|
Energy
ANWR * LNG
* CAFE Standards * Renewable
Energy and Energy Efficiency
On July 28, 2005, I voted against the conference report to
H.R.
6, which passed the House by a vote of 275 to
156. Instead of creating a balanced energy policy that provides
incentives to make renewable energy more affordable and widely
available, this legislation makes fiscally irresponsible and
environmentally-reckless decisions for the benefit of a few
profitable industries that don't need this kind of help from
taxpayers.
Protecting our environment and promoting energy independence
are two of the most important jobs I have as a Member of Congress.
Unfortunately, the Energy Policy Act represents a real missed
opportunity to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, promote
energy efficiency and conservation, and improve our air, land
and water quality.
I opposed the Energy Policy Act for several reasons. Among
them, it provides millions of dollars in tax incentives for
the fossil fuel industry, rather than providing incentives
for conservation and renewable sources of energy. It fails
to increase Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards,
which would improve auto fuel efficiency. H.R. 6 also allows
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to preempt
state siting authority in liquefied natural gas (LNG) siting.
It is also interesting to note, out of the $8 billion H.R.
6 would provide in tax breaks, only about six percent of the
benefits would go toward alternative sources of energy and
energy efficiency. By contrast, President Bush proposed a
budget measure that would grant $6.7 billion in tax breaks,
72 percent of which would have gone toward energy efficiency
and alternative sources of energy. It is amazing to think
that the House bill could make the Administration look environmentally-friendly.
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)
While the final version of H.R.
6 did not open the ANWR to drilling, risking irreparable
damage to one of North America's most beautiful frontiers,
I know supporters of this provision are preparing to advance
this effort in other legislation this fall. We will continue
to fight against allowing this drilling to occur.
On April 21, 2005, during consideration of H.R. 6, I spoke
in favor of and voted for an amendment offered by Representatives
Ed Markey and Nancy Johnson that would keep the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) closed to oil and gas drilling, to
keep ANWR closed to oil and gas drilling. In my remarks, I
stated:
Drilling in the Arctic will not fix our energy problems -
with so little oil available up there it couldn't possibly,
as it will take a decade to get the oil down here. That time
would be far better spent developing clean, renewable energy
sources that will provide infinite energy without imperiling
our last remaining wilderness areas.
Unfortunately, the Markey-Johnson Amendment was defeated
by a vote of 200 to 231.
You may also be interested to know, on April 28, 2005, I voted
against H.Con.Res. 95, the Fiscal Year 2006 Budget Resolution,
which passed by a vote of 214 to 211. Among the reasons I
opposed the Budget was that H.Con.Res. 95 effectively allows
for drilling in ANWR by preventing a filibuster in the Senate.
The Senate passed the Budget Resolution by a vote of 52 to
47.
Liquefied Natural
Gas (LNG) Facilities
While I believe liquefied natural gas is a viable alternative
energy source, I do not support the placement of an LNG facility
in the middle of Long Island Sound. Protecting our environment
and promoting energy independence are two of the most important
jobs I have as a Member of Congress.
Long Island Sound is our Yellowstone. It would be unthinkable
to site an industrial facility in the middle of it.
There is very little information on the impacts of floating
regasification facilities, since there are so few currently
in existence. However, there are four primary concerns. First,
trenching to connect the barge to existing gas pipelines would
cause significant damage to the seabed. Second, the intake
and discharge of the giant facility would degrade the water
quality. Third, potential explosions from platform operations,
other technical malfunctions and tankers bringing shipments
of LNG into the facility will threaten human and ecological
safety. Finally, Broadwater, particularly where it is located,
would set a precedent that could lead to unwise industrialization
of Long Island Sound.
Shell U.S. Gas & Power and TransCanada Corporation have
proposed building Broadwater nine miles from Long Island and
11 miles from Connecticut. Broadwater, a "floating storage
and regasification unit" (FSRU), would store imported
LNG and ship it as a gas through underwater pipelines to New
York and Connecticut.
Broadwater Energy says the FSRU would be a stationary "ship-like"
structure about 1,200 feet long and 180 feet wide, about the
size of the Queen Mary II. Moored in about 90 feet of water,
it would rise between 75 and 100 feet above the surface. Broadwater
would be built in the broadest part of the Sound, about 10.5
miles from East Haven, 11.6 miles from Guilford and 18 miles
from Madison.
LNG is natural gas cooled to -260 degrees F. In this form
it takes up 600 times less space than it would as a gas. Broadwater
would store the LNG, and warm it as needed back to its gaseous
form. It would then pump it through a 25-mile underwater pipeline
connected to the Iroquois gas pipeline that runs from Milford,
Connecticut to Northport, New York.
Broadwater applied in November 2004 to take part in the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) "pre-filing process."
This process should conclude in October 2005 with the filing
of a formal application with FERC, which has primary regulatory
authority over natural gas projects.
I believe we should focus more on alternative energy sources
and natural gas as one source that occurs in abundance within
the United States. Investing in liquid petroleum and natural
gas will give consumers more choice of fuel. However, it is
imperative we do not compromise safety and the environment
while doing so.
Natural gas vehicles (NGVs) have been in use since the 1930s.
Currently, there are far more NGVs in use throughout the rest
of the world than in the United States. The largest numbers
are found in Argentina, Italy, and Russia, where a total of
about 900,000 NGVs are operated. U.S. automakers began producing
natural gas versions of some vehicles in the late 1980s and
the United States' first public natural gas refueling station
opened in Denver in 1990.
NGV use is increasing annually in the United States, but
LNG vehicles still comprise less than two percent of the natural
gas vehicles in operation today. We need to increase the supply
of clean, renewable energy, but we also need to be more energy
efficient and slow the growth of demand.
You may be interested to know, during debate on the House
version of H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act, I cosponsored an
amendment striking a provision that allows LNG terminals to
be built without state approval. States and localities should
be able to maintain the ability to block or approve decisions
that could pose serious environmental and health hazards to
its coastal areas and its citizens. During debate of the amendment,
I stated:
There are risks associated with the siting and expansion
of LNG terminals
in populated areas and it is essential states be able to protect
sensitive
coastal areas. If an LNG facility were to be built in Long
Island Sound,
for example, it could have extremely detrimental effects on
the Connecticut
and New York coastal habitats, undermining all environmental
efforts
made by the Long Island Sound Stewardship Initiative.
Unfortunately, this amendment failed by a vote of 194 to
237. On July 28, 2005, I voted against the conference report
to H.R. 6, which passed the House by a vote of 275 to 156,
in part because it included this provision.
CAFE Standards
Rather than open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for
drilling as a means of decreasing our dependence on foreign
oil, I believe our resources would be better spent increasing
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for automobiles
and light trucks. Even a modest increase in CAFE standards
would save more oil than would be produced by drilling in
ANWR, but the Energy bill did not address this issue at all.
I cosponsored and voted for an amendment to H.R. 6 sponsored
by Representatives Sherwood Boehlert and Ed Markey, which
would have raised corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards
for automobiles and light trucks from today's average of 25
miles per gallon to 33 miles per gallon by 2015. I supported
this amendment because I believe we must improve auto fuel
efficiency and decrease our consumption of oil. This is a
commonsense amendment, which would represent a modest step
forward in our nation's efforts to become more energy efficient.
In addition, this amendment would help protect the environment
and save drivers money at the pump. Unfortunately, the amendment
was defeated by a vote of 177 to 254.
Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency
I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 983, legislation to create
a renewable portfolio standard. This legislation requires
electric utilities to increase their use of wind, solar and
other renewable energy sources to 20 percent by 2025. It is
time to provide the incentives needed to finally bring renewable
energy into the mainstream and create a balanced energy policy.
Although I believe more could be done, I was pleased the
conference report to H.R. 6 included a provision establishing
a renewable portfolio standard. The provision, which requires
utilities to generate 10 percent of their power from renewable
sources by 2020, represents a sound compromise.
Currently, renewable energy sources account for only two
percent of our nation's electricity supply. We need to increase
the supply of clean, renewable energy, but we also need to
be more energy efficient and slow the growth of demand.
|
