New Mexico's Representative for District 2, Congressman Steve Pearce, recently voted in favor of the controversial House energy bill. Critics of the bill argue that it puts too much emphasis on the production of fossil fuels and not enough emphasis on conservation and renewable energy, while proponents of the bill argue that the US should develop all available resources to offset the high price of gasoline. Correspondent S.L. Harrington caught up with Congressman Pearce recently for a phone interview, where they discussed energy policy. In the interview, Congressman Pearce expressed his support for many of the Bush administration's more controversial energy policy initiatives, including opening up public lands such as the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to the oil and gas industry, building new nuclear power plants, and opposing stricter fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks. The full text of the interview follows, with editorial notes added for background.

S. L. Harrington:

What do you feel about the situation with drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)?

Pearce:

I think we need to be exploring there - I have visited ANWR and feel that the advances that we've made in technology will allow us to do that safely. The caribou herd that is often raised as an objection, that we would damage the caribou herd, is actually seven times the size it was when we first put in the Alaskan pipeline. So I think that our concerns are justified but I don't in the end think they would be sufficient to cause us to not be developing our energy sources.

Affordable energy is one of the keys as we move towards $3/gallon gasoline, we are just going to have to solve the demands for energy. Having said that, I also voted for the energy bill with the full understanding that it has deep incentives for renewables in it. Hydrogen, wind, solar, biomass, nuclear - I mean we've really got to begin pulling in different kinds of energy and moderating the price of our hydrocarbons and natural gas.

editor:

The energy bill has money and/or tax breaks set aside for both non-renewable and renewable energy. Critics argue that the monies set aside for the already highly profitable oil, gas, and coal industries dwarf that for renewable fuels. They also note that the best-case estimates of the amount of oil reserves in ANWR are less than one year's supply of the energy demands for the United States. Readers interested in additional background on oil consumption in the US can consult the US Dept of Energy. Regarding nuclear energy, critics point to the problem of waste disposal and note the recent information showing government scientists possibly falsifying information about the safety of the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal site. They also point out that in an age of heightened concerns about terrorism, and natural disasters such as the recent earthquake near the proposed Yucca Mountain waste site, nuclear energy facilities are an unneeded risk.

S. L. Harrington:

What do you feel about the possibility of raising the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards on auto fuel economy?

Pearce:

I haven't seen that it does anything as far as moderating our demand for energy. When we raised the CAFE standards before, what we did is lowered the weight of the vehicles, and on the one hand making them less safe. We have an increase every time you lower the weight by I think 100 pounds, you have an increase of fatalities on the road. So that's one of the byproducts and then the other one was that people simply started using more fuel and driving farther, so our consumption of gasoline stayed dollar wise pretty constant. So, it's been ineffective to this point, moderating the use of fuels.

editor:

The federal government's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has estimated that existing CAFE standards resulted in a savings of approximately 2.8 million barrels of oil per day since they were put in place. This represents about 14 percent of the US demand. Regarding CAFE standards and auto safety, traffic fatalities actually decreased during the period 1979-1999 due to a variety of factors, including seatbelt laws, airbags, and other improvements in auto safety. An excellent analysis of the effects of CAFE standards on auto safety can be found at the Center for Auto Safety. It should also be noted that in many cases, vehicles actually became heavier while simultaneously improving fuel efficiency. Moreover, experts report that the disparity in weight between vehicles involved in a collision is more relevant than the actual weight of either vehicle; thus, if the vehicle weight of all cars were reduced proportionately, there would be no net change in vehicle safety. Finally, there are many ways to improve fuel efficiency other than (or in addition to) altering a vehicle's weight. For readers who wish to explore this topic in more depth, Appendix A of this NHTSA document is informative.

S. L. Harrington:

Not casting it as either/or - not mutually exclusive - CAFE standards or drilling in ANWR, but perhaps both in conjunction - or do you just in general feel that CAFE standards are ineffective?

Pearce:

Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that we can kind of get an either/or - the suggestions from people who think that it's the solution (i.e. increased CAFE standards) are making such dramatic leaps in mileage that our manufacturers and the consumer end up penalized significantly. If the discussion were more modest and again phased in, I think there's all sorts of benefits. One of the most important things is to just keep developing the new technologies. I went out to look at a hydrogen fuel driven car - I've driven in the cars that are the combination of electric and gasoline powered, so I think we're making significant advances but we simply have to get them economically viable which they're not right now.

If you lower the weight of the vehicles to get your CAFE standards you increase the risk of fatalities in an accident, and so that's something that we have to be talking about. And frankly people are voting by driving SUV's, they want the heavier sounder feel of the car. And so you begin to regulate people's ability to choose... that gets into whole societal questions of how much government interference do we want, how much freedom do we want, and what does it all mean.

editor:

CAFE proponents, as noted previously, point out that vehicle safety actually improved during the time period that the first CAFE standards were introduced. In addition, there are many ways to raise fuel efficiency in addition to (or instead of) reducing vehicle weight - hybrid engines, continuously variable transmissions, selective disabling of cylinders, fuel injection, improved aerodynamics, to name just a few. CAFE proponents also point out that SUV's, according to data from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), are much more likely to be involved in rollover accidents resulting in fatality than are regular passenger cars. While vehicle weight is certainly one factor in auto safety, it is by no means the primary one; the Mazda Miata (one of the smallest, lightest vehicles on the road) is much less likely to be involved in a fatal accident than the Chevrolet Blazer (a much larger SUV), which is the most dangerous vehicle on the road according to real-world accident data collected by the IIHS. SUV critics also point out that SUV's are much less maneuverable and therefore more prone to be involved in accidents to begin with.

One thing is certain, when SUV's collide with other vehicles, the SUV inflicts significant damage due to its height and weight as compared to other cars. However, that does not mean that SUV drivers necessarily come out any better in multiple vehicle accidents, because the SUV has its own inherent flaws and suffers from an increased risk of rollover. So, many critics argue that SUV's put everyone at more risk, both the SUV drivers and the drivers of other vehicles. In fact, they point out, if safety was the true motivator behind vehicle purchase, mini-vans and mid-to-large sized passenger cars would be the vehicles of choice.

Regarding restricting choices, the government already limits vehicle choices in many ways; there are certain types of cars that are not "street-legal" - the government requires headlights, taillights, mufflers to suppress exhaust noise to a reasonable level, etc. In addition, proponents of increased CAFE standards argue that there is no reason SUV's could not be built with improved fuel efficiency, so they say the notion that increased CAFE standards would make SUV's unavailable and remove consumer choices is a false conclusion.

S. L. Harrington:

Regarding auto safety, do you feel that congress has any role in legislating various safety devices like side impact airbags or stability control, or the way it currently is, they are usually options on a vehicle - is that preferable?

Pearce:

Again, I prefer smaller and less intrusive government, obviously there are times - seatbelts would be a good example - that if we did not call for them that most of the public would not use them, so there are often exceptions to even my own position. But generally I favor less government and less intrusion to reach that balance that we need.

editor:

SocorroNews.com thanks Congressman Pearce for the opportunity to talk with him about these and other issues of importance to voters in District 2. Readers who wish to let Congressman Pearce know their opinions on these or other issues can contact his local Socorro office (phone: 505-838-7516; fax: 505-838-4027), or send him an email.