Why some greens favor energy bill

"I do expect to grow more corn or at least get a better price for my corn because of this legislation," he says. "I'm excited about it."

Indeed, ethanol is one of the big exceptions in an act that leaves alternative fuels alive but sputtering.

Under the bill, ethanol production will double over the next five years to 5 billion gallons annually.

This may provide key political support from Democratic senators from corn-belt states - like Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota - critical to getting the legislation through the Senate.

But will doubling ethanol output make the air cleaner? Ethanol, when mixed and burned with gasoline, reduces some car exhaust pollutants, but increases others. Environmentalists say it is a wash. Others are less sure.

Jerry Taylor, director of natural resources studies at the Cato Institute, has studied ethanol, but says he is no environmentalist.

"I expect ethanol will have an overall detrimental impact on environment by encouraging excessive corn production - and heavier use of fertilizer and herbicides" that pollute water running off the land, Mr. Taylor says.

Hydrogen looks to be the other big winner among renewable alternative fuels. Praised by President Bush in his State of the Union address, hydrogen promises much - a nation of "freedom cars" whose exhaust is just water, energy independence from the Middle East, and an entire economy running on a nonpolluting energy source.

But even the $1.8 billion in the bill targeted for hydrogen research and development is unlikely to make much of dent in pollution over the next decade, analysts say. And even those in the business who should benefit from federal R&D largess are concerned.

"There is significant funding for hydrogen, but it is not the centerpiece, as I expected," says Stephen Tang, president of Millennium Cell, an Eatontown, N.J., maker of hydrogen fuel-cell equipment. He worries that it may be just window dressing. Others say the same.

The Energy Policy Act includes about $1 billion to develop technology to turn coal into hydrogen and another $1 billion for a nuclear plant in Idaho to turn water into hydrogen.

These plans irk Jeremy Rifkin, president of the Foundation on Economic Trends and author of "The Hydrogen Economy." "We're all for hydrogen - we think it's the future," he says. "Where many of us disagree is where do you extract it from - water and biomass, or coal? President Bush is essentially hijacking hydrogen and using it to bolster the interests of the fossil fuel and nuclear industry."

Meanwhile, environmentalists complain that the Energy Act also includes provisions for:

• Exempting oil and gas companies from having to obtain permits to control polluted storm-water runoff from drill pads, pipeline corridors, and refineries, as required by the Clean Water Act. It also exempts them from the Safe Drinking Water Act when injecting chemicals during oil well drilling.

• Giving cities with poor air quality longer to clean up, but without stronger pollution standards as mandated by the Clean Air Act.

• Allowing the leasing of the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska, a 37,000-square-mile piece of northern Alaska, for oil and gas production without protection for wildlife.

• Allowing the Interior secretary to designate utility and pipeline corridors across public lands without seeking public input.

Despite the environmentalists' complaints, John Livermore, program manager for the Sun Power for New Homes program in Massachusetts, is excited.

Solar technology is always a tough sell in northern states, but he's working with a home builder who is offering solar panels as an option on new high-end homes.

The pitch: "Would you like solar with those oak cabinets?"

"I don't know about the oil drilling in the Arctic that might be in this bill. I'm concerned - but we're very optimistic about these tax credits," he says.

Page: 1 | 2