Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives For The Nation Act Of 2007

Floor Speech

CREATING LONG-TERM ENERGY ALTERNATIVES FOR THE NATION ACT OF 2007 -- (Senate - June 20, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHUMER. Then I withdraw the request, and I will speak about the amendment without bringing it up.

The amendment we are speaking about here would raise the level of building standards so that our buildings across America would be more green. There has been tremendous focus on automobiles--of course, there should be--in raising their mileage standards. But what is forgotten is that a huge percentage of energy consumption and greenhouse gases come from buildings and, more importantly, the heating and cooling of our structures, both residential and commercial. The bottom line is, if everybody in America were to adopt green building standards, we could greatly reduce--and these are prospective, not retrospective--the amount of greenhouse gases and energy consumption.

For instance, according to the Alliance to Save Energy, the amendment I wish to offer could save our country 5 percent of its total energy use, save consumers $50 billion a year, and--listen to this, this is an amazing statistic--reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an amount equivalent to taking 70 million cars off the road.

You say: Can this work? Yes, because a good number of States have started doing this already. California has taken the lead. California increased its energy efficiency in buildings in the late 1970s, and now they, in terms of greenhouse gases, are at the level of some European countries, even though California is a car culture. There are lists of States that have already moved forward in this regard. They are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington, and other States are on the road to doing so. The bottom line is, by making our buildings more efficient, we can reduce gases.

Let me tell you what the amendment does. The organizations that draft commercial and residential building codes will be required to meet specific energy use targets. We don't tell them how. Obviously, it is different in Minnesota than it would be in Florida or Arizona. They will be required to meet specific energy use targets. They must be more efficient by 30 percent than the 2006 codes by 2015 and 50 percent more efficient by 2022. Because this affects new buildings, obviously people are given a timeline. You can't start this next year. But, again, California did this in the 1970s, and they are reaping the benefits now.

Since energy independence and since global warming are long-term issues--we all know we are not going to solve them in a year--acting now is important. We give the States time to change their building codes in the way they wish, and we would greatly reduce the amount of greenhouse gases.

My mayor is in the news today but for other matters. The mayor of New York City, for instance, has proposed that the city do this on its own. We give credit to specific cities that would do this as well. They would have the same benefits and responsibilities under the bill as States would, when States did it. If your State didn't but your city did, you would still be able to get the benefits and meet the requirements of the legislation. But it is estimated that it will reduce the amount of energy consumption in New York City by 40 percent. Is that incredible?

We have a lot of debate, as we should, on automobiles, on renewables, on coal to gas, but there is a quiet little secret out there that this amendment sort of makes public. That is that conservation--conservation of things that are much easier and much less controversial than, say, automobiles--is where the real bang for the buck is in terms of energy independence, reducing greenhouse gases, and in terms of lowering the cost to the average consumer of electricity and gasoline, because when we are more efficient in terms of our buildings, petroleum is used for other purposes, and supply and demand would even reduce the price for gasoline.

One of the environmentalists I know put it well. He said: Alternative fuels are the sizzle and conservation is the steak. They are both important. When you barbecue, you like to have the sizzle. It is fun. But you also like to eat the steak.

I have two other amendments, one that does the same on appliances. The bill has good provisions on appliances, but we move them further in terms of California, although I am not talking about that one here right now.

If we were to do it for utilities, where we would require them to be more efficient--and they could choose the way--we could do dramatic things in this bill just on its own. The cost for most energy conservation, the cost for reducing the consumption of petroleum, for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, is about one-quarter what it is for producing new alternative fuels.

I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. It is not controversial, I do not think. It does not have universal support, but it has great support. The Department of Energy has looked favorably upon it. I do not know if they are officially in favor of it, but we talked to them, and they know we have to move in this direction.

I hope the amendment can be adopted. I hope I have convinced my colleague from New Mexico, if not with eloquence--which I am sure I do not have--at least with the facts and the structure of this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source