Energy Policy Act of 2005

ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by Senator Feinstein. This amendment is an important, commonsense tool that will provide States with the authority they need to protect their citizens' safety, security, and environment.

The underlying bill grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for the siting of LNG facilities. Unfortunately, this model minimizes the opportunity for important State interests regarding public safety, security, and environmental concerns to be adequately addressed within the LNG siting process.

The Feinstein amendment is simple--it allows the Governor of affected States to approve, veto, or condition the siting of onshore liquefied natural gas, LNG, terminals based on safety, security, environmental, and other concerns. In addition to providing Governors a clear role in bringing safety and security challenges to light, it also provides them with the tools to have those concerns adequately addressed.

Furthermore, the Feinstein amendment makes sense. Under the Deepwater Port Act of 1974, the Governors of adjacent coastal States already have the ability to veto, approve, or condition the siting of LNG terminals located outside of their jurisdiction in Federal waters. Affected States should have the same authority over LNG facilities on their land or bodies of water that they already have over facilities sited in Federal waters. The Feinstein amendment grants states this important role over LNG facilities proposed within their jurisdiction.

The Feinstein amendment is critical to assure that safety and homeland security concerns related to LNG facilities are addressed. Since 1944 there have been 13 serious accidents at onshore LNG facilities. A recent LNG accident in Algeria killed 27 workers, injured 74 others, and was reported to be the worst petrochemical fire in Algeria in more than 40 years.

Several reports have cited the potential homeland security challenges posed by LNG terminals, delivery tankers and their role in a potential terrorist attack. The potential impacts of a well-coordinated terrorist attack are immense. A December 2004 report by Sandia National Laboratories, reported that an intentional LNG spill and resulting fire could cause ``major'' injuries to people and ``significant'' damage to structures within approximately .3 miles of the spill site, more moderate injuries and structural damage up to 1 mile from the spill site, and lower impacts out to 1.5 miles.

Given these potential safety and homeland security concerns, Governors should have a clear role to play in the siting of LNG facilities within their jurisdiction. I urge my colleagues to support the Feinstein amendment that will support the rights of States to adequately protect their citizens' safety, security, and environment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to make comments regarding the McCain-Lieberman amendment addressing global climate change. I will vote in support of this amendment today, because I believe this country must get serious about putting in place a mandatory program to address the very real problem of greenhouse gas emissions. My vote today is based on the fact I believe the United States must make a strong, economy-wide commitment to addressing the threat of climate change. But at the same time, I would also like to note that I retain serious reservations about a number of specific provisions added to this legislation since the Senate last considered it, during the 108th Congress.

Specifically, I have strong concerns about the nuclear provisions that were added to the McCain-Lieberman amendment. Nuclear technology may be emissions free, but it is not without substantial environmental costs measured on a completely different scale. This is a fact we in Washington know all too well, since our State is home to the Hanford Nuclear Reservation--one of the biggest nuclear remediation projects in the world, including 53 million gallons of high-level nuclear waste stored in underground tanks located far too close to the Columbia River. Hanford's nuclear legacy is the result of production activities undertaken in the service of our national defense, from World War II through the Cold War. While there are obviously different challenges associated with defense and commercial wastes, Hanford nevertheless highlights for me the very significant distance we have yet to travel when it comes to grappling with the environmental costs of nuclear technology.

So while I wish my colleagues had not added certain provisions to their climate change proposal, I also understand--from the statements they have made on the floor today--that this amendment remains a work in progress. I believe the most important thing is to make sure we do not obscure what this amendment is really about. It is about the need for this country to step up, and to develop a real national strategy to address the issue of climate change.

I have spoken on this floor before about the scientific consensus that has emerged regarding the threat of global warming. I have addressed the issues of potential economic costs associated with climate change, particularly in the Pacific Northwest where nearly every sector of our economy relies in some way on the Columbia River. That river, in turn, is fed by mountain snowpack that many have projected may well be diminishing due to global warming. I have al so spoken about this Nation's opportunity to take the lead in the global race for energy independence, to develop the next generation of energy technologies and create the jobs that will go along with them.

We are a problem-solving nation. When we are faced with a grave threat, we roll up our sleeves, put our heads together, and fix our problems; we don't push them off on our children and future generations. Climate change is too alarming a trend for us to ignore. For that reason, I will vote to support the McCain-Lieberman amendment.

http://thomas.loc.gov/