[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 37 (Wednesday, February 25, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H2314-H2319]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WINNERS OF THE GLOBAL ENERGY RACE ARE BEING DECIDED
(Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2025, Mr. Casten
of Illinois was recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the
minority leader.)
General Leave
Mr. CASTEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. CASTEN. Mr. Speaker, families across America are struggling with
ever-increasing energy prices.
In the last year, electricity prices have soared, increasing by 13
percent under the Trump administration. Utility bills overall have
increased at double the rate of inflation.
We all know what is driving those increases. We have soaring demand
from data centers and other loads, rising prices for natural gas, and
much-needed repairs to the grid that have been put off for years.
Those are all tangible, identifiable causes of these price increases,
but at the center of it all is one really simple reason: American
energy policy has always put producers first and families second.
Mr. Speaker, you might think that, in a democracy, the fact that
there are more consumers than producers would cause the reverse. Yet,
in fact, for far too long, we have pursued an energy system with a
single goal: Make sure that oil and gas and coal companies keep their
profits as high as possible. We have pushed the most expensive,
dirtiest forms of energy onto Americans because that is what has helped
producers.
The Trump administration has done everything they can to curb the
rise of more competitive, renewable energy. You hear a lot about how
the Trump administration hates clean energy, but that is not true. They
don't hate clean energy. They hate affordable energy.
Mr. Speaker, there is some good news. We have a plan to fix it, and I
am here today because of the Energy Bills Relief Act, a consumer-
focused, family-first approach to American energy policy.
Renewable energy is the fastest, lowest-cost, most-affordable way to
meet rising demand. Right now, there are bottlenecks in the system that
prevent renewable energy from getting from where it is generated to
where it can be used.
Our Energy Bills Relief Act removes the red tape. It makes sure that
we can build our domestic energy supply so that we keep your beer cold
and your showers hot, and lower your bills at the same time.
Mr. Speaker, to do that, we are also going to have to modernize our
electric grid and increase capacity by providing much-needed, overdue
upgrades using the latest technology.
We are starting to fall behind other countries, which means that
those costs could rise even further if we don't act, but we have time.
We have time to catch up, and the Energy Bills Relief Act helps us to
do it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Levin), my
good friend and partner in good trouble on this bill.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Illinois for yielding.
It is an honor to work with the gentleman on this bill and other
things.
Mr. Speaker, last night in this very Chamber, the President declared
that America is in a golden age. He said that energy prices were
plummeting. He said that we are winning so much that we don't know what
to do about so much winning.
He celebrated record fossil fuel production and assured the American
people that drilling alone is delivering affordability. He dismissed
clean energy as a scam and suggested that the path forward is simply to
double down on the past.
I agree that every one of us should want America to be strong,
prosperous, and secure. Yet, the real test of any energy policy is not
what sounds good in
[[Page H2315]]
a televised address. It is whether working families feel relief when
they open their utility statements. It is whether small businesses can
forecast stable costs. It is whether seniors on fixed incomes are
insulated from volatility rather than being exposed to it.
Families don't experience energy affordability through slogans. They
experience it through monthly statements. Electricity costs are up 13
percent, and residential gas prices are up nearly 60 percent across the
country.
One in six households is now behind on their electric or gas bills.
Families are paying more to heat and cool their homes, more to keep the
lights on, and more just to get through the month. For millions of
Americans already stretched thin, this is yet another bill that they
can't afford.
This comes despite the President promising on the campaign trail to
cut energy bills by 50 percent. It is not just a broken promise on
costs. It is a strategic failure at a defining moment for America's
economic future.
We are living through the most important global energy transition
since the industrial revolution. The countries that deploy clean energy
the fastest are lowering costs, strengthening domestic manufacturing,
and securing control over the energy supply chains that will define
economic power for decades.
This is the moment when the winners of the global energy race are
being decided, but instead of leading, the United States is being
pulled backward.
Over the past year, more than 165,000 clean energy jobs have been
wiped out or delayed. Projects capable of powering roughly 13 million
homes have been canceled or frozen. Clean energy tax credits are under
attack. Grants have been rescinded. Permitting for wind and solar has
been effectively paused. Billions of dollars in private investment are
sitting idle because Federal policy has injected uncertainty into the
marketplace.
At the same time, the administration is doubling down on fossil fuel
policies that leave families exposed to volatile global markets and
rising prices.
Mr. Speaker, let's be honest about what is happening. Families are
paying more because this administration is choking off the supply of
clean, low-cost electricity while forcing ratepayers to subsidize
aging, expensive fossil fuel plants.
It is not ideology. It is math. It is math. If we are serious about
affordability--truly serious--we must ask a different question. It is
not how much we can drill, but rather how we build an energy system
that delivers stable, low-cost power for decades?
The truth--and it is a truth grounded in financial analysis, not
political branding--is that clean energy is the lowest cost new
electricity in the United States. Wind and solar, on an unsubsidized
basis, undercut new coal and frequently undercut new natural gas
generation. Utilities choose clean not because of ideology but because
they are the least expensive options available to meet demand.
That isn't to say that I disagreed with everything that the President
had to say last night. In fact, I was genuinely pleased that he
acknowledged the pressure that data centers are placing on our electric
grid. The explosion of artificial intelligence, cloud computing, and
advanced manufacturing is real, and it is transforming our economy. It
is driving electricity demand upward at a pace that we haven't seen in
decades. Ignoring that reality would be irresponsible, and confronting
it is necessary.
Mr. Speaker, the President suggested that tech companies should build
their own power plants so that household rates don't rise. At its core,
I think that intention is correct. Ratepayers should not be forced to
subsidize infrastructure built to serve trillion-dollar tech companies.
Families living on fixed incomes shouldn't be forced to underwrite
private server farms for Big Tech. Small businesses shouldn't be
absorbing the transmission costs created by hyperscale expansion, and
protecting consumers must be the starting principle.
Yet, the correct intentions of the President aren't enough. We need
statutory guardrails so that utilities can socialize grid upgrade costs
across all customers. Without clear cost allocation rules, transmission
investments triggered by large new loads can be spread broadly rather
than assigned to the source of the demand.
Without modernized planning, the infrastructure required for rapid
load growth can crowd out other investments and create bottlenecks that
ultimately drive rates higher for everyone.
{time} 1200
There is a second layer to this. Even if data centers build dedicated
generation, the broader grid still absorbs the consequences of rising
demand. If demand rises and the cheapest new resources are constrained,
prices rise for everybody. If transmission is insufficient, congestion
increases and wholesale prices spike for everybody. If fossil fuel
generation continues to dominate, the corresponding volatility is
transmitted directly into higher retail electric bills for everybody.
In sum, if we restrict the cheapest sources of electricity while
demand rises, prices are going to go up. It is not ideological. It is
just supply and demand. If we slow the deployment of the lowest-cost
wind and solar, if we delay transmission build-out, if we limit
storage, then the system will rely more heavily on higher-cost
generation, and consumers are going to pay the difference.
If, on the other hand, we modernize the grid, we deploy the lowest-
cost resources at scale--if we accelerate transmission expansion,
integrate storage, and allow clean energy to compete fairly and fully--
then rising demand can be met with falling costs and less volatility.
Infrastructure will be built more intelligently, enhancing reliability
rather than undermining reliability.
Again, this is not ideology. It is math. It is common sense.
Today, along with my friend from Illinois (Mr. Casten), with whom I
am so proud to work, we are embarking on really a new path forward, the
Energy Bills Relief Act.
This is all about math, and it is all about common sense. It is all
about how electricity markets actually function. It is all about the
need for grid modernization as an economic imperative. It is all about
fairness in who pays the bill for the modernized electric grid. It is
all about protecting ratepayers with enforceable policy rather than
with empty statements.
The American people deserve more than rhetoric. They deserve a system
built on data and durability. They deserve leadership that understands
that affordability is engineered, not declared.
They deserve lower bills. The path to lower bills runs directly
through the clean energy deployment that markets are already telling us
is the cheapest way forward. That is why we are here today, and that is
what the Energy Bills Relief Act is designed to deliver.
Mr. CASTEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Levin.
I am going to take a little bit of a personal privilege here and tell
you a little bit about Mike's and my background.
Mike and I both came into Congress in 2018. Prior to that, we were
both in the clean energy industry. I think it is safe to say that prior
to the election of Donald Trump in 2016, neither of us thought that our
paths involved eventually getting to Congress or certainly being in
this moment here right now.
I say that because both of us spent our careers, before getting into
Congress, building and deploying clean energy, building and deploying
low-cost, affordable energy. If you are going to go and build one of
those plants, you build the plant, you hook it up, you connect it to
the grid. The person who now is controlling the dispatch of that plant
never runs it unless it is cheaper than the electric grid. Every minute
you own a solar panel, every minute you own a cogeneration plant, a
wind turbine, all of these technologies that are out there, you are
saying: Is this cheaper or more expensive than the alternative?
There is a saying back in the days when I was going and doing all of
that, that asking a utility for permission to interconnect to the grid
is like asking a man for permission to date his wife. It doesn't matter
whether you are cheaper. It doesn't matter whether that is in the
national interest. You are a competitive threat, and capitalism works
on competition.
[[Page H2316]]
So fast-forward. Mike and I run for Congress. We win. Speaker Pelosi
appoints us both to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the
Subcommittee on Energy, Climate, and Grid Security and charges us,
along with our wonderful leader (Ms. Castor), to figure out how to take
this knowledge and make sure that we can deploy cheaper, cleaner
energy. That work through the 116th Congress, through the 117th
Congress ultimately led to the Inflation Reduction Act.
In 2022, we passed the largest climate bill in the history of this
country, in the history of the world. The purpose of that bill was to
make sure that your access to cheap energy was not a function of
whether you had capital, whether you could hire the lawyers and the
engineers to go and fight with the utility. It was to make sure that
every American had access to the cheapest energy.
That bill, the Inflation Reduction Act, took a significant step
forward in expanding access to cleaner, more affordable energy sources
to lower costs for all Americans. I was really proud of the work we did
to help write that bill. Then President Trump killed it.
Now, killing it didn't prevent all of those generators that got built
from operating, because if you have got a solar panel on your roof, it
is still cheaper than whatever anybody else is providing. It blocks new
people's ability to bring those forward.
Last summer, he gutted programs that were designed to boost domestic
renewable energy. He slashed incentives to help households save money.
He arbitrarily blocked the development of affordable energy sources,
while forcing more expensive coal plants to keep running, ensuring that
the fossil fuel companies can keep raking in profits at taxpayers'
expense.
The Energy Bills Relief Act puts an end to that. This is a consumer-
focused bill. It is a bill that puts American families first. It
restores the tax credits for home energy upgrades that were ended by
President Trump. It incentivizes utilities to help consumers save money
by funding home weatherization and energy efficiency. Wouldn't you like
to spend less on your natural gas bill? Wouldn't you like your utility
to be a partner in that?
It provides financial assistance to make sure that families don't
have their power shut off. It puts an end to price gouging because
utilities shouldn't profit while you are struggling.
It makes sure that places like data centers cover their own costs,
and if a data center opens in your area, that doesn't mean that the
costs are pushed onto your household. It gives a voice to the American
people and makes sure they are consulted when new energy projects are
being developed in their community.
This bill was put together in a way that I wish was not so
innovative. A lot of bills around here must start by saying what is
politically possible. What can we do on a bipartisan basis? Well, if
what is scientifically necessary exceeds what is politically possible,
then we are failing in any ability to claim to be a leader.
What we did in this bill is, it says: What is the energy policy that
is necessary? What is the energy policy that is most helpful to
American consumers? That is what we set out to do. I am proud of the
legislation that Congressman Levin and I have written to do that.
With that, I yield back to the great gentleman from California (Mr.
Levin).
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Illinois for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to just spell out some basic facts and some
myths about clean energy because there is a whole lot of misinformation
out there these days.
The first thing I will say is that clean energy is the lowest-cost
new electricity in America. Independent financial analysis confirms
that utility-scale solar and onshore wind are the cheapest forms of new
electricity generation available in the United States. This is from
Lazard, their Levelized Cost of Energy analysis, showing that
unsubsidized solar and wind consistently undercut new coal and new
natural gas generation.
There was recently a report that solar projects are on average 41
percent cheaper than the lowest cost fossil fuel alternatives globally,
and onshore wind projects are 53 percent cheaper. Another analysis
shows that solar is approximately $64 per megawatt-hour cheaper than
coal and $20 cheaper than combined-cycle gas. Wind is $61 cheaper than
coal and $17 cheaper than gas.
Markets are already choosing clean energy because it is the least
expensive option. In fact, States leading in renewable generation
generally see lower electricity prices. According to EIA data, 17 of 22
States with above-average shares of wind and solar had below-average
electricity prices last year. Thirteen of those States voted Republican
in 2024, I might add. Another analysis showed that the 4 States with
the highest renewable generation saw prices fall in 2025. While 9 of
the 10 States with the lowest renewable energy penetration saw prices
rise.
This isn't that hard. The cheapest, most affordable energy is the
cleanest energy. Yet, instead of expanding that supply, the
administration chooses to restrict it.
The second thing I want to talk about is coal and market distortion.
At the same time that clean energy deployment is being obstructed, this
Department of Energy has issued emergency orders forcing aging coal
plants to remain online.
{time} 1210
In Colorado, for example, that decision is estimated to cost
ratepayers $20 million over 90 days, roughly $85 million annually, and
potentially up to $150 million per year if required to operate
continuously.
In Michigan, ratepayers paid approximately $80 million over 4 months
to keep a coal plant running. If coal were the lowest cost option, it
would not need these sorts of emergency orders.
Ninety-nine percent of U.S. coal plants are more expensive to operate
than replacing them with new wind or solar, according to Energy
Innovation. Coal is aging, it is unreliable, it is costly, and more
than half the fleet is already scheduled to retire. NERC reliability
data shows increasing forced outage rates for coal plants in recent
years.
This is not free market competition. This is protectionism for
expensive incumbents while families are footing the bill.
The third thing I would like to talk about is reliability. Opponents
sometimes argue that wind and solar are unreliable. The evidence says
exactly the opposite.
Battery storage deployment is absolutely taking off. The U.S. is
projected to add more than 18 gigawatts of new utility-scale battery
storage. Just last year, 2025, there was a huge record number. Nearly
11 gigawatts were added in 2024. By the end of 2026, the assumptions
are, there will be nearly 65 gigawatts of total storage capacity.
The majority of new solar projects in the western interconnection
area now include co-located storage. Battery costs have dropped
drastically in the last couple of years.
Transmission expansion connects regions experiencing different
weather patterns, improving reliability and lowering costs for
everyone, delivering the grid of the future, delivering the
interconnected, flexible, diversified grid of the future.
Meanwhile, what is the alternative? Well, during Winter Storm Fern in
January of 2026, coal plants ramped up as expected, but fuel prices
spiked, stockpiles dropped to their lowest levels in years, and the
system was strained.
We know that gas infrastructure can freeze. We know that peaker
plants can be overstressed. We know that fossil fuels are not immune
from failure.
Reliability comes from diversification and modernization, not by
clinging to a single fuel.
Next, I hear that clean energy can't meet growing demand. That is not
true either. Electricity consumption hit a record high last year, and
it is projected to continue rising in 2026, according to EIA. AI-driven
data centers, I think we all know, are a major contributor, with
electricity demand from data centers expected to double by 2030.
Clean energy is the fastest resource to deploy. Not only is it
cheapest, but it is fastest to deploy. The average solar project can be
built in 15 to 17 months. A natural gas plant often takes 4 years or
longer. Gas turbine shortages mean new turbines may not be available
until the 2030s.
[[Page H2317]]
Solar and wind growth outpaced global demand growth in the first half
of 2025, with solar alone meeting 83 percent of global electricity
demand growth in the first half of 2025.
If we are serious about meeting rising demand and doing so
affordably, we must accelerate the most affordable and fastest-to-
deploy resources, which also happen to be the cleanest resources.
Next, I want to talk about data centers and fairness.
Data centers are expanding dramatically, and utilities are investing
billions of dollars in transmission upgrades.
For example, in PJM, $4.3 billion in transmission costs associated
with data center growth were passed to ratepayers. An additional $7.3
billion in increased generation costs were recorded.
Without guardrails, households and small businesses are subsidizing
infrastructure where trillion-dollar companies are making the money.
That is why I am proud that our Energy Bills Relief Act includes
protections for consumers to ensure that data centers pay for their own
grid updates. It incentivizes clean, zero-emission electricity use to
reduce overall system costs and pollution.
We need to make sure that as growth continues, that ratepayers are
not stuck with the bill while trillion-dollar corporations reap all the
benefit.
Now, I will turn close to my home for just a second and talk about
wildfires and, in particular, California.
California's electricity rates have gone up since the mid-2000s. No
question about that. That is despite the fact that we have led in
energy efficiency.
Wildfire mitigation and grid hardening are now 16 percent of total
utility costs, 16 percent. Ratepayers in California have borne more
than $27 billion in wildfire-related costs just between 2019 and 2024.
Investor-owned utilities have passed on bankruptcy settlements and
infrastructure upgrades tied to wildfire liability, and they have stuck
it to the ratepayer.
That is why blaming renewable energy for rate increases doesn't tell
the picture. They are wildfire driven. These are simply misrepresented
facts by those who have a grudge against renewable energy.
The Energy Bills Relief Act includes a grant program to support grid
upgrades that would reduce wildfire risks, that would prevent
catastrophic utility failures, lowering long-term ratepayer burdens.
Next, I want to talk about LNG exports and volatility.
As LNG exports increase, domestic natural gas prices increasingly
reflect international demand. Global volatility becomes domestic
volatility.
Wind and solar, on the other hand, have no fuel price. They have no
geopolitical premium. They have no shipping constraints. When you build
renewable generation, the fuel is free forever. The fuel is free
forever. That is a big deal. That is long-term price stability.
What would our bill do? I am very proud of a lot of the things that
it would accomplish.
Number one: It would rescind the tax hike on low-cost, clean energy,
and it would restore tax credits for clean energy such as those in the
Inflation Reduction Act.
Number two: It would reverse roadblocks to clean energy permitting
and restrict the abuse of Department of Energy emergency orders.
Number three: It would ensure that data centers pay their fair share.
Number four: It would expand LIHEAP and weatherization assistance to
help struggling families.
Number five: It would protect natural gas markets from international
volatility.
Number six: It would build a nationally interconnected grid to
improve affordability, reliability, and resilience.
Most importantly and lastly: It would share the economic benefits of
clean energy with host communities.
It is a good bill. It is one that we worked on for a long time, and
we are going to get as much support as we can.
Mr. CASTEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Subramanyam).
Mr. SUBRAMANYAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank everyone here today for all
their hard work and leadership.
One of the things that the President said last night is he is doing
so much to lower energy costs through drill, baby, drill and through
all of the other actions he has taken.
I think on the campaign he said he was going to lower energy prices
by 50 percent. Yet, last year, Americans paid more than 13 percent for
their electricity bills compared to the previous year. The big reason
is that the big, ugly bill added about $250 billion to Americans'
energy bills by picking energy favorites and slowing down new
technology, so energy prices continue to rise for Americans.
Something the President said is that the data centers will help lower
Americans' energy costs. One of the assumptions there is that they will
pay for their own energy infrastructure and essentially not shift that
burden to Virginians and Americans.
In Virginia, we are facing an additional 9 percent increase in energy
costs this year, and data centers are a big part of that. They consume
about 25 percent of the energy and could be more soon. It could be up
to 40 percent. Last year, more than $4.3 billion in transmission
infrastructure costs for data centers were passed on to ratepayers.
With this pledge, basically the President is asking for technology
companies building data centers to pledge to build their own energy
infrastructure along with their data centers moving forward and not
shift the costs to ratepayers.
I welcome the idea of making sure that ratepayers aren't shouldering
the burden of energy infrastructure and energy generation because the
American people deserve better than that.
One of the things I would like to see more of is rather than a
pledge, a concrete proposal, actual regulatory framework that will
protect people's energy costs.
That is what we are doing in Virginia. Down in Richmond, there is now
legislation that they are moving forward to essentially make sure that
ratepayers aren't paying for the energy generation of data centers.
{time} 1220
I look forward to having this bipartisan conversation, but I know
that if the President doesn't come up with the framework that we need,
then it is going to be another promise made, promise not kept when it
comes to energy prices.
Mr. CASTEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank Congressman Casten for his
great leadership and also Congressman Mike Levin for drawing us
together here today.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today, as I do every day, on behalf of the people
of the region I represent, but also for people across our country.
Americans are facing the high cost of energy, and it is becoming
unaffordable, but it is not their fault.
At the same time, many Federal incentives to help lower energy costs
and to create the new energy systems for the future have been rolled
back by the current administration. Actually, I am somewhat surprised
that that happened.
America's grid is old. I hope President Trump hears this. It is under
greater strain. Our country actually set new records twice this past
July for peak electricity demand. It is getting hotter in many parts of
the country during the summer months, and for those of us who live up
north, let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is getting colder. The old grid
system is being tested like never before by hotter weather and cooler
weather, cold weather, and frigid weather, and higher usage. When the
grid strains, costs rise.
Every household, I would venture, in our country, is feeling the
pinch. For us in the upper Midwest, it isn't a 9 percent increase. Our
energy bills have doubled. In Ohio, rapid demand growth from Big Tech
data centers are also pushing up energy costs before the public, the
people who live in these areas, can even catch the wind that they can
actually try to figure out and have meetings and say: Hey, wait a
minute, what can we do about this?
That is because their prices are doubling across our State and
region.
[[Page H2318]]
Families notice the increase. One constituent even told me that her
family's bill increased from $230 a month to $494 in July. That is a
huge increase. This increased cost spiral in energy is simply not
sustainable.
The majority party and the Department of Energy, meanwhile, under the
current administration, are rolling back energy investments in
America's future to help lower costs. I represent the most important
domestic solar manufacturer, First Solar. I don't take money from them,
and I don't own their stock. What they have done for America, 10
percent of our energy production in this country is now renewable and
energy savings.
We are smarter. We are smarter than we were 50 years ago. Our Nation
must invest faster in modern infrastructure with an all-of-the-above
energy strategy to truly become energy independent in perpetuity.
I see many younger people in the gallery. For those of them who are a
little bit techie and they care about the future of our country, they
can help us become energy independent within our own shores and do so
in a way that doesn't damage the environment.
Just this last year, there were 354 clean energy projects or
companies that the new administration canceled--new projects--delaying
new investments. We have seen layoffs of workers across the country
because these projects lost Federal funding.
In my district, one of the lodestar companies that I represent is
called Libbey Glass. Toledo, Ohio, is the glass center of the world.
The administration took away over $40 million that was going to help
them. This is legislation Congress passed, and the administration
signed the bill. It was vetted by the agencies and so forth. It helped
them save energy so that they could compete with glass against China,
France, and Mexico, where workers are paid less and product is dumped
on the global markets.
When we don't invest in companies and the jobs they create for the
American people, then we shoot ourselves in the foot. There is no
question that over 173,000 clean energy jobs actually have been
eliminated between President Trump's election and swearing-in and
February of this year.
Think about that, Mr. Speaker. That was building the future for our
country. The ten top States that have lost the most jobs from this
misguided assault on clean energy are the following: Texas,
Massachusetts, Arizona, New Jersey, Michigan, New York, South Carolina,
Illinois, North Carolina, and my home State of Ohio. It is interesting
to me that three of the Members who are on the floor now are from
Illinois, Mr. Casten; Mr. Levin from California; and myself from Ohio.
We understand what these budget cuts mean. While at the national level,
the rise in energy rates is affecting people in every single State in
our Union.
For my own district, the prices have doubled. Every family in the
country knows what is happening. It is time for the executive branch to
wake up. Meanwhile, China isn't asleep. It is investing in record
levels in terms of energy development making its products more
competitive worldwide.
President Trump said that he was going to fix this, and he has done
completely the opposite. He did hint last night about something dealing
with new energy investments and these AI terminals in centers that are
being built across the country. I hope he follows through.
The American people certainly deserve better, and we need to stand up
for affordability, not abdication. That sends our country backward.
I thank, Mr. Speaker, Congressman Casten and Congressman Levin and
others who have spoken today this afternoon in order to stand up for
the American people and help them manage their budgets, and energy is
such a central account in every single family's budget.
I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this and for giving us a
roadmap to lower America's energy bills.
Mr. CASTEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield, again, to gentleman from California
(Mr. Levin).
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank my good friend from Ohio, Marcy
Kaptur, from whom I have learned so much on the Appropriations
Committee and otherwise.
Mr. Speaker, this debate should not be partisan, and it does not have
to be partisan. The physical laws of energy do not care who is in the
majority. The economics of electricity do not change with the party
label or which district you are from, Mr. Speaker. The grid does not
ask whether the power flowing through it came from a red State or a
blue State.
We really need to answer only one question: Is there power when it is
needed at a price families can afford?
That is why this ought to unite us. Republican and Democratic States
alike lead wind and solar generation. Red and blue districts alike host
clean manufacturing. Farmers earn steady lease payments from solar
panels and wind turbines that help keep their family farms afloat
through droughts, floods, and commodity swings. Veterans and skilled
tradespeople are building the advanced technologies that strengthen our
energy security and reduce our dependence on volatile fuel markets.
This is an American project, happening in every region across every
map.
The choice before us is simple: Do we want to play politics with the
energy system that powers our economy, or do we want to win the future?
That is because the truth is that families do not experience energy
policy as ideology. They experience it as a bill. They experience it as
a choice between paying the utility bill and paying for groceries. They
experience it as small business owners deciding whether to hire or to
cut hours. They experience it as seniors on a fixed income turning down
the thermostat and hoping the next heat wave doesn't last too long.
That is what energy affordability means in real life.
Right now, energy bills are higher. Too many jobs have been put at
risk or pushed offshore. Too many families have been stretched thinner.
Too many communities are being asked to subsidize decisions that
protect the incumbent energy players instead of protecting consumers.
We can keep doing what we have been doing: restricting the cheapest
new supply, forcing ratepayers to carry the cost of uneconomic fossil
fuel plants, and letting the infrastructure needs of trillion-dollar
tech companies get passed down to households.
We can keep pretending that the answer to every 21st-century
challenge is the same 20th-century playbook. We can cling to the past
and see the costs rise across the country for the average person, or we
can do what responsible leaders do. We can modernize and we can
compete.
We can build the grid that matches the economy that we actually have,
not the economy that we used to have. We can expand transmission so
that power can move to where it is needed. We can deploy storage so
reliability is stronger in heat and cold and storms. We can make cost
allocation fair so households aren't paying for private infrastructure
that should be borne by the companies that profit from it.
{time} 1230
We can strengthen resilience against wildfires and extreme weather so
ratepayers are not trapped in a cycle of catastrophic costs. We can do
what markets are already trying to do: scale the lowest cost
electricity available.
Here is what cannot be debated away with partisan politics: Clean
energy is the lowest cost new energy in America. Clean energy is the
fastest path to stabilizing energy bills. Clean energy is how we meet
rising demand without squeezing households. Clean energy is how we
compete with China, rather than handing them the supply chain of the
future. Clean energy is how we reduce volatility, because sunshine and
wind do not spike in price when global markets panic.
That is why the question is not whether clean energy wins. It is
already winning in every market that allows fair competition to
function. The question is whether America leads.
Will we lead in building the industries that power the next
generation of manufacturing? Will we lead in the technologies that make
the grid more reliable, not less reliable? Will we lead in protecting
consumers rather than protecting entrenched interests? Will we lead in
an energy system that is affordable, resilient, and secure?
History is not going to remember who had the better slogan. History,
I
[[Page H2319]]
think, will remember in this moment whether this body decided to make
America more competitive or more brittle. It will remember whether we
chose the future when the future was still a choice.
That is what the Energy Bills Relief Act is designed to do. It is
about families first. It is about consumers. It is about fair markets.
It is about building. It is about winning.
Mr. Speaker, I hope we don't argue too much about yesterday, and I
hope we focus instead on building tomorrow.
Mr. CASTEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Levin for his remarks.
As we prepare to close, I want to talk a little bit about how the
Energy Bills Relief Act fits into the broader conversation we are
having about energy permitting right now.
To do this, I want to ask you to consider that you saw someone on TV
who said the reason we don't have a lot of houses in America is because
of the permitting barriers to building houses out of straw. You would
probably have two thoughts. The first is, who the heck wants to build a
house out of straw? The second thought you might have is what little
pig is behind this advocacy campaign.
I tell you that because you have to look at what is happening in the
energy sector right now, among those in the fossil fuel industry who
are telling you that the permitting problem we have is a difficulty
deploying fossil fuel assets.
Let's look at some numbers. In the year 2010, the United States
consumed 1.1 billion short tons per year of coal. Today, we consume
about 500 million. That is a more than 50 percent drop in the amount of
coal our country is consuming.
In the year 2000, the United States consumed about 20 million barrels
of oil per day. Today, we consume about 20 million barrels of oil per
day.
We drive more miles and have more people, yet we are consuming the
same amount of oil. Our houses are just as well-lit, just as warm, yet
we are consuming half as much coal.
How did we get to that point? The reason we got to that point is
because vehicles got more efficient. Given the choice between driving a
car that costs you $40 to fill up and one that costs $20, people prefer
$20. If the choice is $100 versus $50, people prefer $50. Heck, if you
have an electric vehicle, you don't have to pay at all, especially if
you have a solar panel on your roof. People like not paying for energy.
The other way that that happened is that the fastest growing source
of new energy in this country has been renewable energy. We now
generate more power from non-hydro renewables than we do from all the
coal plants in the country.
That is not because we got woke. It is because we got greedy. It is
because markets said they want to build the cheap stuff, and consumers
wanted to benefit from that cheap stuff.
Now, step back and say, okay, what do you do if you are a fossil fuel
company that is selling something that is losing market share? There is
a new technology coming out that is eating into your customer base. You
can't sell as much.
They have done two things. Number one, they have shifted to exports.
In 2016, the United States basically didn't export any natural gas at
all. By 2021, we were exporting 300,000 million cubic feet per year.
Today, we are over 500,000 million cubic feet per year. It is as if we
invented cell phones and then decided to double down on exporting
rotary phone technology to the rest of the world. We are still
producing a lot of oil in the United States, but oil is increasingly
also an export play.
If there is a permitting problem that is blocking our ability to
produce and distribute oil and gas, how is it that it is so easy to get
it down to the Gulf Coast and ship it out to overseas? The truth is, it
ain't that hard.
The reason why we are having this conversation about permitting is
really, really simple. Half of the businesses in this country, by
definition, are below average. A competitive market does not reward
below-average businesses. Now, we find ourselves in a position where
energy industry participants that historically made sure that we kept
our lights on, made sure that our cars could drive, and made sure that
our homes were warm built the economy that we have, and we are grateful
to them. They are now losing market share, and instead of pivoting to
providing people with the technologies they want, they are, number one,
shifting to exports to try to go places that are not blessed with the
kind of competitive capitalistic markets that we have in the United
States; and, number two, they are doing everything they can to ask
people in this body to please prevent capitalism from eating my lunch
because I cannot compete in a competitive market. That is what is going
on.
The reason why we are spending this time talking so much about costs
and energy is because we have this amazing opportunity right now that
we can have our cake and eat it, too.
When we embrace clean energy, we are embracing affordable energy.
When we embrace consumers, we are embracing competition. To turn
against those is to turn against capitalism. It is to turn against
everything that ever truly made America great. It is to turn against
the things that have kept up.
Then you ask how much farther we could go. I will give you some crazy
statistics. The United States' total GDP divided by the total amount of
energy that the United States uses, we generate about $200 of GDP per
million Btu of primary energy.
The United Kingdom generates almost 350 million Btu, almost twice as
much as we generate. The Danes generate over 500. Their economies are
vastly more efficient at turning energy into wealth than the United
States is--vastly more, like twice as efficient.
Imagine if we were so bad at turning labor into wealth as our
competitors. We would be having a crisis about why American labor is so
uncompetitive. Imagine if you were running a business that did a
terrible job at turning capital into wealth, and we were earning
terrible returns on investment in the United States economy. We would
be having a crisis.
We should be having a crisis about the fact that we have done such a
horrible job at turning energy into economic activity. We can be
depressed about that, or we can be enormously optimistic at the
opportunity we have in front of us.
We don't have a lot of time to prevent massive ecological disaster
from climate change, but we do have a way to move forward to avert that
crisis and make us stupidly rich. My God, let's move forward.
Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing us the time. I thank Congressman
Levin, Congresswoman Kaptur, and Congressman Subramanyam. For goodness'
sake, let's move forward. I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Haridopolos). The Chair reminds Members
not to refer to persons in the gallery.
____________________