Short-Sighted Energy Legislation
Protecting our Environment
Efforts to Eliminate MBTE
Nuclear Waste
Looking Toward the Future
The 107th Congress adjourned last year without enacting comprehensive energy legislation. It is incumbent upon the 108th Congress to tackle energy issues, which affect not only our daily lives but also world stability.
The war on terrorism has complicated U.S. relations with oil-exporting nations in the Middle East. It is now more crucial than ever that our nation pursues a sensible energy policy, which seeks to decrease America’s dependence on foreign sources of energy. However, we must not sacrifice long term environmental concerns or safety for immediate short term energy needs.
In the 107th Congress, the House of Representatives approved H.R. 4, a combination of four bills originating from different House committees. I did not support H.R. 4. I believe it is short- sighted and unbalanced.
H.R. 4 proposes to reach the goal of increased energy independence by authorizing energy exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Much of the territory identified as ANWR was set aside in December 1960 by Public Land Order 2214 to protect wildlife and natural habitats. This territory consists of 19 million acres of land containing an impressive variety of arctic wildlife, including polar bears, caribou, migratory birds and whales. It is one of the most pristine and undisturbed environments in the United States.
Legislation endorsing oil and natural gas exploration in ANWR is short-sighted on several fronts. It is too narrowly focused on increasing the supply of energy in the near term and risks damage to the area in the long term. Even with advancements in exploration and drilling technology, it is highly questionable that the yields of oil and gas from ANWR justify the environmental risks during the production and transportation phases. Only 3% of the world oil reserves reside in the U.S., and less than 1% reside in ANWR. Opening up ANWR to oil and natural gas exploration and drilling will not significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
H.R. 4 also relies too heavily on energy tax incentives to develop the use of oil, coal and nuclear energy. Of these energy tax incentives, 75% are for fossil fuels, 14% for energy efficiency, and 10% for renewable and alternative fuels; 1% is for miscellaneous provisions. The $33.5 billion package of tax cuts and subsidies primarily benefits companies that profited during the California energy crisis. The legislation fails to address the electricity market crisis in California and, in fact, does not contain any electricity provisions.
Last year's Senate version of H.R. 4 differed from the House version. These differences were not resolved and H.R. 4 died in conference. Consequently, many of these issue will more than likely be revisited by the 108th Congress.
I am very concerned about the preservation of our environment and natural resources within the state of California and our nation. I signed a letter to President Bush urging opposition to the development of the 36 leases off the coast of Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo counties. I also voted for an amendment to H.R. 5093, the 2003 Interior Appropriations bill, which provides that none of the funds in the bill may be expended by the Department of the Interior to approve any exploration plan, development and production plan, and any application for permit to drill on certain Outer Continental Shelf Southern California Planning Area leases. The House approved both the amendment and H.R. 5093.
In certain states and the District of Columbia, the Clean Air Act requires the use of reformulated gasoline (RFG), a cleaner burning fuel, for the purpose of reducing carbon monoxide emissions and smog. In order to produce RFG, refiners must use the additive methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). Currently MTBE is the most commonly used oxygenate in the production of RFG. However, MTBE has been implicated in several incidents of ground water contamination caused by leakage from underground gasoline storage tanks. MTBE is a particularly dangerous contaminant. Relatively small amounts of the substance can render a source of water unsafe for use.
California has been very proactive in addressing MTBE issues. The legislative actions taken by the State have propelled the issue to national prominence. Research done on the health effects of MTBE determined that its usage presents a risk to the environment. Consequently MTBE usage will be phased out by December 31, 2003.
Unless Congress acts to change the oxygenate requirement MTBE will probably be replaced by ethanol another oxygenate. I will follow the developments in this area closely and do my best to ensure that the citizens of California and our country continue to breathe cleaner air and drink safe and clean water.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA) calls for disposal of spent nuclear fuel in a repository in a deep geologic formation unlikely to be disturbed for thousands of years. NWPA created an office in the Department of Energy (DOE) to develop such a repository. The cost of the program is covered by a fee on nuclear generated electricity, paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund. DOE settled on using a site in the Yucca Mountains in Nevada as a repository.
President Bush recommended the site to Congress February 15, 2002, and Governor Guinn of Nevada exercised his right to “veto” the site on April 8, 2002. However, the President signed a congressional approval resolution, and the House passed the Yucca Mountain approval resolution (H.J. Res. 87) on May 8, 2002. The Senate passed an identical resolution on July 9, 2002.
I, along with 103 of my colleagues, voted against the bill. I could not in good conscience vote to approve the repository site in the midst of questions and uncertainties about the long term performance of the Yucca site, durability of engineering barriers, the geological properties of Yucca Mountain and DOE scientific data.
Energy conservation and strong investment in alternative energy resources will help decrease our dependence on foreign oil. We must always consider the safety and the welfare of the American people as a priority in establishing a national energy policy. I am committed to these efforts. I will continue to work hard to ensure that our nation’s national energy policy is environmentally sound, ensures efficiency and preservation, and puts more emphasis on the development of alternative energy resources.
back to top
