Expanding Access to Sustainable Energy Act of 2019
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I have amendments en bloc at the desk.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will be speaking in opposition to this bloc of amendments.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have argued that this legislation picks winners and losers, and that amendments such as these might help level the playing field. But I don't think that is the case.
The Clean Economy Jobs and Innovation Act authorizes investments in a broad range of programs to unleash American energy innovation and reform outdated policies that govern how we produce, distribute, and consume energy. Rather than picking winners and losers, this bill takes a portfolio approach to supporting the transition to a clean energy economy--a transition that is already underway, but not at the pace needed to avoid the worst and most costly consequences of climate change.
For years, rapidly declining costs for solar, wind, storage, and other technologies have made them cost-competitive with and, in many cases, more cost-effective than conventional technologies.
The Clean Economy Jobs and Innovation Act doubles down on these market trends, providing the tools, investments, and policy reforms needed for the United States to lead the world in transitioning to a cleaner future.
At the same time, the legislation invests in research, development, and deployment of technologies to reduce emissions from traditional sources of pollution. Importantly, it invests in carbon capture, utilization, and storage to help reduce emissions from existing facilities that are particularly challenging to decarbonize, especially in the industrial sector.
So rather than picking winners and losers, the Clean Economy Jobs and Innovation Act includes a broad array of tools to modernize our energy system. Taken together, these tools will help make our energy system cleaner, more efficient, more resilient, and more reliable.
That is why many pieces of this legislation have enjoyed such strong bipartisan support, because they are commonsense investments that will create jobs, protect consumers, and reduce pollution.
But these proposed amendments are not good faith efforts to build on this bipartisan foundation. They are an attempt to water down this legislation and slow the transition to a clean economy.
When we look across the globe, we see that this transition is already underway, but that the United States is falling behind. The real question is whether we want to regain our competitive edge and global leadership in technology and innovation or whether we cede to the competition.
I urge my colleagues not to be distracted by talking points about picking winners and losers and focus on who actually wins when we invest in innovation. Consumers win, workers win, and our environment wins.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record letters that we received in support of the legislation from U.S. PIRG and the League of Conservation Voters.
Dear Katie: On behalf of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Environment America and our tens of thousands of members, we urge you to support the Clean Economy Jobs and Innovation Act (H.R. 4447). U.S. PIRG and Environment America will consider scoring final passage and certain amendments on our annual scorecard.
The American West is on fire, East Coast and Midwest communities are facing major flooding, and southern states are being battered with hurricanes. The climate crisis is here and if we want to have any chance of avoiding its worst impacts, it is imperative that we take swift action. The ``Clean Economy Jobs and Innovation Act'' marks significant progress in the transition to a clean energy future and in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
Among the most impactful pieces, the legislation includes provisions that:
Phase out the use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which are extraordinarily potent climate pollutants, with hundreds to thousands of times the heat-trapping power of CO2;
Reauthorize the Energy Efficiency Conservation and Block Grant (EECBG) program, which provides $17.5 billion in funding for schools, homes, government buildings, and manufacturing facilities to improve efficiency and deploy energy-efficient technologies;
Invest over $36 billion for transportation electrification, including grants and rebates to deploy electric vehicles and related charging infrastructure;
Direct DOE to establish new model building codes for states to improve energy efficiency;
Preserve a policy that will eliminate all fossil fuel- generated energy from federal buildings by the year 2030.
In addition to supporting the overarching bill, U.S. PIRG and Environment America urge the following votes on amendments:
Yes on Amendment 32. This amendment, sponsored by Reps. Haaland, Tlaib and Ocasio-Cortez increases authorizations for renewable energy R&D accounts by 50% and adds an authorization for total funding for research, development, demonstration and commercialization activities for energy efficiency and renewable energy R&D.
Yes on En Bloc 1, Yes on En Bloc 2, No on En Bloc 3, YES on En Bloc 4. Sincerely, Katie Murtha,
Vice President of Government Affairs, U.S. PIRG and Environment America. ____ LCV, Washington, DC, September 24, 2020. Re Support H.R. 4447 and its pro-environment amendments.
Dear Representative: The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) works to turn environmental values into national priorities. Each year, LCV publishes the National Environmental Scorecard, which details the voting records of members of Congress on environmental legislation. The Scorecard is distributed to LCV members, concerned voters nationwide, and the media.
As the House debates H.R. 4447, the Clean Economy Jobs and Innovation Act, LCV urges you to support the pro-environment amendments and reject weakening or anti-environment amendments, as listed below, and vote YES on final passage. This bill includes many great provisions to develop and deploy renewable and distributed energy resources; improve the efficiency of our homes, schools, and businesses; electrify our transportation sector; modernize the grid and enhance its resiliency; prioritize the needs of environmental justice communities; reduce climate pollution from industrial and traditional sources, and from ambient air. Though we do not support increased funding for projects that could extend the life of fossil fuel-burning power plants or aging nuclear power infrastructure or prop up undemonstrated new nuclear projects, many of the amendments would improve those areas and build upon the significant positive environmental aspects of the bill. We urge support for amendments listed below offered singly or en bloc that will make the bill even stronger by protecting our communities and environment while investing in clean energy research, development, and deployment. And we urge you to reject anti-environment amendments listed below offered singly or en bloc. Pro-environment Amendments Include Haaland (NM), Tlaib (MI), Ocasio-Cortez (NY) #169
This amendment would increase the authorization amounts for renewable energy research and development by 50 percent such that the total renewable energy innovation funding in the package would exceed that of fossil fuel programs authorized in the bill. En Bloc #1 94. DeGette (CO) #122--Vote Yes.
This amendment would require that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) update its rules regarding methane emissions from oil and gas wells leased on public lands and that operators capture 85 percent of leaked methane--an air pollutant and climate super-pollutant--within 3 years. 24. Escobar (TX) #77--Vote Yes.
This amendment would require that the DOE give special consideration to institutions of higher education that serve communities of color, so-called minority serving institutions, in choosing entities for grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements related to solar energy research and development. 52. Lujan (NM), Castor (FL) #110--Vote Yes.
This amendment would make community solar projects more accessible for all consumers and encourage states to set in place policies to advance community solar. 72. Quigley (IL) #13--Vote Yes.
This amendment would direct the General Services Administration, as feasible, to employee technologies and strategies to reduce bird collisions at public buildings. En bloc #2 2. Barragan (CA), Beyer (VA), Lee, Barbara (CA), et al. #57-- Vote Yes.
This amendment would establish a Climate Smart Ports program at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with a $1B/year authorization. The program would provide grants for deploying zero emissions technologies and clean energy microgrids at ports and with port users. 3. Barragan (CA) #59--Vote Yes.
This amendment would increase by $40M per year the authorization for EPA's Environmental Justice Small Grants and Collaborative Problem-Solving Cooperative Agreements Programs, and Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE) I and II grants. 93. Blumenauer (OR) #152--Vote Yes.
This amendment would require DOE to compile and report upon funding provided to the Light Water [nuclear] Reactor Program, and establish an advisory committee to report on this annually. 7. Blunt Rochester (DE) #44--Vote Yes.
This amendment would provide $18B to upgrade energy efficiency and install clean energy systems in critical public buildings like schools and hospitals. 16. Clarke, Yvette (NY) #2--Vote Yes.
This amendment would establish an EPA pilot program to provide grants, rebates and low-cost revolving loans to projects that replace an existing diesel-powered refrigeration unit in a heavy-duty vehicle with an electric unit or install electric shore power infrastructure to decrease idling of refrigerated trucks. 25. Finkenauer (IA) #131--Vote Yes.
This amendment would require certain labor standards, including prevailing wages, for projects getting funding from provisions in the bill. 35. Hayes (CT), Cardenas (CA) #71--Vote Yes.
This amendment would set aside $100M of the $130M/year reauthorization of EPA's Clean School Bus Program for grants to replace existing fossil fuel-powered school buses with zero emission school buses. 61. Omar (MN) #172--Vote Yes.
This amendment would require that the U.S. Treasury identify and quantify the economic cost of any fossil fuel subsidies not eliminated by this bill or its amendments. 74. Rouda (CA) #11--Vote Yes.
This amendment would allow states to set appliance energy efficiency standards if the Department of Energy (DOE) missed statutory deadlines to review and issue new standards. 88. Waters (CA) #103--Vote Yes.
This amendment would require that the DOE analyze state grants on smart manufacturing to see if they benefit diverse communities. En bloc #4 34. Harder (CA) #135--Vote Yes.
This amendment would require institutions of higher education in the Centers of Excellence program to consider the public health effects of wildfire smoke on outdoor workers and improves required outreach and collaboration with states, tribes, and local government and other institutions. 46. Levin, Mike (CA), Bonamici (OR), Neguse (CO) #37--Vote Yes.
This amendment would create a program to improve wildfire smoke modeling and predictions of smoke severity and direct the EPA to better research the negative health effects from wildfire smoke. 68. Pingree (ME), Spanberger (VA) #29--Vote Yes.
This amendment would add agricultural, grazing, and forestry practices to DOE's priorities in its carbon removal research and development, in order to advance natural systems' ability to capture and store carbon. Anti-Environment Amendments Include En Bloc #3 91. Wilson, Joe (SC) #40--Vote No.
This amendment would require DOE to evaluate potential sites in the DOE footprint for advanced nuclear research and demonstration programs.
We urge you to SUPPORT H.R. 4447 and the pro-environment amendments listed above, and oppose anti-environment amendments. We will strongly consider including votes on this legislation in the 2020 Scorecard. If you need more information, please call my office at (202) 785-8683 and ask to speak with a member of our government relations team. Sincerely, Gene Karpinski, President.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I wanted to reference some parts of this.
With regard to the League of Conservation Voters, they specifically say that, with regard to H.R. 4447, they urge support for the legislation in general and specifically ask that we reject weakening the antienvironmental amendments as listed below, and that includes this amendment en bloc No. 3. They say that we should vote ``no'' because the amendment would require the Department of Energy to evaluate potential sites in the DOE footprint for advanced nuclear research and demonstration programs.
In addition to that, in the letter from U.S. PIRG, it says: ``On behalf of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Environmental America, and our tens of thousands of members, we urge you to support the Clean Economy Jobs and Innovation Act.''
It talks about how the West is on fire and the hurricanes. ``The climate crisis is here, and if we want to have any chance of avoiding its worst impacts, it is imperative that we take swift action. The Clean Economy Jobs and Innovation Act marks significant progress in the transition to a clean energy future and in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.''
It goes on to talk about the various provisions and how they are helpful during the climate crisis. Then, it also specifically asks and urges a ``no'' vote on this en bloc amendment No. 3 because they do not consider that useful in terms of addressing the climate crisis, and it is actually counter to environmental concerns.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, first of all, I wanted to rebut what was just said by my colleague on our committee from the other side. The reality is that this bill is designed with the hope that we can come to a consensus on an energy package with the Senate on a bipartisan basis.
In fact, Senator Lisa Murkowski and Senator Joe Manchin are putting together an emergency package, which is not exactly the same as this, but the idea would be that we would have some kind of informal conference and actually adopt a bill that we have a consensus on before the end of this session. I will point out that we actually worked very hard to try to do that 2 years ago and came very close to accomplishing it.
So I don't want anyone here to think that this is a message vehicle. This is a vehicle that is exactly designed to try to reach an agreement on an energy package, albeit not a big one, that we could actually get signed into law by the end of the year.
Madam Speaker, I also want to rebut the idea--somehow there is always this suggestion that when you do anything on our side of the aisle that it is not helping create more jobs. The reality is this bill is designed to do exactly that, to create more jobs. The bill supports the energy industry by providing resources for projects, jobs, and technology interests, which are looking forward and necessary for the energy transition.
Clean energy, renewables, and energy efficiency sectors employ millions of Americans. As demand for these technologies increases and as prices decrease, these sectors will continue to grow. However, COVID-19 has harmed energy jobs across the board. Delayed or canceled projects, as well as social distancing, have particularly affected clean energy jobs and energy efficiency jobs. So this bill supports the necessary sectors by investing in technologies and jobs that are future-looking and can meet the challenge of climate change.
My colleagues on the other side keep thinking of the energy sector as something that is totally oriented toward fossil fuels. The reality is that other countries, and us, we have to move toward a clean energy economy that creates jobs. This bill includes workforce provisions that help provide training and transition resources for the energy sector.
The bill includes Chairman Rush's Blue Collar to Green Collar Jobs Development Act that establishes a nationwide program at the Department of Energy to improve education and energy- related industries. It trains underserved groups, including women, minorities, veterans, and unemployed energy workers, for energy careers. It supports the industries and jobs we need to navigate the energy transition.
Again, I am not someone who says that we are only going to have certain energy sectors. We are going to need everything. But the bottom line is, we do have to think that, in the future, there is going to be a lot more in the clean energy sector than solar and wind. If we don't start investing in and promoting the technologies, we are going to be left behind, and we are going to lose jobs. This helps us gain those jobs.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, what I get from the other side of the aisle is that somehow they think we are going to live in splendid isolation here. I mean, that might have been nice in the 19th century or the 18th century, or whenever, but that is not the reality of today. The reality is we are in constant competition around the world.
And while other countries move towards a clean economy--whether it is Europe, Japan, whatever it is--they are then investing--not just them, China, India--they are then investing in these new technologies. And if I could use solar energy as an example: If we had taken the initiative a few years ago to actually invest in solar panels and wind turbines and the technologies that were coming about, we would have been able to sell a lot more of those panels and those turbines around the world and also use them for our own clean economy or clean initiatives.
Instead, we didn't, and now most of the solar panels are built in China, exported to the United States.
You cannot fall behind. If you fall behind in these technologies, then you are not going to be competitive, and you are going to lose out on this race, and you are going to have fewer jobs. You can't just put your head in the sand, like some kind of ostrich, and say to the rest of the world, We don't care, it doesn't matter. It does matter.
And all we are saying in this bill--and this is not the type of overall major climate bill that we would have to do eventually--this is a down payment. And the idea is to look at certain things that we can do now to invest in technology, to look at innovation so that we don't fall behind, and we create the clean jobs of the future.
In addition to that, the bill deals with energy efficiency, which is something that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have never opposed--more resiliency. These are things that are important to deal with the climate changes that have occurred, to deal with the wildfires, to deal with the hurricanes, so that our grid and everything is more resilient and we can deal with the impact of the climate crisis.
Madam Speaker, I know that I am not going to be able to convince most Republicans to support this. I am hoping that some will, and I am hoping that when we get this passed and we have conversations with the Senate, that we can actually do some kind of down payment in terms of creating the clean jobs of the future. And then in the next session of Congress, we will do a much larger initiative dealing with climate change.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I am certainly sympathetic to this idea that we have to do more manufacturing here and not rely on overseas, but I believe very strongly that is what this bill is all about. It accomplishes the goal of moving forward with clean energy innovation and technology and bringing more manufacturing here. And I believe the amendment, this en bloc amendment, will not help in that regard and, in fact, makes this a bill less prone to accomplish the goal of clean energy and job creation.
Madam Speaker, I would urge opposition to the en bloc amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source