We Need Clean Energy Solutions

As the country debates our national energy policy, we have a rare opportunity to move our country ahead towards a new energy future, one that protects the environment and cleans the air while making us more energy efficient, promoting clean and renewable energy sources, and protecting consumers from the wild price fluctuations in our current energy markets.

Unfortunately, the energy plan passed by the House of Representatives in August is good for polluters, but bad for consumers and the environment. Truth be told, the House energy legislation is so fundamentally flawed that the American public would be better off if the Senate rejected it in its entirety and passed nothing.

The plan passed by the House repeats the same pattern of dirty energy dependence that has led us to where we are today—fluctuating gas prices, global warming pollution, and what promises to be the smoggiest summer on record, according to a new Knight Ridder analysis.

Arguing that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, the House energy plan allows oil and gas drilling in the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which the U.S. Geological Survey estimates contains only a six-month supply of oil. In contrast, the House of Representatives in August rejected an amendment to increase fuel economy standards for SUVs and light trucks, which would have conserved 1 million barrels of oil per day—more than twice the maximum daily yield from the Arctic Refuge.

The House plan also benefits polluters at taxpayers’ expense. Wooed by $2.5 million in campaign contributions from big oil, coal, nuclear and auto industries in the 2000 election cycle, the House passed an energy bill that includes $27.7 billion in budget-busting tax breaks over ten years to these polluters, while offering minimal incentives for energy efficiency and renewables.

Meanwhile, the Environmental Protection Agency is considering rolling back a key enforcement mechanism of the Clean Air Act called New Source Review, which cleans up some of the nation’s oldest and dirtiest power plants. Unfortunately, because of weak enforcement of the New Source Review rules, there are hundreds of old, coal-burning power plants and oil refineries that are operating with little or no pollution controls. The Department of Justice found that violators of the rules emitted tens of millions of tons of pollution illegally. The New Source Review rules are designed to stop this charade by forcing old plants to meet modern standards.

The energy debate will soon reach a pivotal point on the Senate floor. At this crossroads, the Senate will have to ask the difficult questions that the House energy legislation failed to answer. Do we continue down the path of exploitation of dirty, unsustainable fossil fuels and nuclear power? Or do we choose an entirely different path towards clean and renewable energy sources, energy efficiency, and strong pollution controls for power plants?

Senator Leiberman and Senator Dodd should continue to support cleaner, more sustainable energy solutions. Specifically, the Senate should support proposals to prohibit oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and on public lands, increase miles-per-gallon standards, end taxpayer subsidies for polluters, require significant energy production from renewable energy sources, and clean up the nation’s oldest and dirtiest power plants. By taking these steps, we can achieve a new, cleaner and safer energy future.

Seth Landau is the Field Organizer with the Connecticut Public Interest Research Group (ConnPIRG), the state’s leading public interest advocacy group, with 10,000 members across the state.