Washington, D.C. -- Representative Jane Harman (D-Venice) issued the following statement earlier today as the House considered HR 6899:

I rise in support of the Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act, but as a Representative of America’s most stunning coastline, I do so with some reservations.

There is much to like in this bill.  It includes long-sought alternative energy tax credits, which are essential to the continued development of the emerging clean energy industry. 

It also requires utility companies to generate more power from renewable energy sources (following the lead of my home State of California), creates a reserve to pay for future research and development of clean renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies, and requires the adoption of more energy efficient building codes.

These are all serious, much-needed answers to our energy crisis – reasoned, carefully crafted, and targeted toward moving us into a new era of clean energy.

That is not, unfortunately, the path pursued in other parts of the bill, particularly those that concern off-shore drilling.

We’ve heard a lot about drilling these days. 

“Drill, baby, drill,” or so the chant goes.  It’s a nice pep rally cheer, a clever soundbite.  But it’s not serious policy, and everybody knows it.

Here are the facts.  Oil is traded on a global market, which sets prices based on global supply and global demand. 

Given the staggering amounts of oil that the world produces and consumes every day, only a staggering amount of new supply will affect price (particularly given the sky-rocketing demand for oil in China, India, and the rest of the developing world).

The amount of oil off the coasts of the United States is very far from staggering.  Paltry is more like it. 

According to the Bush Administration’s own Energy Information Administration, even if we opened the entire Outer Continental Shelf for drilling tomorrow, it would take years (possibly up to 2030) for that oil to hit the market. 

And then, all that drilling would only increase our domestic production by 200,000 barrels of oil per day.

The world consumes around 80 million barrels of oil per day.  This new production would be a tiny drop in an ocean of oil.

Even the Bush Administration concedes that the impact on oil prices from such a minuscule increase would be, and I quote, “insignificant.”

And what do we risk for this “insignificant” increase in supply? 

A few oil companies will make a little more money.  But we’ll also put the (mostly) pristine California coastline – an environmentally fragile yet economically indispensible asset – at the mercies of chance, human fallibility, and the ability of new oil rig technology to withstand the inevitable big quake. 

That’s not a risk that I’m willing to take. 

Fortunately I’m not alone.  Leadership wisely gave states some discretion.  The bill would forbid drilling within 50 miles of the coast, and only allow drilling from 50-100 miles if a state “opts-in” (affirmatively passes a law allowing drilling).

I am confident that California is unlikely to ever “opt-in.”

My strong preference is to retain the moratorium against off-shore drilling, but we don’t have the votes to do that.  The Democratic Leadership asserts that this compromise is necessary to avoid the calamity of a drilling free-for-all off our coasts.  Many in the environmental community and leading newspaper editorial boards in California and around the country concur. 

In that case, I can live with it.

I wish we could do better.  The American public is engaged.  The media is devoting front-page articles to energy issues.  We have the chance to make a significant difference in the way our country thinks about and uses energy.

Portions of this bill take big leaps in that direction, and leadership should be commended for standing by these priorities. 

I hope that my three grandchildren will eventually be the beneficiaries of this foresight.