For Immediate Release

Statement of Senator Christopher J. Dodd
Energy Bill Vote

November 21, 2003

Today I voted against a measure that would have ended debate on an energy bill that sets this country and Connecticut on the wrong course in terms of energy policy. This is a bill which I wholeheartedly oppose. It is a bill that is laden with provisions that shield polluters from liability, contains special interest riders that threaten our environment, showers lavish incentives on oil, gas and coal producers and does very little to promote the use of alternative and renewable fuels.

This bill we have been debating in the Senate was written behind closed doors and Democratic members who should have been involved in drafting this conference report were completely shut out of the process. In the final days of this session, Republicans are attempting to jam an energy bill through Congress that is better suited to meet the energy needs of the 20th Century, not the 21st.”

We had an opportunity to pass meaningful energy legislation that could have moved this country along a path toward reducing our dependence on foreign oil and conventional energy sources.

We had an opportunity to pass meaningful energy legislation that could have moved this country toward a more balanced energy policy that incorporates conservation and renewable fuels while moving this economy forward. Sadly, neither of these occur in this bill.

In just the last three years, this country has lost 3 million jobs. This, despite tax relief that was supposed to create 1.4 million jobs. Again, we have a bill before us that promises thousands of new jobs. But will these jobs come to fruition and if so, at what expense?

According to a study by the Tellus Institute entitled, “Clean Energy: Jobs for America’s Future,” an energy policy that emphasizes energy efficiency and renewable energy would create 760,000 new jobs over the next nine years and 1.3 million new jobs by 2020. These benefits would be spread widely across many sectors of the economy including construction, transportation, motor vehicles, manufacturing, services, retail trade and agriculture.

Instead, we are being asked today to accept a bill that is a giveaway to coal, oil and gas producers at the expense of other technology and with little regard for long-standing Clean Air and Clean Water regulations. The incentives for cleaner technology and for more fuel efficient cars pale in comparison to the wasteful giveaways for conventional energy producers. And while I am pleased that this bill includes incentives for energy efficient homes and appliances and for some production of clean power generation, it is woefully inadequate.

The Energy Policy Act before us does not address climate change, update fuel economy standards or include a renewable portfolio standard- a measure that a majority of the Senate supported. It also fails to ensure deployment of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles because there is no accountability for achieving oil savings or pollution reductions.

In addition to the pork barrel subsidies and little regard for “clean energy”, I am deeply troubled how this bill blatantly undercuts the rights of states to determine how best to protect their interests.

With just a few strokes of the pen, this bill reverses the decision of Connecticut’s Governor, State legislature, Department of Environmental Protection and the will of the people to determine how best to manage Long Island Sound and the greater energy concerns of the state.
A new provision gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the power to preempt and override all federal agencies and all state laws and officials in approving natural gas pipelines. Another provision allows an electricity cable in Long Island Sound to remain on unless rescinded by federal statute. That cable was turned on during the blackout at the direction of the Secretary of Energy, despite the fact that it is in violation of its environmental permits. And while we were amenable to its use during a true emergency, its continued operation is in violation of state and federal permitting requirements. The Energy Policy Act also constrains coastal states from managing their coastal resources.

Another new provision, inserted at the behest of one Congressman could do more to harm the health and well being of Connecticut residents than almost any other provision. This provision authorizes a delay in ozone non-attainment standards across this country. Dirty air from outside the state has led to there being 10 ozone non-attainment areas in Connecticut and air pollution is a major cause of asthma exacerbations and may play a role in the development of the disease. An estimated 10.4 percent (86,000) of Connecticut children have asthma and 7.3 percent (180,000) of adults have asthma.

Other language allows the federal government to give private utilities the right to take private land by eminent domain to site transmission lines if the state has not acted in one year. This action preempts state and local rights and shows no concern for environmental and public safety.

Finally, MTBE, a gasoline additive that many of my colleagues have already talked about at length, is especially detrimental to Connecticut. It is because of groundwater contamination caused by MTBE that Connecticut has banned it, effective January 1, 2004. This bill gives MTBE producers retroactive immunity from defective product liability and several lawsuits will be negated due to the retroactive date of September 5th..

This bill is a victory for special interests and a defeat for what this country stands for. This bill is not about progress, it is not about security, it is not about economic prosperity, it is not about clean technology and it is not about responsible energy policy.

Every day in this country brings new and exciting innovations in medicine, technology and commerce. If we can decode the human genome, then I am confident that we can efficiently heat our homes, schools and businesses, drive more fuel-efficient cars and embrace the fact that energy efficiency and responsibility is synonymous with economic progress. We can certainly do much, much better than this backward-thinking energy bill.