[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 14840-14841]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, today I come to the floor to discuss 
some of the changes that need to be made to our national energy policy. 
The simple truth is, our country is headed down the wrong energy path. 
Our current path has led to record-high electricity and gas prices. 
These prices are not only hurting ordinary families, they are also 
hurting businesses who are seeing their costs go up dramatically. The 
growth of energy-intensive industries such as manufacturing is actually 
being stunted due to skyrocketing electricity costs. We already know 
the negative global impacts our current energy path is having on our 
environment. It is clear we can't continue down this energy path 
anymore. It is not good policy. It is not good economic policy, and it 
is not good environmental policy.
  Mr. President, I will be introducing a bill that will lead the Nation 
down a path to a better, cleaner, more independent energy economy, a 
path that takes us away from higher electric bills and leads to new 
opportunities for investment and innovation, more jobs, and more 
economic development. As the chart beside me illustrates, 52 percent of 
our electricity is currently generated from coal; 15 percent is from 
natural gas; 3 percent from petroleum; 20 percent from nuclear; 7 
percent from hydro; and 3 percent from renewable energy. Clearly, this 
is not a diversified energy portfolio. Clearly, something needs to be 
done about rising energy costs.
  It is estimated that Americans will spend over $200 billion more on 
energy this year than last year. That is an increase of nearly 25 
percent. The bill will allow us to meet our future electricity needs. 
It will allow us to diversify our electricity supply. It will allow us 
to reduce the vulnerability of our energy system, and it will allow us 
to stabilize electricity prices, protect the environment, and most of 
all, stimulate the economies of rural America.
  It is time to act. It is time to pass an aggressive renewable 
electricity standard, one requiring that all electricity providers 
would have to generate or purchase 25 percent of their electricity from 
renewable sources by the year 2025. Twenty-two States throughout the 
country have already demonstrated the value of establishing renewable 
electricity standards.
  This chart shows what is going on around the country. I am looking at 
Rhode Island, to try one State, a 16-percent standard by 2019. You see 
California, 20 percent by 2010. You see Washington, 15 percent by 2020. 
All over the country, we see a change afoot. The checkered States are 
ones that have voluntary goals, such as Illinois. The striped States 
have standard goals, and the green States actually have standards put 
into law.
  While the States are already heading down the path toward the new 
``green economy,'' the Federal Government has not even made it to the 
trail head. The Federal Government is stuck in the fossil age.
  I am proud to say my State of Minnesota is further down the path than 
any other State. In February, the Democratic Minnesota State 
legislature passed and our Republican Governor signed into law what is 
considered the Nation's most aggressive standard for promoting 
renewable energy in electricity production. It is a ``25-by-25'' 
standard. By the year 2025, the State's energy companies are required 
to generate 25 percent of their electricity from renewable sources such 
as wind, water, solar, and biomass. The standard is even higher for the 
State's largest utility, Excel Energy, which must reach 30 percent by 
2020. The CEO has been in my office and said it is going to be tough 
but they are going to make it, and they are going to be able to meet 
this goal without raising rates.
  I admire what the States and communities and businesses are doing 
across the country. I admire them for their inspiration, and I admire 
them for their initiative. There is a famous phrase: the ``laboratories 
of democracy.'' That is how Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis 
described the special role of States in our Federal system.
  In this model, States are where new ideas emerge, where policymakers 
can experiment, where innovative proposals can be tested.
  Brandeis wrote over 70 years ago:

       It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that 
     a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve 
     as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic 
     experiments without risk to the rest of the country.

  But he did not mean for this to serve as an excuse for inaction by 
the Federal Government. Good ideas and successful innovations are 
supposed to emerge from the laboratory and serve as a model for 
national policy and action. That is now our responsibility in Congress.
  The courage we are seeing in the States, as they deal with global 
warming, climate change, should be matched by courage in Washington, 
DC. We should be prepared to act on a national level, especially when 
the States and local communities are showing us the way.
  Now there is an opportunity for the Federal Government to act. It is 
time for the Federal Government to begin moving toward an aggressive 
national standard--on par with Minnesota's 25-by-25 standard.
  There are many economic benefits of this aggressive standard. Yet, 
perhaps most importantly, an aggressive national standard opens the 
door to a new electricity industry that will bring thousands of jobs 
and pump billions of dollars into our economy.
  Over the last 20 years, America's renewable energy industries--and 
the wind industry in particular--have achieved significant 
technological advancements. The industries for solar, wind, and biomass 
energy systems are expanding at rates exceeding 30 percent annually.
  The clean water revolution is still in its infancy. I think of it 
like the beginnings of the computer revolution when the computer used 
to take up an entire room. Now they are much cheaper, and they are much 
more efficient. That is what is happening with our green technology. 
But it will not happen unless we get into the act and set the standards 
as they should be.
  Businesses are coming on board. CEOs of major corporations such as 
DuPont, Duke Energy, and General Electric see the opportunities. High-
tech entrepreneurs in our country want to develop the green 
technologies before they do it in India and Japan. It is already 
starting.
  Nationally, venture capital investments in ``green'' or ``clean'' 
technologies have increased dramatically. Last year, venture capital 
investment in green technologies reached an impressive $2.9 billion. 
From 2001 to 2006, there was a 243 percent increase in green technology 
venture capital investments.
  Not only is clean technology the fastest growing venture capital 
sector, it is now the third largest category--behind only biotech and 
computer software.
  The economic benefits are not just limited to high-risk investors. In 
September of 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists used the Energy 
Information Administration's National Energy Modeling System to examine 
the costs and benefits of an aggressive national standard. Their 
analysis found an aggressive national standard would reduce electric 
and natural gas prices and provide significant economic benefits for 
all of America.
  For example, as you can see from this chart, an aggressive national 
standard would create 355,000 new jobs--nearly twice as many as 
generating electricity from fossil fuels.
  We would see economic development, such as $72.6 billion in new 
capital investment; $16.2 billion in income to farmers, ranchers, and 
rural landowners; $5 billion in new local tax revenue. We would see 
consumer savings. We would see $49 billion in lower electricity and 
natural gas bills. We would have a healthier environment. We would see 
reductions in global warming, pollution equal to taking nearly 71 
million cars off the road. We would see

[[Page 14841]]

less air pollution, less damage to land, and better water use.
  So while traditional manufacturing jobs continue to move away from 
the United States, the country now has an opportunity to become a 
global hub of new, high-quality jobs in manufacturing and other high-
skill areas, while generating environmental benefits at the same time.
  So the future looks bright. Never before have we seen such strong 
interest and growth in renewable energy and energy-efficiency 
technologies. But the question we face is this: Does the United States 
want to be a leader in creating the new green technologies and the new 
green industries of the future? Or are we going to sit back and watch 
the opportunities pass us by?
  In this country, we have the fields to grow the energy that will keep 
this Nation moving. And we have the wind energy to propel our economy 
forward. Right here in the United States, we have the science, we have 
the universities, we have the technological know-how, and we have the 
financial capital to harness our own homegrown energy.
  It is time to act. The only thing holding us back is complacency. A 
national renewable energy standard will be a major contributor in 
driving innovation in green technologies.
  Now, I know there are critics of a national standard. These critics--
who I believe are stuck in the fossil age--believe an aggressive 
standard would negatively affect the reliability of an energy system. 
Yet, these critics seem to forget that numerous countries in Europe, 
including Spain, Germany, and Denmark--where wind power supplies over 
30 percent of their electricity--have seen no adverse impacts on the 
reliability of their systems.
  In fact, a renewable electricity standard can actually increase the 
overall reliability of an electric system. It can diversify our 
electricity sources so we are not so reliant on energy sources such as 
natural gas that are vulnerable to periodic shortages or other supply 
interruptions.
  Not only is a national standard more reliable and good for the 
economy, it will also, of course, protect the environment and public 
health. Electricity production has a significant impact on our 
environment. Today, electricity accounts for more than 26 percent of 
smog-producing emissions, one-third of toxic mercury emissions, and 
some 40 percent of climate-changing greenhouse gases.
  An aggressive standard will reduce CO2 emissions by 434 
million metric tons per year by 2020--reductions of 15 percent below 
current levels. This, as I said, is equivalent to taking nearly 71 
million cars off the road.
  A couple of weeks ago, Minnesota's own Tom Friedman had a cover story 
in the New York Times magazine about ``The Power of Green.'' It should 
be required reading for anyone who cares not only about the future of 
our environment but also our economic future and our future national 
security. He talked about the need in this area for setting the 
standards. When you set the standards, and people can see off into the 
future, we will see the investment. People say: Well, why do you have a 
standard set at 2025? Obviously, our bill is going to have a standard 
growing each year. But the reason you want to go out to 2025 is you 
want American businesses and capitalists and people involved in this to 
understand if they invest, where they are going.
  In his article, Tom Friedman asks: ``How do our kids compete in a 
flatter world? How do they thrive in a warmer world? How do they 
survive in a more dangerous world?''
  The answer is in making the most of the economic and technological 
opportunities to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and the 
greenhouse gas pollution that comes from it.
  Friedman says clean energy technology is going to be ``the next great 
global industry.'' Well, if that is the case--and I believe he is 
right--then we need to make America the leader. We cannot afford to sit 
back and watch the opportunities pass us by.
  As I mentioned before, we are seeing unprecedented interest and 
growth in renewable energy technologies. But at the same time, we are 
no longer the world leader in two important clean energy fields. We 
rank third in wind power production, behind Denmark and Spain. We are 
third in solar power installed, behind Germany and Japan.
  Ironically, these countries surpassed us largely by adopting 
technologies that had first been developed right here in the United 
States. We came up with the right ideas, but we did not capitalize on 
these innovations with adequate policies to spur deployment. Our 
foreign competition was able to leapfrog over American businesses 
because these other countries have government-driven investment 
incentives, aggressive renewable energy targets, and other bold 
national policies.
  Friedman proposes a ``Green New Deal''--``one in which government's 
role is not funding projects, as in the original New Deal, but seeding 
basic research, providing loan guarantees where needed, and setting 
standards, taxes and incentives that will spawn'' all kinds of new 
technologies.
  I agree. It is about leading the new economy. It is about making 
America the global environmental leader, instead of a laggard. It is 
about creating a better economy for the next generation by inventing a 
whole new industry, which will not only give us the clean power 
industrial assets to preserve our American dream but also give us the 
technologies that billions of others need to realize our own dreams 
without destroying the planet.
  It is about not being complacent. It is about getting on a new energy 
path. I believe an aggressive renewable electricity standard leads us 
down that path.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support an aggressive standard. I 
suggest Minnesota's standard: 25 percent by 2025 for renewable 
electricity. It is a start down the path.

                          ____________________