Researching Efficient Federal Improvements for Necessary Energy Refining Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I will say to my friend from Kentucky that it has been a long time since you have been to the Bay Area, so I will take you up on your offer.

One of the reasons I wanted to come down and speak to this is because I represent an area in the Bay Area that has five refineries in it. They have been valuable tax providers and employers for many years. One of them is about to close and another one is in the process of closing. Two others have spent billions of dollars to work on transitional fuels, to put investment into those refineries to produce biofuels that are part of the transition to cleaner, safer, more economical energy sources. The last one, Chevron, is doing both.

I must say I am reminded, as I sit here, to the same arguments 30 years ago having been involved at the local level in California about secondhand smoke and tobacco when the tobacco industry was insisting that the Tobacco Institute do studies about the cost to smokers by passing secondhand smoke ordinances that figured out the full cost to consumers for people who didn't smoke.

As a former restaurant owner, who didn't allow people to smoke, it just reminds me of the same thing. I believe in research because I have worked with a refinery and oil companies for many years. I was one of those regulators. I represented the Bay Area on the California Air Resources Board for 10 years. I was appointed by two Republicans, by the way, and one Democrat.

What we have done is, we are transitioning. Twenty-five percent of the cars in northern California last year were EVs. They were alternative fuels. We knew this was coming. We have tried to work and invest in the refinery community on how we transition for the local government, who required those taxes, and for the employers-employees who need those jobs.

Let's do research on how we transition and give States the ability to transition, if they choose, and local governments to transition. While I value the research, let's be honest about having more research that is more objective and consider the full cost to changing our energy.

Almost 50 million Americans live within a mile of a refinery or a heavy processing plant. Their public health costs are disproportionately affected by what we know from traditional pollutants, particulate matter, and smog. Then when you add carbon into it, the economic model changes completely.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to Mr. Guthrie, before he comes out to the Bay Area, we have a collegial conversation and we can go to those refineries. I would particularly like to take him to the ones that have invested on the transition because we know we need a transition for those of us who want to go to as near-zero emissions as possible, and we are succeeding.

I will remind my colleagues, too, across the aisle that the Chinese are our global competition. The Chinese auto manufacturing industry is about to become the largest auto manufacturer in the world. They are all EVs.

They are moving to this. While we try to protect traditional energy sources, let's be smart about the transition economically for American consumers and taxpayers.

I don't disagree with looking at capacity, but let's do it in a broader and more objective way that tells the full story as truthfully as possible, so we as policymakers can be more thoughtful about the short-term impacts of our policy decisions, as well as in the midterm and long term.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source