May 26, 2005
Statement of U.S. Senator Ron Wyden on the Energy Bill at a Hearing of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by praising you for the process you've used in crafting this Energy Bill. It has been bipartisan from the start and throughout the process. And I particularly want to commend you for how you made an unprecedented effort to meet with every member of the Committee individually. While I have nothing but praise for the process you've used, I do have serious concerns about the final product that the Committee has produced.First, the bill does nothing to lower the record high gas prices that consumers face when they fill up at the pump. To the contrary, the bill now contains an 8 billion gallon ethanol mandate that Energy Department estimates would increase gas prices while doing little to reduce our nation's dependence on foreign oil.The bill also repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA) without providing adequate safeguards to prevent captive ratepayers from getting fleeced to support unregulated businesses of utility parent companies.And the bill overrides the State of Oregon's and other states' ability to protect their coastal resources by giving sole authority over citing of liquefied natural gas terminals to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.More fundamentally, at a time when our country desperately needs a new energy policy, the bill essentially continues business as usual. The bill continues the old policies of heavily subsidizing fossil fuels and nuclear power. For example, the bill provides $1.8 billion for a new Clean Coal Initiative and $1.25 billion for a Next Generation Nuclear Plant. There's more than $3 billion just for those two programs.By comparison, there is only $50 million specified for renewable program - a tiny fraction of what's provided for coal and nuclear. And the bill fails to include even a minimal renewable portfolio standard to ensure that a portion of electric power comes from renewable energy sources. The bottom line is there's no real change in direction of our nation's energy policy away from established fossil and nuclear energy toward greener energy technologies.The one area where the bill approaches something resembling a level playing field is the new Incentives Title of the bill, which allows renewable technologies to seek Federal loan guarantees along with new fossil and nuclear technologies. But even here, the companies that can provide up-front cash for their projects get priority for loan guarantees, so established energy companies have a better chance to compete for funds than innovative green energy developers.When we began debate on the Energy Bill last week, a number of members of the Committee voiced their support for a "balanced" energy bill and suggested that the bill should be called the Clean Energy Act of 2005.At the end of the day, the bill is a long way from balanced and cannot legitimately be called a "clean energy" bill. For these reasons, I cannot support the bill in its current form.Next Article
