Two Visions Of Energy

Frank O'Donnell

June 20, 2005

Frank O'Donnell is president of  Clean Air Watch, a 501 (c) 3 non-partisan, non-profit organization aimed at educating the public about clean air and the need for an effective Clean Air Act.

In an action that barely made the inside section of most newspapers, the Senate last week voted for a more sane energy future. 

By a narrow 52-48 margin, the Senate approved a plan that would a require electric power companies to use such renewable sources as wind, solar and geothermal power or biomass fuels to generate at least 10 percent of their electricity by 2020.

It's hardly a radical notion. Nineteen states already have similar state requirements.  And a 20 or 25 percent target would have been better. But the so-called "renewable portfolio standard" is a step in the right direction—one that the federal Energy Information Administration says would diversify our energy supply, reduce natural gas demand and price and save money for consumers.

The renewable power plan, advanced by New Mexico Democrat Jeff Bingaman, may come to symbolize a vision of our energy future being forged in the Senate—a pragmatic, incremental, yet optimistic approach that could begin steering our country in a better direction, one less dependent on fossil fuels and foreign sources of energy.

But this vision soon will collide with a darker vision of energy policy that has emerged from the House of Representatives—a policy favoring special interests over the national interest—one based on campaign contributions, harm to taxpayers and protection of polluters.

And that vision has its own symbol: the gasoline additive MTBE, which has poisoned water in at least 29 states.

At the insistence of Reps. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, and Joe Barton, R-Texas, the House measure would shield ExxonMobil and other makers of MTBE from product liability lawsuits. If their special-interest deal became law, taxpayers would be forced to write checks to clean up the MTBE mess, estimated by municipal water experts at $29 billion.

The MTBE makers have made different types of investments. Barton, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee has received more than $368,000 in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry since 2001, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.  

During that same period, Barton has received even more money—almost $370,000—from the electric power industry, which opposes the Senate renewable energy standard. Needless to say, Barton also, obediently, opposes it.

Consistent with the views of his oil and power company benefactors, Barton also adamantly opposes any plan that would limit global warming pollution. (Several years ago, at a luncheon of energy executives in Houston, Barton declared "If we need to raise the temperature a little bit here in Houston than so be it—but we'll do, because of free will not because government tells us we have to.")

Global warming will become the next defining test for the Senate energy bill, with a potentially historic vote ahead this week.

Sen. Pete V. Domenici, R-N.M., chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has become convinced it is time for the United States to do something about curbing greenhouse gas emissions, his staff said last Friday.

Domenici has hinted that he may co-sponsor a plan by Bingaman that would, for the first time, put limits on global warming pollution. The Bingaman plan is modeled on a proposal by the National Commission on Energy Policy, a bipartisan, foundation-funded panel. 

Domenici met last week with Vice President Dick Cheney in what appears to have been a move to break the news to the White House—which, like Barton, has consistently opposed any limit on global warming pollution.

Most environmental groups don't think the Bingaman-and-maybe-Domenici plan would go far enough to limit greenhouse gas emissions. (It calls for a limit on future emissions rather than an actual reduction from today's level.) But its passage would be consistent with the moderate, optimistic energy vision embodied by the renewable portfolio standard. 

And it would be a real break with the dark, special-interest approach embodied by the Joe Barton MTBE protection plan.