Extensions of Remarks 32085 Extensions of Remarks

December 3, 1980 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS 32085 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS THE SYNFUELS BILL-WHAT ing large synthetic fuels commercialization rious misgivings. Our attempts to clarify HATH CONGRESS WROUGHT? projects. The compromise reached in the statutory and report language so that the final version of S. 932 displeased me and Department of Energy would be written ex many House conferees and Members be plicitly into the joint venture projects and HON. DON FUQUA cause it confined the Defense Production also assigned a strong role as the Federal OF FLORIDA Act authorizations to the period prior to the technical arm of the Corporation were not IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES "fully operational" phase of the Synfuels very successful. Corporation. Since then, however, the Ap Further, we felt that the Corporation Wednesday, December 3, 1980 propriations Committees have acted with would have difficulty making judgments • Mr. FUQUA. Mr. Speaker, I am sufficient urgency that it appears a signifi on refined proposals versus early conceptual pleased to share with my colleague's cant amount of funding will be committed designs given the variety of criteria to be under both the Federal Non-Nuclear Act used in making project selections. As a remarks titled "The Synfuels Bill and the DPA authorities through the De result, we did provide for a cost-sharing What Hath Congress Wrought?" partment of Energy. All in all, up to $5 bil design mechanism so that rough proposals which were made on October 21, 1980, lion in appropriations could be committed could be carried on to the preliminary by Congressman JoHN WYDLER at the to synfuels projects by the end of this calen design stage and thus, be ultimately on a NERO Symposium. dar year. better comparative basis with competing JACK WYDLER is a thoughtful and In the area of control of the Corporation project proposals. My understanding is that hard-working legislator who is highly and reporting requirements to the Congress, the DOE feasibility studies and cooperative there were also significant differences be agreement solicitations provide precisely dedicated to improving energy produc tween the House and Senate. The SFC as it this opportunity. tion in our country by using our own turned out, is "neither fish nor fowl" and al Our concern here, of course, was the over resources and technology. As a con though many control and reporting require zealous proposal which has a sufficiently in feree on the Energy Security Act, he ments were written in at the strong insist novative flavor to deserve a second look. spent untold hours seeking to improve ence of the House conferees, the SFC does Such proposals should be encouraged and the bill. I feel, because of his dedica not come under the full aegis of the Gov the House conferees were intent on allowing tion 2nd contribution, it is a much ernment Corporation Act. I feel, however, "general" solicitations by the SFC so as to better piece of legislation, that we came a long way on this issue from accomplish this. However, the SFC cannot the situation we were presented with in con be in the position of funding a batch of Mr. WYDLER's remarks follow: ference where the Senate simply wanted to risky activities heavily spiced with optimism THE SYNFUELS Bt:LL-WHAT HATH CONGRESS give five unidentified men over $20 billion to for synfuels production. I can't imagine a WROUGHT? go off and do God knows what and, then more crippling blow to the infant synfuels Good morning ladies and gentlemen. I ap come back five years later and tell us how industry than several early project failures preciate the invitation to speak not only be they spent the money. The question of a under the SFC commercialization activity cause I believe it might prove interesting for long range Synfuels Corporation strategy or, even in DOE technology demonstration you to have more congressional background was resolved in a more satisfactory compro programs, although the latter are inherent on the Synthetic Fuels Corporation, but mise, and hopefully, the various authoriza ly riskier projects. also because it serves as a stimulus for me to tion committees in the House and Senate as I think we will have to wait and see just identify issues and concerns as to how the well as both bodies will have sufficient op what the SFC organization looks like before Corporation will operate. portunity to review such a strategy and the we can make a decision on whether the The conference on S. 932 was a complex related funding requirements for phase two chances are good that this "investment and torturous exercise not simply because of the Corporation's activities. house" will indeed be able to exercise a sig of the controversy surrounding the nature I might say a word here about some of the nificant degree of technical judgment. The of the Corporation itself, but also because specific concerns of the Science and Tech fact that DOE is involved in screening and the Senate had tacked on a number of addi nology Committee on which I have served negotiation of this first $5 billion of solicita tional titles which had very little to do with as the ranking minority member for the tions under S. 932, is somewhat reassuring energy supply. One of these extra titles on past four years. Both myself and Chairman but we are still left with the major question wind energy was split out and handled as Fuqua approached this conference from the of what happens when the Corporation be separate legislation. Some of the others, in perspective of authorization of and over comes the agent for this activity and, more cluding the notorious "Energy Targets" sight responsibility for the technology dem over, becomes "the middleman" for DOD title, were adopted in forms considerably onstration projects in fossil energy carried purchases. different from the Senate version. One day out by DOE. It was also our committee We are going to hear this morning from I hope that we will be able to look back on which authorized alternate fuels loan guar Dr. Ruth Davis who is going to tell us about this conference effort as productive in terms antees in P.L. 95-238. Thus, we are well the DOE interface with the Synfuels Corpo of barrels of synthetic fuels production per aware of the difficulties of undertaking the ration and that should give us a better idea hour of conference deliberation. Such a design and construction of a large plant in just how the administration is interpreting figure expressed in barrels of oil saved was corporating new technology with the re the statutory and report language of S. 932. extremely small for the infamous confer quirements of environmental acceptability I might note that, given my admiration for ence on the National Energy Act. As you and the need to control costs while main Dr. Davis and her impressive track record recall, the premises of that bill were: taining project schedule. with DOD and DOE, I am still not con 1. We have no more gas, so let's continue Many of you are familiar with the COAL vinced that the Department has "gotten its to regulate it. CON fiasco and the cost overruns on DOE's act together" internally. For instance, I 2. We have very little oil, but more oil large pilot plants. Thus, we were very con don't see any firm evidence that her re than gas. cerned about the capability of the Corpora source applications people, who have issued 3. Raising energy prices to real values tion to make investment decisions with the solicitations, are working with the As won't result in any conservation. regard to projects which would demonstrate sistant Secretary Fumich's fossil energy Let's hope that the synfuels bill was based technology at commercial scale with some group and the OMB to see that the Depart on a more solid set of premises than the Na degree of economic risk. We were even more ment presents a capable and coherent inter tional Energy Act. concerned about the Senate's joint venture face with the SFC. Neither did I see an I think it is best to begin by giving you a financial mechanism for synfuels projects identifiable task team out of the White perspective on what the House conferees since these activities by definition involved House drawing organizational boxes for wanted in setting up the U.S. Synthetic modular-size demonstrations with some SFC. I might add I know of no consultation Fuels Corporation. As many of you know, technical risk. Such projects are, in fact a with the Hill on those boxes or how they since the House bill had originated in the step closer to the first-of-a-kind technology might be arranged. Banking Committee thru amendments to demonstrations which we have authorized I think I would be remiss if I didn't indi the Defense Production Act <DPA>, there for the past five years in the fossil energy cate my displeasure with the provisions of was great concern for retaining these DPA programs of DOE. I must say that our con title II of S. 932, particularly with respect to authorities to stimulate synthetic fuels com cerns about the SFC which is to function the massive incentives for biomass energy. mercialization. The Senate, on the other chiefly as a bank, having the capability to The biomass incentives came from certain hand, was very preoccupied about the Cor make decisions from day to day that involve grain States' advocates in the other body poration being the sole instrument for fund- technological trade-offs, has left us with se- and received great support from the Agri- • This "bullet" symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by the Member on the floor.

Load more