Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act of 2013

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I thank the good Senator from Ohio. It really does comport both with the spirit and intent of the legislation that he has coauthored with the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, but really it actually accomplishes what the Department of Energy set out to do.

In rural areas across this country, whether in North Dakota, Ohio, West Virginia, New Hampshire, or anywhere else, we have rural consumers who are looking at having to buy multiple water heaters just to have enough hot water because they are on these off-peak load programs, which makes sense and which is what we want. We want them on these off-peak programs because it is more efficient and saves money and utilizes renewable energy, but we have to enable them to do it. So this accomplishes what DOE set out to do.

Again, I thank the distinguished Senator from Ohio.

Mr. President, I wish to offer another amendment to the underlying legislation. This is the ``all of the above'' Federal building energy conservation.

We talk about doing ``all of the above'' energy development in this country, and we have to get from talking about it to doing it. This is a great example of what I am talking about. It actually goes back and addresses a problem that was created in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. In that act they set efficiency standards for Federal buildings that have to be achieved by 2030 and then they limit it as to which types of energy can be used, creating a real problem for the Department of Energy, which is actually having to implement that legislation.

This is a piece of legislation that actually will enable some of these energy efficiency goals to be achieved with better environmental stewardship but with a commonsense ``all of the above'' approach in terms of energy sources. Frankly, the goals of that cannot be achieved without them. The Shaheen-Portman legislation is an on-subject piece of legislation that really allows us to correct the problems in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and really accomplishes what that act set out to do, so if I could just take a couple minutes to describe it.

This ``all of the above'' Federal Building Energy Conservation Act, amendment No. 1917, is a commonsense piece of legislation that saves taxpayers money by enhancing the energy efficiency of Federal buildings by allowing all forms or all sources of energy to power our buildings while still meeting the objectives of the underlying legislation.

Currently, section 433 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 mandates the elimination of all fossil fuel-generated energy use in any new Federal building by the year 2030, but the mandate also covers any major renovation of $2.5 million or more to any Federal building. Unfortunately, the Department of Energy has been unable to finalize a rule because the law itself is unworkable.

Think about it--any Federal building where there is a renovation of more than $2.5 million, you can no longer use fossil fuels--think natural gas--in that building. So what are you going to heat and cool the building with? Are you sure you are going to have enough intermittent power--whether it is solar or wind or something else--to make sure that for any Federal building where you make a change of more than $2.5 million you are going to be able to meet the energy needs of that building? The Department of Energy can't do it. They can't write a rule that meets that statutory requirement. So we fix it in this amendment.

My amendment would replace an unworkable mandate that is impossible to implement with a practical, time-proven approach, using technology and all of our energy resources to achieve the goal of energy efficiency. Again, this will enable us to achieve the energy efficiency goals of the underlying legislation, which is the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

Instead of prohibiting the use of fossil fuels, including next-generation technologies as section 433 would currently provide as written, this amendment creates sensible energy efficiency guidelines to make Federal buildings more energy efficient, thereby lowering emissions. The measure also helps to make sure when we do major renovations we use the most up-to-date building codes. We do all of this in a transparent manner by having the Secretary of Energy make information available as to how the Federal Government is improving its efficiency in Federal buildings.

Current law is unable to do any of this. The reality is section 433 does not work, as I said, and cannot be implemented without a fix. We are providing that fix. According to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy:

The current section 433 is not very workable because in its present form it discourages investments in long-term energy savings contracts and in combined heat and power systems.

So if you care about efficiency--that is what this underlying bill is all about, energy efficiency--if you care about efficiency, we need to change section 433. If you care about making sure our taxpayer dollars are well spent, we need to pass the amendment I am offering. It is better to have aggressive yet achievable goals with a means to obtain them through private sector financing mechanisms than to have an unfunded mandate that will not produce the intended results.

Major conservation stakeholders agree. This amendment is supported by a remarkably broad coalition. That coalition includes: the Alliance to Save Energy, the Combined Heat and Power Association, the American Gas Association, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the Edison Electric Institute, the Federal Performance Contractors Coalition, Owens Corning, Siemens, the National Association of Energy Service Companies, the American Public Power Association, Lockheed Martin, Fuel Cell & Hydrogen Energy Association, Honeywell--the list goes on, and there are many more.

That is because, again, it is about common sense, it is about energy efficiency, and it is about doing it in a way that actually accomplishes those goals.

Energy conservation is an objective where we should be able to find consensus. Everyone agrees it makes good sense to save energy. This amendment makes the current law both practical and achievable. The Congressional Budget Office says it saves money. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.

Finally, if I may before I close, I would like to make some brief comments in regard to the farm bill. We have been working on a farm bill for over 2 years. I am a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee. Last year we passed a solid farm bill from the Senate Agriculture Committee that strengthens and enhances crop insurance and saves money. At a time when we are running a Federal deficit and debt, we are saving money. We passed the bill out of the Agriculture Committee last year. The House passed a bill different than the bill we passed out of the Senate Agriculture Committee, but the House Agriculture Committee passed a farm bill as well, and a good farm bill.

On the Senate floor last year we passed the farm bill and passed it with a large bipartisan vote. On the House side they were not able to pass it. They were not able to pass their bill, so at the end of the year when the current farm bill expired we were forced to do an extension.

We come back this year. The Senate Agriculture Committee again passes a good solid farm bill that strengthens crop insurance, is good for farmers and ranchers, and saves money. We pass it on the Senate floor as well. On the House side, they pass the bill through the House Agriculture Committee and they pass a bill on the floor. It did not include the nutrition piece, but they did pass a bill on the floor.

This week they are set to vote on a nutrition bill. That is good. They need to do that and they need to make their decision on how they want to handle the food stamp reform, or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program reforms. But the key is they need to name their conferees. They need to take action this week and name their conferees. We have named our conferees. I am pleased to be a member of the conference committee. But we need to work. We need to get this finished.

The reality is, for our farmers and ranchers, we should not be providing another 1-year extension. These are business people. They need to plan. They need to know what the 5-year farm program is going to be so they can plan and operate their business accordingly. There are on the order of 16 million jobs in this country that are dependent, directly or indirectly, on agriculture. We want to get this economy growing. Those are a tremendous number of jobs, 16 million jobs, that, directly or indirectly, rely on agriculture. Agriculture creates a positive balance of trade.

We are talking about an energy efficiency bill right now and our farmers are out there right now, not only producing food but fuel as well--food, fuel, and fiber. They create not only jobs in this country but they have a positive trade balance, which is tremendous for our country.

The bill, as I mentioned earlier, saves money. At a minimum we are going to save $24 billion, and it will likely be more than that. It helps with the deficit and the debt.

I want to close today by again calling on my colleagues on the House side to deal with the nutrition issue, name their conferees, let's get into conference, and let's get a farm bill done. Thanks to our farmers and ranchers, we have the highest quality, lowest cost food supply in the world, in the history of the world. That benefits every single American--whether you live in rural America or in the biggest city. Let's get it done.

I again thank the sponsors of this bill. They are working hard. You know what. They are setting an example for this body on the kind of bipartisanship and working together we need to have to get things done for the American people. I commend them both and thank them for this opportunity to present these amendments to their bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source