[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 75 (Wednesday, May 3, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1475-S1476]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                                 Energy

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, last week, I came to the floor to talk 
about how the President's economic policies are failing to serve the 
lower and middle-income Americans he claims are his priority.
  The President talks about wanting to give American families ``a 
little more breathing room,'' but his Big Government, big spending 
policies are taking away Americans' breathing room, as cash-strapped 
families struggling with the effects of the President's historic 
inflation crisis can attest.
  Today, I want to talk about another set of the President's policies 
that aren't serving Americans, and that is the President's energy 
policy. Since the day he took office, President Biden has pursued an 
agenda that is hostile to conventional sources of energy; namely, oil 
and natural gas. He set the tone on his very first day in office when 
he canceled the Keystone XL Pipeline--an environmentally responsible 
pipeline project that was already underway, and was to be paired with 
$1.7 billion in private investment in renewable energy to fully 
offset--fully offset--its operating emissions.
  He also almost immediately froze new oil and gas leases on Federal 
land, sending a clear signal to oil and gas producers that his 
administration would be reluctant to work with them to increase 
American energy production. And he has continued along the same lines 
ever since, from raising taxes on conventional energy to proposing a 
rule that would effectively mandate that automakers only make electric 
vehicles beginning in the near future. The President's policies have 
targeted conventional energy.
  In March, the President announced that he would close off a 
substantial part of the Arctic to oil and gas development. In the same 
week, his Environmental Protection Agency finalized a rule--a so-called 
good neighbor rule that threatens to close a number of fossil fuel-
powered power plants.
  So why is all this a problem? After all, Members of both parties 
support alternative energy technologies. Why are the President's 
efforts to shut down conventional energy production a problem?
  Well, the President's attacks on conventional energy are a problem 
because conventional energy still plays an essential role in providing 
a steady, reliable energy supply to American consumers.
  No matter how much the White House might wish it weren't the case, 
the technology to fully transition the United States to clean energy 
simply doesn't exist yet, and all of the Green New Deal, anti-
conventional energy policies in the world can't change that basic fact.
  What the President's Green New Deal, anti-conventional energy 
policies can do, however, is jeopardize our Nation's energy supply and 
drive up prices for American consumers. Americans know the energy price 
hikes of the Biden administration all too well. From restricting oil 
and gas production to imposing tax hikes on conventional energy, 
President Biden's energy policies have driven up Americans' energy 
costs, but that will be nothing compared to what will happen if the 
President succeeds in choking off and drastically reducing conventional 
energy production. Prices will soar; blackouts, brownouts, and calls 
for energy rationing will become commonplace; and our economic and 
national security will be in jeopardy.
  We are not at the point yet where we are experiencing blackouts and 
brownouts on a regular basis--unless, I guess, you are a resident of 
California, whose energy grid is known for being unreliable because of 
the State's overreliance on renewables--but the President's policies 
could push us over the edge.
  In February, the PJM Interconnection, which manages a substantial 
part of Eastern America's electric grid, released a report warning that 
fossil fuel plants are being forced to retire at a faster rate than new 
renewables can be brought online, at a rate of roughly 2 to 1. In other 
words, we are rapidly approaching a situation where we simply don't 
have the ability to keep up with

[[Page S1476]]

the electricity demand, and as the report underscored, that situation 
is being driven by anti-conventional energy policies.
  The Wall Street Journal, which weighed in after the PJM report was 
released, noted that ``most projected powerplant retirements are 
`policy driven.' '' That is what the report says. In other words, 
powerplants aren't closing because they have reached the end of their 
operating lives; they are closing because of policies designed to 
discourage conventional energy.
  I have already mentioned the EPA's new good neighbor rule, which 
could force powerplants in 22 States to close. Then there are things 
like utility company environmental, social, and governance--or ESG--
policies. They are policies that utility companies can voluntarily 
adopt but that this administration wants to mandate, which the PJM 
report highlights as a factor in plant closures.
  Not only do overreaching ESG policies force some of our most reliable 
energy facilities offline, these facilities are also being replaced 
with technologies like solar that are inherently intermittent and can't 
be dispatched in times of high demand.
  The Wall Street Journal notes that ``Illinois and New Jersey climate 
policies could reduce generation by 8,900 [megawatts].'' That amount of 
energy would be enough to power over 7 million households.
  So, in other words, policies that discourage conventional energy are 
already having an effect and threatening our Nation's energy supply. If 
the President continues to pursue these types of policies, his 
Presidency may be remembered not just for a historic inflation crisis 
but for setting off a long-term energy crisis caused by an unreliable 
and insufficient energy supply.
  Instead of trying to bring about a clean energy future before we have 
the technology to get us there, the President should be pursuing an 
``all of the above'' energy policy--an energy policy that embraces the 
full spectrum of available energy sources, both renewable and 
conventional.
  I am a strong supporter of clean energy, like so many of my 
Republican colleagues, but unlike Democrats, Republicans recognize that 
our Nation is not going to be fully transitioning to 100-percent zero-
emission energy anytime soon no matter how much the administration 
would like it to. There are a lot of hurdles to be crossed before we 
can rely solely on clean energy.
  So Republicans are committed to supporting both alternative energy 
and the responsible development and deployment of the conventional 
energy we need to keep our Nation's energy grid reliable and Americans' 
energy costs down. For evidence, you need look no further than the 
energy legislation recently passed by the Republican-led House of 
Representatives, which would advance both responsible conventional 
energy development and clean energy technologies.
  Predictably, the Senate Democrat leader has declared this legislation 
``dead on arrival'' in the U.S. Senate. Democrats are so beholden to 
the radical environmental wing of their party that anything that 
doesn't adhere to their Green New Deal orthodoxy isn't up for 
discussion. But Democrats' opposition is unfortunate, not just because 
this legislation would help ensure an adequate supply of conventional 
energy but also--also--because it would help advance alternative energy 
projects.
  Republicans' legislation would tackle permitting delays, which are a 
leading impediment to energy development, including alternative energy 
development. Republicans' legislation would also actually help support 
the electric car development that Democrats are so committed to by 
enabling the development of critical mineral resources here at home--
the same critical minerals that are essential ingredients in electric 
car batteries.
  While I am on the subject of cars, I will say that the President made 
one right decision on energy last Friday by approving the sale of E15 
fuel for this summer. Americans saved $57 million last year thanks to 
summertime E15 sales. With the war in Ukraine continuing to stress fuel 
markets, renewing this E15 permission will help drive down the expected 
summer surge in gas prices while at the same time benefiting 
our environment and offsetting production cuts from OPEC.

  But while I am glad the President listened to calls from me and 
others to extend E15 sales through the summer, it is unfortunately one 
of just a handful of times when the President has opted for reliable 
and affordable energy instead of an unrealistic anti-conventional 
energy policy.
  An ``all of the above'' energy policy--a policy that embraces both 
conventional and renewable energy sources--is essential for keeping 
energy prices affordable, ensuring the reliability of our Nation's 
energy supply, and keeping our Nation secure. If the President doesn't 
start encouraging conventional as well as renewable energy development, 
consumers and our country are going to pay a heavy price.
  The President has already ensured that he will be remembered for a 
historic inflation crisis. He should make sure he isn't remembered as 
the instigator of a future energy crisis as well.