[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 105 (Tuesday, June 21, 2022)]
[House]
[Page H5688]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    FINDING RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
California (Mr. LaMalfa) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Speaker, as we are becoming painfully aware as 
Americans, energy independence is vital to our national security and 
our everyday lives.
  America needs to embrace a true energy policy that supports every 
type, from natural gas, oil drilling, nuclear, hydroelectric, and the 
other renewables. We cannot simply declare that some methods of power 
generation are off limits like the Biden administration and others have 
been trying to do to natural gas and oil.
  Energy production of all kinds is important for rural economies which 
provide jobs, income at the farm level and at the wildcatter level, tax 
revenue, et cetera.
  Take California, for example. We are the leading State in biomass 
production, right, our crowded forests, untended for so many years due 
to policies of the Forest Service getting sued to not do anything 
before or after a fire.
  So in my northeast part of the State, we have millions of tons of 
waste biomass just sitting on our forest floors, dry, decomposing, 
turning into CO2, waiting to be part of the next 
catastrophic forest fire which we see happening in overabundance.
  The Dixie fire started in my district last year--one million acres--
when a tree fell into a power line.
  Using biomass is a win-win-win for everybody. It brings local jobs, 
putting our workers in these rural towns that are suffering 
economically for years due to the shutdown of this timber industry, 
basically, putting those folks back to work, tending to work that needs 
to be done to have forests thinner, cleaner, healthier, and less fire-
prone.
  But as we continue toward green energy and strict carbon and 
environmental regulations which only recently began, we are seeing that 
other forms of energy are not being available, too.
  Nuclear. Nuclear energy is a serious alternative energy source and 
really shouldn't be alternative because it is CO2-free. It 
has been around for a long time, but for some, it isn't politically 
correct.
  California has one remaining nuclear reactor, the one at Diablo 
Canyon, not too far from San Luis Obispo, where my tie comes from. 
Diablo Canyon takes up only 900 acres of land and provides nearly 10 
percent of California's energy portfolio, almost 10 percent in 
one power plant, and they want to take it offline because it is not 
politically correct.

  Of course, in California, it is responsible for 23 percent of our 
carbon-free generation, if you want to play the carbon game.
  In a State that faces rolling blackouts to our grid every summer, 
every time the wind blows because we don't want tree branches falling 
into power lines, we can't fare without that 10 percent of energy 
provided by nuclear power, which doesn't have that threat.
  Nuclear power plants are cheaper to run than most, even accounting 
for managing and disposing of radioactive material, which there are 
ways to deal with the radioactive leftovers, too, if we can just get to 
them.
  Nuclear power is consistent, 24/7. Unlike solar and wind, it is 
available all the time. It is not affected by the clouds or lack of 
wind. Solar and wind power do have their place in our portfolio, but we 
know we can't completely rely upon them.
  We can't build enough batteries to store enough power without having 
mines in Africa taking advantage of kids' labor to put them in place.
  When a wildfire inevitably rages like it has year after year, sending 
thick, black smoke into the air, our solar panels are obscured by ash 
and screened from direct sunlight. The solar and wind systems just 
don't put out what they need to in order to have a modern grid.
  Our State has already inexplicably banned the sale of gas-powered 
backup generators. What are people supposed to do at their homes? When 
they take away backup generators that are gas-powered, what are you 
supposed to power them with, a battery? Ridiculous.
  One of the most critical sources of renewable energy along the entire 
Pacific Northwest is hydroelectric generation. It accounts for about 12 
percent of our State's total portfolio and is the cheapest form of 
renewable energy available.
  It is about 50 percent the cost of nuclear, 40 percent the cost of 
fossil fuels, and 25 percent the cost of using natural gas. Yet, it 
faces numerous obstacles as well.
  They want to remove the dams. They are calling it the largest ever 
dam removal project--they are so proud of, it seems--up on the Klamath 
Basin, up on the Klamath River.
  Four dams: the J.C. Boyle, Copco No. 1 and No. 2, and Iron Gate are 
scheduled to be removed, if they have their way. That will take 
renewable, available 24/7, power to over 70,000 homes offline, and it 
will have to be replaced by miles and miles of solar panels or 
windmills chopping up birds someplace.
  Why do they want to remove this? Because of political correctness. 
They hope that maybe it will help the river have slightly cooler water 
for salmon spawning, maybe 1 degree, but it won't really work that way 
because it is going to leave all sorts of silt and hurt the Klamath 
River.
  So one thing after another. We have to find a reliable energy source.

                          ____________________