Conference Report on H.R. 6, Energy Policy Act of 2005

CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 6, ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005 -- (Extensions of Remarks - July 29, 2005)

SPEECH OF
HON. TOM UDALL
OF NEW MEXICO
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
THURSDAY, JULY 28, 2005

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the energy bill conference report, but I do so with very strong reservations. Although I believe we missed many opportunities to make this energy bill truly comprehensive, I also believe that the conference report is an improvement over the House-passed energy bill.

It is a sad indictment of the way the Majority is running this Congress that it has taken us 5 years to pass an energy bill and the final product falls far short of what I believe the American public wants. I will vote for this conference report, but this bill lacks boldness and vision. There is more we can and must do to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, lower skyrocketing gas prices, protect our environment, and steer our country in a more forward-thinking direction on energy policy. I am pleased, however, that the bill makes strides in encouraging alternative energy research and production. Specifically, $3.2 billion is included for renewable energy production incentives and $1.3 billion is allotted for energy efficiency and conservation.

I was disappointed to see that a Renewable Portfolio Standard, RPS, was not included in the bill. The Senate-passed bill included an RPS that would have required utilities to generate 10 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal, by the year 2020. Studies conducted by the Energy Information Administration illustrate that a federal RPS could save consumers $19 billion. Moreover, 20 States have already enacted RPS requirement, many of which go beyond the Senate-passed provision. A federal RPS would have established a nationwide market-based trading system to ensure that renewables are developed at the lowest possible price. I strongly supported this provision, and over 70 of my colleagues signed onto a letter with me to conferees urging them to keep the RPS in the bill. The Senate conferees voted in a bipartisan manner to keep the RPS in the bill, but the House conferees stripped the provision. I hope that my colleagues will work with me in the future to support H.R. 983, a bill with bipartisan support that I introduced to create a federal RPS of 20 percent by 2027. The time for a federal RPS has come.

We also missed an opportunity to address the serious problem of global warming. I believe that the amendment Senator BINGAMAN offered, and that passed, expressing the sense of the Senate that mandatory action on climate change should be enacted was an important step towards congressional action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. While I am disappointed that we could not do more, and that this sense of the Senate amendment was stripped from the conference report, I am pleased that the conference report includes a provision to establish a new cabinet-level advisory committee, charged with developing a national policy to address climate change and to promote technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, the provision allows the Energy Department to authorize demonstration projects designed to test technologies that limit harmful emissions. The long-term solution to solving the global warming problem lies in the creation of new technologies and the Federal Government has a key role to play in promoting technological innovations. I believe we should have done more, something along the lines of the recommendations made recently by the National Commission on Energy Policy, but it is critical that we do something, and this climate change provision is the least we can do to begin the process of slowing global warming.

I am very pleased that a provision included in the House-passed bill, giving $30 million to uranium mining companies, was stripped from the bill. If enacted, this provision would have posed a grave threat to the water resources of two Navajo communities in northwestern New Mexico where four uranium in-situ leach mines have been granted conditional licenses by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The proposed ISL mining--which could still happen even without the $30 million subsidy--would leach uranium from an aquifer that provides high-quality groundwater to municipal wells in and near these communities--an aquifer that is the sole source of drinking water for an estimated 15,000 Navajos. I thank the conferees for heeding the wishes of over 200 members of the House--as well as the Navajo Nation Council--to strip this provision from the bill.

The liability waiver for oil companies who used methyl tertiary-butyl ether, MTBE, which has contaminated 1,861 water systems serving 45 million Americans in 29 States, including New Mexico, was also changed in the final bill. I strongly opposed that provision, which would have placed the coffers of oil companies ahead of Americans whose lives have been adversely affected by this negligence.

Finally, one of my great concerns with the House-passed bill was a provision allowing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). I am glad this provision was stripped in conference, and I will continue to oppose efforts by the oil industry to drill in ANWR. I have witnessed first-hand the tremendously diverse wildlife that will be hurt if drilling occurs in the area. The small benefits are simply not worth the cost.

I would like to commend my home State Senators--DOMENICI and BINGAMAN--who worked together in a very bipartisan manner to write this bill. I know it was a difficult task. I look forward to working with them and with their counterparts here in the House, to continue work on energy policy issues such as global warming, fuel efficiency standards, and further reducing our energy dependence.

http://thomas.loc.gov