[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 13503-13505]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             ENERGY SAVINGS

  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak to the Energy Savings 
and Industrial Competitiveness Act of 2013, S. 1392 or more commonly 
referred to here by the names of its lead cosponsors, Shaheen-Portman.
  This is a bill that allows us to turn back to the issue so many 
Americans have been asking us to focus on: jobs, competitiveness, 
manufacturing, the steps we can take to put our country back on the 
right path for our future.
  This bill is essentially about energy efficiency and all the 
different ways energy efficiency, used wisely, can strengthen America. 
An America that uses less energy is an America that is taking less from 
the Earth, an America less reliant on other nations for the fuel that 
powers our lives and livelihoods, an America whose people won't need to 
mortgage their future in order to cool their homes.
  An America that uses less energy is an America that will never again 
wait in long gas lines; that in the summers won't have to sweat through 
brownouts and in the winters won't have to make the tragic choice 
between feeding their families and keeping them warm.
  There have been some tough economic times for our Nation in recent 
years. And while I haven't been in Washington all that long, I get the 
sense the climate here around the budget and our fiscal issues has 
almost never been as toxic and difficult to navigate as it is right 
now. Of course, the reality is broadly, across the whole Federal 
budget, we do need to tighten our belts and we are going to have to 
prioritize investments that are the most important to America's future. 
But energy efficiency is entirely about America's future. It is exactly 
the sort of area where we can reach a bipartisan agreement on an 
important path forward together.
  Energy efficiency is entirely about America's future. There is no 
winning in the fight for energy efficiency. There is only progress. 
There is doing better, conserving energy, and saving money. The pennies 
we invest today in energy efficiency will save our governments, our 
businesses, and our families dollars down the road.
  So how do we do it? How do we build our more energy-efficient future 
when cost efficiency is ruling the day here in this Chamber and in this 
Congress? It starts with this wise, balanced, and bipartisan bill we 
are considering today, the Energy Savings and Industrial 
Competitiveness Act.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of this valuable bill, and I applaud the 
tireless work of my friends, Senators Shaheen of New Hampshire and 
Portman of Ohio, in crafting the bill, focusing this bill, and then 
ultimately getting it to the floor. I am also grateful to the 
leadership of Senator Wyden, the chairman of the energy committee, and 
Senator Murkowski, his ranking Republican, in ably advancing it through 
the committee where it passed by a vote of 19 to 3 and in getting it to 
the floor today.
  I am grateful to Senators Wyden and Murkowski for the bipartisan 
energy

[[Page 13504]]

they have crafted on the committee and for the positive tone they have 
set. I have greatly enjoyed my years of service on the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee and appreciate their work that has allowed 
Senators Shaheen and Portman and many of the other cosponsors of this 
bill to see it on the floor here today.
  We are at a critical moment. If America is going to lead, we have to 
work together to set a long-term strategy that moves us toward an 
efficient, clean energy-competitive economy. This bill helps us do 
that.
  It looks as though we are going to have a few more days to talk about 
the full scope of this bill because, unfortunately, there have been 
other amendments offered--amendments that aren't directly germane to 
this bill. And as has sadly, so often been the case in the months gone 
by, we have had a grinding halt to the opportunity to move forward on 
this broad bipartisan bill that enjoys support from Republicans and 
Democrats, that has an opportunity to be passed through the other 
Chamber as well as this, and that could do great work for America.
  It is my hope that next week when we return, this Chamber will take 
up, consider, and pass this bill; that we will consider dozens of 
amendments germane to this bill, relevant to this bill that will bring 
other good ideas about energy efficiency to the floor, and that we will 
strengthen it and pass it.
  This bill has been scored as having a very real prospect of creating 
136,000 jobs in the next dozen years, by 2025. Imagine getting back to 
considering bills that actually help create jobs. There is a list of 
more than 250 corporations, nonprofits, and associations from all 
different sectors of the American society and economy that have 
endorsed this bill. It has a broad range of provisions that deal with 
energy efficiency codes and voluntarily improving them, skills and 
training, improving manufacturing, improving the energy efficiency of 
the U.S. Government, the single biggest purchaser and user of energy in 
our country--indeed, probably in the world. It achieves huge targets, 
great objectives, saving nearly 3 billion megawatt hours in energy by 
2030, and saving consumers more than $13 billion a year by 2030. These 
are great and robust goals, and I am truly hopeful we will turn to this 
bill in earnest next week and take up and consider some of the range of 
amendments that have been offered.
  I wish to now briefly review three of the amendments I have 
introduced for consideration as part of Shaheen-Portman.
  I know one of the best things about how the Senators and the 
committee leaders have crafted this bill is that it is open to 
consideration of a broad range of ideas. All three of these amendments 
are directly related to energy efficiency. Not all three of them may 
end up being part of this bill, and I understand, but I am grateful for 
a few moments of my colleagues' attention to bring them up and discuss 
their benefit, value, and relevance.
  The first is 1842. It allows for the reauthorization of valuable 
energy programs that have been at the heart of the Federal Government's 
energy efficiency strategy for a long time; the Weatherization 
Assistance Program and the State Energy Program. Both are programs in 
place for decades and that work daily in each and every one of our 
States, helping to reduce energy usage and reduce energy costs.
  In States such as your own, Mr. President, the State of 
Massachusetts, where the winters can be cold and long and energy 
expensive, programs at the State level and weatherization assistance 
programs can make a real difference in the lives of consumers. These 
programs link national, State, and local interests in a critical way. 
They create highly effective public and private partnerships that have 
delivered real results. In fact, studies have shown that the 
Weatherization Assistance Program returns more than $2.50 in household 
savings for every $1 invested. The program serves over 7 million 
families in its existence, including more than 1 million in the last 4 
years. The results are equally strong for the State Energy Program, 
where every Federal dollar invested has an energy cost savings of more 
than $7 a year and nearly $11 in non-Federal dollars is leveraged for 
every Federal dollar spent.
  These are highly effective programs, but both of their authorizations 
have expired, so we need to reauthorize these programs so we can help 
Americans save energy and save other energy costs.
  Earlier this year I partnered with Senators Collins of Maine and Reed 
of Rhode Island to introduce the Weatherization Enhancement and Local 
Energy Efficiency and Investment in Accountability Act. That is a 
mouthful, but it has a wide base of support, including from the 
Alliance to Save Energy, the Community Action Foundation, the National 
Association of State Energy Officials, Habitat For Humanity, building 
suppliers such as Masco Corporation, business groups such as the 
Business Council For Sustainable Energy, environmental groups such as 
the NRDC, and many more.
  I have introduced that legislation as an amendment. To summarize what 
it does, it reauthorizes these two critical energy programs for 5 more 
years, the State Energy Program and the Weatherization Assistance 
Program. But it doesn't just reauthorize them, it modernizes them. It 
enhances them with new ideas and ultimately works to ensure their long-
term viability.
  We call for a complementary, competitive innovation program as well 
as call for setting baseline standards. This amendment actually reduces 
the funding levels to where they were 6 years ago, in order to attract 
the bipartisan support and to be more fiscally responsible. This 
amendment says that the new minimum efficiency standards the Department 
of Energy is working on must be in place by October of 2015, and it 
creates a complementary competitive grant program to allow NGOs to 
compete for their piece of the funding. Overall, we want to bring in 
new partners, new approaches, new technologies, and new ideas to ensure 
that more homes can be weatherized, more families have their heating 
bills reduced, and more energy saved with limited Federal funding. I 
urge the support of my colleagues for this a first amendment, No. 1842, 
about the Weatherization Assistance Program.
  Let me now turn to something that I think is just common sense, where 
I hope the Federal Government, one of the largest users of energy in 
the world, will take advantage of a contracting tool to achieve energy 
savings and cost savings in ways that both the private sector and local 
government have as well. I am talking about Energy Savings Performance 
Contracts, and I had personal experience with them when I was in the 
private sector with a manufacturing company in Delaware and when I was 
a county executive. We used this tool, this technique, in both of those 
contexts to finance very expensive capital investments in chillers and 
boilers and motors in elevators and lights and in energy efficiency 
retrofits throughout our buildings. But they were not paid for upfront 
by either the manufacturing company I worked for or the county which I 
ran as county executive; they were financed off of dedicated future 
energy savings. So these capital improvements were installed at the 
cost of a private company, not the government, not the manufacturer 
upfront, and then paid for over a long time by the energy cost savings 
that the increased efficiency achieved.
  That may seem complicated, but it is well known, well demonstrated 
and used widely across this country and is something the Federal 
Government should make better use of. As I mentioned, by contract, the 
company is paid for its upfront capital investments in these higher 
efficiency systems through future savings that result from decreased 
utility costs. If State, local, and Federal facilities are currently 
taking advantage of these, if they are well known and well 
demonstrated, why isn't the Federal Government making broader use of 
them? Partly because of contracting and budgeting challenges, and it is 
partly because there is not enough push, enough energy behind the use 
of these ESPCs.
  They also have a secondary benefit of creating lots of private sector 
jobs,

[[Page 13505]]

jobs that cannot be outsourced, jobs that require local workers. 
Because what we are truly talking about are sheet metal workers and 
electricians, folks who are installing things and taking things out, 
laborers and mechanics. These are great jobs and at no cost to the 
taxpayer.
  Estimates are that there are more than $20 billion available to the 
Federal Government through the use of performance contracts, savings 
that we know we can achieve and at no cost to the taxpayer.
  In December of 2011, President Obama announced a Federal commitment 
to enter into Energy Savings Performance Contracts equal to $2 billion 
over 2 years. But what happens when that window ends? Now that we are 
in 2013 and about to hit the end of that window, there will be no 
authority to continue to encourage the use of ESPCs in Federal 
facilities. In the current fiscal climate, performance contracts offer 
the Federal Government the best method for upgrading aging facilities 
and reducing energy costs.
  Earlier this summer I introduced the Energy Savings Through Public-
Private Partnership Act to push the Federal Government in the right 
direction by encouraging increased utilization of these contracts. I 
introduced that as an amendment to the Shaheen-Portman act. As I 
mentioned, it creates a new goal for the Federal Government, to be 
specific, a goal to enter into $1 billion a year in energy savings 
contracts over the next 5 years--$5 billion in savings at no cost to 
the taxpayer.
  It encourages more performance contracting by requiring that Federal 
facilities managers ``shall consider'' implementing identified energy 
and water conservation measures. It increases energy savings 
transparency by requiring the online publication of energy and water 
conservation measures, and it requires government energy managers to 
publicly explain why they chose not to use NSPC if they do not. It 
ensures greater accountability by requiring the administration to 
report to Congress on the status of the annual performance contracting 
goal each year.
  In previous hearings, I have asked the Secretary of Energy and others 
involved in the Federal performance system why this is not more 
actively used. The explanations have more to do with the complications 
of bureaucracy adrift in inaction than why it cannot be done. Positive 
responses from the President and from departments and from facility 
managers strongly suggest that this amendment, this bipartisan 
amendment, could be considered as a part of S. 1492.
  Let me last turn to one I have worked hardest on and am most excited 
about, amendment No. 1841, the Master Limited Partnership Parity Act. 
This one has the potential to change the long-term playing field for 
energy financing in the United States. Access to low-cost financing 
will determine our Nation's energy future. It will determine how and 
when and which energy sources emerge as central players in the American 
energy marketplace in the long term, and I think it is up to us to 
ensure our vast national supply of clean renewable power as well as 
energy efficiency are vital parts of that overall equation.
  What am I talking about? What is a master limited partnership? It is 
a business structure that is taxed as a partnership but whose ownership 
interests are traded like corporate stocks on a market. It is a tax-
advantaged capital formation vehicle. They have been around more than 
30 years. There are more than 100 of them with a market cap over $40 
billion, and they have been overwhelmingly used by oil and gas and 
pipeline interests. Oddly, by statute, MLPs are only available to 
investors in energy portfolios for oil, natural gas, coal extraction, 
and pipeline projects--nonrenewable energy. As I mentioned, these 
projects get access to capital at a lower cost and are more liquid than 
traditional financing approaches to energy projects, making them highly 
attractive to private sector investment.
  Investors in renewable energy and energy efficiency projects, 
however, have been explicitly prevented from forming MLPs, starving a 
growing portion of America's domestic energy sector of the capital it 
needs to grow. I introduced the bipartisan Master Limited Partnership 
Parity Act to include renewable energy and energy efficiency projects 
among all those other areas of energy for which MLPs could be formed, 
and I am grateful for the tireless partnership of my lead cosponsor, 
Senator Jerry Moran of Kansas and for the courage and energy Senator 
Lisa Murkowski of Alaska has brought to advocating for this bill as a 
cosponsor and for the early support of Senator Debbie Stabenow of 
Michigan. The four of us have now over two Congresses worked tirelessly 
on this bill.
  It has a corollary in the House that also has a strong bipartisan 
group of cosponsors. I recently testified about this bill, as has 
Senator Moran, both at the Senate Energy Committee and Finance 
Committee, and I have been grateful for the interest of Chairman Ron 
Wyden and an array of other Senators from both parties.
  As I mentioned, this MLP Parity Act has the opportunity, the 
possibility of being the ``all of the above'' energy strategy that is 
so often talked about and to be the capital-financing piece of this, a 
strategy that does not pick winners and losers but allows the markets 
to decide where to invest in the long term. It has generated a great 
deal of interest and support. It has hundreds of supporters coming from 
the private sector, from think tanks, from nonprofits, and from 
advocacy groups.
  It could not be simpler. It is a very short bill, just a few hundred 
words. Instead of barring renewable projects and energy efficiency 
projects from being able to organize as Master Limited Partnerships, it 
embraces them. It would bring new low-cost capital into the energy 
market and help get more renewable energy and energy efficiency 
projects to get off the ground, increase domestic energy production, 
and increase our Nation's energy security.
  I urge support for this amendment, which is a separate piece of 
legislation being offered as an amendment to this bill. All three of 
these amendments are good ideas. As we proceed next week, I may or may 
not call them up as amendments to this bill to be considered on the 
floor, but the last, the Master Limited Partnership Parity Act in 
particular, is a public policy idea worthy of consideration by this 
body at some point in the months and years ahead.
  Let me in closing simply say I am grateful we have had the 
opportunity to return to a vigorous debate about a bipartisan bill that 
has the very real prospect of saving energy, of creating jobs, of 
investing in manufacturing and in skills and of growing the economy of 
the United States in a way that reduces our energy use, makes us less 
reliant on foreign energy sources, makes less of an impact on our 
environment, and gives us more hope for the future--a brighter and more 
optimistic future.
  I can think of no better signal this Senate and this Congress can 
send to the people of the United States but that we take up, consider, 
and pass many of the bipartisan amendments that have been discussed 
here today and then finally pass the Shaheen-Portman bill and send it 
to the House for consideration, passage, and ultimately signature into 
law.
  The people of my home State ask me all the time when will we get back 
to listening to each other, working together, and passing real 
bipartisan bills that can help create jobs. This bill will accomplish 
those goals.
  It is my prayer, my hope we will do that vital work next week when we 
return.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________