Response from Senator Murray

Dear Mr. Brineman:

Thank you for your letter regarding our national energy policy. I appreciate
knowing your views on this important issue.

As you may know, Congress passed the Energy Policy Act (H.R. 6) in July 2005.
While the bill has some beneficial provisions, it unfortunately lacks a
forward-thinking vision to help reduce our dependence on foreign oil and
encourage the development of alternative sources in the future. Having not
passed a comprehensive energy bill in over ten years, this was our opportunity
to recognize the challenges we face and set a responsible framework for
addressing those challenges in the long-term. As this legislation did little to
alter the status quo, I simply could not lend it my support.

Despite record high gasoline prices at home, this bill does not contain a
long-term plan for reducing our dependence on foreign oil. I supported an
amendment introduced by Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) that would have required a
forty percent reduction in oil consumption by 2020. Unfortunately, the
amendment failed. The bill does, however, contain a provision to provide rural
communities with immediate assistance from high gasoline prices. While no
single action will significantly lower gasoline prices in the near-term,
reducing our dependence on foreign oil over the long-term is imperative in
helping to make us more energy-independent.

The bill also fails to address the issue of global warming, a phenomenon that is
already causing alarming changes to our environment. During debate on the
Senate version of the bill, the broadly-supported and bipartisan Climate
Stewardship Act was offered as an amendment. The bill, which would set
mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions, unfortunately failed. I have
consistently supported the Climate Stewardship Act and was disappointed that it
did not receive broader support.

The Senate did, however, successfully adopt an amendment acknowledging that the
problem of climate change requires the implementation of mandatory caps on
greenhouse gas emissions. I was pleased that the Senate formally acknowledged
the need to have an aggressive strategy for fighting global warming, as the
House included no mention of the problem in its version of the bill.
Unfortunately, the Senate language on global warming was left out of the final
energy bill. As energy consumption is widely believed to contribute to global
climate change, not addressing the issue in this legislation is simply
irresponsible.

I also had serious concerns with a provision that repeals the Public Utility
Holding Company Act (PUHCA). The Act was intended to eliminate unfair practices
by electricity and gas holding companies by requiring that interstate public
utility holding companies fall under federal regulation. Proponents of PUHCA
repeal have argued it will ease the burden on utilities trying to compete in the
new energy market. There is a significant possibility, however, that PUHCA
repeal could exacerbate market abuses and ultimately cause the greatest harm to
consumers. I am pleased, therefore, that while the PUHCA repeal language was
ultimately included, the bill also grants the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) with increased oversight authority of utility mergers.

Additionally, I was concerned with a proposal to conduct inventories of oil and
gas reserves in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Since 1982, a moratorium on
drilling in our coastal waters has been firmly in place. With a need to reduce
our consumption of traditional fossil fuels, I believe drilling in the OCS is
both unnecessary and poses significant environmental concerns. While the
current moratorium extends through 2012, the language in the energy bill allows
the Department of Interior to conduct assessments of potential resources. Such
a provision only serves to open the door to the development of offshore
drilling, which is something that I firmly oppose. I supported an amendment to
strike this provision from the legislation, but it unfortunately failed by a
narrow margin.

The final bill is also less aggressive than the Senate bill in promoting the
development of renewable energy. During the Senate debate, I supported an
amendment requiring that at least ten percent of electricity be produced from
renewable sources by 2020. That provision was unfortunately left out of the
final legislation. I also supported a provision that requires U.S. oil
refineries to double their use of ethanol to eight billion gallons by 2012.
Increasing our production of ethanol, a fuel made primarily from corn, will help
us become more energy-independent. This provision was included in the final
bill, however, although the mandate was lowered to 7.5 billion gallons by 2012.

Despite these concerns, I was pleased that the House and Senate were able to
compromise and include a substantial package of tax incentives for alternative
sources and energy efficiency. The bill extends the production tax credit for
renewable sources like wind, geothermal, and biomass through 2008. There are
new tax deductions to encourage the construction of energy-efficient homes and
commercial buildings, as well as for the use of efficient appliances and for
reductions in overall energy consumption. Additionally, the legislation
establishes new and extends existing tax credits for the purchase of hybrid,
fuel cell, and alternative fuel vehicles. Together, these provisions will help
promote the importance of energy conservation and efficiency throughout our
communities.

Unfortunately, these benefits were far outweighed by the lack of clear direction
in our overall energy strategy. I was pleased that my colleagues were able to
work together in an amiable, bipartisan fashion to craft a fairly sensible
version of this much-needed legislation, which is why I voted for the Senate
bill. The final version, however, dropped important provisions on issues such
as global warming and fossil fuel reduction, hence failing to offer any real
solutions to our long-term energy crisis. For these reasons, I did not support
the legislation.

Again, I appreciate knowing your thoughts on this important issue. Rest
assured, I will continue to advocate legislation that promotes our energy
independence and addresses the serious environmental challenges posed by our
reliance on traditional fossil fuels. Please keep in touch.

Sincerely,


Patty Murray
United States Senator