[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3787-3789]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               ELECTRICITY SECURITY AND AFFORDABILITY ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 497 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 3826.
  Will the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren) kindly resume the 
chair.

                              {time}  1756


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 3826) to provide direction to the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency regarding the establishment of 
standards for emissions of any greenhouse gas from fossil fuel-fired 
electric utility generating units, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Hultgren (Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, 
a request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 6 printed in House 
Report 113-373 offered by the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. 
Schakowsky) had been postponed.


                  Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Latta

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in House Report 113-373.
  Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 8, line 4, strike ``government'' and insert ``Federal 
     Government''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 497, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Latta) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 3826. This 
amendment would make a clarification to the bill to make explicit that 
``demonstration projects'' refer to projects that have received Federal 
Government funding or assistance. This responds to comments raised when 
the bill was marked up that the definition of ``demonstration project'' 
could be construed to sweep in any project receiving government 
support, including local tax assistance.
  This amendment helps clarify the bill and also highlights the 
provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 which apply to the EPA's 
proposed standards for new plants. The Energy Policy Act expressly 
prohibits EPA from considering technologies at Federally funded 
projects under DOE's Clean Coal Power Initiative to be adequately 
demonstrated. The purpose of this is to prevent the premature mandating 
of technologies that are commercially viable.
  EPA's determination that ``carbon capture and storage'' or CCS, 
technologies for new coal-fired power plants have been ``adequately 
demonstrated'' is not borne out in the real world. In the agency's 
proposed rule, the EPA cites four government-subsidized CCS power plant 
demonstration projects that are in various stages of planning 
development.
  First, Southern Company's Kemper County, Mississippi, project is 
still under construction, subject to delays and cost overruns. In the 
company running the project's own words, this plant ``cannot be 
consistently replicated on a national level'' and ``should not serve as 
a primary basis for new emissions standards impacting all new coal-
fired power plants.''
  Next, Summit's Texas clean energy project is still in the planning 
stage. It does not yet have financing and has also been subject to 
multiple delays.
  The third project, Hydrogen Energy California LLC's project, is still 
in the planning and permitting stages.
  Lastly, SaskPower's Boundary Dam CCS project, a government funded, 
small 110-megawatt facility rebuild project in Canada is still under 
construction and reportedly $115 million over budget.
  It seems very clear to the companies and institutions most involved 
with these CCS projects that they are not yet ready to be considered 
for commercial deployment. As one former Assistant Secretary for Fossil 
Energy in the Obama administration suggested, it is disingenuous for 
the EPA to say that CCS is ready.

                              {time}  1800

  It should be very clear to the American taxpayers that this 
administration is working day and night to eliminate the use of coal in 
this country. In places like my home State of Ohio, where 78 percent of 
our energy comes from coal, the result will be higher electric bills 
for our families and seniors already dealing with increased health care 
costs as a result of ObamaCare.
  We should be pursuing energy policies that will lead to more energy 
that is less expensive for people, rather than less energy that is more 
expensive for our citizens. As we know, increased energy costs impact 
the most vulnerable citizens in our country.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the underlying bill prevents EPA from 
setting a standard or requirements for new--new coal-powered plants.
  Instead of telling a new coal-powered plant they have to use 
technology to reduce their carbon emissions, this bill says they can't 
require that of new plants, unless new plants are already using 
technology to reduce emissions.
  Well, okay, if they are already using technology, we can say 
everybody ought to use that technology; but then the underlying bill 
goes further and says: Well, not only are they using technology that 
accomplishes the goal, but there has got to be six plants represented 
all over the country that are achieving the standard using 
technologies, and then EPA can consider a standard for new power 
plants.
  This is like the belts and suspenders. They can't look at foreign 
technology. They have to use six plants that are using technology.
  Of course, one would ask: Why would anybody spend money to use 
technology to reduce carbon pollution if they are not required to do 
it? It costs money.
  So it is so unlikely that they are ever going to be able to set a new 
standard at the Environmental Protection Agency, given the underlying 
bill.
  But the bill also says, if there are six plants that are using 
technology, they better not use technology that has been funded by the 
government. Well, why not? That is what the government does.
  We provide DOE grants to have demonstrations of new technologies. 
That is what the underlying bill says. If they are achieving reductions 
in carbon pollution because it is involving government funds, we are 
not going to count those.
  Well, now, we have the Latta amendment that says: Well, wait a 
second. What if it is funds for demonstrations that are not using 
Federal dollars, but local dollars?
  Well, fine. I don't have any objection to that, but I don't know why 
we would say Federal dollars can't be used to demonstrate technologies 
that are successful, so the Latta amendment narrows the underlying 
bill, but really doesn't accomplish much.
  Why, I would ask: Would we want to say that the Department of Energy, 
using taxpayer dollars for projects to find new and better ways to 
improve air quality for the American people, should not be used by EPA 
to set a standard for future power plants?
  These projects funded by the Federal Government help companies figure 
out how to reduce air pollution more effectively and at a lower cost. 
The whole point is to develop technologies that can be applied across 
the industry to reduce air pollution.

[[Page 3788]]

  So if the Federal Government funds those new technologies and they 
are successful, we are not going to let a standard be based on that; 
but if the State funds the development of the new technologies that 
accomplish these goals, oh, we can use that, but they better be part of 
six, and they better fit this underlying standard--this underlying 
requirement that there be six in different parts of the country and on 
and on and on.
  Well, I don't object to this amendment. I don't see what the 
amendment particularly does to make the bill any better. It doesn't 
solve any particular problem that I see, but I just want to point out 
how offensive this underlying bill is to not let EPA set standards for 
new plants when we know that technologies can reduce the carbon 
pollution.
  But we are not going to look at it for real, unless they meet a 
higher standard, which is six plants; but they better not be using 
government-funded technologies from the Federal Government, which would 
be the case if this amendment is adopted.
  So I just want to make these points rhetorically because I think 
people ought to understand how offensive this bill is.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman have anything further?
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire who closes the debate on this 
amendment?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has the right to 
close.
  Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Waxman

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in House Report 113-373.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act shall take effect when the Administrator of the 
     Energy Information Administration certifies that a Federal 
     program, other than a program under section 111 of the Clean 
     Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7411), will reduce carbon pollution in at 
     least equivalent quantities to, with similar timing, and from 
     the same sources as the carbon pollution reductions required 
     in the aggregate by the rules and guidelines listed in 
     paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of section 4.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 497, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Waxman) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, President Obama reached out to the 
Congress, to the Republican majority of this House, and he said: Let's 
work on ideas that could help us deal with this problem of climate 
change.
  But he also said he wanted to make it very clear that, if the 
Republicans won't act because this House majority won't do anything to 
address climate change, he will.
  The bill we are considering today shows that the Republicans' plan on 
climate change is to give up hope. Their plan is to let our children 
and grandchildren suffer the effects of climate change without lifting 
a finger to protect them; worse, the Republicans' plan is to stop any 
meaningful action to slow climate change. I think this position is 
indefensible.
  Today's bill would amend the Clean Air Act to ensure that coal-fired 
power plants are able to pollute indefinitely with impunity. This bill 
would condition EPA's authority on conditions that simply can never be 
met or at least not as long as it is cheaper to dump pollution into the 
air rather than clean it up.
  Republicans complain they don't like EPA's approach. Well, what is 
their plan to address climate change? For years, Democratic Members 
have shown that we are willing to consider any suggestion to reduce 
carbon pollution and to slow climate change.
  We could put a price on carbon. We could put a limit on carbon 
pollution. We could support the development of clean energy. In the 
bill that I authored with now-Senator Markey, we dedicated $60 billion 
to deploy carbon capture and sequestration technology on new coal power 
plants.
  But what Congress can't do is simply say no to everything, no to a 
price on carbon, no to a limit on carbon, no to regulation on carbon.
  What my amendment suggests is, if they don't want EPA to act to 
reduce the pollution from carbon coming from coal-burning power plants, 
we are saying: All right, address this problem, make sure we have some 
other alternative that will work.
  Because if they don't have an alternative that will work, in effect, 
the Republicans are saying: We are not going to do anything, either we 
don't believe there is a problem called climate change, the scientists 
are all lying to us--of course, we will never let them come before our 
committee and testify because they will only lie to us about it--the 
science is wrong, we don't have to worry about it.
  We have heard over and over again from Mr. Whitfield that 96 percent 
of the problem is naturally occurring carbon. Well, naturally occurring 
carbon is balanced; it is absorbed by photosynthesis and other 
processes.
  But that 4 percent is upsetting the balance, and that balance that is 
being upset is a threat to this planet. It is a threat to our 
atmosphere. It is a threat to our Nation when we see hurricanes, 
floods, droughts, all these climate events that we hear about every 
night in the evening news.
  So what is their alternative? If they don't want coal-burning power 
plants regulated, give us an alternative that will reduce that 4 
percent that is upsetting the balance.
  I would suggest that they are telling us they have no alternative 
whatsoever. I don't think that is an adequate answer to what many 
experts believe is the leading threat to our survival on this planet.
  I would urge that we adopt this amendment. If they don't like what 
EPA is doing, tell us their plan. If they have other ideas for reducing 
carbon pollution to prevent catastrophic climate change, let's hear 
them; but if they don't, they should step aside and let the President 
lead.
  I urge support for this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I would point out once again, as I did 
in the beginning of this debate, that the Constitutional law professor 
Jonathan Turley, testifying before the Judiciary Committee, recently 
made the statement that:

       If left unchecked, the United States President could 
     effectively become a government unto himself because of 
     excessive executive orders and excessive regulations.

  The only reason that we are here today is that the President, without 
any real national debate, went to Copenhagen and other international 
groups and made commitments for the U.S. on the reduction of 
CO2 emissions.
  In the energy sector, our emissions are the lowest that they have 
been in 20 years. If EPA had adopted emission standards and technology 
was available that had been adequately demonstrated to meet those 
standards, we wouldn't have any problem, but they did not do that. In 
fact, they violated the 2005 Energy Policy Act in setting these 
emission standards.
  We tried to talk to EPA; we tried to talk to the President; we tried 
to talk to his representatives; and we got the cold shoulder. So the 
only option available to us in trying to overcome these executive 
orders and regulations is to adopt some legislation.
  In our legislation, we don't expect a coal plant to be built, but if 
natural gas prices go up, America--like every other country in the 
world practically--will be able to build a coal plant, and the 
technology will be available to meet those emission standards.

[[Page 3789]]

  With that, I would respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment, and 
I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment doesn't stop EPA from acting 
if we can get an alternative, an alternative that would reduce the 
carbon pollution to the same level the EPA is proposing.
  My friend and colleague, Mr. Whitfield, said the President, if left 
unchecked, would make these commitments. Well, President George H. W. 
Bush made a commitment on behalf of this country that we would try to 
achieve reduction of carbon to 1990 levels.
  If the Republicans want to do something on their own and not let the 
President do it, tell us how you can accomplish these goals. If you 
don't want to achieve these goals, it is either because you don't 
believe we need to achieve them or you are not willing to do anything 
about the problem.
  I urge support for the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that we believe the 
President's views are extreme when he sets a goal of reducing by 83 
percent below the 2005 emission levels.
  For that, we think this legislation is absolutely essential to give 
the American people the flexibility in the future to build a coal plant 
to help meet the electricity needs of this great country.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Yoho) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hultgren, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3826) to 
provide direction to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency regarding the establishment of standards for emissions of any 
greenhouse gas from fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating 
units, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________