http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010801/pl/energy_bill.html

Wednesday August 1 11:43 PM ET

House Approves Arctic Drilling

By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The House voted late Wednesday to allow oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, rejecting claims that development would devastate ``a cathedral of nature'' in need of protection.

The vote was a major victory for President Bush (news - web sites) who in his presidential campaign and in a broad energy blueprint, called drilling in the refuge key to assuring the country's energy needs in years to come.

Protection of the refuge, which was created 41 years ago by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, emerged as the most hotly debated issue in a package of energy proposals expected to be approved and sent to the Senate later Wednesday night.

A call for drilling in the refuge's 1.5-million-acre coastal plain - an area frequented by millions of migrating birds, caribou and other wildlife - was included in the 510-page bill, and an attempt to strip it out fell short by a vote of 223-206.

The White House called the energy bill, which also would provide billions of dollars in tax breaks for energy industries, a proper balance between energy development and conservation.

But the House rejected calls for more stringent fuel efficiency requirements for popular sport utility vehicles, minivans and trucks - a move viewed by many environmentalists as the single most effective way to curtail energy demand.

Fuel efficiency improvements for motor vehicles would save more oil each year than could be produced in the Arctic refuge, opponents of drilling in the refuge argued.

The Senate has yet to take action on energy legislation, planning to take up the energy proposals in September after the summer recess. Senate Democrats have vowed to block an attempt to open the Arctic refuge to oil companies, although the House vote will give the issue fresh momentum.

In addition to the Arctic drilling, the House bill would provide $33.5 billion in energy tax breaks and credits, most of it to promote coal, oil, nuclear and natural gas development, but also about $6 billion aimed at spurring energy conservation.

But by 269-160 vote, the lawmakers turned back a proposal that would have required sport utility vehicles to achieve a fleet average of 27.5 miles per gallon, the same as cars, by 2007. They currently have to meet only a 20.5 mpg fleet average.

Automobile fuel economy peaked at 26.5 miles per gallons in 1986, said Rep. Edward Markey (news - bio - voting record), D-Mass. ``We've been going backward every since. This is not rocket science. It's auto mechanics.''

It was the first time in 21 years that the House has taken up the Arctic drilling issue. In 1980, Congress declared that the coastal plain within the refuge potentially could be tapped for its oil resources, but not without a green light from Congress.

Proponents argued that with modern technology oil exploration and development can be done without environmental harm to the refuge. No more than 2,000 acres of the 1.5 million acres containing the oil would be disturbed, proponents argued.

Markey countered that the 2,000 acres would create a ``spider web'' of drilling platforms, pipelines and roads extending across the region.

The refuge ``was supposed to be drilled, explored for the American people,'' declared Rep. Don Young (news - bio - voting record), R-Alaska. He chided some of the drilling opponents, many of whom, he said, had never been to the refuge in the far corner of northeastern Alaska.

``This is no ordinary land,'' shot back Rep. David Bonier, D-Mich., who said he had been there. ``It's a cathedral of nature, an American heritage. And it's our responsibility to protect it.''

The question is whether the nation will honor its heritage ``or will the big oil companies win,'' continued Bonier. Oil companies long have coveted the refuge which geologists believe contains between 5 billion and 16 billion barrels of oil, an amount that could be comparable to the Prudhoe oil fields next door.

Democrats said the House bill was tilted too heavily toward energy companies, pointing to more than $33.5 billion in tax benefits over the next decade. They said $8 of every $10 would go to coal, oil, nuclear and other energy industries.

The revenue drain could force Congress to dip into Medicare or Social Security (news - web sites) trust funds, Democrats charged. The bill's GOP supporters disagreed.

Debate on the 510-page bill, the first broad overhaul of federal energy policy in a decade, was expected to include a showdown over drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (news - web sites).

``This bill is a giant step forward in securing America's energy future,'' said Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La.

The House debate came days before Congress was to begin its summer recess. The action was the first legislative response to President Bush's energy blueprint released in May and to the growing concern in Congress about the nation's energy future.

The bill is ``focused on increased conservation, promoting technology, expanding the use of renewables and increasing efficiency, increasing energy exploration and promoting a clean environment,'' White House press secretary Ari Fleischer (news - web sites) said.

Critics said the bill offered little immediate relief or significant energy savings.

``This moves America backward,'' insisted Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., and is ``tilted to the energy lobby.''

Among the bill's major provisions were:

-About $27 billion in tax breaks over 10 years for energy development including incentives for coal, gas and oil and nuclear energy development.

-Nearly $6 billion in conservation incentives including increasing federal research into clean coal technologies.

-An increase in federal spending to help low-income families pay heating and cooling bills, and make energy efficiency improvements.

-- (agree@or.disagree), August 02, 2001

Answers

Hip hip hooray!

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 02, 2001.

The very real energy crisis Demand for power is soaring quickly, while expanding supply can take years. That means trouble. By Scott Burns

"What really startles me is that so few people realize how close we are to being out of energy capacity. We seem to have two camps -- those who think we can never run out because there will always be more and those who think it doesn't really matter because energy is Old Economy. In fact, we may run out of spare capacity."

That's what Matthew Simmons, president of the Houston investment bank that bears his name, said in a recent telephone interview. He thinks it's a serious problem. If you read the speeches he's made over the last two years, as I have, you'll probably agree with him. In speech after speech he has outlined how every aspect of the global system for the production and distribution of energy has been hollowed out so that it now faces the almost insurmountable task of major expansion in every facet -- even as it struggles to replace declining reserves.

"The world has never run out of food. But we've had famines. It's a problem of distribution," he explains, pointing out that "spare capacity" can literally mean life or death for people or economies.

"The problem we are facing is that expanding (from current capacity) by just 1% or 2% globally can take years -- but demand can grow that much in a year.

"In fact, we're at capacity all around. We're at capacity at the wellhead. We're at capacity in refineries. We're at capacity in power plants. And we're at capacity in power transmission lines."

Could he give some examples?

"If you look at the last 30 years you'll see that we've added about 10% to the power base of electric plants every five years. But in the '90s we didn't do that. We added 4% in the first five years and 2% in the second five years. We added half that amount in transmission lines. But those who worried about it were labeled Cassandras."

How about oil capacity?

"In the Middle East we've added one substantial field in 20 years. It is just about to reach peak capacity of 500,000 barrels a day. But that's only a small percentage of the 75 million barrels a day that are consumed. In the Middle East some data is now emerging that the major fields are in decline.

"The non-OPEC oil supply grew by only 2 million barrels a day through the '90s. That probably happened because the (original) production base is only 60% of what it was. We've been running just to stay in place. In natural gas we've been producing flat-out, but only increased production by 1% or 2%.

"We're on the decline curve," Simmons said, referring to the inevitable depletion of oil production from existing oil fields.

Ironically, even if a valve could be turned in the Middle East, our energy problems would not be solved. We'd need new ships to transport it and new refineries to crack it. Similarly, while small turbine producers like Calpine may deliver dozens of small electric generators in the next two years, the increased demand for natural gas to run the turbines may exhaust gas supplies. Basically, there is no slack anywhere because we missed a full decade of investment in new capacity.

What will it take to solve the problem?

Simmons' answer was startling. "Something like the Marshall Plan," he said, referring to the investment the United States made in rebuilding Europe after World War II.

Simmons was quick to explain that he wasn't being literal. What he envisions is an effort of that scope, one that involves the public sector as well as private industry because it will take a 30% expansion in capacity (over 10 years) to meet demand and restore a degree of spare capacity.

Do less than that, he is certain, and we'll stay inside the problem.

moneycentral.msn.com/arti...a/7575.asp

-- Cave Man (caves@are.us), August 02, 2001.

Do all 16 year olds really need a brand new gas guzzling SUV?

-- Cherri (jessam6@home.com), August 02, 2001.

I guess we could pass ANOTHER law to legislate SUV's out of existence. But I'm sure the Hollywood elite and Congress (their travel is happily funded by the taxpayers) would have themselves exempted.

Hypocrisy knows no bounds.

-- libs are idiots (moreinterpretation@ugly.com), August 02, 2001.

Cherri, to answer your question. No. But I'll go further, 16 year olds don't need to drive. I wish that states would raise the driving age to 18.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 03, 2001.

Changing the driving age to 18 will NOT make anything better. The only thing it would do is cause a whole lot of protests from people like me. I am currently in high school. I am a sophomore, but because I skipped a grade, I have only just recently turned 14. If I am not allowed to drive until I'm 18, that means that I will go through my entire freshman year of college without a car. Talk about a gigantic hassle. Be practicle. The answer is not in changing the driving age, it is in changing what kind of cars people drive.

-- Sara (i'd-rather@not-say.com), October 13, 2001.

Sara,
Lacking a car while in college is not necessarily a hardship. The school where I got my undergraduate degree had an adequate bus system, although a student would have been ill advised to take a course schedule that would require crossing campuses in the small amount of time between consecutive periods. And having a car at college may not be entirely without problems, such as congestion, vandalism and parking tickets.

But I agree that the driving age should not be driven by the need to conserve energy. It should be based primarily on when young people are judged to be capable drivers.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), October 13, 2001.