June 2004
Federal Energy Bill Under Discussion - Again The Republican leadership in the House is seeking to pass an energy bill substantially similar to one passed by the House last fall. And to accompany this legislation, the House is working to pass several new energy-related bills. The stated Republican priority is to increase domestic energy production, with a particular focus on domestic petroleum production. Republican plans include provisions to open up public lands, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and coastal waters to energy exploration and provisions to streamline environmental regulations in order to develop energy resources more quickly. Republicans claim that the Bush-backed energy policies are necessary to create a cohesive energy policy and to protect the public against high fuel prices. Republicans further note that increasing energy production will create much needed jobs and improve the economy of the nation. Democrats agree that comprehensive energy policies are needed, but believe these policies need to be focused on reducing dependence on petroleum, both foreign and domestic, and should do more to promote renewable energy sources. The Democrats argue their policies are more sustainable and will also lead to jobs and economic growth. They also note that the Republican provisions weaken environmental laws and requirements for new oil-refining facilities and other energy projects. 

Many are questioning the revitalized House efforts, and the expenses involved, given that the measures are not expected to make it to the President and that the Senate has been stalled its version of the energy bill since late last year. House spokespersons say this is simply a political statement that the country needs a cohesive energy policy to protect the public against high fuel prices and is a means to push the Senate to move forward with its version of the energy bill. Critics say the maneuvers are an attempt to place the blame for high gas prices on Democrats, since the Democratic-controlled Senate is widely expected to vote against the new House energy package. A spokesman for Senate Democrat Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) has reportedly noted that if the Republican leaders of the House were serious about passing the energy bill, they would remove the liability waiver for MTBE manufacturers, which is the main reason behind the bipartisan opposition to passage of a federal energy package. 

More information is available through "All Things Considered" on National Public Radio:
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1958874 and
Grist Magazine: http://www.gristmagazine.com/muck/muck061504.asp?source=weekly

June 2004
California Working to Implement CO2 Standards for Autos  The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is moving forward with plans to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from vehicles. The California legislature passed a law in 2002, the first law in the U.S. aimed at reducing greenhouse-gas emissions from automobiles as a means to address global climate change. The regulation now being crafted will put that law into effect by requiring automakers to cut CO2 emissions from their new vehicles by 30 percent, phasing in from 2009 to 2015. According to many experts, there is no current technology that directly reduces carbon dioxide and other gases linked to climate change. The only known means to cut these emissions from cars is to use less fuel. Thus, the regulations will have the side effect of requiring automakers to increase fuel economy. But the regulations face significant challenges. Automakers are concerned about logistical and engineering problems in complying with the regulations, as well as the costs. Environmentalists counter that compliance could be achieved through combinations of simple technologies and reduced horsepower, that technology as advanced as hybrid electric systems is not necessary. CARB estimates that vehicle costs could rise by about $1,000 by 2015, and that these costs would be offset through reduced fuel costs. Automakers are also threatening to sue over the regulations based on federal pre-emption, arguing that only the federal government has the authority to regulate fuel economy. CARB is adamant that the regulations are based on their authority to address air quality and are not fuel economy measures. However, another legal challenge could result from EPA's ruling that carbon dioxide is not an air pollutant. Without this classification, the authority of California to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles, and other sources, is being questioned. The regulatory and legislative review processes associated with the California CO2 regulations are expected to continue for at least another year. 

May 2004
Efforts Continue to Pass Federal Alternative Fuels Incentives  With the federal energy stalled, several efforts have been made to include alternative fuel tax incentives in various federal bills. The latest actions involve the Foreign Sales Corporation/Extraterritorial Income (FSC/ETI) or JOBS bill. The Senate-passed version includes many of the alternative fuel provisions included in the energy bill and supported by the alternative fuels industries and advocates. The House of Representatives left for the Memorial day recess without completing work on its version of the bill. The bill has not yet been completed because the House Republican leadership is looking at what other provisions should be added to the bill. Some of the provisions under consideration include the alternative fuels incentives. It is hoped that the entire House will vote on the bill by mid June. Many consider the FSC/ETI bill as the last chance to get the alternative fuel incentives passed into law this year. Those wishing to assist in efforts to pass these incentives are encouraged to contact their Members of Congress today and let them know that passage of the FSC/ETI with the energy tax package and alternative fuels incentives is very important. You can contact the district offices or the offices in Washington DC by phone or email with just a simple message of support. Contact information for Washington State Members can be found at the following links:
House of Representatives: http://clerk.house.gov/members/index.html
Senate: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

March 2004
Alternative Fuel Incentives Stalled in State Legislature Despite strong bipartisan support from across the state, several bills to provide incentives for alternative fuels and vehicles failed to pass the Washington State Legislature this year. The reason appears to be a combination of a short legislative session (only 60 days), confusion over the fiscal impacts of the bills, ongoing budget concerns, political issues unrelated to these bills, and a variety of other factors. These circumstances affected the majority of proposed legislation, with the Legislature passing very few bills this year. The alternative fuel bills would have provided incentives for the purchase of alternative fuel vehicles and the development of refueling stations, provided HOV lane access for alternative fuel vehicles, and eliminated the state fuel tax on alternative fuels purchased by school districts. Based on the substantial encouragement from numerous legislators, the Coalition will bring forth these and similar proposals again next session.