[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 98 (Monday, June 18, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7804-S7807]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   CREATING LONG-TERM ENERGY ALTERNATIVES FOR THE NATION ACT OF 2007

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 6, which the clerk will report by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 6) to reduce our Nation's dependency on 
     foreign oil by investing in clean, renewable, and alternative 
     energy resources, promoting new emerging energy technologies, 
     developing greater efficiency, and creating a Strategic 
     Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve to invest in 
     alternative energy, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid amendment No. 1502, in the nature of a substitute.
       Reid (for Bingaman) amendment No. 1537 (to amendment No. 
     1502), to provide for a renewable portfolio standard.
       Klobuchar (for Bingaman) amendment No. 1573 (to amendment 
     No. 1537), to provide for a renewable portfolio standard.
       Bingaman (for Klobuchar) amendment No. 1557 (to amendment 
     No. 1502), to establish a national greenhouse gas registry.
       Kohl amendment No. 1519 (to amendment No. 1502), to amend 
     the Sherman Act to make oil-producing and exporting cartels 
     illegal.
       Kohl (for DeMint) amendment No. 1546 (to amendment No. 
     1502), to provide that legislation that would increase the 
     national average fuel prices for automobiles is subject to a 
     point of order in the Senate.
       Corker amendment No. 1608 (to amendment No. 1502), to allow 
     clean fuels to meet the renewable fuel standard.
       Cardin amendment No. 1520 (to amendment No. 1502), to 
     promote the energy independence of the United States.
       Domenici (for Thune) amendment No. 1609 (to amendment No. 
     1502), to provide requirements for the designation of 
     national interest electric transmission corridors.
       Cardin amendment No. 1610 (to amendment No. 1502), to 
     provide for the siting, construction, expansion, and 
     operation of liquefied natural gas terminals.
       Collins amendment No. 1615 (to amendment No. 1502), to 
     provide for the development and coordination of a 
     comprehensive and integrated U.S. research program that 
     assists the people of the United States and the world to 
     understand, assess, and predict human-induced and natural 
     processes of abrupt climate change.


                Amendment No. 1628 to Amendment No. 1502

      (Purpose: To provide standards for clean coal-derived fuels)

  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
set aside so I can propose an amendment numbered 1628.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. 
     Bunning, for himself, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Thune, Mr. Enzi, and 
     Mr. Craig, proposes an amendment numbered 1628 to amendment 
     numbered 1502.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On Page S7804, June 18, 2007, the following appears: The Senator 
from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), for himself, Mr. Thune, Mr. 
Enzi...
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The Senator from 
New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), for Mr. Bunning, for himself, Mr. 
Domenici, Mr. Thune......


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S7805]]

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, as we resume consideration of the 
Energy bill, I would note to my colleagues that we have about 120 
amendments filed, and we have 10 amendments pending. Additionally, I 
understand we have a number of Members who wish to offer other 
amendments. I encourage people to come forward and file amendments if 
they wish to do so.
  I understand the Finance Committee is working on a major energy 
package over the next couple of days. I have some concerns about what 
is rumored to be in that package, but I will reserve my comments and 
judgment until the Senate sees the full product. Additionally, we have 
a number of large items that I am sure Senator Bingaman concurs that we 
have to resolve over the next few days, including the Bingaman RPS 
amendment, a potential CAFE amendment to the fuel economy language 
currently in the base text, as well as the debate on the issue of coal-
to-liquids, which received a great deal of attention and debate in the 
Energy Committee and I am sure will receive the same here.
  This bill does some great things in the area of biofuels, and it is 
important to the Senate that we take action on improving the fuel 
efficiency of our vehicles. This is a win for the diversification of 
fuels we use, and it is a win for saving energy, but we must act to 
increase our domestic energy supply at the same time, especially if we 
can and especially if we have energy. That is one of the reasons I 
worked so hard to pass the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, and that 
is one reason I support the Bunning amendment which I have introduced 
which will be before the Senate on coal-to-liquids. While Senator 
Bunning could not be here this afternoon, we all know of his advocacy 
on this issue. It is important that the topic of coal-to-liquids be 
addressed before the Senate. I understand that, provided there is 
time--and I think there certainly should be--Senator Bunning will speak 
on this amendment tomorrow, as I indicated, if at all possible.

  We have developed this legislation. This is not the first time the 
issue of coal-to-liquids has come up. On May 2, we considered an 
amendment in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to provide 
identical treatment of coal-to-liquids as that provided for cellulosic 
ethanol. Senator Thomas, from Wyoming, and Senator Bunning offered an 
amendment to mandate 21 billion gallons of coal-to-liquids by the year 
2022. I supported them. But the amendment failed by the slimmest of 
margins--a 12-to-11 vote in the committee. Since that markup, for over 
a month there has been an effort to reach out and negotiate a middle 
ground on the issue of coal-to-liquids. I regret that those discussions 
ended without agreement.
  Let me be clear: I do not support the Tester amendment that may come 
up before the Senate shortly. I oppose the amendment for a number of 
reasons we will discuss when these proposals are more fully debated.
  The Bunning-Domenici amendment draws wide support from those in the 
field who will be doing the work necessary to bring those domestic 
fuels to market. This Bunning-Domenici amendment will establish and 
mandate for just 6 billion gallons of coal-to-liquid fuel by 2022, a 
very large difference in terms of the mandated amount, much smaller--22 
before and 6 now in the amendment before us. That is a reduction of 15 
billion gallons from what we offered in the committee.
  This mandate starts in 2016, which is the same year the cellulosic 
energy mandate begins in the base bill. Importantly, this mandate 
requires that greenhouse gas emissions from coal-to-liquid fuels be 20 
percent better than gasoline--20 percent better than gasoline. Again, 
that is the same standard as appears in the base bill for cellulosic 
ethanol. In other words, you can't make the claim that this 6 billion 
which will be there, this 6 billion gallons, will harm the atmosphere 
or greenhouse gases any more than cellulosic ethanol, which we are all 
advocating, and there is so much pressure to get it done and so much 
almost awe that it is going to get done and how great it will be. It 
will have the same effect as this is going to have on the air.
  There are many ways to provide the incentives for these alternative 
fuels. One that has been proven to work is to provide a reliable market 
for the products. We have experience with this approach on ethanol, and 
I have not been presented with a reason to believe it will not work for 
other fuels.
  In terms of the merits of coal-to-liquid fuels, there are many. 
Unlike cellulosic ethanol, this has been commercially demonstrated in 
other countries; now we need to do it here in the United States. Unlike 
cellulosic ethanol, it can be moved in existing pipes and used in 
existing vehicles. Coal-to-liquid fuel will reduce the emissions of 
sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, particulate matter, and other pollutants 
when compared to conventional fuels, and coal-to-liquid fuel will 
create an investment in rural communities, good-paying jobs for 
Americans, and cheaper energy for American consumers.
  As we move forward with the consideration of coal-to-liquid 
amendments, there are some points about this particular one I would 
like to point out.
  First, the program is entirely separate and will not compete with the 
biofuels program.
  Second, the mandate is only one-sixth the size of the renewable fuel 
mandate.
  Third, only coal-to-liquid fuel that can meet the same life cycle 
greenhouse standard as biofuels will be eligible for the program.
  There will be much we disagree on as we consider the issue more 
fully. Many will say: We cannot do coal-to-liquids unless we require 
carbon sequestration. We should remember that we do not require carbon 
sequestration for ethanol in this bill. For carbon sequestration, I am 
concerned about efforts to require it and, after all, we have concluded 
in the base text of the bill before us that carbon sequestration 
requires more research and development. That is true.
  I will agree that requiring the same greenhouse gas standards for all 
fuels is a reasonable approach. That is why we have included the same 
language in our amendment.
  The amendment is quite different from the one that was received in 
the Energy Committee on May 2. It has been written to address the 
concerns that arose then and have arisen since. This amendment 
represents an effort to ensure that we provide a stable market for the 
first coal-to-liquids plants, and if that happens, there is no question 
that coal, one of Americas most abundant fuels, will be on its way to 
being a first-rate source of fuel for the automobile and related kinds 
of activities.
  There is broad and growing support for reducing our reliance on 
foreign sources of energy in affordable and environmentally sound ways. 
Coal is our most abundant and affordable fossil resource. I do believe 
that technology will continue to make coal cleaner and that this 
amendment further establishes the path forward.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Martinez be 
added as a cosponsor of the Bunning amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment Senator Domenici just called up be set aside at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 1614 to Amendment No. 1502

   (Purpose: To establish a program to provide loans for projects to 
  produce syngas from coal and other feedstocks while simultaneously 
reducing greenhouse gas emissions and reliance of the United States on 
                       petroleum and natural gas)

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I call up amendment 1614 on behalf of 
Senator Tester, Senator Byrd, Senator Salazar, Senator Rockefeller, 
Senator Bingaman, Senator Landrieu, and Senator Webb.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for himself, 
     Mr. Tester, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Salazar, Ms. 
     Landrieu and Mr. Webb, proposes an amendment numbered 1614 to 
     amendment numbered 1502.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S7806]]

  (The amendment is printed in the Record of Friday, June 15, 2007, 
under ``Text of Amendments.'')
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I am not going to speak about the 
amendment at this point or about the Bunning amendment Senator Domenici 
described in general terms. But this is a very important issue. It is 
one we spent time on in our Energy Committee markup. It is one we 
clearly need to resolve here on the Senate floor and allow Senators to 
express their views on the issue.
  I know Senator Tester was hoping to be here to speak on the amendment 
possibly later today but, if not, then tomorrow. I know he will want to 
speak both about his amendment and about the Bunning amendment, and I 
will plan to do the same.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceed to call the roll.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I had hoped to call up an amendment that 
Senator Clinton filed this afternoon on behalf of herself, myself, 
Senator Leahy, and Senator Cantwell, but I understand that laying aside 
the pending amendment may not be an option. As such, I ask unanimous 
consent to be recognized to speak about the amendment we filed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as we continue to work our way through 
the Energy bill, I ask my colleagues for their support in doing 
everything we possibly can to remove the ridiculous barriers people 
face when they try to install renewable electricity generation on their 
homes and businesses. As we all know, there are disagreements about 
some aspects of our energy policy, but it only seems to make sense to 
me that we should all rally around giving individuals an opportunity to 
make a meaningful contribution toward solving our energy challenges. 
This is exactly what the Clinton-Sanders net metering amendment does. 
It empowers citizens of our country to help provide for the energy our 
country needs.
  Unfortunately, today, many millions of people want the opportunity to 
do their part, but they are blocked by unneeded barriers. The language 
we have authored, which is supported by a wide range of groups, 
including the Solar Energy Industries Association, Alaska Wilderness 
League, U.S. PIRG, Greenpeace, Public Citizen, Friends of the Earth, 
Union of Concerned Scientists, the League of Conservation Voters, and 
the Center for American Progress Action Fund, would amend the Public 
Utility Regulatory Policies Act to require utilities to offer net 
metering to their customers and to require the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission to establish interconnection standards for small 
electricity generators to connect to the grid.
  The amendment would accomplish many of our shared goals all at once. 
It would help people to lower their electric bills, it would help to 
stabilize the electricity grid by ensuring less reliance on central 
generating plants, it would help to address environmental concerns, and 
it would even be good for the utilities by cutting down on their load 
during hot summer days--a load that is usually met with increasingly 
expensive natural gas.
  I want to quickly talk about what net metering is before I go any 
further, and for the sake of my colleagues who would prefer to hear it 
directly from the Department of Energy's mouth as opposed to mine, I 
will quote directly from the DOE's Web site:

       Net metering programs serve as an important incentive in 
     consumer investment in renewable energy generation. Net 
     metering enables customers to use their own generation to 
     offset their consumption over a billing period by allowing 
     their electric meters to turn backwards when they generate 
     electricity in excess of their demand.

  That is, again, from the DOE's Web site. The Department of Energy 
goes on to note:

       Net metering is a low-cost, easily administered method of 
     encouraging customer investment in renewable energy 
     technologies. It increases the value of the electricity 
     produced by renewable generation and allows customers to bank 
     their energy and use it in a different time than it is 
     produced, giving customers more flexibility and allowing them 
     to maximize the value of their production. Providers, i.e. 
     utilities, may also benefit from net metering because when 
     customers are producing electricity during peak periods, the 
     system load factor is improved.

  Again, that is a quote from the Department of Energy. To summarize 
net metering, let me make the following points: Net metering allows an 
electricity customer to send electricity back to the grid when 
generating more than she or he is utilizing. So if you are producing 
more than you need, it goes back into the grid.
  Net metering promotes wider use of renewables, especially at the 
residential level because credit is given for energy produced. In other 
words, every homeowner in America can become a producer and earn credit 
for what they produce.
  Net metering advances energy security by helping to stabilize the 
grid.
  Net metering empowers Americans to help meet the Nation's energy 
needs.
  Perhaps an example would make it clearer. Imagine a sunny day and a 
homeowner's solar photovoltaic panels on the roof are generating more 
electricity than the homeowner needs to power all of her appliances. 
Where does the excess electricity go? It flows back through the 
electric meter, spinning it backwards, and out to the wires on the 
street and down the street to other homes where it is needed to help 
run the neighbors' air conditioners and other appliances. This provides 
more power to the grid just when the grid needs it--on sunny days.
  The Clinton-Sanders amendment would provide for a very conservative 
Federal minimum standard for net metering to encourage more electricity 
generation from renewables, such as solar panels and other distributed 
generation technologies. More specifically, the amendment specifies, 
among other things, that customers shall be credited for excess 
electricity generation from solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, anaerobic 
digesters, landfill gas, and fuel cells, up to 2 megawatts. Net 
metering must be offered to customers until the distributed generation 
capacity is at least 4 percent of a utility's peak load, and States may 
adopt more aggressive net metering provisions.
  As my colleagues know, many States have moved forward on net 
metering, and as I have mentioned, our amendment would in no way hamper 
a State's ability to move forward even more aggressively. Today, 41 
States have some sort of net metering standards or programs, but a 
modest national net metering standard would create a level playing 
field, encourage greater competition, and accelerate the deployment of 
solar and other distributed generation technologies.
  Vermont passed a net metering law in 1998, and as of July 2006, over 
200 Vermont solar projects, wind projects, and methane digesters were 
feeding electricity into the grid. New Mexico has an aggressive net 
metering standard in place, as does Colorado, New Jersey, and 
California.
  In closing, as we work to wrap things up this week, I hope we can 
send a clear message that every single household and business across 
this country should be given the opportunity to be part of solving our 
energy challenges. Adoption of the Clinton-Sanders net metering 
amendment will send such a signal.
  Mr. President, I ask that the Clinton amendment be set aside, and I 
suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, June 19, when 
the Senate resumes H.R. 6 following morning business, there be up to 
2\1/2\ hours of debate prior to a vote in relation to Bunning amendment 
No. 1628 and Tester amendment No. 1614, to run concurrently, with the 
time equally divided and controlled between Senators Bunning and Tester 
or their designees; that the Senate recess from 12:30 to 2:15 p.m. for 
the respective party conferences; that upon reconvening at 2:15

[[Page S7807]]

p.m., the Senate resume debate on the above-mentioned amendments; that 
upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote in 
relation to Bunning amendment No. 1628; that upon disposition of that 
amendment, there be 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to 
Tester amendment No. 1614, with no amendment in order to either of the 
above amendments prior to the vote; that upon disposition of the Tester 
amendment, the Senate then debate consecutively the following 
amendments listed below and that the debate time on each be limited to 
30 minutes equally divided and controlled in the usual form with no 
amendment in order to any of the amendments enumerated below; that upon 
the use or yielding back of all time with respect to the amendments 
listed below, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendments 
in the order listed; that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided 
and controlled prior to each vote; and that after the first vote in 
this sequence, the remaining votes be 10 minutes in duration: The 
listed amendments are Kohl amendment No. 1519, Thune amendment No. 
1609, and Cardin amendment No. 1610.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________