Senators Reiterate Support of Clean Energy Amid Criticism
By Herman Wang, Chattanooga Times/Free Press, Tenn.
Jul. 24–WASHINGTON — Citing their environmental records, U.S. Sens. Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker, both R-Tenn., defended themselves against a left-leaning think tank’s criticism that they have been too loyal to “big oil.”
The Center for American Progress Action Fund recently criticized the lawmakers for voting against a $28 million tax package attached as an amendment to the energy bill that passed last month. Sens. Alexander and Corker voted for the final version of the bill, which passed 65-27.
The amendment, which fell three votes shy of the 60 needed to bring it to a vote, would have included new incentives for renewable and alternative energy sources, with most of the money coming from new taxes on oil and gas companies.
“This was a bipartisan package of tax incentives to help create clean, new, alternative energy technology,” said Daniel J. Weiss, senior fellow and director of climate strategy for the Center for American Progress Action Fund, which describes itself as a nonprofit think tank that advocates progressive policies. “It included incentives that are very important to do the things they say they’re in favor of, but they voted against it.”
Sen. Corker said he came close to voting for the amendment but ultimately decided not to because there were some elements, which he declined to elaborate on, with which he was not satisfied.
He said the lead sponsors of the amendment, Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Max Baucus, D-Mont., have told him the legislation likely will be brought back in September.
“I felt, when the vote came up, somewhat uncomfortable about where the money was being generated and more uncomfortable about where the money was going,” Sen. Corker said. “But there are a couple of changes I’d like to talk to them about. If those are made, I could very well end up being a supporter of that finance package.”
But Sen. Alexander said the tax package would have been too expensive and a poor use of taxpayer dollars.
“Nearly $8 billion of the $28 billion would have given subsidies to wind turbines, when a much more sensible use would have been to encourage conservation, efficiency and nuclear power, all of which would provide much cleaner air at a much lower cost,” he said.
Sen. Alexander, who owns property on Nantucket Island in Massachusetts near a wind farm, has long been a critic of wind power, saying it is an unreliable, expensive source of energy that scars scenic areas.
He said the ownership of the property is not a factor in his stance on wind power.
The legislation would have funded $12.5 billion in tax incentives for renewable electricity, such as solar and wind power; $3.1 billion for energy efficiency; $1.6 billion for carbon dioxide capture; $1.3 billion for biofuels; and $1.5 billion for clean vehicles.
The incentives would have been funded by raising taxes on oil and gas companies. Mr. Weiss said those taxes would have closed loopholes available to oil and gas companies and recaptured royalties from drilling in the Gulf of Mexico the companies had avoided paying in the late 1990s because of a U.S. Department of Interior error.
The Center for American Progress Action Fund also noted Sen. Alexander received $127,050 in campaign contributions from 2002 to 2007 from the oil and gas industry, while Sen. Corker, who was elected last year, received $173,700 for his race.
Sen. Alexander received double the contributions from oil and gas companies as the average of senators who voted in favor of the amendment, while Sen. Corker received triple, the organization stated.
“That’s a very unfortunate thing for them to say,” Sen. Alexander said. “The fact of the matter is, I’m the lead sponsor of a bill to put carbon caps on utilities. I’m the leading Republican sponsor on a solar tax credit. I’m the leading Republican pushing for utilities to clean up mercury and nitrogen and sulfur faster than what President Bush wants.”
Sen. Corker, who broke ranks with Republican leadership, which was trying to kill the energy bill, on a key procedural vote leading up to its passage, said the legislation has several provisions for alternative fuels, including an increased mandate for the use of ethanol from 6 billion gallons per year to 36 billion per year by 2022.
He said the oil and gas campaign contributions are but a small portion of the $21 million he spent during his race.
“I believe strongly in making sure we do everything we can to be more energy secure,” Sen. Corker said. “That includes wind, solar, hydro and nuclear. I can’t imagine how anybody could view me as anything but a strong supporter of alternatives.”
E-mail Herman Wang at hwang@timesfreepress.com
—–
To see more of the Chattanooga Times/Free Press, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.timesfreepress.com.
Copyright (c) 2007, Chattanooga Times/Free Press, Tenn.
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.