[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 63 (Friday, May 13, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5191-S5194]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. ALEXANDER (for himself and Mr. Warner):
S. 1034. A bill to provide for local control for the siting of
windmills; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I am here today to introduce, along
with the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, the Environmentally
Responsible Wind Power Act of 2005.
[[Page S5192]]
The legislation that Senator Warner and I offer provides for local
authorities to be notified and have a role in the approval of the
signing of tens of thousand of massive wind turbines that will be built
in America under current policies. It also ensures that the Federal
Government does not subsidize the building of these windmills, which
are usually taller than a football field is long, within 20 miles of a
military base or a highly scenic location, such as a national park or
offshore.
Senator Warner and I introduce our legislation today because next
week the Senate Energy Committee is scheduled to begin markup on one of
the most important pieces of legislation in this session, an energy
bill. The Energy Committee's work, combined with the work of the
Environment and Public Works Committee, which the distinguished
occupant of the chair chairs, and the Finance Committee should this
year produce a Clean Energy bill that will, over time, lower prices of
natural gas and oil and reduce our dependence on overseas oil. This
will be legislation for American blue-collar workers, for farmers, and
for homeowners. It is urgently needed.
Natural gas prices are the highest in the industrialized world.
Gasoline prices are at record levels. We cannot keep our jobs and our
standard of living if we do not put in place policies that will provide
our country with new steps toward conservation and an adequate supply
of low-cost, reliable, clean American produced energy. Senator Warner
and I both intend to be in the middle of this discussion. He is a
senior member of the Environment and Public Works committee. I am
chairman of the Energy Subcommittee.
I am grateful for, and I am greatly encouraged by, the leadership of
the Energy Committee chairman Senator Domenici, and the ranking
Democrat, Senator Bingaman, and the committee staff who have worked
especially hard to create a framework for a more aggressive bipartisan
piece of legislation than we were able to produce last year.
One part of our energy debate will be about wind power, which is the
subject of the legislation that Senator Warner and I offer today. We
are introducing this because several of our colleagues have proposed
something called a renewable portfolio standard, or RPS, which would
require power companies to produce 10 percent of all their electricity
from renewable sources by 2025. These renewable sources are wind,
hydro, solar, geothermal, and biomass. Today, these renewable sources
produce about 9 percent of U.S. electricity needs.
This RPS is not to be confused with the renewable fuel standard which
is a different sort of requirement, one that gasoline contain a certain
percentage of ethanol. That matter is the subject for the jurisdiction
of another committee. A renewable fuel standard is entirely different
from a renewable portfolio standard and may well be part of the final
legislation.
It is important for our colleagues to know that a renewable portfolio
standard, or RPS, is all about wind. There are limited opportunities to
build new dams today in order to expand hydropower, and hydro produces
7 of the 9 percent of renewable power that we have in America today. Of
the remaining 2 percent of our electricity that is produced by other
renewable sources, current subsidies are not enough to increase solar
power by very much.
More research and development is needed to make biomass more
efficient, and there is a limited amount of geothermal power that is
drawing power from water that is heated underground, which leaves wind
power. Experts agree that the bottom line is that a requirement that
electric companies produce 10 percent of their electricity from
renewable energy, if it could be achieved at all, would mean about 70
percent of the increase would come from wind. In other words, we would
go from producing about 1 percent of America's electricity from wind to
about 7 or 8 percent.
Testimony before our Energy Committee and most other sources suggest
that to produce this much wind energy in the United States could
require building more than 100,000 new massive wind turbines. We have
less than 7,000 such windmills in the United States today, with the
largest number in Texas and California. Testimony before our committee
also indicated that even without the RPS, if Congress continues its
generous subsidy for wind production for the next 10 years-- it will
guarantee that we have these 100,000 windmills or more by the year
2025. According to the Treasury Department, this wind subsidy, if
renewed each year for the next 5 years, would reimburse wind investors
for 25 percent of the cost of wind production and cost taxpayers $3.7
billion over those 5 years.
I'm told that General Electric Wind, one of the largest manufacturers
of wind turbines, has experienced a 500-percent growth in its wind
business this year due to the renewal of the wind production tax credit
last year.
I want to make sure my colleagues know that there are serious
questions about how much relying on wind power will raise the cost of
electricity, questions about whether there are better ways to spend
$3.7 billion in support of clean energy, and questions about whether
wind even produces the amount of energy that it is claimed to produce.
My studies suggest that at a time when America needs large amounts of
low-cost reliable power, wind produces puny amounts of high-cost
unreliable power. We need lower prices. Wind power production raises
prices. We will have an opportunity in our debates and further hearings
to examine these questions.
The legislation Senator Warner and I offer today is about a different
question: the siting or location of 100,000 of these massive machines.
Now, the idea of windmills conjures up pleasant images in Tennessee
and, I am sure, in Oklahoma, of Holland and tulips, images of rural
America with windmill blades turning slowly, pumping water at the farm
well.
My grandparents had such a windmill at their well pump. That was back
before rural electrification. The windmills we are talking about today
are not our grandmother's windmills. Each one of these windmills is
typically 100 yards tall, two stories taller than the Statue of
Liberty, taller than a football field is long. These windmills are
wider than a 747 jumbo jet. Their rotor blades turn at 100 miles per
hour. These towers and their flashing red lights can be seen from more
than 25 miles away. Their noise can be heard for up to a half a mile
away. It is a thumping and swishing sound. It has been described by
residents who are unhappy with the noise as sounding like a brick
wrapped in a towel tumbling in a clothes dryer on a perpetual basis.
These windmills produce very little power since, of course, they only
operate when the wind blows enough or when it does not blow too much.
So they are usually placed in large wind farms covering huge amounts of
land.
This is an example of what they look like. In comparison, we often
worry about offshore drilling for oil and gas. In fact, Senator Johnson
and I have introduced legislation that would permit States to expand
the use of offshore oil and gas. Offshore oil and gas rigs can be
placed far out to sea, where nobody on shore can see them. Compare that
with the power produced by today's massive wind turbines. It would take
46 square miles of these windmills spread across the landscape to equal
one oil or gas rig that one could not see.
As an example, the Congress ordered electric companies to build 10
percent of their power from renewable energy which, as we have said,
has to be mostly wind. If we renew the current subsidy each year, by
the year 2025 my State of Tennessee would have about 1,700 of these
windmills, which would cover land almost two times the size of the city
of Knoxville, TN. If Virginia, Senator Warner's State, were to produce
10 percent of its power from wind by 2025 and the subsidies continue,
it would probably need more than 1,700 windmills. These windmills would
take up enough land to equal the land mass of three cities the size of
Richmond, VA. In North Carolina, to supply 10 percent of the
electricity from wind, it would take almost the land mass of the
Research Triangle, the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill area. According to
testimony before our committee, in Tennessee and Virginia these
windmills would work best and perhaps work only at all along the ridge
tops.
So this is what things might be looking like. This is a picture of
the Grand Canyon in the West, but we can imagine what it might look
like in the East. If our present policies on wind are continued, we
could expect to see hundreds
[[Page S5193]]
of football-field sized towers as wide as jumbo jets with flashing red
lights atop the Blue Ridges of Virginia, above the Shenandoah Valley,
along the foothills of the Great Smoky Mountains, on top of Signal
Mountain, on top of Lookout Mountain and Roan Mountain in Tennessee,
and down the Tennessee River gorge which the city of Chattanooga has
just spent 25 years protecting, and now it calls itself the scenic
city.
I hope we decide there are better ways to provide clean energy than
to spend $3.7 billion of taxpayer dollars over the next 5 years on
windmills. I hope we decide we need a real national energy policy
instead of a national windmill policy. I hope we decide there
are better and cheaper ways to discuss carbon. At least there are some
important questions we need to answer.
What will this number of windmills do to our tourism industry? Will
10 million visitors who come a year to enjoy the Great Smoky Mountains
really want to come to see ridge tops with flashing red lights and 100-
yard tall windmills? What happens to electric rates when the Federal
subsidy disappears in a few years? Who will take down these massive
structures if we decide we do not like them or if they do not work? Who
is making the money on all of this, and why are some European countries
who pioneered wind farms now slowing down or even stopping their
construction in some places?
Clearly, there are likely to be more sensible ways to provide clean
energy than spending $3.7 billion of taxpayer money over the next 5
years to destroy the American landscape. For example, $3.7 billion
would provide enough money to give 185,000 Americans a $2,000 subsidy
to buy a hybrid or a clean diesel vehicle, which would be about double
the number of hybrid cars expected to be sold in the United States
during this year. Hybrid cars burn about 60 percent of the amount of
gasoline that conventional cars burn. Or $3.7 billion would provide
enough money for loan guarantees to help launch a dozen new clean coal
gasification plants and help transform the marketplace with new
technology for clean American-produced energy that would lower natural
gas prices and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. For $3.7 billion,
we could provide loan guarantees for at least half a dozen new
technology nuclear powerplants and have a billion dollars left over for
research and development on the recapture of carbon that might be
produced by coal plants or to encourage conservation prices.
Just by way of comparison, a nuclear powerplant such as the Tennessee
Valley Authority's Sequoayah nuclear plant would produce about the same
amount of energy as the windmills, which a renewable portfolio standard
and the tax subsidy would build in Tennessee. The electricity would be
available even when the wind was not blowing. So while we are debating
the wisdom of wind policies over the next several weeks, these massive
turbines are being built across America, 6,700 of them so far, 29 of
them in Tennessee.
The Tennessee Valley Authority recently announced it had signed a 20-
year contract with a group of investors from Chicago to build 18 huge
windmills atop a 3,300-foot ridge on Buffalo Mountain in east
Tennessee. So the purpose of our legislation being offered today is to
give citizens the opportunity to have some say in where these massive
structures are located in their communities and to make sure that the
Congress does not subsidize the destruction of the American landscape
near our national parks or other highly scenic areas or build such tall
structures dangerously close to our military bases.
First, the bill ensures that local authorities are notified and have
a role in the approval of new windmills to be built in their areas of
jurisdiction. This means that at the same time a proposed windmill is
filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC would notify
the local authority with zoning jurisdiction. Under this bill, within
120 days, local authorities may support or oppose the project. If they
support it, the windmill may qualify for FERC marketbased rates--that
means allowed to charge wholesale prices--and may be exempt from a
series of regulations that restrict the operations of public utilities.
If local authorities oppose the windmill, it may still go forward but
subject to regulations--we call them PUCHA--and unable to charge
wholesale rates or issue a qualified rate schedule. If no action is
taken by the local authority, the FERC process would proceed as though
the authority were in support.
I believe it is crucial that local authorities have a chance to
consider the impact of such massive new structures before dozens or
hundreds of them begin to be built in their communities. In many other
instances involving the location of facilities generating power, State
and local governments have developed laws giving citizens an
opportunity to comment or even stop the location of facilities they do
not want. Our legislation gives communities that do not have such laws
the chance to do just that, and then this legislation sunsets or
expires in 7 years.
The second thing our legislation would do is provide protection to
highly scenic areas and at military bases. I do not think we want to
see hundreds of windmills in the Grand Canyon or just outside the Grand
Canyon or in the foothills of the Great Smokies or when we go to see
the Grand Tetons. There are plenty of places we do not want to see
that. This makes sure it does not happen. It does so by eliminating tax
subsidies for any windmills within 20 miles of a world heritage area,
which includes many national parks, and within 20 miles of military
bases or offshore.
Under the bill, placement of a windmill within 20 miles of such a
site shall also require the completion of an environmental impact
statement. Further, any windmill that is to be constructed within 20
miles of a neighboring State's border may be vetoed by that neighboring
State. In other words, if the neighboring State can see it and does not
want it, they can veto it.
I used the same kind of analogy when I introduced legislation to
allow offshore drilling since offshore drilling can be put so far off
sight that one does not need to see it. If Virginia wants to do it and
North Carolina can see it and they do not like it, they can veto it. I
believe the same thing should apply to these massive windmills.
I believe that during our debates, we will find that there are better
ways to produce a low-cost reliable supply of American energy than by
spending $3.7 billion over the next 5 years, requiring power companies
to produce energy from giant windmills that raise electric rates, only
work when the wind blows, and destroy the American landscape.
The legislation that Senator Johnson and I have introduced, the
Natural Gas Price Reduction Act of 2005, includes support for
aggressive conservation, new clean coal gas plants, new supplies of
domestic natural gas, and, for the time being, easier import of
liquefied natural gas. We did this because natural gas is at $7 a unit
around the world, and that needs to change. In the USA, it is the
highest priced gas anywhere in the industrial world. The chemical
plants in Oklahoma, Colorado and Tennessee will find it likely that
they will be moving their jobs to other parts of the world where the
price of natural gas is not so high.
(Mr. ALLARD assumed the Chair.)
Mr. ALEXANDER. I believe there is an important place in our energy
bill for renewable fuels such as ethanol, and I believe there is an
important place for renewable energy sources. For example, the
legislation Senator Johnson and I introduced a few weeks ago would
increase from 10 percent to 30 percent the tax credit for commercial
investments in solar technology that generates electricity, heats or
cools a structure, uses fiber optics, and illuminates a building or
provides solar process heat. It provides a similar 30-percent tax
credit for a solar system that heats a home. But it is important to
keep in mind that, aside from wind, renewable energy can only provide
about 3 percent of America's total energy needs over the next 20 years.
I am excluding from that, also, hydro.
In the United States of America, the wholesale destruction of the
American landscape is not an incidental concern. The great American
outdoors is an essential part of the American character. Italy has its
art, Egypt has its pyramids, England has its history, and we have the
great American outdoors. In fact, the song ``America the Beautiful''
was written in Colorado, the State of the Presiding Officer. We care
about that.
[[Page S5194]]
In my home County of Blount County, TN, my father and lots of other
people worked at the Alcoa plant for many years to save money and buy a
home. Where did they want to buy a home? They wanted to buy a home on
streets that were named Mountain View, or Scenic Drive, because they
loved to look at the Great Smoky Mountains.
While we debate the merits of so much subsidy and reliance on wind
power, we should at the same time protect our national parks, our
shorelines, and our other highly scenic areas. And we should give
American citizens the opportunity to protect their communities and
landscapes before it is too late.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1034
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Environmentally
Responsible Windpower Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. LOCAL CONTROL FOR SITING OF WINDMILLS.
(a) Local Control.--Prior to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission issuing to any onshore and above-water
wind turbine project its Exempt-Wholesale Generator Status,
Market-Based Rate Authority, or Qualified Facility rate
schedule, the wind project shall file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission its Local Approval Authorization.
(b) Local Approval Authorization.--
(1) In this section, the term ``Local Authorities'' means
the governing body, and the senior executive of the body, at
the lowest level of government that possesses authority under
State law to carry out this Act.
(2) Local Approval Authorization is a resolution from the
local governing body and local senior executive
(collectively, the ``Local Authorities'') approving or
denying the siting of such wind project.
(3) Such resolution approving or denying the project
shall be produced by the Local Authorities within 120 days of
the filing of the Market-Based Rate application or Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission Form number 556 (or a successor
form) at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
(4) If such resolution is not issued by the local
authorities within 120 days of the filing of the Market-Based
Rate application or Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Form
number 556 (or a successor form) at the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, then such project is deemed to have
obtained its Local Approval Authorization.
(5) Applicant shall notify in writing the local
authorities on the day of the filing of such Market-Based
Rate application or Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Form
number 556 (or a successor form) at the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission. Evidence of such notification shall be
submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
(6) The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission shall notify
in writing the local authorities within 10 days of the filing
of such Market-Based Rate application or Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission Form number 556 (or a successor form)
at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
(7) If the Local Authorities deny the siting of a wind
project, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission shall not
issue to the project Market-Based Rate Authority, Exempt
Wholesaler Generator Status, or Qualified Facility rate
schedule.
(c) Determination of Neighboring States.--
(1) In this subsection, the term ``viewshed'' means the
area located within 20 miles of the boundary of a State.
(2) If an offshore, above-water windmill project under
this section is located within the viewshed of an adjacent
State, the adjacent State may determine that the project is
inconsistent with the development plan of the State under the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.).
(3) If a State makes a determination under paragraph (2),
the affected windmill project shall terminate.
(d) Highly Scenic Area and Federal Land.--
(1) A Highly Scenic Area is--
(A) an offshore area;
(B) any area listed as an official United Nations
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization World
Heritage Site, as supported by the Department of the
Interior, the National Park Service, and the International
Council on Monuments and Sites;
(C) any area nominated by the Department of the Interior
and the Federal Interagency Panel for World Heritage to
become an official United Nations Educational, Scientific,
and Cultural Organization World Heritage Site; or
(D) any Armed Forces base located in the United States.
(2) A Qualified Wind Project is any above-water wind-
turbine project located in a Highly Scenic Area or within 20
miles of the boundaries of an area described in subparagraph
(B), (C), or (D) of paragraph (1).
(3) Prior to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
issuing to a Qualified Wind Project its Exempt-Wholesale
Generator Status, Market-Based Rate Authority, or Qualified
Facility rate schedule, an environmental impact statement
shall be conducted and completed by the lead agency in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). If no lead agency is designated,
the lead agency shall be the Department of the Interior.
(4) The environmental impact statement determination
shall be issued within 12 months of the date of application.
(5) Such environmental impact statement review shall
include a cumulative impacts analysis addressing visual
impacts and avian mortality analysis of a Qualified Wind
Project.
(6) A Qualified Wind Project shall not be eligible for
any Federal tax credit.
(e) Effective Date.--
(1) This section shall expire 7 years after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(2) Nothing in this section shall prevent or discourage
environmental review of any wind projects or any Qualified
Wind Project on a State or local level.
______
By Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Thune, Mr. Grassley,
and Mr. Harkin):
S. 1035. A bill to authorize the presentation of commemorative medals
on behalf of Congress to Native Americans who served as Code Talkers
during foreign conflicts in which the United States was involved during
the 20th century in recognition of the service of those Native
Americans to the United States; to the Committee on Banking, Housing,
and Urban Affairs.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, during World War I and II, Native
Americans heard the call of their Country and enlisted in the United
States Armed Services in unprecedented numbers. Many of these brave men
performed the role of code talkers, using a code language derived from
a variety of American Indian languages to ensure secure and rapid
communication of information on the battlefield. Through three wars and
five decades, enemy forces were never able to break the United States
code language thanks to the service and ingenuity of Native American
Code Talkers. These patriots provided an invaluable service to the
United States and our allies and deserve recognition for their bravery.
Until 1968, information related to the code talker's activities
during both World Wars remained classified by the Department of
Defense. The postponement in learning about the essential role of
Native American Code Talkers has resulted in delayed recognition of
these war heroes. The first step in recognizing these men came in 2000
when President Bush signed into law legislation authorizing Congress to
award gold medals to the twenty-nine Navajo Code Talkers as well as a
silver medal to each man who later qualified as a Navajo Code Talker.
While this legislation was a step in the right direction, it failed to
recognize a number of Native Americans who also served as code talkers
but were not members of the Navajo Nation.
During the first World War, Choctaw code talkers served with
distinction in France. By transmitting in their native tongue a variety
of open voice messages relating to unit movements, United States forces
completely surprised the enemy during battle. Following the success of
the Choctaw code talkers, soldiers from the Navajo, Sioux, Comanche and
Meskwaki tribes, along with members of 14 other tribes, served as code
talkers in some of the most dangerous operations in both theaters of
World War II.
Today I introduce the Code Talkers Recognition Act to honor those who
were overlooked when medals were awarded to the Navajo Code Talkers in
2001. This bill authorizes the presentation of commemorative medals on
behalf of Congress to Native Americans who served as Code Talkers
during any foreign conflict in which the United States was involved
during the 20th Century. I ask my colleagues to help honor the heroic
contributions of these gentlemen by cosponsoring this bill.
____________________