[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 102 (Wednesday, June 24, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H4617-H4633]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RATEPAYER PROTECTION ACT OF 2015
General Leave
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to
include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 2042.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 333 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2042.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1424
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2042) to allow for judicial review of any final rule addressing
carbon dioxide emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired electric
utility generating units before requiring compliance with such rule,
and to allow States to protect households and businesses from
significant adverse effects on electricity ratepayers or reliability,
with Mr. Duncan of Tennessee in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) and the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today addresses EPA's proposed clean
power plan for existing power plants under section 111(d) of the Clean
Air Act.
Unfortunately, the Obama administration has made a decision that they
are not going to work with Congress, and in order to accomplish his
public policy goals, he has indicated that he is going to use executive
orders and regulations.
Now, this proposed regulation focuses on power plants. That is why it
is called the existing coal plant rule. But because of this regulation,
once it becomes final, it is only the first step in the
administration's plan to regulate other areas of our economy, including
sources such as refineries, industrial boilers, cement plants, pulp and
paper mills, and steel mills.
Since its proposal in June 2014, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power
has held five hearings on the proposed rule, where we heard from EPA,
FERC, entities within the States, legal experts, and industry
stakeholders and manufacturers.
Now, when Mrs. McCarthy comes to Congress, she always says that this
proposed rule gives maximum flexibility to the States, but what she
does not say is that EPA, and EPA alone, sets the emissions standard
for every State, and there is no flexibility in that.
Even Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe, who taught
President Obama constitutional law at Harvard, testified at one of the
hearings that ``EPA's proposal raises grave constitutional questions,
exceeds EPA's statutory authority, and violates the Clean Air Act.''
The hearings also identified implementation challenges, risks to
electric reliability, and significantly higher energy costs under the
rule.
For example, economist Eugene Trisko estimated that, for 31
geographically diverse States, electricity rates under the rule could
increase by an average of 15 percent, with peak year increases of 22
percent during the period 2017-2031.
State officials also appeared, expressing the same concerns. And I
might say, this rule is so complicated that, generally, EPA allows
States 3 years to develop their State implementation plans. But under
this proposed rule, which we know will be final soon, they are giving
States 16 months, which is going to be extremely difficult for them to
meet.
So the States are not only filing lawsuits, as are other entities, to
try to slow this process down, but they are coming to Congress and
saying, you know, Congress didn't pass this regulation, Congress has
not asked for this, but the administration, unilaterally, is imposing
it upon the American people, and so they are asking us to give them
some more time.
So this legislation does specifically that. It does two things: One,
it delays the time for the States to submit their implementation plans
until after the courts have rendered a decision on whether or not the
rule is legal. And then, if it is found to be legal, the State
Governors have an option, after consulting with their economic
development people, the EPA people, the Attorney General, and other
authorities in the States. They have the option, if they find that it
significantly and adversely affects their electricity prices and the
reliability of electricity, they can opt out of the program.
{time} 1430
This bill is simple. It simply gives States more time. We are not
repealing this power grab of a regulation, but simply responding to
requests from the States and other entities.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield such time as he
may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the
Ratepayer Protection Act, and I want to commend Representative Ed
Whitfield for his leadership on this important issue.
We all agree that it is vital that we protect our environment today
and for future generations. At the same time, though, we must ensure
that we are acting within the law, as well as safeguarding American
jobs and the economy.
I have serious concerns that the Environmental Protection Agency's
proposed clean power rule will be a vast and unprecedented regulatory
overreach, resulting in high energy costs; loss of jobs; and a
disruption in the states' ability to generate, transmit, distribute,
and use electricity.
As the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) noted earlier, no less
than the renowned Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe has
testified that ``the EPA lacks the statutory and constitutional
authority to adopt its plan.'' He described the proposed clean power
plan as a ``power grab'' from the three branches of government.
I am especially concerned, Mr. Chairman, about the impact that the
EPA's proposed rule will have on Georgia ratepayers. The State of
Georgia already has reduced CO2 emissions by 33 percent
between 2005 and 2012 but will have no credit for these reductions.
Under the proposed regulation, Georgia would be required to reduce
emissions by an additional 44 percent, the sixth largest reduction of
any State.
Georgia also will receive no credit towards achieving EPA's mandated
State goal for the two nuclear plants that are being constructed.
Ratepayers in Georgia served by Georgia Power, MEAG, and the Electric
Membership Corporation would face hundreds of dollars in higher energy
bills, which would be especially devastating to rural households in the
Second Congressional District, which I represent.
I believe that this legislation takes a commonsense approach that the
issue that allows for the completion of judicial review before States
are required to comply with the clean power plan.
In addition, the Ratepayer Protection Act provides for a safe harbor
if a Governor determines that the proposed rule's implementation will
have an adverse impact on ratepayers or on the reliability of this
electrical system.
[[Page H4618]]
I urge my colleagues to support this bill to ensure that ratepayers
as well as our Nation's economy are protected from an overzealous EPA.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in opposition to this legislation.
The bill before us is dangerous, unnecessary, and premature. It
undermines the cornerstone of the administration's plan to tackle
unchecked climate change, and the President has made clear that he will
veto this legislation.
Yesterday, we passed a bipartisan bill amending the Toxic Substances
Control Act. That is the type of legislation that we should be spending
our time on, not messaging bills aimed at gutting draft EPA rules.
As we sit here today, climate change continues to reshape our world.
According to NOAA, 2014 was the warmest year ever recorded, and 9 of
the 10 hottest years have occurred since 2000, and that trend shows no
sign of slowing down.
We know this warming is due to carbon pollution from fossil fuels
accumulating in the atmosphere, trapping more heat, and changing our
climate.
Last week, the Pope highlighted our worldwide moral obligation to
address climate change. This week, EPA released a report which confirms
what many in the country are already experiencing, that failing to
address climate change will have enormous financial costs.
Just look at the skyrocketing costs of fighting wildfires, the
mounting costs to farmers of losing their crops and cattle to more
frequent and severe droughts, the enormous costs of rebuilding
infrastructure swept away by more intense storms or threatened by
steadily rising seas.
Ignoring these costs won't make them go away; and the longer we wait
to act, the more we allow the risks to compound and accumulate, the
more costly it will be to solve the problem.
In fact, the projected costs of climate change impacts dwarf any
projected short-term costs associated with transitioning to a clean
energy economy, which is happening already.
Mr. Chairman, EPA has proposed a workable plan to reduce emissions of
carbon pollution from power plants, which are the largest uncontrolled
source of manmade greenhouse gases in the United States.
The clean power plan outlines a path to cleaner air, better health, a
safer climate, and a stronger economy. The proposed rule also gives
States a lot of flexibility to choose how to achieve their emission
reduction goals, which are State specific and cost effective. This is a
moderate and reasonable approach and falls well within the legal
authority and responsibility of the EPA to address carbon pollution
from power plants.
This bill we are considering today would dismiss all of this progress
and would cripple the efforts of the EPA to move forward in the fight
against climate change. Effectively, this bill would amend the Clean
Air Act in a harmful and dangerous fashion.
This bill establishes an unprecedented extension for every clean
power plan deadline until all litigation is concluded. This blanket
extension would be given to all polluters, incentivizing opponents of
the rule to run the clock on frivolous litigation, simply to put off
having to reduce their carbon emissions.
The bill also allows a Governor to say: ``The requirements of the
clean power plan don't apply to me.'' Under the bill, a Governor can
opt out of a Federal plan, giving certain States a free ride to pollute
without any consequences. It is one thing to encourage States to just
say no, but to let a Governor declare that his State is not subject to
the Federal Clean Air Act at all? Mr. Chairman, I think that just goes
too far.
As I have said before, EPA's proposed clean power plan is both modest
and flexible and will help us tackle our urgent need to reduce our
carbon emissions. Just saying no, as this bill would have us do, and
condemning future generations is simply not an option. I strongly
oppose the bill and urge a ``no'' vote.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk).
Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Ratepayer
Protection Act, which is a critical piece of legislation that helps
protect our Nation's consumers and businesses from skyrocketing
electricity costs.
Last year, the EPA proposed a new set of regulations on existing
power plants which will dramatically effect our economy if implemented.
The Obama administration has been doing its best to convince the
American people that these new standards would achieve great progress
for our Nation, calling the proposal the clean power plan. Despite the
illusions of good intentions, the devil is in the details of this
proposed rule.
What the administration does not want us to know is that these
standards would wreak havoc on our economy and inflict enormous costs
on the American consumer. According to the National Economic Research
Associates, these regulations would increase electricity prices in my
home State of Georgia by 12 percent.
While this would be a problem for any State, it is especially
alarming for me, given that Georgia already has the tenth highest
average electricity bill in the Nation.
Mr. Chairman, right now, the temperature in my State is 95 degrees.
My constituents depend on affordable electricity to stay cool all
summer long, and the administration's assault on our Nation's power
plants is totally unacceptable.
What is more, the average American household already spends about
$15,000 a year to comply with Federal regulations. It has been radical
proposals like these which have caused our economy to stagnate
throughout this administration.
Even the EPA admits that the rule will cost our economy more than $7
billion a year by the year 2030. Washington bureaucrats may be able to
afford this assault on our economy, but my constituents cannot.
The EPA also promotes these regulations with a promise that they
would cut 30 percent of carbon pollution by the year 2030. The
inconvenient truth is my State has already reduced its carbon emissions
by 33 percent from 2005 to 2012.
Why is the administration pursuing these unrealistic regulations when
Georgia and other States have already dramatically reduced their
pollution levels?
The bill we are considering today, H.R. 2042, would halt the rule's
compliance deadlines until litigation on the rule has been completed.
This bill would also allow the Governor of any State to opt out of the
rule's requirements if their State's electricity rates would increase
significantly, as they would in my home State.
This commonsense piece of legislation would help to bring the U.S.
environmental policy back into the real world and allow us to remain
economically competitive.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Rush), the ranking member of our subcommittee.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pallone), the fine ranking member of the full committee, for yielding
me this time.
Mr. Chair, I applaud the Obama administration for its veto threat of
this abhorrent legislation that we are now considering, this just say
no bill, which would effectively give Governors the power to sabotage
EPA's proposed clean power plan by allowing them to opt out of the
Federal requirements of the plan based on arbitrary and ambiguous
determinations.
Mr. Chair, when implemented, the clean power plan will allow the EPA
to cut common pollution from some of the Nation's oldest, dirtiest, and
most inefficient power plants.
We know, Mr. Chair, that these same power plants account for the
largest share of greenhouse gases from stationary sources in the
country, and they are responsible for about one-third of the total U.S.
greenhouse gas emissions.
Currently, Mr. Chair, there are no Federal limits on the amount of
carbon pollution that these very same power plants are allowed to emit.
The clean power plan would decrease power sector carbon emissions by 30
percent from 2005 levels by the year 2030.
However, Mr. Chair, this bill is an attempt to abort EPA's efforts
before
[[Page H4619]]
they even have the chance to take hold, despite the fact that the clean
power plan gives States great flexibility when implementing the rule,
based on their existing utility infrastructure and policies.
Mr. Chair, the proposed clean power plan could not be more timely, as
we are experiencing more and more frequent extreme weather events due
to climate change, with disastrous effects being felt in our economy
and in our communities all across our Nation.
In fact, no region in America has been safe from the impacts of
climate change, with nearly annual record wildfires and heat waves in
the West and the Southwest, perennial flooding along the coasts, and
damaging and costly droughts and crop loss in the Plains and the
Midwestern portions of our Nation.
Mr. Chair, when implemented, the clean power plan would help to
reduce carbon pollution by hundreds of millions of tons, decreasing
particle pollution, such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides by
hundreds of thousands of tons annually.
Additionally, Mr. Chair, the clean power plan would help protect the
health of our most vulnerable citizens, our children, older Americans,
and low-income and minority communities.
Mr. Chair, not only do the vast majority of the American people
believe that climate change is a serious problem and that the
government--our government, this Federal Government, we in this
Congress--should take action to address it and take it now, but also,
the overwhelming majority of our Nation's doctors believe so, also.
{time} 1445
Earlier this year, the American Thoracic Society found that, by a
huge margin, most doctors believe that climate change is already
negatively impacting their patients' health.
Fully 77 percent of responding doctors reported that increases in air
pollution caused by climate change is making their patients' illnesses
even more severe, a trend, I might add, Mr. Chairman, that they expect
will steadily increase in the future.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional 1
minute.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, these findings are in line with a similar
study conducted by the National Medical Association last year which
found that older Americans, low-income communities, and the sick will
all be disproportionately impacted by climate change if we fail to act.
Mr. Chairman, this is not just a political issue. This is not just a
partisan issue. This is also a moral issue. Just last week, in a
landmark encyclical, Pope Francis himself warned of the grave
implications of climate change when he stated:
Climate change is a global problem with grave implications:
environmental, social, economic, political, and for the
distribution of goods. It represents one of the principal
challenges facing humanity in our day.
There is an urgent need to develop policies so that, in the
next few years, the emission of carbon dioxide and other
highly polluting gases can be drastically reduced.
I urge all of my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, to heed the warning of our
scientists, of our doctors, and one of the world's foremost moral
authorities, the Pope himself.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that, obviously, you can't have a
discussion about this regulation without climate change, and
frequently, we hear that climate change is responsible for every
extreme weather condition.
I would point out that The Economist magazine, in its May 5 issue,
stated that it is impossible to say categorically that climate change
has caused any individual storm, flood, drought, heat wave, tornado, or
hurricane. Scientists agree that it is impossible to say that.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to make one other comment. The President
of the United States believes that climate change is the number one
issue facing mankind.
All of us recognize that the climate has been changing since the
beginning of time, but where we fundamentally disagree with the
President is we think there are other, more pressing issues dealing
with poverty, creating jobs, economic growth, access to clean water,
access to health care, and fighting diseases like pancreatic cancer. We
think those are more urgent.
But this President has got 61 individual government programs and is
spending $23 billion a year on climate change in addition to trying to
push regulations like this without any involvement of Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), a member of the Energy and Commerce
Committee.
Mr. CRAMER. I thank the chairman for yielding and for your leadership
on this issue. Let me pick up where the gentleman left off relating to
the comments made by the opposition to climate change's role in extreme
weather conditions.
Mr. Chairman, a couple of years ago, there was a weather condition
that many people out here refer to as the polar vortex; in North
Dakota, we call that winter, but I think what a lot of people don't
know is that, during that cold snap, they don't know how very
susceptible and fragile our system of transmitting and distributing
electricity was, largely because we don't have the base load generation
that we once had largely because of this attack on base load fuels like
coal, and that is really what we are talking about.
Mr. Chairman, I spent 10 years prior to coming to Congress as one of
those energy regulators, one of those people in the State agency the
Governor would consult as per this law, the Governor would consult
before determining whether they should opt out of the clean power plan.
It was my responsibility to make sure North Dakotans had reliable
electricity, that a grid system and a distribution system was reliable
and could deliver on a regular basis, as needed, electricity and that
the rates remained as they are still today in North Dakota, among the
very lowest in this country.
I also had regulation over the coal industry. I am also very proud of
the fact that, while North Dakota is a major coal-producing State that
generates over 4,000 megawatts of electricity at the mine mouth and
distributes it throughout a robust transmission and distribution system
that generates lots of low-cost electricity, it also creates lots and
lots of good-paying, important jobs.
The chairman also in response referenced the importance that
Republicans are placing on other things besides climate change, things
like job creation. Well, the clean power plan is a jobs killer, and it
makes us less competitive in the global marketplace.
It is really, in many respects, a unilateral disarmament of the
American economy at a time when the only really great thing going on in
the American economy is energy development.
A rule like the clean power plan goes exactly against the one robust
and positive in the American economy, and that is energy development.
Let's get back to the issue of the constitutionality, the judicial
question. Our bill simply provides an opportunity for a judicial
review, something that the President and the EPA should have done
before doing this rule, finishing this rule, and putting this rule out.
I find, frankly, the Ratepayer Protection Act to be a rather modest
response to the overreach and the zeal of the EPA and this
administration.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman again for his leadership on this
important issue.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2042. The so-called
Ratepayer Protection Act does nothing to protect any of us. In fact, it
does just the opposite.
This bill would simply continue this majority's policy of sticking
their head in the sand and doing nothing to address the serious
problems of climate change. The Pope has said that climate change is a
reality. It is impacting our lives every day. It is impacting our
economy, and it is only going to get worse.
Mr. Chairman, we are confronted almost daily with new evidence that
climate change is leading to increased
[[Page H4620]]
health risks, threatening our environment, and costing our economy
billions of dollars. Studies have shown that climate change can lead
and does lead to higher rates of asthma, reduces crop yields, acidifies
our oceans, and increases the risk for harmful algal blooms.
More severe droughts are threatening drinking and agriculture water
supplies in many locations, while warmer climates are increasing the
severity and frequency of storms in others. A recent study also showed
that climate change could undo many of the improvements that we have
seen in human well-being and life expectancy over the last half
century. The power sector is the largest source of U.S. greenhouse gas
emissions, accounting for nearly one-third of the U.S. total.
Mr. Chairman, while we will continue to depend on fossil fuels for
some time, we can and we must do more to limit their impacts on our
climate. The clean power plan does just that by setting carbon
reduction goals for each State and allowing States to implement
customized plans to meet those goals.
The clean power plan will help maintain an affordable, reliable
energy system while cutting pollution and protecting public health and
the environment now and for future generations; yet H.R. 2042 would
derail the clean power plan and all the health and economic benefits
that will come with it. The bill is full of excuses to support
inaction, but does nothing to solve the problem.
Mr. Chairman, this inaction on climate change is putting our
constituents and our future generations at risk. It is long past time
to acknowledge the causes of climate change and to tackle the issue
head on. It is time for us to work together to address this problem,
not to pass legislation that continues to ignore it.
For these reasons and so many others, I strongly oppose H.R. 2042,
and I urge my colleagues to vote against it as well.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I continue to reserve the balance of my time, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R.
2042, the Ratepayer Protection Act of 2015.
The EPA's clean power plan has raised a number of justifiable
concerns. However, while I would like to find a solution to the issues
raised by today's bill, I don't believe the present bill is the correct
solution. For more than a decade, the focus of environmental debate has
been on greenhouse gas emissions. In that time, we have passed two
comprehensive bills, while the EPA has promulgated dozens of rules.
Now, I am not raising Cain with the EPA. The Agency, backed by the
Supreme Court, has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases,
including carbon. The Agency, however, has a different approach to
regulating than I think many Members of Congress on both sides would
prefer.
I acknowledge that global climate change issues are difficult, and
the legislation would require a compromise, but this bill doesn't
accomplish that. Congress should create a regulatory framework for the
21st century economy and environment. We should recognize that human
activity has impacted the climate, but that does not mean regulating
sectors of our economy out of existence.
Regardless of the public outreach conducted by the Agency, regulatory
overreach can occur. I don't think allowing each successive
administration to prescribe policies that affect so much of our way of
life is a correct course of action.
We need to recognize our industries, and more importantly, our
workers need time to adjust to the new environmental realities and
implement changes, both technological and educational.
Mr. Chairman, I know many of our colleagues agree that our job as
legislators is to ensure each of our constituencies are equally
represented. I prefer we sit down and craft a bill that addresses the
many challenges we face not only domestically, but as a world leader.
Unfortunately, the present bill doesn't address those issues I have
laid out in a balanced and complete way. Allowing for endless legal
challenges or partisan political decisions is not the proper way to
handle an issue that affects the entire scope of the environment and
the economy.
Today's bill is only a part of the challenge, the part that is
directly in front of us, and I don't agree with that approach. I would
like the opportunity to sit down with my colleagues to draft a fair and
comprehensive legislation that reasonably balances the interests of all
parties rather than a sector-by-sector approach that balances none.
I want to make sure that the folks back home get what they need, and
I think it is an opportunity to bring all sides together. I have heard
certainly from many groups they all want the same thing, but they want
certainty.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. PALLONE. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, we want to be certain that
their companies will be profitable, that their livelihoods will be
protected, and their grandchildren have a clean environment. We can
accomplish these goals not with endless delay or agency decree.
I want to thank my colleague, Chairman Whitfield, for addressing part
of the problem, but let's work together to solve the whole problem.
For this reason, I oppose the bill and urge my colleagues to do the
same.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chair, how many minutes are remaining on both
sides?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining.
The gentleman from New Jersey has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Griffith), one of the original cosponsors of this legislation, who is a
member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, earlier, we heard
the gentleman from Illinois say that this was a just say no bill. You
bet it is. That is exactly what it is.
It is the just say no bill--no to a weaker electric grid; no to fewer
jobs, particularly in manufacturing and also in the coal and energy
industries; no to regulations that do little to help the environment,
but do a lot to raise your electric rates.
When we are talking about protecting the ratepayer--that is who we
are talking about, the average man and woman in this country, the
families that are out there struggling, trying to make ends meet in an
economy that is flat--this bill says no, we are not going to pass a
bill on to you for little gain in the environment, but to raise your
electric rates tremendously. The American families cannot afford it.
Mr. Chairman, as an example, we heard from a former regulator
earlier, but the Virginia State Corporation Commission--and that is the
organization in Virginia--appointed judges who make the decisions on
what you are going to pay for power in Virginia based on what is an
appropriate amount.
They said that customers in Virginia will likely pay significantly
more for their electricity.
{time} 1500
The incremental cost of compliance for one utility alone--Dominion
Virginia Power--would likely be between $5.5 billion and $6 billion on
a net present value basis. That is just for one of the companies
providing power.
Let me give you an idea, Mr. Chairman, of exactly what that means to
the people of Virginia. In my district, I have 29 geopolitical
subdivisions, 29 different jurisdictions. Only two of those
jurisdictions get their power from Dominion Virginia Power. Now,
remember, Dominion Virginia Power is going to cost the ratepayers $5.5
billion to $6 billion, but that doesn't cover the whole State and
doesn't cover very much in my district at all.
And, accordingly, again going back to the statements of the Virginia
State Corporation Commission, they say that, contrary to the claim that
rates will go up but that bills will go down, experience and costs in
Virginia make it extremely unlikely that either electric rates or bills
in Virginia will go down as a result of the proposed regulations.
[[Page H4621]]
So this is a very important measure. One of our prior speakers said
that we should take the time to craft some kind of a compromise. This
bill puts everything on hold until court cases can be decided and let
Governors come in and say: Well, wait a minute. We can't make this
happen in our State--or in our Commonwealth, as the case would be with
Virginia. That is important.
And maybe if we get this bill passed, we can sit down and find some
way to compromise between the regulators at the EPA and the interests
of the ratepayers. But because they are going to come out with this
rule sometime later this summer, and the States have roughly 13 months
thereafter to come up with their plan to meet the regulations, we do
not have the ability to give that time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Castor).
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member.
Mr. Chairman, this is the climate change denial bill. Don't be fooled
by its name. Ignoring the impact of climate change will heap huge costs
on taxpayers. This bill is a disservice to America. And in addition to
being very costly to consumers, it shirks our responsibility for
addressing the costly impacts of the changing climate.
The bill we are considering today shows that the Republicans' plan is
to just say no and to let our children and grandchildren suffer the
consequences of the changing climate without doing anything meaningful
to protect them. This position is indefensible, and it will prove very
costly, indeed.
Today's bill would essentially amend the Clean Air Act to give a free
pass to States that refuse to comply with the requirements of the clean
power plan. Unless we work together to meet the modern challenge of the
changing climate, this is going to be very expensive for our friends
back home, especially in States like mine--Florida.
Here are some of the huge costs we are looking at already: rising
property insurance rates and flood insurance rates because of extreme
weather events; Federal emergency aid that we have to pay out for
things like Superstorm Sandy and other storms, tornadoes, electrical
storms, tropical storms, drought, fire, and extreme heat.
In addition to property insurance and flood insurance, property taxes
are going to go up because our local communities are going to be
saddled with the cost of repairing storm water infrastructure and
addressing drinking water. This is going to be very expensive. In
Florida, we already see saltwater intrusion into our drinking water
aquifers because of rising tides.
There is a terrible drought in California. These are going to require
very expensive solutions unless we tackle it on the front end.
And I am fearful that there will be economic harm to coastal
communities like mine in the Tampa Bay area where we will have to pay
more to renourish our beaches and take care of the lifeblood of our
economy, which is tourism, fishing, for a beautiful, healthy economy.
I recommend a ``no'' vote on this bill.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman. I appreciate it
very much.
This bill is about commonsense safeguards to ensure my constituents
are protected from the EPA's overreach and higher energy prices.
The EPA's proposal under this rule has drawn widespread concern. It
places a heavier burden on Florida than other States, despite the fact
that Florida has reduced its carbon emissions by 20 percent since 2005.
Congress must act now to protect the everyday American who faces the
potential threat of unreliable services and ballooning electricity
costs.
With the economy growing at a feeble pace, my constituents cannot
afford to have their power bill increase. We should be working to
support new technologies to safely harness America's energy boom, not
saddle our constituents with regulations that will increase their cost
of living.
Let's focus on an all-the-above energy strategy, unleashing America's
domestic, renewable, and nonrenewable resources to reduce the costs of
groceries and the costs for heating and cooling your home.
This bill will allow each State to have their own opportunity to
assess the proposed plan for their State. Thirty-two States have made
legal objections to this rule; 34 States have objected to EPA's rushed
timeline.
I am glad that we are taking action here today in a bipartisan
fashion. I commend Chairman Whitfield, Representative Griffith,
Representative Bishop, and Representative Peterson for their bipartisan
work on the Ratepayer Protection Act. Please vote for this bill.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Tonko).
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, this bill represents a misguided attempt to
hold back change and progress.
Climate change is a problem. We must deal with it. The clean power
plan is an important step in that direction.
It is very disappointing to hear such a ``can't do'' attitude. We
have always been a nation that tackles big problems rather than denying
them.
Many States have already achieved significant reductions of
greenhouse gas emissions through regional carbon trading, renewable
portfolio standards, energy efficient programming, and investments in
clean energy.
My home State has made great strides. And if there is a flaw in the
proposed rule, it is that the proposal asked States that have already
done a lot to reduce their emissions and modernize their electric grids
to do even more.
By contrast, the requirements on the States that have resisted change
and have done far less, are asked only to get started. This bill
invites some States to continue to avoid doing their fair share to
address the serious environmental and economic threat posed by climate
change.
New York State will continue to work on this problem, as will a
number of other States that have already taken the steps that I
mentioned earlier, but it would be nice if our neighbors also helped to
address the problem that we all had a role in creating.
This bill should be defeated. It certainly will not go far in the
Senate, and it would not get signed by our President. Its consideration
is, indeed, a waste of time. We should be using our time to find real
solutions to the problems we all face. This bill offers no solutions,
just another way to avoid addressing our problems.
With that, I urge defeat of H.R. 2042.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
We have heard a lot of discussions today about how important it is
with a clean energy plan to address CO2 emissions in the
U.S. You would think that this clean energy plan is going to make a
tremendous difference.
I would just like to point out that the Energy Information
Administration recently reported that U.S. energy-related
CO2 emissions will remain flat through 2040 and below their
2005 levels without the clean energy plan. So this clean energy plan is
being elevated to do some dramatic good. The fact is the U.S. is
already doing more than most countries. And I would point out that, in
the coming decades, more than two-thirds of the world's energy-related
CO2 emissions will come from the developing countries of the
world.
So we are being penalized in America, although we have already made
great strides. That is why we are trying to give States more time to
address this very complex regulation.
At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Johnson), who is a member of the Energy and Commerce
Committee.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of
Chairman Whitfield's legislation, H.R. 2041, the Ratepayer Protection
Act.
This rule, the clean power plan, by the EPA is an unprecedented rule,
one that has the potential to devastate Ohio's coal industry. That is
the very same industry that employs thousands of people throughout
eastern and southeastern Ohio and provides homes and businesses with
affordable, reliable electricity.
The Ratepayer Protection Act will stop this devastation. Almost 70
percent of Ohio's electricity today--70 percent of Ohio's electricity--
is currently
[[Page H4622]]
provided by coal. Moreover, coal miners already have a difficult and
stressful job as it is. And now, because of the EPA's clean power plan,
they will have to worry about whether or not they will even have a job
when they show up for work.
The Ratepayer Protection Act is an essential check on the EPA's
extreme emission standards. It allows Governors to use common sense to
opt their State out of the rule should they determine that it will
negatively affect its ratepayers or grid reliability.
The legislation also extends the rule's compliance dates, pending
judicial review. That is just common sense, Mr. Chairman, because
shouldn't our States have a say in our energy future? Especially when
you consider that over 32 States have already raised legal objections
to the rule, and 34 have objected to the EPA's rush regulatory
timelines.
EPA's carbon emission regulations have already made it economically
unfeasible to build a new coal-fired power plant in America. We cannot
afford to shut down existing plants and this very important industry as
well.
I support the legislation, and I urge my colleagues to.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Lowenthal).
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, first, I thank the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey for yielding.
I also rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2042.
No one wants to see new rules and regulations just for the fun of it,
and we should not take this EPA rule lightly. But here is why we must
let this rule move forward: one, climate change is real; two, it is
caused by greenhouse gases that are released from human activities; and
three, it has already been changing the world as we know it.
Pope Francis, in his encyclical, ``Laudato Si,'' or, ``Praise Be to
You,'' points out that ``reducing greenhouse gases requires honesty,
courage, and responsibility, above all on the part of those countries
which are more powerful and pollute the most.''
The Pope is right. We need to be honest about climate change, we need
to be courageous and face the future, and we need to take
responsibility for our carbon pollution.
That is exactly why we need to work with the EPA, with States, with
our great research centers, and with our energy sector to increase
efficiency and to transition to cleaner fuels and renewable energy
sources.
The clean power plan and the authority granted by the Clean Air Act
is the vehicle we have right now to cut greenhouse gas emissions and to
clean up polluted air. But my colleagues are telling States they should
just say no and completely opt out of doing their part and subject this
rule, which, by the way, we have not even seen it in its final place,
to years and years of delay.
{time} 1515
This is not honest. It is not courageous. It is not a responsible way
to deal with greenhouse gas pollution.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the irresponsible and
shortsighted Ratepayer Protection Act.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire on the remaining
time.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining,
and the gentleman from New Jersey has 9 minutes remaining.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Mrs. Mimi Walters).
Mrs. MIMI WALTERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in
support of H.R. 2042, the Ratepayer Protection Act. This bill would
protect States and families from EPA regulatory overreach and
significant spikes in electricity costs.
Last June, the EPA proposed a rule for existing power plants known as
the clean power plan. This rule would mandate new carbon reduction
goals for each State, effectively changing the way electricity is
generated, distributed, and consumed in the United States.
The economic impact of this rule is very troubling. It could mean
increased electricity costs and reduced reliability for consumers. In
fact, under the clean power plan, electricity rates would increase by
an average of 15 percent in a majority of States.
This bill would protect ratepayers and exempt States from complying
with the rule until all judicial reviews are complete. It would also
allow Governors to opt out of compliance with the rule if there would
be a significant impact on states' ratepayers.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
bipartisan, commonsense bill.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I find this whole conversation somewhat
surreal because, in my community in Portland, Oregon, the city is
unveiling a new climate action plan to reduce local carbon emissions
even more.
We are already below 1999 levels on a per capita basis, but our
community has committed, in going forward, to a clean energy future in
order to do our part.
It is jarring that, at the same time, we would consider on the floor
of the House rolling back the modest, balanced approach that the
administration has undertaken with the carbon rule--a carbon rule that
is not yet finalized, a carbon rule that is dedicated to working with
local States to try and fine-tune it to make sure that it works right
and with more public input. Nonetheless, even though it is a little
late in coming, the United States must step up.
We have a major responsibility as we are the largest contributor to
carbon pollution in the world. We are number two now behind China. We
have a responsibility to do our part, but we have a responsibility to
do our part not just in terms of global leadership and in trying to
change this tremendously destructive trajectory we are on with carbon
pollution--as we will, no doubt, hear from the Pope in 3 months in this
Chamber--but it is part of what is going to happen with other countries
in the world.
If the richest, most powerful nation in the world can't step up to do
its part, how can we expect to exert global leadership and prevent
catastrophic events elsewhere?
The notion that somehow this is going to be an economic catastrophe
is balderdash. The reason the coal industry is in trouble is that coal
is dirty, inefficient, and it is more expensive than natural gas. It is
not a foundation for our energy future. Being able to move to a low
carbon future is a bedrock for economic prosperity in the future.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. PALLONE. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. We just heard from the gentlewoman from California, a
State that has proven to be an international leader. Its economy is
going great guns. It is reducing its carbon footprint, its carbon use.
People confuse the price of energy with the cost of energy, and what
has happened in States like California, which have been creative in
terms of energy conservation and in pricing it properly, is that use
goes down.
Some of the people with the lowest rates waste the most energy. They
actually spend more. Part of what we did with climate legislation, as
the gentleman from New Jersey well knows, actually would have reduced
the cost for most people.
We don't want to be on the wrong side of history on this because it
will have a devastating effect. The administration's modest proposal
ought to be supported. We ought not to pretend that we can shatter it
and piecemeal it out for the States to undercut it. We ought not to
pretend that this is not a real problem that deserves our attention
going forward.
To waste time today with something that would turn the clock back and
that won't pass the Senate--if it did, it would be vetoed--is sad. We
ought to be working together on a low carbon future to be able to make
it work right for each and every community.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the distinguished majority whip.
Mr. SCALISE. I want to thank my friend from Kentucky, the chairman of
the Energy and Power Subcommittee, for yielding and for bringing
forward the Ratepayer Protection Act.
Mr. Chairman, this bill goes directly to the heart of these radical
regulations, which are coming out of agencies
[[Page H4623]]
like the EPA, that are killing jobs in America. When you look at this
regulation, this proposal by the EPA that this bill addresses, the EPA
is proposing to bring forward more radical regulations that are going
to increase the cost of household electricity for every family in this
country. The estimates show you will see an over 12 percent increase in
household electricity rates if the EPA is allowed to move forward.
When you look at what this legislation does, at least it stands up
and protects hard-working taxpayers who are tired of all of these
regulations--one after the other--coming forward, not through
legislation passed by Congress--in open, public settings like this that
you can watch on C-SPAN--but coming forward through unelected
bureaucrats at the EPA who want to carry out their own agenda.
They can't pass it through Congress, so they try to just ram it
through in regulations that aren't backed up by science but that would,
in fact, actually, lead to more jobs being shipped out of this country.
Where would those jobs go, Mr. Chairman? They would go to places like
China and India and Brazil and to other countries that don't have the
environmental standards that we have. You will actually see more carbon
emitted if the EPA is successful in moving forward with regulations
like this that this bill is addressing.
I want to commend the chairman for bringing this forward. I think you
are going to see a large, bipartisan vote in support of this
legislation because people across the country are saying enough is
enough.
If the proposal is so good by the EPA, why not move it through
Congress? Why not have public hearings on C-SPAN and present the facts
and point out and defend the increases that families are going to have
in their household electricity rates?
They want to hide, Mr. Chairman. They want to hide and try to just
sneak this through with the regulation and not have any public vote on
the bill.
Here you have a bill, a bill that says let's slow this process down,
that says let's actually give States the ability to opt out if they
realize just how devastating it will be not only to the states'
economies, but to the taxpayers in each State.
In my State of Louisiana, this proposal by the EPA that we are trying
to stop would yield about a 13 percent increase in people's household
electricity rates. We are already paying too much. The costs of things
are already too high because of regulations coming out of Washington
not imposed by Congress, but imposed by unelected bureaucrats.
Enough is enough. Let's rein in these unelected bureaucrats, and
let's bring some common sense back to the process of getting our
economy back on track. I urge the approval of this legislation, which
is so important to getting our economy moving again.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It bothers me a great deal when I hear my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle acting as if we don't already have a Clean Air Act in
place. The fact of the matter is the Clean Air Act was passed by both
Democrats and Republicans back in 1970.
It has been amended and changed several times since then, but the EPA
is simply acting on a law that was passed by the Congress. There is no
such thing here that the EPA is somehow doing something that they
shouldn't be doing, which is what is being suggested by some of my
colleagues on the Republican side and, I guess, is the basis for this
legislation.
The EPA is regulating based on laws that were passed by Congress--
that is what an agency does--but many of my colleagues on the
Republican side continue to raise the false specter of job losses and
high economic costs in order to try to block the President and the EPA
from implementing the clean power plan to curb power plant carbon
pollution.
I just want to say again, in going back to the original Clean Air
Act, the history of the Clean Air Act shows that they are wrong, that
we can have both a clean environment and a strong economy.
This is an argument that industry has used every time the Clean Air
Act has been strengthened. Every time new regulations come out that are
trying to address the problems with clean air and that are trying to
make the air healthier for all Americans, we hear industry argue that
somehow there are going to be job losses or that there are going to be
huge rate increases.
When Congress debated the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, the oil
industry said that the technology to meet these standards simply does
not exist today, and they predicted major supply disruptions, and
chemical companies said the law would cause severe economic and social
disruption. None of these gloom-and-doom predictions came true.
Instead, our air got cleaner, and our economy flourished.
The history of the Clean Air Act shows that the United States can
reduce carbon pollution while creating jobs and strengthening the
economy. Since its adoption in 1970, the Clean Air Act has reduced key
air pollutants by two-thirds while the economy has tripled in size. The
Clean Air Act has also made the United States a world leader in
pollution control technology, generating hundreds of billions of
dollars for U.S. companies and creating millions of jobs.
I want to stress that I think we are at a critical crossroads here.
If we continue to ignore the science, we will cause catastrophic
climate change and saddle our economy with soaring bills for disaster
relief; but, if we invest in the clean energy technologies of the
future, we can protect our environment and grow our economy.
This idea of juxtaposing jobs and the economy versus the environment
is simply not true. The history of the Clean Air Act shows that it is
not true.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, once again, I ask how much time is
remaining.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining,
and the gentleman from New Jersey has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The other question that I keep hearing from the other side of the
aisle is that, somehow, they just ignore the public health aspects of
this. Obviously, we are concerned about climate change, but it is also
the question of public health.
There are consequences to inaction. In other words, if this bill were
to pass and if the clean power plan were not to go into effect, there
are consequences.
The EPA estimates that, in 2030, the clean power plan will avoid up
to 3,300 heart attacks, prevent 150,000 asthma attacks in children,
lead to 2,800 fewer hospital admissions, and avert 490,000 missed work
or schooldays each year.
These benefits are worth an estimated $93 billion per year, Mr.
Chairman. These are human health benefits that could be delayed or,
perhaps, permanently lost if this bill takes effect. The health
benefits potentially blocked by the bill are especially important for
the most vulnerable among us, our babies, our kids, our seniors, and
those with asthma.
The legislation grants a blanket extension for all clean power plan
compliant States until all opportunities for legal challenges have been
exhausted, and this unprecedented suspension of critical clean air
regulations would occur regardless of a lawsuit's merits or its
likelihood of success. What the Republicans are doing with this bill is
denying the health benefits that come from the clean power plan.
I just want to close, Mr. Chairman, by reminding everyone that the
President has said he will veto this legislation, so this effort with
the legislation is totally in vain, as it probably won't pass the
Senate.
The President would veto it, and there are no votes to override his
veto. Let me just read what the President says in his statement when he
says he will veto the bill.
{time} 1530
He says:
The bill is premature and unnecessary. It is premature
because the clean power plan has yet to be finalized; it is
unnecessary because EPA has made clear its commitment to
address concerns raised during the public comment period
(including concerns related to cost and reliability) when
issuing the final clean power plan. The effect of the bill
would, therefore, be a wholly unnecessary
[[Page H4624]]
postponement of reductions of harmful air pollution.
The bill is unprecedented. The administration is not aware
of any instance when Congress has enacted legislation to stay
implementation of a clean air standard before judicial
review. To do so here, before the rule is even final, would
be an unprecedented interference with EPA's efforts to
fulfill its duties under the Clean Air Act.
Once again, my colleagues on the Republican side have said that this
is only a proposed rule. Why are they passing legislation to deal with
a rule that hasn't even been finalized?
I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
The reason we are acting is because the 5 years that I have been
chairman of this subcommittee, we have had many hearings on proposed
rules and regulations coming out of EPA, and only one time did they
actually sit down with the affected parties and try to work out a real
compromise, and that was on the cement rule.
Other than that, they have made it very clear they intend to move
forward with this regulation. Lawsuits have been filed, but the courts
have said it is not right yet. So if we don't take action, it is going
to become final, and then you go to court, and then it takes years.
So we are simply saying let's pass this legislation to delay the
implementation until the court makes a decision on whether or not it is
legal. We have real reason to believe that it is not legal because
never have they ever attempted to regulate an existing source under
section 111(d) except in very minute circumstances.
Now, I agree that since the original Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990, our economy has improved. We have had a lot more jobs. But the
Global Markets Institute last month issued a report--it is an arm of
Goldman Sachs, a respected institution--and they pointed out that in
the Obama administration, since 2009, the number of small businesses in
America are 600,000 less today than in 2009; 6 million fewer jobs today
than in 2009. They also went on to say that the reason for this is the
overzealous issue of regulations in this administration.
That is why the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, representing thousands
of small-business men and women around the country has endorsed this
legislation. That is why the African American Chamber of Commerce has
written a letter explaining the detrimental impacts of this regulation.
That is why over 30-some States have come to us and asked us to give
them more time.
As I said in the beginning, this is a complex rule. It certainly
applies to more than just coal, because it is the first time that EPA
has ever attempted to go outside the source of the emission to reduce
the emission. So we are not talking about only coal-powered electricity
plants, but the EPA sets the standard for every State, the emission
cap, and then they say you go fix it. So the States are going to be
forced to go to other industries, to maybe look at building materials
in homes, to adopt renewable mandates to meet these very stringent
standards.
So it is a complex rule. EPA usually gives States 3 years to come up
with their State implementation plan, but in this instance, they are
giving them 13 months, which is unheard of.
This legislation is very simple. Let's delay the State implementation
plans until the courts render a decision. I urge our Members to support
this commonsense legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chair, today we fight to keep electricity affordable
with the Ratepayer Protection Act, a bill that protects folks all
across the country from the potential rate increases and reliability
risks that experts predict will occur under the EPA's proposed Clean
Power Plan. I applaud my colleague Ed Whitfield for his efforts on this
important bill and I urge my colleagues to support it.
In my home state of Michigan, the American Coalition for Clean Coal
Electricity estimates that the EPA's proposed plan would increase
electricity prices by 12%. The last thing families in Michigan and
across the country can afford right now are higher bills just as they
are finally feeling as if they have turned the corner following the
extended economic downturn.
Legal experts, including President Obama's own law professor,
Laurence Tribe have testified that the proposal raises grave
constitutional questions, exceeds EPA's statutory authority, and
violates the Clean Air Act. In fact, Professor Tribe equated the
administration's action to ``burning the Constitution.''
Low-income households and those on fixed incomes get hit the hardest
when electric bills go up. In Michigan, there are nearly 2 million
lower-income and middle-income families--representing 52% of the
state's households. Unfortunately, the costs of this proposed rule
would fall disproportionately on the most vulnerable.
Small businesses would also face increased electricity costs that
could harm their bottom line. And every extra dollar that goes toward
higher energy cost is money that can't be spent on new hiring.
For manufacturers, affordable energy is imperative to stay
competitive in a global market. That is why the Chamber of Commerce,
National Association of Manufacturers, and many other representatives
of job-creating businesses have sounded the alarm on the serious threat
posed by the administration's plan.
I would also note that higher costs are not the only menace looming
on the horizon--what's worse than expensive electricity is no
electricity at all. But that is a real possibility. The North American
Electric Reliability Corporation and others have warned that the EPA's
proposed plan poses a serious threat to electric reliability as power
sources are forced offline.
The Ratepayer Protection Act is a thoughtful and straightforward
answer to the potential rate shocks and blackouts. The legislation
would allow for the completion of judicial review of any rule before
requiring states to implement it, and if a governor of a state finds
that the rule poses a significant threat to electricity affordability
and reliability they would have the power to suspend compliance with
the administration's plan.
The Ratepayer Protection Act does not repeal the Clean Power Plan, it
merely adds several reasonable safeguards to it. Regulatory overreach
has defined this administration and it is time we all stood up to
protect affordable energy. Vote yes in support of every American
ratepayer and lower bills.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 114-20. That
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
H.R. 2042
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Ratepayer Protection Act of
2015''.
SEC. 2. EXTENDING COMPLIANCE DATES OF RULES ADDRESSING CARBON
DIOXIDE EMISSIONS FROM EXISTING POWER PLANTS
PENDING JUDICIAL REVIEW.
(a) Extension of Compliance Dates.--
(1) Extension.--Each compliance date of any final rule
described in subsection (b) is deemed to be extended by the
time period equal to the time period described in subsection
(c).
(2) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``compliance
date''--
(A) means, with respect to any requirement of a final rule
described in subsection (b), the date by which any State,
local, or tribal government or other person is first required
to comply; and
(B) includes the date by which State plans are required to
be submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency under any
such final rule.
(b) Final Rules Described.--A final rule described in this
subsection is any final rule to address carbon dioxide
emissions from existing sources that are fossil fuel-fired
electric utility generating units under section 111(d) of the
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7411(d)), including any final rule
that succeeds--
(1) the proposed rule entitled ``Carbon Pollution Emission
Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility
Generating Units'' published at 79 Fed. Reg. 34830 (June 18,
2014); or
(2) the supplemental proposed rule entitled ``Carbon
Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary
Sources: EGUs in Indian Country and U.S. Territories; Multi-
Jurisdictional Partnerships'' published at 79 Fed. Reg. 65482
(November 4, 2014).
(c) Period Described.--The time period described in this
subsection is the period of days that--
(1) begins on the date that is 60 days after the day on
which notice of promulgation of a final rule described in
subsection (b) appears in the Federal Register; and
(2) ends on the date on which judgment becomes final, and
no longer subject to further appeal or review, in all actions
(including actions that are filed pursuant to section 307 of
the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7607))--
(A) that are filed during the 60 days described in
paragraph (1); and
(B) that seek review of any aspect of such rule.
SEC. 3. RATEPAYER PROTECTION.
(a) Effects of Plans.--No State shall be required to adopt
or submit a State plan, and no
[[Page H4625]]
State or entity within a State shall become subject to a
Federal plan, pursuant to any final rule described in section
2(b), if the Governor of such State makes a determination,
and notifies the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, that implementation of the State or
Federal plan would--
(1) have a significant adverse effect on the State's
residential, commercial, or industrial ratepayers, taking
into account--
(A) rate increases that would be necessary to implement, or
are associated with, the State or Federal plan; and
(B) other rate increases that have been or are anticipated
to be necessary to implement, or are associated with, other
Federal or State environmental requirements; or
(2) have a significant adverse effect on the reliability of
the State's electricity system, taking into account the
effects on the State's--
(A) existing and planned generation and retirements;
(B) existing and planned transmission and distribution
infrastructure; and
(C) projected electricity demands.
(b) Consultation.--In making a determination under
subsection (a), the Governor of a State shall consult with--
(1) the public utility commission or public service
commission of the State;
(2) the environmental protection, public health, and
economic development departments or agencies of the State;
and
(3) the Electric Reliability Organization (as defined in
section 215 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824o)).
The CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in House Report 114-
177. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in
the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered
read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Pallone
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in
House Report 114-177.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 4, after line 15, insert the following (and
redesignate subsection (b) as subsection (c)):
(b) Additional Certification Regarding Costs of Responding
to Human-Caused Climate Change.--For a Governor's
determination to have the effect described in subsection (a),
such determination shall include a certification that--
(1) electricity generating units are sources of carbon
pollution that contribute to human-induced climate change;
and
(2) the State or Federal plan to reduce carbon emissions
from electric utility generating units would promote national
security, economic growth, and public health by addressing
human-induced climate change through the increased use of
clean energy, energy efficiency, and reductions in carbon
pollution.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
in support of my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment includes language identical to an
amendment recently offered by Senator Bennet and approved during the
Senate budget process. It is simple enough. In order to opt out, a
Governor must certify that the State or Federal plan would ``promote
national security, economic growth and public health by addressing
human induced climate change through the increased use of clean energy,
energy efficiency and reductions in carbon pollution.''
This clear and concise language passed the Senate in the budget bill
with the support of seven Republican Senators along with all the
Democratic Senators. Republican Senators like Dean Heller, Mark Kirk,
and Rob Portman voted for this language, as did the chair of the Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Murkowski, who is from
Alaska, where the impacts of climate change are undeniable.
Let me just start by quoting pro-coal Senator Manchin from West
Virginia: ``There is no question that climate change is real and that
billions of people have impacted the world's climate. This amendment
supports investment in clean energy technology, including advanced
fossil energy, and supports energy efficiency, which reduces carbon
while saving customers money. We can protect the environment for future
generations while ensuring that we have affordable and reliable energy
sources today.''
That is a quote from Senator Manchin from West Virginia.
Mr. Chairman, I think we should be clear about where Members of this
esteemed committee stand on the reality of human-induced climate change
and whether or not it needs to be addressed. Senators have had to stand
up and be counted, so we here in the House should do the same.
Some on the Republican side of the aisle have said that they are not
climate deniers. Well, if that is the case, then this should be a very
easy vote for them, in my opinion. But it wouldn't surprise me if some
or all on the Republican side oppose this amendment. In the Committee
on Energy and Commerce, it was voted down twice: first in the
subcommittee, and then in the full committee along party lines.
Let me be clear, Mr. Chairman. This amendment still allows the
Governor to opt out of the Federal plan. It doesn't really change the
substance of the bill. This amendment is for anyone who believes in
human-induced climate change, regardless of their views on various
approaches to deal with the problem. You can vote for my amendment and,
if you must, still oppose the clean power plan. But if you vote against
my amendment, it can only mean, in my opinion, that you are against any
solution to climate change.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chair, I want to say that I have the utmost
respect for my colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, who is the
ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. He is always
thoroughly prepared and does a great job, but I respectfully must
disagree with him on this amendment.
Just reading the amendment, there doesn't seem to be that much wrong
with it, and really there is not that much wrong with it; but I would
point out that this amendment suggests that the Federal Government is
not taking action about climate change. The fact is, we have 18 Federal
agencies administering 61 separate programs on climate change, and
since 2008, we have spent over $77 billion addressing it. That is not
even including the regulations coming out of EPA. Last year alone, the
Federal Government spent $23 billion on climate change.
I would just point out that this bill is about responding to States
who are asking us for help. They need more time to address this very
complex regulation that will be coming out of EPA very soon. We can't
have a debate about it without talking about climate change. But as I
said earlier, everyone recognizes the climate has been changing since
the beginning of time. I read an article the other day, in the 13th
century, they had grape vineyards in northern England. That is not true
today.
Where we differ with the President is that the President has made it
very clear that he thinks climate change is the number one issue facing
mankind. We recognize that it is a problem, but we think there are
other more pressing issues out there and that this administration seems
to be obsessed with climate change.
We think creating jobs, economic growth, clean water, health care,
and trying to solve pancreatic cancer are more important. We have
countries in Africa, representatives in Africa and Bangladesh telling
us we are more concerned about just having electricity, just having
enough food. So that is the big difference between us and the
President.
Like I said, we are simply trying to give States more time, giving
them the option to opt out if they need to. We want the courts to
render a decision that this is legal before they have to start spending
the resources and the money to respond to it. For that reason, I would
respectfully disagree with this amendment and ask that our Members vote
against it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. I yield myself the remainder of my time to close.
[[Page H4626]]
Mr. Chairman, I would just say once again that, again, I respect my
colleague from Kentucky a great deal, but I don't see how this
amendment even says that climate change is a priority. It is simply
saying that it should be addressed in the context of any Governor's
effort to opt out. Now, I don't think that Governors should be opting
out, but at least if they decide to do so, then they should be able to
certify the reference to these various issues, including public health
and climate change.
Again, we talk about climate change. I understand what the gentleman
is saying, but in terms of priorities, keep in mind that public health
is a priority. The gentleman mentioned pancreatic cancer. I was
thinking that the group that are advocates for trying to cure
pancreatic cancer probably came to see him yesterday as they came to
see me. We don't even know what the cause of it is. It may very well be
that there are environmental causes in the air that lead to pancreatic
cancer. So I think that it does need to be a priority. Climate change
does need to be a priority.
But again, you can vote for this amendment without saying that
climate change is your biggest priority. We are simply saying that when
a Governor decides to opt out, which I don't think they should, that
they have to say that they certify that they have looked at the public
health, that they have looked at climate change, that they have looked
at increased use of clean energy and other issues. I see no reason why
anyone on either side of the aisle shouldn't support the amendment for
that reason.
I yield back the balance of my time and urge passage of the
amendment, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey will be
postponed.
{time} 1545
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Rush
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in
House Report 114-177.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 4, after line 15, insert the following (and
redesignate subsection (b) as subsection (c)):
(b) Additional Certification Regarding Costs of Responding
to Human-Caused Climate Change.--For a Governor's
determination to have the effect described in subsection (a),
such determination shall include a certification that the
inapplicability of a State or Federal plan described in such
subsection will not have a significant adverse effect on
costs associated with a State's plan to respond to extreme
weather events associated with human-caused climate change,
taking into account any costs necessary to--
(1) adapt or respond to increased sea level rise or
flooding;
(2) prepare for or respond to more frequent and intense
storms;
(3) fight or otherwise respond to more frequent and intense
wildfires; and
(4) adapt or respond to increased drought.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Rush) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us, which I prefer to
call the ``Just Say No'' bill, would effectively give Governors the
power to opt out of the Federal requirements of the EPA's proposed
clean power plan if they decide that complying with the plan would have
an adverse effect on either rates or reliability.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the language allowing a Governor to opt
out is ambiguous and does not take into account other costs that States
are already paying due to the impacts of climate change.
So, Mr. Chairman, in order to address this issue, I am offering a
straightforward amendment that simply states that a Governor must
certify that, within his or her State, any ratepayer increases
associated with implementing a State or Federal plan would be greater
than any costs associated with responding to extreme weather conditions
associated with human-caused climate change.
Mr. Chairman, this would include the costs associated with cleaning
up after mass flooding, intense wildfires, more frequent and intense
storms, as well as the costs associated with loss of crops and
livestock due to increased drought.
Mr. Chairman, as any State that has had to deal with the aftermath of
any of these destructive extreme weather events can attest, Americans
are already shouldering the costs of climate change--and these costs
are getting worse and worse. In fact, according to the National Climate
Assessment, if we do not seriously invest in addressing climate change
impacts now, we can expect to see more expensive and costly future
damages associated with almost every facet of our society, from
negative health impacts, to stressing our infrastructure and water
system, to harming our national security, up to and including hurting
our overall long-term economic growth.
Mr. Chairman, just 2 days ago, on Monday, the EPA, in collaboration
with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Pacific Northwest
National Lab, and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, released a
peer-reviewed study detailing the costs if we fail to address climate
change. This report stated that failure to act could cost 12,000 lives
from extreme temperatures and 57,000 lives from poor air quality in the
year 2100, as well as cost the country hundreds of billions of dollars
each and every year.
The analysis also looked at the impact of climate change on health,
electricity, infrastructure, water resources, agriculture, forestry,
and the ecosystem. It found that if we acted to reduce emissions, we
could avert loss of life, reduce the number of droughts and floods, and
save up to $34 billion in power system costs in the year 2050 alone.
So, Mr. Chairman, with all of these dire warnings coming from both
the experts as well as from Mother Nature herself, we cannot allow
Governors to ``just say no'' to reducing harmful pollutants from their
States and simply put their heads in the sand.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment
to ensure that Governors are held accountable for their failure to act
to reduce harmful pollutants that impact the overall public good.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Illinois has expired.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, with great respect to my friend, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), whom I have had the privilege of
sitting through 5 years, it seems like, of hearings almost every day,
while I have the greatest respect for him, I do rise in opposition to
this amendment.
His amendment would basically say that State Governors must certify
that the cost to the ratepayers under EPA's 111(d) rule would exceed
the costs associated with responding to extreme weather events.
I point out once again that in The Economist magazine just this May,
a few weeks ago, they were quoting scientists who were saying it is
impossible to say categorically that climate change has caused any
individual storm, flood, drought, heat wave, tornado, hurricane, or any
other adverse weather effect. So that correlation has simply not been
established scientifically.
This amendment would require State Governors to make a certification
on something that they cannot do, even the EPA itself will not and
cannot do, which is to show any direct benefit on climate events from
their rule.
EPA has said in their own testimony that this rule, this regulation,
will not have a significant impact on climate events in the U.S. As a
matter of fact, in April testimony before Congress, Acting Assistant
Administrator McCabe indicated that EPA could not predict the impact of
the rule on any of its climate indicators. So they are adopting this
rule as simply following up on the President's Georgetown speech in
which he laid out his climate plan.
[[Page H4627]]
But I would like to point out that America is addressing climate
change. I would say once again, we have 61 government programs
involved. We have 18 Federal agencies involved. We spent a total of $77
billion since 2008. We are doing all sorts of things.
This bill is simply to give States enough time to respond to this
very complex regulation until after the courts have rendered a
decision.
And so, with that, I would respectfully request Members to oppose the
Rush amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois will be postponed.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Huizenga of Michigan
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in
House Report 114-177.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of section 2 of the bill, add the following:
(d) Sense of Congress.--The Congress encourages the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in
promulgating, implementing, or enforcing any final rule
described in subsection (b), to specifically address how the
megawatt hours discharged from a pumped hydroelectric storage
system will be incorporated into State and Federal
implementation plans adopted pursuant to any such final rule.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Huizenga) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my
colleague, the gentleman from Kentucky, for bringing this important
bill to the floor to empower States to protect consumers from higher
electric rates and to ensure grid reliability. In fact, when I was in
the State legislature back in Michigan, I served as the vice chair of
our Energy and Technology Committee and spent a lot of time and work on
grid reliability and cost issues.
Under the clean power plan, the EPA would set mandatory carbon
dioxide emission levels for each State and require that they submit
State plans to meet their EPA-established ``goals.''
While I have many concerns about the proposed rule, I am offering
this amendment to highlight how the EPA's approach to calculating
emissions actually discourages the kind of emission reductions that it
is intended to promote.
Here is how. The EPA's compliance formula does not include a way to
calculate the benefits of clean energy storage. Michigan is a prime
example of the importance of energy storage via the Ludington Pumped
Storage reservoir in west Michigan, in the Second District.
Ludington Pumped Storage was the largest pumped storage hydroelectric
facility in the world when it was constructed. I remember as a young
man, my dad was in construction, and we would do Sunday drives an hour
and a half north just to see progress on this. It is an 842-acre
reservoir that is 2\1/2\ miles long and holds 27 billion gallons of
water. In the last couple of years, it now includes a wind farm with 56
turbines that are generating an additional 100 megawatts. Ludington can
generate up to 1,872 megawatts, which is enough electricity to serve a
community of 1.4 million residential customers.
Here is how the pump storage works. At night, when electric rates are
low--and oftentimes the wind is blowing in west Michigan, and those
turbines are going--Ludington's reversible turbines down at the lake
level pump water up the 363-foot hill from Lake Michigan to the
reservoir. Then, during the day, when electric demand is high, the
reservoir releases water to flow downhill and it turns the turbines to
make carbon-free electricity. And that is very, very helpful, obviously
especially in the summertime when we have peak times.
In fact, when I was in the State legislature, I was standing next to
those turbines and they got the call that they needed peak electricity
because a substation had gone down in southeast Michigan. Literally,
within 10 minutes, those turbines were spinning and producing
electricity and putting it back out on the grid, thereby saving a whole
lot of expenses they were going to look at in needing to go out on the
MISO system to purchase that electricity.
In addition to it being carbon-free, there are no other emissions
being pumped from the storage generation either.
Ironically, the proposed rule would penalize States like Michigan and
Virginia that have prudently invested in energy storage technology
because the emissions and megawatt hours from plants used to charge the
system are included in the EPA's equation. However, the megawatt hours
discharged from the storage system are not. Thus, according to the EPA,
a State's emissions intensity actually increases if they utilize clean
energy storage. That is the exact opposite of what I hope is the EPA's
goal of this rule.
This amendment simply encourages the EPA to explicitly authorize
States to include clean energy storage in their compliance plans.
I encourage my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment and
the underlying bill so that States can best protect their residents
from the significant economic and reliability impact the proposed rule
could have.
At this time, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), my
colleague.
Mr. KILDEE. I thank my friend for yielding.
He has his photo of the hydroelectric pump storage facility. His is
from the right. I have a picture from the left. It is a different view,
but it is the same facility.
This is really important. I support this amendment. With electricity
demands varying, as Mr. Huizenga said, throughout peak and nonpeak
times, Michigan companies produce and store reserve energy in this
facility for future use when demand is high, which provides, as was
said, energy literally at a moment's notice, which is critical for grid
stability and also critical to keep prices low for our consumers.
This technology allows our companies to respond quickly when demand
exceeds base load capacity, especially during extreme weather events
such as heat waves and polar vortexes.
The EPA has repeatedly recognized the need for large-scale storage
facilities like Ludington's and how pumped hydroelectric storage can
fill this role, but the EPA's proposed rule compliance formula does not
include a way to calculate the benefits of pumped hydroelectric
storage.
{time} 1600
With this amendment, we would like to encourage the EPA to address
specifically how pumped hydroelectric storage will be counted in
Michigan and other States, so the consumers will have access. This is
important for Michigan.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Michigan has expired.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I
am not going to oppose the amendment, but I would like to speak to the
amendment.
The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Kentucky is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. WHITFIELD. First, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Collins).
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I am not going to take the time,
maybe give it back to the two gentlemen whom I joined on this amendment
as well.
This is one of those things that is common sense--at least, we
believe in. Our people back home, they don't understand this in dealing
with some regulation on why we are trying to encourage this clean
resource and this energy and pumping the hydroelectric and not getting
the credit for it.
I have had to deal with this on the core issues on some others where
we are actually trying to do what is right for the environment and also
trying to
[[Page H4628]]
do for sustainable and renewable energy.
So I just wanted to say thanks for this amendment. I think we are
working toward the right way, and I think this sense of Congress to say
``study this'' is the positive way we look at this and we work forward
toward using all the resources and all the energy sources that we have
and using those in a very productive way.
I just wanted to put my support to this and look forward to this
amendment being approved. I join with my two other cosponsors on this
as well.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from
Michigan for raising the issue and the gentleman from Georgia.
It does illustrate some of the shortcomings of this proposed
regulation because, instead of encouraging clean renewable energy, it,
in effect, is discouraging it because they are not getting credit for
it. That is another problem.
For that reason, we would be happy to accept this amendment and
include it as part of this bill. Thank you all very much for bringing
it to our attention.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. McNerney
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in
House Report 114-177.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Strike section 2.
Redesignate section 3 as section 2 and amend such section
(as so redesignated) to read as follows:
SEC. 2. RATEPAYER PROTECTION.
(a) Effects of Plans.--In developing a State or Federal
plan pursuant to any final rule described in subsection (c),
a State or the Administrator shall--
(1) consult with the State's public utility commission or
public service commission, and the Electric Reliability
Organization; and
(2) to the extent available, consider any independent
reliability analysis prepared by such entities during
development of such plan.
(b) Independent Reliability Analysis.--In preparing an
independent reliability analysis for purposes of subsection
(a), a State's public utility commission or public service
commission, and the Electric Reliability Organization, shall
evaluate the anticipated effects of implementation and
enforcement of the final rule on--
(1) regional electric reliability and resource adequacy;
(2) operation of wholesale electricity markets within the
region involved;
(3) existing and planned transmission and distribution
infrastructure; and
(4) projected electricity demands.
(c) Final Rules Described.--A final rule described in this
subsection is any final rule to address carbon dioxide
emissions from existing sources that are fossil fuel-fired
electric utility generating units under section 111(d) of the
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7411(d)), including any final rule
that succeeds--
(1) the proposed rule entitled ``Carbon Pollution Emission
Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility
Generating Units'' published at 79 Fed. Reg. 34830 (June 18,
2014); or
(2) the supplemental proposed rule entitled ``Carbon
Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary
Sources: EDUs in Indian Country and U.S. Territories; Multi-
Jurisdictional Partnerships'' published at 79 Fed. Reg 65482
(November 4, 2014).
(d) Definitions.--In this section, the term ``Electric
Reliability Organization'' has the meaning given to such term
in section 215(a) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C.
824o(a)).
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman from
California (Mr. McNerney) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, first, I want to commend my colleague
from Kentucky on his efforts to protect consumers and ratepayers. I
share that goal. However, we also need to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions; and we can protect customers, consumers, and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions simultaneously.
My amendment is intended as a compromise that is practical and would
both protect consumers and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
I worked in the energy industry for two decades before coming to
Congress. I worked with the utilities sector, with the national
laboratories, and with other stakeholders. I know these issues. I have
been on the ground. So I can appreciate the need for a secure, reliable
electric grid. I clearly understand the need for certainty and
flexibility.
That is one of the reasons I cofounded the bipartisan Grid Innovation
Caucus, to help address the pressing issues affecting our Nation's
electric grid. We are focusing on hardening the grid, protecting
against cyber threats, responsiveness to extreme weather events, and
ensuring grid reliability and resiliency.
H.R. 2042 will stop the EPA's proposed clean power plan and proposed
ozone standard from taking effect. This would sharply limit our
Nation's ability to address climate change and the growing negative
consequences it has on public health and our economy.
To address this, my amendment will make two changes:
First, it strikes section 2 of the bill, which prevents any rule from
taking place until all litigation is complete. That provision would add
considerable uncertainty to the entire process and introduce a
significant precedent into the Federal rulemaking process. If a delay
is appropriate, let's introduce a simple delay.
Second, my amendment replaces the ability of States to opt out of the
plan with the requirement that the State public utility commissions or
public service commissions, as well as the appropriate electric
reliability organization, issue reliability analyses on any State or
Federal plan. In this bill's current form, allowing States to opt out
of the Federal law would create a significant barrier to Federal
authority.
The analysis that my amendment calls for must include effects on
regional electric reliability and resource adequacy, operation of
wholesale electric markets, transmission and distribution
infrastructure, and projected electricity demands.
Federal agencies have varied expertise and missions and not all are
equipped to properly assess potential impacts that a rule may have on a
particular industry. Consequently, we need collaboration at all levels.
In a letter to the EPA earlier this year, FERC stated that working
together with the EPA, ISOs, RTOs, and the States will be essential as
plans are developed. FERC wrote that, ``its rate jurisdiction, at
times, has effects on reliability issues. But, reliability also depends
on factors beyond the Commission's jurisdiction, such as State
authority over local distribution and integrated resource planning.''
So I think it is an overstatement to claim that the clean power plan
or the ozone standard would be the sole cause of impacts on rates or
reliability.
My amendment mirrors FERC's comments and ensures that an independent
analysis is conducted by experts who deal with the grid on a daily
basis because the EPA is not an expert on grid reliability.
If we want to add safeguards to add transparency and accountability,
we need to ensure that States and regions have their voices heard. A
practical way to accomplish that is by having the PUC and ISO submit a
reliability report to the EPA.
Grid reliability is a bipartisan issue. If my amendment is adopted,
it will help move the ball forward on this important issue. If not,
H.R. 2042 will just be another messaging bill that the President will
almost certainly veto. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Once again, I would like to thank Mr. McNerney for
this amendment. I have certainly enjoyed working with him on our
committee. He certainly understands energy.
I must say that I have to respectfully disagree with him on this
amendment. His amendment would basically strike the substantive part of
our bill. As I have said in the beginning, this proposed regulation is
so far outside the bounds of anything EPA has ever attempted before
because these plants are already regulated under section 112. It
specifically states if they are regulated there, they can't be
regulated under 111(d).
So we are trying to respond to the States. EPA, we expect, is going
to
[[Page H4629]]
give them 13 months to comply. There have been many lawsuits already
filed. There are going to be more lawsuits filed.
Because it is so costly, so complex, and they are under such time
constraints, we simply want to delay the State implementation plans
until after the courts have made a decision.
Also, his amendment would eliminate the Governor's finding of a
significantly adverse impact on electricity rates and reliability and
simply say that they have got to come up with this State implementation
plan by working with utility commissioners and NERC, which they will be
doing anyway. So if our bill is vetoed, that is where they are going to
be anyway.
So I would respectfully oppose this amendment as certainly defeating
what we are trying to do. With great respect to Mr. McNerney, I would
oppose the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the chairman's
thoughtful remarks and his concern about the effects of the clean power
plan.
My recommendation is that, if a delay is required, let's just
introduce a specific delay, 1 year or 2 years. Introducing a bill that
requires all the judicial matters to be settled before a plan can come
into effect is just too vague. It doesn't make sense. I think it will
do a lot more damage.
What we are asking for is that the States and the local authorities
produce a reliability plan so that they will understand the effects of
the clean power plan. It is really a compromise position. If we want to
move forward, then, let's adopt a compromise. If we want to make a
message bill, let's move forward with the existing plan.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from California (Mr. McNerney).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from California will be
postponed.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Newhouse
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in
House Report 114-177.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 4. TREATMENT OF HYDROPOWER AS RENEWABLE ENERGY.
In issuing, implementing, and enforcing any final rule
described in section 2(b), the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency shall treat hydropower as
renewable energy.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Newhouse) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the good gentleman
from Kentucky for his work on this bill.
I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 2042, the Ratepayer
Protection Act of 2015, and urge my colleagues to support its adoption.
This amendment, which I am proud to introduce with my friend and
colleague from the State of Washington, Congresswoman Jaime Herrera
Beutler, would very simply direct the Environmental Protection Agency
to consider hydropower as a renewable energy source when issuing,
implementing, and enforcing any final rule regarding carbon dioxide
emissions from existing power plants under the Clean Air Act.
EPA's misguided proposed clean power plan, which the Agency announced
in June of 2014, attempts to regulate and reduce the amount of carbon
emitted from the power sector by setting emission guidelines for each
individual State. Under the proposed rule, my home State of Washington
would be responsible for an unattainable 72 percent reduction in its
carbon emissions by the year 2030.
To put this into context, the State of Iowa would be required to
reduce carbon emissions by 16 percent, the State of Kentucky by 18
percent, and the State of North Dakota by 11 percent. I believe the
proposed clean power plan would have devastating consequences for each
and every State, as well as for the country at large, which is why I am
proud to cosponsor and support H.R. 2042.
Mr. Chairman, the requirements placed on Washington by this misguided
rule are simply unachievable. It will hurt our families and our small
businesses by raising the cost of electricity, and it will cost our
economy billions of dollars just to comply.
My amendment would seek to provide a reality check to EPA and
highlight the effect this regulation would have on such States as
Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and South Dakota, which are blessed with
abundant sources of hydropower, a nonemitting energy source. However,
under the EPA's plan, hydropower is not treated as a renewable energy
source, despite the fact that the Obama administration has recently
been touting the potential of hydropower as part of its all-the-above
energy strategy.
In fact, Mr. Chair, last April, Secretary Moniz discussed the
importance of hydropower and described it as a renewable in an address
to the National Hydropower Association. In his remarks, the Secretary
stated: ``We have to pick up the covers off of this hidden renewable
that is right in front of our eyes and continues to have significant
potential.''
Yet, despite this public praise for hydropower and recognition of it
as a renewable, the EPA decided to push a plan that explicitly neglects
hydropower as a renewable in favor of other sources, such as wind and
solar.
{time} 1615
Additionally, the EPA's plan uses the year 2012 as its baseline for
each State's carbon reduction goals, and this will also negatively
impact my home State and others in the Northwest.
In 2012, Oregon and Washington experienced unusually high levels of
rainfall, unfortunately, unlike this year, which led to a sharp
increase in hydropower production; and, therefore, we used less energy
from fossil fuel sources.
As a result, the proposed rule seriously underestimates the average
amount of carbon used by my State in its power production which, in
reality, is much higher than the EPA 2012 baseline. Because hydropower
is not viewed as a renewable, we will have to utilize impractical
amounts of other renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, to
meet the EPA's goals.
Mr. Chair, the effects of this decision in States with large amounts
of existing hydroelectric power, such as mine, Oregon, South Dakota,
and Idaho, are significantly disadvantaged under the rule and will not
get credit for their existing hydroelectric generation and
infrastructure.
However, my amendment would address this issue by directing EPA to
simply recognize hydropower as a renewable energy source. This would in
no way restrict the goals of H.R. 2042, which I fully support, nor
would it negatively affect other nonhydropower States. It just
highlights the misguided rule put forth by the Agency.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the Newhouse-Herrera
Beutler amendment and the underlying bill, and I urge the amendment's
adoption.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, the Newhouse amendment seeks to
legislatively adjust an element of the EPA's clean power plan, but the
amendment does nothing to fix the problems in the rest of the bill,
which was actually designed to cripple the EPA's ability to curb
emissions from power plants and allows Governors to thumb their noses
at the Clean Air Act.
The Newhouse amendment would make more sense if it were a comment
submitted to the EPA on the proposed rule, rather than being attached
to legislation that would gut the clean power plan altogether.
In fact, the EPA is actively considering this issue already. The
proposed clean power plan would have allowed new and incremental
hydropower to count towards compliance with the
[[Page H4630]]
rule, but it did not consider existing hydropower in either goal
setting or for compliance.
EPA received many comments on including hydropower in setting the
clean power plan's goals and treating hydropower as an eligible measure
to lower CO2 emissions.
EPA has engaged in outreach to numerous stakeholders about
hydropower, renewable energy, and other low- and zero-emitting sources
of power to better understand issues raised in their comments; and it
is giving careful consideration to all comments received.
There are varying views on this topic, and it should be left, in my
opinion, to the rulemaking process to sort out the best approach.
Since EPA is actively considering the comments received on
hydropower, the amendment is not necessary, and in fact, it could be
counterproductive. Ultimately, approval of the Newhouse amendment would
do nothing to change the fundamental flaws of the underlying bill. I
urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Newhouse).
The amendment was agreed to.
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now
resume on those amendments printed in House Report 114-177 on which
further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Pallone of New Jersey.
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Rush of Illinois.
Amendment No. 4 by Mr. McNerney of California.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Pallone
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 181,
noes 245, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 381]
AYES--181
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--245
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOT VOTING--7
Clyburn
Hanna
Kelly (MS)
Napolitano
Payne
Pelosi
Sarbanes
{time} 1649
Mrs. WALORSKI, Messrs. MULLIN, WALKER, BARLETTA, RYAN of Wisconsin,
POE of Texas, CHAFFETZ, HUELSKAMP, Mses. GRANGER and SEWELL of Alabama
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Messrs. CROWLEY, HUFFMAN,
Mesdames LAWRENCE and TORRES changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, on Wednesday, June 24th, 2015, I was
absent during rollcall vote No. 381. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``aye'' on agreeing to the Pallone Amendment.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Rush
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Holding). The unfinished business is the demand
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Rush) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182,
noes 243, not voting 8, as follows:
[[Page H4631]]
[Roll No. 382]
AYES--182
Adams
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--243
Abraham
Aderholt
Aguilar
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOT VOTING--8
Clyburn
Hanna
Kelly (MS)
Larson (CT)
Napolitano
Payne
Pelosi
Sarbanes
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1655
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, on Wednesday, June 24th, 2015, I was
absent during rollcall vote No. 382. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``aye'' on agreeing to the Rush of Illinois Amendment #2.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chair, on June 24, 2015--I was not
present for rollcall vote 382. If I had been present for this vote, I
would have voted: ``yay'' on rollcall vote 382.
Stated against:
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 382 I inadvertently voted
``yes'', when I wanted to vote ``no.''
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. McNerney
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. McNerney) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 177,
noes 250, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 383]
AYES--177
Adams
Aguilar
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--250
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
[[Page H4632]]
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Engel
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grijalva
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOT VOTING--6
Clyburn
Hanna
Kelly (MS)
Napolitano
Payne
Sarbanes
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1701
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, June 24th, 2015, I was
absent during rollcall vote No. 383. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``aye'' on agreeing to the McNerney of California Amendment No.
4.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Hultgren) having assumed the chair, Mr. Holding, 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. 2042) to
allow for judicial review of any final rule addressing carbon dioxide
emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating
units before requiring compliance with such rule, and to allow States
to protect households and businesses from significant adverse effects
on electricity ratepayers or reliability, and, pursuant to House
Resolution 333, he reported the bill back to the House with an
amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
(By unanimous consent, Mrs. Roby was allowed to speak out of order.)
Seventh Annual Congressional Women's Softball Game
Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleagues this afternoon to
remind all that today is a very special day. Today is the Seventh
Annual Congressional Women's Softball Game that we play for the Young
Survival Coalition. Each of us is playing either in memory of or in
honor of a survivor.
No one in this room is untouched by cancer, so I would just encourage
all of my colleagues to join us tonight. The first pitch is at 7
o'clock at the Watkins Recreation Center.
Members can bring all of their staffs and their interns and their
friends and their families. It will be a great event.
Beat cancer, and beat the press.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman
Schultz).
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, we are really
so gratified to have been able to have spent the last 3 months
practicing every morning at 7 a.m.
Our team--I just keep repeating that over and over, and maybe it will
come true--is bipartisan. It is an opportunity every year for us to
come together and bridge the divide around a cause that is so
meaningful and important for so many women all across America.
I thank all of you every year for your support and for the turnout
and for the love and affection that we have for one another in that we
are able to put aside our differences. As a breast cancer survivor
myself--diagnosed at 41--I just can't thank my colleagues enough for
their time.
I will close by saying that the Member team is the defending
champion; and, tonight, we will keep the trophy. Go, Members. Beat the
press. Beat cancer.
Please join us at 420 12th Street Southeast, at the Watkins
Recreation Center. The first pitch is at 7 p.m. It is a great game.
Come by. Eat hot dogs. Cheer us on.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment
to the amendment reported from the Committee of the Whole?
If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, this will be a 5-minute
vote.
There was no objection.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 247,
noes 180, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 384]
AYES--247
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carson (IN)
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
[[Page H4633]]
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOES--180
Adams
Aguilar
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--6
Clyburn
Hanna
Kelly (MS)
Napolitano
Payne
Sarbanes
{time} 1719
Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. HANNA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 384 on H.R. 2042, I am not
recorded because I was absent for personal reasons. Had I been present,
I would have voted ``aye.''
Stated against:
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, June 24th, 2015, I was
absent during rollcall vote No. 384. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``no'' on passage of H.R. 2042, the Ratepayer Protection Act of
2015.
____________________