[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 65 (Monday, May 14, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4851-S4852]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             ENERGY POLICY

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the people of this country always come 
through when there are tough problems, as long as they know everyone is 
pitching in and doing their fair share.
  That is the problem with much of what is coming out of Washington, 
DC, today, when it comes to this country's energy policy. Oregonians 
are telling me, for example, at townhall meetings that what alarms them 
about the energy debate in Washington, DC, is that it seems everybody 
is supposed to tighten their belt except for the powerful. I don't 
believe that passes the fairness test for most Americans. Even business 
leaders at home tell me the country just is not going to rally behind 
an energy plan that is not balanced, an energy plan that does not say: 
Everybody has to do their fair share.
  There is not a whole lot of balance in a plan that would open up the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling now, although it will not 
produce any gas for at least 8 to 10 years, when our consumers are 
getting clobbered at the gas pump today.
  Where is the balance in a plan that cuts funding for renewable 
energy--solar, wind, and geothermal--while building as many as 1,900 
new powerplants? Where is the balance in a plan that would provide 
large new tax breaks for the energy industry and tells consumers the 
answer is to spend their tax relief on misguided energy policies? With 
all due respect, the idea that Americans should have to use their much 
needed tax relief to prop up ill-conceived energy policies is the 
ultimate in throwing good money after bad.
  I want to take a few minutes to talk about where I think Congress 
ought to go with respect to the energy issue and what could constitute 
some of the core principles of an effective bipartisan energy policy.

[[Page S4852]]

  First, it is time to provide significant and real financial rewards 
for conservation. Everybody talks about conservation. We all know it 
makes sense to conserve energy. But there are very few actual financial 
rewards for conserving. I think it is time to put real dollars behind 
those who are willing to make the tough decisions with respect to 
conservation. For example, if it is a hardship to move your energy use 
from peak hours to times when demand is lower, let's reward that 
financially. Let's reward real-time pricing so as to take steps that 
are meaningful to decrease electric power shortages that are now 
causing price spikes and blackouts.

  Second, I think it is time to lift the veil of secrecy around energy 
markets in this country. It is clear that energy is being commoditized, 
but it is not possible to get real information about supply and demand 
and transmission, which is what is needed when energy is being bought 
and sold in markets all across this country.
  In electricity markets today, power is, in fact, being traded as a 
commodity, but basic information about how electric power systems and 
markets work is just unavailable in much of the United States. If 
electricity is going to be traded as a commodity, let the Congress take 
steps to ensure access to information so those markets can function 
efficiently.
  I intend to introduce legislation shortly to ensure that Americans in 
every part of this country can get access to information about 
transmission capability, outages, and the information that is needed to 
be in a position to make energy markets work in a fair way.
  Third, to encourage responsible power production, reward developers 
who demonstrate a commitment to good environmental policy. I do not 
think energy production and meeting this country's environmental needs 
ought to be mutually exclusive. There are ways to do both. I think 
there ought to be an effort by Congress to reward energy developers who 
meet tough environmental standards by moving them to the head of the 
line, the head of the queue for permits. This country needs new 
powerplants. I think there is bipartisan support for that effort. But 
we ought to say to power producers and power generators, when you are 
going to be an environmental leader, we are going to move you to the 
head of the regulatory queue.
  Fourth, we need to bring free enterprise back into the energy 
markets. In my home State of Oregon, four companies essentially control 
70 percent of the gas that is sold at the pump. I believe if there were 
real competition at the gas pump, prices would come down. Competition 
works in Oregon and across this country. But a variety of anti-
competitive practices are squeezing competition out of the oil 
industry. I do not think it is an accident that people of my State have 
lost more than 600 gasoline stations in just a few years. It is true in 
much of the country that three or four companies control delivery of 
gas at the pump. Unfortunately, the Federal Government seems to have 
taken the position with respect to competition that, unless you have a 
handful of big energy producers huddled up, say, at a steak house in a 
downtown hotel dividing up energy markets, there is really nothing 
wrong.
  In fact, we learned last week that even though west coast gasoline 
markets are being redlined--there is significant evidence that those 
west coast gasoline markets are being redlined--the Federal Government 
is not prepared, under the laws as written today, to take significant 
action to deal with it.

  Just because something is not illegal doesn't mean it is not anti-
consumer and that it does not have anti-competitive ramifications. So I 
think it is extremely important we look now to steps that actually 
produce competition in the gasoline markets rather than to conclude 
that just because you do not have energy producers huddled up at a 
steak house dividing markets everything is all right.
  Finally, it seems to me that good science ought to be the basis of a 
bipartisan effort to address our energy predicament in this country. 
The Vice President recently stated the United States has to build 1,300 
powerplants to meet projected increases in demand for energy over the 
next 20 years. However, scientists at the Energy Department's National 
Laboratories recently said that new technologies could reduce projected 
growth in energy demand by 20 percent to 47 percent, which could 
translate into as many as 600 fewer powerplants.
  Certainly on a bipartisan basis this Senate can agree that we cannot 
ignore the science. More efficient transmission lines, moving away from 
the old model of a central powerplant and towards cleaner energy with 
combustion-free fuel cell technology, is just one of the options 
available. When it comes to the oil and gas sector, that fuel cell 
technology could be making cars run cleaner and more efficiently within 
a few years. Instead of subsidizing just the old fossil fuel industries 
with an energy proposal that says, go do your thing, our energy policy 
could be jump-starting a variety of renewable energy technologies with 
real promise for the future.
  What I have discussed today--first, financial rewards for 
conservation; second, lifting the veil of secrecy around energy 
markets; third, creating incentives for energy developers to comply 
with tough environmental laws; fourth, bringing some free enterprise 
back into energy markets; and, fifth, looking at the science that comes 
out of the Energy Department itself--are five initiatives that the 
Senate could use on a bipartisan basis to build a sensible energy 
policy.
  I was struck at the end of last week when the President of the United 
States said that Americans should use their tax relief as the primary 
way to deal with the energy crisis in this country. I don't think 
Americans ought to have to use their much needed tax relief to prop up 
misguided energy policies. I think that is just throwing good money 
after bad. I think it is important--and the distinguished Presiding 
Officer, the Senator from Kansas, and I have home roots in a place that 
knows something about energy production--to create incentives for 
energy production in this country. I think it is possible to do it 
while rewarding those who are going to meet tough environmental 
standards.
  So I am hopeful that this week, as Congress focuses on energy 
policies and the President unveils his proposal, that we recognize this 
country is ready for bold and bipartisan leadership on the energy 
issue. This Congress can provide it. We can insist on policies that 
make sense for the environment and for consumers and for the energy 
industry, but it has to be a policy that says everybody does their fair 
share. It has to be a policy that says everybody has to be part of the 
solution and we are not just going to say to the country: You tighten 
your belts while the power folk get a free ride.
  I believe it is possible to bring together responsible leaders in 
industry, the environmental sector, and the consumer movement to create 
an energy policy that will get us beyond the very difficult months 
ahead and build a sound foundation for the future.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to 
speak for 10 minutes as if in morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________