[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 20283-20285]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                   THE IMPORTANCE OF AN ENERGY POLICY

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, earlier today I joined colleagues to 
underscore the importance of an energy policy to our national security. 
One of the reasons I came to the Senate was to adopt an energy policy. 
I lived with the lack of one as the mayor of the city of Cleveland and 
as Governor of the State of Ohio.
  An energy policy is needed to secure our national economy and 
guarantee our competitiveness in the global marketplace and now, more 
than ever before, to secure our national security. We do indeed have to 
harmonize our environmental needs and our energy needs to continue to 
improve the quality of our air and water, public health, and at the 
same time guarantee we have the resources at reasonable cost to meet 
our energy needs.
  In my opinion, we are in the midst of an energy crisis, one that is 
having a tremendous influence over the state of our economy and is 
affecting the quality of life of the American people and their 
confidence about the economic future of our Nation.
  I believe this crisis is caused by several factors. One, as I 
mentioned, the national energy policy, is faulty. Two, we saw in 
California a deregulation law which could be looked at in other parts 
of the country. Three, environmental policies have contributed to a 
lack of diversity and difficulties in siting new facilities, pipelines, 
and transmission lines. The definition of something called NSR, new 
source review, has put utilities and manufacturers in limbo to the 
extent they are doing nothing to improve the environment, and at the 
same time doing nothing to improve the availability of energy in our 
country. Fourth, we are too reliant on foreign sources of oil. Fifth, I 
think we have had an inappropriate demonizing of nuclear power in this 
country.
  As the Presiding Officer of the Senate knows, in his part of the 
country, many States rely heavily on nuclear power. Today we are a 
fossil fuel-based economy. Although there is broad recognition there 
will eventually be a shift away from primary reliance on fossil fuels 
and a greater use and emphasis on other resources, there are many 
people who would argue that alternative fuels are the answer to our 
energy crisis.
  Yes, several alternative energy sources exist today. They are either 
inexhaustible: solar, wind, nuclear; or renewed through a natural 
process: hydropower, plant-based fuels such as ethanol and vegetable 
oils.
  Currently, the contribution of alternative energy sources to U.S. 
needs range from less than one-tenth of 1 percent for wind and solar 
power, 3 percent from hydroelectric and biofuels each, and 8 percent 
from nuclear energy. Today, however, fossil fuel reserves appear to be 
adequate to serve this Nation's current energy needs, with a 70-year 
reserve for oil and approximately a 250-year reserve for coal at 
current consumption rates.
  One of my colleagues noted that wind power is the fastest growing 
source of electricity in the world and we should look to it more 
seriously as an alternative energy source. Another colleague pointed 
out that solar panels covering 100 by 100 square miles would produce 
enough solar energy to power this entire Nation.
  The truth is, although alternative energy sources are being used in 
some places across the country, we have been subsidizing solar and wind 
power for over 25 years. Combined, they make up only one-tenth of 1 
percent of the total energy demand today.
  Renewables are now generally costlier than fossil fuels. For example, 
solar power is currently 8 to 10 times more costly. Even assuming an 
optimistic technology scenario, it will take at least 30 to 40 years 
before renewables energy infrastructure could be built from its current 
level to start contributing significantly to our energy supplies.
  In this chart we are talking about the impact of the lack of an 
energy policy. Costs have a disproportionate impact on low-income 
families. Since the beginning of the 107th Congress, I have been 
holding hearings across my State. I have asked individuals and business 
owners to relay their experiences on how the energy crisis has impacted 
them. In Cleveland, for example, I held a meeting with Catholic 
Charities, Lutheran Housing, the Salvation Army, senior citizens, low-
income parents, and handicapped individuals.
  I heard many heartrending stories about their struggles to be able to 
afford their monthly energy bills. The Catholic diocese said in the 
year 2000 their help line received 3,400 calls for basic needs, items 
such as food, utilities, mortgage, and rent. The number of calls the 
diocese received went up 96 percent from 1999 to 2000, a 194-percent 
increase from 1998 to 2000. In the first 7 weeks of 2001, the Salvation 
Army in Cleveland had 559 families seeking assistance with energy 
costs. In comparison, for all of 2000 they had 330 families.
  On this chart, the Department of Energy demonstrates an individual or 
family making less than $10,000 a year is going to spend 29 percent of 
their income on energy. Those making between $10,000 and $24,000 spend 
about 13 percent of their income on energy. Those making over $50,000 
spend 4 percent. It is obvious, for some of our

[[Page 20284]]

brothers and sisters, the choice sometimes comes down to paying for 
heat or paying for food. Because of this, many of them had to rely on 
hunger centers for their meals and other necessities.
  The next chart shows the principal sources of energy today are oil, 
natural gas, and coal. It goes without saying that these fuels have 
become essential elements in creating our way of life. Despite the fact 
that each year we use energy more efficiently, energy demand rises 
about two-thirds of the rate of economic growth. With the funk we have 
in the economy, that is a little bit down right now. The chart shows 
that nuclear, hydropower, and nonhydropower renewables and others make 
up a very small percentage of production. Any shortfall created between 
production and consumption of the other three main sources of energy--
natural gas, oil, and coal--will be made up from imports. For example, 
oil imports have risen from 36 percent in 1973 to 56 percent in the 
year 2001. Refined gasoline net imports have risen from 1 percent in 
1980 to approximately 5 percent in 2000. This increase in imports has 
been necessary to make up the difference from our closed refineries. 
Oil and natural gas demand is expected to continue to grow for the 
foreseeable future--oil at about 2 percent a year and gas in excess of 
3 percent. Alternative energy sources such as wind and solar power are 
being pursued but will not alter this outlook for decades to come.
  Next, U.S. energy production. Now that we know how much Americans can 
expect to consume over the next two to three decades--we are talking 
from 1995 to the year 2020--it is important to see how that expectation 
will be met, given our current state of resources. This chart shows how 
much energy we produce domestically by fuel type. We can see the 
hydropower. We can see the nuclear, nonrenewables. We have petroleum. 
We have natural gas. We have coal.
  According to the Department of Energy, natural gas is expected to be 
the fastest growing component of world energy consumption. We saw that 
this winter when gas prices skyrocketed. Gas use is projected almost to 
double to 162 trillion cubic feet in 2020 from 84 trillion in 1999. If 
we do not increase infrastructure, installing more pipelines, the 
increased production will not reach our consumers.
  According to a study by the nonprofit operator of New England's power 
grid, New England will be increasing its natural gas demand from 16 
percent in 1999 to a projected 45 percent in 2005, but they lack the 
local pipelines to distribute the gas to its markets.
  With that in mind, we also know there is an estimated 40 percent of 
undiscovered natural gas located on land leased by the Federal and 
State government. These resources will be needed to be tapped to 
accommodate the inevitable increase in natural gas consumption. If not, 
then we face the hardship of increasing dependence on foreign resources 
that will have the capacity to cripple our energy economy. The 
challenge to produce more oil and natural gas is greater because the 
production of our existing resource base is subject to a natural 
decline through depletion.
  Fuel cells, electric vehicles, hybrids, biomass, solar technology, 
and wind energy, all represented on this chart as nonhydropower 
renewables, are all very promising alternative energy sources for the 
future. But right now there is no suitable infrastructure in place that 
will allow for these energies--even when combined, as you will see in 
later charts--to sufficiently supply current needs, much less future 
demands.
  Let's look at U.S. energy consumption. The green line is the 
consumption of energy in this country. The red line represents the 
current production. And of the projections, the purple line represents 
renewables, including hydro- and nonhydropower. In other words, the 
difference between the green and the red line is what we are having to 
bring in from out of the U.S. sources in order to meet the needs of the 
United States of America.
  Americans do consume more energy than we produce and will continue to 
consume more energy, especially fossil fuels, for decades to come. 
Although several sources exist today, the chart reflects, as I said 
before, that the contribution of renewables and others is very little, 
if you look down the road.
  This means that our President is right. We need more refineries. We 
need more electric powerplants, more coal, more natural gas pipelines 
and production. It is plain to see that we will not be able to conserve 
our way out of this crisis. While conservation helps--and it has 
rightly made a difference--it is not going to meet our estimated 
consumption without drastically changing America's standard of living.
  The United States of America is the world's largest energy producer, 
consumer, and net importer. However, it is no secret that the United 
States is becoming more and more dependent on foreign oil imports.
  This chart reflects what we have to look forward to by way of 
dependence, out through the year 2020. If we look at our petroleum 
consumption and look at it here on this chart, and this green line is 
our petroleum production, what we are faced with is, between 2000 and 
2020 we will be relying on oil from foreign countries. It is an 
enormous amount of oil. We will be depending on them for an enormous 
amount of oil.
  Total imports in the month of April, for example, this year, as a 
percentage of total domestic petroleum deliveries was 62.4 percent. At 
this time last year, it was about 59 percent. The total petroleum 
products delivered to the domestic market in April equaled over 19 
million barrels per day, while in the same month last year it delivered 
about 18.5 million barrels per day.
  The scarce petroleum resource is not a problem experienced only by 
the United States; this energy crisis is experienced across the globe, 
so much so that as foreign countries realize the increase in their own 
energy needs, they will be far less willing to accommodate the growing 
export demands our country is going to place upon them. For example, 
China used to export oil. Today they are a big importer of oil. The 
demand for oil is growing worldwide.
  But even with increased reliance on foreign oil as a country, we are 
not going to go far if we do not work earnestly to expand the natural 
gas and oil pipeline system we have in our country. Our Nation's 
200,000-mile oil pipeline system is the world's largest. These almost 
invisible ribbons of steel deliver more than 13.3 billion barrels of 
crude oil and petroleum products in a typical year. Without them, it 
would take thousands of trucks and barges clogging the Nation's roads 
and waterways to do the same. The capacity of the system, however, is 
being seriously eroded and the future of oil and natural gas 
transmission does not appear to be promising.
  If we refuse to act, the alternative will be a continued capacity 
squeeze and higher transmission costs passed on to the consumer. And in 
some areas they are very expensive.
  This chart shows what we can expect under three different energy 
production scenarios through the year 2020. The top line assumes energy 
use with respect to economic growth. This means that if we as a nation 
continued along the same lines as we are currently traveling, to the 
year 2020, with energy demands rising in proportion to economic growth, 
and there were no further technological advances made, then consumption 
would increase dramatically.
  The bottom line represents energy production growth without 
significant changes.
  The second line is what the Department of Energy predicts will happen 
if consumers are offered a menu of available technologies to choose 
from, an example of which would be a family replacing a vehicle after 
several years of use, with a more fuel-efficient one.
  What happens is, if you use this chart, if we use energy production 
with available technology and conservation, we will bring down the 
need. Then if we fold in energy production using available technology, 
we will bring it down some more. So this shows that by using technology 
and conservation, we can bring down this demand for energy in this 
country.

[[Page 20285]]

  But the fact is, we still have a long way to go, if you look at the 
difference between this green line and this gray line. This is the 
amount of energy we are going to have to make up for during the years 
to come.
  The third path, as I already mentioned, reflects the impact of 
conservation at its height.
  The point I am trying to make is that we have an enormous gap between 
what we are going to need, in terms of energy in the United States of 
America, and our production. That gap will have to be made up by 
foreign imports if we do not act quickly to accommodate this increased 
demand with our own resources. There is no guarantee that these foreign 
imports will be available.
  I believe we are more vulnerable today then ever before. Early this 
year, I visited with President Mubarak, for an hour, with Senator 
Specter. Then we traveled to Israel and met with at that time Prime 
Minister Barak, Shimon Peres, and now-Prime Minister Sharon, and 
several Arab leaders. I came back from that trip very concerned in 
regard to the growing Muslim extreme fundamentalism in that part of the 
world. The thought I had was that if this continued to grow and they 
impacted on our allies in that part of the world, we could be brought 
to our knees in terms of our ability to get oil from that part of the 
world.
  I think most people would agree the situation today is far more scary 
than it was then. As you know, our major source of oil there is the 
Saudis--good friends. I am pleased the President and Secretary of State 
have worked with some of our friends there and they are stepping up to 
the plate and being responsive to our needs. But there is no guarantee. 
Osama bin Laden, who has targeted the leadership in Saudi Arabia, could 
change that situation.
  Then the issue is, Where do we find ourselves? If we think about what 
happened in California this last year, and the urgency, the crisis, and 
the impact that it had on the rest of the country, it affected 
businesses in the State of Ohio. But when that happened, we started 
burning dirty diesel. Environmental restrictions came off, and we just 
went to town to take care of the problem we had in California.
  Can you just imagine what would happen in this country if our oil 
supply was cut off? It would be Katy bar the door. We would get oil 
from wherever we could, and environmental concerns would go straight 
out the window because we would need to keep our country going.
  What I am saying is that it is time we adopt an energy policy in this 
country. It is something that cannot be delayed. This is not a 
Republican or a Democratic issue. We have a real problem that needs to 
be solved. Our national security is in jeopardy, and we need to go 
forward and deal with this problem before we leave the Senate this 
year.
  As far as I am concerned, it is just as important as the proposed 
legislation we have to stimulate the economy. If we don't have an 
energy policy as part of that economic stimulus and if we cannot 
guarantee that the future looks bright in terms of our energy costs, we 
are in deep trouble.
  Part of the recession in the State of Ohio occurred this last winter 
when the price of heating oil went up because of the demand for natural 
gas. It struck a blow to many of the businesses in our State, let alone 
those people who I talked about before who live in our inner cities and 
who do not have the kind of furnaces we have, the windows, and all of 
the other items that are available to those who are a little bit more 
fortunate.
  I am urging my colleagues in the Senate to arrange to work out some 
agreement where we can bring this energy issue to the floor and debate 
it. I am sure there are going to be controversial issues, but we have 
dealt with controversial issues before. Let's get it on the floor. 
Let's amend it. Let's debate it and get it over with so we can secure 
our economic future, secure our competitive position in the global 
marketplace, and, last but not least, secure our national security.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Corzine). The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, first I rise to compliment my colleague, 
the Senator from Ohio, on his presentation. I think it was a very 
useful one. I personally enjoyed it and learned from it. I thank my 
colleague for the effort that went into that presentation on our energy 
needs in this country. I thought he did an excellent job of 
presentation.

                          ____________________