Editorial: Allow time to analyze energy bill

Monday, Feb. 16, 2004 | 9:29 a.m.

In December we editorialized against the energy bill that had passed the House but had become stalled in the Senate. We encouraged the Senate to continue blocking this bill. It was bloated with subsidies for the nuclear power industry and traditional fossil fuel companies and it failed even to begin setting the country on a course toward making renewable energy sources a priority. We knew the bill was terribly flawed and upon reconsideration last week the Senate obviously agreed. In no time at all, the Senate chopped $17 billion out of the bill. And Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, agreed to put this new version on a fast track.

But it wasn't just the money that bothered us in the original $31 billion bill. The new, $14 billion bill is not automatically superior just because it's cheaper. We also opposed the protections given to some companies in the energy industry. Taken out of the latest version of the bill was a provision that would have protected the makers of MTBE (a gasoline additive that was later determined a health risk) from lawsuits. This is encouraging, but time is needed to see if other provisions, beneficial to special interests, might have been slipped into the bill. It's not easy to digest $17 billion worth of cuts in a few days. The country needs time to analyze all of them because they included energy conservation measures that may have best been left intact.

Nevertheless, Frist and Daschle are committed to taking the bill directly to the Senate floor, bypassing committees. The two will also try to limit amendments to the bill in their rush to begin debate by next week. But we believe they should hold on. This new bill was largely crafted behind closed doors. When the doors opened and the senators emerged with their new version, we were treated to generalized statements, such as this one from Daschle: "(The bill will be) a big step forward in our efforts to expand ethanol production." We generally agree that ethanol, made from corn, is worthy of serious consideration. Daschle, however, represents a corn-growing state. People need time to consider whether this policy is good for the country, or merely good for Daschle's standing back home.

Even stripped down, the bill is weighted toward the gas, coal, oil and nuclear industries. Fossil fuels, whose reserves are limited, pollute our air and water and leave us dependent on unfriendly foreign countries. Nuclear power produces deadly waste the government plans to bury in Nevada at great risk to public health. The public has a right to participate in a lengthy debate on this new energy bill. The original bill was drafted in secret by Vice President Dick Cheney and his contacts in the large, established energy companies. It's bad enough that such secrecy characterizes the executive branch of the federal government. The legislative branch should not be following suit. It's no good for the Senate to stall on a bad bill if it's going to rush through a replacement bill that's equally bad.