[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8147-8149]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                             ENERGY POLICY

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, tomorrow I believe Vice President Cheney 
will be releasing details of an energy plan he has worked on for some 
long while. All of us anxiously await release of that plan, so we can 
begin discussing what kind of an energy policy this country needs.
  I think it is the case that with respect to both Republican and 
Democratic administrations, for many years this country has not had a 
satisfactory energy plan. We have become more and more reliant on 
foreign sources of energy. We seem not to have a consistent plan that 
tracks over a long period of time relating to production and 
conservation and renewables.
  So I think it is quite clear we need a new plan. We need a new 
strategy, one that works for this country. We have Americans today who 
discover, when they drive up to the gasoline pumps, that the price of 
gas has increased dramatically. In some parts of the country, people 
are now paying over $2 a gallon for gasoline. In other parts of the 
country, the price of gasoline, they say, will probably move to $3 a 
gallon at some point. Lord only knows what the new projections will be.
  Those who are trying to heat their homes with natural gas, or family 
farmers who are going into the field with anhydrous ammonia fertilizer, 
80 percent of which is natural gas, are discovering the price of 
natural gas has spiked and skyrocketed. In many parts of the country, 
the price of natural gas is double what it used to be, and in some 
cases is much more than that.
  If you happen to live in California at the moment, you discover that 
the price of electricity has dramatically increased. We know that 2 
years ago, the price of power in California cost consumers $7 billion. 
Two years later, it is $70 billion in California, which is nearly a 
tenfold increase. Those price increases have spread to other parts of 
the west, as well.
  We know that in California the use of natural gas to produce power in 
electric generating plants, in a deregulated wholesale market, has 
created, in my judgment, a broken market, one in which unregulated 
sellers sell into a regulated market in California, and in 24 hours the 
price of an MCF of natural gas can double, triple, or quadruple--in 
just a 24-hour period. And all of it is non-transparent. No one can see 
what the pricing is, who made the money, how much money was made. That 
is what is happening in California today.
  I have been very critical of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
that is supposed to be regulating some of these activities, but instead 
has done its best imitation of a potted plant for a couple years. They 
have essentially done nothing because they apparently view markets as 
some sort of sacrosanct device which will be fair to all.
  In fact, the market in California is broken. The market for power in 
California does not work. This is a failed experiment in deregulation. 
Any lesson we should take from this for the rest of the country--and, I 
would say, for my home State of North Dakota, is: let us not follow 
this example of deregulation. They call it restructuring. That is just 
a fancy name of saying deregulation.
  In North Dakota, we have been deregulated with airlines, deregulated 
with railroads, and now they talk about the deregulation of 
electricity. Every time we have been deregulated, we have been hurt 
badly. The California experience of deregulation and restructuring 
ought to send shivers down the backs of the rest of the people in this 
country who have not yet had this experience.
  My point is, we have an energy situation that is in chaos in this 
country: it is at the gasoline pumps in the eastern part of the 
country, and all the rest of the country; it is in electricity prices 
in California; natural gas prices for farmers who are about to go into 
the

[[Page 8148]]

field; and for people trying to heat their homes.
  What do we do about all that? First, I happen to think we ought to 
investigate pricing policies. When you have concentration of power in 
the hands of a few--I would say, in the oil industry, with the kinds of 
mergers we have had in recent years--we have larger and larger 
enterprises that have the capability, that have the economic power and 
the muscle to impose high prices and to manipulate supply. I do not 
allege they do it in all cases. I do allege the possibility exists. And 
we would do the public and this country some good by shining light on 
pricing policies in many of these energy streams. I suggest we do that 
by creating a select committee--a joint House and Senate committee--to 
investigate energy prices.
  Let me be quick to say, there also are other reasons for the spike in 
some energy prices. When the price of oil went to $10 a barrel, 
frankly, there was very little incentive for the energy industry to 
look for oil and natural gas. I understand that. I accept that.
  Then the price of oil spiked to $35 a barrel, and we began to see 
more drilling rigs; more people are looking for oil. We will have more 
supply coming on line. I accept the fact that there is an imbalance in 
supply and demand. That is not permanent. That is temporary. I also 
accept the fact we would be better off as a country not having that 
kind of roller coaster ride on energy prices.
  We would be much better, in my judgment, having a more stable pricing 
structure that would provide incentives for people to search for coal, 
oil and natural gas, not just sometimes, but all of the time.
  So I accept that as part of the reason for some of the pricing 
disparities that exist in this country. But I do not accept that that 
represents the entire answer for what is happening in this country.
  I believe there is evidence of price manipulation and supply 
manipulation, and I think this Congress, which seems to be willing to 
investigate almost anything in the last 10 years or so, would do the 
American public a service by creating a select committee of the House 
and the Senate to investigate energy prices. If there is nothing there, 
we will not find anything. If we find something, we will do the 
American public a service by shining light on it, and finding it, and 
stopping it, with respect to price manipulation.
  Having said all that, let me say that we welcome the submission by 
Vice President Cheney tomorrow. It is time--high past the time--that 
this Congress begin deliberating on a new energy policy.
  What should that policy be? In my judgment, that policy needs to have 
incentives and the kinds of mechanisms that will encourage production. 
Yes, we need more production; no question about it. We need to find 
more coal, more oil, and more natural gas. So production is a part of 
it.
  In fact, there is a substantial amount of production opportunity 
around this country. There are 32 trillion cubic feet of natural gas up 
in Alaska that we know is there. It is leased. That could be brought 
down here, if we could only build a pipeline. So in terms of 
production, we need pipelines. And, we also need facilities to transmit 
electricity.
  There are a whole series of infrastructure issues, in addition to the 
production incentives, that ought to be in a good, sound energy plan. 
But let me say, with respect to the news report about energy policy 
that we are likely to get tomorrow, when they say production is the 
overwhelming urge in this new energy plan, production is an important 
part of it, but it is not the only part of it. A balanced energy plan 
that is good for this country will include production. There is no 
question about that. But a balanced energy plan will especially also 
include conservation.
  This country needs to be more conservation-minded. We can conserve 
much more energy than we do, if we have the kind of leadership that we 
ought to have, and if we have the incentives for conservation that we 
ought to put in place.
  In addition to conservation, we need efficiency. There is no reason 
that we ought not require more efficiency in appliances and a range of 
other activities in this country. We know from experience that 
requiring greater efficiency works, that the manufacturers can develop 
products to be more efficient and produce these products for our 
consumers in this country. Efficiency must be a part of a balanced 
energy plan.
  Then, finally, a balanced energy plan must--and I emphasize must--
include renewable sources of energy. I know the oil companies have 
never liked some of them. The oil industry has never liked the 
production of ethanol. What is ethanol? Taking a kernel of corn, 
extracting a drop of alcohol from that kernel of corn, and using that 
alcohol to extend our energy supply makes great sense to me. It is 
renewable. You can produce that corn over and over again. Once you take 
the drop of alcohol from the kernel of corn, you have protein feed 
stock left that you can use to feed animals. What a terrific bargain 
for this country: Extend your energy supply by using a renewable source 
of energy and have the protein from the feed stock left for animals.
  But the oil companies have never much liked ethanol, and I understand 
why. Because it is a competitor, albeit a small competitor, but it 
ought to be a much bigger competitor. We ought to develop renewable 
resources. Ethanol is one renewable source. Another is biomass; still 
another is wind power.
  It may surprise some to know that the Department of Energy says the 
wind power capital of the world is North Dakota. We do not have any 
wind devices in North Dakota to collect this power and distribute it. 
The new wind energy turbines are very efficient. They are wonderful 
devices that can take the wind and create from that wind, and from the 
spinning of the propeller into a turbine, electricity.
  North Dakota, they say, is the ``Saudi Arabia'' of wind. Some 
listening to me from time to time on the floor of the Senate might 
understand I contribute to that. But if North Dakota is the ``Saudi 
Arabia'' of wind--and the Department of Energy says it is--then we 
ought to, not just in North Dakota, but around the country, use this 
new wind energy, which itself is renewable.
  We have a substantial amount of new wind energy activity in Iowa, in 
Minnesota, and, of course, there has been a substantial amount in 
California. But the new turbines for wind energy are highly efficient. 
We owe it to this country to use these new renewable sources of energy 
to extend our country's energy supply.
  So the point I am trying to make tonight is this: If we get an energy 
policy from the administration tomorrow that says, ``Look, this is a 
simple solution, all we have to do is go find more oil and natural gas, 
and maybe crank up another nuclear plant or two,'' I say that is an 
answer that would have come 20 years ago or 40 years ago or 60 years 
ago. We need to do a lot of things, and a lot of things well, in order 
to resolve this country's energy problems.
  Let me just digress for a moment to say, one of the interesting 
things about this country, and about energy, is this: Almost everything 
in the world has changed in the last century--almost everything. You 
name an area, and you will find a significant change--except, we still 
use gasoline in automobile engines.
  I was a very young boy when I got my first car. My father actually 
found it in an elevator out on an abandoned farm. He knew who owned the 
abandoned farm, and he said: ``Why don't you write to him in Milwaukee 
and see if you can buy this car?'' I was a young boy.
  My dad said: ``It is a 1924 Model T Ford. You can buy it and restore 
it. What a great project for a young fellow;'' and I did.
  I wrote to the guy in Milwaukee. He wrote back and said: ``Gosh, I 
would love to let you have that car. It's sitting there in this little 
elevator on the farm that is abandoned. Send me $25.''
  I sent him $25, and he sent me the owners manual that he saved all 
those years and the key that he had saved all

[[Page 8149]]

those years, as well. I pulled the Model T Ford into my father's 
service station. I worked on it for a year and restored the little old 
Model T Ford. It was a 1924 antique automobile.
  Do you know something? You provided energy for that car--that 1924 
car--exactly the same way you provide energy for a car produced in 
2001. You stick a gas hose in the tank, and pump a little gas in. 
Nothing has changed. Nothing has changed in all of these intervening 
years. Isn't that interesting? Almost everything else has changed, but 
we still stick a gas pump in a gas tank of a car--80 years ago, or 
today, you pump the same gasoline. Quite remarkable.
  We can do better in this country. I am not suggesting we wean 
ourselves off gasoline in a short period of time, but there is a car 
sitting out in front of this Capitol from time to time, owned by our 
friend from Utah, Senator Bennett, that runs on both gasoline and 
electricity. It is one of the new hybrid cars. I think that is kind of 
interesting. I would like to see a whole fleet of them in this country. 
I would like to see that kind of technology. Perhaps this is just the 
first step toward the fuel cell, and taking the hydrogen out of water 
and using it as a fuel, as some say will happen with the new fuel 
cells.
  The point is this, we can do a lot of things. This country has the 
technological capability to do a lot of wonderful things. But here we 
are, sitting on the edge of this spin in this energy crisis, with the 
price of natural gas doubling, the price of gasoline $2 at the pump and 
going north, and the price of electricity in California going through 
the roof, and blackouts occurring at a time when California is only at 
about two-thirds of its ultimate power needs for the hot weather.
  We have a mess on our hands. In order to get out of this mess, all of 
us, Republicans and Democrats, need to figure out how we construct a 
strategy on energy that is balanced--that includes production, 
conservation, efficiency, and renewables. A good energy policy that has 
all of those elements, that represents the best of all of the ideas 
brought to the table in this Chamber, will serve this country well.
  Feuding and fussing with an energy strategy, then coming up with the 
same tired old strategy we have had in the past, just simply street-
corner chanting ``production, production, production''--thinking that 
somehow that will solve this country's problem, is, in my judgment, a 
road to nowhere.
  I am anxious to see, and interested in seeing, what the Vice 
President has produced. Most of us in this Chamber should be ready and 
willing to begin working immediately with the Vice President, the 
administration, and all others, to both construct and demand a balanced 
energy policy for this country.
  The American consumers have long deserved it and have never received 
it. Americans don't deserve to be held hostage by foreign energy 
supplies over which we have little control. They don't deserve to be 
held hostage with respect to electric costs we can't control and, 
therefore, have rolling blackouts in one of our largest States. They 
don't deserve to have been held hostage by gas pump prices over which 
they have no control and very little understanding.
  Tomorrow will be an interesting day. I hope it is the first step on a 
journey to begin constructing between Republicans and Democrats an 
energy policy that will really serve this country well.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  (The remarks of Ms. Collins and Mr. Warner pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 904 are located in today's Record under ``Statements 
on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

                          ____________________