Cornerstone environmental law, NEPA, under fire in energy bill.

[G_j]

All I can say is, there better not be any Dems who support this "Energy Bill"!
This is but ONE example of a long list of environmental atrocities and corporate giveaways in the bill.
~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/050905EA.shtml

Jagged Little Drill
By Amanda Griscom Little
Grist.org

Thursday 05 May 2005

Cornerstone environmental law, NEPA, under fire in energy bill.

There's more energy exploration on the horizon - and less government scrutiny.

When the energy bill sailed through the House of Representatives late last month, the media reported that it was the same old grotesquely corpulent package that the GOP leadership had previously tried - and failed - to pass through Congress four times in the last four years. This is true. But what flew under the radar were a few new provisions snuck in at the 11th hour by Rep. Richard Pombo (R-Calif.), chair of the House Resources Committee, which have made the bill even more environmentally threatening than previous versions, many Democrats and environmentalists say.

The environmental statute Pombo is targeting this time: the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act, long considered a cornerstone of U.S. environmental law. NEPA requires all major projects on federal land - from logging to highway construction to energy exploration - to be reviewed for their potential environmental impact, and mandates a comment period during which the public can voice related concerns.

A Pombo-backed amendment sponsored by Rep. John Peterson (R-Penn.) and added to the bill the day before markup would allow energy companies to skirt NEPA requirements in a number of situations, with the aim of speeding energy development on federal land.

Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.), the ranking Democrat on the House Resources Committee, told Muckraker it would grant the energy industry "carte blanche to conduct drilling and exploration activities on public lands without any kind of meaningful environmental review, and remove the legal grounds for scientists, communities, and local governments to intercede. It is an affront to the American people."

..more..

[G_j]

1. the Energy Bill

April 22, 2005

U.S. House Approves Regressive Energy Bill

By a vote of 249 to 183, the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday
approved the omnibus energy bill (H.R. 6, "The Energy Policy Act of
2005"), which included over $8 billion in energy tax breaks, the vast
majority of which will go to the polluting fossil fuel and nuclear
industries.

Prior to approval of the bill, the House voted down several amendments
to strike some of the most controversial language in the bill, including
a measure giving legal protections to manufactures of a fuel additive,
MTBE, that has polluted groundwater. The House also opposed an
amendment to strip language would allow the federal government to trump
local and state governments in the siting of liquified natural gas (LNG)
import facilities. Efforts to preserve the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge (ANWR) from oil and gas exploration were also defeated. "AMENDMENTS" section below to see how your representative voted on these
and other items.]

To see how your representative voted on H.R. 6, go here:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll132.xml

Energy legislation will be taken up by the Senate in May. If the
Senate approves an energy bill, its version will be reconciled with the
House version in a conference committee, after which a common bill will
be voted on by each house of Congress. CALL YOUR SENATORS and urge them
to oppose any legislation similar to the House energy bill. your senators via the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121]

==========

BACKGROUND ON H.R. 6
Despite the myriad reasons that this bill was rejected previously, the
recently-passed bill is composed of more of the same bad policies that
support the fossil fuel and nuclear industries -- plus some new harmful
provisions -- with even fewer policies that would promote renewable
energy, energy efficiency, conservation, and improved automobile fuel
economy.

This backwards, misguided, industry-designed bill includes the
following provisions:

* Repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA), a vital
protection for consumers of electricity, which would allow for the
expansion of deregulation and more Enron-style schemes
* Limits the ability of states to have adequate jurisdiction over the
permitting and siting of liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities, which
are extremely volatile and dangerous
* Gives a liability waiver to the producers of MTBE, a gasoline
oxygenate and known groundwater polluter, and shifts the cost of cleanup
to taxpayers
* Opens up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil and gas
exploration
* Authorizes the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Nuclear Power 2010
program to spur the development of new nuclear power plants, and its
Generation IV program to develop new reactor designs, through a
government-industry "cost sharing" schemes
* Authorized over $2 billion for research and development into nuclear
power generation and risky waste reprocessing
* Authorizes $1.1 billion for a nuclear-hydrogen cogeneration project
to create hydrogen fuel using nuclear power, a travesty of clean energy
goals
* Extends liability protections for nuclear plant operators through the
reauthorization of the Price-Anderson Act, covering reactors licensed
for the next 20 years

==========
==========

AMENDMENTS

The following amendments and motions would have stricken some of the
most egregious regressive measures in H.R. 6:

MTBE
Rep. Lois Capps' motion to strike a measure giving legal protections to
manufactures of the fuel additive MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl-ether)
that has polluted groundwater. Capps asserted that the measure amounted
to an "unfunded mandate" because it would require states and local
governments to clean up MTBE pollution. Failed 213-219:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll129.xml

LNG
Rep. Michael Castle's amendment to strike language in the bill that
"would preempt the authority of state and local governments to ensure
that liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities are sited in areas where
they do not pose a threat to public safety." Failed 194-237:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll131.xml

ANWR
Rep. Edward Markey's amendment to "strike the provisions that will
allow oil and gas exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge."
Failed 200-231:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll122.xml

REVENUE FROM OIL DRILLING ROYALTIES
Rep. Raul Grijalva's amendment "to strike section 2005 which requires
the Secretary of the Interior to suspend the collection of royalty
payments to the Treasury for offshore oil and gas production on the OCS
in the Gulf of Mexico." Failed 203-227:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll128.xml

==========

The following progressive amendments were rejected:

FEDERAL POWER ACT
Rep. John Dingell's amendment to "increase penalties for violations of
the Federal Power Act and authorize the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission to refund electricity overcharges." Also maintains the
Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA) and "directs the SEC to
review utility holding companies' status under PUHCA to prevent them
from wrongly claiming exemptions." Failed 188-243:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll123.xml

FUEL ECONOMY
Rep. Sherwood Boehlert's amendment "to direct the Secretary of
Transportation to increase fuel economy standards from today's average
of 25 miles/gallon to 33 miles/gallon over 10 years." Failed 177-254:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll121.xml

RENEWABLE ENERGY
Rep. Timothy Bishop's amendment to "reduce dependence on nonrenewable
energy sources." Failed 170-259:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll118.xml

CONSERVATION
Rep. Henry Waxman's amendment to "require the Administration to take
'voluntary, regulatory, and other actions' to reduce oil demand in the
U.S. by 1 million barrels per day from projected levels by 2013."
Failed 166-262:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll117.xml

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Rep. Alcee Hastings' amendment "to expand the definition of
environmental justice; to direct each Federal Agency to establish an
office of environmental justice; to reestablish the interagency Federal
Working Group on Environmental Justice; and to require that Executive
Order 12898 remain in force until changed by law." Failed 185-243:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll130.xml

-------

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/16/politics/16enviro.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print&position=


April 16, 2005

Change to the Clean Air Act Is Built Into New Energy Bill

By MICHAEL JANOFSKY

WASHINGTON, April 15 - Deep in the energy bill that was approved by a House committee this week, under a section titled "Miscellaneous," is a brief provision that could have major consequences for communities struggling to clean up their dirty air.

If it becomes law, it would make one of the most significant changes to the Clean Air Act in 15 years, allowing communities whose air pollution comes from hundreds of miles away to delay meeting national air quality standards until their offending neighbors clean up their own air.

The provision could especially affect states like New York, which has some of the nation's dirtiest air, and other Northeastern states that have always had difficulty meeting federal standards for ozone, a leading cause of smog, because much of any state's pollution originates in states to the south and west.

Under the new provision, the "downwind" states would not be required to meet clean air standards until the "upwind" states that were contributing to the problem had done so. Currently, states can get more time but only if they agree to added cleanup measures.

..more..