[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 66 (Tuesday, May 6, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5764-S5765]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2003--Continued
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Dole). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Today the Senate continues a process that began almost
2 years ago. At that time, the Senate Energy Committee held and
completed the first of several planned mark-up dates with the goal of
putting together a comprehensive energy bill. After a number of
postponements due to circumstances beyond our control, we engaged in 2
months of debate on the Senate floor last spring and produced a bill by
a vote of 88 to 11.
Unfortunately, the House and Senate were unable to resolve their
differences in a conference so we find ourselves once again tasked with
the formidable challenge of developing an energy policy for the Nation.
I am pleased to report that after 2 weeks of mark-ups under the
leadership of Chairman Domenici and the ranking member, Senator
Bingaman, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee has lived
up to its duty by reporting a comprehensive energy bill to the Senate
for consideration.
So, the challenge of completing a comprehensive energy bill is once
again before the Senate. There are likely to be additional obstacles
before us along the way. The question is can we overcome them to
complete our duty? It was Woodrow Wilson who once said:
The only use of an obstacle is to be overcome. All that an
obstacle does with brave men is, not to frighten them, but to
challenge them.
So the challenge is now before us.
This legislation does an excellent job of utilizing the variety of
energy options available to the country particularly from a production
standpoint. It is up to the full Senate to balance this with some
meaningful conservation measures.
We had a number of hearings in the Energy Committee earlier this year
to address the volatility we face in the price and supply of both oil
and gas. Since we import 60 percent of the oil we consume, the price of
oil is often at the mercy of world events such as the political turmoil
in other countries--Venezuela and Nigeria--that we rely on for imports.
We can and should produce more at home but must simply acknowledge that
reducing the amount of oil we consume has to be part of the equation.
On the other hand, the natural gas market is quite a different
picture.
Our country currently produces 84 percent of the natural gas we
consume. However, there is a gap looming on the horizon. The energy
information forecasts that the demand for natural gas will increase by
30 percent in the United States over the next 15 years, with supplies
available to meet 70 percent of this need.
The facts are clear: our natural gas market is in a state of
transition. Industries across the country that rely on natural gas as
feedstock such as the chemical and fertilizer industries are confronted
with high pries which is translating into the loss of jobs. We need to
act now.
Most of the natural gas supply sources that have been offered as
solutions, such as the natural gas pipeline from Alaska, are medium to
long term options. However, in the bill before us today there is a
provision which is one of the few, if only, short term options, we
really have to affect the market. This provision builds on a recent
rule proposed by the department of Interior providing incentives for
deep gas production from wells in shallow water areas that have already
been leased. Given the projections for potential supply in these areas,
the opportunity to deliver significant new natural gas production to
the market in order to stabilize prices is simply too good an
opportunity to pass up.
Another significant program authorized in the oil and gas title of
this bill would take the step of recognizing, for the first time, the
impacts to oil-and gas-producing states such as Alaska, Texas,
Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, from the development that takes
place on the outer continental shelf off of their respective
coastlines.
With less and less areas available for production, and the deepwaters
of the gulf of Mexico still a hotspot for the foreseeable future, it is
time for Congress and the Federal Government to recognize the
importance of the development that has been occurring and continues to
take place off the shores of Louisiana and Texas and compensate those
States for their role in providing the Nation's energy supply.
If our policy in this country is going to continue to defer to a
State's wishes
[[Page S5765]]
as to whether oil and gas development takes place off its coast, then
the least we should do is compensate those few States--Alaska, Texas,
Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama--for the duty they preform in
supplying this Nation with a significant amount of the oil and gas it
needs to function. After all, the OCS is now the largest producing area
in the United States as more than 25 percent of both the Nation's oil
and natural gas is expected to be produced from the OCS in 2003. In
fact, the OCS is the largest single source of oil for the entire U.S.,
surpassing even Saudi Arabia.
Nuclear energy now provides approximately one-fifth of all electric
power used in this country, but does so without compromising our air
quality. It is the largest clear air source of electricity in the
Nation today, generating two-thirds of all emission-free electricity.
Nuclear power is perhaps unique among our supply options, as there is a
large potential for expansion in the relative near term with little
downside in terms of environmental quality or increased reliance on
foreign fuel sources.
For future generations of Americans whose reliance on electricity
will increase--and who rightfully want a cleaner environment--nuclear
energy is an essential partner in our energy and environmental policy.
The provisions contained in this title of the bill--renewal of Price-
Anderson, incentives for the construction of new base-load nuclear
plants, and the emphasis on encouraging hydrogen co-generation from
nuclear power--recognize that nuclear energy is a vital component of
our energy portfolio.
One of the most contentious debates we will engage in over the next
several weeks involves the issue of electricity. We are confronting an
industry that is facing difficult times from the dysfunction of
California's market to a loss of market capitalization.
Amid this turmoil, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has
proposed sweeping, untested changes to the business of providing basic
and essential electric service to our constituents. Instead, we need to
legislate with a caution not reflected by FERC's standard market
design, SMD. While the bill before us took the important step of
delaying any further action on SMD until January of 2005, there are a
number of areas where I believe the electricity provisions before us
come up short in addressing the shortcomings of SMD.
First, the State-Federal jurisdictional divide, which has worked
exceedingly well in Louisiana to provide low-cost and reliable electric
service, is jeopardized by the SMD proposal.
Second, I am concerned about the potential for increased rates for my
retail customers as a result of the costs of accommodating the
``merchant generation'' that, over the past several years, has been
seeking to connect to the electric grid in the southeast. While it has
added to the competition, it is also straining the grid, and under FERC
policy may end up straining the pocketbooks of regular homeowners who
would be forced to subsidize the interconnection and transmission
costs.
Lastly, I remain concerned that we need more investment in
transmission facilities, but do not have sufficient policies to
encourage it. Transmission is critical to sustaining wholesale markets.
I had hoped that the electricity title of this bill would have been
reported out of committee with much-needed participant funding language
in order to significantly increase transmission investment.
When we turn to electricity during this debate, I intend to offer
several amendments to address these concerns.
We now realize that perhaps the best alternative to oil and gas
production in this country is conservation. As our economy continues to
grow so does our demand for energy. While we have made some noteworthy
strides on the conversation front there are miles to go. When we talk
about our dependence on oil in this country we have to acknowledge that
there is no alternative that matches oil for cheapness and convenience.
While we should continue to produce oil in this country where we can
that alone cannot be the answer. With over 60 percent of our daily oil
consumption coming from the transportation sector, we have to start
there. The challenge to this body is how to strike a sensible balance
by establishing a reasonable increase in fuel economy standards that
will not compromise vehicle safety, unduly increase cost and
significantly limit consumer's choices.
I think every member probably realizes the importance of ultimately
changing the ``coinage'' of energy in the transportation sector from
oil to something else.
This bill addresses that something else by authorizing about $3.6
billion for an increase in hydrogen fuel research and development,
demonstration projects, federal purchase requirements, and specific
goals to move hydrogen vehicles out of laboratories and onto the
nation's roads. A hydrogen economy that lessens our dependence on
foreign oil is within our grasp.
During markup before the committee, I supported what amounts to a
reasonable renewable portfolio standard. I continue to believe that it
is a commonsense approach to ensure that renewable sources of energy--
wind and solar--be a part of our electricity supply. Renewable energy
is homegrown and does not need to be bought from foreign markets. The
advantages of our ability to domestically produce renewables are
obvious: protection for consumers from the prospect of supply
interruptions outside the region or country which we cannot control.
It frustrates me to hear people talk about climate change as
something that we can simply adapt to--no big deal. I can assure
everyone here, changing climate is a big deal for Louisiana. My state
continues to lose its coastline and critical wetlands every year. We
already feel the human impact and economic loss from hurricanes every
year. There are some that think these storms could get worse with
global warming, although the scientific jury is still out. We owe it to
our constituents and to our colleagues in the Senate to give our best
efforts, in this bill, to come up with a commonsense and effective
policies to deal with this threat.
For conclusion, the challenge before us now is to acknowledge how
much we depend on these traditional fossil fuels--our Nation still
relies on oil and gas for 65 percent of the energy it consumes. That is
not going to change overnight. At the same time, we must continue to
make significant strides toward using the impressive diversity of
energy sources we have at our disposal including nuclear and renewable
energy. Also, if we continue to ignore the importance of conservation
we do so at our own peril.
With a little balance and common sense, we can make the diversity of
supply available in this country go a long way. All of the supply
options available to our country have a substantial role to play in our
future energy mix. However, none by themselves is the answer.
I yield back the remainder of my time and suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina). The clerk will
call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________