Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2015
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join some of my colleagues today to speak about the key role woody biomass can play in helping to meet our Nation's renewable energy needs.
Last night an amendment that several of us offered was adopted by a voice vote. I thank the sponsors of that amendment who have joined with me--Senator Klobuchar, Senator King, Senator Ayotte, Senator Franken, Senator Daines, Senator Crapo, and Senator Risch--all of whom worked hard to craft this important amendment.
There has been a great deal of misinformation, regrettably, circulated about the amendment, which I hope we will be able to clarify through a colloquy on the floor today. I know the lead Democratic sponsor of the amendment, Senator Klobuchar, would like to speak on it and has an engagement, so I am going to yield to her before giving my remarks. I thank her for her leadership.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota for her leadership.
I, too, want to thank the two floor managers of this bill, the chairman, Senator Murkowski, and her partner, Senator Cantwell, for working so closely with us.
The fact is that biomass energy is a sustainable, responsible, renewable, and economically significant energy source. Many States, including mine, are already relying on biomass to help meet their renewable energy goals. Renewable biomass produces the benefits of establishing jobs, boosting economic growth, and helping us to meet our Nation's energy needs. Our amendment supports this carbon-neutral energy source as an essential part of our Nation's energy future.
The amendment, which was adopted last night, is very straightforward. It simply requires the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to jointly ensure that Federal policy relating to forest bioenergy is consistent and not contradictory and that the full benefits of forest biomass for energy, conservation, and responsible forest management are recognized.
It concerns me greatly that some have suggested that our amendment would somehow result in substantial damage to our forests and the environment. Nothing could be further from the truth. Forests in the United States are robust and sustainably managed, and climate science has consistently and clearly documented the carbon benefits of utilizing forest biomass for energy production. Moreover, healthy markets for biomass and forest products actually help conserve forest land and keep our working forests in this country.
Our amendment also echos the principles outlined in a June 2015 bipartisan letter that was led by Senator Merkley and myself and was signed by 46 Senators from both sides of the aisle. Our letter stated: Our constituents employed in the biomass supply chain deserve federal policy that recognizes the clear benefits of forest bioenergy. We urge you to ensure that federal policies are consistent and reflect the carbon neutrality of forest bioenergy.
In response to our letter, the administration noted that ``DOE, EPA, and USDA will work together to ensure that biomass energy plays a role in America's clean energy future.''
That is precisely the importance of our amendment, to make sure that happens.
The carbon neutrality of biomass harvested from sustainably managed forests has been recognized repeatedly by numerous studies, agencies, institutions, and rules around the world.
Carbon-neutral biomass energy derived from the residuals of forest products manufacturing has climate benefits. Scientists have confirmed that the ongoing use of manufacturing residuals for energy in the forest products industry has been yielding net climate benefits for many years. These residuals, such as bark and sawdust, replace the need for fossil fuels and provide significant greenhouse gas benefits, which some scientists have estimated to be the equivalent of removing approximately 35 million cars from the roads.
As forests grow, carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere through photosynthesis. This carbon dioxide is converted into organic carbon and stored in woody biomass. Trees release the stored carbon when they die, decay, or are combusted. As the biomass releases carbon as carbon dioxide, the carbon cycle is completed. The carbon in biomass will return to the atmosphere regardless of whether it is burned for energy, allowed to biodegrade, or lost in a forest fire.
In November of 2014, 100 nationally recognized forest scientists, representing 80 universities, wrote to the EPA stating the long-term carbon benefits of forest bioenergy. This group weighed a comprehensive synthesis of the best peer-reviewed science and affirmed the carbon benefits of biomass.
A literature review of forest carbon science that appeared in the November 2014 ``Journal of Forestry'' confirms that ``wood products and energy resources derived from forests have the potential to play an important and ongoing role in mitigating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.''
So Federal policies for the use of clean, renewable energy solutions, including biomass, should be clear and simple and reflect these principles.
We should not have Federal agencies with inconsistent policies when it comes to such an important issue. Again, I want to thank the sponsors and cosponsors of my bill, my amendment, as well as the chairman and the ranking member of the Energy Committee for their cooperation in getting the amendment adopted last night.
I would like to yield to my colleague from Maine Senator King, who made this a tripartisan amendment when we offered it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Maine. He has enormous expertise in the area of renewable energy, and I very much appreciate his adding his expertise to this debate.
Hon. Gina McCarthy, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Hon. Dr. Ernest Moniz, Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC. Hon. Tom Vilsack, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
Dear Administrator McCarthy, Secretary Moniz, and Secretary Vilsack: We write to support biomass energy as a sustainable, responsible, renewable, and economically significant energy source. Federal policies across all departments and agencies must remove any uncertainties and contradictions through a clear, unambiguous message that forest bioenergy is part of the nation's energy future.
Many states are relying on renewable biomass to meet their energy goals, and we support renewable biomass to create jobs and economic growth while meeting our nation's energy needs. A comprehensive science, technical, and legal administrative record supports a clear and simple policy establishing the benefits of energy from forest biomass. Federal policies that add unnecessary costs and complexity will discourage rather than encourage investment in working forests, harvesting operations, bioenergy, wood products, and paper manufacturing. Unclear or contradictory signals from federal agencies could discourage biomass utilization as an energy solution.
The carbon neutrality of forest biomass has been recognized repeatedly by numerous studies, agencies, institutions, legislation, and rules around the world, and there has been no dispute about the carbon neutrality of biomass derived from residuals of forest products manufacturing and agriculture. Our constituents employed in the biomass supply chain deserve a federal policy that recognizes the clear benefits of forest bioenergy. We urge you to ensure that federal policies are consistent and reflect the carbon neutrality of forest bioenergy. Sincerely, Susan M. Collins; Jeff Merkley; Kelly Ayotte; Roy Blunt; John Boozman; Richard Burr; Shelley Moore Capito; Bill Cassidy; Thad Cochran; John Cornyn; Tammy Baldwin; Sherrod Brown; Robert P. Casey, Jr.; Joe Donnelly; Dianne Feinstein. Al Franken; Tim Kaine; Angus S. King, Jr.; Tom Cotton; Mike Crapo; Steve Daines; Cory Gardner; Lindsey Graham; Johnny Isakson; Ron Johnson; David Perdue; Amy Klobuchar; Joe Manchin, III; Barbara A, Mikulski; Claire A. McCaskill. Patty Murray; Bill Nelson; Jeanne Shaheen; Debbie Stabenow; Rob Portman; James E. Risch; Jeff Sessions; John Thune; Thom Tillis; David Vitter; Jon Tester; Mark R. Warner; Tim Scott; Richard C. Shelby; Patrick J. Toomey; Roger Wicker. United States Senators.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I wish to speak on my amendment No. 3197, to increase the protection of our critical infrastructure in the electric sector from a debilitating cyber attack. I am pleased to have Senators Mikulski and Hirono join me as cosponsors.
Critical infrastructure refers to entities that are vital to the safety, health, and economic well-being of the American people, such as the major utilities that run the Nation's electric grid, the national air transportation system that moves passengers and cargo safely from one location to another, and the elements of the financial sector that ensure the $14 trillion in payments made every day are securely routed through the banking system.
The underlying bill includes several provisions that I support to improve the cyber posture of the U.S. electric grid. These include giving the Secretary of Energy new authority to take actions to protect the grid in the event of an emergency and establishing new programs to reduce vulnerabilities and improve collaboration among the Department of Energy, national labs, and private industry.
The underlying bill, however, makes no distinction between the vast majority of local or regional utilities and the very few entities that are so key to the electric grid that they could debilitate the U.S. economy and our way of life if they were attacked.
The Department of Homeland Security has identified the critical infrastructure entities at greatest risk of resulting in catastrophic harm if they were the targets of a successful cyber attack.
While the entire list includes fewer than 65 entities across all sectors of the economy, it warrants our special attention because there is ample evidence, both classified and unclassified, that demonstrates the threat facing critical infrastructure, including our energy sector.
Indeed, the committee report accompanying this bill notes that one- third of reported cyber attacks involve the energy sector.
The amendment I have filed to this energy policy bill would only affect those entities on the list that are already subject to the oversight of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, known as FERC.
Our amendment would require FERC to identify and propose actions that would reduce, to the greatest extent practicable, the likelihood that a cyber attack on one of these entities would result in catastrophic harm.
By ``catastrophic harm,'' the Department of Homeland Security means a single cyber attack that would likely result in 2,500 deaths, $50 billion in economic damage, or a severe degradation of our national security. In other words, if one of these entities upon which we depend each day were attacked, the results would be devastating.
The Director of National Intelligence, Jim Clapper, has testified that the greatest threat facing our country is in cyber space and that the number one cyber challenge concerning him is an attack on our Nation's critical infrastructure.
His assessment is backed up by several intrusions into the industrial controls of critical infrastructure. Since 2009, the Wall Street Journal has published reports regarding efforts by foreign adversaries, such as China, Russia, and Iran, to leave behind software on American critical infrastructure and to disrupt U.S. banks through cyber intrusions.
Multiple natural gas pipeline companies were the target of a sophisticated cyber intrusion campaign beginning in December 2011, and Saudi Arabia's oil company, Aramco, was subject to a destructive cyber attack in 2012.
In an incident that is still not fully understood, 700,000 Ukrainians lost power in December due to an attack that Ukrainian authorities and many journalists have ascribed to Russian hackers.
In a hearing of the Intelligence Committee last summer, I asked Admiral Rogers, the Director of the National Security Agency, which is responsible for cyber space, how prepared our country was for a cyber attack against our critical infrastructure. He replied that we are at a ``5 or 6.''
Last month, the Deputy Director of the NSA, Richard Ledgett, was asked during a CNN interview if foreign actors already have the capability of shutting down key U.S. infrastructure, such as the financial sector, energy, transportation, and air traffic control. His response? ``Absolutely.''
When it comes to cyber security, ignorance is not bliss. The amendment we have filed would take the common sense approach of requiring the Federal agency responsible for the cyber security of the electric grid to collaborate with the entities that matter most and to propose actions that can reduce the risk of a catastrophic attack that could cause thousands of deaths, a devastating blow to our economy or national defense, or all of these terrible consequences.
Congress has previously missed opportunities to improve our Nation's cyber preparedness before a ``cyber 9/11'' eventually occurs. We should not repeat that mistake.
I urge my colleagues to support this vital, bipartisan amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source