THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display    

First, the bill sorts out the roles and responsibilities between the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the States. We give FERC clearer direction as to what its role is in ensuring the adequacy and reliability of a transmission system. FERC is given, in fact, responsibility for making mandatory adherence to rules to promote the reliability of this interstate transmission system in this legislation. The bill also gives FERC tools to make sure competitive markets work well to provide customers with affordable electricity by strengthening its authority

[Page: S1436]  GPO's PDF

   One of the lessons we all learned as we watched the collapse of Enron was that we need more transparency. We need more openness in these markets so we can see on a real-time basis what is being bought and what is being sold and at what price.

   Finally, the bill begins to address the tough issue of siting new electric transmission lines. This is obviously a contentious and controversial issue. I believe the Federal Government can play a role, through FERC, in assisting in decisionmaking at the regional level, and we try to put in place a framework for the Federal Government to assist States in more effective regional coordination on all of these energy issues, including transmission siting.

   On energy efficiency, this modernized electricity system is a major way to move ahead and position the country for the future. A second is to increase the efficiency of the various uses of energy across the board in vehicles, in industry, in appliances, in buildings. I will talk a minute for each of those.

   The bill contains provisions that directly bear on fuel efficiency of vehicles. We will have a great deal of debate on that. One mandates higher fuel efficiency in the vehicles that are purchased by Federal agencies for civilian use. We also provide a framework for the Department of Energy to assist States in expanding voluntary incentive programs. The major initiative in this area is an increase in the corporate average fuel efficiency, or economy , standards . The House-passed bill had a very weak provision on this subject. We attempt to do better.

   The chart we have shows the problem we have with oil being imported into this country. The top line is total oil demand. Something in the range of 52 to 54 percent of our oil today is imported. Our total demand for oil is represented by that top line, and it is continuing to rise as we go from the year 2000 to the year 2020.

   All projections are it will rise. The reason it is rising, looking at the next line down: The transportation demand line is also rising.

   Unless we can do something to flatten out that transportation demand line by using gasoline more efficiently, we will not do anything very significant to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

   We try to do that in this bill. As I indicated, there will be a great deal of debate about whether or not we are doing what we should do there. I believe strongly that we should strengthen or increase corporate average fuel economy standards . We are trying to do that.

   This chart also reflects our projection as to what would be achieved by opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. The small red line on the bottom of the chart shows that there would be increased production. The green line on the bottom is domestic oil production. It would go up if there were an opening of ANWR to drilling and development, but in our view it does not constitute a substantial solution to the problems we face.

   These issues, both the CAFE standards and the ANWR issue, are issues about which we will have a great deal of debate.

   We also have provisions in the bill to improve the energy efficiency of Federal buildings and schools and public housing. We have provisions to reduce energy use in manufacturing and other industries, provisions to increase efficiency for numerous consumer and commercial products, and we reauthorize the important Federal grant programs that help low-income families pay their energy bills and reduce their energy costs. That is something which I think all Senators will support.

   We could go into great detail about each of these, but in the interest of time I will not do so at this point. Let me just point out that there will be an opportunity to debate these issues as we get into the amendments. The Senate bill addresses each of these areas. We have tried to work hard with Senators who have an interest in them to come up with consensus proposals.

   Let me also talk about energy efficiency research and development. The research and development emphasis that is in this bill applies to increased supply because much of our ability to increase supply depends upon increased research and development activity, but also the increased research and development applies to improved efficiency in our use of energy. We have a major push for that in the bill. We propose a funding increase--from $810 million in fiscal year 2003 to over $1 billion in 2006--that will support efficiency progress across the spectrum. I believe this is one of those areas where we have a tremendous amount that can be accomplished. I believe very strongly the provisions in this bill will move us in that direction.

   One particularly exciting R&D activity being funded as part of this bill is a program called the Next Generation Lighting Initiative. In contrast to a grant program with the same name in the House bill, the Senate bill establishes a Government-industry partnership to develop the technology for semiconductor-based lighting that would be ultraefficient. The model for this partnership is the SEMATECH consortium, established several years ago, which boosted our national competitiveness in semiconductor manufacturing in the 1980s and 1990s.

   Current lighting technology wastes an enormous amount of energy going into the bulb in the form of heat. That is one reason it feels so hot under kleig lights. Light-emitting diodes, which have been developed in recent years, create light with very little energy loss. The only problem is that we do

   not know how to commercially manufacture, at low cost, reliable light-emitting diodes producing white light. There are a lot of good ideas for how to do that. This Next Generation Lighting Initiative will try to develop long-lasting, cost-competitive white lights from diodes by the year 2011, and develop those in a way they can be manufactured at a low cost. We are continuing to use the light bulb that Thomas Edison developed. After 100 years, I think it is time we move to a new generation of technology. This provision in our bill tries to help us do that.

   All the major elements of the U.S. lighting industry are supporting this effort in the Senate energy bill. The rationale for their interest and for a Government-industry partnership is clear: Lighting represents 20 percent to 30 percent of all U.S. electricity use. The best current systems are about 25 percent efficient. That is, for every kilowatt of power going in, you get about 25 percent of it back in light. We need to change that. The technology is here to do that. We need to find a way to manufacture it in a low-cost way.

   These energy efficiency assistance programs are the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, the LIHEAP program, with which we are all familiar here in the Senate, and also the Weatherization Assistance Program. We propose to authorize those at a higher level and to make those more useful programs for all parts of the country. As I said before, those are provisions which should get the support of all Senators. I certainly hope that is the case.

   The third and final goal of the bill is reducing the adverse effects of energy on the environment. Energy production and use are associated with a host of consequences for the environment. We need to strike the right balance among energy and the environment and the economy in order to deal with the longstanding concern we have in the Senate and in our society in this regard. This bill addresses these issues in a number of ways.

   There are provisions in the bill dealing with the legacy of past problems posed by energy production and use for the environment. These include programs to clean up orphaned and abandoned oil and gas wells and programs to develop research to remediate groundwater supplies damaged by past energy activities. Another way in which the bill addresses the connection is by developing and adopting new energy technologies with better environmental performance.

   Probably the most important future problem on which we need to focus as part of this bill is the problem of increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the impact they are believed to be having on the climate. We have various provisions in this bill that ensure we integrate climate change strategy with our energy policy. We will have a chance later in the debate to go into those in great detail. Some of those provisions

[Page: S1437]  GPO's PDF

   We need a strategic plan for climate change that can get buy-in from both the Congress and the administration. Just before our Presidents Day recess, President Bush announced a new climate change policy framework based on reducing the greenhouse gas emission intensity of the U.S. economy . Emission intensity is defined as the output of greenhouse gases divided by the gross domestic product. The President announced that his plan would decrease emission intensity by 18 percent

   by the year 2012. That sounds impressive until you look at this chart we have here entitled ``Greenhouse Gas Emission Intensity; recent trends as compared to the Bush proposal.''

   The black line which leads up to about halfway through the chart, up to 2002, shows how greenhouse gas emission intensity has been declining in the 1990s. Greenhouse gas intensity has been declining because the part of the economy that is growing fastest is the service sector, which does not produce greenhouse gases in any significant amount.

   The red line, which is on this chart--you can see it very clearly there--shows what the President claims his proposal would do.

   The green line, which is harder to see because it is covered up by the red line, shows what would happen if current trends were simply to continue. The point is, it is hard to see the green line on the chart because it is almost completely covered up by the red line. Simply put, the President's proposal would not change the trend in greenhouse gas intensity over what would likely happen at any rate based on current trends. It is perhaps a good thing. The President has indicated an interest in climate change policy--a policy that does not improve over what would likely happen anyway, and is certainly not an adequate strategic plan in my view. We will have an opportunity to debate that issue as part of this bill as well.

   I will not go into detail about the various provisions in the Byrd-Stevens proposal except to say that I believe they set up a good framework for addressing this issue in future years.

   Strengthening our Nation's energy infrastructure security is another key issue as a result of the terrorist attacks we have suffered.

   This is something that I am sure is of great concern to all Senators. We have various provisions in the bill that attempt to do that. One set of relevant provisions has already been described--giving FERC authority to promulgate rules to ensure the reliability of States' electric grids.

   Another set of provisions in the bill focuses on the Nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This is a major insurance policy against cutoffs of oil from the Middle East.

   We have a provision to provide for permanent authorization of that and fulfilling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

   Let me say a few final words about R&D, technology transfer, and education as crosscutting themes in this bill.

   I have described the many provisions of this bill in terms of the three overarching themes of increasing energy supply, increasing the efficiency and productivity of energy use, and coordinating energy policy with other societal goals. Throughout these discussions, I have described R&D programs that play a major role in achieving these goals. An aggressive and forward-looking R&D program on energy is the pervasive cross-cutting theme of this bill. I believe there is a broad consensus in the Senate that new science and new technology are at the core of any solution to our national energy challenges. Yet, despite the importance of energy R&D, our recent commitment to it leaves a lot to be desired. Federal energy technology R&D today is equivalent, in constant dollars, to what it was in 1966. Yet, our economy is 3 times larger today than it was in 1966. When you look at trends in Federal expenditures for R&D over the last 10 years, some startling facts stand out.

   First, while Federal R&D expenditures for health science at the NIH--the blue line--and basic science at the National Science Foundation--the black line--have grown during the 1990s, R&D support for energy--the red line--has stagnated or even fallen, in real timers. Today, in real terms, we are still below where we were in 1990 in terms of support for energy science and technology. For fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003, the Bush administration has proposed nothing to reverse these trends. Both budget requests proposed cuts in R&D for energy.

   It is hard to see how you build a 21st century energy system on stagnant, 1960's-level-of-effort R&D budgets. This bill builds these budgets in a rational way to levels that, by 2006, will give us a robust energy R&D effort to support the goals of this bill.

   As we proceed with this debate, there will be areas in which we reach bipartisan agreement and areas in which we will differ substantially. In the latter areas, we will have to make a choice between alternatives.

   With respect to the areas of bipartisan agreement, I am pleased with the support that we have received from the administration for our position that electricity is an integral part of any energy bill. They have worked hard on assisting with electricity as a part of this energy bill. We may differ on a number of the details, but the President and the Department of Energy have made clear their interest in working on a bipartisan basis to get electricity provisions that increase renewable sources of electricity, protect consumers, and promote a reliable and effective transmission grid.

   The Administration has also supported our initiative to promote the construction of the Arctic Natural Gas Pipeline.

   There are also some important differences between where we are starting in this bill and the administration's positions. Perhaps the most reported-upon difference is on drilling in the Arctic Refuge. We will probably not get to that debate immediately, but when we do, the differences will be apparent.

   We support a stronger standard for central air conditioning units, recognizing that their energy use on hot summer days are a key contributor to the threat of brownouts and blackouts. In my view, the administration's position to roll back the standards it found when it took office was a mistake, based on incorrect and outdated data on costs. In hearings in the Energy Committee, this point was explored in detail.

   We are advocating a much stronger position on CAFE standards in this bill than the administration is willing to step up to. We believe that there is no conflict between safety, employment, and higher fuel efficiency in cars. They myths that higher standards will lead to less safe cars, or that we will lose domestic employment if we make our cars and trucks more fuel efficient are just that--myths. The National Academy of Sciences pretty much exploded them in the report that Congress commissioned it to write on the subject.

   Finally, now that we have seen the President's proposal on climate change, we must recognize some real differences between our approach and the President's plan, which is simply business as usual.

   I hope there are some concrete steps we can take to actually reduce the amount of carbon we are putting into the atmosphere. It is not enough to just reduce it relative to our GNP. We need to reduce it in absolute terms at some stage in the foreseeable future.

   I hope we can have a very good debate. I hope we can come together--both Democrat and Republican Members of the Senate, as well as the administration--and have a thoughtful analysis of our current energy challenges and demonstrate a willingness to take some bold policy steps to address those challenges. The country needs no less. Our national security, our future economic prosperity, and the jobs of millions of Americans are at stake as we try to shape an energy policy for these next several decades.

   I look forward to the debate. I know my colleague from Alaska, the ranking member on the committee, is here to give his opening statement.

   I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.

   Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, under the order, we are likely to go out at 12:30 for the luncheon recess.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

   Mr. MURKOWSKI. Senator Bingaman has used how much time?

[Page: S1438]  GPO's PDF

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Approximately 55 minutes.

   Mr. MURKOWSKI. So I would have perhaps 30 minutes left. I propose that I be allowed to proceed when we come back. I have probably a little less than 55 minutes. I am somewhat reluctant to start and be interrupted. I would propose to the leader that we might use the remaining time for Senators who want to speak in morning business, and I be allowed to introduce my opening statement at 2 o'clock when we come back. We will probably have statements and take amendments as they come up.

   Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could respond to my friend from Alaska, what the Senator from Alaska proposes is that we go into a period of morning business until 12:30, and at 2:15, when we return, the Senator from Alaska be recognized for up to 1 hour; at 3:15, the Senator from South Dakota, the majority leader, or his designee would offer a modification. The Senator has suggested that he proceed at 2:15.

   For the convenience of everyone, I propose that the majority leader, or his designee, at 2:15 lay down the modification, which would take a matter of a few minutes at the most, and then the Senator from Alaska would have 1 hour to present his opening statement.

<<<

>>>

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display