Waxman-Markey Bill to Halt Coal Plant Construction 3
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), chair of the Oversight Committee, and Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), chair of the global warming committee, today jointly introduced the Moratorium on Uncontrolled Power Plants Act of 2008 (H.R. 5575).
The bill, if enacted, would require any new coal plant constructed before the U.S. implemented a strong greenhouse gas emissions reduction program to have state-of-the-art carbon-capture-and-sequestration (CCS) technology.
From the bill text, the CCS technology would have to capture “not less than 85 percent of the total carbon dioxide produced by the unit on an annual average basis and permanently sequesters that carbon dioxide” and the emissions reduction program would have to require requires “immediate and significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions across the economy and increases the reductions over time to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.”
This target is considerably more stringent than that of Lieberman-Warner (S. 2191), which calls for an approximately 60% reduction below 1990 levels by 2050, though at the minimum of the IPCC-recommended 80-95% reduction (Box 13.7 in the Fourth Assessment Report, p. 776).
Update: This bill would implement one of Al Gore’s legislative recommendations.
Enviros, Democrats Respond to Polar Bear Delay
Sixty days have now passed since January 8, 2008, when the U.S. Department of the Interior failed to meet its legal deadline to determine whether the polar bear is endangered by global warming, triggering a joint lawsuit over this latest delay from the Center for Biological Diversity, NRDC, and Greenpeace, pursuant to the notice of intent filed in January.
In the intervening months, U.S. Fish and Wildlife director Dale Hall took responsibility for the delay, but two weeks ago he told House appropriators that the decision had been given to Dirk Kempthorne, Secretary of the Interior, for final review.
In addition, Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), chair of the House global warming committee, today introduced legislation to block further activity in the lease sale area. This legislation, which does not yet have a bill number, is a revision of his proposed legislation from January, before the lease sale took place. The amended legislation would now prevent the Secretary of the Interior from authorizing any “related activity (including approving any seismic activity, offering any new lease, or approving any exploration or development plan)” until an ESA determination and critical habitat designation is made.
House Leadership Prepares Cap-and-Trade Legislation for April
E&E News’s Darren Samuelson reports in a pair of stories that the House of Representatives is moving forward to introduce companion legislation to the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 2191), the cap-and-trade legislation wending its way through the Senate. Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), whose Energy and Commerce Committee has jurisdiction, told steel industry officials last week that he plans “to release one or more draft global warming bills for comment by mid-April.”
Samuelson also reported that Rep. Markey, chair of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming and a strong ally of Speaker Pelosi, has been meeting with “alternative energy producers, labor groups, financial market officials and industry representatives” to craft legislation.Rep. Markey is preparing to send a report directly to Pelosi with proposals to address climate change or offer amendments when the House Energy and Commerce Committee holds a markup on a major piece of climate legislation, sources on and off Capitol Hill said today.
Markey said: “I think you should do the best you can each year. I do. And we have a real chance this year. If there’s an epiphany that occurred at the White House, then there we are with a chance to make history.”
FWS Chief Admits Administration Budget Cuts Indefensible
Ben Chandler (D-Ky.) I know that you all have talked some about the alarming loss of common birds in our country. Alarming it is. I almost can’t believe it. The numbers that I’ve seen are absolutely atrocious. And one thing that I’d like to explore with you real quick, the Audubon Society has stated that the cause of the dramatic decline of birds is the outright loss of habitat due to poor land use, the clear-cutting of forests, the draining of wetlands and sprawl. Now, in light of such a stinging indictment as that, how does the administration justify a 70 percent cut in land acquisition?Hall I don’t know.
The Audubon Society analysis found that many common U.S. birds species have collapsed in recent years, some by at least 80 percent. In addition, the Society has identified 218 U.S. bird species at risk “amid a convergence of environmental challenges, including habitat loss, invasive species and global warming”.
Former Deputy Interior Secretary Julie MacDonald interfered with the Endangered Species Act listings of several of those at-risk: the Greater Sage Grouse, Gunnison Sage Grouse, Southwestern bald eagle, Southwestern willow flycatcher, Sacramento splittail and the recovery plan of the Northern spotted owl
Senate Not Open to Oil-For-Renewable Package Reconciliation
Despite earlier reports that the Senate was considering inclusion of the oil-for-renewable package (H.R. 5351) in its budget reconciliation, as the budget markup begins today, the filibuster-proof strategy has been taken off the table.
The National Journal reports:While a Senate budget resolution is going to set aside $13.4 billion over five years for these renewable and efficiency credits – some of which expire this year – it merely signals that the issue is one of the priorities for Senate Democrats and does not forward debate over how to pay for those credits. . . a spokesman for Reid said he will not resurrect an energy tax debate until after lawmakers come back from the upcoming two-week Easter recess.
The Journal also reports that Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) has been tasked by Majority Leader Reid to attempt to find further Republican votes to establish a veto-proof majority for the package.
CQ Politics points to Sen. Landrieu as objecting to using reconciliation:Sen. Mary L. Landrieu , D-La., for example, is against using the process to pass renewable-energy tax breaks if they lead to tax hikes on oil and gas companies.
Sen. Landrieu cast a deciding vote against the oil-for-renewable tax package during the 2007 energy bill debate.
The decision by Senate leaders not to pursue a filibuster-proof budget reconciliation plan removes one option for moving billions of dollars of renewable energy and efficiency tax breaks funded by repealing incentives for oil and gas companies.While a Senate budget resolution is going to set aside $13.4 billion over five years for these renewable and efficiency credits – some of which expire this year – it merely signals that the issue is one of the priorities for Senate Democrats and does not forward debate over how to pay for those credits.
A reconciliation bill would have sent detailed instructions to committees on how to pay for that spending and would have been immune to a filibuster.
The budget resolution also includes $3.5 billion in discretionary funding for energy above President Bush’s FY09 request, which Senate Budget Chairman Conrad touted as “a very big increase; I think the biggest increase in more than 30 years.”
Senate Democrats are trying to overcome Republican opposition to scaling back billions in incentives for oil and gas companies to pay for the popular renewable and efficiency credits. Democrats in December fell one vote short of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster of a $21.8 billion proposal that reduced oil and gas incentives by about $13 billion.
A politically problematic $18 billion House-passed renewable energy tax proposal is pending, but few are optimistic that it could become law given a White House veto threat. This is leading to some brainstorming on other means of getting these credits extended quickly.
Majority Leader Reid has tasked Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., with helping find another Republican vote or two. Cantwell, who pushed for a one-year $5.5 billion renewable and efficiency tax package as part of a failed Finance Committee economic stimulus plan, said a similar smaller package should be considered. “There’s nothing preventing us from looking at the bigger package – see what the president does – but still work toward a smaller package too,” she said.
Cantwell said “the challenge is to still try to save investment in ‘08,” and extend the tax incentives within the next month or so.
This is the basic message of a broad coalition of businesses, renewable energy groups, environmentalists, labor unions and others who are taking advantage of an international renewable energy conference in Washington this week to do some cohesive lobbying to extend these credits by the end of the month.
But a spokesman for Reid said he will not resurrect an energy tax debate until after lawmakers come back from the upcoming two-week Easter recess.
Several industry officials say they are not requesting that Congress follow a particular strategy for quickly extending the renewable and efficiency incentives.
“We basically said Congress should figure this out,” said Dan Reicher, former assistant Energy secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy under President Clinton and now director of climate change and energy initiatives at Google.org.
“We have tried to stick to a pretty simple approach – extend the credits quickly and extend them for a long period of time.”
But the political problems associated with repealing the billions in oil and gas incentives means the solution to getting an extension through fast is potentially undefined.
“The answer is, you need some new and original thinking here,” said Marchant Wentworth, legislative representative for the Clean Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
While Cantwell has talked about doing a smaller package to gain support and possibly avoid a veto threat, Wentworth cautioned that there does not appear to be a magic number to achieve that.
“The question we all face is, are there new votes that you would get? These are leadership-driven; it’s unclear to me that lowering the incentives gets you anything,” he said.
In the meantime, a wide variety of groups and companies – including retail giant Wal-Mart, the Real Estate Roundtable, Dow Chemical and DuPont – are targeting congressional leaders and several Senate Republicans to vote for extending the credits regardless of whether it affects oil and gas company incentives.
Among Republicans being targeted are Sens. John Ensign of Nevada, John Sununu of New Hampshire, Ted Stevens and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Richard Lugar of Indiana.
Lugar and Murkowski voted against the filibuster in December. Renewable energy groups might also get a rare chance to lobby Bush personally when he speaks today at the 2008 Washington International Renewable Energy Conference.
EPA Puts Off "Hard Decision" On CO2 Endangerment Finding, May Face New Lawsuit
EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson seems unable to step foot on Capitol Hill to talk about his 2008 budget without getting a ton of questions about California’s waiver denial and EPA’s much-delayed response to Massachusetts v. EPA. Today’s NY Times carries an editorial explaining how the two are linked, citing and drawing out Georgetown Professor Lisa Heinzerling’s observation that EPA’s waiver denial may have inadvertently committed it to an endangerment finding)
The barrage of questions continued yesterday, courtesy of Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and her Appropriations subcommittee. Hill Heat live-blogged the hearing and revealed that Johnson isn’t just personally overwhelmed by all the legal pressure and questioning—he’s explicitly citing it to justify his delayed reaction to the Supreme Court’s remand. To wit, Johnson repeated the claim—previously made when he announced to a House subcommittee that he’d be "taking a step back" from the enandgerment finding to weigh industry’s “concerns”—that his delay is partly justified by a series of petitions and appeals that California and environmental groups have filed in the last several months, seeking the regulation of CO2 emissions from ships, aircraft, off-road vehicles, and new coal-burning power plants under federal jurisdiction.
Each of these actions was largely motivated by EPA’s delay in making an endangerment ruling, and each covers areas that would be affected by such a determination. In other words, Johnson is claiming that in order to respond to legal maneuvers motivated by his hesitancy to act…he must delay action even longer. While this deflection doesn’t carry any legal consequences, another part of Johnson’s insistence that this decision requires an expansive amount of time—perhaps until the end of the Bush administration, as advised by the Heritage Foundation, which also takes credit for inspiring Johnson’s rationale—actually highlights the imminent possibility of yet another lawsuit against EPA.
At issue: Johnson flat-out refused to set a target date yesterday for completing the decision-making process, and would not answer whether any of his staff was even working on the enandgerment evaluation (as opposed to a "myriad of issues" that they are tackling). The latter answer led Senator Feinstein to argue, based on what she’d evidently been hearing from other sources, that no one other than Johnson himself is weighing the issue.
The legal coalition responsible for initiating Mass. v. EPA will likely beg to differ with this exhaustive process, having notified the Administrator last month that it was prepared to sue over unreasonable delay if Johnson didn’t provide a firm target date by February 27—last Wednesday. Stay tuned…
Next Steps on Oil-for-Renewable Package
Senate Democrats are eyeing a filibuster-proof budget bill as a vehicle for energy tax provisions that have narrowly failed to win the 60 votes needed to cut off debate, several lawmakers said yesterday.Energy taxes are a “candidate to be considered in [budget] reconciliation,” Budget Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) told reporters. “I think we have to look at things that reduce our dependence on energy.”
The oil-for-renewables package, which faces the threat of a Bush veto, received resounding support from a broad coalition of industry, investors, and environmental organizations in a press conference today on the first day of the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference. President Bush is scheduled to offer the keynote address to the convention tomorrow.
FY 2009 Environmental Protection Agency Budget
- Stephen L. Johnson, EPA Administrator
10:12 Johnson: As the administration sprints to the finish line, I believe this budget keeps it on the path to a cleaner future. With both demand and cost on the rise, innovators are pushing clean energy solutions. We estimate industry will explore thousands of oil and gas wells on tribal and national lands. The budget requests hundreds of new staff to assist our partners assess the projects.
The budget also attempts to address the serious challenge of global climate change.
The budget supports EPA’s collaborative work to protect our waterways. I’m proud of our response to hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
10:17 AM Feinstein The legal justification for your waiver rests heavily on the 1967 decision. In 1977 Congress amended the Clean Air Act, changing the language and intent of Section 209. The committee language stated that the intent was to provide California the broadest latitude possible. Your waiver justification document does not mention Congressional intent in 1977. Why?
Johnson I am bound by Section 209 and there are three very specific criteria. I only looked at one. Based on the record before me, again, affording California the broadest discretion, it does not mean that I am a rubber stamp. It is not a popularity contest.
10:49 Craig Sitting on EPW we get two bites at you. Today I won’t chew as hard.
Feinstein Even though that section allows other states to adopt California’s standards?
Johnson You raise a very good point. Section 209 and the law and the criteria does not allow me to consider what other states may or may not do. As I pointed out the more states that believe greenhouse gas emissions is a problem are making the very point that California is not unique. It is not exclusive. Rather it is a national problem requiring a national solution.
Feinstein According to the Washington Post, you overruled your legal and technical staff last October. Did a single one of your staff support a flat denial?
Johnson They presented me with a wide range of options, from approving to denying the waiver. They were all presented to me as legally defensible options. I appreciate the opportunity for their candid input, but the Clean Air Act gives me the responsibility alone.
Feinstein You are saying the technical and legal staff recommended approving the waiver. Is that correct?
Johnson They presented me with a wide range of options, from approving to denying the waiver. Generally it is my approach to ask for input, if they choose to give input, that’s fine. Routinely I seek input.
Feinstein We’ve been told that none of the staff was in favor of denying the waiver.
Johnson I received a range of options.
Feinstein I know that.
Johnson I respect the opportunity to receive candid opinions. My decision is not based on a popularity contest of opinions.
Feinstein You’re not answering the question, but there’s nothing I can do but interpret your non-answer.
10:26: Feinstein You’ve missed your 2007 deadline to make the health endangerment finding. Will you respect the direction of the highest court of the land?
Johnson I will commit to that we will make the decision. We are working on the implementation regulations. We have a number of court-ordered deadlines.
Feinstein When might we expect this?
Johnson I don’t have a date, but I assure you we will respond to Mass vs. EPA.
10:28 Allard I have some concerns about enforcement.
10:39 Leahy I’m going to divert for just a moment. I want to talk about mercury pollution. Your agency had the mercury rule. I said at the time I thought it was wrong. On February 8 the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, a very conservative court, agreed with my position and struck down your rule. If you had listened to my opinion you could have saved taxpayers significant fees. Does your agency plan to abide by the Clean Air Act, by the law?
Johnson Thank you for the question. Always follow the law, sir. The EPA and DOJ are currently evaluating the decision. We haven’t decided on a course of action. We also recognize because of the Clean Air Interstate Rule we have early reductions of mercury. We are disappointed the first regulation of mercury was struck down. We’re evaluating that now.
Leahy The court made their decision based on the arguments heard in the case. The AP reports officials have threatened states with disapproval for adopting more aggressive mercury regulations, despite what the EPA said in the court. If there was a misrepresentation by the government to the court that’s a serious matter. Have officials ever threatened states against instituting mercury regulations?
Johnson I don’t recall any firsthand knowledge. I don’t know if they have.
Leahy Will you go back and find out?
Johnson I’ll be happy to respond for the record.
Leahy I would like to know the answer. If the AP is correct, then the EPA gave misleading information to the courts. The courts, the Judiciary Committee would consider it a very serious matter. You adopted the Mercury Trading Rule in 2005 and committed to reducing mercury hot spots.
Johnson We haven’t decided yet.
10:50 Feinstein I believe very firmly your staff was in favor of the waiver unless you tell me otherwise. Did any other people in the administration weigh in on the waiver?
Johnson I received many opinions, the decision was my own.
Feinstein Did you discuss this with the White House?
Johnson I discuss major issues with the White House, I think that’s good government.
Feinstein I read the 48 pages. I find it not at all impressive. I think it is harmful to our state and the country. I’d like to go back to the remand. You have not given me a firm date. I find this unbelievable on what is called an Environmental Protection Agency, not an Administration Protection Agency.
Johnson I respectfully disagree that this is an easy decision. Justice Scalia set it up as a three-part test for me. If I find there is endangerment, I must regulate. If I find that there is not endangerment, I should not regulate. If there are other factors I need to consider them. The way the Clean Air Act operates, a decision in the regulation of mobile sources could have a significant impact on stationary sources. I know people are anxious for me to get on with business. Climate change is a serious issue. It’s one I’m carefully considering. Airlines, off-roads, marine, I could go on and on.
Feinstein How many personnel are working on the endangerment finding?
Johnson I don’t know exactly.
Feinstein We’ve been told noone is working on it. Is anyone working on it?
Johnson I know I am working on what are the next steps. It’s what I’m currently evaluating.
Feinstein How many of your staff are working on the endangerment finding?
Johnson I don’t know. I am currently evaluating what are the next steps to take in response to the Supreme Court, the Energy Act, the numerous petitions. I know we have staff working on a myriad issues. I know we have people working on major economies, reviewing McCain-Lieberman legislation, the Greenhouse Gas Registry. We have a lot of issues we’re working on.
Feinstein What I deduce is that none of your staff is working on it. I’ve got to believe you’re stonewalling.
Johnson I’m not stonewalling.
11:10 Feinstein Have you taken every Congressional earmark out of this budget?
Johnson I am told by our staff that the answer is yes.
11:30 Argument with Ted Stevens and Johnson over earmarks (and the definition of an earmark) and funding water and sewer facilities Alaskan villages.
11:37 Stevens I’m trying to seek re-election now. I don’t understand why it’s been reduced.
Stevens What did you ask the president for?
Johnson I support the president’s budget.
Stevens You going to answer my questions, sir?
Johnson brings in EPA water guy.
Stevens You can tell me what you requested OMB this year. What was that amount?
EPA water guy We requested the amount consistent with the 2004 request.
Stevens This is not a spending program, it’s a loan program.
Feinstein My staff says we never agreed to this.
Stevens This policy forces earmarks. It’s bureaucratic arrogance. Having served eight years in another administration, I don’t appreciate this. It sounds like your 04 was sacrosanct as far the government is concerned. It’s a crazy system. The Greenhouse Gas Registry. The White House proposed no money for this program. Sen. Klobuchar asked me about it. Why didn’t you put any money in this program?
Johnson We have $3.5 million this year. We expect by September of this year we will have a proposed regulation for the registry. I believe states are developing registries.
Stevens Is there any direction Congress would give you with regards to spending money you would follow?
Feinstein You’re right. I put in the $3.5 million. They need it for two years.
Johnson We are working on a draft regulation. I intend to make sure we obey our mandate.
Stevens Do you remember in the old days we dealt with this by bureau reclamation? We eliminated the job of the person who refused to follow our direction.
11:48 Feinstein There is no way for us to restore those cuts. I don’t even know if we want to pass this budget. Why run for the Senate? Why act as an appropriator? Why put our names on a budget that we know is going to fail to accomplish our purpose?
Stevens We’re better off on the 2008 budget. Did you ever think about that?
Johnson We believe this budget is a good budget. It balances the needs for moving forward at the same time we have to be good stewards of taxpayer money.
Stevens You should bring back the message that in all likelihood we’ll send the President a continuing resolution for 2009.
Feinstein The cuts go on and on and on. For the first time he said in so many words we’re not going to recognize any Congressional add. You’re saying the president conditions all funding. We don’t even need an Appropriations Committee!
11:51 Stevens He ought to read the Constitution. Arrogance. Pure arrogance.
Feinstein There is no jointness. We are to be a rubber stamp for the President’s request.
Stevens I don’t think the President even knows some of these items.
Feinstein Let me sum up by saying this is a very unhappy budget. The hearing is adjourned.
EPA Set to Issue Legal "Justification" for CA Waiver Denial
Reporting yesterday on this week’s developments in the California clean cars saga, the Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Power revealed that "the EPA is expected to fire back this week by publishing data and research to support Mr. Johnson’s decision." Today’s Philadelphia Inquirer confirmed that such a document should "be released by tomorrow" via Johnson’s response to grilling on the waiver decision during a Senate hearing on EPA’s budget. (Regular readers may recall that his December announcement of the waiver denial was notably brief, resulting in much speculation since as to whether Johnson had fully determined his legal rationale before he made his mind up.)
We’ve been anticipating EPA’s belated justification, which is expected to be placed in the Federal Register, for some time now—both in terms of Johnson’s public promises and as a legal strategy in fighting California’s lawsuit. In a move that is probably not coincidental, EPA filed a motion last week asking the 9th Circuit to dismiss the existing case. Warming Law is still working to obtain EPA’s motion, but we’ve written previously on both its likely rationale, and on the unprecedented legal argument that Johnson will likely make to claim his actions can be justified under the Clean Air Act.
If Johnson goes this route, the legal effect would be one of giving the Administrator’s judgment extremely strong deference under Section 209 of the Clean Air Act. He would be interpreting the law in a way that his staff told him is legally impossible even if they accepted the auto industry’s criteria for judging waiver requests, and doing so based on the arguments that he:
1) Is legally empowered to break with agency precedent regarding what constitutes "compelling and extraordinary" conditions—instead adopting the "exclusive and unique" argument that Tuesday’s document release shows was first advanced in March 2006 by Bill Wehrum, a political appointee with prior ties to the auto industry (Wehrum has since left the EPA, and was recently spotted testifying in favor of a pair of coal-fired plants that Kansas regulators shot down last year based on global warming concerns).
Former EPA Administrator William Riley, who served under President Bush’s father, highlighted the historic scope of Johnson’s actions when he revealed yesterday that he was the receipient of impassioned talking points that agency staff prepared for him to press with Johnson. In his conversations with Johnson, Reilly focused on the argument that legal text, congressional intent and longstanding precedent all point to extreme deference for California’s wishes, and noted that the administrator need not agree with the state in order to let it move forward (emphasis added):
[In a telephone interview, Reilly told the Times] he emphasized that when he was the administrator, he approved nine requests from California, even one that he thought would not work, electric cars, but that he thought federal law required him to let the state try.
2) Also is empowered to declare climate change an intrinsically global problem that California need not employ its own standards for. This rationale, of course, stands in contrast to the thrust of the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, and would also need to discount the state’s strong evidence that it is exceptionally vulnerable to global warming’s impact.
The Inquirer also reported that Johnson’s also gave generally evasive responses yesterday to questions from Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), regarding both his legal rationale and possible White House influence—with regards to the latter, Johnson claimed that the White House is still reviewing email communications and other documents that Boxer has yet to receive (and placed under a subpoena threat). Regarding the legal advice of his staff and Reilly, he reiterated that he has always sought out diverse opinions but the waiver decision was ultimately his alone to make.
Senator Whitehouse, for his part, later angrily compared Johnson’s testimony to that given by former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales during last year’s hearings on the dismissal of U.S. attorneys.
Pelosi, Bush Battle on Oil-For-Renewables Tax Package
Promotion of the renewable energy industry is the goal of the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference, which your Administration hosts next week. The conference offers a remarkable world platform to support a fiscally responsible commitment to these industries and technologies and the jobs they will produce. We urge you to reconsider your previous opposition to fiscally sound incentives for American renewable energy, and lend your support to this historic legislation in time for this occasion.
At today’s press conference, President Bush parried a question about his threatened veto of bill (after admitting ignorance about the likely $4 gallon gas this spring).
He claimed the cost-neutral bill would “cost the consumers more money and we need more oil and gas being explored for, we need more drilling, we need less dependence on foreign oil.” With respect to renewable energy, he discussed cellulosic ethanol and other biofuels, nuclear energy, and carbon sequestration, but not solar, wind, or energy efficiency.
QUESTION: Mr. President, back to the oil price tax breaks that you were talking about a minute ago.Back when oil was $55 a barrel you said those tax breaks were not needed, people had plenty of incentive to drill for oil. Now the price of oil is $100 a barrel and you’re planning to threaten a plan that would shift those tax breaks to renewables. Why, sir?
BUSH: I talk about some — some — of the breaks. This generally is a tax increase. And it doesn’t make any sense to do it right now. We need to be exploring for more oil and gas.
And taking money out of the coffers of the oil companies will make it harder for them to reinvest.
I know — they say, “Well, look at all the profits.” Well, we’re raising the price of gasoline in a time when the price of gasoline is high.
Secondly, we’ve invested a lot of money in renewables. This administration has done more for renewables than any president.
Now, we’ve got a problem with renewables, and that is the price of corn is beginning to affect food — cost of food and, you know, it’s hurting hog farmers and a lot of folks.
And the best way to deal with renewables is to focus on research and development that will enable us to — to use other raw material to produce ethanol.
I’m a strong believer in ethanol. This administration’s got a great record on it.
But it is — I believe research and development’s what’s going to make renewable fuels more effective.
Again, I repeat: If you look at what’s happened in corn out there, you’re beginning to see the food — the food issue and the energy issue collide. And so to me the best dollar spent is to continue to deal with cellulosic ethanol in order to deal with this bottleneck right now.
And secondly, the — yes, I said that a while ago — on certain aspects.
But the way I analyze this bill is it’s going to cost the consumers more money and we need more oil and gas being explored for, we need more drilling, we need less dependence on foreign oil.
And as I say, we’re in a period of transition here in America, from a time where we were — where we are oil and gas dependent to hopefully a time where we got electric automobiles, and we’re spending money to do that; a time when we’re using more biofuels and we take huge investments in that; a time where we’ve got nuclear power plants and we’re able to deal with the disposal in a way that brings confidence to the American people so we’re not dependent on natural gas to fire up our — you know, a lot of our utilities; and a time when we can sequester coal.
That’s where we’re headed for but we’ve got to do something in the interim. Otherwise we’re going to be dealing, as the man said, with $4 gasoline.
And so, that’s why I’m against that bill.