofit consumer advocacy organization
with 150,000 members. For more information, visit www.citizen.org

==========

Tell your senators to oppose this bill!
http://action.citizen.org/pc/mail/oneclick_compose/?ale...

==========

[jmaier]

1. This is going to be hard to win without a filibuster.

You have to figure a couple of Democrats are going to go for this, at a minimum (Landreau, Nelson - NE). How many (R) defections can be expected?

[G_j]

2. PUT A STOP TO THIS PERENNIAL PACKAGE OF POLLUTER PORK!

!!! A C T I O N A L E R T !!!

June 23, 2005

TELL YOUR SENATORS TO OPPOSE THE ENERGY BILL!

** A vote could happen as soon as this afternoon. **

As this moment, members of the U.S. Senate are debating their version
of the federal omnibus energy bill (S. 10, "The Energy Policy Act of
2005"). While the bill includes some significant provisions promoting
energy efficiency and renewables, it ultimately sells out consumers by
repealing the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA), which has
protected ratepayers and investors for 70 years, and by heavily
subsidizing polluting industries. Public Citizen has identified at
least $10 billion in giveaways to the mature nuclear power industry.
http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1972 ]

Urge your senators to reject this regressive energy policy! CALL THEM
TODAY to voice your opposition -- connect through the Capitol
Switchboard at 202-224-3121.

Tell your senators to OPPOSE the energy bill at-large but SUPPORT the
SUNUNU-WYDEN AMENDMENT to strike the "incentives" title from the bill
which would subsidize an unlimited number of energy projects --
including nuclear and fossil energy plants to the tune of $3.75 billion
in the first five years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
But since there is no "sunset" language, the actual subsidies could
total much, much more. For more information, see
http://www.citizen.org/documents/Incentives_Title.pdf

PUT A STOP TO THIS PERENNIAL PACKAGE OF POLLUTER PORK!

=====

For Public Citizen's analysis of the Senate energy bill, go here:
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/electricity/energybill/2005/articles.cfm?ID=13354

For Public Citizen's analysis of the nuclear provisions in the energy
bill, go here:
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/electricity/energybill/2005/articles.cfm?ID=13518

To send a letter to your senators urging opposition to the energy bill,
go here:
http://action.citizen.org/pc/mail/oneclick_compose/?alertid=7707271

**********
To SUBSCRIBE to the CMEP ListServ, visit https://www.citizen.org/email/enteremail.cfm