LCV IGNORES ENERGY BILL'S GREEN ACCOMPLISHMENTS -- REDUCED CARBON EMISSIONS, MORE EFFICIENT HOMES

LCV TIRED RHETORIC MISCHARACTERIZES COMPREHENSIVE ENERGY BILL

February 24, 2004
12:00 AM
Washington, D.C. – The League of Conservation Voters today mischaracterized comprehensive energy legislation pending before Congress in the release of its 2003 National Environmental Scorecard. The LCV cited defeat of comprehensive energy legislation as its number one priority in the 60-page report made public today. Senate Energy & Natural Resources Chairman Pete V. Domenici issued the following response: “I always enjoy the LCV’s lively rhetoric. But like many of us, I sometimes wish the LCV focused less on partisan politics and more on conservation and the environment. “My energy bill increases production of wind, solar and geothermal energy. It gives American consumers tax credits for buying environmentally-friendly cars and making home improvements that save energy. It gives home builders tax incentives to build energy-efficient homes and manufacturers incentives to build appliances that save more energy. My bill makes a substantial difference in our environment. The ethanol provision makes gasoline burn cleaner and the $1.8 billion investment in clean coal technology means coal will burn cleaner than we thought possible 20 years ago. The Energy Information Agency, in a recent analysis on the impact of my energy bill, reported that if the energy bill is passed into law, carbon emissions will be reduce by 96 million metric tons in 2025. That’s the equivalent of pulling 960,000 SUVs off the road. The energy efficiency provisions in my bill will reduce energy demand by a combined 13 billion kilowatt hours in 2025 – enough energy to power more than 1.2 million households. Additionally, tax credits for energy efficient new homes increase the number of efficient new homes by 16 percent over the next 20 years. These are the results the LCV is attacking. This is further, compelling evidence that the LCV is entirely about politics, not conservation or the environment.” ###