Electricity Security and Affordability Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chair, I rise to say that my amendment is a simple clarifying amendment that goes right along the discussion we were just having with the previous amendment.

It makes clear that the underlying bill does not stop the EPA from relying on foreign technologies to establish a performance standard, so long as that foreign technology has been adequately demonstrated at power plants here in the United States, and I think my colleague from Kentucky was making that point in his rebuttal.

The Electricity Security and Affordability Act is necessary because the EPA has taken the unprecedented step of requiring the use of technology that has not been demonstrated on a large commercial scale here in the United States. The rule is, therefore, a de facto ban on new coal plants anywhere in the United States.

Well, why is this significant? As our existing coal fleet retires, either due to regulations or because plants have reached the end of their useful life, what takes their place to provide affordable and reliable electricity to families and businesses?

In January, when temperatures dropped across the Eastern part of the United States, American Electric Power, AEP, which provides power in my region of the country, was operating 89 percent of the coal capacity that will retire in 2015.

When that capacity is no longer available, our electric grid will be less reliable, and the energy prices paid by individuals and small businesses will increase.

West Virginia has vast supplies of both natural gas and coal, so I fully support the development and use of all our domestic energy resources. We need a diverse energy policy that includes coal, natural gas, nuclear, and renewable to support our economic growth and keep the energy bills that families pay each month from skyrocketing.

But we cannot turn away from coal, which provides 40 percent of our Nation's electricity and 95 percent of the electricity in my home State of West Virginia.

Other countries understand that coal provides the energy necessary to power their own economies. The International Energy Agency released a report in December, stating that global coal consumption will continue to rise and increase by more than 2 percent through 2018. Between 2007 and 2012, global coal consumption increased faster than oil or natural gas.

China and India are constructing new coal plants. Even Germany is increasing its coal capacity in 2013.

The rest of the world is willing to use coal. We, in the United States, have a strong competitive advantage because we have hundreds of years of supply. Increasingly, we are exporting coal for use abroad. West Virginia exports more coal than any other State.

While we are glad the coal exports allow for production that provides jobs--real jobs in our State, it is difficult to understand why we would turn away from using our own domestic resources at the same time other countries are turning towards our domestic resources.

Importantly, unilateral action by the United States will do virtually nothing to address the global problem of carbon dioxide emissions. In 2012, carbon dioxide emissions from energy production in the United States fell by 3.8 percent to their lower level since the mid-90s.

Despite this drop, carbon dioxide emissions from energy globally increased to their highest level on record. China's carbon dioxide emissions alone more than offset the decreased emissions from the United States.

That is why I introduced legislation that would delay the implementation of the U.S. carbon dioxide regulations until other countries comprising 80 percent of non-U.S. emissions enact equally stringent regulations. Acting in concert with our global competitors would minimize the economic consequences and maximize the environmental benefits.

Instead, the administration has chosen the opposite course, imposing a unilateral regulation that maximizes our economic pain and minimizes the environmental benefits. EPA's regulation means absolutely fewer West Virginia jobs and higher energy prices for consumers.

Let's be clear about what today's legislation does. This legislation does not stop the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions from new coal plants. The bill simply requires EPA to base its regulations on the best performing existing coal plants.

We should encourage the implementation of newer, cleaner burning coal technologies, but a de facto ban on new coal plants won't encourage new technologies. It will leave promising research on the shelf while energy prices increase and the economic advantage offered by our natural resources is lost.

This is a good straightforward piece of legislation. My amendment makes it clear that we want the best commercially available technology to set the standards for new plants, regardless of where that technology is developed, as long as that technology is demonstrated in the United States coal plants.

I urge the amendment's adoption and reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source