[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 61 (Monday, May 7, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4407-S4410]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY POLICY
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the purpose of my addressing my
colleagues today is to question just what kind of energy policy is
supportable in this country as a consequence of many of the leading
opinion makers and newspapers relative to just how we go about
addressing our energy crisis.
It might get the attention of the Chair to recognize that California
alone, which has received an awful lot of notoriety, clearly has a
crisis. It can probably best be addressed by indicating that in 1998
Californians spent $9 billion for energy--electric energy. In the year
2000, they spent $20 billion. In the year 2001, it is estimated they
will have spent somewhere between $65 and $75 billion. It is not really
necessary to say much more. If that is not an acknowledgment of that
being a crisis, I do not know what is.
What I find frustrating is the inconsistency of just how we are going
to get out of this crisis. I refer to an editorial appearing in the
Washington Post today. It is entitled ``selling the Energy Plan.'' I
ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in the Record.
[[Page S4408]]
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Selling the Energy Plan
Soon President Bush will unveil his energy policy, and last
week his administration began sounding some of the themes
that will be used to sell it. The country faces an energy
crisis, officials repeated. ``We're running out of energy in
America,'' the president said; both new supplies and
conservation are needed because ``we can't conserve our way
to energy independence.'' Simple, compelling messages. The
only trouble is, they're not exactly right.
The problem isn't ``running out of'' resources, it's
getting them to the right places at the right time. While
many consumers struggle with high bills, there's not a crisis
of supply unless you live in California. And America won't
reach true energy independence through any combination of
production and conservation, at least as long as
transportation runs on oil.
That's not to say there aren't serious challenges. There
are, and meeting them will require hard choices. But it's
important to be clear about the critical issues. Those
include expanding infrastructure--such as pipelines,
transmission lines and refineries--so that electricity and
fuel can be produced and delivered when needed. They also
include a serious look at how to guard against damaging price
spikes or supply interruptions in deregulated energy markets.
Currently, one effect of deregulation has been the erosion of
incentives for maintaining the extra supply or generating
capacity that can cushion against sudden jumps in demand.
Along the way, policymakers must be clear-eyed about
prices. Protecting against economy-damaging price hikes is
one thing; promising an endless supply of cheap energy is
another. The energy debate ought to include a hard look at
where prices should be to reflect energy's true cost and to
encourage responsible use. Any discussion must acknowledge
that the world market will continue to set oil prices, no
matter what America does to boost domestic supply.
It's also worth noting that the energy market is responding
already. Natural gas drilling increased last year. Vice
President Cheney noted this past week that growing
electricity demand will require the equivalent of 1,300 to
1,900 new power plants during the next two decades; power
suppliers already have reported to the Energy Department
plans to add more than 40 percent of that capacity between
now and 2005. For the short term, as President Bush
acknowledged last week in ordering federal energy use cut in
California, conservation can ease the pinch between supply
and demand.
However, conservation and increased efficiency are also
critical components of any long-term policy. They can
contribute much more than the administration has so far been
inclined to admit. Candor must be part of the discussion. The
issues are complex and call for balanced and wide-ranging
solutions; one way to get them is to avoid over-simplifying
the debate at the start.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I agree with a good deal of the editorial's comments
relative to the fact the energy crisis is upon us. They indicate we
cannot conserve our way to energy independence, and I agree with that.
But what I find a little bit inconsistent is the reference that somehow
we are going to have to interject some kind of Government control on
prices. Now, they did not go into a great deal of detail suggesting
that we increase supply and that the traditional increase of supply
should take care of the price.
Clearly, California is the victim of a situation of supply and demand
because for a number of years California simply decided it was easier
to buy energy outside the State of California than developing energy
from sources within. Clearly, last year, California found itself
depending on imported energy from other States. Those States chose to
market that energy at the going price--whatever they could get for it.
The difficulty, of course, is that now California finds itself in a
mess.
The controls on retail pricing which exist in California have
resulted in the consumers taking the full brunt of what that energy
costs. By having a wholesale cap on California's energy, why, it is
acting to inhibit investments coming into California to build more
plants.
It should be noted that Vice President Cheney, in commenting on the
growing electricity demand, indicated that the country is going to have
to put in about 1,300 to 1,900 new powerplants during the next two
decades. The Department of Energy evidently supports that reference
because they indicate that is between the plants they anticipate as
necessary to pick up the shortage.
What we have is a reference in general terms that we should address
this crisis but not specifically how we are going to address it or
specifically what means we are going to use. The Washington Post
editorial indicates that conservation and increased efficiency are
critical components. And they are, Mr. President, but we should
recognize one fact. Less than 4 percent of our power generation in this
country currently comes from renewables or alternatives. In other
words, the renewables would be the wind power, hydropower, and it
certainly could be fuel cells or various other components. The point is
we have invested about $6 billion in subsidies and grants for
renewables. They still only take a very small percentage.
What I find rather ironic is that there is no identification of just
how we are going to get out of this energy crisis. We are going to get
out of it by going back to our traditional energy sources--coal,
nuclear, oil, gas, hydro--and recognizing we can do a better job of
conservation and work towards renewables.
What is frustrating is there is no identification of any consistency
of what people will support. As a consequence of that, we find
ourselves with the recognition that not only do we have an energy
crisis but we also have an inadequate distribution system, whether it
be our pipelines or whether it be our electric transmission lines. Many
of these have not been expanded over the last several years.
We also have a shortage of refinery capacity in this country. We have
not built a new refinery in 25 years. It is almost the perfect storm
coming together. We don't have the refining capacity. We have not built
any coal-fired powerplants since 1995. We have not built a new nuclear
powerplant in over 10 years. We have been concentrating on natural gas.
We saw the price of natural gas go up to $2.16 per thousand cubic feet
18 months ago. Now it is $4 or $5. It has been as high as $8.
Here we have, if you will, not only an aging infrastructure for
delivery but a rather curious inconsistency in our foreign policy. We
are currently importing about 700,000 barrels a day from Iraq. Many
people forget that in 1991-1992 we fought a war over there. We lost 147
American lives. Yet today we enforce a no-fly zone over Iraq. We have
flown over 230,000 individual sorties enforcing that no-fly zone and
putting American men and women in danger. Saddam Hussein proceeded
valiantly and, fortunately, he has been unsuccessful in his effort to
shoot down one of our aircraft. We are putting men and women in harm's
way so we can continue to get oil from the Mideast--get it from one
person who is an enemy.
I can simplify it. I have used this often. But it seems as if we take
his oil and put it in our airplanes and then fly missions over Iraq. He
takes the money that he gets from us and develops a missile capability
after paying his Republican Guards to keep him alive and aims his
missiles at our ally, Israel.
What kind of a foreign policy is that? As a consequence, we see our
Nation 56-percent dependent on imported oil.
It is kind of interesting to note what other people are saying. A
noted investment banker, Matt Simmons, told the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, which I chair, that ``we are now in the early stages
of the most serious energy crisis this country has ever faced--worse
than 1973. As the crisis unfolds, it could become the most critical
threat to our economy since World War II.''
I don't know if we are heeding that call, but we certainly try.
Several of us--Senator John Breaux and myself, among others--have
introduced comprehensive bipartisan solutions in our energy bill
pending before the Energy Committee. The objective is to promote the
use of alternative fuels, encourage efficiency, increase domestic
supplies of energy, a balanced, comprehensive approach that addresses
all of our conventional sources and uses of technology as a consequence
of the advancements we have made in the last several years. We have
provisions to provide for more efficient appliances in our homes,
alternative fuel cars, and to make it easier for communities to make
schools more efficient. It encourages the development of clean coal,
nuclear, and other domestic energy sources.
One of the problems with this bill is you might not know what is in
it because most of the coverage has been around one single issue in my
State of
[[Page S4409]]
Alaska; that is, whether or not we should include the development of
ANWR in the bill.
ANWR is a very small piece of land, but it has turned into the focal
point of a very large argument. The reason is the environmentalists
need an issue such as ANWR--an issue that is far away, that Americans
can't see for themselves. If one looks at the makeup of the huge area
that includes ANWR and recognizes how insignificant that very small
portion is that we are planning to open, one begins to understand the
merits of, indeed, the realization that we can do it safely.
In any event, I think it is important to note the inconsistency
relative to several of our major newspapers and their positions on this
as evidenced by editorials that have been written over the last several
months. I refer first to an article in the New York Times. That was
March 5, 2001. It comments on the bill that we have introduced. The
highlight of the editorial suggests that this paper last addressed the
folly of trespassing on this wonderful wildlife preserve of ANWR for
what by officials estimate is likely to be a modest amount of
economically recoverable oil. As a consequence of that, they go on in a
later article of January 31, 2000, indicating that the country needs a
rational energy strategy, but the first step in that strategy should
not be punching holes in the Arctic refuge, even with improved drilling
techniques. They go on to say Mr. Bush's plan to open the refuge is
environmentally unsound and as intellectually shaky as it was when
Ronald Reagan suggested it 20 years ago and when Mr. Bush's father
suggested it a decade ago.
Isn't that rather curious? I will put the poster up because I think
all Members should have an opportunity to reflect on the inconsistency
of our national news media on this issue. It did three articles. They
did an article on April 23, 1987. It reads:
(Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge . . . the most
promising untapped source of oil in North America.
. . . A decade ago, precautions in the design and
construction of the 1,000-mile-long Alaska pipeline saved the
land from serious damage. If oil companies, government
agencies and environmentalists approach the development of
the refuge with comparable care, disaster should be
avoidable.
Then they came long on June 2, 1988, and indicated:
. . . the potential is enormous and the environmental risks
are modest . . . the likely value of the oil far exceeds
plausible estimates of the environmental cost.
. . . the total acreage affected by development represents
only a fraction of 1 percent of the North Slope wilderness.
. . . But it is hard to see why absolutely pristine
preservation of this remote wilderness should take precedence
of the nation's energy needs.
Isn't that rather ironic? The New York Times has suddenly done a
flip-flop when in June of 1988 they supported it, and in March of 1989
they stated:
. . . Alaskan oil is too valuable to leave in the ground.
. . . the Single most promising source of oil in America
lies on the north coast of Alaska, a few hundred miles east
of the big fields at Prudhoe Bay.
. . . Washington can't afford . . . to treat the [Exxon
Valdez] accident as a reason for fencing off what may be the
last great oilfield in the nation.
It is interesting to note that the New York Times has done a flip-
flop. It seems to me that it is more dangerous today when we are
importing 56 percent of our energy from overseas and worse than it was
in the late 1970s when we were importing 37 percent.
In 1973, when we had the Arab oil embargo, there was a reaction in
this country. We created the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and we made a
mandate not to be dependent on the Mideast. As a consequence, we had a
very accurate effort in legislation, and so forth, to ensure that we
would not increase our oil imports. We had a crisis. We recognized it.
We wanted development of oil here at home. But now the New York Times
has suddenly turned around with very little explanation given.
In fact, I had an opportunity to meet with the editorial board of the
New York Times. I asked for an explanation of why they had changed
their position when clearly the situation and the crisis as a
consequence of increased imported energy and the California crisis had
heightened. The response to me was: Well, we had a different editor
then, and he is gone. I don't think that is a reasonable explanation.
You might think I am picking on the New York Times. But I had the
same situation with the Washington Post. The Washington Post some time
ago supported opening up ANWR. But as of December 25, 2000, they
indicated:
Gov. Bush has promised to make energy policy an early
priority of his administration. If he wants to push ahead
with opening the plain as part of that, he'll have to show
that he values conservation as well as finding new sources of
supply. He'll also have to make the case that in the long
run, the oil to be gained is worth the potential damage to
this unique, wild and biologically vital ecosystem. That
strikes us as a hard case to make.
Then in another editorial from the Washington Post dated February 25:
Mr. Bush wants to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
to oil exploration. . . .
America cannot drill its way out of ties to the world oil
market. . . . But the most generous estimates of potential
production from the Alaska refuge amount to only a fraction
of current imports. To reduce dependence on foreign oil
requires reducing dependence on oil in general, through
lowered consumption [and so forth].
They did not say how we are going to move the transportation network
of this country: our ships and our planes. We do not fly in and out of
Washington, DC, on hot air. We have to have jet fuel from refineries.
Somebody has to produce it.
My point is the Washington Post, too, has changed. One wonders why.
Because in 1987, on April 23, an editorial in the Washington Post read:
. . . Preservation of wilderness is important, but much of
Alaska is already under the strictest of preservation laws. .
. .
. . . But that part of the arctic coast is one of the
bleakest, most remote places on this continent, and there is
hardly any other place where drilling would have less impact
on the surroundings life. . . .
. . . That oil could help ease the country's transition to
lower oil supplies and . . . reduce its dependence on
uncertain imports. Congress would be right to go ahead and,
with all the conditions and environmental precautions that
apply to Prudhoe Bay, see what's under the refuge's [of
ANWR]. . . .
That sounds pretty good. Then on April 4, 1989, they further say in
an editorial:
. . . But if less is to be produced here in the United
States, more will have to come from other countries. The
effect will be to move oil spills to other shores. As a
policy to protect the global environment, that's not very
helpful. . . .
. . . The lesson that conventional wisdom seems to be
drawing--that the country should produce less and turn to
even greater imports--is exactly wrong.
How ironic can these two national organizations--the New York Times
and the Washington Post--be in completely flip-flopping the position
they both had in the mid-1980s, to turn around and now be in opposition
when we truly have an energy crisis in this country? I encourage my
colleagues to inquire of the Washington Post and New York Times why
that is so.
The explanation I got, as I indicated, from the New York Times is
they changed editorial editors, and that person is gone. I asked the
Washington Post for an explanation. The explanation from the Washington
Post is rather interesting: Of the group who was there, one person
volunteered an explanation. That explanation was that they thought
President-elect Bush was a little too forward on the issue in his
comments during his campaign. I do not think that is an adequate answer
either.
I will tell you what we have. We have general comments about an
energy policy and the need for an energy policy but no specific
identification of how we are going to achieve, if you will, more
production of energy in this country, more transmission lines, and how
to use our technology to lessen the footprint.
One of the ways, clearly, is to reduce dependence on foreign imported
oil and by opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Preserve. By doing
that, we can hasten the day when we can reduce our dependence on
imported oil.
Let me conclude with one reference and I do not have the charts in
the Chamber to show you, but I think it is important to keep in mind
that ANWR is the size of the State of South Carolina. It is 19 million
acres. We have taken 8.5 million acres and put them in a wilderness in
perpetuity. Nine million acres are in a refuge. Congress has the sole
discretion on opening up the 1.5 million acres. It is estimated that if
[[Page S4410]]
the oil is in the abundance that it needs to be, it will take a
footprint of roughly 1,000 to 2,000 acres. That is about half the size
of the Dulles International Airport.
To me, one of the startling things about new technology is a
statement an engineer made in my office saying he could drill under the
Capitol Building and come out at gate 17 at Reagan Airport. That gives
you some idea of the advanced technology for oil and gas drilling.
I know my friend, the chairman of the Committee on Finance, is
anxious to be heard and to ask for 5 minutes of my time. I will grant
him 5 minutes of my time. One of these days I will expect reciprocity.
I am going to be speaking again on this crisis in energy and the role
of the national environmental community in challenging the realistic
manner in which we can achieve greater relief from the energy crisis in
this country. I will be doing that in the coming days.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, now I know who I have to thank that I
can get 5 minutes. So I thank the Senator from Alaska. But in show of
my appreciation, I say to him that on the matter he spoke about in
relation to our energy needs, I look forward to helping solve a great
deal of our energy issues because through our Committee on Finance we
will be dealing with a lot of tax issues that deal with the efforts to
spur production and alternative energies.
A very big part of your program that you have introduced--and we
compliment you for being a leader in trying to solve the energy
crisis--will be the work of the committee on which the Senator and I
serve. I will be very happy to work on that.
____________________