Lower Energy Costs Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, energy is the most important element of a prosperous society. Nothing else functions without it.

Reliable electricity allows us to work at night, keep our sick and injured on life support, heat our homes in freezing weather, manufacture the materials that we use to build our homes, and powers the systems that allow the public to watch these remarks right here on this House floor.

Energy is connected to everything. The price of energy affects the price of everything else, and the world devolves into the Dark Ages without it.

This might explain why Republicans think an energy bill should be labeled H.R. 1--because it is our number one priority, as it should be.

We have to introduce this bill because, bewilderingly, energy security has been under relentless attack by radical leftists and the Biden administration. They don't believe in energy security. They don't believe in reliable, affordable energy. They seem to think that the only energy worth pursuing is so-called renewables, solar and wind.

This is not sound policy or science. This has become a religion, and it has become an irrational pursuit of intermittent, weather-dependent energy sources that take up vast amounts of land, vast amounts of resources to make, and vast amounts of critical minerals to be mined. Still, it doesn't deliver the energy security the American people need.

I am not against these things. It would be fine to pursue these technologies if it didn't also come with a simultaneous attack on the sources of energy that actually work--namely, oil and gas.

Every good thing you have in this world, Mr. Chairman, is because of petroleum products--every single thing. Your shoes, your cars, your iPhones, your Netflix, your Patagonia jackets, medical devices that save your life, your heating, your cooling--literally everything comes from petroleum products.

The attack on oil and gas has been relentless, and it has been deeply foolish. It started with day one of the Biden administration and the Keystone pipeline, then executive orders banning new leases on Federal lands, and then refusal to permit pipelines. Then they turn around and attack the suppliers and producers for higher prices. It is pure gaslighting.

They have drained our Strategic Petroleum Reserve, all while prioritizing the same crazy climate policies that have caused Europe to enter an energy crisis and that are now causing developing nations to be priced out of gas markets and turn to coal production.

This gets me to quite the irony here. The administration's policies are more likely to increase global carbon emissions as a result, and for one simple reason. I really want everyone to understand this. By refusing to push for increased natural gas exports, we are shelving the best tool for displacing coal power around the world.

Coal burned in foreign countries accounts for about 50 percent of global power emissions. Natural gas is an easy substitute with half the emissions. American natural gas could easily be leveraged to increase prosperity for all and reduce emissions.

This is not rocket science. It is common sense. It is just math. Promoting American natural gas is better for energy security, better for our own affordability, and better for reducing global emissions. There is no logical counterargument to what I just said. There is not one.

Maybe--I believe this--the Biden administration actually knows this. That is why they prefer oil production in foreign countries and beg them to drill so that we can pretend we care about the climate while allowing other countries to do the dirty work for us.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chair, I really hope this amendment can be bipartisan. I see no reason why it wouldn't be. It simply provides predictability for States applying for primacy of class 6 carbon capture wells. It is very straight forward. When a State submits a primacy application to the EPA, the EPA has 270 days to either approve or deny the application.

If the EPA is unable to do so within that generous time window, we give them another 30 days to explain why. If, for whatever reason, the EPA fails to make a determination after 300 days, then the State can move forward.

Importantly, we preserve EPA's ability to deny the application or revoke the approval using emergency measures under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Why is this needed?

Unfortunately, when States submit primacy applications for these wells, it can take years for the EPA to even bother to review the application. There is a lot more demand for carbon capture projects. They are ramping up around the country, especially in Houston. The need for expanded permitting capacity has greatly increased.

The EPA should not be the roadblock to projects that are designed to reduce carbon emissions. Let me say that again: Reduce carbon emissions.

The International Energy Agency said carbon capture is necessary to meet national, regional, and even corporate emissions reductions goals. Even EPA administrator Michael Regan called carbon capture a priority for the Biden administration. It is a bipartisan issue.

States like Texas have already proven they can manage these wells and giving them primacy will be a game changer for speeding up carbon capture projects. Giving States regulatory certainty is critical to successful carbon capture projects moving forward in their States. That is all this amendment does.

Mr. Chair, there is no reason why this should not be bipartisan, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chair, I have a brief response to the gentleman's remarks. This does not change at all the Safe Drinking Water Act that the EPA regulates. All it says is there is a timeline for that primacy application. It can always be denied within that timeline.

By the way, the entire point of this is to reduce carbon emissions. It should be bipartisan.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Again, opposing this amendment would mean that you want more carbon emissions in the air, that you don't want carbon sequestration. I am pretty sure that is not what you all want. We all want the same thing here.

This is a commonsense amendment that simply expedites the permitting process, which is well established. Everyone knows it is safe. It doesn't change any regulations. It doesn't circumvent any EPA regulations or standards for drinking water at all.

This is a commonsense amendment. If we can't agree on things like this, it just tells me that we are looking for disagreement for the sake of disagreement. That makes me sad. It really does.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source