licensing, and the need for a reliable domestic supply of uranium, constructively addresses several major issues directly relevant to the expanded use of nuclear power. CMA respectfully suggests that the issue of nuclear waste management remains as a further vital issue that must be addressed to make the expanded use of nuclear power a reality. We urge the Committee and the Congress to address this issue directly in S. 341. As mentioned earlier in this statement, CMA member companies have increasingly used cogeneration to provide heat and electricity. This trend has substantially contributed to the improved energy use efficiency of our industry. We have also increased our use of electricity generated by independent power producers. Our members' experience indicates, however, that a major impediment to the further expansion of both cogeneration and independent power production is lack of adequate access to the electricity transmission grid for purposes of wheeling power from the source, whether cogenerator or independent power producer, to a potential customer at a different location. believes that increased access to the grid for wheeling purposes must be an integral part of efforts to increase the supply of electric power and to increase the efficiency of electricity generation in the United States. Conclusion CMA The U.S. chemical industry makes vital contributions to the growth of the U.S. economy and to the quality of the lives of American citizens, as evidenced notably by the trade surplus of $16.5 billion earned by the chemical industry in 1990. The chemical industry must have continued access to competitively-priced energy and related feedstock supplies to continue to contribute to the nation's wellbeing and to maintain our international competitiveness. We therefore welcome and support measures to expand domestic energy resources, in an environmentally responsible manner. We oppose measures which will limit access to energy supplies or unilaterally raise U.S. energy costs relative to those of foreign competitors. Specifically, we oppose the oil security premium proposed in Title VII of S.341, and would oppose the bill so long as this provision remains in it. APPENDIXES TO FEBRUARY 26, 1991 HEARING (Title III and Subtitles A and B of Title IV) On February 26, 1991, J. Michael Davis, Assistant Secretary for Following the hearing, you submitted written questions on behalf If we can be of further assistance to you or your staff, please Enclosures Sincerely, Jomph C. Kampiral for Jacqueline Knox Brown Assistant Secretary Congressional and Intergovernmental Question 11: Answer: QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR WALLOP The Congress has enacted numerous environmental policies to deal with the potentially adverse Impacts of our industrialized economy such as the impacts of energy production, transportation and utilization. (a) Would you agree that existing national (b) Would you agree that for so-called "least (c) What are the current limitations regarding The (a) Yes. Legislation such as the Clean Air Act Amendments, the Clean Water Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, among others, all impose requirements that must be borne by manufacturers and ultimately by consumers. additional costs associated with these requirements change economic behavior and, as such, represent the internalization of many, but not all of, the environmental costs and benefits of economic activities. (b) "Least cost" energy planning is one name for electricity generation investments. Each State represents one experiment in how "least cost" planning might be done. Some include explicit consideration of environmental externalities in calculating which investments are cost-effective. Others do not. The Department of Energy believes that more information and analysis is needed before judgment can be passed on how "least cost" planning should address environmental and national security externalities. To that end, the Department is involved in an international effort to develop a methodology for performing full fuel cycle analyses that could be utilized in evaluating alternative energy resource options. This effort will attempt to ascertain how best to include both the costs and the benefits associated with particular energy resource options. (c) The current limitations regarding methodologies for performing integrated resource energy planning include regulatory and other disincentives, and the difficulty in accurately measuring the costs and benefits associated with particular programs. These limitations are addressed by the NES through proposals that support State IRP activities and development of methodologies to determine the full fuel cycle costs and benefits of energy technologies. DOE plans to continue support for refinement of IRP methodologies. Question 1: Answer: QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR WIRTH One of the primary goals of the National Energy Strategy is to reduce oil consumption by 3.4 million barrels per day by 2010-- largely through the use of alternative fuels. Can you break down these savings for us, and can you tell me how much of the reduced consumption is a result of passage of the Clean Air Amendments. Of the estimated 3.4 million barrels per day oil savings in the transportation sector in 2010, about 2.2 million barrels per day are to be achieved through the use of alternative transportation fuels, and about 1.2 million barrels per day are to be obtained from transportation R&D which is expected to lead to increased vehicle and system efficiencies. Of the 2.2 million barrels per day of oil CAFE Credit Incentive for AF Vehicles Biomass R&D Subtotal (NES Alternative Fuels) 1.4 mm B/D 0.1 mm B/D 1.5 mm B/D |