Energy Policy Act of 2005

ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005 -- (Extensions of Remarks - April 28, 2005)

SPEECH OF
HON. DENNIS MOORE
OF KANSAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
THURSDAY, APRIL 21, 2005

The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 6) to ensure jobs for our future with secure, affordable, and reliable energy:

* Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, our country needs to reduce its dependence on foreign oil and increase its national energy independence. Increasing our energy independence will stabilize future energy prices, benefit American consumers and businesses, and enhance both our energy security and our national security.

* As a member of the House Renewable Energy Caucus, I have supported measures to encourage and increase the use of renewable and alternative energy sources. H.R. 6 included tax incentives for energy efficiency programs and renewable energy sources such as wind and solar production that I would like to vote for. As a co-chair of the Biofuels Fuels Caucus, I also support the renewable fuels standard which I have promoted to decrease our dependency on foreign oil, help U.S. farmers and protect the environment.

* There are several issues, however, that concern me about H.R. 6, and these issues have continually blocked congressional passage of comprehensive energy legislation over the last few years. It has become clear that removing these provisions would ensure that the Senate will pass, and the President will sign, this measure.

* Section 22 of H.R. 6, provides for drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). While some consider this area to be one of the most promising U.S. onshore oil and gas prospects, studies indicate that this area could only provide six month's supply of oil, 10 years from now, and consequently have no significant effect on our nation's dependence on foreign oil. This 1.5 million acre coastal plain, however, is an area often referred to as ``America's Serengeti'' because of the presence of caribou, polar bears, grizzly bears, wolves, migratory birds, and many other species living in a nearlyundisturbed state. In fact, the Refuge and two neighboring parks in Canada have been proposed for an international park, and several species in the area are protected by international treaties or agreements. In the 108th Congress, I supported a conference agreement on H.R. 6 that eliminated the provisions opening up ANWR for drilling. A future conference agreement needs to eliminate this controversial section from this bill to ensure its passage.

* Title 15, Section 1502 of H.R. 6, contains a safe-harbor provision protecting producers of methyl tertiary butyl ether [MTBE] and other fuel oxygenates from product liability claims. This provision includes language applying the safe-harbor retroactively, potentially barring several pending suits against some of the worst environmental polluters in our country.

* Under this provision, cities and towns would be prevented from bringing against potential offenders ``defective product'' lawsuits, which some cities have employed to recapture the cost of MTBE clean ups. Approximately 130 lawsuits have been filed by states, cities, water districts, and businesses over MTBE contamination. The trade association for the MTBE industry conservatively estimates that a nationwide cleanup of MTBE will cost between $500 million and $1 billion. The U.S. Conference of Mayors, however, maintains that those costs could run higher than $29 billion. Our states and localities, which are struggling with budget deficits, should not be forced to pay the tab for these clean ups. If our states and localities are forced to pay these costs, the real costs will be borne by taxpayers, who should not be responsible for the actions of a few MTBE producers.

* I also cannot support provisions in this legislation that do nothing to safeguard electricity consumers from unscrupulous utility companies that abuse market power and manipulate electricity prices. Rather than holding these electricity companies accountable, this bill would weaken consumer protections regarding electricity. I supported Representative JOHN DINGELL's amendment that would have protected electricity consumers by increasing penalties for violations of the Federal Power Act and would authorize the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to refund electricity overcharges. Unfortunately, the House defeated this amendment that would have helped safeguard electricity consumers.

* I urge my colleagues to work together to pass a true comprehensive energy legislation that is fiscally responsible and that protects consumers, our communities, and environmentally sensitive areas. Our national energy situation should not be a partisan issue, and I hope that both parties can come together to do the right thing for America.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r109:./temp/~r109Smh74t