Reply #43: Public Citizen

[buddhamama]

letter to the Senators

Oppose the Senate Energy Bill

Letter to Senators Regarding the Energy Policy Act of 2002

Source: Public Citizen
Posted: April 11, 2002



Editor: Public Citizen sent out the following letter endorsed by various consumer, public interest and environmental organizations, to all U.S. Senators on April 9, 2002.

Senator,

Upon returning from recess, the Senate is expected to resume debate on the massive energy legislation, S. 517, the Energy Policy Act of 2002. The bill was seriously flawed to begin with, and it has only gotten worse since the Senate began debating it. Amendments that would have benefited consumers, taxpayers, public health or the environment have failed miserably. Amendments to reward and pamper giant energy corporations, on the other hand, have passed with comfortable majorities. As representatives of consumer, public interest and environmental organizations, we are saddened and alarmed at the prospect of S. 517's passage for many reasons, including:

The bill buys a one-way ticket to Enronworld by repealing the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA), the federal government's most important mechanism to protect electricity consumers. In the wake of the collapse of energy giant Enron, consumers need more regulatory protection from the energy industry, not less.

--snip--

"S. 517 seeks to prop up the beleaguered nuclear power industry with $1.3 billion over four years in direct subsidies, another billion in tax breaks, and a reauthorization of the industry's taxpayer-backed insurance subsidy scheme, the Price-Anderson Act."

--snip--

"There also appears to be a consensus among senators that they must support energy legislation lest they get blamed for some future energy "crisis," reminiscent of last year's California fiasco. Yet supply interruptions and skyrocketing energy prices in California were caused by deregulation, and S. 517 further deregulates the energy industry by repealing PUHCA. Should similar circumstances flare up in the future, it will very likely will be because of the policies both ignored by and contained in S. 517."

--snip-- http://www.corpwatch.org/bulletins/PBD.jsp?articleid=2277