‘Energy Bill Light’ Isn’t on Horizon
Special to Roll Call
Congress four months ago passed the first comprehensive energy bill in 12 years, and we are already seeing results. Let me cite a few: 2,500 megawatts of new wind power are being installed this year; utilities and consortiums have announced plans to build 13 new nuclear power plants; 24 new ethanol plants are being built, and seven existing plants are being expanded; and a pilot program in the bill will bring to market seven trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the next 15 years. These and a dozen other recent accomplishments are directly attributable to the energy bill.
Our energy bill only slightly impacted supply or prices this winter, but in the next several years, we will produce more and conserve more thanks to the energy bill. The dual effort of conservation and production will stabilize energy prices.
We all agree there is more to be done. I have heard talk of a second comprehensive energy bill. Some have dubbed this mythical legislation “Energy bill light.” I consider that just talk. I don’t see a second comprehensive energy bill on the Senate’s horizon.
Comprehensive energy bills are tough. It took us five years to get this one done, for several reasons. First, energy issues are regionally divisive. A policy that drives affordable energy in the Northeast could be devastating to consumers and businesses in the Southeast. Second, energy is critical to the economy, but not just one economy. It’s a foundation for local economies, regional economies and thousands of competing corporate economies. Finally, factor in environmental concerns dear to all of us, and energy becomes a touchstone issue for powerful special interest groups across the political spectrum and a key issue to every Senator’s constituency.
The energy bill signed into law three months ago was the most far-reaching comprehensive bill politically possible both now and in the near future. I would like to see Congress build on this success by tackling four divergent issues in separate legislative endeavors. I would like to see us address climate change, nuclear waste, resources in the outer continental shelf and corporate average fuel economy standards.
Let me say at the start that these four issues have only two things in common: The right bills will supplement the accomplishments of our energy bill to help ensure America’s energy future, and any bill is almost impossible in this political environment. I don’t think the votes are there. But like the energy bill, if we start now, we will find a path in the near future. As with the energy bill, I think national and global energy economics will ultimately forge a consensus that isn’t there now.
Climate Change: I plan to continue my work with my Senate colleague Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) to bring regulatory certainty to the issue of greenhouse gases. I am convinced by the science that climate change is real and at least partially caused by humans. I don’t think we have the answer yet, but I share with Jeff a commitment to legislation that brings regulatory certitude to energy production while protecting our economy. I will continue working with Bingaman toward that goal.
Outer Continental Shelf: There are 406 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in our federal waters — enough to heat more than 400 million homes for 15 years. However, 85 percent of it is under moratorium. I think some of that gas can be developed without impacting the environment or viewscapes. I plan to try to do that. Rising natural gas prices have cost us thousands of jobs in the chemical and manufacturing sectors of the economy and strained consumer budgets. The energy bill diversified our supply, but we will still need far more natural gas in the next two decades than we can produce. American jobs, our economy and our consumers’ pocketbooks mandate a second look at those moratoriums.
Spent Nuclear Fuel: Our work to foster new, clean nuclear power has added urgency to an old question: What should the U.S. fuel cycle be to support long-term, sustainable nuclear power? Next year, I intend to examine existing spent fuel management policies, identify where these policies have failed and explore a legislative fix. Yucca Mountain remains a necessary part of the solution but is no longer the sole solution. I believe, as do many others, that we inevitably will move forward on a recycling policy.
CAFE Standards: I am more interested in higher CAFE standards than many of my colleagues. I recognize that for some, it is a political third rail. However, I strongly believe that if we produce more — and I’m certainly advocating that with OCS language — we must conserve more. The energy bill did little to address gasoline consumption because there wasn’t a lot that was politically possible. I believe we will pass Arctic National Wildlife Refuge legislation this year, which is the most meaningful thing we can do for domestic oil production. I would like to follow that endeavor with an equal conservation effort. I would like to craft CAFE language that makes a difference in consumption, is acceptable to both houses and won’t hurt the economy. I recognize that solution is elusive, but next year I will redouble my efforts.
Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) is chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
Baucus: We Must Reform Health Care Now
March 8, 12 a.m.
Ten years ago, Dan DeJong, a fourth-generation rancher from just outside Libby, Mont., was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Dan worked hard all his life, but when faced with massive bills to treat his cancer, Dan and his wife, Pat, had no choice but to sell the family’s land and apply for Medicaid and food stamps. Read Full Article
Roll Call Video Channels
