[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 71 (Monday, May 12, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2891-S2892]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           ENERGY EFFICIENCY

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Energy 
Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act of 2014. I commend Senator 
Shaheen and Senator Portman on their leadership and tireless efforts to 
craft an energy efficiency bill that is good for consumers, good for 
our economy, and good for our environment.
  The Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency bill is supported by a 
coalition of environmental organizations, including the Natural 
Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, and the BlueGreen Alliance. 
It is also supported by business trade associations such as the chamber 
of commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. By working 
together on a bipartisan basis, the two Senators have put together a 
bill that is officially sponsored by seven Democrats and seven 
Republicans and I believe the vast majority of the people in this 
Chamber.
  Although this bill is not a substitute for comprehensive energy or 
climate legislation, it is the right effort to put us on more secure 
energy footing and strengthen our economy. I have always argued that at 
a time when we have been having a hard time working on comprehensive 
energy legislation--something which I believe we should do and which 
would be very good for our economy--we need to get behind efforts such 
as this one. I am so pleased this has finally happened; however, I am 
not certain we will be able to get it done this week.
  I believe the beneficial role energy efficiency improvements can have 
for consumers and also our economic competitiveness often gets 
overlooked in today's debate. The Shaheen-Portman bill creates new 
incentives to install energy-efficient technologies in homes, 
businesses, and manufacturing facilities that can quickly pay for 
themselves. The savings for consumers alone are astounding. According 
to a new study, Shaheen-Portman is estimated to save consumers $16 
billion a year by 2030. Making these improvements will not only save 
consumers and businesses money, it will also create more than 190,000 
jobs.
  America has always been a country that benefits from the development 
of innovative technologies, but this bill recognizes that we don't need 
to reinvent the wheel or rely on a new space race to move our economy 
forward. This bill will lead to the installation of energy-efficient 
technologies that are commercially available today and can quickly pay 
for themselves through energy savings.
  The bill doesn't just work with individuals in the private sector on 
a voluntary basis to encourage energy efficiency, the bill also helps 
the government become more efficient. Some people might question why 
the government should try to make energy efficiency improvements when 
there are so many demands for Federal resources. I believe we can't 
afford to needlessly waste energy and taxpayer resources on older 
heaters, inefficient lighting, and drafty buildings. Making commonsense 
improvements to our Federal buildings will pay dividends for years to 
come.
  The Shaheen-Portman bill includes a number of commonsense provisions 
that will help keep energy affordable. I wish to briefly focus on one 
example which may not sound important at first blush but which has a 
big impact on the Minnesota Rural Electric Association and the 
consumers it serves in my State.
  The rural electric co-ops strongly support a provision in the 
Shaheen-Portman bill that my friend and colleague from North Dakota, 
Senator Hoeven, introduced and that I am helping to lead, and that is 
to change the Department of Energy rule to ensure that large-capacity 
hot water heaters that are part of a demand response program can 
continue to be manufactured.
  The rural electric co-ops in my State have installed thousands of 
large-capacity hot water heaters in people's basements. Heating water 
is a major source of energy consumption, and our co-ops have found a 
way to provide an important service in a way that incentivizes wind 
energy development and saves consumers money. These hot water heaters 
are only turned on at night, when the wind blows the strongest and the 
demand for energy is the lowest. Then in the morning, when people wake 
up and turn on their lights, the heaters are already off. The wind 
energy is stored in the form of hot water that can be used throughout 
the day.
  This provision in the Shaheen-Portman bill will provide regulatory 
certainty that these heaters will continue to be available.
  Another provision I worked on with Senator Hoeven was to find new 
opportunities to engage the nonprofit community in making energy 
efficiency improvements. We have an amendment that would help 
nonprofits--including hospitals, schools, faith-based organizations, 
and youth centers--make energy efficiency improvements that will help 
them save money and ultimately serve our people.
  Our amendment, which is fully offset, has the support of Senators 
Blunt, Pryor, Stabenow, and Mikulski.
  The amendment would provide $10 million each year for the next 5 
years to create a pilot grant program so that nonprofits can save 
through energy efficiency. We work with stakeholders to ensure that 
grants will achieve significant amounts of energy savings and are done 
in a cost-effective manner. The grants would require a 50-percent match 
so that there is complete buy-in from the nonprofits, and grants would 
be capped at $200,000.
  Our amendment has the support of the National Council of Churches, 
the YMCA of the USA, and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, to 
name a few.
  This provision was one of the many good ideas--many of them 
bipartisan--that promote energy efficiency and that we believe will be 
included in the bill once it is finally voted on.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, the Nonprofit Energy 
Efficiency Act, and also support the underlying bill. The bill, as we 
have discussed, would save consumers and taxpayers money, reduce energy 
consumption, help create jobs, and make our country more energy 
independent.
  Another issue that can drive up the price of energy for consumers is 
metal, and this is the final issue I wish to talk about because I have 
attempted to get this bill on several other bills. I was able to pass 
it through the Judiciary Committee. It is a bill that is cosponsored by 
Senator Graham, and Senator Graham and I are leading the bill. Senator 
Hoeven and Senator Schumer are also cosponsors of this bill, as well as 
Senator Coons.
  We have been working very hard on the issue of metal theft for years. 
It has broad support because it has struck so many electric companies 
and so many consumers. Houses have blown up when people take simple 
copper piping out of the basement and then someone turns on the gas. 
Literally, people have lost their lives. We had one incident in 
Minnesota, and we have seen others across the country. This is 
unbelievable, but the stars that were placed on the graves of veterans 
during veterans holidays have been stolen. The beer industry is 
strongly behind this bill. Why? Because kegs are being stolen all over 
the country.
  Those are just things I am recalling by memory. But this is a major 
problem. Ask any power company or construction crew across the country 
or even operators of ice skating rinks in Minnesota, where one theft of 
a couple thousand dollars' worth literally costs the city of St. Paul 
millions of dollars because once they take a pipe out, they have to 
rebuild the entire system. Talk to any of these people and quickly 
learn about the growing problem of metal theft.
  My bipartisan bill--the Metal Theft Prevention Act--has been filed as 
an amendment to the energy efficiency bill to bring attention to this 
important issue. The amendment is the much needed Federal response to 
the increasingly pervasive and damaging problem of metal theft.
  Metal theft has jumped more than 80 percent in recent years, hurting 
businesses and threatening public safety. It

[[Page S2892]]

is a major threat, especially to power companies.
  In a recent study, the Department of Energy found that the total 
value of damages to industries affected by theft of copper wire alone 
is approximately $1 billion every single year. I have visited small 
electric companies in the rural areas that have been stolen from--not 
once, not twice, but three times. I have visited companies that have 
had their trucks stolen and then the thieves go out in the trucks and 
steal wire because people let them in because they have the electric 
company's truck. They have targeted construction sites, power and phone 
lines, retail stores, and vacant houses. They have caused explosions in 
vacant buildings by stealing metal from gas lines, and they have caused 
blackouts by stealing copper wiring from street lights and electrical 
substations. Last October four people were injured in an explosion at a 
University of California Berkeley electrical station. Officials blamed 
it on copper theft that occurred 2 hours before the explosion. As the 
electrical workers tried to fix it, the explosion occurred. As I 
mentioned, they are taking brass stars from our veterans' graves. This 
happened on Memorial Day of 2012. In another case that shows just how 
dangerous metal theft can be, Georgia Power was having a huge problem 
with thieves targeting a substation that feeds the entire Atlanta 
Hartsfield International Airport, one of the busiest airports in the 
world. The airport was getting hit two to three times a week and 
surveillance didn't lead to any arrests.

  This rise in incidents of metal theft across the country, the growing 
cost to businesses, and the danger it poses underscores the critical 
need for Federal action. What does our bill do? It helps combat this by 
requiring modest recordkeeping by recyclers of scrap metal, just 
keeping track of who is selling the metal. It requires limiting the 
value of cash transactions. This simply means they can take it in for 
$100 bucks, but after that they have to require a check. We have many 
States that are doing this but not enough. So what we are finding is 
people are stealing metals in Minnesota where we have a $100 cash 
requirement and then they are selling it in another State so they 
cannot be tracked.
  The amendment also makes it a Federal crime to steal metal from 
critical infrastructure and directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to 
review relevant penalties. The Metal Theft Prevention Act has been 
endorsed by the National Rural Electric Cooperate, the American Public 
Power Association, American Supply, Edison Electric Institute, National 
Electrical Contractors Association, National Association of Home 
Builders, National Retail Federation, U.S. Telecom Association, and 
about a dozen other businesses and organizations. It has the support of 
the Major Cities Chiefs of Police Association, the Major County 
Sheriffs' Association, the National Sheriffs' Association, the 
Fraternal Order of Police, and the National Association of Police 
Organizations.
  I ask my friends who represent the scrap metal dealers to look at 
this coalition and to ask yourself: Is this worth it, over a $100 
requirement for writing a check? Is it worth it to oppose this when 
buildings are blowing up and critical infrastructure is being broken 
into and one of the busiest airports in the country is having problems? 
Is it worth it to oppose a bill that has strong bipartisan support? I 
don't think it is. I think the interests of the consumers of this 
country, the interests of businesses in this country, and the interests 
of law enforcement should trump, and that is what should matter in this 
Chamber. So I hope my colleagues will look at this again and look at 
the bare minimum this legislation sets. It does not create that much of 
a burden, when all these companies that buy this scrap metal, much of 
which is stolen--a number of these things are stolen. A lot of these 
people are good. They know it doesn't matter. They are doing it in some 
of the States. All they are doing is keeping records and requiring a 
check when it is over $100. That is all we are talking about.
  If we balance $1 billion in theft a year against a simple requirement 
of recordkeeping, I think it is pretty clear. I hope my colleagues will 
look at it this way, and I know their chiefs and sheriffs will tell 
them this must be a priority. We need to do everything we can to 
protect our critical industry infrastructure from unscrupulous metal 
thieves. I hope my colleagues support this bill when it comes up for a 
vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.

                          ____________________