| WASHINGTON - An energy bill that supporters say will keep power flowing, but that opponents say will cost consumers more money and trash the environment, passed the U.S. House on Tuesday.
The Republican-controlled House approved the Energy Policy Act of 2003 on Tuesday by a vote of 246-180, largely on party lines.
The bill lays out a long-term energy strategy for the United States and tackles everything from oil exploration to low-income heating assistance.
It could be approved by the Senate as early as today, and be signed into law by President Bush.
Critics of the energy plan say it provides too many incentives to oil, coal and gas companies to explore for fossil fuels and does little to prevent blackouts.
"It's a terrible piece of legislation," said Terry Miller of Monitor Township, chairman of the Lone Tree Council, an environmental group.
Miller said people would feel the effects of the bill right here in the Saginaw Bay area.
"It can only get dirtier," he said. "This is terrible for our local environment. We're making efforts to address these things and we're not getting any help from the feds - at least not any help from this administration."
Supporters see the bill in a different light.
"For the first time in decades, America will have a comprehensive, effective energy policy focused on reducing our dependence on foreign oil, creating jobs for our nation's workers and preventing blackouts like the one we experienced in Michigan and other states last August," said Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Brighton.
Bay County's congressmen, Reps. Dale E. Kildee, D-Flint, and Bart Stupak, D-Menominee, both voted against the bill.
Kildee criticized the bill as the latest attempt by the Bush administration to reverse long-standing environmental protections in favor of providing tens of billions of dollars in tax breaks to large energy corporations.
Kildee said he worked to ensure that the bill would include strong ethanol and biodiesel provisions, but those steps were overshadowed.
The legislation eventually would double the use of ethanol in gasoline to 5 billion gallons a year by 2012. Ethanol is made from corn, and any increase in demand would likely benefit Michigan farmers.
The bill also authorizes $2.15 billion in spending over five years for the research and development of hydrogen and hybrid vehicles by the nation's automobile companies.
"While I strongly support the ethanol and biodiesel usage provisions, the rest of the bill is detrimental to our environment because it fails to adequately address renewable energy, energy efficiency and conservation needs," Kildee said in a news release.
Bay City-area residents also can expect higher prices at the gas pumps and on their natural gas bills, Stupak said this morning.
"It's going to hurt the environment and it's going to hurt the American taxpayer in the pocketbook and it's going to deepen our dependency on foreign oil and gas," he said.
"We're not going to be able to drill our way out of this energy problem," Stupak added.
Stupak said he has "no doubt" the bill will be passed by the Senate and signed into law by Bush. He said the only hope is that Democrats in the Senate are able to block the bill.
The 1,400-page bill took months to negotiate, and it could take almost as much time to read, say opponents. Hidden in the bill, they say are $23 billion in energy-related tax incentives for energy-production companies and utilities.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill will cost taxpayers about $32 billion over the next 10 years, and about two-thirds of the tax incentives in the legislation would go to oil, coal and natural gas producers.
"We do not have an infinite supply of fossil fuels," said Rep. Vernon Ehlers, R-Grand Rapids, the only Michigan Republican to vote against the bill.
"We have to be developing new energy sources. If the government has to help anyone, why shouldn't it help new energy sources industries? Why should we give 55 percent of the incentives to fossil fuel industries, which are already making money?"
Michigan environmentalists say fossil fuels aren't as clean as renewable energy such as hydro and wind power.
"It's almost a bill of the 19th century as opposed to a bill of the 21st century," said Megan Owens, a spokeswoman for the Public Interest Research Group in Michigan, a consumer group. "We've known for 20-plus years that burning oil and coal has severe health impacts. They are dirty fuels."
Owens said Michigan Sens. Debbie Stabenow and Carl Levin may be the key votes needed to kill the bill, but they are still undecided.
Miller said the plan would have disastrous effects.
"But then, you've got a Republican majority, which suggests that people need to pay attention to elections," he said.
The bill was opposed by a broad range of organizations representing the environment, labor and consumers, including the United Auto Workers, the Teamsters, the National Wildlife Federation, Consumers Union, the Sierra Club, Taxpayers for Common Sense and Clean Water Action, Kildee said.
Some opponents said the Energy Bill prevents federal regulators from requiring utility companies to work together, which would have prevented a blackout that struck Michigan in August. |
