HOUSE FOSSIL FUELERS LASH BACK AT NEW ENERGY’S BILL

As predicted February 14 by NewEnergyNews (in NEW ENERGY INCENTIVES IN THE HOUSE: “Republicans are expected to respond with calls for drilling in Alaska and other protected federal areas…”), House conservatives have responded to the energy legislation proposed by the House Democratic leadership by calling for more oil. The bill introduced February 15 also would have the U.S. aim to produce 40% of its electricity from nuclear energy, which currently accounts for about 19% of U.S. power.

NewEnergyNews got one thing wrong, however. The bill is being proposed by a conservative group of House members, dubbed the "Blue Dog Coalition, that includes Republicans AND Democrats. It is being sponsored by Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark) and Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif).

“Blue Dog” refers to paintings by Louisiana Cajun artist George Rodrigue that hung in the offices of the Louisiana members where the first Blue Dog meetings were held. It is also a play on the "Yellow Dog Democrat" label once applied to Southern Democrats who were so loyal they claimed they would vote for a yellow dog before a Republican.

The House leadership’s New Energy incentives bill, introduced February 13, would fund production tax credits (PTCs) and investment tax credits (ITCs) as well as energy efficiency measures and plug-in hybrid vehicle development. It would finance these programs by shifting tax breaks and subsidies the New York Times has called “…wholly unnecessary…” away from fossil fuels industries.

In an interesting gesture toward striking a bargain, the Blue Dog bill’s sponsor points out that the $80 billion in revenue would pay for the New Energy incentives the House leadership has twice unsuccessfully attempted to get through the Senate. Will the leadership see this as an opportunity to shift the financing of the New Energy incentives and finally get them through the Senate? Or will they find drilling on protected lands and generating twice as much nuclear waste an unacceptable price to pay?

NewEnergyNews predicts the latter.

The Blue Dogs also cleverly point out new nuclear plants would cut the nation’s coal consumption. The House leadership may be tempted by this argument - until they remember the small but terrifying possibility of a nuclear meltdown, the risk of targeting by terrorists of a nuclear plant, the fear of weapons proliferation, the danger of a dirty nuke, the enormous consumption of precious water resources by nuclear plants and - last but hardly least - the unsolved problem of what to do about nuclear waste.

But is there a deal there somewhere?

Arkansas Congressman’s Bill Calls for Energy Independence on Back of Oil Drilling
John Gambrell, February 15, 2008 (AP via Yahoo Finance)

WHO
The House Blue Dog Coalition (Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark; Rep Devin Nunes, R-Calif)

WHAT
Ross and Nunes are co-sponsoring the "American-Made Energy Act of 2008" to open up protected federal lands to oil and gas drilling and incentivize nuclear energy plant development.

The Blue Dogs want to drill in ANWR to raise the money to finance New Energy incentives. That's sort of going the long way around, isn't it? (click to enlarge)

WHEN
- In 2005, the Democrats fought and won a pitched legislative battle to prevent expanded drilling in the protected federal regions.
- Ross claims the new proposed new drilling would generate $80 billion over 30 years.

WHERE
Among the protected federal lands, the Blue Dog bill would open Arctic wildlife lands (like the Arctic national Wildlife Refuge, ANWR) and the offshore Florida Gulf of Mexico coast to oil and gas exploration.

WHY
- The Blue Dog bill proposes the U.S. set as a goal obtaining 40% of its electricity from nuclear energy, more than doubling the 19+% it now gets.
- ANWR is thought to be the biggest untapped U.S. oil and gas reserve. Conservatives funded by oil and gas political contributions have long agitated to open it up. Those opposed to drilling their see it as one of the last pristine U.S. wildernesses. Conservatives argue the ANWR resources can be exploited by new technologies with a very limited incursion into the wilderness. Opponents point out that activities ancillary to drilling such as transportation and pipeline development would make a limited incursion impossible.
- Proponents of nuclear power development claim new nuclear plants represent little danger of accidents and generate far less waste than an older generation. Opponents point out that nuclear plants still have a small but real possibility of a devastating accidental event for which insurance is prohibitively expensive. They also are targets for terrorists. Nuclear plants consume huge amounts of ever more precious water resources. And however small the waste generated there is no place to store or destroy it.

This is the Blue Dog idea of beating climate change. (click to enlarge)

QUOTES
- Rep. Ross: "We're not just trying to suck the oil out of the ground for no reason…[but] to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and take the revenue from the sale of that oil and invest in all of these environmentally friendly and job-creating emerging technologies."
- Rep. Ross: "This is not the '40s or '50s, this is not Chernobyl…This is the 21st Century. We can do these things in an environmentally friendly manner."
- NewEnergyNews: This is not the 70s, this is not the 80s. Nuclear energy too problematic to construct a future infrastructure for and New Energy is ready to step up and provide a significant part of U.S. electricity if the U.S. will only incentivize its development.