North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Maine's amendment adds further specificity to the criteria defining fuel certainty, one of the three requirements that defines reliable generation in section 1107 of the bill.

The amendment to the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, or PURPA, is already too prescriptive, in my view. The amendments in this legislation to capacity markets under the Federal Power Act in section 1110 and to PURPA in section 1107 are an attempt at micromanaging grid decisions.

I am not certain what the gentleman from Maine's amendment would be other than to ensure that no electric generation facility need enter into a contract with a fuel supplier that was any longer than 1 year.

I realize some problems have arisen in the New England capacity market, but I doubt this is the best way to address those problems.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I want to also lend my support to the legislation on grid resiliency. I think it is very important. I appreciate the gentlewoman putting it forward.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, time after time, Democratic Members have come to the floor to strike bad NEPA language from bills, only to be voted down by Republicans who use streamlining as a euphemism for letting polluters do whatever they want. Now they expect us to believe that they are sincere about keeping NEPA strong in one perverse scenario in which they think it could help them. Well, I don't think that passes the smell test. What is more, the amendment undermines the treaty rights of the Lummi Nation and jeopardizes the sovereignty of all tribes with rights to natural resources.

Mr. Chairman, tomorrow we will be here on the House floor to vote on the conference report for a highway bill which includes, over the opposition of many Democrats, sweeping exemptions from the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. I have no doubt that both of the sponsors of this amendment support those exemptions and will vote to pass the bill without a second thought about the fact that it short-circuits NEPA review for many, many infrastructure projects.

I am shocked to see them standing here with straight faces arguing that, when it benefits them and their friends in the coal industry, the NEPA process should be thorough and complete. It is a level of audacity that I think is almost laughable.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this damaging and disingenuous amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes an end run around the National Environmental Policy Act. The amendment would simply eliminate any meaningful review of the environmental impact of large trans-boundary infrastructure projects by redefining and significantly narrowing the scope of NEPA's environmental review.

While a traditional NEPA review looks at the impacts of an entire project, this amendment restricts NEPA review only to that small portion that physically crosses the border, and that defies common sense. We are talking about massive projects that are more than just at border crossing.

When we approve a trans-boundary pipeline or transmission line, we are approving multibillion-dollar infrastructures that may stretch hundreds of miles and will last for decades. They cross through private property, water bodies, farms, sensitive lands, and over aquifers. They carry substances that can catch fire or spill and pollute the environment, and they have profound implications for climate change.

To understand the potential environmental impact of an energy project, we need to look at the project as a whole. To ignore the potential environmental or safety risks for every part of the project except the tiny sliver of land at the national boundary makes no sense.

Imagine going to the doctor if you are feeling sick, and the doctor gives you a clean bill of health after looking only at your elbow. That is what this amendment does by redefining the scope of NEPA's inquiry to only encompass the step across the border. It makes the process of environmental review essentially meaningless, and no meaningful review means no opportunity to mitigate potential harm to public health, public safety, or the environment.

Mr. Chairman, NEPA provides policymakers with a critical tool to understand potential impacts and consider lower impact alternatives. NEPA doesn't dictate the outcome or, by itself, impose any constraints on projects.

Fundamentally, it requires us to look before we leap, and that is just basic common sense. We should not be punching loopholes in this law.

But the amendment doesn't just stop there. It also creates a rebuttable presumption that every cross-border project is in the public interest, tipping the scale in favor of their approval. And that is a subtle but significant change. Coupled with the small portion of projects being reviewed, the amendment makes it virtually impossible to ever prove that a project is not in the public interest.

Proponents of this amendment argue that a new process is necessary for reviewing and approving cross-border projects, but if Congress is going to establish new permitting rules through legislation, it should do so in a thoughtful and balanced way. Instead, this amendment creates a process that rubber stamps projects and eliminates meaningful environmental review and public participation.

Frankly, this amendment is just another attempt to bring TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline back from the grave. The President has already rejected their application, and we have wasted enough time on this Canadian pipe dream.

The Keystone XL pipeline is a lose-lose proposition for energy security, a lose-lose for safe climate and a healthy environment. And we shouldn't be trying to create a weaker approval process to provide a new pathway for its approval.

Adoption of this amendment will undoubtedly benefit TransCanada and other multinational oil companies but will not help the American people that we are here to represent.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source