August 3, 1979
Page 22721
SOME THOUGHTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ENERGY LEGISLATION
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, voices are urging that the goal of energy independence take its place among the symbols that capture our national aspirations and direct our talents. The call to lessen our dependence on foreign oil will affect other important goals. These include international cooperation, reduced inflation, and environmental quality, among others.
The effect on other goals could be positive. But if we make a desperate grab for anything that glimmers as a new domestic energy source, then the effects will surely be negative.
President Carter has proposed sweeping initiatives in energy policy. We need these proposals as a catalyst to stimulate national activity and create a sense of urgency.
The Founding Fathers anticipated the need for a strong President to provide such leadership.
They tried the weak Articles of Confederation and found that arrangement wanting.
They also demanded a strong legislature — one that could question Presidential initiatives, examine their strengths and weaknesses, and lead the national debate. That is what is presently occurring in the SALT hearings.
And that must also happen with energy initiatives now pending in Congress.
Before we stampede in any direction, we must ask further questions on energy costs, on environmental and health effects of energy production, on procedures for achieving increased energy production, and on alternative energy sources.
COST CONSIDERATIONS
Have we really come to grips with the costs of producing new energy supplies?
In a decade's time, President Carter would like to spend $142 billion in order to reach energy independence.
Are the monetary priorities of these goals in the proper order?
Are these cost estimates accurate?
Will the synthetic fuels be produced at what we believe to be reasonable prices?
What are the extra costs that will surely surround any massive energy proposal? New systems for coal transportation? New methods to dispose of hazardous wastes? New aid to energy boom towns? Large amounts of capital and personnel will surely be shifted in the direction of these goals.
Under each program listed, what is the cost of a barrel of oil (or equivalent)? Would it not be useful to rank proposals in this fashion?
Economists know that the amounts of capital we are talking about in these proposals will have a tremendous effect on every aspect of our society. Alan Greenspan has said:
I'm not saying we shouldn't do it, but it's how we do it that's critical. If we blunder our way into a blank check project, we could find ourselves short of capital in other areas.
COAL USE AND SYNTHETIC FUELS
The expense of synthetic fuels cannot be measured in dollars alone. It must also be measured in terms of its effect on the entire economy and the environment as a whole.
How would the recent energy proposals affect the environment of our land and the health of our citizens?
The task to prevent great environmental and health damage from increased energy production will be formidable.
How large is the pollution potential from these sorts of facilities? A recent report from the Library of Congress indicates that "the concentration of pollutants at the processing site will be large and the potential for contamination of the local environment will be great."
What would it take to cut pollution in half from synthetic fuel plants? Are our national efforts being directed to that purpose?
At a Senate symposium this week, I heard testimony from a panel of scientists from around the world who warned of the drastic environmental impact that the release of carbon monoxide through coal burning could have on the Earth's climate in less than two decades. Should we proceed without better information on such an important point?
What about the pollution which comes from the production of oil from shale?
Both the on-surface production and in situ methods of melting the oil out of the shale produces great amounts of toxic wastes which pose threats to miners and groundwater supplies.
Can the control technology available to the petroleum industries handle these major threats? If not, what do we do with the hazardous waste?
Why have synthetic fuel plants not been built on a commercial scale before?
Should the Nation build a small number of these first to test out the technology, the environmental impact, and the cost?
Will the national interest be harmed if Congress takes a few months to examine the massive alternatives presented? There are many other environmental and health questions which can and must be asked. It is important that this administration, this frugal Congress, and the American public at large, weigh all the environmental and health effects which occur before we undertake such new ventures.
Have new sources of natural gas, both conventional and unconventional, been discovered as a result of the decontrol of natural gas prices?
EXPEDITED PROCEDURES
Many are saying that existing procedures do not allow the Nation to move quickly enough to meet its energy needs. Some say those procedures should either be eliminated or shortened.
Why have we established these procedures in the past? What rights of citizens and values of a nation do they preserve?
If a massive new energy facility is to be placed in a particular county, should those citizens that inhabit that county have a voice in the location of such a facility?
Both Houses of Congress are pushing forward with legislative proposals to put this Nation on a "fast track" to energy independence. How will the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Federal Strip Mining Act, the Endangered Species Act, and other substantive laws be affected by an energy mobilization board waiving already established requirements?
What do we gain by altering the normal processes of judicial review, or by supplying individuals with certain irrevocable powers?
What if procedures and regulation had been expedited in the construction of nuclear power plants in the past? How many more Three Mile Island accidents would we now have?
How many energy projects have actually been killed by environmental laws? The list is very small. Most have been modified to be acceptable and have been approved. Of those that have not been approved, how many would use foreign sources of oil?
What can we do to speed up processes without taking away the rights to question projects which can have significant impacts?
One of the rights that has developed in the environmental field is the right to have adequate information before major decisions are made, Do we no longer want to find out the impact of major decisions before we make them? Do we want to return to the days when we found out what the damage would be only after the harm had occurred?
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SUPPLIES
Are we protecting ourselves by developing a wide variety of energy options? Will some be much less capital-intensive and, therefore, more useful to the Third World countries?
Are we moving with all deliberate speed toward more solar power technology? Will it be worth the investment?
Not all of these questions can be fully answered by the time we must make energy decisions. But they must be raised now, and answered as completely as possible.
Since the gas lines began this summer, there has been a reluctance among many to question any proposal that holds out the hope of supplying more energy. No one wants to appear to be standing in the way of development of further supplies. But questions must be asked. And, legislating must await adequate answers.