Recently I posted a
diary regarding the repeal of PUHCA - The Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, which is included in the Bushco Energy Bill as it was passed out of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. After a little research on the subject I had some questions on what effect this repeal would have on water and power issues of particular interest here in the Northwest where water and energy are uniquely intertwined, and wrote to Sen. Cantwell's office with my concerns.
I have recieved a response from Sen. Cantwell's office. It does not address any of my specific questions regarding PUHCA repeal but appears to be a standard response on the Energy Bill from her office and I thought it might be of interest in that regard, and I include it below the fold.
Also Rep. Jay Inslee has introduced H.R. 2828, a Democratic alternative to the Bushco plan. The Cantwell letter is rather long. Sorry. Skip it if you like, the more important news is the introduction of H.R. 2828.
Senator Cantwell is a member of the committee and I wrote her office with a number of questions regarding the Energy Bill and how the PUHCA repeal might impact regional issues such as efforts to privatize the BPA, (Bonneville Power Administration) and possible impacts on our system of Public Utility Districts, irrigation districts, municipal water utilities, and salmon recovery efforts on the Columbia River watershed. I now regret that I didn't save the original letter to include here, but the response follows.
Dear (3card),
Thank you for contacting me about our nation's comprehensive energy strategy. I appreciate hearing from you on this critical issue, and I regret the delayed response.
As you may know, on April 21, 2005 the House of Representatives passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (H.R. 6). I believe this bill fails to meet our nation's pressing energy needs, and it will likely end up increasing energy costs in the future. Currently, I am working with my colleagues on the Senate Energy Committee to craft what I hope will be a improved energy plan that will truly move our nation forward, toward a cleaner, more efficient, and balanced energy system for the 21 st century.
In contrast, H.R. 6 contains multi-billion dollar give-aways to the mature and highly profitable oil, natural gas, and nuclear industries; it fails to protect American ratepayers from future market manipulation; and it contains several provisions that weaken key environmental safeguards contained in the Clean Air, Clean Water, Safe Drinking Water, and Coastal Zone Management Acts. The Energy Information Administration has concluded the House-passed energy plan will have a "negligible" impact on energy supply, energy prices, production, and imports. They determined proposals in HR 6 will have less than 1 percent impact on oil consumption by 2025.
The bill also permits oil and gas leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). While I believe that our country must do everything we can to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and eventually fossil fuels, opening up a pristine national wildlife refuge to oil exploration is not a real solution. It would take nearly a decade to produce oil from wells in the Arctic Refuge's coastal plain so drilling there would not offer any short-term relief for American families. Moreover, according to studies conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey, there is only enough oil to provide an estimated six-month supply of U.S. consumption, an insufficient amount to lower prices at the pump.
I am also very troubled that the House-passed energy bill does not contain provisions sufficient to ban electricity market manipulation, such as the schemes perpetrated by Enron and others during the western energy crisis of 2000 and 2001. This is extremely disappointing, given the fact the Senate had, on a strong bipartisan vote of 57 to 40, previously adopted my amendment to prohibit all forms of market manipulation and declare energy rates resulting from such practices unlawful under the Federal Power Act. I believe such a provision is necessary to help prevent a repeat of the disastrous energy crisis that lead to a 60 percent increase in retail energy rates in some parts of Washington state as well as the west's loss of $35 billion in domestic economic product-or in other words, a 1.5 percent decline in productivity and a total loss of 589,000 jobs.
H.R. 6 also includes liability protection for producers of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), a suspect carcinogen that has contaminated underground water supplies in many states, including Washington. This provision would hoist an estimated $29 billion in groundwater cleanup costs onto states and local communities. This is particularly troubling given the detection of MTBE contamination in King, Spokane, Clark and Yakima counties. The bill also fails to ban the use of MTBE until 2014 and further puts in place a $2 billion "transition assistance" program, which would be made retroactive to benefit MTBE producers that have already ceased making the fuel additive.
Likewise, I am also concerned about the elements of the House bill that would give the Secretary of Interior broad new discretion for oil and gas exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf and erode the State of Washington's authority to protect our fragile and scenic coastline under the Coastal Zone Management Act.
I also have heard from a large number of constituents regarding a provision in HR 6 to extend daylight savings time. Reducing energy costs remains one of the key reasons the United States recognizes Daylight Savings Time. As such, the provision included in H.R. 6 would extend daylight savings time by eight weeks. While U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has the authority to enforce DST in the 48 lower states, any state that wishes to be exempt can do so by passing a state law.
Meanwhile in the Senate, I am working to promote a cleaner, more diverse, and more distributed energy system. I plan to focus on ensuring Northwest ratepayers do not have to pay for fraudulent energy contracts, that the Northwest hydro system continues to produce cost-based power, that we make real progress in improving energy efficiency, and incentivizing the production of homegrown plant-based biofuels. I believe we are at a critical juncture in our nation's energy future, so I greatly appreciate hearing your perspective and suggestions on this issue.
Thank you again for contacting me to share your thoughts on this matter. Finally, you may be interested in signing up for my weekly update for Washington state residents. Every Monday, I provide a brief outline about my work in the Senate and issues of importance to Washington state. If you are interested in subscribing to this update, please visit my website at http://cantwell.senate.gov . Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance.
As I said, it does not address the specific questions that I posed, but may be of interest to some of you.
In other news: June 9, 2005 link
Inslee Introduces New Apollo Energy Act:
A Comprehensive Clean Energy Plan to Address Jobs, National Security and Climate Change
U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee and fourteen other Members of Congress today introduced the New Apollo Energy Act (H.R. 2828) as a comprehensive clean energy policy for the 21st century. Inslee's legislation will use new and innovative tax incentives and market-based assistance, along with energy performance standards to address three challenges to America: creating clean energy manufacturing jobs, decreasing dependence on foreign oil, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As the most comprehensive and technologically visionary energy program proposed in Congress, New Apollo seeks to solve America's energy problems and high energy costs through technological innovation much in the same way that President Kennedy channeled the resources of the American people to meet the challenges of the race to the Moon. The bill introduction is the culmination of several years of meetings and town hall forums that Inslee conducted on developing a clean energy policy.
Inslee had previously introduced this as an amendment to H.R.6, The Bushco energy bill but its consideration was blocked by the rules committee. A description of the bill and a list of co-sponsors can be found at the link above, and more information and links can be found at The Apollo Alliance