[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 83 (Wednesday, June 16, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6876-S6877]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    ENERGY BILLS UNDER CONSIDERATION BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, as the ranking member of the Senate 
Environment and Public Works Committee, I express my serious concern 
with several pieces of so-called energy legislation that the House of 
Representatives is considering this week. This package of bills 
includes a comprehensive energy bill that differs both from the failed 
conference report on H.R. 6 and from the Senate energy bill that was 
introduced on February 12, 2004, and placed directly on the calendar.
  These bills are not the product of hearings or of bipartisan 
consensus between the House and the Senate. The comprehensive energy 
bill the House is considering is nearly identical to the energy bill 
conference report we have already defeated. The other bills are equally 
troubling. They trample States rights and they enact significant new 
taxpayer subsidies. Most importantly, they are not the right energy 
policy for America.
  I have for many months now said that we should try to reach consensus 
on targeted pieces of energy legislation. We could pass legislation on 
issues such as the increased production of renewable motor fuels. We 
could enact fiscally responsible extensions of needed energy tax 
provisions, such as the wind energy tax credit. National electricity 
reliability standards are another area in which Senator Cantwell, 
Senator Feingold and I believe there could be agreement and we could 
pass a bill. I also believe there are a number of energy efficiency 
measures that could garner broad support.
  But, there should be no agreement on the poor environmental policy 
that is contained in these bills. The Senate should reject them if they 
are passed and sent over for consideration.
  The omnibus bill the House passed yesterday, H.R. 4503, is identical 
to the failed conference report on H.R. 6, except for the inclusion of 
two coal-related provisions that are in the pending Senate bill, S. 
2095.
  As with the energy bill conference report, nearly a hundred sections 
of the bill are in the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee. We were not consulted on any of these sections, the House 
has made no effort to fix these provisions, and I have repeatedly 
raised concerns about them on the Senate floor.
  The waiver of liability for MTBE producers is included in the House's 
bill. The Senate has repeatedly rejected this provision.
  The House bill unravels the ozone designation process in the Clean 
Air Act by delaying compliance with the national health-based air 
quality ozone standards until the air in the dirtiest city is cleaned 
up. The House insists on this leftover from the failed energy bill 
conference report, though changing cities' ozone compliance deadlines 
under the Clean Air Act doesn't increase our Nation's energy supplies.
  This bill also provides unprecedented relief for a single region of 
the country from application of the entire Clean Air Act, without a 
hearing.
  The House continues to insist that oil and gas exploration and 
production activities be exempted from the Clean Water Act stormwater 
program.
  The Clean Water Act requires permits for stormwater discharges 
associated with construction activity. The amendment changes the act to 
provide a special exemption for oil and gas construction activities 
from stormwater pollution control requirements.
  The scope of the provision is extremely broad. Stormwater runoff 
typically contains pollutants such as oil and grease, chemicals, 
nutrients, metals, bacteria, and particulates.
  I have told colleagues this before, but EPA estimates that this 
change would exempt at least 30,000 small oil and gas sites from clean 
water requirements. In addition, every construction site in the oil and 
gas industry larger than 5 acres would be exempt as well.
  The large sites have held permits for 10 years or more. That is a 
terrible rollback of current law. I want Senators to imagine trying to 
explain to constituents why an oil drilling site that had to comply 
with the Clean Water Act for 10 years suddenly no longer needs to do 
so.
  The House is scheduled to act today on another bill, H.R. 4517, 
called the United States Refinery Revitalization Act of 2004. It gives 
the Department of Energy a lead role in environmental permitting 
decisions for refineries in a newly designated ``refinery 
revitalization'' zone. The Energy Department would get the ability to 
issue permits and make ``federal authorization decisions'' under our 
major environmental laws including: the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water 
Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the National Environmental Policy 
Act, and our national solid and hazardous waste laws, among others.
  The Energy Department would get to make environmental regulatory 
decisions and set compliance deadlines. This is a classic case of the 
fox guarding the hen house. Moreover, if a permit is denied , there 
would only be an appeal to the DOE Secretary and then judicial review 
in the D.C. Circuit Court. The EPA, which normally makes these 
decisions, has no role at all.
  In an effort to assure Members, there is a savings clause in the bill 
that is supposed to protect environmental laws. The bill includes 
language that contradicts the savings clause provisions. It states that 
if the best available pollution control technology is used at a 
facility then that facility is in compliance with all environmental 
permitting requirements. In addition, the role of states is not clear, 
particularly those with more stringent standards.
  While this bill proposes to increase our domestic refining capacity, 
it will not do so. In fact, it is drafted in a way that will likely 
reduce our supplies of gasoline and heating oil.
  The bill is supposed to restart idled refineries. It defines ``idle 
refineries'' as those that have shut down after June 1, 2004. Let me 
say that again for my colleagues, idle refineries are refineries that 
shut down after June 1, 2004. These are not refineries that have been 
mothballed and shut down for many years. These so-called idle 
refineries could be operating now and then shut down after enactment of 
the bill in order to game the system. The refineries would seek 
regulatory relief under a newer, inexperienced regulatory agency, and 
drive prices even higher by further constraining production. This is a 
tragic outcome, and certainly not one that expands our Nation's 
refining capacity.
  The House passed another bill yesterday, H.R. 4513, that exempts 
Federal agencies planning renewable energy projects from the National 
Environmental Policy Act. Federal agencies would no longer have to 
identify alternative project locations when they site a renewable 
energy project. They also would no longer have to examine alternatives 
to the project other than the actions they propose to take, or the 
option of doing nothing at all. Like the

[[Page S6877]]

refinery bill, this bill has bad consequences. While the bill seeks to 
speed up renewable energy projects, it is really a way to trample over 
Federal environmental laws or State and local requirements. For 
example, a city's objections to a windmill or solar panels proposed for 
the top of a downtown federal building may not have to be resolved or 
alternatives considered, even if there are local scenic concerns or 
conflicts with zoning ordinances. In a regular NEPA process, discussion 
could resolve those concerns and produce a project that meets both 
Federal and local needs. We should be reaching agreement over the 
development of renewable energy, not creating conflicts.
  Also today, the House will take up H.R. 4545, the Gasoline Price 
Reduction Act of 2004, a bill that proposes to increase gasoline 
supplies by capping the number of so-called boutique fuel blends. This 
bill is not likely to have a beneficial effect in terms of reducing 
gasoline prices or increasing supplies, and appears designed to 
significantly worsen air quality. It allows EPA open-ended authority to 
waive cleaner-burning gasoline or diesel requirements indefinitely 
based on an undefined ``significant fuel supply disruption.'' In 
addition, EPA's determination appears not to be judicially reviewable, 
since the EPA Administrator need only deem a waiver ``necessary.'' 
Further there is no obligation to mitigate or make up for the excess 
air pollution that may occur over the waiver period.
  This bill also would bar any increase in the number of existing fuels 
and fuel additives. This would apply to any State-adopted ultra-low 
sulfur diesel, biodiesel or cleaner-burning gasoline programs, even 
though these programs do not affect gasoline prices or supply, and 
regardless of the fact that they may be needed to meet new, health-
based air quality standards for ozone or fine particulate pollution.
  There are too many serious problems with these bills. The American 
people do not want us to act at the expense of environmental quality. 
We should be passing the pieces of the energy bill where we can reach 
agreement to do so, like those issues I outlined.
  We should not be rushing to pass legislation with such serious 
consequences. These are aggressive, overreaching bills, and are deeply 
flawed. I will oppose them, and other Senators should as well.

                          ____________________