Vol. VII No. 18
May 2,
2002
The Energy Bill Scam
With
the passage of the Senate Energy Bill last week, our national
energy policy has become the poster child for all that
is wrong with Washington. Every stage of the Energy Bill's
design and creation has involved the securing of massive
welfare handouts for wealthy corporate interests.
The
story begins with the energy industry contributing millions
of dollars to the campaigns of Democrats and Republicans
in Congress. It should come as no surprise that those
"contributions" bought industry unprecedented
access and influence over the legislative process, and
set in motion a policy process that resulted in legislation
that dishes out billions of dollars in subsidies and tax
credits to very profitable companies.
The
interest of the broader public was forced into the wings
when the President's energy task force held closed-door
meetings with industry executives where they were asked
to play the role of Il Duce in creating a wish list for
their industries. Rather than the long-term interests
of the nation's pocket book or the public good, when the
President released his national energy strategy, corporate
profits received the most attention.
The
House followed in lock step with consideration of H.R.
4, the House Energy package passed last August. It includes
a whopping $33 billion in tax credits and incentives for
energy companies, including new subsidies for oil, gas,
nuclear, coal and electric utilities, but offers little
to taxpayers and consumers. Legislation passed by the
Senate last week was almost as bad. More outrageous than
the overall content of the bill, however, was how billions
of dollars in corporate giveaways were tacked onto the
bill with little or no debate.
One
such provision would mandate the use of ethanol in gasoline,
and increase the use of ethanol to five billion gallons
by the year 2012. When the five billion gallon mark is
reached, the ethanol mandate will cost taxpayers about
$2.5 billion annually. Also included in this section is
a provision that would protect companies from being sued
should the ethanol mandate have a detrimental effect on
either the environment or the public health. Should any
clean-up costs be incurred, as has happened with the MTBE
mandate in California, taxpayers would more than likely
be liable for those costs.
Another
lucky recipient was the Healy Clean Coal Plant in Alaska.
As reported in the February 15th WasteBasket, after having
received over $117 million in federal subsidies to experiment
with Clean Coal, this project-gone-bad now wants the feds
to pay for them to retrofit back to a traditional coal-burning
plant. With absolutely no debate, the Senate earmarked
$125 million more in loan guarantees for Healy to correct
their past mistakes.
The
Bonneville Power Administration in Oregon also struck
gold when in the eleventh hour they were guaranteed $1.3
billion in new borrowing authority despite the fact that
they have an atrocious record on being accountable for
the billions in borrowing authority that they've already
received. This nearly doubled the $700 million dollars
requested for BPA in the President's budget for 2003,
yet there was no Senate debate and no vote.
Then
there is the story of the Alaska Gas Pipeline. In exchange
for building a natural gas pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to
major U.S. markets, gas companies will receive a new tax
subsidy that provides a federal guarantee on the future
price that they will receive at the end of the pipe. Energy
consultants can't even predict how much this may cost
taxpayers, yet the Senate passed the legislation without
a public debate.
Energy
legislation's next step is conference committee where,
if last week's outcome on the Farm Bill is any indication
of what will happen now, it's likely that the negotiations
between the House and Senate Energy Bills will only sweeten
the pot and leave Democracy out in the cold.
This
is just one example of how serious national policy debates
have turned into pork fests for every special interest
in Washington. It is a sorry state of things when industry
antes up campaign cash to get the invitation to write
the policy, then spreads around even more money to secure
its eventual passage into law, and at the end of the day
has a few extra goodies added to sweeten the special interest
grab-bag that Congress and the administration call "energy
policy."
The
country certainly needs a real debate about its energy
future, but participation shouldn't be limited to the
highest bidders.
For
more information, contact Keith Ashdown at (202)-546-8500
ext. 110 or keith@taxpayer.net