PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES' VIEWS ON ENERGY

[Matt Freedman <freedman@Citizen.ORG>]

  ENERGY AMERICA EDUCATION FUND
  Newmarket Road, Box 201; Warner, N.H. 03278
  Phone 603-431-2499 / Fax 603-456-3641
  
  Embargoed for Release Until Wednesday February 7, 1996 at 10:00 a.m. 
  
  Contact:  Henry Griggs   202-682-1270        
            Ken Bossong    301-270-2258
            Matt Freedman  cmep@citizen.org 
  
  **The survey can be accessed at http://www.essential.org/CMEP**
  
  Survey of Presidential Candidates Finds Sharp Differences 
  Among Republicans and With President Clinton 
  on Environmental Protection and Energy Policy Issues
  
  Washington, D.C. -- Responses from President Clinton and all of
  the major Republican candidates to a "Presidential Candidates
  Environmental and Energy Issues Questionnaire" released today
  reflect a range of views not only between President Clinton and
  the candidates for the Republican nomination but among the
  Republican candidates themselves.  
  
       The questionnaire was prepared and circulated by the Energy
  America Education Fund, a non-partisan, non-profit New Hampshire
  organization.  Written responses to its 16-question survey were
  obtained over the past four weeks from President Bill Clinton,
  Senators Bob Dole (KS), Phil Gramm (TX), and Richard Lugar (IN),
  Congressman Robert Dornan (CA), former governor Lamar Alexander
  (TN), businessmen Steve Forbes and Morry Taylor, and media
  commentators Patrick Buchanan and Alan Keyes.    
  
       While President Clinton generally staked out stronger
  pro-environment positions in response to most questions than his
  would-be Republican challengers, numerous public opinion surveys
  suggest that all the candidates may be out of step with voters on
  key environmental and energy policy issues -- to their potential
  detriment.  
  
       For example, a survey conducted last month by
  Research/Strategy/Management, a Republican polling firm, for the
  Sustainable Energy Budget Coalition found that nearly 60 percent
  of voters said they would be more likely to vote for a candidate
  who shares their energy priorities.  Furthermore, they
  overwhelmingly favor continuing federal support for renewable
  energy and energy efficiency programs while reducing support for
  conventional energy sources such as nuclear, coal, and oil.  Most
  of the responses ran counter to these preferences. 
  
       For instance, only Clinton and Lugar objected to the 25
  percent cut in FY'96 funding approved by Congress for the U.S.
  Department of Energy's (DOE) energy efficiency and renewable
  energy programs while the other Republican candidates indicated
  their support for reducing those budgets.  Lugar, though, felt
  "DOE programs must be eligible to take some cuts."  Forbes noted
  that "additional cuts may be needed so I have not yet established
  a funding level."
  
       When asked whether they support abolishing DOE itself, the
  candidates split along party lines with most of the Republicans
  wanting to close it down; Lugar, however, is opposed to
  abolishing it "at this time" but could consider the option if it
  were "part of a general reorganization of the Executive Branch." 
  Clinton, citing an Administration plan to reduce DOE costs by $10
  billion by 2000, supports preserving essential DOE functions
  "such as research and development, efficiency programs, and
  critical defense programs."  
  
       However, possibly recognizing its popularity among New
  Hampshire voters particularly during the recent cold wave and
  blizzards, most of the Republican candidates as well as Clinton
  expressed support for funding DOE's Weatherization Assistance
  Program (WAP) as well as the Health and Human Services
  Department's Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). 
  Alexander, Keyes, and Dornan, though, endorsed proposed cuts of
  40 percent in funding for these programs.  Dole said that funding
  levels depend on other competing priorities and the need to
  balance the budget as well as noted that "the states should have
  more say" have these resources are used.  Forbes has "established
  no specific funding level" while Buchanan did not share his views
  on this issue.
  
       Divisions among the Republicans were evident when asked
  whether they would support a 35 percent cut in the Environmental
  Protection Agency's (EPA) FY'96 budget as earlier approved by the
  U.S. House of Representatives.  Taylor, Buchanan, and Dornan all
  support such a cut.  Gramm indicated that EPA would be
  hard-pressed to justify not having its budget cut.  Lugar and
  Dole oppose a 35% cut but are willing to support smaller
  reductions as approved by the U.S. Senate while Alexander would
  retarget at least some funding to the states "to keep their
  drinking water clean."  Clinton "is strongly opposed to cuts of
  this magnitude" in EPA's budget.  Keyes added that
  "appropriations riders were the only way to discipline EPA after
  the environmental establishment blocked reauthorization of major
  environmental bills."  Again, Forbes noted that he has
  "established no specific funding level."
  
       A split also exists regarding new appliance efficiency
  standards.  Lugar and Taylor both expressed support for such
  standards as did Clinton who maintains that they "have saved
  consumers billions of dollars in the past 10 years."  Alexander
  noted that "they do need to be reformed."  Senators Gramm and
  Dole indicated that the marketplace, rather than the federal
  government, should dictate efficiency standards.  Dornan, Forbes,
  and Keyes favor the phase-out of new standards; and Buchanan
  offered no response.
  
       Alexander, Buchanan, Dornan, Forbes, and Taylor explicitly
  support the construction of new nuclear plants in this country
  while Lugar "would not rule out construction if a particular
  plant is economical and safe."  Dole expresses a similar view
  noting that the problem of disposing of nuclear waste "needs to
  be resolved."  Gramm would leave nuclear construction decisions
  to the states and localities while continuing federal safety
  standards.  Keyes support new plant construction provided they
  "are not built with tax dollars."  Clinton favors "research and
  development funding to help develop more cost-effective nuclear
  plant designs" while letting "the market and the public choose
  the technology and fuels for future electricity generation -- not
  the government."
  
       Alexander, Dornan, Taylor, and Lugar ("if needed to avoid
  premature licensing of a permanent storage facility") support
  establishing an interim storage facility for high-level waste in
  Nevada.  Buchanan and Keyes offered no comment while Forbes said
  that he was "undecided pending further study.  Gramm said the
  federal government must "work closely with individual states to
  best determine the future of interim storage issues."  Dole
  favors building such a facility but would leave "determinations
  regarding the siting of that facility to the legislative
  process."  Clinton "opposes building anywhere a temporary storage
  facility for high-level waste until scientific investigation on a
  permanent disposal site is farther along." 
  
       The proposed transfer of federal land for the proposed Ward
  Valley, California "low-level" nuclear waste facility is
  generally supported by all the candidates other than Buchanan and
  Taylor who offered no comment and Forbes who, again, was
  "undecided pending further study."  Dole and Lugar pointed to
  earlier scientific studies that support opening the site. 
  Clinton, who earlier vetoed a measure he claimed lacked "any
  binding commitments for public safeguards" said his support is
  conditioned on "the proper health and safety standards [being] in
  place" while Alexander wants the project to be "scientifically
  and environmentally sound."
  
       All the Republican candidates favor opening the Arctic
  National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil exploration and drilling. 
  Dole supports development on ANWR's Coastal Plain, where only "a
  small portion" would be affected "because it can be done safely
  and responsibly without damage to the environment," while Lugar
  assumes that "strict regulations and advanced technology will
  protect wildlife."  Alexander believes "the technology now exists
  to begin limited oil and gas exploration in a way that would be
  safe for the environment."  Clinton is opposed noting that the
  region "is a rare, pristine wilderness that should be preserved
  for future generations [and] there is more oil in energy
  efficiency."
  
       On the other hand, only Taylor supports raising fuel
  efficiency standards for new cars and light trucks.  Clinton
  prefers pursuing a partnership with the domestic auto industry
  "to develop a new generation of high-performance, affordable
  vehicles [that are] up to three times more fuel efficient." 
  Keyes maintains that "CAFE kills 2,000 - 4,000 people a year by
  making larger, safer cars less affordable."  Dole would rely on
  "market-based mechanisms to get the really inefficient and
  polluting cars off the road."  Both he and Taylor expressed
  support for increased use of ethanol as a transportation fuel.
  
       Clinton and Dornan report that they support cutting
  "greenhouse gas" emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. 
  Lugar notes that he supported the 1992 Climate Change Convention
  that called for the stabilization of greenhouse gas emissions
  while Dole supports former President Bush's "commitment
  to prepare a plan with the objective of returning  U.S.
  greenhouse gas levels in the year 2000 to 1990 levels through
  voluntary measures."  Alexander acknowledges that this is "a
  serious issue" but opposes acting unless done "in conjunction
  with other countries" while Gramm would rely on only
  "market-driven energy efficiency" and would "oppose artificial
  government mandates."  Forbes "question[s] the need for
  restricting the United States' ability to create jobs for our
  people based on a global warming theory which is unproven." 
  Keyes is opposed while Buchanan and Taylor did not respond.
  
       All the candidates say they support applying cost/benefit
  tests to all new and existing federal environmental and energy
  regulation although Clinton would oppose its use if it "would
  cause undue delay or litigation or would roll back health,
  safety, and environmental protection."  Lugar favors its use
  "to achieve strict environmental standards a reasonable cost." 
  Gramm would subject "all regulatory legislation to risk
  assessment or cost-benefit studies."  Dole wants to "emphasize
  sound science, prioritize our efforts, be careful of pursuing
  small risks at great costs, and understand that spending more to
  chase slight or sensational risks means less state, local and
  individual resources are available to meet other health or
  societal needs."
  
       Dornan, Buchanan, Taylor, and Keyes (who favors "voluntary,
  incentive-based conservation") oppose reauthorization and strict
  enforcement of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).  Forbes is also
  opposed "unless common sense amendments are adopted to stop
  prosecution of farmers who run over endangered rats while plowing
  their fields and similar ridiculous situations."  Gramm would
  "support a rational, science-based law which respects private
  property and individual jobs."  Noting his experience with the
  snail darter, Alexander favors reforming the law so that is "less
  onerous to property owners, gives more incentives to property
  owners to protect endangered species, but still retains federal
  protection of endangered species and their habitats."  Dole also
  calls for ESA's reform charging that the law "has effectively
  placed the judiciary in charge of commerce and land management in
  significant portions of the West and Northwest."  Lugar favors
  reauthorization noting that "the scope of the ESA needs
  clarification" while Clinton supports a "strong ESA that protects
  wildlife and provides more flexibility to landowners and more
  involvement for the states." 
  
       All the Republicans, other than Lugar, support federal
  "takings" legislation that would require payment if federal
  environmental regulations reduce property values.  Lugar reports
  that he is "skeptical that Congress should try to improve upon
  the work of the courts in defining a taking or determining what
  is just compensation."  Similarly, Clinton believes that proposed
  "takings" legislation "goes beyond Constitutional protections; it
  would cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars and weaken
  safeguards for public health, safety, and the environment."
  
       All the Republicans as well as Clinton say they want the
  government to receive a fair market return for publicly owned
  minerals extracted by private mining companies on federal land. 
  Gramm and Lugar expressly called for an increase in the amount
  charged to mining companies using federal lands.  While saying he
  supports reform of "out-dated mining laws," Dole also "opposes
  efforts that would put miners and others in related activities
  out of work, severely impact the economy in our Western states
  and actually decrease Federal revenues."  Forbes "support[s] the
  principle of a fair market return but have endorsed no specific
  plan as of now."  Keyes, though, recommends that market value be
  "determined by some kind of auction or competitive bidding
  process."
  
       Finally, all of the Republican candidates other than
  Buchanan (who did not respond) support repealing the 1935 Public
  Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA).  Dole calls PUHCA "an
  outdated statute that no longer provides benefits to consumers or
  investors and should be repealed" while Lugar conditions his
  support for repeal on whether "this would eliminate duplicative
  regulation."  Clinton, however, opposes repeal because the law
  "still serves as an important safeguard for consumers [but] as
  the electric utility industry becomes more competitive, the
  Administration will assess the prospects for undertaking
  statutory reforms of PUHCA."    
  
                                 # # # # # # #
  
       The Energy America Education Fund is a non-partisan,
  not-for-profit, New Hampshire-based organization founded in 1991
  to provide information on the energy and environmental views of
  candidates for national office.  
  
       A copy of the complete 12-page compilation of the
  candidates' responses to the Energy America questionnaire is
  available for a stamped (55-cents), self-addressed envelope from
  the SUN DAY Campaign, 315 Circle Avenue, #2, Takoma Park, MD
  20912 (301-270-2258).
  -----------------------------------------------------------------
  FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 
  Wednesday, February 7, 1996   
  
  CONTACT:  Bill Magavern  202-546-4996
            Matt Freedman  cmep@citizen.org
  
  STATEMENT OF BILL MAGAVERN
  DIRECTOR, PUBLIC CITIZEN'S CRITICAL MASS ENERGY PROJECT
  ON ENERGY AMERICA'S PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES QUESTIONNAIRE
  
       The candidates' positions on several sustainable energy
  issues put them closer to the polluting special interests than to
  the voters. While the American people have repeatedly called for
  movement away from dirty nuclear and fossil fuels toward cleaner
  renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies, the
  politicians continue to side with big corporate interests who are
  blocking change. 
  
       The major candidates oppose a fuel-saving 45 miles per
  gallon standard for motor vehicles, which would save Americans
  billions of dollars while reducing air pollution. In 1992, Bill
  Clinton supported raising Corporate Average Fuel Economy
  standards from 27.5 mpg to 45 mpg. In 1996, he has flip-flopped
  and joined the leading Republicans and General Motors, Ford and
  Chrysler in opposing 45 mpg.
  
       The Democratic and Republican contenders also side with the
  nuclear industry by backing, to varying degrees, construction of
  more nuclear power plants and a nuclear waste dump in California,
  both of which have been rejected by large majorities in public
  opinion polls. In fact, a recent survey found that only two per
  cent of utility industry executives would consider ordering a new
  nuclear power plant, compared to 89 per cent who would not. So
  the candidates who support construction of new nuclear reactors
  are not only well behind the public, but even behind the
  electricity industry. At least President Clinton opposes forcing
  a storage site for high-level radioactive waste on Nevada, but
  the Republican candidates either support the industry-backed plan
  or refuse to oppose it. Dole, Gramm, Alexander and Buchanan claim
  to support increasing the authority of state governments, but
  only President Clinton has actually come out against the nuclear
  industry's attempt to cram a radioactive waste dump down the
  throat of an unwilling state. 
  
                                ##
  
  Public Citizen is a non-profit, non-partisan research and
  advocacy organization. Critical Mass is Public Citizen's energy
  policy group.
  
  The complete Energy America 1996 U.S. Presidential Candidates
  Environmental & Energy Issues Questionnaire is posted on Critical
  Mass's home page on the World Wide Web (http://www.essential.org/CMEP)
  ----------------------------------------------------------------
  To receive regular energy policy alerts, summaries and updates
  from Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy Project, send the
  following message to listproc@essential.org: SUBSCRIBE CMEP-LIST
  [your name - organizational affiliation - home state]