These responses are the verbatim answers by the candidates to questions submitted by the Energy America Education Fund in a February 1996 survey.
Clinton: No. The President has already ordered substantial reductions in the size of the Department to makeit more efficient. By 2000, the Administration's plan will have saved taxpayers more than $10 billion. Essential functions of the Department -- such as research and development, efficiency programs and criticaldefense programs -- should be preserved. Republican proposals to dismantle the Department would either savemoney by shirking essential missions or simply transfer functions to other departments without savingtaxpayers anything.
Dole: Yes. Bob Dole supports abolition of the U.S. Department of Energy because of the need to downsizethe Federal government and because the Department of Energy serves little purpose in obtaining energy orenvironmental benefits in the public interest. The Department of Energy is one of four cabinet agencies whichtogether spend more than $74 billion per year and whose elimination Bob Dole has called for in his initiativeto streamline the entire Federal bureaucracy.
Clinton: No. The Arctic Refuge is a rare, pristine wilderness that should be preserved for future generations. There are substantial state and federal lands that can be developed in Alaska without disturbing the Refuge. And since there is more oil in energy efficiency than can be extracted from the Arctic Refuge, drilling is asunnecessary as it is unwise.
Dole: Yes. Bob Dole supports allowing oil and gas development on the Coastal Plain -- a small portion -- ofthe Arctic National Wildlife Refuge because it can be done safely and responsibly without damage to theenvironment, and because careful development of America's oil and natural gas resources contributes toeconomic growth, creates American jobs, enhances our nation's energy security and reduces dependence onforeign oil.
Clinton: No. The Administration strongly supports improving fuel efficiency, and believes CAFE has beena useful tool to increase fuel economy in the past. However, the fast-paced increase suggested by the questionruns a strong risk of not being cost-effective and of being counterproductive. In September 1993, the Presidentinitiated a new partnership with the domestic auto industry and labor to develop a new generation of high-performance, affordable vehicles up to three times more fuel efficient than today's models. Early developmentsare promising.
Dole: No. Bob Dole supports saving energy in the transportation sector, but he believes that additionalFederal regulatory mandates such as raising Corporate Average Fuel Economy ("CAFE") standards are notthe best way to obtain more energy efficient cars and trucks. Bob Dole advocates greater use of alternativefuels like ethanol to reduce emissions and increase energy security. Bob Dole also advocates taking a harderlook at market-based mechanisms to get the really inefficient and polluting cars off the road.
Clinton: New nuclear power plants are not being built today for two economic reasons: first, they areextremely expensive -- more costly than both conservation measures and other sources of electricity generation;and second, nationwide conservation and utility deregulation have reduced the demand for huge new plants. The Administration supports research and development funding to help develop more cost-effective nuclearplant designs. Ultimately, however, the market and the public must choose the technology and fuels for futureelectricity generation -- not the government.
Dole: Bob Dole supports a diversified energy supply system. If nuclear power is selected as the economicchoice, and otherwise meets all health and safety licensing requirements, Bob Dole supports the right ofcompanies to choose nuclear power technology. However, one of the most pressing problems facing thenuclear energy industry is the disposal of nuclear waste. This problem has not been adequately addressed bythe Clinton Administration and needs to be resolved.
Clinton: No. These programs save consumers money, create jobs, help new technologies gain market sharein the U.S. and abroad, and reduce the gases that cause global climate change and other air pollution. That'swhy the President has expanded funding for these programs -- more than 40 percent for conservation andrenewables (measured from the last Bush budget to the 1996 Clinton request). Many of these programs engagethe private sector in voluntary energy-saving efforts that help improve productivity -- and generate significanteconomic and environmental benefits for each taxpayer dollar invested.
Dole: Yes. DOE's energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, like many other worthy programs in theFederal government, must bear their share of the budget restraint necessary to obtain a balanced budget. Federal funding for energy conservation programs and for renewable energy programs increased 27.5% and42% respectively, from FY'1993 to FY'1995. These substantial increases came on top of a doubling of energyconservation research and development funding and a 65% increase in renewable energy funding during theBush Administration. The Congress has approved approximately $800 million in FY'1996 funding for DOE'senergy conservation and renewable energy programs. This seems adequate.
Clinton: No. In the past two years, we have witnessed severe weather -- the brutal winter of 1993-94 in theEast, the hot summer of 1995 in the Midwest, and the blizzard of 1996 which we are now facing -- where manypoor and elderly citizens face life-threatening situations. LIHEAP helps these citizens pay their bills and offersthem an important lifeline. Weatherization continues to be a very cost-effective way to help poor families, whospend about three times the proportion of their family budgets on fuel and utility bills than average.
Dole: Again, Bob Dole supports HHS' Low Income Home Energy Assistance program and DOE'sweatherization assistance program and understands the importance of these programs to the State of NewHampshire. The issues are: (1) how much should be spent on these programs given other competing priorities;(2) the need to balance the budget; and (3) who should bear financial responsibility for these programs, theFederal government or the states. In general, he believes the states should have more say about how to useFederal resources to provide for the welfare of their citizens. Whether states choose to use those resources forlow income energy assistance or weatherization should be a judgment for states to make, not the Federalgovernment.
Clinton: No. These standards have saved consumers billions of dollars in the past 10 years. Moreover, newappliance standards are set by consulting with manufacturers to ensure that standards are cost-effective andin the best interests of both consumers and appliance producers. Building energy codes remain the cheapest,most efficient way to increase energy efficiency in homes and offices, and federal guidance is necessarybecause state and local programs don't always have the resources to develop their own codes.
Dole: Bob Dole supports providing consumers with the information they need to choose the level of efficiencythey want to pay for. He does not support Federal mandates or regulations that deny consumers choice andaffordable appliances or cost American jobs.
Clinton: Yes. On Earth Day 1993, shortly after taking office, President Clinton made a commitment to cutemissions of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by the year 2000 -- a commitment previous Presidents refusedto make.
Dole: Bob Dole supports the commitment made by President Bush to prepare a plan with the objective ofreturning U.S. greenhouse gas levels in the year 2000 to 1990 levels through voluntary measures.
Clinton: No. The Administration opposes building anywhere a temporary storage facility for high-level wasteuntil scientific investigation on a permanent disposal site is farther along. The Administration believes thatwe should focus on funding and completing the scientific examination of the permanent underground disposalrepository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. We should make the decision about where and when to build aninterim site after we know more about Yucca Mountain's suitability as a permanent repository.
Dole: Bob Dole supports the siting of an interim storage facility for high-level nuclear waste. He believes thatdeterminations regarding the siting of that facility should be left to the legislative process, through theauthorizing committees of the Congress working with those deeply involved in the high-level nuclear wasteprogram.
Clinton: Yes, if the proper health and safety standards are in place. Unfortunately, the state of California (towhom the site would be transferred) and Republicans in Congress believe the site should be transferred withoutany binding commitments for public safeguards. The President opposes that measure, and vetoed it with therest of the GOP budget (the reconciliation bill).
Dole: Yes. Ward Valley is the site selected by state officials charged with the responsibility of siting a low-level nuclear waste facility. Independent scientific assessments have demonstrated no reason why Ward Valleyis not a suitable site for such a facility. Bob Dole believes, therefore, that the Federal government shouldaccommodate the choice that the states have made.
Clinton: No. The President is strongly opposed to cuts of this magnitude, which would put public health andsafety at risk. He vetoed the Republican EPA appropriations bill in large part because it would have cut EPA'sfunding 22 percent from the President's request. (The vetoed bill had been improved slightly in theHouse/Senate conference from the 35% cut cited in the question, which was the House level.)
Dole: For fiscal year 1996, EPA will not receive a 35% cut in funding. Although Bob Dole supports thecurrent funding level for EPA, EPA must also bear its share of the burden of achieving a balanced budget. EPA has almost doubled in size in the past 20 years to over 19,000 employees (not counting contractemployees), and its budget has grown from $1.6 billion to $3.6 billion (in constant dollars), not countingconstruction spending, during the same period. More EPA staff does not automatically mean a betterenvironment. It does mean fewer resources to devote to other needs (e.g., health, nutrition, housing).
Clinton: No. PUHCA was enacted to limit anti-competitive behavior by utility monopolies, and still servesas an important safeguard for consumers. Significant changes have been enacted to PUHCA and related lawsin recent years, and we should carefully examine the effect of those reforms before we make further changes. However, as the electric utility industry becomes more competitive, the Administration will assess theprospects for undertaking statutory reforms of PUHCA in view of national objectives of reliable, clean, andeconomic electricity generation.
Dole: Yes. The 1935 Public Utility Holding Company Act is an outdated statute that no longer providesbenefits to consumers or investors and should be repealed. The Securities and Exchange Commission underboth Republican and Democratic Administrations in 1981 and again in 1985 has recommended repeal of thisstatute. Bob Dole has co-sponsored legislation that would repeal this out-moded statute with appropriatesafeguards for consumers.
