[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 199 (Friday, December 28, 2007)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2665-E2666]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page E2665]]



              ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND SECURITY ACT OF 2007

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. JOHN D. DINGELL

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, December 18, 2007

  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, as we are well aware, the bill before us, 
H.R. 6, is not the product of a formal conference, but rather the 
result of amendments being passed between the House and Senate as a 
means of resolving the differences between their respective bills. I 
have noted in the past, and will continue to note, that I find this 
manner of legislating to be unsatisfactory and unwise. Given the 
difficulty experienced by the Senate in going to conference on any bill 
this year, however, this process is the best that we can hope for under 
the circumstances.
  One of the reasons this process is inferior to that of a formal 
conference is the lack of a conference report and, thus, the lack of a 
written legislative history detailing why certain policies were adopted 
and others excluded. When the House passed its version of the energy 
bill currently before us (H.R. 3221) on August 4, 2007, the Committee 
on Energy and Commerce had contributed more to this legislation than 
any other committee in the House of Representatives and is the 
Committee of primary jurisdiction over the entire legislation.
  The Committee's contribution was the result of six bills that were 
ultimately engrossed in H.R. 3221: H.R. 3236, the Energy Efficiency 
Improvement Act of 2007; H.R. 3237, the Smart Grid Facilitation Act of 
2007; H.R. 3238, the Renewable Fuels Infrastructure Act; H.R. 3239, to 
promote advanced plug-in hybrid vehicles and vehicle components; H.R. 
3240, the Energy Information Availability Act; and H.R. 3241, an act 
dealing with energy loan guarantee amounts. With the exception of H.R. 
3241 (which was dropped in its entirety), the majority of the 
Committee's work was preserved in the bill before us today and the 
committee reports filed on August 3, 2007, remain relevant.
  Therefore my remarks today will deal primarily with policies adopted 
in the bill before us on which the House initially had no position, 
such as the changes in Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) found in 
Title I, and the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) found in Title II. Both 
policies are within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce and represent a substantial change in current law.
  Title I of H.R. 6, as amended by the Senate and now under 
consideration by the House, increases energy security and reduces 
emissions of greenhouse gases by improving vehicle fuel economy 
standards. This legislation represents a comprehensive overhaul and 
expansion of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program, 
administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation, DOT. The 
specific objectives and targets reflect Congress's determination of the 
maximum feasible increases in fuel economy that would permit the 
development and application of technology, giving appropriate 
consideration to the cost of compliance.
  The CAFE program, administered by DOT, had been the sole means for 
regulating the fuel economy and carbon dioxide emissions of new motor 
vehicles made for sale in the United States since the 1970s. Congress 
specifically prescribed how DOT should determine the maximum feasible 
levels for fuel economy standards under the Energy Policy and 
Conservation Act, carefully balancing technological feasibility, 
economic practicability, the effect of other regulations on fuel 
economy, and the need of the United States to conserve oil.

  Approximately 30 years after Congress enacted the Clean Air Act to 
regulate air pollutants, however, the United States Supreme Court 
recognized the obligation of the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, 
to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles under that 
Act. Carbon dioxide is widely recognized as one of the greenhouse gases 
that are emitted from motor vehicles, and one way to regulate the 
emissions of carbon dioxide from motor vehicles is to improve the fuel 
economy of those vehicles. As such, there is potential for EPA's 
authority under the Clean Air Act to overlap and conflict with that of 
the Department of Transportation.
  H.R. 6, as initially passed by the Senate, included a section 519 
expressly addressing the ability of EPA to regulate carbon dioxide 
emissions from new motor vehicles and its authority to grant preemption 
waivers to California to regulate the same. Section 519 stated that 
``[n]othing in this title shall be construed to conflict with the 
authority provided by sections 202 and 209 of the Clean Air Act (42 
U.S.C. 7521 and 7543, respectively).'' The House of Representatives 
later amended the Senate amendments to H.R. 6 without including the 
Senate language in Section 519. Although the Senate further amended the 
House amendments to the Senate amendments of H.R. 6, the language of 
section 519 was not reinserted.
  Subsequent to the Court's decision, but prior to consideration of 
this legislation, the President of the United States issued Executive 
Order 13432 requiring EPA and the Department of Transportation to 
coordinate their efforts when addressing emissions of carbon dioxide 
from new motor vehicles. The Supreme Court interpreted section 202(a) 
of the Clean Air Act as providing EPA authority to regulate greenhouse 
gas emissions from motor vehicles. That grant of authority provides the 
EPA Administrator sufficient discretion to promulgate EPA regulations 
that conform to corresponding regulations issued by the Secretary of 
Transportation under this legislation. The Secretary, however, does not 
have corresponding flexibility to conform her regulations to those 
issued by the Administrator. The Secretary of Transportation is 
constrained by statutory guidelines contained in this legislation and 
the statutes it amends.
  For example, to ensure the economic practicability of the fuel 
economy standards it establishes, section 102 of this legislation 
prohibits DOT from issuing standards for more than 5 model years at a 
time. The Department should issue standards only for those model years 
for which it can obtain reasonably-developed confidential product plans 
from vehicle manufacturers, and it is the determination of Congress 
that the amount of time should not exceed 5 years. This timeframe 
allows for reasonable and realistic estimates of market conditions, the 
availability of new and developing technologies, and other 
considerations of technological and economical practicability. 
Likewise, any other regulations issued or enforced regulating emissions 
of carbon dioxide that affect motor vehicle fuel economy should 
correspond to the timeframe and relevant limits placed on the 
Department of Transportation by Congress under this legislation.
  This legislation provides clear and comprehensive direction to the 
Executive Branch regarding any and all regulations and enforcement 
actions with respect to increased motor vehicle fuel economy standards. 
Pursuant to this legislation, Congress intends for any regulations 
issued or enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency regulating 
emissions of carbon dioxide from motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act 
that affect vehicle fuel economy, be consistent with the provisions of 
this legislation, the CAFE program, and any regulations issued or 
enforced by Department of Transportation.

  Title II of H.R. 6, as amended by the Senate and now under 
consideration by the House, pertains to the Renewable Fuels Standard or 
RFS. It was first created by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-
58) for both environmental and energy security reasons. Since its 
inception, the RFS has been administered by EPA under the authority of 
the Clean Air Act. The RFS has experienced initial success in helping 
wean the Nation from its dependence on foreign petroleum. In 2007, our 
passenger vehicles used approximately 6 billion gallons of ethanol, 
thereby burning 4 billion fewer gallons of gasoline. This is well ahead 
of the schedule adopted in 2005. Several factors have converged that 
cause us to scale the program up to the levels in the bill before us 
today. First, with the price of a barrel of oil hovering in the $100 
range for several weeks now, the need to continue to decrease our 
dependence on foreign petroleum is more apparent than ever and to do so 
will require increased amounts of renewable fuel. Second, the need to 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector is also 
more apparent, and renewable fuels hold great promise in helping meet 
this challenge. Conversely, several concerns have been raised with the 
viability of relying on corn-based ethanol as our primary renewable 
fuel: making ethanol from corn competes with other uses of corn as a 
food commodity and food-making feedstock; requires heavier use of 
pesticides and fertilizers; and also requires an increasing

[[Page E2666]]

amount of farm acreage devoted to its cultivation.
  To address these competing concerns, the bill before us places an 
emphasis on the use of cellulosic biomass as a means of producing 
ethanol. Cellulosic ethanol holds great promise for the future of 
renewable fuels because it uses what now constitutes agricultural 
residue waste or low-value plant matter, and it contributes fewer 
greenhouse gas emissions to our atmosphere than either corn-based 
ethanol or conventional gasoline. The challenge with cellulosic ethanol 
is that it is not yet available on a commercial basis. This is a young 
industry that requires two things before its product can be widely 
deployed: (1) technological breakthroughs that will allow it to be 
produced on a cost effective commercial scale; and (2) the support of 
the Federal Government. To that end, the bill mandates the use of 16 
billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol by 2022.
  A dramatic expansion of alternative fuels was initially proposed by 
President Bush in his State of the Union address this year, and an 
expansion of renewable fuels was later championed by the Senate in the 
energy bill it passed on June 21, 2007. Both proposals, however, 
contained serious flaws that would have made implementation of this 
policy extremely difficult or failed to capture the promises of new 
technology.
  First, both proposals would have kept the current RFS in place at EPA 
under the Clean Air Act and created a new, additive program under which 
authority is directly assigned to the President, presumably permitting 
delegation to an unspecified entity of the Executive Branch. This would 
have caused a tremendous amount of regulatory uncertainty for the 
obligated parties who must meet the mandates of the RFS and would have 
caused bureaucratic duplication of a character that often bedevils the 
Federal Government. The compromise bill before us properly amends the 
current program, and in doing so makes significant changes to the 
existing renewable fuel standard, many of which require EPA to modify 
its existing regulations. Section 210(a) and (c) of the bill govern the 
transition from the existing RFS program to the modified RFS program. 
Section 210(a) provides that the increase in the renewable fuels 
mandate level for 2008 goes into effect without additional rulemaking 
by EPA. The other statutory changes to the RFS do not go into effect 
until January 1, 2009, by which time EPA is required to have completed 
a rulemaking to amend its RFS regulations.

  Second, while cellulosic ethanol holds great promise, it is not 
commercially available today. If we are going to formulate policy to 
encourage its successful deployment, we must also be prepared to fall 
short and in so doing, plan for a worst-case scenario. The earlier 
Senate-passed bill failed to do so. The compromise bill before us 
couples an aggressive, technology-forcing schedule for cellulosic 
biofuels with a ``safety net'' for refiners in new Clean Air Act 
Section 211(o)(7)(D).
  On an annual basis, EPA must compare the projected domestic 
production for cellulosic biofuels for the following calendar year to 
the level set in the statute. For any calendar year in which projected 
domestic production is less than the mandate level set in the statute, 
EPA is required to revise the mandate level so that it equals projected 
domestic production. EPA will thus be waiving the requirement to meet 
the amount of the mandate set in the statute that is higher than 
projected domestic production. Obligated parties, such as refiners, 
will then have to turn in credits at the end of the year in an amount 
equal to the revised mandate; they will not have to turn in credits 
equal to the mandated level set in the statute. If EPA issues such a 
waiver, the bill authorizes and requires EPA to make credits available 
for sale pursuant to new Clean Air Act Section 211(o)(7)(D). Absent 
such a credit provision, artificially high prices might be charged for 
biofuels, which could occur in a tight market. The credit provision 
effectively caps the price for cellulosic biofuels if cellulosic 
technology is not deployed as rapidly as required by the bill.
  Third, neither the President's proposal nor the Senate bill ensured 
that cellulosic technology would significantly assist in meeting the 
challenge of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation 
sector. One of the important potential benefits of cellulosic biofuels 
is that their lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions are predicted to be 80 
to 110 percent lower than those of gasoline, although there is some 
uncertainty about the reduction level because cellulosic technology and 
the lifecycle greenhouse gas analytical methodology are still under 
development. This bill requires that cellulosic biofuels achieve at 
least a 60 percent reduction. Cellulosic biofuels that do not achieve 
at least a 60 percent reduction in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions 
can get credit as advanced biofuels if they achieve at least a 50 
percent reduction.
  Section 210(b) of the bill before us also adds subparagraph 
211(o)(12) to the Clean Air Act to clarify that nothing in subsection 
211(o) or rules issued thereunder shall affect or be construed to 
affect the regulatory status of carbon dioxide or any other greenhouse 
gas, or to expand or limit regulatory authority regarding carbon 
dioxide or any other greenhouse gas, for purposes of other provisions 
of the Clean Air Act. The reference in Section 204(b) of the bill to 
Clean Air Act Section 211(o)(12) does not change this intent in any 
way, but merely ensures that Section 204(b) is not read as overriding 
new Clean Air Act Section 211(o)(12).
  Fourth, the bill before us provides more specificity than the 
President's proposal or the Senate bill about what qualifies as 
renewable biomass. New Clean Air Act Section 211(o)(1)(I) adds some 
important environmental safeguards to the RFS program, including ones 
that will help protect certain wildlife habitats and special eco-
systems.

  The bill before us also contains other new provisions designed to 
make the program more workable. Under certain circumstances where an 
insufficient volume of biofuels are produced to meet the mandated 
levels set in the statute, new Section 211(o)(7)(F) of the Clean Air 
Act directs the administrator to reset the mandate levels for future 
years. In doing so, the administrator is to use the same criteria, 
standards and processes as he is required to use by new Clean Air Act 
Section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) when setting mandated levels post-2022. The 
reference to new Clean Air Act Section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) incorporates 
new Clean Air Act Section 211(o)(2)(B)(iii) and (iv). It is the intent 
of Congress that these criteria will ensure that, if the administrator 
sets the applicable volume of advanced biofuel under new Clean Air Act 
Section 211(o)(17)(7) for any particular year, it shall be at least the 
same percentage of the applicable volume of renewable fuel in the 
previous calendar year. When the administrator must establish mandated 
levels of cellulosic biofuels, new Clean Air Act Section 
211(o)(2)(B)(iv) directs the administrator to set the mandate at a 
level that the administrator expects can be met without the use of the 
safety net provisions in new Clean Air Act Section 211(o)(7)(D). 
Nonetheless, the safety net provisions would continue to be available 
if needed.
  Although the mandatory requirements of the RFS program are limited to 
transportation fuels, it is possible that renewable fuel could also 
replace petroleum-based fuel used for home heating or jets. Rather than 
expand the mandated coverage of the RFS program to include home heating 
oil or jet fuel, which might result in additional obligated parties or 
make implementation of the program more burdensome, new Clean Air Act 
Section 211(o)(5)(E) gives the administrator discretion to allow RFS 
credits to be earned for renewable fuel sold for home heating or as jet 
fuel.

                          ____________________