Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
323153371
label
Edison Electric Institute Video Conference 6/4/91 [OA 8324]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
323153371
contentType
document
title
Edison Electric Institute Video Conference 6/4/91 [OA 8324]
citationUrl
identifierLocal
13759-003
collections
Records of the White House Office of Speechwriting (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Speech Backup Chronological Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
323153371
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
d18a6cb326721586
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
S
S
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin:
Speechwriting, White House Office of
Series:
Speech File Backup Files
Subseries:
Chron File, 1989-1993
OA/ID Number:
13759
Folder ID Number:
13759-003
Folder Title:
Edison Electric Institute Video Conference 6/4/91 [OA 8324]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
26
21
4
5
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
91 JUN - 3 PM 6:59
June 3, 1991
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
THROUGH:
TONY SNOW $ for TS
FROM:
MARK LANGE my
SUBJECT:
EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE TELECONFERENCE
On Tuesday, June 4, at 12 noon in the OEOB TV studio, you
will participate in a two-way video conference with the annual
convention of the Edison Electric Institute.
You will have about four minutes of remarks, followed by two
questions. Deputy Energy Secretary Henson Moore will have spoken
to the conference about the National Energy Strategy prior to
your appearance.
(Lange/Simon)
June 3, 1991
6:30 P.M.
[ENERVID.TS]
REMARKS FOR TELECONFERENCE: EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE
O.E.O.B. STUDIO, ROOM 459
TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1991
Thank you, Jim [Harlow, Chairman]. To you, to Secretary
Watkins, who's doing an outstanding job; to the EEI hosts, and to
all assembled -- I'm sorry I couldn't be there in person -- but
they tell me I look bigger this way, anyway. 11
[[ And after the thyroid trouble, this way you're' all protected
from that dose of radioactive iodine I took. III ]]
Well, even at a distance, it's a pleasure to offer a few
words to a group vital to our nation's wellbeing. By meeting
three-quarters of this nation's electricity needs safely and
reliably, you help sustain our standard of living, and -- quite
literally -- fuel our long-term economic growth.
As you know, increasing electricity use in the U.S. economy
promotes both our economic and environmental interests. Just
look at the evidence: In spite of rapid economic growth, we use
25 percent less energy per unit of G.N.P. now than we did 30
years ago. Thanks to the ever-greater efficiencies by your
industry and by customers, America does more, does it better, and
does it with less. And we will do even more and even better for
the rest of this decade and into the next century.
I don't believe we face a stark choice between a strong
economy on the one hand, and efficient energy use on the other.
By the year 2010, our economy will grow by nearly 80 percent,
2
adding jobs for millions of Americans. Yet the amount of energy
needed to create a unit of GNP will fall by more than 20 percent.
But we won't achieve efficiency by imposing new government
regulations. No, we will become more efficient because of the
power of the free market and the ingenuity of your engineers and
scientists.
Our National Energy Strategy makes ample room for even
greater "energy, efficiency, and ingenuity" by your industry.
The Senate Energy Committee, with the leadership of Senators
Johnston and Wallop, has done an excellent job with the
legislation necessary to implement that Strategy. I understand
Henson Moore has gone over the details of that legislation, and I
think the bill demonstrates a genuine bipartisan commitment to
balanced, realistic and comprehensive energy legislation.
I'm particularly pleased that legislation does not rely on
heavy-handed regulations, such as higher CAFE levels or import
fees, which would cost American jobs and hurt American consumers.
The right legislation can help ensure an energy future in
which we generate more energy cleanly and efficiently -- a future
in which producers and consumers will enjoy unprecedented choice
and flexibility.
So through the passage of this legislation -- and with your
continued efforts -- we're certain to meet America's energy needs
in the years ahead: affordably, cleanly and securely.
And now I think we have time for a couple of questions.
3
QUESTION:
Mr.
President
i
we are concerned that debate in the
Congress continues to focus on broad-based energy taxes as a
means of raising new revenues.
Would you give us your views on the advisability and the
likelihood of broad-based energy taxes, not just gasoline taxes,
in the foreseeable future?
Recommendation for response:
This is a two-part question. In the first place, let me
simply say that any new Federal spending programs should be paid
for with cuts in other Federal spending, not tax increases.
Secondly, we already had one energy fee -- an increase in
the gas tax of 5 cents -- in last fall's budget agreement. I do
not favor any additional taxes beyond that. And we specifically
rejected this option in the development of our National Energy
Strategy.
4
QUESTION:
Mr. President -- we very much appreciate your support for
electric vehicles, both to reduce our dependence on oil and to
benefit the environment. Your experience with electric vehicles
has largely been on the golf course, where we understand you play
in record time.
Did you know that new electric vehicles can now go over 60
miles an hour for sustained periods of time -- and would you be
interested in taking a ride on one?
Recommendation for response:
Well, Tom, given my habits with golf carts, the interests of
national security suggest that nobody should let me near one of
those. still, we might be able to get away with it, if you could
have them build me a Stealth model.
In any case, we are excited about the prospects for electric
vehicles and are making a substantial commitment to bring them to
the marketplace more quickly. The Department of Energy is
entering into a consortium with the big three auto companies and
with the electric utility industry -- to develop new batteries
that will increase performance, reduce costs and reduce waste.
In fact, this year alone we will be spending $30 million on
electric vehicle development, and we've proposed a 40 percent
(Lange/Simon)
June 3, 1991
9:50 A.M.
[ENERVID.DOC]
REMARKS FOR TELECONFERENCE: EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE
O.E.O.B. STUDIO, ROOM 459
TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1991
Thank you, Jim [Harlow, Chairman]. To you, to the EEI
hosts, and to all assembled -- I'm sorry I couldn't be there in
person -- but they tell me I look bigger this way, anyway. \\
[[ And after the thyroid trouble, this way you're all protected
from that dose of radioactive iodine I took. III ]]
Well, even at a distance, it's a pleasure to offer a few
words to a group vital to our nation's wellbeing. By meeting
three-quarters of this nation's energy needs safely and reliably,
you provide services crucial to our standard of living, and our
long-term economic growth.
As you know, the increasing electrification of the U.S.
economy brings benefits both economic and environmental.
We use less energy per unit of G.N.P than ever before.
Thanks to the ever-greater efficiencies of your industries, both
traditional and nuclear, America does more, does it better, and
does it with less. All good reasons to expect electricity's
share of our primary energy use to reach 46 percent by 2010.
So our National Energy Strategy makes ample room for the
"energy, efficiency, and ingenuity" of your industries.
The Senate, with the leadership of Senators Johnston and
Wallop, has done an admirable job with the legislation. I
understand Henson Moore has gone over the details of that
2
legislation, but I'd add my hope you'll give it your full
support.
It means an energy future that is more efficient, and freer
of burdensome regulation -- giving both consumers and producers
unprecedented choice and flexibility.
Best of all, while it calls for new generating capacity
nationwide, it puts the power to make the decisions where it
belongs -- in your hands.
So through this legislation -- and with your continued
efforts -- we're certain to meet America's energy needs in the
years ahead.
And now I think we have time for a couple of questions.
* * *
3
QUESTION:
Mr. President -- we are concerned that debate in the
Congress continues to focus on broad-based energy taxes as a
means of raising new revenues.
Would you give us your views on the advisability and the
likelihood of broad-based energy taxes, not just gasoline taxes,
in the foreseeable future?
Recommendation for response:
The budget agreement last fall specifically rejected that
kind of taxation -- and with good reason. Such taxes are
regressive, inflationary, and create regional disparities.
What's more, such taxes put us at a serious competitive
disadvantage with our trading partners -- and make goods and
services of every kind more expensive for Americans.
For these reasons, I continue to oppose such broad-based
taxes -- and hope and believe they will be rejected by the
Congress.
4
QUESTION:
Mr. President -- we very much appreciate your support for
electric vehicles, both to reduce our dependence on oil and to
benefit the environment. Your experience with electric vehicles
has largely been on the golf course, where we understand you play
in record time.
Did you know that new electric vehicles can now go over 60
miles an hour for sustained periods of time -- and would you be
interested in taking a ride on one?
Recommendation for response:
Well, Tom, given my habits with golf carts, the interests of
national security suggest that nobody should let me near one of
those. Still, we might be able to get away with it, if you could
have them build me a Stealth model. 11
In any case, because of their effiency, environmental
benefits, and our energy security, I hope electric vehicles will
continue to be a bigger part of the picture in the years to come.
Listen, thank you all for your attention -- and now I'll let
the camera people turn off all these lights. Thank you all.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
SCHEDULE PROPOSAL
May 29, 1991
TO:
Kathy Super
Deputy Assistant to the President for Appointments
and Scheduling
THROUGH:
Dorrance Smith
Assistant to the President for Media Affairs
FROM:
Barrie Tron
BT
Director of Public Affairs
REQUEST:
A satellite teleconference to the 59th Annual
Convention and Expo of the Edison Electric
Institute.
PURPOSE:
To reiterate the Administration's priorities
outlined in the National Energy Strategy.
BACKGROUND:
The Edison Electric Institute is an association of
investor-owned electric utilities whose members
generate and distribute approximately three-
quarters of the nation's energy. The convention
brings together over 2500 members from every state
and a dozen foreign countries, representing the
fields of electric and gas utilities,
manufacturing, finance and fuel supply.
The audience, most of whom have a strong interest
in energy and environmental policies, would be an
excellent forum for the President to underscore
the imperatives outlined in the National Energy
Strategy at a critical period of Congressional
consideration.
PREVIOUS
PARTICIPATION: None
DATE AND
TIME:
June 3, 1991, 2:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.; or
June 4, 1991, 12:00 noon to 2:45 p.m.; or
June 5, 1991, early afternoon.
DURATION: 15 minutes
LOCATION:
OEOB Studio, Room 459
BACKGROUND NOTES AND QUESTIONS
FOR CONSIDERATION DURING THE
PRESIDENTS VIDEO PRESENTATION TO
THE EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE'S
ANNUAL MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1991
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE
CONTACT:
JOHN B. SHLAES
WORK: 202-508-5456
HOME: 301-656-8224
Thank you
"Andow d Rink we have time ifaa
couple of questions
Electricity
A 105-year-old man was asked recently, on his birthday, to name
the most important development he had seen in his long life.
Without hesitation, he said: electricity.
The importance of the industry can be seen in the many colorful
expressions it has contributed to our language: electrifying, live
wire, charged up, human dynamo, plugged in, well-connected
For 70 years, the increasing electrification of the U.S. economy
has been followed by a decrease in total energy intensity. For
example, from 1973 to 1989, the U.S. produced 50 percent more goods
and services with only a 9 percent increase in total energy use,
by using 54 percent more electricity.
Electricity's share of primary energy use in the U.S. has grown
from 27 percent in 1974 to 36 percent in 1989, and is expected to
reach 46 percent by 2010.
As electricity use increases, carbon dioxide production
declines. Since 1973, CO2 production per dollar of GNP has
declined from four pounds to a little more than two pounds, due to
the superior efficiency of electric technology. Nuclear energy is
a dependable and proven source of electricity that produces no
atmospheric emissions at all.
The efficiency and versatility of electric technology will help
the country improve its trade balance in an increasingly
competitive international arena.
Most of the energy sources used to produce electricity are
domestic, which contributes to the nation's energy security.
I congratulate you, the leaders of the electric utility
industry, for the excellence you demonstrate in providing reliable
and dependable supplies of electrical energy to this country.
QUESTION:
MR. PRESIDENT -- We appreciate the emphasis you and your
Administration are putting on revitalization of the nuclear
power option. Your National Energy Strategy is very helpful
in providing guidance for our industry in continuing the
development of nuclear energy. In particular, it includes
specific direction for resolving the impasse on the permanent
disposal of nuclear waste. It is our strong belief that DOE
needs access to the Yucca Mountain site this year.
Will you join with us in pressing the Congress this session to
grant that access?
RECOMMENDATION FOR RESPONSE:
I understand your sense of urgency. We must show that we can
prudently move forward with this program. I will press for
this issue to be resolved this session.
QUESTION:
MR. PRESIDENT -- The electric utility industry strongly
endorses your position on the global climate change
issue, as outlined in your "America's Climate Change
Strategy: An Action Agenda," presented at the first
meeting of the U.N. Intergovernmental Negotiating
Committee for a Framework Convention on Climate Change
(INC), held in February in Chantilly, Virginia. What
will the Administration's position be during the
remainder of the U.N. negotiations, and do you believe
that Congress should attempt to address the global
climate change issue in national legislation prior to the
completion of the international process?
RECOMMENDATION FOR RESPONSE:
Our position at the international negotiations remains
firm. We continue to support a policy of no targets or
timetables for stabilization or reduction of greenhouse
gas emmissions, a comprehensive approach to addressing
the issue, research to help resolve scientific and
economic uncertainties, and a "no regrets" approach that
focuses on cost-effective options that are justifiable in
their own right.
As for congressional action, the prudent course would be
for the Congress to allow the international framework
convention negotiations to be completed, and then for the
Congress to use that framework convention to address any
possible national program.
2
QUESTION:
MR. PRESIDENT -- We are concerned that debate in the Congress
continues to focus on broad-based energy taxes as a means of
raising significant new revenues.
Would you give us your views as to the advisability and
likelihood for the enactment of broad-based energy taxes (not
just gasoline taxes) for the foreseeable future?
RECOMMENDATION FOR RESPONSE:
The Budget Summit Agreement last fall specifically rejected
the inclusion of broad-based energy taxes as a means of
raising significant new revenue. We felt at that time that
broad-based energy taxes were regressive, inflationary, and
created regional disparities.
In addition, broad-based energy taxes would place the U.S. at
a competitive disadvantage with our trading partners and would
increase the cost of U.S. products to our citizens.
For these reasons, I continue to oppose broad-based energy
taxes and believe they will be rejected.
QUESTION:
MR. PRESIDENT
-- We very much appreciate your support for
electric vehicles, which will help reduce our dependence on
oil and greatly benefit the environment. Your experience with
electric vehicles has largely been on the golf course, where
we understand you play in record time. We'd like you to know
that new electric vehicles can now go over 60 miles per hour
for sustained periods of time. Would you be interested in
taking a ride in one?
(Please see attached for background on the benefits of
electric vehicles.)
I.
Advantages of Electric Vehicles
When compared with fuels currently used in the
transportation sector and with other potential alternative fuels
for the transportation sector, electricity and electric vehicles
offer important advantages in terms of improving American energy
security and air quality. Furthermore, electric vehicles promise
lower operation and maintenance costs, and greater energy
efficiency than current alternatives.
Energy Security. Sixty-three percent of total U.S. oil
consumption is utilized in the transportation sector. This is
true despite very significant advancements in vehicle fuel
efficiency in the last 15 years. Use of petroleum in the United
States was approximately the same in 1989 as it was in 1974
because there are more vehicles on the roads traveling more miles
annually. In addition, nearly one-half of the oil used in the
U.S. is imported. Much of that oil comes from the Persian Gulf
region making our nation especially vulnerable to price and
supply shocks.
Electric vehicles offer an effective means to begin to
reduce our reliance upon foreign oil sources. And, these
vehicles have the advantage of using a "fuel" that is both
abundant and domestically produced.
According to the Department of Energy, electric generating
capacity is available today to recharge several million electric
vehicles without requiring the addition of new capacity. The
DOE, in an August, 1990 study, concluded that by the period
1995-2000, more than 40 million (roughly 22% of vehicles
currently registered in the U.S.) EVs and electric hybrid
vehicles (EHVs) could be recharged in the United States without
increasing expected capacity. (It should be noted that this
projection assumes that electric vehicle re-charging will occur
largely during off-peak, nighttime hours.)
The use of electric vehicles also could produce substantial
oil savings. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) has
estimated that 1% EV market penetration would reduce oil
consumption by 60,000 barrels per day. DOE has calculated that
if approximately 22% of total U.S. vehicles were replaced with
EVs and EHVs, nearly one million barrels of oil per day would be
saved.
Environmental improvements. Electric vehicles qualify as a
"Zero Emission Vehicle" (ZEV) and, to date, no other alternative
fueled vehicle can be so characterized. These vehicles produce
no tailpipe emissions and generate insignificant quantities of
running emissions (such as emissions from braking). One of the
most important environmental characteristics of EVs is that there
is no emission system degradation over time, and no danger of
tampering with emission controls. In fact, the only identifiable
emissions attributable to EVs are those associated with the
generation of the power needed to charge EV batteries.
EPRI analyses conclude that even when emissions at the
powerplant are included EVs offer improvements over conventional
gasoline-fueled vehicles with respect to emissions of various
pollutants, including volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon
monoxide (CO) and nitrogen oxide (NOx)
Similar positive environmental impacts may be expected in
the area of greenhouse gases. The World Resources Institute has
estimated that if EVs are charged by electricity produced from
plants relying on the currently projected mix of fossil, nuclear
and hydro generation in the year 2000, greenhouse gas emissions
per mile driven would fall by 25 percent.
Other Advantages. EVs will be more efficient than conventional
gasoline powered vehicles. An 1989 EPRI study concluded that
even near-term EVs powered by lead-acid batteries are projected
to be 25% to 40% more efficient than their gasoline counterparts.
As the World Resources Institute concluded in October, 1990:
Electric vehicles are probably the most
attractive option for the next decade or two.
They offer distinct climate, air pollution
and security benefits.
Although they
are expensive today, increased research on
better storage methods is expected to bring
down prices in the coming years.
World Resources Institute, "Reducing U.S. Reliance on Imported
oil: An Assessment of Alternative Transportation Fuels,"
(October, 1990.)
05/31/91 11:14 202 586 9987
DOE
1
001
I
OF
ANNA 17th OF I
Department of Energy
Washington, DC 20585
91 MAY 31 All : 20
OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
Mary JOY Jameson, Director
DATE
TO
BARRY TRON
FAX NUMBER
456-6218
OFFICE NUMBER
COMMENTS
MARY JOY JAMESON Tom Olson
FROM
FAX NUMBER 586-9987
OFFICE 202/586-4940
NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER
7
Numbers Office of Public Affairs
(202) 586-4940
(FTS) 896-4940
(202) 586-9987
Fax
(FTS) 896-9987
05/31/91
11:15
202 586 9987
DOE
1
002
BEFORE VIDEO
Remarks of W. Henson Moore
Deputy Secretary of Energy
before the
Edison Electric Institute's Annual Convention & Expo
San Diego, California
June 3, 1991
Good afternoon. It is important to me once again to have the
opportunity to address an annual convention of the Edison Electric Institute.
You are a most critical component of the energy spectrum, and we are at a very
important point in action on that spectrum. We have matters more urgent than
ususal to discuss; therefore, I especially appreciate this time today.
But first, let me urge each of you to make time in your schedules to
tour the very impressive Exhibit Hall. I visited there earlier today, and
it's quite a show! Anybody who has any doubts about U.S. technology or U.S.
competitiveness just needs to visit a few booths to know that American science
and American know-how are as strong today as ever. And as the greatly
expanded research and development program outlined in the National Energy
Strategy starts to flourîsh, American technology will get even stronger.
The theme of this Conference -- ENERGY -- EFFICIENCY -- INGENUITY -- is
most appropriate to a future of dynamic growth and successful world leadership
by the United States. As I'm sure you all know -- some far more intimately
than others the Department of Energy has spent a great part of the past two
years developing within the Administration and in recent months working with
Congress to implement the first edition of a National Energy Strategy for
America. We believe it contains powerful ideas for the future.
In framing a comprehensive energy strategy that would work for the long-
term, we relied on those most traditional American strengths -- open markets
We shunned the "command and control" approach of more taxes and more
and competitive choice, free trade and focused investment in new technology.
government directives telling business how to operate. Quite frankly, this
tax and regulate approach has failed repeatedly in the past; yet it is still
much beloved in certain quarters of our political and media establishments.
that has caused most complaint among its critics.
In fact, it is the absence of command and control measures in the Strategy
and balanced. You will hear these words a lot, but they are important. The
The President's National Energy Strategy is comprehensive, long-term,
Strategy offers no quick fixes, no silver bullets. Rather, it contains some
130 broad-ranging yet complimentary action items which, when implemented over
the next 20 years, will stimulate energy efficiency, increase domestic
production in all energy sectors, improve environmental quality, and promote
economic growth well into the future.
05/31/91
11:15
202 586 9987
DOE
003
This afternoon, I would like to give you a preview of what that future
can be. But first, let me make just a few comments on the fine work that was
done by the Senate Energy Committee in crafting a bill that will be very
helpful to energy. Only about 20 percent of the proposals in the NES require
Congressional action, but they are important, ranging from natural gas
pipeline deregulation, to nuclear licensing reform, hydroelectric licensing
electric vehicles.
reform, and development of alternative fuels and technologies, including
I believe the bill voted out of the Senate Energy Committee is by far
the best piece of energy legislation in 20 years or longer. The bill still
has a long way to go -- the toughest battles are all ahead. But Senator
Johnston, and your next speaker, Senator Wallop deserve our special thanks for
the truly outstanding job they have done. Senator Wallop's leadership was
especially important in gaining nuclear licensing reform and exemption of
small hydroelectric facilities from federal licensing.
Together, Senators Johnston and Wallop have delivered action on the
entire energy spectrum a feat no one thought possible. Their legislation
is a rare opportunity to really help the energy producers of this Nation. It
will ever see better.
deserves your strong support for passage on the Senate floor. I doubt you
Now, to that preview of the future
In less than 20 years, in the
year 2010, our Strategy envisions a world in which consumers have far greater
energy choice and flexibility. Less regulated, more competitive energy
markets at home and expanding energy trade abroad will encourage political
stability and economic growth worldwide, making possible the President's "new
world order." Market dynamics will also encourage the most productive
environment. investments in terms of future energy supplies and an improving global
In the year 2010, we project that real U.S. GNP will have increased by
77 percent, while our population will have grown by only 13 percent. Housing
stock will be up by 25 percent and commercial floor space by one-third. Our
people will be far more mobile, with the average American driving 41 percent
more gasoline. miles -- but in far more efficient vehicles, not necessarily powered by
Over this same period, we expect total primary energy demand will grow
by 30 percent, but electricity demand will grow by 50 percent. Electricity
will play an increasingly dominant role in the U.S. economy and the American
way of life in future years.
Even assuming highly aggressive and successful implementation of the
Strategy's demand reduction initiatives, within 20 years the United States
will still need about 200,000 megawatts of new generating capacity -- an
increase of about one-third over present levels. About 85 percent of this new
capacity will be baseload and intermediate capacity -- and you will be the
people who must make the decisions as to when, and where, and how to provide
that capacity.
2
05/31/91
11:16
202 586 9987
DOE
004
The National Energy Strategy seeks to give you greater choice and
predictability in making these decisions. The Strategy sets two goals for
electricity: 1) To encourage efficiency and flexibility in electricity supply
related processes.
and fuel choices. It proposes to achieve these goals through two distinct but
and demand choices; and, 2) To promote diversity of electricity technology
The first process involves the reform of statutes and regulations that
no longer serve your industry or our Nation well. The second process involves
research, development, and demonstration activities that result in cleaner,
more economic generating technologies -- clean coal, advanced nuclear,
efficient gas turbines and integrated gasification-combined cycle technology,
solar, wind, geothermal, fuel cells, and hydropower.
Across the whole spectrum of energy regulation, we have problems. Over
the years, as regulatory structures have grown more complex and contentious,
they have operated less and less in a manner that promotes energy goals,
environmental objectives, or economic efficiency. Consider, for example:
0 We use less natural gas in the United States today than we did 20
years ago, despite the fact that domestic gas is abundant, clean, and
very competitively priced. Much of the problem can be attributed to an
uncertain and delay-ridden regulatory regime.
0 Hydroelectric power is the cleanest, most economic form of generation
-- and by far, our most commercially utilized renewable energy source.
Yet today a maze of conflicting and overlapping regulatory and
environmental regulations keep it from competing effectively as an
electricity resource.
0 We haven't had a new order for a nuclear power plant in the U.S. in
over a dozen years, and we won't -- until we achieve licensing reform
and demonstrate progress in solving the political and institutional
problems of nuclear waste disposal. You know this better than I.
0 The uncertainty, delays, and costs associated with state and local
siting and environmental reviews of generation and transmission
facilities inhibit development of new electricity resources.
The National Energy Strategy supports regulatory reform in all these
areas, to reduce inefficiencies, allow greater predictability, and encourage
more diversity and market choice in electric generation decisions. We are
also actively pursuing the so-called "WEPCO fix" -- to reduce uncertainty in
the application of advanced coal technologies at existing utility and
industrial facilities.
Holding Company Act (PUHCA) of 1935. Yes, I understand the legitimate
Now, let me broach the unspeakable -- amendment of the Public Utility
concerns - and the passionate emotions infusing this issue. But I also
3
05/31/91
11:17
202 586 9987
DOE
4.
005
understand that PUHCA reform is in the best interest of the Nation and, I
honestly believe, of the electric power industry.
The Strategy's PUHCA reform proposal would greatly enhance nascent
competition in wholesale generation markets while protecting ratepayers and
shareholders. PUHCA reform will not force any utility to purchase power from
anyone, including an exempt wholesale generator. Neither will it force the
use of competitive procurement. It will, however, expand resource options for
market mechanisms.
those utilities and state commissions which choose to make greater use of
The present PUHCA legislation is 56 years old. I cannot think of one
other thing that is better for NOT having changed significantly in 56 years.
In fact, I cannot think of one other thing that has not changed significantly
in 56 years. Those opposing the expanded options that PUHCA reform would
bring are saying, in effect, that the challenges of the 21st century will best
be met through rigid adherence to law and regulations enacted before most of
us were even born, to address problems in an electric utility industry far
different from the one we have today. I do not believe this argument can be
seriously maintained.
While we are at it, let me tread on another unspeakable -- the
associated question of transmission access. Many believe is the real core of
the opposition to PUHCA reform. We considered this issue very carefully in
developing the Strategy and concluded, frankly, that we really don't know
enough to craft effective legislation at this time. The Strategy does
strongly recommend, however, that utility managers themselves consider how
best to structure a system that can accommodate diversity and competition
without compromising reliability.
We do encourage federal and state regulators to work with the industry
and to use their existing authorities to encourage transmission access for
traditional utility as well as non-utility suppliers of wholesale electric
power. We also support efforts by FERC to promote efficient pricing of
transmission services.
Let me be very clear on the Administration's position. We believe
increased access to electric transmission facilities for wholesale power
buyers and sellers would increase economic efficiency, stimulate competition,
and ensure that the Nation's industries, shops, and residences benefit from
their local utility having access to electricity at the lowest reasonable
cost. But we would like to see such progress gained through the efforts of
the utility industry itself, not federal lawmakers.
Still, the issue has been joined, and support for mandated transmission
still has a window of opportunity to take the lead in developing a course of
access among many in the Congress is stronger than we had thought. Industry
action that will serve your needs and those of the Nation. But if you fail to
seize this opportunity, then others less knowledgeable, less experienced,
and ultimately, less responsible than you -- will seize it for you. As I said
at the beginning of these remarks, this Administration favors open markets and
competitive choice over command and control approaches. But industry, too,
4
05/31/91
11:18
202 586 9987
DOE
006
must do its part. You must show progress in moving to respond to the larger
national interest.
Strategy -- investment in technology. Science and technology -- together with
Now let me turn briefly to the second key aspect of our National Energy
that fabled American ingenuity that you salute at this Conference 04 have
always held the answers to our problems and ensured our Nation's economic
growth and improving quality of life. It will be no different in the future.
Over the next five years, the Department of Energy will invest $3.5
reaching out to industry and drawing companies into collaborative ventures
billion in Strategy-related R&D. And we intend to leverage these funds by
with the scientists in our National Laboratories. We already have good
programs in place with the Electric Power Research Institute and the Gas
Research Institute. We also have substantial utility participation in our
Clean Coal Technology program, and are pressing ahead with equal vigor on the
nuclear side, in our Civilian Reactor Development program.
On the immediate horizon, the Department's 1992 budget requests $314
million for advanced electricity technology R&D, an increase of 28 percent
over our actual current year budget. The Solar program is up 10 percent over
this year's enacted level and concentrates on photovoltaics, solar thermal,
biofuels, wind, and the Solar Energy Research Institute construction project.
The Geothermal program focuses on the highest payoff opportunities. We will
through cooperative agreements among Argonne, Oak Ridge, and Los Alamos and
spend $17 million on high-temperature superconductivity in FY 1992, working
the private sector.
The perspective and programs I have just laid out for you anticipate an
America that is a strong and prosperous leader in a world community of free
nations in the 21st century. Within the Department of Energy we have charted
a new course to provide the energy security which will form the basis of U.S
economic growth and leadership. Our goals are more open markets, greater
competition and consumer choice, and expanded energy trade worldwide. The
means are regulatory reform and focused investment in innovative technologies.
challenge. When Americans turn a switch, they expect the lights to come on,
In these next years, we believe electricity will be our greatest energy
and we at DOE share a part of that responsibility.
and at a reasonable price. Your job is to see that they are not disappointed,
The world today is clearly moving toward freedom -- free political
systems, free economic systems. This industry will be no different; you must
adapt to change. PUHCA reform is a part of this inevitable change, and it is
going to happen. Transmission access will also increase. The real question
edict? is -- Will it happen through your decisions, or will it happen by federal
I urge each of you to consider the longer-term good. Consider your
customers' interests. Consider your shareholders' interests. Consider your
own interests. A11 are served by efficient, flexible, competitive markets
5
05/31/91 11:18
202 586 9987
DOE
1
007
that provide ample supplies of affordable electricity generated with
environmentally sound technologies.
Reform, investment, innovation -- these are the keys to an ever
Strategy now offers us a roadmap to make it happen. Work with us, as our
successful future for your industry and for our people. The National more Energy
great. differences in the larger scheme of things are small and our common purpose is
Thank you.
6
(Lange/Simon)
June 3, 1991
9:50 A.M.
[ENERVID.DOC]
REMARKS FOR TELECONFERENCE:
EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE
O.E.O.B. STUDIO, ROOM 459
TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1991
Thank you, Jim [Harlow, Chairman]. To you, to the EEI
hosts, and to all assembled -- I'm sorry I couldn't be there in
person -- but they tell me I look bigger this way, anyway. 11
[[ And after the thyroid trouble, this way you're all protected
from that dose of radioactive iodine I took. III ]]
Well, even at a distance, it's a pleasure to offer a few
words to a group that is vital to our nation's wellbeing.
By meeting three-quarters of this nation's energy needs
safely and reliably, your industries are crucial to our standard
of living, and our long-term economic growth.
As you're well aware, the increasing electrification of the
U.S. economy has brought benefits both economic and
environmental.
We're using less energy per unit of G.N.P than ever before.
Thanks to the ever-greater efficiencies of your industries, both
traditional and nuclear, America is doing more, doing it better,
and doing it with less. All good reasons to expect electricity's
share of our primary energy use to reach 46 percent by 2010.
That's why our National Energy Strategy makes ample room for
the "energy, efficiency, and ingenuity" of your industries.
The Senate, with the leadership of Senators Johnston and
Wallop, has done an admirable job with the legislation. I
2
understand Henson Moore has gone over the details of that
legislation, but I'd add my hope you'll give it your full
support.
It means an energy future that is more efficient, and freer
of burdensome regulation -- giving both consumers and producers
unprecedented choice and flexibility.
Best of all, while it calls for new generating capacity
nationwide, it puts the power to make the decisions where it
belongs -- in your hands.
So through this legislation -- and with your continued
efforts -- we're certain to meet America's energy needs in the
years ahead.
And now I think we have time for a couple of questions.
* * *
3
QUESTION:
Mr. President -- we are concerned that debate in the
Congress continues to focus on broad-based energy taxes as a
means of raising new revenues.
Would you give us your views on the advisability and the
likelihood of broad-based energy taxes, not just gasoline taxes,
in the foreseeable future?
Recommendation for response:
The budget agreement last fall specifically rejected that
kind of taxation -- and with good reason. Such taxes are
regressive, inflationary, and create regional disparities.
What's more, such taxes put us at a serious competitive
disadvantage with our trading partners -- and make goods and
services of every kind more expensive for Americans.
For these reasons, I continue to oppose such broad-based
taxes -- and hope and believe they will be rejected by the
Congress.
QUESTION:
4
Mr. President -- we very much appreciate your support for
electric vehicles, both to reduce our dependence on oil and to
benefit the environment. Your experience with electric vehicles
has largely been on the golf course, where we understand you play
in record time.
Did you know that new electric vehicles can now go over 60
miles an hour for sustained periods of time -- and would you be
interested in taking a ride on one?
Recommendation for response:
Well, Tom, given my habits with golf carts, the interests of
national security suggest that nobody should let me near one of
those. Still, we might be able to get away with it, if you could
have them build me a Stealth model. 11
In any case, because of their effiency, environmental
benefits, and our energy security, I hope electric vehicles will
continue to be a bigger part of the picture in the years to come.
Listen, thank you all for your attention -- and now I'll let
the camera people turn off all these lights. Thank you all.