Bush Takes Energy Proposals on the Road; Gale Norton Outlines Bush Plan
ANNOUNCER: Live from Washington, this is INSIDE POLITICS with Judy Woodruff.</s>GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The truth is, energy production and environmental protection are not competing priorities.</s>ANNOUNCER: President Bush tries to put an eco-friendly spin on his newly unveiled energy plan. But, opponents still are piling on, with a load of coal, and a load of criticism.</s>REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT (D-MO), MINORITY LEADER: This is an energy report that offers no short-term relief to these folks on the West coast who need relief now.</s>ANNOUNCER: We'll tell you how the interests of two big states are colliding over power. Plus: a nuclear surprise in the Bush energy plan, and the danger it may pose.</s>JUDY WOODRUFF, CNN ANCHOR: Thanks for joining us. President Bush began today to promote his new energy policy, in much the same way as he pitched his tax cut: with appeals to Americans outside the Washington beltway. But, this plan may prove to be a far tougher sell, in a climate where consumers and Democrats are saying, what can you do for us right now? So, as our senior White House correspondent John King explains, Mr. Bush's speech in Minnesota often seemed aimed at countering his critics.</s>JOHN KING, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It was a glimpse, in the president's words, into the energy future and a look at careful politics of selling a controversial plan. First, make the case short-term energy concerns or proof of a long-term crisis.</s>BUSH: If we fail to act, this great country could face a darker future. A future that is unfortunately being previewed in rising prices at the gas pump and rolling blackouts in the great state of California.</s>KING: Closed with an effort to disarm the many critics.</s>BUSH: The truth is: energy production and environmental protection are not competing priorities.</s>KING: In the middle of the president's speech and 163-page report, proposal after controversial proposal. An easing of government regulations to encourage new coal and nuclear power plants. New government powers to clear the way for thousands for gas pipelines and electricity transmission lines. New oil and gas exploration in Alaska and other federal lands, now off limits because of environmental concerns. Outside the vice president's house, one of many protests as administration critics made their case that coal is dirty; nuclear power dangerous and drilling in pristine wild reserves, destructive.</s>DAN BECKER, SIERRA CLUB: The president is trying to misrepresent his plan; he's trying to spread a thin veil of energy efficiency to hide a cesspool of polluter giveaways.</s>KING: The president's backdrop was a model of energy efficiency. A combined heat and power plant in St. Paul, Minnesota that uses a mix of coal, natural gas, oil, and wood chips to provide low-cost heating, cooling, and hot water. But such facilities are rare, and that fit with the president's message. He says the country has no choice but to rely on fossil fuels for now, while investing in technology like this to change the future. To that end, the administration proposes: Four billion dollars in tax credits to purchase energy-efficient vehicles. Expanded tax incentives for producing electricity from alternative sources like methane gas. Using royalties from Arctic drilling to finance tax credits for wind and solar power projects. And more money to help low-income Americans insulate their homes and deal with high energy costs. But the president noted that California is a leader in the conservation movement, and said its rolling blackouts are vivid proof that efficiency alone won't work.</s>KING: And the fight now moves to the Congress, where the president has to deal not only with critics who don't like what's in this long-term plan, but also with many Republican allies with are already grumbling the president hasn't done enough to deal with big country's immediate energy concerns -- Judy.</s>WOODRUFF: John, clearly more of an emphasis on conservation than we expected after listening to Vice President Cheney a couple of weeks ago. Why?</s>KING: Well, the administration says the proposals would have been in there all along, but the administration had hoped for was a bit more political coup, if you will. They had hoped that those proposals, and mostly the tax incentives -- about $6.3 billion over ten years -- would get more headlines today and be a bit of surprise. Many of them, however, were leaked over the past week to 10 days to deal with the criticism of that speech, as you mentioned; that speech in Toronto when Vice President Cheney made clear in his view, conservation was only a very small part of a long-term energy policy.</s>WOODRUFF: All right, John King at the White House. For every one of the 105 recommendations in the Bush-Cheney energy plan, there seemed to be a myriad of critics, ready to step up to the microphone today. Our Jonathan Karl has more on the political reaction.</s>JONATHAN KARL, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The environmental group Greenpeace protested the White House's energy plan by dumping a truckload of coal on the vice president's doorstep.</s>ANDREA DURBIN, GREENPEACE, USA: This plan is a dirty solution. It provides dirty answers and it takes us backwards.</s>KARL: Across town, a coalition of more moderate environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council, also vowed to defeat the plan, launching a 12-city advertising campaign. (</s>BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, TELEVISION AD) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bush's big supporters clean up, while we're cleaned out.</s>KARL: The theme was echoed on Capitol Hill, where Democrats set up a war room and promised an all-out drive to defeat the central elements of Bush energy plan. Virtually every attack included a reminder of the administration's ties to the energy industry.</s>GEPHARDT: We think the president's plan makes the wrong choices for America and for the American people. It was crafted behind closed doors with a lot of input from energy executives.</s>REP. BRIAN BAIRD (D), WASHINGTON: George bush, Dick Cheney, and their merry band of oil CEO's are Robin Hoods in reverse.</s>SEN. PAUL WELLSTONE (D), MINNESOTA: I'm not a Senator for oil companies. He may be a president for oil companies. I'm a Senator from Minnesota.</s>KARL: Democratic strategists believe an energy crunch will hurt this president the way energy crisis in the 1970s hurt President Carter. But Republicans, who are by and large lining up in support of the Bush plan, say Democrats will suffer if they stand in the way.</s>SEN. FRANK MURKOWSKI (R), ALASKA: If they vote against it, and you've got $3 a gallon gasoline, and their constituents are saying, oh, you didn't vote for any relief, well, we're going to hold you accountable.</s>KARL: Democrats declared some aspects of the Bush plan, including drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, dead on arrival, an assessment Republican leaders privately agree with. Democrats also continued to slam the president for doing nothing in the short-term about high gasoline prices. But they had little to offer in the way of immediate solutions besides investigating potential price gouging by oil companies.</s>SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D), MINORITY LEADER: I think there has to be an investigation as to why the prices are high. We can't possibly solve a problem we don't understand. Why are prices going up as high as they are? Why are the oil companies making the profits they are?</s>KARL: The harsh rhetoric obscured significant areas of bipartisan agreement on issues ranging from the development of new electrical power lines and natural gas pipelines to tax credits for conservation,for the use of renewable energy -- Judy.</s>WOODRUFF: All right, Jonathan Karl reporting from the Capitol, thanks. As Jonathan mentioned, former President Jimmy Carter knows a thing or two about paying a political price for energy problems. And today, he is joining other Democrats in criticizing the Bush energy strategy. In an op-ed piece in "The Washington Post, " Carter accuses Bush administration officials of distorting history to promote the oil industry. Carter writes: "No energy crisis exists now that equates in any way with those we faced in 1973 and 1979. World supplies are adequate and reasonably stable. And, Carter writes, quoting again, "Some officials are using misinformation and scare tactics to justify such environmental atrocities as drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge," end quote. Joining us now to answer questions about the Bush energy plan: the Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton. Madame Secretary, thank you for being with us. And if you could first address what former President Carter said: drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWAR, atrocity.</s>GALE NORTON, INTERIOR SECRETARY: That's one of the recommendations that we're putting forward at this time. It's something that, really, Congress has to decide whether to go forward with that. What the administration is doing is looking at the ways in which that might be done in an environmentally responsible way, so that we can allow Congress to determine if that's one of the ways in which they want to look. I think the key point is that this is the most likely place for us to find a large supply of oil for our long-term future, and I think we at least need to, in the current situation, seriously think about a place that has the largest probable site of oil anywhere in this country.</s>WOODRUFF: What about President Carter's statement that the energy situation today in no way equates with what was going on back in the '70s when you had OPEC and you had a war between Iran and Iraq and a much greater global disruption than what you have today?</s>NORTON: There's certainly a high degree of concern today. We know that since 1998 the average U.S. family is spending 25 percent more on energy. We're seeing great concern about $3 a gallon gas in some parts of our country. We know that the prices for heating oil going up affect those who are at the lowest end of our economic ladder. And when we see the potential for the effect on jobs, even though we might have some dispute about how this ranks in comparison with 1973, I think our real concern is what we do today and what we do tomorrow.</s>WOODRUFF: And secretary, let me ask about another part of the plan. The energy report notes the value of drilling in the coastal regions off the shores of the United States. And what the president has done is, in effect, throw this to you and to the commerce secretary for a decision. Now, the governor of Florida, the president's brother has urged the administration, has urged your department not to renew drilling leases off the coast of Florida. Where is that headed?</s>NORTON: Certainly, we see that off-shore production is a very important source of supply for us. And it's currently happening in the western gulf region, Gulf of Mexico, and the neighboring states there are generally very supportive of that and it's something that we do plan to continue because that's an important source for us. As we look at environmental concerns that are coming up through our study process for an area that is about 100 miles off the Florida coast, for the most part -- and some parts further than that. That area is one that -- that will continue to consult with the state of Florida as we make a decision later this year on whether to go forward with that.</s>WOODRUFF: But it sounds like you're leaning for -- toward doing it.</s>NORTON: We're Looking at all options right now for energy. This is one that, frankly, was voted on by Congress to allow it to go forward. It was proposed by the prior administration, and so it's something that was already on the table and in progress when this administration came in.</s>WOODRUFF: Let me ask you about nuclear power. Now, among other things, this reports is proposing to double the number of nuclear reactors at power plants that are already licensed by the federal government. But, at this point, there is no place to store them. As you know, there's been a location at Yucca Mountain in Nevada for 15 years. The Democrats and Republicans have been arguing over that. How can you build more nuclear power plants if there is no agreement over where the waste goes?</s>NORTON: Nuclear power is something that currently supplies 20 percent of our electricity in this country. I think that's something that most people really don't understand is how large of a supply we have already been utilizing and how much that is become a routine part of our electricity industry.</s>WOODRUFF: But I'm asking about the waste.</s>NORTON: Yes, we do have waste as an issue that has to be tackled. It's something that we take seriously to tackle as a future issue and that's something that we will have to be a carefully thought out process over the coming years.</s>WOODRUFF: But,to say now this is something that should be done without resolving that is that -- I guess I'm asking is that somewhat misleading to suggest that it can be -- that building more nuclear plants can be a solution when know there is no place to put the waste?</s>NORTON: We can look, I think, at expansions to places that are our current nuclear plants. And to look at those places at those sites where we are currently storing the waste. Obviously, that's not the ideal solution. We really do need to have a long-term solution to it. And it is something that -- that we have to have. But it's something that we also should not put off for the next 20 or 25 years. It's something that we ought to begin tackling now.</s>WOODRUFF: As secretary of the interior, you -- I know you were -- you heard what the vice president had to say a couple of weeks ago when he said conservation may be a good personal virtue, but it's not going to be a centerpiece of this plan. Today, the plan says, as I read it, it says the environment will be an important part -- I'm sorry, conservation will be an important part of our overall energy strategy. Which is it and was the vice president wrong or misleading when he said what he did?</s>NORTON: Conservation is an important part of our strategy. It's not the only solution. We have to have both sides of it. We have to increase supply and reduce demand. Both of those have to happen. And it cannot be just one or the other. And that's why this report has been a comprehensive report looking at both sides. We want to be environmentally responsible and see that we're putting in place conservation measurings. We've already directed -- I've directed my department to conserve energy. The other agencies are following through on the president's directive to do that. We're looking at ways of using alternative technologies at using the real technological innovations that are available to us in this century. And to try to have that in service of both conservation and in service of finding sources of energy both of those are going to be areas that we will be expanding.</s>WOODRUFF: All right. well , Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton, we thank you very much joining us.</s>NORTON: Thank you.</s>WOODRUFF: Appreciate it. And now we are joined by the by former Clinton administration Energy Secretary Bill Richardson. Bill Richardson, is the president moving in the right direction with this proposal?</s>BILL RICHARDSON, FORMER ENERGY SECRETARY: The president is moving in the right direction in the area of more supply and more production. We do need more power plants, more natural gas pipelines. He's not moving in the supply direction in an environmentally sensitive way, where I believe that he needs to do more is in the area of energy efficiency and conservation. Two big elements were missing from this conservation plan: an emphasis on more fuel-efficient vehicles and restoring some air conditioning standards that were left in play by our administration which would reduce electricity by 30 percent by the year 2010. That means about 130 less power plants; nonetheless, it's a start. Judy, this is a very tough issue. I had to face it for two years. Hopefully, what will emerge after all the politics and the bickering and the priority debates will be a comprehensive plan that balances more production with conservation equally. Right now, the president's plan is too weighted toward production, not enough on environment and air quality and conservation.</s>WOODRUFF: Well, let me just ask you about a statement. The plan starts out -- flat out by saying America in the year 2001 faces the most serious energy shortage since the 1970s. Is that correct?</s>RICHARDSON: No, I disagree. We have a lot of serious energy challenges. We have production problems. We have transmission generation facilities. We've got gasoline prices at a $1.70. A year ago they were $1.49. There is no question we've got some energy challenges, but it's because, Judy, in the last eight years our economy grew by 35 percent. Our energy demand grew by 15 percent. Those are the challenges we have. But to attack those challenges, you've got to have a combination policy of production and energy- efficiency conservation, equally supply and demand.</s>WOODRUFF: Well, when you say production needs to be -- you agree even as a Democrat that production needs to be a significant part of this. When you hear the Interior Secretary Gale Norton saying, as she did a moment ago, that the U.S. has to look at building more nuclear power plants. Is that the waste issue needs to be addressed, what's your reaction?</s>RICHARDSON: I think nuclear power has to be debated and has to be part of the energy mix. But I would say that before we start talking about licensing new plants, we got to deal with the Yucca Mountain issue, which is: Where do we store the waste from the 50 states that has accumulated, that because of a number of reasons, has not been stored anywhere. I don't think the answer is interim storage. I think the answer is based on science. That determination should be based on science at the end of this calendar year. Whether Yucca Mountain in Nevada is ready to take this nuclear waste. There is some water problems. There is other environmental problems. But first, let's deal with the nuclear waste which is a serious problem, high-level waste.</s>WOODRUFF: But I understand their talking -- them to be talking about doubling the number of reactors at already licensed, not newly licensed, but already licensed nuclear facilities.</s>RICHARDSON: Well, I would disagree with that. I think the first step has to be: deal with the existing nuclear waste, and then have a full debate on nuclear power. It does reduce greenhouse gas emissions more than other energy sources. Nonetheless, the public has to be comfortable with this. The nuclear energy industry has to convince the public of its safety, of its environment safeguards. That hasn't happened. But nuclear waste, dumping all the waste into a repository taking it from the 50 states is critical before we start talking about building new plants.</s>WOODRUFF: What about the question of, Bill Richardson -- of drilling offshore, whether it's Florida or other parts of the United States? You -- I believe you were here -- you heard me asking Secretary Norton about the president's recommendation that she, as the secretary of the interior and secretary of commerce, should take a hard look at this. Is this something that makes sense?</s>RICHARDSON: Well, we did approve in the past interior department some of that off-shore drilling off the coast of the Gulf of Mexico and Florida. I think that's environmentally safe. There is off-shore oil in California and off the coast of Florida that I've hoped that the Bush administration doesn't change. I think that would be a catastrophe. We do need to drill for more oil and gas and petroleum in the lower 48 and Rocky Mountain states. But let's do in an environmentally sensitive way. I'm also a little concerned, Judy, about an imminent domain issue, building more power plants in the West for an administration that cares about property rights, I'm concerned that -- yes, we need to build more power plants, but we have got to bring local communities in the states as part of the debate.</s>WOODRUFF: When they point out that not a single oil refinery has been built in a generation, they talk about natural gas distribution hindered by an aging and inadequate network of pipelines, aren't they really pointing a finger at the administration you served in for the last eight years?</s>RICHARDSON: Well, yeah. They're blaming everybody else. That's not going to be helpful. There hasn't been a refinery built in this country since 1982, when Valero energy did it in Corpus Christie. So, this has been an endemic problem. I think what has to happen now, Judy, is the energy companies that are doing well -- and I want them to do well -- should engage more of their research into exploration, into building more refineries. We need them. But let's do this in an environmentally sensitive way. We made a lot of positive strides on air quality. Let's not banish all those good laws aside. But we do need to drill more. We do need more production, more supply, but let's have equally conservation. And let's engage OPEC too. The Bush administration is not playing this game. They should.</s>WOODRUFF: All right. Bill Richardson, Energy secretary under President Clinton. Thank you very much; appreciate it. Well, does the president's energy plan go far enough? Will it help ease prices at the pump this summer? Representatives Billy Tauzin and Robert Wexler square off in the "CROSSFIRE" at 7:30 p.m. Eastern. And later tonight, a CNN special on the energy crunch, including a report on whether grassroots conservation makes a significant difference. That's at 10:00 p.m. Eastern. The president's energy plan was of special interest to people on the West Coast, and the details fell short in the eyes of some. Straight ahead...</s>GOV. GRAY DAVIS (D), CALIFORNIA: I fault the president for not providing California with any immediate relief. California is the only state in America that faced blackouts and astronomical electricity prices.</s>WOODRUFF: California's governor delivered his response to the White House plan and shared a few suggests for improvement. Also ahead...</s>WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST (voice-over): California has two Democratic senators and a Democratic governor. Texas has two Republican senators and a Republican governor. What's driving the two great Sun Belt states apart?</s>WOODRUFF: Bill Schneider on how two states that appear so similar can be so different. And later: a second chance for nuclear power. The once-maligned energy source gets new respect from the White House.