[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 37 (Tuesday, March 23, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2957-S2958]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

  Mr. CARPER. I thank my colleague for yielding. Before he leaves the 
floor, I want to take a moment and thank him for his leadership on 
another issue. As we have sought to become more energy independent, 
Senator Dorgan has led the charge, saying maybe part of that would be 
to practice better conservation. He focused, among other things, on the 
efficiency of air-conditioners. It may sound like a small thing, but in 
the scheme of things, it is a big step. I thank him for his leadership 
on that.
  I bought gasoline in my hometown of Wilmington, and I think it cost 
$1.77 per gallon, a little higher than it has been in recent months. I 
read a news account the other day that said we might be looking at 
prices as high as $3 per gallon in some parts of America before the end 
of the summer. We are also hearing a fair amount of concern about the 
price of not just gasoline but of natural gas. Natural gas is what we 
use to provide a feedstock for many of our chemical companies. A lot of 
agribusinesses use it for fertilizers. Natural gas is also the fuel of 
choice for many of the new electric-generating powerplants that are 
being built across this country.
  I want us to go back in time about 4 years to the last year of the 
Clinton administration. In 2000, the Clinton administration suggested, 
through regulation, that we call on the makers of air-conditioners in 
this country to create and begin selling more energy-efficient air-
conditioners in 2006. Something was adopted called the SEER 13, 
seasonal energy efficiency rating. The idea behind the regulation was 
that, by 2006, air-conditioners would have to be 30 percent more energy 
efficient than those currently available. We adopted a standard that 
was implemented and then withdrawn by the Bush administration in the 
following year or two, and it was replaced by a less rigorous standard.
  There has been a court battle over the last year or so, and the 
outcome is that the court battle has sustained the more rigorous 
standards, the SEER 13 standard, which says that manufacturers in this 
country, by 2006, should be producing air-conditioners that are 30 
percent more efficient than those available in 2000. That may or may 
not sound like a very big deal, 30 percent more energy efficient, but I 
ask my colleagues to think about this. When was the last time we had a 
blackout during March or April or May or, frankly, in October, 
November, December? I don't recall one. My guess is that you don't, 
either. We have them, for the most part, in the summer. We have 
blackouts, for the most part, when temperatures get hot and people turn 
on their air-conditioners.
  If we begin buying more energy-efficient air-conditioners in 2006, we 
will do a couple of things: One, reduce the likelihood of blackouts and 
the kind of calamity they create for our economy; two, we reduce the 
need to build new electric powerplants. Some 48 fewer electric 
powerplants will have to be built because of the higher standard. In 
addition to that, we will reduce, with a higher efficiency standard for 
air-conditioners, the emissions of carbon dioxide from our electric-
generating plants by 2.5 million tons by 2020.
  In addition, if we are building more power-generating plants that 
will use natural gas, it will have a positive effect on the price of 
natural gas and, I think, a positive effect on the manufacturing 
industry in this country.
  The second district court has ruled that the Clinton standard--the 
SEER 13 standard--should prevail. Last week, the association that 
represents the air-conditioning manufacturers joined, saying they 
thought they could build and begin selling, by 2006, air-conditioners 
that met the more rigorous standard.
  I hold a letter signed by 53 colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, 
that was sent last week to the President.
  It is a letter that simply says: Mr. President, we do a lot of good 
for our country. We can help ourselves on the manufacturing side. We 
can help ourselves by building fewer electric-power-generating plants. 
We can reduce the price of natural gas to some extent. We can reduce 
the emissions that are coming out of our electric-power-generating 
plants by millions of tons of CO2 each year. We can do that, Mr. 
President, if the administration does not appeal the decision of the 
second district court.
  If the Association of American Air-Conditioning Manufacturers can say 
we have the ability to live up to this more rigorous standard, more 
than half the Senate can say: Mr. President, we believe we, too, have 
the ability to live by this more rigorous standard.
  I am tempted to say let's let sleeping dogs lie. But rather than say 
that, let's let the more rigorous standard stand. Whether or not we 
pass an energy bill this year or not--we need an energy policy 
desperately--I will say one thing: One good component of energy policy 
in this Nation is conservation. One good way to conserve a whole lot of 
electricity, particularly starting in 2006, is making sure that when we 
turn on the air-conditioners in our homes, offices, and buildings, they 
are meeting the more tough and rigorous standard. That would be a good 
thing for America.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter signed by 53 of 
our colleagues be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                                   Washington, DC.
     Hon. George W. Bush,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Mr. President: A recent federal court decision regarding 
     energy efficient air conditioners is a significant victory 
     for consumers, for the environment, and for our nation's 
     energy future. We respectfully request that you do not appeal 
     the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
       Last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second 
     District (Natural Resources Defense Council et al v. Abraham, 
     Docket 01-4102) affirmed that central air conditioners sold 
     beginning in 2006 must be at least 30 percent more energy 
     efficient than those available today.

[[Page S2958]]

       Air conditioners are a necessary modern convenience but are 
     also major users of electricity. On hot days, cooling homes 
     and businesses is the largest category of electricity demand. 
     Requiring air conditioners to be as energy efficient as 
     possible will begin to reduce the stress on the electricity 
     generation and transmission network and decrease the 
     likelihood of blackouts that many regions of the country 
     experience during warm weather conditions.
       Air conditioners that meet the Seasonal Energy Efficiency 
     Rating 13 standard will provide benefits for consumers, the 
     environment, and the nation. The SEER 13 standard will 
     alleviate the need for additional electricity production and 
     transmission resulting in as many as 48 fewer power plants 
     required by 2020. This standard will also result in less 
     harmful air pollution being emitted into the atmosphere. 
     Moreover, by 2020 power plant emissions of carbon dioxide 
     will be 2.5 million tons lower as a result, and emissions of 
     mercury, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides will also be 
     held down resulting in cleaner air and healthier citizens.
       Finally, the higher standard can be expected to save 
     businesses and residential consumers $1 billion per year in 
     lower electricity bills. Lower electricity bills will recover 
     the slightly higher purchase cost for the more efficient air 
     conditioners in less than 18 months.
       As the Congress continues to debate the future of our 
     nation's energy policy, this court decision is one that 
     should be embraced and encouraged, not appealed.
           Respectfully,
         Tom Carper, Susan Collins, Byron L. Dorgan, Peter 
           Fitzgerald, Jeff Bingaman, Dick Durbin, Jack Reed, 
           Lincoln D. Chafee, Charles Schumer, Deborah Stabenow, 
           Dianne Feinstein, Daniel K. Akaka, Elizabeth Dole, 
           Ernest Hollings, Patty Murray, Lamar Alexander, Judd 
           Gregg, Carl Levin, Olympia Snowe, Joseph Lieberman, 
           Paul Sarbanes, Max Baucus, Maria Cantwell, Patrick 
           Leahy, Joe Biden, Russell D. Feingold, Jim Jeffords, 
           Jay Rockefeller, Frank Lautenberg, Ben Nelson, Hillary 
           Rodham Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Barbara A. Mikulski, 
           Christopher Dodd, Jon Corzine, John E. Sununu, Mark 
           Dayton, Arlen Specter, Bill Nelson, Bob Graham, Ted 
           Kennedy, Gordon Smith, Ron Wyden, Robert C. Byrd, Herb 
           Kohl, Tim Johnson, John Edwards, John F. Kerry, Thomas 
           Daschle, Daniel Inouye, Kent Conrad, Harry Reid, 
           Richard Lugar.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Is there further morning 
business?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________