Bush plan: nuclear, oil, coal
Monday, January 29, 2001, 12:00 a.m. Pacific
by Doug Abrahms
Gannett News Service
WASHINGTON - A draft of President Bush's energy legislation calls for controversial fast-track drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, an ambitious effort to beef up electricity production from nuclear and coal, and more money for energy conservation and renewable resources.
The bill's stated purpose is to wean America's dependence on foreign oil, which stands at 55 percent, and create a national energy policy to prevent shortages that have led to the California electricity crisis.
But the proposal, unless altered, is certain to prompt hard-fought debate. Besides making it easier for energy companies to build refineries and pipelines or to drill for oil, for example, the draft harbors the assumption that Yucca Mountain in Nevada will be the nation's nuclear-waste disposal site.
The draft reflects Bush's campaign promise to address the nation's energy problems and comes at a time when Americans are facing higher gasoline and natural gas prices and electricity shortages in the West, particularly California.
The bill is expected to be introduced early next month by Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, who heads the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott said last week that while an energy bill is not on the legislative agenda, it could move fairly quickly because of the "need for a national energy policy."
"It reads like it was written by the nuclear power industry or particularly by the oil companies," said Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. "This is a blueprint for increased reliance on nuclear power."
And signaling his opposition to making Yucca Mountain the nuclear waste dump despite the fact that feasibility studies of the Nevada site are not complete, Reid said, "This is the height of all gall."
The proposal would:
** Order federal agencies to speed up the approval process for new underground natural-gas pipelines and set up an interagency task force to hasten environmental reviews. That runs counter to efforts by safety advocacy groups to toughen existing pipeline regulations.
** Repeal the 1980 law that bans drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and accepts the environmental impact report of 1987, which would speed up the process. Environmentalists and many Democrats strongly object.
** Offer unspecified incentives to building domestic refineries; streamline approval processes.
** Look at the potential for increasing nuclear power. There are 103 functioning commercial nuclear plants in the United States, but not one new fission facility is under construction. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not received any applications for new plants since 1978.
** To offset environmental criticisms, the plan also promotes a bit of conservation.
Federal agencies would have to increase the fuel efficiencies of their fleets by three miles per gallon by and use alternative fuels for at least half the total volume of fuel used by agencies by 2005. The plan also offers to provide at least $30 million annually in grants for residents using solar, wind or other renewable sources for power.
The question is whether conservation measures will be enough to mollify environmentalists, who are certain to oppose Bush's plan.
"Nuclear waste is one of the most serious problems we have to deal with in this country," said Ann Mesnikoff of the Sierra Club. "I don't think you'll find an environmental organization that will support new nuclear power. Solar and wind, yes."
"They're using the California energy mess - which has nothing to do with a lack of oil - as a pretext for lowering environmental standards and drilling in America's most sensitive treasures," said Dave Alberswerth of The Wilderness Society.
Information from Newhouse News Service was used in this report.
Copyright © 2001 The Seattle Times Company
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
