Energy battle heats up in Congress

Thanks to the Enron scandal, Democrats smell blood in the fight over Bush's energy plan. But could they end up scuffling with one another?

By Anthony York

Feb 5, 2002 | President Bush's energy plan may soon provide the turf for the most openly partisan battling since Sept. 11. But the energy-plan drama, set to open in the Senate next week, is rife with subplots: Everything from the Alaska governor's race to November's midterm congressional elections to the 2004 Democratic presidential primaries could ultimately be affected by the wrangling.

Thanks to the Enron scandal and the disgraced company's shadowy role in crafting the Bush energy plan, Democrats think the arcane details of energy policy -- fuel cells and CAFE standards and tax incentives for conservation -- could help them target the Achilles' heel of a wartime president who otherwise seems invulnerable. And not surprisingly, Democrats with presidential ambitions are leading the attack. "Obviously it's an oil-disposed administration, and it's reflected in their policies," Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., told Salon in a telephone interview. "These are oil men, and any interest that has invested in the status quo is going to resist."

Kerry made headlines last month when he took on the White House in a speech to the Center for National Policy in which he proposed the United States wean itself from oil dependency. Kerry said his speech was timed to "frame the energy debate" and rally public support in what promises to be one of Washington's biggest political battles in the coming weeks.

But Kerry's speech was also read by many as the opening salvo of a 2004 presidential bid. Not only was it an effort to establish his green credentials for environmentalists who will be casting votes in Democratic primaries in a couple of years, it also seemed tailor-made for most political battleground states. For example, Kerry wants to continue government subsidies for ethanol, a corn-based fuel that is the sacred cow of Iowa farmers. He also seemed to have the key battleground states of Pennsylvania and West Virginia on his mind when he talked about coal. Environmentalists blast coal as a prime polluter, but Kerry said the government should continue to fund research into ways to burn coal that won't hurt the environment.

"We must invest federal money in researching how that coal can be mined and burned to do the least environmental damage possible," he said.

As if to underscore the political importance of the coal-producing states, on the same day Kerry made his speech in Washington, President Bush was in West Virginia rallying support for his energy plan.

"In order to become less dependent on foreign sources of energy, we've got to find and produce more energy at home, including coal," Bush said. But Bush's energy plan does not dedicate any new money to clean-burning coal technology.

The one pivotal state Kerry is sure to have alienated is Michigan, where the auto industry enjoys strong support from members of both parties. The Big Three auto makers continue to maintain that increasing the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards will lead to a reduction in jobs, an increase in the cost of a new car and the production of lighter vehicles that are less safe.

"The biggest issue for us is going to be CAFE legislation," General Motors spokesman Michael Morrissey told the Detroit Free Press. "We know that if it is done improperly an increase in CAFE standards will pose a real risk to auto safety, cost lives and increase traffic injuries."

But Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club's Global Warming and Energy Program, said the opposition of the Big Three has more to do with their bottom line than any safety concerns. "They say we can't chew gum and walk at the same time," he said. "If we have to put this on the vehicles, we can't possibly spend the time and effort to come up with new technologies for the future. It's complete nonsense."

Next Page: Differences between Daschle and Kerry?

• View blog reactions