North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2015
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply strikes section 1101 of the underlying bill. The section is a solution in search of a problem. The section's purported goal is to reinforce the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's role as the lead agency for siting interstate natural gas pipelines; however, I do not think there is any doubt over FERC's role in pipeline siting approval.
In reality, this section is designed to further expedite permitting for natural gas pipelines. But there is very little evidence that this process needs expediting, which ultimately would restrict States and other Federal agencies' ability to review projects and the public's ability to comment on them.
Mr. Chairman, the GAO looked at the approval process for pipelines by FERC and found 95 percent are approved within 2 years. When it takes longer, it is because the project is large or controversial due to taking of private property, traversing State or Federal land, or requiring placement of compression stations and other operation equipment in an area close to existing infrastructure or communities.
Even the industry agrees that pipeline approvals are happening. In October, Pipelines Digest, an industry publication, wrote:
Through April 30 of this year, FERC certified and placed in service almost twice as many natural gas projects and more than doubled the miles of pipeline that were put in service and certified through the same date in 2014.
We are building new pipelines. There is no problem that needs fixing. So what evidence is there that the certification process needs to be further tilted in favor of pipeline companies at the expense of environmental review and public comment? I would say there isn't any. Yet, Mr. Chairman, this section would require FERC to decide on a pipeline application within 90 days after the Commission issues its final environmental document, regardless of the complexity of the application.
It would also allow FERC to consider environmental data collected by aerial or other remote surveys instead of onsite inspections. This would enable pipeline companies to circumvent property owners' rights when surveying land, all in hopes of speeding up projects.
The siting of natural gas pipelines is complicated and can be controversial. I know this well since there are a number of projects currently being developed in or near the district I represent. I hear from my constituents about these projects regularly. They are very concerned, and they feel like they are being left out of this process. They are concerned about the safety and about the noise, air, and water pollution from the construction and operation of the pipeline's associated facilities. The pipeline companies do not have a problem. The public does.
We know that these types of projects, no matter how beneficial to the public interest, can be controversial. Someone is always unhappy about the selected route or placement of these facilities. But we need to do a better job of bringing the public along, and these provisions do the opposite.
Mr. Chairman, the public has a right to be part of large projects that impact their communities. Does that take extra time? Yes. Is it less convenient for the company? Yes. But these pipelines will be in service for many decades. If it is worth doing, it is worth doing right. So I see no reason why we should be expediting projects if we cannot be sure they can be built in a safe and environmentally friendly manner.
We need to ensure State and Federal regulators are given the time needed to carefully review applications for the construction of natural gas pipelines and to ensure that the landowners and the general public have the ability to participate meaningfully in the siting process. This section undermines that process.
I urge support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman) for a brief statement.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, my amendment reauthorizes two existing programs, the Weatherization Assistance Program and the State Energy Program.
Both of these programs have been operating successfully for many years. The Federal dollars delivered through these programs leverage additional funding from our States and the private sector. These programs address real problems. They are effective, and they create and sustain jobs.
As we heard during debate yesterday, H.R. 8 does very little to advance energy efficiency, an issue that has enjoyed strong, bipartisan support in the past. In fact, some provisions are more likely to be a setback to efficiency standards. While this bill contains plenty of benefits for energy suppliers, there is very little in there designed to address the needs of average Americans.
The Weatherization Assistance Program supports State-based programs to improve the energy efficiency of the homes of low-income families. The Department of Energy provides grants to the States, United States territories, and tribal governments to deliver these services through local weatherization agencies. The weatherization measures used include air sealing, wall and attic insulation, duct sealing, and furnace repair and replacement.
Mr. Chairman, the benefits of weatherization are well known and result in a reduced energy bill for many years into the future. Insulating our walls and our roofs, for example, can provide savings for the lifetime of a house. Other measures, such as making heating or cooling equipment more efficient, can provide savings for more than a decade.
Since 1976, the Weatherization Assistance Program has helped improve the lives of more than 7 million families by reducing their electricity bills. The program provides energy efficiency services to thousands of homes every year, reducing average costs by more than $400 per household in annual utility bills.
Investments in energy efficiency pay for themselves over time, but the up-front costs can be significant, and when a family's budget is severely limited, those costs are simply too high.
The Weatherization Assistance Program helps those in our communities who do not have the financial resources to make energy efficiency investments on their own. That includes our elderly, our disabled, and our low-income families.
These vulnerable households are often on fixed incomes and are the most susceptible to volatile changes in electricity prices. They are particularly vulnerable to spikes in electricity bills during heat waves or cold weather due to poor insulation or inefficient appliances.
A sudden increase in expenses is difficult to manage for many of our families. Low-income families already spend a disproportionate amount of their income on energy costs.
Mr. Chairman, the State Energy Program provides funding to the States to support the work of their energy offices. It ensures that each State will have basic funding available to support its programs.
These offices play a role in helping States define the least costly ways to meet State goals for energy efficiency, for air quality, for fuel diversity, and for energy security.
According to a study by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the State Energy Program often leverages, for every 1 Federal dollar, $10.71 in State and private funds. That is a great return on investment.
Congress reauthorized these programs back in 2007 for a 5-year period at about $1 billion per year for Weatherization and $125 million per year for the State Energy Program.
My amendment authorizes the Weatherization Assistance Program for another 5 years, but at lower levels--$450 million per year--and the State Energy Program is authorized for 5 years at $75 million per year.
These are robust authorization levels for certain. While I believe these programs should be appropriated even more funding, this amendment authorizes them at lower levels to be more in tune with today's fiscal constraints.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment and to help to extend the benefits of energy efficiency to our families so that more families can be supported by local jobs, businesses, and certainly contractors that do this extremely important work.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, certainly the numbers here speak to the most vulnerable in our society. There are waiting lists that I know exist in States. There are more things we can do for energy efficiency's sake for our most stressed family budgets.
This is a situation where energy costs, as a wedge of the pie for our poor families for their household budgets, is far greater a slice than it is for the average residents of this country. This is a hardhearted approach taken to our elderly, to our low-income families, and to the disabled.
Also, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that our goal here should be to be as resourceful as possible with our energy mix across this country. Anytime we can reduce consumption we are doing a big thing for all ratepayers. The statements show a missing of the focus that is needed.
Finally, to the study, it was a one-State, one-utility study. It was not peer reviewed. It was flawed. It did not really suggest to show the real issues out there for this program.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source