May, 18 2009, 12:00am EDT
Climate Change Bill Suffers From Backroom Dealings, Industry Influence
Statement of Tyson Slocum, Director of the Energy Program at Public Citizen
WASHINGTON
The climate change legislation that will be debated this week is a huge disappointment. Not only will it prove a boon to energy industries, but it won't protect consumers and may very well not even curb global warming. The first draft, penned months ago, was on track to accomplish these goals, and we applauded it as a great start. Since then, however, lawmakers have met in secret with representatives of the coal and oil industries and facilitated industry efforts to gut the bill.
The Obama administration got it right when officials released a budget that would auction 100 percent of pollution allowances. As long as pollution allowances are auctioned, the government will have the revenue necessary to mitigate energy price increases through rebates while having money to invest in the sustainable energy infrastructure we need to end our reliance on fossil fuels.
This was further reinforced by President Obama's selection for the new chair of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Jon Wellinghoff, who said that "we may not need any" new nuclear or coal power plants because we have yet to harness the capacity of renewables and energy efficiency.
But the House of Representatives has not followed the administration's lead. When Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) released a draft climate bill in March, we praised it as a great first step but noted that it needed to be improved during the committee mark-up process.
But instead of a transparent process involving debate and voted-upon amendments, committee leadership conducted closed-door negotiations with polluters. The result: The bill was radically altered to accommodate the financial interests of big energy corporations while giving nothing new for the environment or for working families. This is hardly the transformation this country needs to jump-start its economy and curb climate change. This is more of the same old wait-and-see, special-interest-bailout approach that has gripped Washington for ages.
It is disappointing that the entire process has been riddled with the corrupting influence of big money, with hundreds of thousands of dollars being given to members of the Energy and Commerce Committee by the oil, gas and coal industries. Ultimately, the people's business should be done in front of the people. Instead, deals have been cut in back rooms to bribe special interests into supporting the bill.
The committee's decision to give away most of the pollution allowances for free for the next two decades is unacceptable. This approach hurts working families and average households the most; an Environmental Protection Agency analysis has shown that giving away pollution credits is "highly regressive." Congress can look out for average families or give away pollution credits for free. It can't do both.
Europe's experience shows that when the right to pollute is given free to energy companies, nations fail to meet their emissions caps and price signals in the carbon trading markets are undermined. While we can understand providing some allowances to energy-intensive domestic manufacturing industries that are subject to fierce international competition, the same cannot be said for oil refiners or coal utilities. The bottom line is that this thwarts the very goal of curbing global warming.
The committee's plan to distribute allowances to coal utilities will set up a legal fight in all 50 states' utility regulatory commissions on how exactly the money will be returned to families and how much utilities can skim off the top - a fight that anti-poverty and consumer groups lack adequate resources to wage, given the army of lawyers utilities hire and the millions in campaign contributions they make. Without provisions to provide intervener funding - a process by which utilities help finance the legal and technical costs borne by consumer groups in the utility regulatory process - ratepayers will not receive the full rebates to which they are entitled.
We should not assume that a future Congress will hold fast to today's pledge to hold polluters accountable in 20 years. In fact, using history as a guide, these polluters will simply ramp up their lobbying and influence-peddling in an effort to again stall the day of reckoning when their greenhouse gas emissions carry a price.
Giving away allowances deprives the government of the revenues needed to invest in clean technologies. That may explain why the coal industry, in Section 114 of the bill, has secured up to $11 billion over the next decade in a new carbon tax that coal utilities would collect and spend through a private corporation they control, dedicating the money not to weatherization for families to finance rooftop solar power, but to new coal power plants, which would generate more carbon emissions. Setting up a new carbon tax paid by working families but benefiting only the coal industry at the expense of financing solar and other renewables is unacceptable.
Renewable energy took another hit in the legislative process. The federal renewable energy mandate contemplated in the first draft of the bill would have required utilities to produce 25 percent of their power from renewable energy by 2025; that figure is now 20 percent.
At the foundation of the committee's bill is a flawed market plan that would make even Enron blush. The price of pollution would be determined by a trillion-dollar derivatives market no different from the one that helped sink our economy into is current depressed state. This reliance on "cap and trade" markets - which esteemed U.S. climate scientist James E. Hansen calls the "Temple of Doom" - will allow Goldman Sachs and other derivatives traders to dominate the market and influence prices.
Industry lobbyists aren't done yet. Indications suggest that lobbyists for the nuclear industry may be successful today in inserting language creating a "Clean Energy Bank," which would be used to provide public financing for risky and dangerous nuclear power. The nuclear provisions are also unacceptable. For some strange reason, Congress apparently believes that the answer to helping the most heavily subsidized energy source in the country is more subsidies and bailouts.
Holdouts on the Energy and Commerce Committee have made clear that they are more willing to give in to ultimatums by the coal, oil and nuclear industries than to stand up for their constituents.
If this process shows anything, it is that the committee process is up for sale, which guarantees terrible outcomes in the upcoming health care debate.
We hope, however, that Congress will come to its senses and begin to look out for consumers. There will be an opportunity to make improvements to the American Clean Energy and Security Act on the House floor, where lawmakers will have opportunities to weigh in. We hope that Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) and other members will look out for their constituents, rather than special interests.
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000LATEST NEWS
Corporate Prosecutions Up Under Biden, Says Watchdog, But Not Nearly Enough
"The increase in corporate prosecutions is a welcome shift from the previous decline, and the new policy of rewarding corporate crime whistleblowers could go further toward restoring enforcement."
Mar 25, 2024
While welcoming a "modest uptick" in corporate prosecutions by the U.S. Department of Justice last year, the watchdog Public Citizen on Monday called for the "bold ramp-up Biden DOJ leadership promised early in the administration."
Federal prosecutions of corporations over the past 25 years peaked in 2000, at 304, according to the organization's analysis of various datasets. After the turn of the century, figures trended down, with a low of 90 in 2021, the year that President Joe Biden was sworn in. Since then, the numbers have started to climb again—hitting 99 in 2022 and 113 in 2023.
However, the impact isn't felt equally across the corporate world. Last year, "about 76% of the corporations DOJ prosecuted had only 50 employees or less, while only about 12% had 1,000 employees or more," the report states. "This is the continuation of a long-standing trend—about 70% of the 4,946 corporations the federal government prosecuted between 1992 and 2021 were small businesses with fewer than 50 employees. Only about 6% employed 1,000 or more."
"Prosecutions remain far too few, and the ongoing overuse of leniency deals for big corporations that break the law continues to undermine deterrence."
Still, "the increase in corporate prosecutions is a welcome shift from the previous decline, and the new policy of rewarding corporate crime whistleblowers could go further toward restoring enforcement," said Rick Claypool, a Public Citizen research director who authored the report, in a statement Monday.
Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco announced the "DOJ-run whistleblower rewards program," through which an individual who helps the department discover "significant corporate or financial misconduct" could receive some of the forfeiture, in a speech to the American Bar Association's 39th National Institute on White Collar Crime earlier this month.
Although Claypool applauded the progress, he also emphasized that "prosecutions remain far too few, and the ongoing overuse of leniency deals for big corporations that break the law continues to undermine deterrence."
The report explains that "prosecutors use DOJ leniency agreements—deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) and nonprosecution agreements (NPAs)—to avoid filing criminal charges against corporate defendants. Originally developed to offer nonviolent first-time individual offenders a second chance, such agreements now help the most powerful businesses in the world dodge the legal consequences of their criminal misconduct."
Previous Public Citizen research shows that "about 15% of the agreements historically involve repeat offenders, casting doubt on their deterrent effect," the report notes. "Most corporate repeat offenders that receive leniency agreements from the Department of Justice are large multinationals. Of the 14 corporations that received leniency deals in 2023, the majority (10, or 71%) had at least 5,000 employees or more."
Of those who took deals last year, the watchdog highlighted "generic pharmaceutical companies Teva and Glenmark, multinational tobacco corporation British American Tobacco, the Illinois subsidiary of telecommunications corporation AT&T, and the Swiss multinational technology firm ABB."
While calling out the DOJ for creating "the appearance that some businesses are 'too big to jail'" with its leniency agreements, Public Citizen also lauded Monaco's recent remarks about "delivering consequences for corporate recidivists."
"A history of misconduct matters," she said during the early March address. "After all, penalties exist, in part, to deter future misconduct. They're not the cost of doing business. So when a company breaks the law again—and it's clear the message wasn't received—we need to ratchet up the sanctions."
As the report details:
The first example Monaco provides of the Justice Department holding corporate repeat offenders accountable is Ericsson. Ericsson breached its 2019 leniency agreement with the DOJ to resolve allegations of criminal violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in Djibouti, China, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Kuwait. Following the breach—failing to meet cooperation and disclosure requirements—the DOJ subsequently prosecuted the corporation for its misconduct.
Other major corporations that have been prosecuted after breaching leniency agreements include the multinational agrichemical corporation Monsanto and the financial corporation formerly known as Royal Bank of Scotland, NatWest Group, which reportedly rebranded in part to dissociate itself from its past misconduct.
"The DOJ's fresh willingness to hold corporate offenders accountable for leniency agreement breaches is among the strongest and most necessary corporate accountability reforms implemented by the Biden administration," the report says. "It's also one that is currently facing its greatest test: Boeing."
Boeing entered into DPA in 2021, after a pair of deadly 737 MAX 8 jet crashes in 2018 and 2019. In January, a door plug flew off a 737 MAX 9 during a flight, resulting in an emergency landing and fresh scrutiny—including a DOJ criminal investigation.
In a February letter to DOJ leaders including Monaco and Attorney General Merrick Garland, Weissman wrote that "if the DOJ finds that Boeing again violated the law, Boeing should be prosecuted both for its original and its subsequent misconduct."
As Common Dreamsreported earlier Monday, Boeing announced that its commercial airplanes division leader will leave immediately, the chairman of the board will resign after the annual meeting in May, and the CEO will step down at the end of this year.
"Of course CEO Dave Calhoun should be dismissed," responded Weissman. "But for real and lasting change to occur, Boeing must now be held criminally accountable both for the recent safety failures and the... crashes that took 346 lives."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Boeing CEO's Voluntary Departure Is Not Accountability for Corporate Crime: Watchdog
"For real and lasting change to occur," said Public Citizen's Robert Weissman, "Boeing must now be held criminally accountable."
Mar 25, 2024
Embroiled once again in an alarming quality control and safety scandal, the aircraft manufacturing giant Boeing on Monday announced a management shake-up that will see CEO Dave Calhoun step down at the end of the year, the head of the company's commercial airplanes division resign immediately, and the chairman of the board depart after Boeing's annual meeting in May.
Calhoun, who said he decided on his own to resign, took charge at Boeing in the midst of the company's previous high-profile crisis—the grounding of the 737 MAX jet following a pair of crashes in 2018 and 2019 that killed more than 340 people.
Robert Weissman, president of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, said in response to the news of Calhoun's coming departure that "if Boeing had been held criminally accountable after the... 737 MAX disasters, the more recent quality debacles quite likely could have been averted."
Earlier this year, a door plug of a Boeing 737 MAX 9 flew off the aircraft as it ascended, causing minor injuries and forcing the pilots to conduct an emergency landing. More than MAX 9s were subsequently grounded to undergo inspections.
The incident prompted federal regulators, airlines, and journalists to—once again—closely scrutinize Boeing's manufacturing process, cost-cutting efforts, lobbying against safety regulations, and executive and shareholder payouts.
The Leverreported days after the January 5 incident that "less than a month before a catastrophic aircraft failure prompted the grounding of more than 150 of Boeing's commercial aircraft, documents were filed in federal court alleging that former employees at the company's subcontractor repeatedly warned corporate officials about safety problems and were told to falsify records."
The outlet also found that "operators of Boeing's troubled 737 MAX planes have filed more than 1,800 service difficulty reports—more than one per day—warning government regulators about safety problems with the aircraft since the fleet was allowed to resume flying after two fatal crashes."
Alaska Airlines, the operator of the January 5 flight, said in late January that it found loose bolts on "many" of Boeing's 737 MAX 9s.
"The FAA identified noncompliance issues in Boeing's manufacturing process control, parts handling and storage, and product control."
In an update published on March 4, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said its six-week audit of Boeing and Spirit AeroSystems—a major Boeing contractor—uncovered "multiple instances where the companies allegedly failed to comply with manufacturing quality control requirements."
"The FAA identified noncompliance issues in Boeing's manufacturing process control, parts handling and storage, and product control," the agency said. "To hold Boeing accountable for its production quality issues, the FAA has halted production expansion of the Boeing 737 MAX, is exploring the use of a third party to conduct independent reviews of quality systems, and will continue its increased onsite presence at Boeing's facility in Renton, Washington, and Spirit AeroSystems' facility in Wichita, Kansas."
Earlier this month, days after the FAA update was published, a Boeing whistleblower who raised concerns about the company's quality control practices was found dead of what local officials said appeared to be a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
Weissman of Public Citizen said Monday that "of course CEO Dave Calhoun should be dismissed" over the company's latest safety crisis.
"But for real and lasting change to occur," he argued, "Boeing must now be held criminally accountable both for the recent safety failures and the... crashes that took 346 lives."
In 2021, Boeing entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the U.S. Justice Department to avoid a criminal charge over an alleged conspiracy to defraud the FAA in the wake of the 2018 and 2019 crashes.
Public Citizen noted in a report published Monday that "such agreements now help the most powerful businesses in the world dodge the legal consequences of their criminal misconduct."
"Instead of facing prosecution—which would mean plea agreements or trial in a public court of law—leniency deals are negotiated quietly between prosecutors and corporate lawyers with little or no judicial oversight," the group said. "Proponents say the agreements are a streamlined way to effectively deter corporate crime. Public Citizen research, however, shows about 15% of the agreements historically involve repeat offenders, casting doubt on their deterrent effect."
Keep ReadingShow Less
NY Appeals Court Delivers Reprieve for Trump on $454 Million Bond
"They sure let him twist in the wind until the last moment," said one legal expert.
Mar 25, 2024
As the deadline arrived Monday for Donald Trump to pay a $454 million bond following a New York judge's ruling that the former Republican president and his company committed fraud, an appeals court in the state ruled that Trump would be permitted to post a vastly reduced amount.
The appeals court panel said the presumptive 2024 GOP presidential nominee could pay $175 million after the former president indicated he was unable to pay the full amount, having sought the bond from more than two dozen surety companies.
New York Attorney General Letitia James indicated earlier this month that she could begin seizing Trump's assets as soon as Monday if he was unable to pay the $454 million judgment.
Trump was hit with the fine as the result of James' civil fraud case against the former president and his real estate company, the Trump Organization. Judge Arthur Engoron found Trump and the firm had committed "repeated and persistent fraud," including by falsifying financial statements by as much as $2.2 billion.
The former president is appealing the ruling and had looked for companies to guarantee the full amount of the bond in the event that he lost the appeal, but with much of his fortune tied up in his properties, he was unable to come up with the collateral demanded by the institutions.
Trump said Monday that he plans to "post either a bond, equivalent securities, or cash" within the 10 days granted by the appeals court in order to delay enforcement of the full fine.
Former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman, now a senior legal affairs columnist for the Los Angeles Times, said the "pro-business" appellate court's decision was not surprising and was "reasonable," considering that "a bond is designed to secure eventual payment, not to financially wreck the defendant."
"In a sense the decision reducing Trump's bond and giving him more time is consistent with the 'treat Trump like any other litigant' credo," said Litman, "but they sure let him twist in the wind until the last moment."
James' office responded to the appeals court's decision by focusing on the fact that the full judgment against Trump, his sons Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr., and former executive Allen Weisselberg still stands.
"Donald Trump is still facing accountability for his staggering fraud," said a spokesperson for James. "The court has already found that he engaged in years of fraud to falsely inflate his net worth and unjustly enrich himself, his family, and his organization."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular