Brandon Marx

November 29, 2001

In the wake of September 11th, the public has received a mixed message from energy pundits and government officials on the relationship between national security and our nation's energy policy.  While Republican Senators Inhofe (OK)[1] and Murkowski (AK) praise the administration's energy plan[2] and construe oil-drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) as a military necessity,[3] Democrats threaten filibuster, and one energy expert describes the current and proposed pipeline systems as being virtually "indefensible."[4]  "[The Trans-Alaska Pipeline System] has already been bombed twice" and shot at by rifle fire over 50 times, says Amory Lovins, an internationally renowned energy consultant, in his article "Fool's Gold in Alaska," published in the most recent issue of Foreign Affairs.[5]  With a physicist's flare for wit, Lovins writes, "If one of [the pipeline's] vital pumping stations were a ttacked in the winter, its nine million barrels of hot oil could congeal into the world's largest Chapstick."[6]

Unfortunately, pipeline vulnerability is not the only security risk associated with dirty energy supplies.  On November 2nd, the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) concluded that nuclear plants themselves constitute legitimate targets for terrorist attack.[7]  Dr. Edwin Lyman, director of the Nuclear Control Institute, and member of the Task Force on the Prevention of Nuclear Terrorism, confirms IAEA's assessment, claiming that "a direct, high speed hit by a large commercial passenger jet on a nuclear plant 'would in fact have a high likelihood of penetrating a containment building' that houses a power reactor."[8]  These concerns have prompted publishers to reissue the 1982 seminal study of America's brittle power supply, written by Amory and Hunter Lovins,[9] to help inform energy policy in light of the September 11th attacks.  The message in Brittle Power is more compelling than ever.  The legitimate threat of terrorist attacks on our centralized energy system is indicating that clean, dispersed energy development is a national security priority, that should begin replacing riskier, dirty energy.[10]

Rather than falling prey to corporate public relations campaigns animating the oxy-moronic Republican-speak of 'Clean Coal,' and safe, 'pebble-bed' nuclear power,[11] public citizens need to take the offensive and mobilize for a national clean energy policy agenda.  With the support of the California, New York, Massachusetts, Washington, Oregon and Vermont delegations, progressive Representatives need to form a Clean Energy Coalition to counter the current administration's energy plan.[12]  Such a coalition should begin by adopting the following action plan:

(1) Oppose renewal of the Price Anderson Act,[13] "a law that subsidizes nuclear power by creating liability protection for nuclear accidents [due to expire] in August 2002."[14]

(2) Support Comptroller General David Walker's threatened lawsuit against the Bush White House for refusing to disclose the identities of consultants who helped formulate the administration's energy plan.[15]  Not surprisingly, Mr. Lovins admitted that he was not contacted by the administration,[16] which some have attributed to Dick Cheney's views regarding energy efficiency as merely a personal virtue.[17]

(3) Clarify the "New Source Review" (NSR) language in the Clean Air Act, in light of the administration's attempts to limit the scope of EPA enforcement.[18]  The Coalition should be vigilant against attempts by the Coal lobby, and the Midwestern coal burning delegation, to relieve coal utilities from NSR requirements by replacing them with "long-term multi-pollutant emission reduction targets."[19]  An affirmation of the EPA's authority to require "Best Available Control Technology" in the manner conceived back in the 1977 CAA Amendments is necessary.[20]  The administration's review of NSR enforcement has already undermined multi-million dollar settlement agreements with the Department of Justice.  Fortunately, the Justice Department had finalized settlement agreements prior to the Bush review, successfully reducing air pollution in seven states.[21]

(4) Support passage of the Home Energy Generation Act,[22] which will provide net metering for homeowners who utilize renewable energy sources, whereby homeowners are compensated for their excess clean energy by utilities.  Most states have adopted net-metering laws.[23]  But national legislation is required in order to provide a minimum standard for those states yet to enact such laws.

(5) Oppose Bush administration proposal to slash DOE's fiscal year 2002 budget by 50% for R & D on solar, wind, and geothermal energy and 13% cuts to overall efficiency and renewables funding.[24]  The world is on "the verge of revolution in energy-a revolution made possible by more than two decades of U.S. government investment.  This revolution can be expected to create one of the largest sources of new high-wage jobs in the next century."[25]  Yet, it's not in the interests of large, fossil fuel based corporations to invest in such markets if they potentially erode market share in existing holdings in dirty fuel, so it's up to government to keep investing in order that we remain competitive in these markets.[26]

(6) Increase the long over due CAFŠ standards.[27]  These fuel efficiency standards lie at the root of our reliance upon oil from the middle east.  Contrary to what the Heritage Foundation would like everyone to believe, increasing CAFŠ standards need not increase driving risks.[28]

Through adopting the above clean energy action plan, a Clean Energy Coalition could reduce security risks associated with oil pipelines, nuclear reactors, and liquefied natural gas, while promoting clean energy industries, creating new jobs, and bolstering an economy in recession.  We need to keep in mind that it's a heck of a lot harder for terrorists to target thousands of homes, farms and industries with solar panels, wind-turbines, and co-generation plants,[29] than it is to disrupt the flow of oil and gas through pipelines and transportation vectors.  Instead of getting back to normal, it seems true leadership demands more: e.g. let's begin weening ourselves from vulnerable 'dirty' energy supplies, while supporting the agenda listed above, supporting the billion dollar industry in renewables.

______________

[1] James M. Inhofe, America's Foreign Oil Dependency Threatens Its Security, WASHINGTON TIMES, Op-Ed., October 2, 2001. See S. 388 or S. 389, National Energy Security Act of 2001, introduced as a rider to the Defense Appropriations Bill, and eliminated by cloture vote on October 2nd brought by Majority Leader Daschle (D-S.D.) which requires only 60 votes to eliminate non-germane amendments to legislation. See Daschle May Seek Cloture To Oust Inhofe Energy Amendments, ALASKA DIGEST EMAIL NEWS, Oct. 1 - 7, 2001 available at http://www.alaska-sights.com/akdigestemailnews101c.htm.

[2] National Energy Policy, Report of the National Energy Policy Development Group, May 2001, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/National-Energy-Policy.pdf. (last visited November 7, 2001).

[3] Damien Cave, Oily Insecurity, SALON.COM available at http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/09/27/oil/ (last visited November 7, 2001).

[4] Id.

[5] Amory B. Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins, Fool's Gold in Alaska, FOREIGN AFFAIRS 72, 73 (July/Aug. 2001) available at http://www.rmi.org/images/other/E-FAFoolsGold.pdf. The Aleyeska pipeline, which supplies 20% of US oil, was shot last month by rifle fire, losing 286,000 gallons. Katherine Q. Seelye, Oil Industry Seeks Federal Help Against Terror. NY TIMES, Nov. 5, 2001, at A12.

[6] Id.

[7] Threat of Nuclear Terrorism is Growing, Experts Warn, ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS SERVICE available at http://ens.lycos.com/ens/nov2001/2001L-11-02-06.html. (last visited November 7, 2001). [hereinafter Threat].

[8] Id.

[9] Amory B. Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins, BRITTLE POWER: ENERGY STRATEGY FOR NATIONAL SECURITY (1982) reissued following the attacks (2001) available at http://www.rmi.org/images/other/S-BrPwr-Parts 123.pdf.

[10] Amory B. Lovins, A Sustainable Energy Future for Vermont and New England, Mobilizing Faster, PowerPoint presentation at the Northeast Regional Energy Future Conference, Burlington, Vermont, 29 October 2001, available at http://bernie.house.gov/documents/Amory_Lovins_slides.pdf.

[11] Threat, supra note 7.

[12] David Freeman, Keynote Address at the Northeast Regional Energy Future Conference, Burlington, Vermont, 29 October 2001.

[13] Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; (codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 2210 et seq., § 2282a (1994)).

[14] Price Anderson Act: The Billion Dollar Taxpayer Subsidy for Nuclear Power, October 10, 2001 available at http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear_/nuclear_power_plants/nuclear_revival?articles.cfm?ID=4912. See House Energy and Commerce Committee mark-up of H.R. 2983 (Rep. Heather Wilson) July 7, 2001, a bill to reauthorize the Price-Anderson Act.

[15] GAO May Sue White House, ASSOC. PRESS, September 7, 2001, available at http://www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597, 310026-412,00.shtml.

[16] Amory B. Lovins, Statements following PowerPoint presentation at the Northeast Regional Energy Future Conference, Burlington, Vermont, 29 October 2001, Presentation available at http://bernie.house.gov/documents/Amory_Lovins_slides.pdf.

[17] Anne E. Kornblut, Energy Plan to Promote New Supply Cheney Pushes Drilling Over Conservation, THE BOSTON GLOBE, May 1, 2001, at A1.

[18] Joseph Kahn, Criticism and Support for rules on Clean Air, NY TIMES, July 11, 2001, at A1.

[19] Robert M. Sussman, Client Alert: EPA's New Source Review Enforcement Initiative, LATHAM & WATKINS ENVIRONMENTAL DEPT BULLETIN No. 150, (June 21, 2001), available at http://www.lawcommerce.com/newsletters/art_LW_sourcerev0106.asp.

[20] See S. Rep. No. 95- 127, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 31 (1977), reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N 1088; 123 Cong. Rec. S9171, 3 Legislative History at 729 (remarks of Sen. Edmond G. Muskie, principal author of 1977 Amendments). For a helpful history of the CAA see New Source Review, A History, Edison Electric Institute, July 2001, available at http://www.eei.org/issues/enviro/nsr/NSR_history.pdf.

[21] See Second NSR Agreement Reached, 11 CLEAN AIR COMPLIANCE REV. 23, (2000). Press Release, Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resource Division, U.S. Announces Clean Air Agreement with Marathon Ashland, Friday, May 11, 2001, available at http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2001/May/217enrd.htm.

[22] 145 Cong. Rec. E1953 Sept. 24 1999 (Statement by Rep. Jay Inslee) available at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=1999_record&page=E1953&position=all.

[23] See U.S. Dept of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Network (EREN) Green Power Network, Net Metering, State by State Program Activity, updated 07/01 available at http://www.eren.doe.gov/greenpower/netmetering/index.shtml#state.

[24] Action Alert from the Union of Concerned Scientists, posted June 19, 2001 available at http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/issues/ucs_061901.html. See also Joseph J. Romm and Charles B. Curtis, Mideast Oil Forever?, THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY, April 1996, available at http://www.theatlantic.com//issues/96apr/oil/oil.htm. [hereinafter Atlantic Monthly Article].

[25] See generally Atlantic Monthly Article.

[26] Id.

[27] Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards are required by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. Standards have not been raised as per the Act for passenger cars since the 1986 model year. http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/auto/cafe.html.

[28] Compare Amory Lovins, A Sustainable Energy Future for Vermont and New England, Mobilizing Faster, PowerPoint presentation at the Northeast Regional Energy Future Conference, Burlington, Vermont, 29 October 2001, available at http://bernie.house.gov/documents/Amory_Lovins_slides.pdf, and Charli E. Coon, Why the Government's CAFE Standards for Fuel Efficiency Should Be Repealed, not Increased, HERITAGE FOUNDATION BACKGROUNDER, No. 1458 (July 11, 2001), available at http://www.heritage.org/library/backgrounder/pdf/bg_1458.pdf.

[29] Co-Generation plants are also known as 'combined heat and power' plants, and generate electricity on-site from the excess heat given off by industrial plants. The electricity then feeds back into the plant reducing its overall reliance on the grid. Co-Generation plants are included in the Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act of 1978, (codified at 16 U.S.C § 824a-3), which is legislation designed to provide incentives for entrepreneurs to develop renewable energy generation and co-generation plants by requiring utilities to pay 'full avoided cost' for the cleaner energy, available at http://www.ferc.fed.us/electric/qfinfo/PURPA.htm.