Scott Peters on Energy & Oil

Approved city's plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

• Climate Change: As a Councilman, Scott approved the City's Sustainable Community Program and the Climate Protection Action Plan, which is the City's plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The City's new General Plan, adopted in 2008, won national awards for the standards it set for sustainability and responsible energy usage.
• Recycling & Waste Management: Scott passed measures aimed at prolonging the life of Miramar Landfill, including implementing mandatory recycling legislation that required the recycling of construction and demolition debris.
• Solar Turbines Manufacturing Jobs: As Port Chairman, Scott galvanized local leaders to stand with hundreds of local workers against developers to ensure that Solar Turbines stay in San Diego, protecting 3,800 San Diego jobs.

Supports regulating greenhouse gas emissions.

Project Vote Smart infers candidate issue stances on key topics by summarizing public speeches and public statements. Congressional candidates are given the opportunity to respond in detail; about 11% did so in the 2012 races.

Project Vote Smart summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: 'Environment: Do you support the federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions?'

Voted YES on banning offshore oil drilling in Gulf of Mexico.

Congressional Summary: House amendment to H.R. 5538, the Interior & Environment Agencies Appropriations bill for FY 2017. This amendment would prohibit funds to be used to research, investigate, or study offshore drilling in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico Planning Area of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).

Heritage Foundation recommends voting NO: (7/13/2016): The Gulf of Mexico continues to be a very important asset for our energy future and it continues to produce significant amounts of oil and natural gas. Yet the Eastern Gulf of Mexico has not participated to this point despite its significant potential. A 2014 Heritage Foundation report said: "Excessive regulations and bureaucratic inefficiencies have stymied oil production and prevented the full effects of the energy boom." This amendment would block any potential progress that could take place by preventing the necessary work that would need to be prepared in the East Gulf for potential lease sales and eventual production.

Sierra Club recommends voting YES: (1/12/1974): The Sierra Club believes that no offshore petroleum exploration should occur unless and until the following conditions are met:

• Strengthen the Coastal Zone Management System.
• Lease sales should be prohibited in areas that possess:
  • High seismic activity
  • Fragile or unstable geological structures
  • Proximity to particularly diverse or productive marine ecosystems, or marine sanctuaries
  • Where visual impact of offshore structures would significantly reduce aesthetic values
  • Where the risks are unusually high.
• Petroleum exploration and production must be subject to automatic, heavy fines for all oil spills regardless of cause.
• The Sierra Club opposes leasing of lands beyond 200 meters depth until international agreements [define] ownership of sea floor resources.

Legislative outcome: Failed House 185 to 243 (no Senate vote).

Federal collaboration for advanced nuclear technologies.

Press Release from 5 Senators: The Senate today approved, 87-4, legislation that would facilitate advanced nuclear technologies, as part of the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act (NEICA), S. 2461, which prioritizes partnering with private innovators on new reactor technologies and the testing and demonstration of reactor concepts.

Supporters arguments:

• "Nuclear energy has an important role to play as we transition to a carbon-free energy future. This amendment will help drive investment, remove bureaucratic barriers, and allow our entrepreneurs and businesses to unleash the promise of advanced nuclear technologies," said Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ).
• "Including clean nuclear energy as part of our nation's 'all-of-the-above' energy strategy is a no-brainer," said Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID).

Opposing environmental argument: (Sierra Club FactSheet, "Why Nuclear Power Doesn't Make Sense"): As the disasters at Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima have shown, nuclear power can cause catastrophic damage to land & human health. We should pursue our cleanest, quickest, safest, and cheapest energy options first: Nuclear power comes out last in every one of those categories.

Opposing economic argument: (Cato Institute Commentary, "Risky Business"): Many free-market advocates support nuclear because it costs less to generate nuclear power than it does to generate electricity from any other source. However, someone has to first pay for--and build--these plants and the rub is that nuclear has very high, upfront construction costs ranging from $6-9 billion. By contrast, gas plants cost only a few hundred million dollars to build and coal a couple of billion. But the final nail in the coffin for the industry would be if the federal cap on the liability that nuclear power plant owners face in case of accidents (the Price-Anderson Act) were to be lifted.

50% clean and carbon free electricity by 2030.

Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should establish a national goal of more than 50 percent clean and carbon free electricity by 2030 for the purposes of avoiding the worst impacts of climate change, growing our economy, increasing our shared prosperity, improving public health, and preserving our national security.

• Whereas failing to act on climate change will have a devastating impact on our Nation's economy, costing us billions of dollars in lost GDP;
• Whereas extreme weather, intensified by climate change, has already cost taxpayers billions of dollars each year in recovery efforts, and this will only continue if climate change is left unaddressed;
• Whereas climate change will have devastating public health implications, including increased asthma attacks and exacerbation of other respiratory diseases, especially in vulnerable populations;
• Whereas inaction on climate change will disproportionately impact communities of color and exacerbate existing economic inequalities;
• Whereas the transition to a clean energy economy is feasible with existing technology;
• Whereas the transition to clean energy will create millions of jobs and will increase our country's GDP and increase disposable household income;

1. Establish a national goal of more than 50 percent clean and carbon free electricity by 2030; and
2. Enact legislation to accelerate the transition to clean energy to meet this goal.