Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act of 2007
Floor Speech
CREATING LONG-TERM ENERGY ALTERNATIVES FOR THE NATION ACT OF 2007 -- (Senate - June 19, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the two amendments before us. I have some grave concerns. I am afraid this Energy bill could easily turn into an antienergy bill. If it does, we will have decreasing supplies of fuel and ever-increasing prices. I don't think that is where we intend to go.
I rise to give strong support to amendment No. 1628 offered by my colleagues, Senator Jim Bunning and ranking member Pete Domenici. The amendment establishes a fuel mandate program for coal-to-liquid fuel that is identical to the renewable fuel standard we are implementing with this legislation. I know originally the two amendments had some similarities and were being worked on as one with a bipartisan group. That is what we ought to do. But somehow it got polarized and shifted into two separate amendments. One could have phased into the other and wound up with much stronger requirements. That was where I was hoping it would go, on a phased-in basis, so that we could actually have coal-to-liquid technology and that infant industry could then grow into one that would meet the strict standards that technologically cannot be met at the present time.
If we discourage all development of coal to liquids, we will not have clean coal to liquids. We will not have an adequate fuel supply or we will have a fuel supply that is very expensive, and that will curtail the economy.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the Governor of my State, Dave Freudenthal, who talks about a glidepath we need to get the infant industry started and into place.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ENZI. I have listened for the past week as my colleagues have discussed the importance of domestic fuels. They argue that it is essential for us to reduce our dependence on foreign energy barons and that the mandate that this bill lays out for 36 billion gallons of biofuels is an important step in being energy independent. I agree with my colleagues and their assessment that we need to produce more domestic fuel, and the amendment I am speaking in support of does just that. By mandating that we use 6 billion gallons of fuel derived from coal, we will use our Nation's most abundant energy source to help break America's addiction to oil.
Coal to liquids technologies are not new. The technology has been around since the 1940s. There is no question that it can be used today in transportation markets that currently exist. It can be transported in pipelines that currently exist. Because it comes from coal, our Nation's most abundant energy source, it can be produced at home by American workers without some of the international interference. Coal to liquid plants are being developed in China. They understand the need for the economy to have the fuel to operate on. They are buying up resources. In Canada, they tried to buy resources in the United States. They know the future of their country depends on having sufficient fuel, particularly for transportation.
Coal to liquid plants are already being developed in China. They are being developed in other major industrialized nations. But they are not being developed in the United States. I am concerned that as we sit on the sidelines, other nations will take advantage of our inaction, and our economy will suffer. That is why I am speaking in support of the amendment offered by my colleagues from Kentucky and New Mexico. The amendment they have introduced is the right approach to moving this issue forward in a way that will truly help the coal to liquids industry. In doing so, it will truly benefit the American people.
There is a competing proposal from my colleague from Montana that I will discuss in a moment, but I first want to discuss why this is the right approach, if we are to spur investment in the coal to liquids industry. Simply put, if our goal is to create a market for a new energy source, mandates work. We have seen it with other current renewable standards. Since passage of the RFS as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, we have seen a dramatic rise in the number of ethanol plants that exist, and there is no sign that industry is slowing down. That was the mandate we placed. It is being met. We have an opportunity to do so today for coal to liquids. However, we will do so on a smaller scale, requiring just 6 billion gallons of coal-derived fuel as opposed to 36 billion gallons mandated for biofuels in the bill. We will do so with additional environmental standards.
Like the underlying legislation, we require the 20-percent life cycle greenhouse gas reduction language. However, unlike the underlying bill, the amendment requires coal to liquid plants to operate with technology to capture carbon dioxide emissions. In general, I am not a fan of mandates. I have struggled with this issue. However, if our goal is to reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign energy sources and to produce more fuel domestically, the current renewable fuels mandate has proven that it is an approach that works. In direct contrast to the success of a mandate is the failure of the loan guarantee programs which have issued exactly zero loans almost 2 years after the program was created in the Energy Policy Act. The approach of the Senator from Montana of a direct loan program is different than the approach taken in the Energy Policy Act. Although that is the case, I am concerned that his legislation will simply create another loan program that never happens. A direct loan program requires that the Federal Government loan taxpayer money to private companies to move forward. In the very tight appropriations climate we are currently experiencing, my colleagues are kidding themselves if they think we will spend the kind of money it takes to build one of these plants through a direct loan.
How do I know about that? There is one proposed in southern Wyoming. The company is a coalition of companies to put the money together for one of these plants. It is a huge refinery. That is what a coal to liquids plant is. It changes our low-sulfur coal into diesel, and that is what we are requiring trucks to use now, diesel without coal. It is going to be between the little town of Hannah and Medicine Bow. Hannah was a coal mining town. The coal was deeper so it wasn't useful or economical for them to mine it anymore. It shut down. People are there with houses they can't sell and jobs they don't have. They are retired. But this plant is coming into that area.
The reason it is coming to that area is, first, there is the coal resource but, more importantly, there is a pipeline there. This is one of the fuels, unlike ethanol, that can be put into a pipeline and transported. They have already sold all of the fuel they can build. They put $2 or $3 billion worth of money together to build what will be the first refinery built in the United States in 30 years. It will solve a huge economic problem in that part of the State. I have to say, the requirements in the amendment of the Senator from Montana will probably stop this because the technology isn't there. People aren't going to venture $2.3 billion on the possibility that the technology might be there. I would hope we would put some research money into technology on carbon sequestration and carbon capture. I have encouraged the University of Wyoming to do that with some of the abandoned mine land money. But that is down the road and should be phased in so that plants like this can be built.
In addition to my concerns about the loan program, I am also concerned that the amendment of the Senator from Montana sets forth environmental standards that are technologically unachievable. We have devoted an entire title of this bill--title III--to the research and development of carbon sequestration technologies. I have faith that this research will help us to advance carbon sequestration efforts, but I don't believe we are there yet. As such, the Tester amendment's requirement for 75 percent sequestration--and it is not phased in--seems unreasonable. I am not a technical expert. I have spoken to the people who are planning the coal to liquids facilities. None of the developers I have questioned have suggested they can achieve the 75 percent mandated by the Tester amendment. Both of the Democratic and Republican proposals will reduce greenhouse gases in a major way. Both of these amendments require a 20-percent improvement, but the Democratic proposal goes too far and sets standards that aren't technologically achievable.
My colleagues are faced with a choice. The amendment offered by Senators BUNNING and DOMENICI takes a proven approach of mandating that we use a domestic fuel. It adds responsible and reasonable environmental standards, and it will work to spur development of a domestic coal to liquids industry. I wish the bipartisan group could have gotten together and actually worked out something, but there are some other things playing in this whole process. Sometimes we get so wrapped up in making a political point that we wipe out progress for the United States. I hope that something can be done on that yet, but we will vote on two different amendments. The Bunning-Domenici one has the potential for actually providing some facilities and additional fuels. If we truly want to see coal to liquids plants built in the United States, only one of the approaches before the Senate works. That approach is the one offered by Senators BUNNING and DOMENICI. I hope all of us will support that amendment and see that coal to liquids and fuel independence happens.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
Source