Recently received a belated reply to my letter to my Congressman, Tom Davis, which raises some interesting points:
January 24, 2002
Thank you for writing me sharing your thoughts on ways that the
United States could attain "energy independence" from the Middle East. I
sincerely regret the delay in responding but greatly appreciate hearing
from you on this issue.
For the past 10 years, United States policy, taken as a whole, has
encouraged imported crude oil over domestic production. In fact, the U.S.
is currently 56 percent dependent on foreign sources for our nation's oil
supply and these imports cost us more than $100 billion last year. This
is an increase from 36 percent in 1973 during the first oil embargo and 46
percent in 1991 during Desert Storm. Unless we as a nation address this
issue now, the Department of Energy predicts our dependence will rise to
64 percent in 2020.
For these reasons, I have been a member of the House Renewable Energy
and Energy Efficiency Caucus since its inception in 1996. With energy
prices on the rise and our dependence on foreign oil greater than ever, it
makes sense to consider the role that renewable energy and energy
efficiency measures can play to reduce our dependence on foreign oil,
benefit our economy or improve our environment. By focusing on renewable
energy and energy efficiency and moving away from carbon intensive
technologies, this will set the stage for a cleaner, healthier
environment, and for an American-driven, technology rich and profitable
clean energy sector.
I do not support opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)
to oil and gas development. I do not see the potential to off-set the
amount of crude oil the U.S. imports from abroad or a decrease in gasoline
prices at the pump. We need to focus on the long-term necessity of moving
beyond petroleum if we truly want the U.S. to be "energy independent."
Because oil is a finite resource, I supported efforts to reduce dependence
on both foreign and domestic supplies. In this year's Energy and Water
Appropriations bill, I voted in support of an amendment which prevents the
Army Corps of Engineers from issuing any permits for new oil and gas
drilling in the Great Lakes region. Likewise, in the Interior
Appropriations bill, I voted to support an amendment to protect Florida's
coastline from off-shore drilling. Meeting our energy needs does not mean
we have to weaken our environmental laws.
The broader issue raised by ANWR, as you have pointed out, is access
to public lands for energy exploration and development. Hearings on this
issue were held early in the 107th Congress, largely in response to former
President Clinton's designation of 19 new national monuments, and the
expansion of 3 others. There is considerable disagreement about the
potential resources on Federal lands, and some assessments are underway.
Interior Secretary Gale Norton has announced that the Department is
examining the monument actions of President Clinton. The Secretary is
conducting an examination of "land status and lease stipulation
impediments" with the objective to "consider modifications where
appropriate."
H.R. 4, Securing America's Future Energy, which passed the House on
August 1, addressed bipartisan support for tax incentives for energy
production and conservation and research for cleaner-burning coal
technology. The Act also promotes the use of alternative fuel vehicles
that are both energy efficient and environmentally safer; integrates
distributed hybrid power systems into the power grid, which will provide
consumers with a stable and reliable energy source; helps consumers save
money by developing next-generation lighting that is more energy
efficient, longer lasting and cost competitive; and provides increased
investment in Department of Energy (DOE) and Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) research and development programs.
Renewable energies are also addressed, including: increased efforts
to enhance the use of fuel cells and other energy efficient and
environmentally benign uses of hydrogen energy; development of bioenergy
and biofuels technologies to increase the production of energy from
agriculture residues and other materials that would normally be considered
waste, protecting the environment, providing for the nation's energy
needs, and promoting rural development; and investment in DOE programs
doing next generation research into renewable energy including solar,
wind, geothermal and hydropower.
Additionally, H.R. 4 addressed research and development of synthetic
fuels. It is wise to invest in the new technology that may help solve
some of our energy problems and synthetic fuels may be one answer to
future energy shortages. Scientists are working to convert coal into
cleaner, more usable petroleum liquids and gases and to manufacture
coal-oil mixtures and huge resources of oil-bearing shale, which may yield
large quantities of synthetic oil. The challenge remains to find a more
efficient and economical method of conversion, not to mention the minimum
use of water and damage to the environment while mining and processing oil
shale.
I have been a supporter of nuclear energy and was proud to support
H.R. 2983 which will extend the existing Price-Anderson program, which is
set to expire in August 2002. The bill matches the bipartisan proposal
for reauthorization in the Senate and tracks recommendations made in
reports submitted to Congress during the Clinton Administration by DOE and
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) supporting renewal. H.R. 2983
passed the House on November 27 by voice vote and will be considered by
the Senate during the second session of the 107th Congress. We must
ensure that nuclear power, which provides 20 percent of our nation's
electric power, remains an important part of our domestic energy
production.
I would like to address your comments concerning the "purchase from,
and aid in, the development of the oil production capacity of the nations.
. . particularly. . .Russia, Uzbekistan, or Turkmenistan." Russia is
important to world energy markets because it holds the world's largest
natural gas reserves, the second largest coal reserves, and the eighth
largest oil reserves. Russia is also the world's largest exporter of
natural gas, second largest oil exporter, and the second largest energy
consumer. Uzbekistan has significant oil and gas reserves and is
currently the world's eighth largest natural gas producer. Although the
country's oil and gas production has increased in the past decade,
Uzbekistan's export potential is hindered by a lack of export routes from
landlocked Central Asia. Likewise, Turkmenistan is important to world
energy markets because it contains over 100 trillion cubic feet of proven
natural gas reserves. It also boarders the Caspian Sea, which contains
major oil and gas reserves.
U.S. policy goals regarding energy resources in the Central Asian and
South Caucasian states have included supporting their sovereignty and ties
to the West, supporting U.S. private investment, breaking Russia's
monopoly over oil and gas transport routes by encouraging the building of
pipelines that do not traverse Russia or Iran, promoting Western energy
security through diversified suppliers, assisting ally Turkey, and
opposing the building of pipelines that transit Iran. In 1998, the
Clinton Administration set up the post of Special Advisor to the President
and the Secretary of State for Caspian Basin Energy Diplomacy to
coordinate policies and programs of TDA, OPIC, the Department of Energy,
and other agencies (this post was retained by the Bush Administration).
On May 17, 2001, President Bush announced his national energy policy.
It recommended that the President direct U.S. agencies to support building
the Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline, expedite use of the pipeline by oil
companies operating in Kazakhstan, support constructing a Baku-Ceyhan
natural gas pipeline to export Azerbaijan's Shah Deniz gas, and otherwise
encourage the Caspian regional states to provide a stable and inviting
business climate for energy and infrastructure development.
Administration officials maintain that fundamental U.S. interests in
Caspian energy pipeline development have not changed in the post-September
11 environment.
Congressional interest has been reflected in several hearings on the
South Caucasus and Central Asia. Conferees on Omnibus Appropriations for
FY1999 (P.L. 105-277) stated that they "believe that the development of
energy resources in the Caspian Sea region is important for the economic
development of the countries involved, as well as regional stability,"
endorsed "alternatives to a pipeline through Iran," and supported "an
east-west energy corridor to assist in developing the region's energy
resources." The "Silk Road Act" language in P.L. 106-113 authorized
enhanced policy and aid to support economic development and transport
needs in the South Caucasus and Central Asia. The Europe Subcommittee of
the House International Relations Committee held a hearing on U.S.
interests in the Caucasus and Caspian region on October 10, 2001.
Congressional action to lift aid sanctions on Azerbaijan might provide a
boost to energy development in the South Caucasus.
Many problems remain to be resolved before these nations can fully
exploit and market their energy resources, including project financing,
political instability, ethnic and regional conflict, and the security and
construction of pipeline routes. The recent conflict in Afghanistan is
likely to increase regional insecurity, which could affect some or all of
the Caspian Sea energy projects.
With so much of the world's oil supply concentrated in a single part
of the globe and the U.S. dependence upon imported oil exceeding 50
percent of total consumption, the best way to insure the nation's security
is by removing itself from our dependence on oil, both foreign and
domestic. Through the use of advance technologies, renewable energy
sources and energy efficiency measures this can be achieved. While
extracting crude oil within our border may be a fix for a short-term
energy crisis, it is only temporary. We must strive for the long-term
goal of a powerful American energy sector free from foreign political
instability and market control.
Again, thank you for contacting me. Your views and comments are
important to me as Congress considers all the issues you have discussed in
your email. I regret that we disagree on some of the above issues, but we
are on the same page concerning others. I also would like to thank you
for your kind words of support and I hope both you and your husband will
continue to share your concerns with me.
Sincerely,
Tom Davis
Member of Congress |
