U.S. National Energy Policy Strategie schafft neuen Markt für moderne Umwelttechnologien, konzentriert sich ansonsten aber auf eine Erhöhung des Angebots an fossilen Energieträgern

Bericht des OST in Washington  

Hier finden Sie zwei Artikel, die über die am 17. Mai 2001 veröffentlichten Details der Empfehlungen der von Präsident Bush eingesetzten Task Force zur Erarbeitung einer National Energy Policy (kommentierte Zusammenfassung) berichten:  

Eine offizielle Zusammenfassung der Empfehlungen finden Sie unter http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/16/politics/17OVER.html .  

Die beiden Artikel und der untenstehende Kommentar werden vor allem deshalb übermittelt, weil die National Energy Policy den modernen Umwelttechnologien einen hohen Stellenwert einräumt, diese Technologien in den USA im Vergleich zu Österreich unterentwickelt sind. In diesem Zusammenhang könnten sich in naher Zukunft neue Perspektiven für wissenschaftlich-technologische Kooperationen mit den USA im Bereich der Umweltforschung und -technologien ergeben.  

Zusammenfassung der Empfehlungen der Task Force zur National Energy Policy

 Nachfolgend finden Sie eine Auswahl der im Bericht der von Präsident George W. Bush eingesetzten ‘Arbeitsgruppe für Energie’ abgegebenen Empfehlungen:  

Produktion

Kraftwerke


Kernenergie

Erneuerbare Energien


Umweltschutz

Ferner

Kommentar  

Der nun vorliegende Entwurf einer National Energy Policy ist für alle, die mit den Umweltschutz-Bemühungen der Europäer und dem energieintensiven Lebensstil der US Amerikaner vertraut sind, enttäuschend. Allerdings enthält der nunmehr vorliegende Plan - nach Wochen der Spekulationen und Diskussionen - kaum Überraschungen. Die Strategie ist recht simpel: Steigerung der Energieeffizienz durch verstärkten Einsatz neuer Technologien einerseits und Verbesserung des Energieangebotes durch den Bau neuer Kraftwerke (1900 neue Kraftwerke bis 2020) und Erschließung neuer Gebiete für Öl- und Gasbohrungen andererseits. Für berechtigten Aufruhr sorgt das Vorhaben, einen Teil des Arctic National Wildlife Refuge für Bohrungen zu öffnen.  

Die Initiative zur Schaffung einer National Energy Policy ist Folge massiver Versorgungsprobleme im Energiebereich, die sich bekanntlich in großflächigen Stromausfällen in Kalifornien und in für die USA ungewöhnlich hohen Benzin- und Gaspreisen niedergeschlagen haben. Es ist nicht von der Hand zu weisen, dass bereits jetzt eine enorme Diskrepanz zwischen Nachfrage und Angebot herrscht. Die ohnehin hohe Nachfrage wird sich in den kommenden Jahren deutlich steigern. Zwar hat Präsident Bush diesfalls das Erbe einer über viele Jahrzehnte vernachlässigten Energie- und Umweltpolitik angetreten, allerdings scheint der nun vorliegende Plan nicht dazu angetan, wesentliche Schwächen der Politik der Vergangenheit aufzubessern. Vielmehr entsteht der Eindruck, dass die ohnehin schwach ausgeprägten Ansätze nachfrageorientierter Lösungen der Energiekrise weiter zurückgedrängt werden.  

Die Verfasser des Textes waren offensichtlich darauf bedacht, die Fehler der vergangenen Wochen im Zusammenhang mit der Kommunikation der Umweltpolitik (Kyoto etc.) der neuen Regierung zu vermeiden. Die Anliegen des Umweltschutzes werden entsprechend betont. In diesem Zusammenhang wird behauptet, die USA hätten bereits die entsprechenden modernen Umwelttechnologien. Dies darf bezweifelt werden, da die Unterstützung für F&E in diesen Bereichen deutlich hinter jener vieler europäischer Staaten liegt. Der Plan erwähnt ausdrücklich die wissenschaftlich-technologische Leistungen der USA und empfiehlt verstärkte Förderung für Forschung über erneuerbare Energieträger und Energieeffizienz. Dies steht in Widerspruch zu den Budgetplänen der Bush Administration. Der Budgetentwurf des Präsidenten sieht zwar insgesamt eine deutliche Erhöhung des F&E Budgets vor, allerdings sind lediglich die National Institutes of Health (NIH) und das Department of Defense (DOD) Nutznießer von Erhöhungen.

Die anderen Ministerien und Forschungsförderungseinrichtungen (wie etwa die National Science Foundation) sind Opfer stagnierender Budgets oder gar drastischer Kürzungen. Ein prominentes Opfer ist die über das Department of Energy (DOE) geförderte und abgewickelte Energie-Forschung. Unter diesen Forschungsprogrammen widerfährt den Forschungsprogrammen zu solarer Energie und erneuerbaren Energieträgern die stärkste Kürzung: Sie werden um 30,8 % gekürzt. Die Förderung der Programme im Zusammenhang mit der sogenannten energy conservation R&D werden um 28,3% gekürzt (für mehr Details vgl. http://www.aaas.org/spp/dspp/rd/fy02.htm).  


Mit der im Text durchgängigen Betonung der herausragenden Rolle neuer Technologien im Bereich der Energy Conservation wird peinlichst vermieden, den Eindruck entstehen zu lassen, dass Energiesparen mit Änderungen des gegenwärtigen Lebensstils verbunden sein könnte. Dies ist insoferne eine bedenkliche Vorgehensweise, als etwa im Automobilbereich ausreichende Alternativen zu den in Popularität in den vergangenen Jahren gestiegenen SUVs (Sport Utility Vehicles, d.h. Jeeps, Pick-up Trucks etc) vorhanden sind, aber der finanzielle Druck auf die Konsumenten, auf diesen umweltschädlichen Luxus zu verzichten, offensichtlich nicht groß genug war, um sich von derlei Statussymbolen zu verabschieden. Eine Energiepolitik, die vorgibt, die USA könnten ihr Energieproblem lösen, ohne gewisse Aspekte ihres Lebensstils zu verbessern, hat kaum Chancen auf der Nachfrageseite nennenswerte Resultate zu erzielen. Die im heute vorgelegten Text enthaltene Behauptung "We are already working to meet the first challenge: using energy more wisely" entspricht zumindest derzeit nicht der Realität des amerikanischen Durchschnittsbürgers. Das Vorhaben, einen Einkommenssteuerfreibetrag für die Anschaffung von hybrid- und brennstoffzellenbetriebenen Fahrzeugen zu schaffen, wird hoffentlich das Konsumverhalten am Automobilmarkt nachhaltig verändern.

Es ist bezeichnend für den in der National Energy Policy gewählten Lösungsansatz, dass bereits in der Einleitung die Hauptursache für die Energieversorgungsprobleme in Kalifornien im Mangel an neuen Kraftwerken gesehen wird. Während den erneuerbaren Energieträgern und alternativen Treibstoffen bloß für die ferne Zukunft eine Rolle zugestanden wird, werden fossile Energieträger nach wie vor die Hauptrolle spielen. Die nunmehr vorliegende Strategie geht im wesentlichen davon aus, dass es nicht nur nicht gelingen wird, die Nachfrage nach Öl, Gas und Strom zu verringern, sondern dass mit enormen Zuwächsen zu rechnen ist.  

Die derzeitigen Vorhaben im Rahmen der National Energy Policy widersprechen mit ihrer ungleich stärkeren Betonung der Angebotsseite der in der Einleitung des langerwarteten Dokuments gemachten Behauptung, es handle sich um einen langfristigen und integrierten Lösungsansatz.  


Aus: New York Times v. 17.5.2001, Seite 1:

'Bush Proposes Energy Plan Tapping Oil and Gas Reserves'

by DAVID E. SANGER  

ST. PAUL, Minn., May 17 — President Bush laid out his long-awaited energy plan today, proposing looser regulations on oil and gas exploration, conservation-minded efforts like a review of gas mileage standards and a $4 billion tax credit for a new generation of highly fuel efficient cars. And he urged a reconsideration of a quarter-century ban on the reprocessing of nuclear fuel.  

Mr. Bush further called for "a new harmony between our energy needs and our environmental concerns" and lamented that "too often, Americans are asked to take sides."  

With a declaration that the energy problems threaten the nation's economy and security, the Bush plan also ordered a sweeping review of public lands to determine whether more energy resources can be extracted.  

Anticipating the opposition that the proposal is sure to touch off, Mr. Bush called today for a commitment "to live well and wisely on the earth."  

"Environmental interests and energy production are not competing priorities," the President said, to applause.  

As expected, Mr. Bush called for a revived commitment to using nuclear power. How many Americans, he wondered aloud, know that nuclear power already supplies one-fifth of the country's electricity "safely and without air pollution"?  

"America in the year 2001 faces the most serious energy shortage since the oil embargoes of the 1970's," the administration's energy report states. Without action, projected energy shortfalls in coming years "will inevitably undermine our economy, our standard of living and our national security." The proposals are among 105 initiatives outlined in the administration's energy report. (The report is available online at www.whitehouse.gov ).  

In his address today, Mr. Bush said energy production will be ever more vital in the information age. "Even the sleekest laptop needs to plug in to an electrical outlet from time to time," he said.  

A senior government official said that Mr. Bush would also issue two executive orders later this week directing all federal agencies to consider the effects of all new regulations on energy production and to expedite permits for all energy projects "while remaining mindful of protecting the environment."  

An overview of the plan states that federal regulation of the nation's energy producers has unduly inhibited production and increased prices.  

"Regulation is needed in such a complex field, but it has become overly burdensome," the report says. "Regulatory hurdles, delays in issuing permits and economic uncertainty are limiting investment in new facilities, making our energy markets more vulnerable to transmission bottlenecks, price spikes and supply disruptions."  

Mr. Bush will also order the secretary of the interior, Gale Norton, an outspoken proponent of seeking new sources of energy on federal lands, to "look at any impediments" that discourage exploration for oil and gas.  

"Our nation and our hemisphere are rich in natural gas resources," Mr. Bush said today, adding that too often exploration was hobbled by over-regulation.  

The report repeats Mr. Bush's commitment to explore in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge - a proposal that seems unlikely to survive in Congress - and also urges a review that will include other locations in Alaska, the Rocky Mountains and the Gulf Coast.  

The report also urges the revision or reinterpretation of a major clause of the Clean Air Act that requires long government review of any modifications of power plants that affect their emissions. The senior government official, who was deeply involved in the development of the plan, argued that the "new source reviews" conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency are a "time-consuming process" that often "discourage fuel efficiency."  

The Justice Department will also be ordered to review several multi-million dollar lawsuits brought by the Clinton Administration against utilities accused of ignoring the law.  

One official of an environmental group said the report was about what he had expected and he predicted conservation organizations would be highly critical.  

"This has just a lot of opportunity for mischief from the energy producers and no real solid commitments for the green components," said David G. Hawkins, senior attorney of the Natural Resources Defense Council.  

He said he was "astounded" that the policy would recommend a review of legal actions now underway on utility emissions, calling it "political interference with law enforcement."  

Mr. Bush announced his plan at an innovative energy plant in St. Paul, Minn. But even before he begins his campaign for a national energy policy, he has touched off a heated political argument between Democrats and Republicans over how to balance environmental concerns against growing energy needs, and whether to impose temporary price caps in places like California, where a deregulation program and soaring demand has sent prices through the roof.  

Democrats have urged the use of such controls, while Mr. Bush will continue to argue "vociferously," one aide said, that the controls would only discourage the production of more electricity.  

Mr. Bush's report adopts a tone that is by turns admonishing and encouraging. "The complacency of the past decade must now give way to swift, but well-considered, action," it says in its introduction, echoing themes that Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, who headed the task force, have hit in recent weeks.  

"Present trends are not encouraging, but they are not immutable," the report says. Then, in a clear effort to separate Mr. Bush's approach from Jimmy Carter's politically disastrous calls for household austerity during the energy crises of the 1970's, it adds: "Our country has met many great tests. Some have imposed extreme hardship and sacrifice. Others have demanded only resolve, ingenuity, and clarity of purpose. Such is the case with energy today."  

The decision to offer a relatively hefty tax credit for "hybrid" cars, which use a combination of gas and battery power, is bound to help both Detroit and two Japanese automakers — Honda and Toyota — which are already marketing such vehicles in the United States. They will be less enthusiastic about orders by Mr. Bush for the government to review the federal standards for automotive fuel efficiency — though the report makes no commitment that those standards will be raised.  

The plan also calls for a new evaluation of nuclear reprocessing, a technology that takes advantage of the fact that as reactors consume uranium, they also produce plutonium. If the plutonium is chemically scavenged from the fuel, it can be used to run reactors.  

But the technology has drawbacks. The work is dirty, with the threat of radioactive releases, and it is expensive. For the last decade at least, it has been far cheaper to fuel reactors with new uranium than to recover plutonium. And while uranium fuel used in power reactors cannot be used to make a bomb, plutonium can, raising the threat of world commerce in a material that could be diverted by countries that want a bomb, or even terrorists.  

Japan, France and Britain currently reprocess fuel, although the British are considering ending the practice because it is so costly.  

But reprocessing can reduce the volume of plutonium requiring disposal, which is important because plutonium is so long-lived and difficult to store safely. Some opponents of the technology said today that they believed it had been included into the Bush plan as a sop to the state of Nevada, where the Energy Department is trying to build a waste repository. Reprocessing would not eliminate the need for such a repository, however.  

In a section of the report on the foreign policy implications of a new energy strategy, the administration calls for a review of American policy on sanctions, clearly with an eye toward lifting those sanctions that have prevented American companies from exploiting resources in countries that violate human rights or are openly hostile to the United States. It says there will be no change in sanctions against Libya, Iran and Iraq. But that leaves open the possibility of lifting controls on Azerbaijan and Myanmar, formerly known as Burma.  

It also calls for cooperation with Canada on building a pipeline that could bring more natural gas into the United States.  

The report mixes a number of existing initiatives with new ones, particularly in the area of conservation. For example, of $10 billion in proposed tax credits over the next 10 years, $5 billion are already in the budget or the result of extending existing credits.  

Other programs get modest increases. The administration recommends $300 million in new funds for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and calls for funneling some oil and gas royalty payments, which companies pay the federal government for extracting resources on public land, to the program for the poor.  

Similarly, in an effort directed toward environmentalists, it would commit royalties from any energy extracted in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve for land conservation efforts.  

There are no credits or other tax breaks for oil or gas producers, or electric utilities — a reflection of the sensitivity of the White House to criticism that Mr. Cheney and other top officials spent their private-sector years in the energy industry. But the tone of deregulation, reassessment of the merits of the Clean Air Act and the emphasis on opening of federal lands to more energy production — everything from wind power to oil and gas drilling — provides those industries with effective subsidies totaling in the billions.  

Much of the report simply urges companies to build, build and build some more, including 38,000 miles of new gas pipelines, 255,000 miles of distribution pipelines and a new power plant every few days for the next 20 years. But for every such proposal, Mr. Bush's team carefully inserted proposals for expanding the use of renewable fuels, from geo-thermal energy sources to the methane produced in landfills.  

The nuclear power industry gets one major concession: A tax break that would eliminate the double taxation of funds put aside for decommissioning plants. Those taxes have been a deterrent to buying and selling nuclear plants. It commits $2 billion over 10 years to a clean coal technology program in the Department of Energy.  

It urges the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to speed the licensing of hydroelectric power plants — Mr. Bush will visit one on Friday in Pennsylvania. It also seeks "market-based incentives" to reduce pollutants that cause global climate change. But Mr. Bush rejected several months ago any American participation in the Kyoto treaty on global warming, which would have mandated cuts in American emissions, at considerable economic cost.  

Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company  


Aus: Washington Post, 17.5.2001, A 01

'White House Outlines New Energy Policy, Focus Remains on Production; Congressional Battle Expected'

by Dana Milbank and Eric Pianin, Washington Post Staff Writers  

White House officials last night unveiled a national energy policy that seeks to build support for controversial increases in oil drilling and energy production by linking such provisions to alternative and renewable energy sources favored by environmentalists.  

The recommendations are part of the much-anticipated energy plan President Bush will announce today in Minnesota. The proposal, which reflects an unprecedented federal commitment to increased energy supply, begins what is likely to be a fierce battle in Congress over the environmental ramifications of increased production.  

As expected, Bush will call for increased production of oil, gas, coal and nuclear energy, but the plan also sprinkles in tax credits for fuel-efficient vehicles and alternative energy supplies. Bush will seek oil and gas exploration in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and, for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the property-claiming power of eminent domain in the placement of power transmission lines -- two of the most controversial measures in the package.  

But with recent polls showing environmental issues to be a significant vulnerability for Bush, the plan carefully matches more controversial measures such as drilling on federal land with funding for alternative energy initiatives that are popular with environmental groups.  

For example, $1.2 billion in revenue produced by leasing parts of Alaska's National Wildlife Refuge for oil and gas production would be used to fund alternative and renewable energy sources, including wind, solar, biomass and geothermal. Bush would provide new funds to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program with oil and gas royalty payments. And he contemplates lifting limits on access to federal land, but for the production of renewable energy.  

The report's recommendations are largely general, and the White House chose to put off some of the toughest calls for agencies or Congress to ponder later. The task force provided no targets for energy production or the building of new power plants. It called for further study of the thorny issues of global warming, fuel economy standards, the handling of national monuments and the status of government lawsuits against power plants that expand without permission.  

"America in the year 2001 faces the most serious energy shortage since the oil embargoes of the 1970s," the report says. "A fundamental imbalance between supply and demand defines our nation's energy crisis. . . . This imbalance, if allowed to continue, will inevitably undermine our economy, our standard of living and our national security."  

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) said he hoped to get the package approved by July 4, but cautioned that some of Bush's proposals "will be hotly debated."  

Environmentalists last night criticized the plan for stressing production over conservation and alternative energy sources.  

"I think there are a few good things on efficiency and renewable fuels, but they don't outweigh the damage done both by the production subsidies and the environmental exemptions and drilling in the Arctic," said David Hawkins of the Natural Resources Defense Council. "If you're a seller of energy, this is a good plan," he added. "But if you're a consumer of energy or a breather of air, like all of us, it's a bad plan."  

Bush will begin with an executive order directing federal agencies to expedite permits for new power plants and other energy projects, administration officials said. A second executive order will direct agencies to prepare an "energy impact" statement -- much like the environmental impact study -- for "any regulatory action that could significantly and adversely affect energy supplies."  

Those orders are among 105 recommendations in the report to be issued today by an energy task force that Bush convened four months ago under the direction of Vice President Cheney.  

The report foresees a national gas pipeline system and a national electric power grid and reopens the possibility of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, a practice not contemplated for decades. To expedite the building of power plants, the administration would eliminate what it calls "redundant" permitting requirements between federal, state and local authorities. Bush also wants to encourage the expansion of nuclear plants and to upgrade nuclear plants.  

The plan also contemplates spending an additional $6.3 billion over 10 years on alternative energy sources, with $4 billion going for tax credits for fuel cell cars and hybrid cars. That would be in addition to the $5 billion of energy spending Bush sought in his budget request, including $2 billion for clean-coal technology. Credits include incentives to make homes more efficient and to use for electricity the methane gas from landfills.  

Most of the proposals would require further congressional or regulatory actions. Forty-two of the recommendations deal with conservation and alternative fuels, 25 with international efforts to increase energy availability, and 35 with increasing supply and improving energy infrastructure domestically -- although an administration official acknowledged that such tallies don't necessarily reflect the report's emphasis.  


On the eve of today's formal unveiling, the White House, in a last-minute turnabout, argued for the first time that Bush's energy proposals will have a short-term benefit that could alleviate this summer's expected energy crisis. "My plan helps people in the short term and long term by recognizing the problem and by expediting energy development," the president asserted yesterday.  

Bush advisers, facing criticism from anxious Republicans in Congress, now contend that their proposal will cause a moderating of short-term energy prices as the market anticipates growing long-term supplies. Some energy experts were skeptical of that reasoning, arguing that oil markets have already accounted for the long-term supply increases Bush envisions.  

But Bush advisers may be calculating that prices are expected to moderate in the coming weeks because of supply-demand changes that have nothing to do with Bush's energy recommendations. The Energy Department, in its latest forecast, argued that "supplies are expected to improve and the chances that spot and retail prices will calm down [perhaps even decline some from current levels] are good."  

The shift in message from the White House came on the same day that Sen. Frank H. Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and a solid administration ally, sent colleagues a memo listing six "short-term options," which he argued "will solve our energy problems in the short term." Republicans in Congress are worried that the White House is insufficiently concerned that voters will blame them for energy shortages and rising prices. Bush and Cheney may be particularly vulnerable because both were oil executives.  

Murkowski's possibilities, for which he listed pros and cons, were suspending the 18.4 cent-per-gallon federal gasoline tax; increasing imports of refined petroleum from Canada, Mexico and Venezuela by removing environmental requirements for reformulated gasoline; reducing the EPA's categories of "boutique" fuels to three regional blends; waiving the "oxygenate mandate" in fuels, another environmental provision; increasing the legal per-mile deduction for business or charitable gasoline use; and asking states temporarily to waive tolls on major roads during peak travel.  

Murkowski said he agreed with the White House that Bush's plan "will send a strong psychological message that we finally have someone in the office who knows something about energy." But, he added, "I think we all need to come together and identify as much as we can on the short term."  

Addressing the short-term problem yesterday, Bush called on the Federal Trade Commission to make sure no one was overcharged for energy. "We can make sure that any entity will not illegally overcharge," Bush told reporters after a Cabinet meeting at which he received the completed plan.  

Meanwhile, Democrats and environmental groups are gearing up for a major assault on the plan, including a national television, radio and newspaper ad campaign and door-to-door canvassing in some states to get across their message.  

Staff writer Mike Allen contributed to this report.  

© 2001 The Washington Post Company