Energy Bill - Press Release (shows one of the pressure points)

[salin]

News reports keep suggesting that the big hangup with the energy bill is the issue of use of ethanol (and subsidies); and or the issue of subsidies related to the pipeline in Alaska (note - they are no longer saying that inclusion of ANWR is an issue - they assume ANWR - though claim it is a smaller amt of land; now the question is 'subsidies' or price support mechanisms for use of said pipeline).

Here are some news items (I am on a news alert list) that give a big indication of what is currently going on.

1. The AJC op-ed writes a rather biting editorial:


10/28/03
OUR VIEW
U.S. energy bill dupes the public

What Congress is doing to America's long-term energy strategy isn't a crime -- but it should be. This is a stickup, plain and simple.

Like most muggings, this crude exercise is taking place out of public view, mostly in closed-door meetings between sessions held by Rep. W.J. "Billy" Tauzin (R-La.) and Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.). The duo's ostensible mandate is to develop legislation that would reduce dependence on foreign oil, promote conservation and fix gaps in the nation's electrical grid that appear to have caused this summer's crippling blackouts.

Instead, the work has degenerated into a lopsided orgy of unnecessary industry giveaways, rollbacks of environmental and consumer protections and predictably craven pork politics. It will cost taxpayers at least $20 billion over the next decade, an amount that will probably triple when it's all toted up.

More ....
(includes bullet points on three issues - off shore drilling; FERC authority over states + the ability of expanded eminent domain; and the subsidies for Ethanol; it also lays out the ugly nature of political power play in the release and vote timing (those note in negotiations: re - Democrats - have 48 hours to review and comment on a 1,700 page bill)
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/1003/28energy.html

2. Rep. Barton - inserts controversial langauge to ease 'Clean Air Act' deadlines. (Btw, wasn't Barton, the one with DeLay who tried to insert some exclusive tax break for a big energy firm - got caught and had to back down...)

Barton draws criticism for energy bill amendment
Posted on Mon, Oct. 27, 2003


Barton draws criticism for energy bill amendment
By Maria Recio
Star-Telegram Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON _ Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, a usually low-key lawmaker even after nearly 20 years in Congress, has been thrust into the limelight in the high-stakes energy legislation _ but not in a way he wants.

Barton, R-Ennis, has been pilloried by environmentalists and in editorials since last week for quietly inserting an amendment into the energy bill that would ease deadlines in the Clean Air Act for Fort Worth-Dallas and other areas just as the legislation reached its final stages of negotiation between the House and Senate.

A `Washington Post' editorial on the energy bill Friday under the headline "Congress Embarrassed" singled out Barton for criticism.

Later Friday, the chairman of the conference committee on the energy bill, Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., issued an unusually blunt statement citing Barton's amendment as one of three major stumbling blocks forcing a delay in agreement on an energy package. He postponed today's long-awaited energy conference until the issues can be resolved.

Barton, in his first interview since the firestorm hit, defended his handling of the issue to the `Star-Telegram and expressed confidence that the amendment will survive.

more: http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/7118050.htm


3. An Industry Interest Group Press Release shows one of the pressure points. Here the - Industrial Energy Consumers of America - in their press release shows yet another point of contention. A current impasse on off-shore drilling. It sounds as if this organization wants some kind of compromise rather than an either or on the issue which curently is tied to the inclusion of a provision that allows an "inventory" of off-shore oil supplies. This is perceived by coastal states as the door opening for off-shore drilling. Read below:

Press Release Source: Industrial Energy Consumers of America


Energy Bill Will Not Put U.S. on Path to Resolve Nation's Natural Gas Crisis ... SEACOR is the Solution
Tuesday October 28, 7:26 am ET


WASHINGTON, Oct. 28 /PRNewswire/ -- In a letter to the Senator Domenici and Representative Tauzin thanking them for their leadership, the Industrial Energy Consumers of America (IECA) said, "we must address the impasse between the environment and the need to increase supplies of natural gas. It is for this reason IECA strongly supports inclusion of SEACOR (State Enhanced Authority for Coastal and Offshore Resources) in the conference report."

"The Energy Policy Act of 2003 will not put the United States on a path to resolve the nation's natural gas crisis," says Paul N. Cicio, Executive Director of the group. "We need a comprehensive solution to breaking the impasse by providing strong recognition of state interests in controlling offshore drilling and sharing of royalty revenue with 'all' states. We also need to give preferential treatment to drilling for natural gas."

More (including their talking points on "SEACOR"): http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/031028/dctu027_1.html

Last Week, I believe, MOVEON.org encouraged members to write letters to the editor as well as to congress. Keep those coming.

[Armstead]

1. More

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1027-05.htm

Published on Monday, October 27, 2003 by the Baltimore Sun
Fossil Fuels Folly
by Mike Tidwell

TWO WHITE House forecasts make Capitol Hill leaders look particularly unwise as they prepare to pass a national energy bill sometime this month. First, there's the Bush administration's projection of a nearly $500 billion budget deficit for next year. Second - and, yes, this is official - the administration is forecasting significant global warming in the coming decades with likely painful economic and environmental consequences.

Given these realities, why are U.S. House and Senate negotiators loading the Energy Security Act of 2003 with $19 billion in corporate giveaways to the oil, coal and natural gas industries? The effect of such welfare is to provide incentives for fossil fuel consumption over conservation, thus asking taxpayers to spend money they don't have for the dirtier air and rising atmospheric temperatures nobody wants.

Even if you don't care about the potential ravages of global warming, you might object to the obscene waste of your tax money. The 5-inch-thick House version of the energy bill offers energy sector giveaways ranging from nano-technology research to a demonstration project to burn post-consumer carpeting in cement kilns.

The most expensive largesse goes straight to some of America's biggest and most prosperous polluters.

[salin]

2. Let them eat.... polluted air and depleted energy supplies! GWB 2003. n/t

[Armstead]

3. one more