CERAWeek follow-up: Manchin and Murkowski express strong views on energy policy
After their appearances at the CERAWeek by S&P Global conference, we ran a story with some initial highlights of what was said by Senators Joe Manchin III (D-W.V.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). In this follow-up story, we offer up some additional thoughts and stands by these two members of Congress, who are also members of the Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources, with Manchin serving as chairman.
Murkowski’s additional energy thoughts. As we reported in our initial story, Murkowski brought Yergin and the audience up to date on what Congress had done on energy over the last couple of years. A centerpiece of such action is the bipartisan Infrastructure Bill that was passed late last year. Murkowski explained how it got done, and some of the benefits of it, beyond the Alaskan natural gas pipeline project.
“A small group of us said, ‘we have got to come together, particularly after Jan. 6,” noted Murkowski. “It was a very difficult time in Congress…But we could agree on Infrastructure—core-based infrastructure. So, we focused on that and spent months and months and months, lots of cold pizza, in basement small rooms, trying to work through. Lots of times, we could have walked away, but we kept coming back to the thought that we’ve got to demonstrate the realm of possible, because nobody’s going to believing that Congress can do much of anything. And what we were able to put in place, and again, move on a very strong bi-partisan basis through the Senate, is a measure that’s going to help our country’s economy, it’s going to upgrade our infrastructure…”
In addition to the usual infrastructure items, “what we also needed to do was to work on the energy side, to increase supply, not put restrictions and limitations, whether it’s through limitations on increased production or tax hikes and royalty fees,” said Murkowski. “So, we needed to make sure that from a policy perspective, it was something that was going to be good for the country, good for the economy, and good for the taxpayers.”
Beyond the obvious implications for the Alaska gas pipeline, the Infrastructure Bill brings a number of new benefits to the nation, including Alaska, said Murkowski. “We have been able to gain focus on how we build out our energy infrastructure , whether it’s microgrids, or renewables, such as hydro, but also, beyond the energy items, we’re staging, for as much as we have in terms of our resources, our infrastructure is woefully core. We do not have an Arctic port, we do not have a port that’s any further north than the end of the Aleutian chain, out at Dutch Harbor. Look at what is going on in the Arctic. Look at our Russian neighbors and the activity that we’re seeing there. So, it (the bill) helps us with ports, it helps us with water, in communities that, to this day, do not have a water system, do not have a sanitation system. It is beyond their basics.”
Asked by Yergin about what impact the Russian invasion of Ukraine has had on U.S. energy policy, Murkowski took the opportunity to state some strong thoughts on the subject. “Well, we’re certainly seeing it play out right now,” said the senator. “My view has been that this administration has focused not on an energy policy but on a climate policy. I do not believe that they have to be mutually exclusive. We can transition to a cleaner energy future, certainly a lower-carbon-intensive future; we all know that we can do that. But how we do that transition, and how quickly we do that transition, is a matter of discussion right now.
“We need to have an energy policy that recognizes the assets that we have,” continued Murkowski. “We are an energy-rich nation. Not every nation is. So, we were able to come up to the world stage and say, ‘no’ to oil and gas and coal imports from Russia. Because we have those resources, we have those tools. Putin is using them as weapons. We can use them as tools, but we have to have access to them. And so my hope is that there literally has been a light that has been turned on, in the administration, that recognizes that our energy resources are not liabilities; they are assets. And let’s use them as such.”
Manchin shoots straight on energy. Unlike Murkowski, who was content to confine her remarks to the formal session onstage with Yergin, Sen. Manchin held a press conference after his dialogue with Yergin. And to say that Manchin was in a feisty mood was an understatement.
Asked whether the recent run-up in oil and gas prices was another reason to support further electrification of the nation’s economy, including electric vehicles, Manchin said that he was for an all-encompassing energy policy that includes all sources. “Sure, I’m all for EVs, if we don’t have to source 85% of the components from offshore,” he clarified. “But therein lies a problem.”
After touting potential implementation of the Defense Production Act during his session with Yergin, Manchin was asked by one report to explain his stance further. “The Defense Production Act is one thing that we can do,” said Manchin. “We have to fast-track it and other things---we’re not fast-tracking anything right now. The quicker we can get a back-fill (on energy) to our European friends, the better.” It should be noted that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) defines the Defense Production Act as “the primary source of presidential authorities to expedite and expand the supply of materials and services from the U.S. industrial base, needed to promote the national defense. DPA authorities are available to support: emergency preparedness activities conducted pursuant to title VI of the Stafford Act; protection or restoration of critical infrastructure; and efforts to prevent, reduce vulnerability to, minimize damage from, and recover from acts of terrorism within the United States.”
Another reporter asked Manchin how he can reconcile his call for more investment in oil and gas with the IEA’s call to move away from fossil fuels. “Well, we still have to have fossil fuels right now, but we need to do it more cleanly,” offered Manchin. “Also, I dare say, if you take us out of fossils, no other country will invest in the technology required to do it cleaner. So, do you want to leave the supply to the dirtier sources? You can’t start picking and choosing winners and losers, for EVs, for hydrogen, or for anything else. If you’re serious in the environmental community, then work with us---don’t just sue all the time.”
When it comes to formulating energy policy in the U.S., Manchin complained that “we’re letting the ying and the yang push us to one side or the other.” He renewed his call for bipartisan energy strategies.
Offering some final thoughts to the media gaggle, Manchin noted, “Putin has weaponized energy very effectively. Maybe we can help them (Europe) achieve energy independence from Russian gas and oil sooner, rather than later.”
