Energy Policy Act Of 2005

ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005 -- (Senate - June 22, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

AMENDMENT NO. 841

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Feinstein as a cosponsor of this amendment, along with my colleagues, Senator Snowe, Senator Sessions, Senator Kennedy, and many other cosponsors.

The siting of liquefied natural gas import terminals is a critical issue of importance to me and my neighbors in Rhode Island as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is considering two proposals: the KeySpan Energy proposal in Providence, RI, and a Weaver's Cove Energy proposal in Fall River, MA. Both of these have a huge impact on the people of Rhode Island.

LNG ships will have to transit Narragansett Bay to get to both of these facilities. The route of transit would be this way, coming off of Block Island Sound. It will pass between Newport, RI, and Jamestown, RI. Newport is one of the most populated cities in our region. It is densely populated. We all know it as a place of tourism and recreation. The boats, literally, would be within hundreds of yards of critical installations--hotels, hospitals, et cetera. Then it would move up, if it is going to Weaver's Cove in Fall River, this way, and would move up under several bridges until it got to the city of Fall River.

The KeySpan proposal would require the transit of a ship going up this way and then moving up around and all the way into Providence, RI, the most densely populated part of the State of Rhode Island, with a huge concentration of people and, indeed, where all of these bay-side areas are being developed intensively.

This project poses serious risks to the State of Rhode Island and the State of Massachusetts. Therefore, it is incumbent we provide local authorities with the ability to effectively involve themselves in the decisionmaking process. We understand there are certain Federal laws that give authority to the State to participate in these decisions--the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, Coastal Zone Management Act--but none of them give the kind of clear involvement and clear leverage that State leaders need to effectively involve themselves in this decisionmaking.

Our amendment ensures that States have an authentic voice in the siting of LNG terminals by giving Governors the same authority to approve or disapprove onshore terminals that they now have over offshore terminals under the Deepwater Port Act.

It seems incongruous that Governors would have the authority to essentially veto an offshore project but they have no meaningful involvement on onshore projects placed in the heart of urban areas.

Let me show you the impact this proposal will have on the city of Providence. The KeySpan proposal would be situated right here, as shown on this chart. Within a very short radius, we have our largest hospital in the State of Rhode Island, our major medical center. We have thousands of homes. We have the downtown business area. Anything that happened here would have catastrophic effects on the State of Rhode Island.

To say the Governor cannot take into consideration factors such as safety and security ignores the current situation we face as a nation. These are very attractive targets to those people who want to seriously harm us, both in a physical sense and a psychological sense. We have to provide, I believe, at the local level, a meaningful way for Governors to participate in the siting of these facilities.

Again, it is not just a situation where they do not want it in their particular area. We understand there is a need for liquefied natural gas. We understand it is becoming an increasingly more important component of our energy sector. But we have to have the ability to look at safety issues and security issues.

This is particularly important after the report from the Sandia National Laboratories that said a terror attack on a tanker delivering LNG to a U.S. terminal could set off a fire so hot it would burn skin and damage buildings nearly a mile away. A mile from this facility encompasses huge swathes of Providence, RI, Cranston, RI, East Providence, RI, major medical facilities. This would be a devastating blow.

Now, the odds of such an attack, we hope, are very low, but the low odds, together with the huge consequences, suggest we have to be careful about this. We have to, I believe, give our local leaders, our Governor particularly, the ability to participate in this approval process.

I am confident this amendment will do that. It will require FERC and other Federal agencies to work more closely with Governors and State environmental authorities and the first responder agencies that have firsthand knowledge of the geography and the population of these particular areas.

We want to bring more natural gas to our communities, but we do not want to jeopardize the safety and the security of our communities in a world today, regrettably but actually, very dangerous and very capable of these types of attacks on these types of facilities.

So I urge all of my colleagues to support Senator Feinstein. I thank her for her leadership. This is very typical of her very thoughtful review of this bill but particularly this aspect of LNG.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

AMENDMENT NO. 972

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to discuss briefly my vote today in favor of the McCain-Lieberman climate change amendment. I supported this amendment because I believe our nation needs to take real action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, something the Bush administration has so far refused to do. Global warming is a serious problem that has alarming repercussions for our future food production, water supplies, national security, and the survival of many species of wildlife. The vast majority of mainstream scientists now accept that global warming is real and that it is caused in large part by human activities.

The McCain-Lieberman amendment would hold total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions at year 2000 levels starting in 2010. Most importantly, once that cap is set in place, emissions would not be allowed to increase. The amendment would establish a cap and trade regime for greenhouse gases based on the successful acid rain program that has harnessed the incentives of the free market to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions.

I recognize the concerns that have been expressed about this amendment because its innovation title would provide funding for the demonstration of a list of technologies that includes new nuclear reactors. I share this concern, and I agree that many questions remain unanswered about the safe and secure disposal of nuclear waste.

On the other hand, nuclear power is only one of many technologies that are eligible to compete for demonstration funding in the McCain-Lieberman amendment, including, but not limited to, solar, biofuels, and coal gasification with carbon capture. In addition, these funds would come not from taxpayer dollars but from the sale of emissions allowances under the new cap and trade program. While I would prefer not to see nuclear power in this mix, the McCain-Lieberman amendment would have provided substantial mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases that are essential for our future. It is my sincere hope that the Congress and the Bush administration will finally recognize the reality of climate change and take action to reduce our Nation's greenhouse gas emissions.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov