[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 40 (Thursday, March 2, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S619-S620]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                             Energy Policy

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, if you ask any Republican what kind of 
energy policy he or she supports, you will likely hear the phrase ``an 
`all of the above' energy policy.'' Today, I want to take a minute to 
talk about, first, what we mean by an all-of-the-above energy policy 
and second, why we support this kind of policy.
  So what is an ``all of the above'' energy policy?
  Well, as the name suggests, an ``all of the above'' energy policy is 
an energy policy that embraces the full spectrum of available energy 
resources, both renewable and conventional. It is important not to 
ignore the conventional part, as many of my colleagues across the aisle 
would like to do. It is not enough to embrace renewable energy, even 
multiple types of renewables. And, for reasons I am going to discuss, 
any energy policy that doesn't embrace conventional as well as 
renewable sources of energy is insufficient. It places both our energy 
security and energy affordability in jeopardy.
  Back to my explanation, as I said, an ``all of the above'' energy 
policy is an energy policy that embraces the full spectrum of available 
energy sources. It embraces wind, solar, hydropower, biofuels, biomass, 
geothermal, nuclear, oil, natural gas, and more. That is the 
definition.
  Now, why is an ``all of the above'' energy policy important? Why not, 
for example, eliminate fossil fuels from the mix? Or why not choose one 
or two renewable fuels and put all of our energies into advancing those 
one or two technologies to hasten the arrival of a clean energy future?
  Well, there are a number of reasons why these options or those 
options and any option that doesn't embrace the full range of available 
energy technologies are a bad idea.
  First of all, the fact of the matter is that we are simply not yet at 
the point where we can rely solely on clean energy technologies. We 
will still need conventional energy, and we are going to continue to 
need conventional energy resources and, in particular, natural gas for 
the foreseeable future.
  My State of South Dakota actually derives a huge portion of our 
electricity generation from renewables, notably wind and hydroelectric, 
totaling about 82 percent of utility-scale production in South Dakota. 
But conventional fuels, nevertheless, play an essential role in 
electricity generation in South Dakota.
  Wind, like solar and other renewables, by its nature is intermittent, 
even in places like South Dakota, where wind is a regular feature. And 
because technology has not yet advanced to the point where we can store 
up sufficient renewable energy to power an electric grid, even places 
like my State that rely heavily on renewables for electricity 
generation depend on conventional energy sources like coal and natural 
gas to keep the power on consistently.
  California is another State with significant production from 
renewables, like hydropower and solar, but the availability of those 
sources are affected by variables like cloud cover and drought. And 
while California generally gets a lot of sunshine, again, the

[[Page S620]]

technology to effectively store energy from those renewables at the 
scale necessary to power California's grid is simply not here yet. It 
is probably fair to say that one reason California's electricity grid 
is known for being unreliable is because the State is overly reliant on 
renewables without sufficient backup from conventional energy sources 
to meet demand.
  Now, I think we are unquestionably going to get to the point where we 
can store renewable energy more efficiently and on a large scale, but 
we are not there yet. It is important to recognize that fact and to 
recognize that the availability of consistent, reliable energy in this 
country is still dependent on a consistent, reliable supply of 
conventional energy sources.
  An ``all of the above'' energy policy isn't just a reliability 
imperative. It is also a national security imperative. Having a secure 
and stable energy supply is critical to our Nation's security. Our 
military bases and hospitals, for example, can't afford energy 
blackouts.
  Again, having a secure and stable supply requires embracing the full 
spectrum of available energy sources, including the conventional energy 
sources that ensure the reliability of our Nation's electricity supply.
  Furthermore, embracing the full spectrum of available resources 
includes developing domestic resources so that we are not overly 
reliant on supplies from other countries. The energy challenges and 
soaring costs countries like Germany have faced over the past year, 
owing to their heavy reliance on Russian energy, are a timely reminder 
of the importance of developing domestic--domestic--energy supplies.
  Aside from energy security and reliability, an ``all of the above'' 
energy policy is essential because we don't yet know exactly what a 
clean energy future will look like. There are still a lot of challenges 
to work out with renewables and clean energy technologies. As I said, 
we have not yet developed the technology to store renewable energy on a 
large scale without significant efficiency loss.
  There are a number of other challenges with clean energy 
technologies. Electric car batteries, for example, are heavily reliant 
on critical minerals. We currently rely heavily on other countries--not 
all of them politically or environmentally friendly--for our critical 
mineral supply. Environmentalists are, of course, loathe to tap our own 
natural resources. The same constraints affect batteries necessary to 
expand commercial and residential energy storage.
  And while wind and solar energy are producing record amounts of 
electricity, each have their own end-of-life challenges for recycling 
and disposal as they are replaced.
  Nuclear power provides a valuable source of clean energy, but 
construction costs are staggering, and we still haven't fully arrived 
at a solution for storing nuclear waste.
  And the list goes on.
  This isn't to say that American ingenuity won't solve some of these 
challenges or that conventional energy has none of its own, but that is 
exactly why we need to keep exploring all of these technologies and the 
opportunities and challenges that they present.
  The fact of the matter is that our country's energy future will 
continue to be multifaceted, not reliant exclusively or predominantly 
on one or two energy technologies. For one thing, different areas of 
the country will have different availability when it comes to 
renewables, like the abundance of wind on the Great Plains. Even if we 
significantly improve the storage and transmission situation, it is 
likely that it will always be most efficient for different areas of the 
country to rely most heavily on the energy resources that they have 
closest to home.
  So, as I said, it is important that we move forward with developing 
the full range of energy resources and not attempt to put all of our 
eggs in the same basket or to have the government pick winners and 
losers. Excessive government direction runs the risk of diminishing or 
cutting off innovation in the technologies that could be the future of 
clean energy.
  We should be encouraging the exploration of all clean energy avenues 
and then seeing what the market ultimately gravitates toward, which is 
likely to be the technologies that are simultaneously practical, 
affordable, and effective.
  The clean energy evolution away from coal toward cleaner burning 
natural gas, which has been a major driver of emissions reduction, was 
driven not by top-down direction from government--certainly not by 
government ideologues here in Washington--but by private industry, 
which saw the next wave of energy production and harnessed it.
  Finally, we need an ``all of the above'' energy policy to keep energy 
prices affordable for American families.
  Discouraging conventional energy exploration and production--or 
forcing a move to renewable sources before we have the technology 
available to ensure that renewables can deliver a reliable and 
affordable supply--is a good way to make Americans' energy bills 
continue to soar.
  An ``all of the above'' energy policy is the way to guarantee an 
affordable and reliable energy supply, and Members of both parties--
both parties--should be embracing an ``all of the above'' approach to 
American energy. Unfortunately, however, that is not the case. Instead, 
Democrats are pursuing increasingly extreme, Green New Deal policies 
designed to discourage investment in the exploration of and the 
production of conventional energy, without regard to whether or not we 
are anywhere near to having the resources and technology to move beyond 
conventional energy.
  The so-called Inflation Reduction Act that the Democrats passed last 
August contained a series of tax hikes on conventional energy 
production that are driving up Americans' energy bills. It also 
contained a lot of funding for Green New Deal fantasies that are likely 
to achieve nothing more than wasting taxpayer dollars.
  I am a big and a long-time supporter of clean energy. I have a record 
that goes back to my days in the House of Representatives, and I am 
confident that we will get to a day when we will be able to rely almost 
exclusively on clean energy technologies, especially when you factor in 
carbon capture paired with clean natural gas. But we are not there yet. 
Until that day comes, we need to embrace an ``all of the above'' energy 
policy for energy security, for energy reliability, and to keep 
Americans' energy bills affordable.
  I hope that more of my colleagues across the aisle will come to 
realize this reality before they seriously impair the stability and 
security of our Nation's energy supply.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, first of all, I want to thank my good 
friend, the assistant minority leader from South Dakota, for a very, 
very good review of exactly where we are. I agree wholeheartedly except 
for a little bit of the IRA. We might have a little difference of 
opinion there because I really think it is an energy security bill, and 
we are all going to work with and together to make sure an ``all of the 
above'' energy approach is what we are going to take.
  With that, I want to thank him. I think it was very good. As one 
Democrat, I agree wholeheartedly, and I would like to work with him on 
that.
  I ask unanimous consent that I, Senator Cornyn, and Senator Bennet be 
permitted to complete our remarks prior to the scheduled votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.