Hearing of the House Energy and Power Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee - Strategic Petroleum Reserve Discussion Draft and Title IV Energy Efficiency

Hearing

Mr. Chairman, I think I have made clear that I am interested in working with you and
Chairman Upton on energy legislation. But I am concerned about the format of today's
hearing. I can't recall a time when this Subcommittee has crammed two completely unrelated
topics into one hearing. This does a real disservice to Members on both sides of the aisle and to
the subject matter itself. Both these subjects are important and really warrant, not only separate
legislative hearings, but they also should be preceded by thorough oversight.

With regard to the specific proposals before us, I recognize they do not represent
anything more than discussion drafts of potential legislative language that could go into an
energy bill. However, as this efficiency title is currently constituted, I would not be in a position
to support it or to recommend that others support it.

In particular, I am opposed to language in the discussion draft that repeals Section 433 of
the Energy Independence and Security Act, signed into law by President George W. Bush.
Section 433 established groundbreaking energy efficiency performance standards for the design
of new Federal buildings and those Federal buildings undergoing major renovations, rightly
ensuring that new federal building be designed to result in decreased consumption of fossil fuels.
Second, the draft would prohibit DOE from promulgating a final rule updating efficiency
standards for gas furnaces until an advisory group completes an analysis and determination. I
certainly understand that there are concerns out there, but stakeholders had been working toward
a resolution mutually agreeable to all parties. Now, however, some stakeholders apparently
decided to try to do an end run by proposing this language halting DOE's efficiency efforts from
moving forward. The draft sets up an opponent-dominated advisory panel and gives more
weight to the anti-efficiency factors being examined in the analysis. In my opinion, this greatly
sets back any progress made toward good faith efforts to sincerely resolve concerns with the
DOE's proposal.

The building code efficiency provisions in the draft is another area of great concern to
me. As currently outlined, changes to DOE's standards authority in this area would do great
harm to what has been a very successful and impactful program.

That said, I want to make clear that I do believe there is a sincere effort on both sides to
try to find common ground and I remain optimistic that we can develop a bipartisan energy
package. We are early in our process and there are many ideas from both sides of the aisle that
have not yet been considered. In raising these issues upfront, I hope that we can have a more
concerted bipartisan collaboration moving forward.

Mr. Chairman, last week, the Obama Administration released its first installment of the
Quadrennial Energy Review. This is a serious government- wide effort to look at key aspects of
the nation's energy infrastructure contains many useful insights, including some
recommendations that may require legislation.

We need to review that report carefully because I think it provides us with an opportunity
for our committee to work closely with the Administration to put together meaningful energy
legislation that addresses the four areas of your "Architecture of Abundance" framework and that
the President will sign.

Let me thank you again for holding this hearing, for your hard work in bringing these
provisions forward, and for your willingness to work with us to make this into a product that we
might all be able to support.

Source