[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 37 (Wednesday, March 5, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H2192-H2195]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ELECTRICITY SECURITY AND AFFORDABILITY ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 497 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 3826.
Will the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren) kindly resume the
chair.
{time} 1756
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole
[[Page H2193]]
House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the
bill (H.R. 3826) to provide direction to the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency regarding the establishment of
standards for emissions of any greenhouse gas from fossil fuel-fired
electric utility generating units, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Hultgren (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today,
a request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 6 printed in House
Report 113-373 offered by the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms.
Schakowsky) had been postponed.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Latta
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in House Report 113-373.
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer my amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 8, line 4, strike ``government'' and insert ``Federal
Government''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 497, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Latta) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 3826. This
amendment would make a clarification to the bill to make explicit that
``demonstration projects'' refer to projects that have received Federal
Government funding or assistance. This responds to comments raised when
the bill was marked up that the definition of ``demonstration project''
could be construed to sweep in any project receiving government
support, including local tax assistance.
This amendment helps clarify the bill and also highlights the
provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 which apply to the EPA's
proposed standards for new plants. The Energy Policy Act expressly
prohibits EPA from considering technologies at Federally funded
projects under DOE's Clean Coal Power Initiative to be adequately
demonstrated. The purpose of this is to prevent the premature mandating
of technologies that are commercially viable.
EPA's determination that ``carbon capture and storage'' or CCS,
technologies for new coal-fired power plants have been ``adequately
demonstrated'' is not borne out in the real world. In the agency's
proposed rule, the EPA cites four government-subsidized CCS power plant
demonstration projects that are in various stages of planning
development.
First, Southern Company's Kemper County, Mississippi, project is
still under construction, subject to delays and cost overruns. In the
company running the project's own words, this plant ``cannot be
consistently replicated on a national level'' and ``should not serve as
a primary basis for new emissions standards impacting all new coal-
fired power plants.''
Next, Summit's Texas clean energy project is still in the planning
stage. It does not yet have financing and has also been subject to
multiple delays.
The third project, Hydrogen Energy California LLC's project, is still
in the planning and permitting stages.
Lastly, SaskPower's Boundary Dam CCS project, a government funded,
small 110-megawatt facility rebuild project in Canada is still under
construction and reportedly $115 million over budget.
It seems very clear to the companies and institutions most involved
with these CCS projects that they are not yet ready to be considered
for commercial deployment. As one former Assistant Secretary for Fossil
Energy in the Obama administration suggested, it is disingenuous for
the EPA to say that CCS is ready.
{time} 1800
It should be very clear to the American taxpayers that this
administration is working day and night to eliminate the use of coal in
this country. In places like my home State of Ohio, where 78 percent of
our energy comes from coal, the result will be higher electric bills
for our families and seniors already dealing with increased health care
costs as a result of ObamaCare.
We should be pursuing energy policies that will lead to more energy
that is less expensive for people, rather than less energy that is more
expensive for our citizens. As we know, increased energy costs impact
the most vulnerable citizens in our country.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the underlying bill prevents EPA from
setting a standard or requirements for new--new coal-powered plants.
Instead of telling a new coal-powered plant they have to use
technology to reduce their carbon emissions, this bill says they can't
require that of new plants, unless new plants are already using
technology to reduce emissions.
Well, okay, if they are already using technology, we can say
everybody ought to use that technology; but then the underlying bill
goes further and says: Well, not only are they using technology that
accomplishes the goal, but there has got to be six plants represented
all over the country that are achieving the standard using
technologies, and then EPA can consider a standard for new power
plants.
This is like the belts and suspenders. They can't look at foreign
technology. They have to use six plants that are using technology.
Of course, one would ask: Why would anybody spend money to use
technology to reduce carbon pollution if they are not required to do
it? It costs money.
So it is so unlikely that they are ever going to be able to set a new
standard at the Environmental Protection Agency, given the underlying
bill.
But the bill also says, if there are six plants that are using
technology, they better not use technology that has been funded by the
government. Well, why not? That is what the government does.
We provide DOE grants to have demonstrations of new technologies.
That is what the underlying bill says. If they are achieving reductions
in carbon pollution because it is involving government funds, we are
not going to count those.
Well, now, we have the Latta amendment that says: Well, wait a
second. What if it is funds for demonstrations that are not using
Federal dollars, but local dollars?
Well, fine. I don't have any objection to that, but I don't know why
we would say Federal dollars can't be used to demonstrate technologies
that are successful, so the Latta amendment narrows the underlying
bill, but really doesn't accomplish much.
Why, I would ask: Would we want to say that the Department of Energy,
using taxpayer dollars for projects to find new and better ways to
improve air quality for the American people, should not be used by EPA
to set a standard for future power plants?
These projects funded by the Federal Government help companies figure
out how to reduce air pollution more effectively and at a lower cost.
The whole point is to develop technologies that can be applied across
the industry to reduce air pollution.
So if the Federal Government funds those new technologies and they
are successful, we are not going to let a standard be based on that;
but if the State funds the development of the new technologies that
accomplish these goals, oh, we can use that, but they better be part of
six, and they better fit this underlying standard--this underlying
requirement that there be six in different parts of the country and on
and on and on.
Well, I don't object to this amendment. I don't see what the
amendment particularly does to make the bill any better. It doesn't
solve any particular problem that I see, but I just want to point out
how offensive this underlying bill is to not let EPA set standards for
new plants when we know that technologies can reduce the carbon
pollution.
But we are not going to look at it for real, unless they meet a
higher standard, which is six plants; but they better not be using
government-funded technologies from the Federal Government, which would
be the case if this amendment is adopted.
[[Page H2194]]
So I just want to make these points rhetorically because I think
people ought to understand how offensive this bill is.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman have anything further?
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire who closes the debate on this
amendment?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has the right to
close.
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Waxman
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in House Report 113-373.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act shall take effect when the Administrator of the
Energy Information Administration certifies that a Federal
program, other than a program under section 111 of the Clean
Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7411), will reduce carbon pollution in at
least equivalent quantities to, with similar timing, and from
the same sources as the carbon pollution reductions required
in the aggregate by the rules and guidelines listed in
paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of section 4.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 497, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Waxman) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, President Obama reached out to the
Congress, to the Republican majority of this House, and he said: Let's
work on ideas that could help us deal with this problem of climate
change.
But he also said he wanted to make it very clear that, if the
Republicans won't act because this House majority won't do anything to
address climate change, he will.
The bill we are considering today shows that the Republicans' plan on
climate change is to give up hope. Their plan is to let our children
and grandchildren suffer the effects of climate change without lifting
a finger to protect them; worse, the Republicans' plan is to stop any
meaningful action to slow climate change. I think this position is
indefensible.
Today's bill would amend the Clean Air Act to ensure that coal-fired
power plants are able to pollute indefinitely with impunity. This bill
would condition EPA's authority on conditions that simply can never be
met or at least not as long as it is cheaper to dump pollution into the
air rather than clean it up.
Republicans complain they don't like EPA's approach. Well, what is
their plan to address climate change? For years, Democratic Members
have shown that we are willing to consider any suggestion to reduce
carbon pollution and to slow climate change.
We could put a price on carbon. We could put a limit on carbon
pollution. We could support the development of clean energy. In the
bill that I authored with now-Senator Markey, we dedicated $60 billion
to deploy carbon capture and sequestration technology on new coal power
plants.
But what Congress can't do is simply say no to everything, no to a
price on carbon, no to a limit on carbon, no to regulation on carbon.
What my amendment suggests is, if they don't want EPA to act to
reduce the pollution from carbon coming from coal-burning power plants,
we are saying: All right, address this problem, make sure we have some
other alternative that will work.
Because if they don't have an alternative that will work, in effect,
the Republicans are saying: We are not going to do anything, either we
don't believe there is a problem called climate change, the scientists
are all lying to us--of course, we will never let them come before our
committee and testify because they will only lie to us about it--the
science is wrong, we don't have to worry about it.
We have heard over and over again from Mr. Whitfield that 96 percent
of the problem is naturally occurring carbon. Well, naturally occurring
carbon is balanced; it is absorbed by photosynthesis and other
processes.
But that 4 percent is upsetting the balance, and that balance that is
being upset is a threat to this planet. It is a threat to our
atmosphere. It is a threat to our Nation when we see hurricanes,
floods, droughts, all these climate events that we hear about every
night in the evening news.
So what is their alternative? If they don't want coal-burning power
plants regulated, give us an alternative that will reduce that 4
percent that is upsetting the balance.
I would suggest that they are telling us they have no alternative
whatsoever. I don't think that is an adequate answer to what many
experts believe is the leading threat to our survival on this planet.
I would urge that we adopt this amendment. If they don't like what
EPA is doing, tell us their plan. If they have other ideas for reducing
carbon pollution to prevent catastrophic climate change, let's hear
them; but if they don't, they should step aside and let the President
lead.
I urge support for this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I would point out once again, as I did
in the beginning of this debate, that the Constitutional law professor
Jonathan Turley, testifying before the Judiciary Committee, recently
made the statement that:
If left unchecked, the United States President could
effectively become a government unto himself because of
excessive executive orders and excessive regulations.
The only reason that we are here today is that the President, without
any really national debate, went to Copenhagen and other international
groups and made commitments for the U.S. on the reduction of
CO2 emissions.
In the energy sector, our emissions are the lowest that they have
been in 20 years. If EPA had adopted emission standards and technology
was available that had been adequately demonstrated to meet those
standards, we wouldn't have any problem, but they did not do that. In
fact, they violated the 2005 Energy Policy Act in setting these
emission standards.
We tried to talk to EPA; we tried to talk to the President; we tried
to talk to his representatives; and we got the cold shoulder. So the
only option available to us in trying to overcome these executive
orders and regulations is to adopt some legislation.
In our legislation, we don't expect a coal plant to be built, but if
natural gas prices go up, America--like every other country in the
world practically--will be able to build a coal plant, and the
technology will be available to meet those emission standards.
With that, I would respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment, and
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment doesn't stop EPA from acting
if we can get an alternative, an alternative that would reduce the
carbon pollution to the same level the EPA is proposing.
My friend and colleague, Mr. Whitfield, said the President, if left
unchecked, would make these commitments. Well, President George H. W.
Bush made a commitment on behalf of this country that we would try to
achieve reduction of carbon to 1990 levels.
If the Republicans want to do something on their own and not let the
President do it, tell us how you can accomplish these goals. If you
don't want to achieve these goals, it is either because you don't
believe we need to achieve them or you are not willing to do anything
about the problem.
I urge support for the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that we believe the
President's views are extreme when he sets a goal of reducing by 83
percent below the 2005 emission levels.
For that, we think this legislation is absolutely essential to give
the American people the flexibility in the future to build a coal plant
to help meet the electricity needs of this great country.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
[[Page H2195]]
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
{time} 1815
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Yoho) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hultgren, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3826) to
provide direction to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency regarding the establishment of standards for emissions of any
greenhouse gas from fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating
units, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________