|
| ||||||
 |  |
 | | | | |
|
|
Clean Air Reports
Executive SummaryEnvironment America is the new home of U.S. PIRG's environmental work.
Electric utilities, oil refineries, and other large polluters have long sought changes to the Clean Air Act to weaken public health and environmental protections. By spending millions in campaign contributions to elect allies in Congress and the White House and millions more on lobbying, these industries have not only influenced the Bush administration’s air policies, they have helped to craft them. For instance: • On January 30, 2004, in response to a court-ordered deadline, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a weak proposal to reduce toxic mercury emissions from power plants, which are the only remaining unregulated source of mercury air emissions in the United States. EPA’s proposal would delay meaningful reductions in mercury from power plants until at least 2018 – and even then would not do enough to adequately protect children’s health. • On August 27, 2003, EPA finalized a rule that guts the Clean Air Act’s New Source Review (NSR) program, which requires power plants, refineries, paper mills, and other industrial facilities to install modern pollution controls whenever they make major upgrades or modifications that increase emissions. The changes will worsen air quality for the more than 146 million Americans who already live in counties where it is unsafe to breathe the air due to high levels of ozone smog, particle soot, or other harmful pollutants. • The Bush administration has advanced its so-called Clear Skies Initiative, a program that delays power plant cleanup by 10 years for some pollutants, sets weaker pollution caps than the current Clean Air Act, eliminates or modifies several key Clean Air Act programs, and fails to address carbon dioxide—the leading cause of global warming. In order to win these concessions, a powerful group of trade associations, including the Edison Electric Institute, Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, American Petroleum Institute, and the National Association of Manufacturers, have contributed heavily to congressional and presidential campaigns and spent millions lobbying to weaken the Clean Air Act’s most important safeguards for public health and the environment. This report documents the Political Action Committee (PAC) contributions and lobbying expenditures of 18 trade associations—and select member companies of the associations—actively lobbying to weaken planned mercury reductions, undermine the New Source Review program, and/or advance the President’s dirty air plan. Their prolific spending has helped to elect allies to the House of Representatives and Senate—and the White House—and assured access once those allies were in office. Campaign Contributions: The Contributors Examining PAC contributions given to federal candidates between 1997 and 2002, we found:a • The 18 trade associations and select member companies profiled in this report contributed $53 million to federal candidates between 1997 and 2002. • The Edison Electric Institute, representing large electric utilities, and select member companies gave $17.8 million to federal candidates between 1997 and 2002; the American Petroleum Institute, representing the oil and gas industry, and select member companies gave $12.5 million; and the National Association of Manufacturers, representing some of the country’s largest manufacturers of goods, and select member companies gave $9.8 million. • The trade associations and select member companies in the electric utility and oil and gas sectors contributed more than $30 million of the $53 million total. The companies in these sectors giving the most to federal candidates between 1997 and 2002 include ExxonMobil, Southern Company, ChevronTexaco, Entergy Corporation, and Edison International. • For comparison, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, the banking industry’s PACs contributed $27 million to federal candidates between 1997 and 2002; the defense sector’s PACs contributed $22; and the telephone utility industry’s PACs contributed $20 million. Campaign Contributions: The Recipients Examining PAC contributions given to federal candidates between 1997 and 2002, we found: • In the 2000 presidential race, these trade associations and select member companies gave more than $185,000 in PAC contributions to George W. Bush’s campaign but did not make any contributions to Al Gore’s campaign. • In the Senate, the top recipients of campaign contributions from these trade associations and select member companies were Senators Mary Landrieu (D-LA), George Voinovich (R-OH), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Rick Santorum (R-PA), and Conrad Burns (R-MT). • In the House, the top recipients were Representatives John Dingell (D-MI), Joe Barton (R-TX), Billy Tauzin (R-LA), Dennis Hastert (R-IL), and Tom DeLay (R-TX). Lobbying Expenditures Examining lobbying expenditures in 2002, we found: • These 18 trade associations and select member companies spent more than $173 million on in-house lobbying in 2002 alone. • The Edison Electric Institute, representing the largest electric utilities, spent more than $12 million on in-house lobbying in 2002. • Of the $173 million spent on lobbying by these trade associations and member companies, more than $96 million came from associations and companies in the electric utility and oil and gas sectors. The companies in these sectors spending the most on in-house lobbying include ExxonMobil, Shell Oil, Southern Company, ChevronTexaco, and Marathon Oil. • For comparison, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, the entire banking industry spent $26 million on lobbying in 2002; the defense sector spent $60 million; and the telephone utility industry spent $43 million. • This report only examines PAC hard money contributions—individual and soft money contributions are not included in any totals. As a result, these figures underestimate the actual amount of money flowing from industry to federal candidates.
|
