Energy focus of 5th race

The two candidates vying for Virginia’s 5th District seat in Congress agree on one thing: the United States must free itself from its addiction to foreign oil.

How they think the nation ought to achieve that goal, however, is a point of sharp disagreement.

U.S. Rep. Virgil H. Goode Jr., a six-term GOP incumbent from Rocky Mount, says he supports boosting federal tax credits and grants to expand wind, solar, hydro and nuclear power, as well as emerging alternative energy sources such as switch grass, bio fuels and canola oil.

At the center of Goode’s energy plan, however, is the idea that the United States must authorize oil and gas drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Preserve and in America’s outer continental shelf, including off the Virginia coast.

“The way to attack the energy policy is a comprehensive plan,” Goode said. “Drilling is a part of that. I think drilling would probably have the most immediate impact.”

Goode’s challenger, Democrat Tom Perriello, of Ivy, has a different view. While he is not opposed to domestic drilling for oil and gas, Perriello says such a move would do little to reduce the price of gas at the pump or wean the nation off its oil dependence.

If elected, Perriello said he would support tax relief for families and small businesses that are powered by alternative energy; higher fuel efficiency standards for new vehicles; and the removal of federal subsidies for oil companies, directing the money instead toward alternative energy research.

Battling over stocks

Goode’s emphasis on a “drill here, drill now” stance suggests that Goode is not really interested in alternatives to oil, Perriello said. Goode has voted against higher fuel efficiency standards for vehicles, against extending research and development tax credits for alternative energy research, and against ending subsidies for the oil industry, Perriello said.

“He’s voting against the interests of his district,” Perriello said. “And he’s repeatedly voted in favor of big oil companies.”

Perriello said that Goode appears to have a conflict of interest when it comes to taking on the oil industry. Goode has received more than $110,000 in campaign contributions from the oil and energy industry over the past 10 years. And he owns $50,000 to $100,000 worth of Exxon Mobil Corp. and between $100,000 and $250,000 worth of Occidental Petroleum Corp. stock, according to Goode’s 2007 financial disclosure form that was filed in May.

Goode is the only Virginia congressman who is among the top-25 members of Congress ranked by personal oil industry holdings, according to an analysis of financial disclosure forms that was conducted in August by the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation.

“Goode’s clearly in the pocket of big oil,” Perriello said.

Goode says his oil industry campaign contributions and personal stock holdings are miniscule when compared with his colleagues in Congress such as Democrats Nancy Pelosi and Rahm Emmanuel. “Compared to most persons in Congress, my holdings are minor.”

Perriello also owns shares in the oil industry, Goode pointed out. According to Perriello’s financial disclosure form, Perriello owns two Vanguard Roth IRA diversified funds that are worth somewhere between $16,000 and $65,000. Such funds include shares from oil companies.

Plus, Goode said, Perriello criticizes him but not members of his own party who have major holdings in pharmaceutical, energy and other industries.

“Perriello attacks me for personal holdings, but he doesn’t attack [former Virginia Gov.] Mark Warner. His disclosure form is about two inches thick,” Goode said. “It’s hypocrisy on Perriello’s part.”

It is not necessarily a conflict of interest for a congressman to own oil and gas stock, said Massie Ritsch, spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics. It is up to the congressman, he said, to decide how far he wants to go in avoiding the appearance of a conflict.

“They can invest their money just like anyone else,” he said. “Any prudent investor of the last few years would probably have some oil or gas in their portfolios.”

Setting goals

Both candidates say they believe energy independence is a reachable goal.

Goode said the nation could become entirely energy self-sufficient within 10 years, if not sooner.

Perriello said he believes energy independence can be realistically attained within a generation, though he would like to see the next president set energy independence as a goal for the next 10 or 15 years.

The question of whether offshore drilling for oil and gas would do much toward that goal is complicated. Oil consultant Michael L. Wiggins, of the Dallas-based William M. Cobb & Associates, said it is difficult to know how offshore drilling would affect the nation’s oil supply until the oil companies are allowed to drill.

“You don’t know what’s down there until you take a look,” Wiggins said. “There will probably be some there, but we don’t know how much.”

If oil companies were given permission from Congress to conduct more offshore drilling, Wiggins said, they could drill in shallow waters in places like the western Gulf Coast relatively quickly. However, it could take years before more deep-water drilling could come on line, he said, because most of the oil companies’ deep-water drilling equipment is already committed to long-term projects elsewhere in the world.

Wiggins said he suspects the price of oil would drop if additional offshore drilling were allowed. “We are the third largest producer in the world,” he said. “Anything we can do to potentially increase our domestic production would help.”

Competing proposals

Environmental groups, on the other hand, say offshore drilling could irrevocably damage the environment, hinder tourism in places such as Virginia Beach, and simply prolong the nation’s reliance on oil — a proposition they say would worsen global climate change and could foster future conflicts in the Middle East.

“Drilling for offshore oil and gas is a major distraction from what really needs to happen,” said Glen Besa, director of the Virginia chapter of the Sierra Club. “There’s no way we can drill ourselves out of this problem. To solve this, we need an Apollo-like effort that put a man on the moon. We’ve got to move quickly away from oil and gas.”

Competing proposals that would allow offshore drilling and promote alternative energy research are on the table in Congress. The GOP-backed plan, called the American Energy Act, would lift restrictions on drilling off America’s shores and in Alaska, as well as restrictions on nuclear power. It would also offer incentives for fuel-efficient vehicle research, renewable energy research and energy efficient homes and businesses.

A Democratic-backed bill is expected to also take steps toward promoting alternative energy, as well as a more limited version of offshore drilling authorization. It would reportedly allow offshore drilling off the coasts of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Virginia.

Goode supports the GOP version, though he says the Democratic bill is better than nothing.

“It doesn’t go very far, but it’s a step back from their position of no drilling at all,” Goode said.

For Perriello’s part, his spokeswoman said, he supports the Democratic-backed bill, as it allows states to decide if they want to allow drilling and because it’s a broad energy reform package that removes certain subsidies for the oil industry.

“I believe the free market and American ingenuity is capable of solving this problem,” Perriello said.