WATCHING WASHINGTON CONGRESSIONAL OIL DEBATE

With Patrick Crow You have to hand it to Californians in Congress. A group of them has successfully used the budget process and political pressure to shut down oil and gas leasing in federal water off their state. But now the Iraqi/Kuwaiti crisis is threatening their gains. The U.S. has a clear and pressing need for more oil. So the Californians, rather than fight defensively to maintain the drilling ban, have launched an offensive for more conservation.

Sept. 17, 1990

3 min read

You have to hand it to Californians in Congress.

A group of them has successfully used the budget process and political pressure to shut down oil and gas leasing in federal water off their state.

But now the Iraqi/Kuwaiti crisis is threatening their gains. The U.S. has a clear and pressing need for more oil.

So the Californians, rather than fight defensively to maintain the drilling ban, have launched an offensive for more conservation.

THE BOXER BILL

Californians' effort is centered on a bill Rep. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and others filed last week designed to drastically tighten auto fuel efficiency standards.

The bill is identical to one by Sen. Richard Bryan (D-Nev.) that requires automakers to increase their corporate average fuel economy 20% by the 1995 model year and another 20% by the 2001 model year. That would increase the current 27.5 mpg standard to 34 mpg by 1995 and 40 mpg by 2001.

Neither bill appears to have much of a chance in this session of Congress. Bryan's bill faces a filibuster on the floor, and the Senate is short on time anyway. Congressmen from automaking districts also plan to block the House bill.

Automakers say Bryan's bill would require substantial, costly changes and smaller cars that would result in higher accident fatality rates. Japanese automakers complain the bill would put them at a competitive disadvantage because their mileage rates already are low.

Boxer said "there is not enough oil off our coasts to give us energy independence" but higher efficiency standards would save 2.8 million b/d of oil by 2005, compared with 270,000 b/d of new oil from drilling off California.

He said, "There are those who would exploit the current crisis in the Middle East by renewing attempts to spur oil development in environmentally sensitive areas. If oil is so prized by this nation that we will put our sons' and daughters' lives on the line for it, we certainly should be conserving it."

Rep. Leon Panetta (D-Calif.) listed nine steps the country could take to conserve oil and develop alternative energy sources. None involves additional oil production.

Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) said, "There is more oil in Detroit than there is in the Mideast for the U.S. The American oil industry prides itself on being the most efficient finder of oil in the world. So why should the American consumer be the most wasteful?"

"THE TRUE PROBLEM"

The Natural Resources Defense Council said, "Calls to drill on protected federal lands miss the point: They do not respond to the true problem, which is sudden price increases rather than shortage.

"U.S. oil prices are the same as world oil prices. This is true whether the U.S. continues to import 50% of its oil or reduces its imports to 25% or even to zero."

Rep. Phil Sharp (D-Ind.), energy and power subcommittee chairman, offered a more reasoned view.

He agreed that a production-only strategy is not acceptable to Congress or the American people. "But we have to recognize there will be a need for more drilling and development."