Editorial: Energy bill a big step backwards

Thursday, April 17, 2003 | 8:43 a.m.

Among the 157 Democrats who voted against the House energy bill last week was Rep. Shelley Berkley, who represents Las Vegas. She likened the bill to a "wish list" for the gas, oil, coal and nuclear industries. Her fellow representatives from Nevada, Republican Reps. Jim Gibbons and Jon Porter, voted for the bill, which passed by a vote of 275-175. President Bush hailed the House vote, calling the bill "a major step forward in the effort to secure our nation's energy future."

Bush may be right about securing our energy future, but what kind of a future will it be? While the bill has a few bright spots, for the main it plots the same dismal course the country has been on for the past several decades, a course guaranteeing dirty air and water, dangerous nuclear plants and the importation of 60 percent or more of the oil we consume. Under the bill, the federal government would provide $18.7 billion in subsidies over the next 10 years to energy producers, with most of it going to the usual suspects -- the coal, natural gas, nuclear and oil industries. The age-old premise is that such subsidies will stimulate exploration and production, thereby generating sufficient fuel for the country's needs. But we've seen what this policy has wrought in the past, including shortages, reliance on the Middle East, oil spills, degradation of water and air quality, and nuclear waste.

A more forward-looking bill would have placed greater emphasis on conservation and renewable energy. By mandating greater fuel efficiency in pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles and cars, and by increasing the priority for such energy sources as the wind and sun, the bill would have better served the coming generations. The bill does not ignore renewable energy and conservation. It provides $1.7 billion for research into hydrogen energy and gives some boost to alternative energies derived from corn and wind. It also sets tougher standards for energy use in federal buildings and provides incentives for private companies to improve the energy efficiency of electric products. But the bill's big winners, by far, are the producers of conventional energy.

The House bill would compensate for the failure to adequately address conservation and renewable energy by opening up part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil drilling -- an abominable concept. The only hope now for an enlightened energy bill rests with the Senate, which is expected to vote on its version next month. Albeit narrowly, the Senate has been opposed to ANWR drilling. It is also more open to conservation and renewable energy. We hope the Senate hangs on to these values and that it prevails over the House bill.