[Pages H9843-H9861]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

NEW DIRECTION FOR ENERGY INDEPENDENCE, NATIONAL SECURITY, AND CONSUMER
PROTECTION ACT

The Committee resumed its sitting.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Terry

The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in part B of House Report 110-300.
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Terry:
In title IX, at the end of Part 4 of subtitle A, add the
following new section and make the necessary conforming
amendments in the table of contents:

SEC. 9053. GEOTHERMAL HEAT PUMP TECHNOLOGY ACCELERATION
PROGRAM.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of General Services.
(2) General services administration facility.--
(A) In general.--The term ``General Services Administration
facility'' means any building, structure, or facility, in
whole or in part (including the associated support systems of
the building, structure, or facility), that--
(i) is constructed (including facilities constructed for
lease), renovated, or purchased, in whole or in part, by the
Administrator for use by the Federal Government; or
(ii) is leased, in whole or in part, by the Administrator
for use by the Federal Government--

(I) except as provided in subclause (II), for a term of not
less than 5 years; or
(II) for a term of less than 5 years, if the Administrator
determines that use of cost-effective technologies and
practices would result in the payback of expenses.

(B) Inclusion.--The term ``General Services Administration
facility'' includes any group of buildings, structures, or
facilities described in subparagraph (A) (including the
associated energy-consuming support systems of the buildings,
structures, and facilities).
(C) Exemption.--The Administrator may exempt from the
definition of ``General Services Administration facility''
under this paragraph a building, structure, or facility that
meets the requirements of section 543(c) of Public Law 95-619
(42 U.S.C. 8253(c)).
(b) Establishment.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator shall establish a
program to accelerate the use of geothermal heat pumps at
General Services Administration facilities.
(2) Requirements.--The program established under this
subsection shall--
(A) ensure centralized responsibility for the coordination
of geothermal heat pump recommendations, practices, and
activities of all relevant Federal agencies;
(B) provide technical assistance and operational guidance
to applicable tenants to achieve the goal identified in
subsection (c)(2)(B)(ii); and
(C) establish methods to track the success of Federal
departments and agencies with respect to that goal.
(c) Accelerated Use of Geothermal Heat Pump Technologies.--
(1) Review.--
(A) In general.--As part of the program under this section,
not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Administrator shall conduct a review of--
(i) current use of geothermal heat pump technologies in
General Services Administration facilities; and
(ii) the availability to managers of General Services
Administration facilities of geothermal heat pumps.
(B) Requirements.--The review under subparagraph (A)
shall--
(i) examine the use of geothermal heat pumps by Federal
agencies in General Services Administration facilities; and
(ii) as prepared in consultation with the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency, identify geothermal heat
pump technology standards that could be used for all types of
General Services Administration facilities.
(2) Replacement.--
(A) In general.--As part of the program under this section,
not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Administrator shall establish, using available
appropriations, a geothermal heat pump technology
acceleration program to achieve maximum feasible replacement
of existing heating and cooling technologies with geothermal
heat pump technologies in each General Services
Administration facility.
(B) Acceleration plan timetable.--
(i) In general.--To implement the program established under
subparagraph (A), not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall establish a
timetable, including milestones for specific activities
needed to replace existing heating and cooling technologies
with geothermal heat pump technologies, to the maximum extent
feasible (including at the maximum rate feasible), at each
General Services Administration facility.
(ii) Goal.--The goal of the timetable under clause (i)
shall be to complete, using available appropriations, maximum
feasible replacement of existing heating and cooling
technologies with geothermal heat pump technologies by not
later than the date that is 5 years after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(d) General Services Administration Facility Geothermal
Heat Pump Technologies and Practices.--Not later than 180
days after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually
thereafter, the Administrator shall--
(1) ensure that a manager responsible for accelerating the
use of geothermal heat pump technologies is designated for
each General Services Administration facility geothermal heat
pump technologies and practices facility; and
(2) submit to Congress a plan, to be implemented to the
maximum extent feasible (including at the maximum rate
feasible) using available appropriations, by not later than
the date that is 5 years after the date of enactment of this
Act, that--
(A) includes an estimate of the funds necessary to carry
out this section;
(B) describes the status of the implementation of
geothermal heat pump technologies and practices at General
Services Administration facilities, including--
(i) the extent to which programs, including the program
established under subsection (b), are being carried out in
accordance with this Act; and
(ii) the status of funding requests and appropriations for
those programs;
(C) identifies within the planning, budgeting, and
construction processes, all types of General Services
Administration facility-related procedures that inhibit new
and existing General Services Administration facilities from
implementing geothermal heat pump technologies;
(D) recommends language for uniform standards for use by
Federal agencies in implementing geothermal heat pump
technologies and practices;
(E) in coordination with the Office of Management and
Budget, reviews the budget process for capital programs with
respect to alternatives for--
(i) permitting Federal agencies to retain all identified
savings accrued as a result of the use of geothermal heat
pump technologies; and
(ii) identifying short- and long-term cost savings that
accrue from the use of geothermal heat pump technologies and
practices;
(F) achieves substantial operational cost savings through
the application of geothermal heat pump technologies; and
(G) includes recommendations to address each of the
matters, and a plan for implementation of each
recommendation, described in subparagraphs (A) through (F).
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out
this section, to remain available until expended.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 615, the gentleman
from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska.
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, this is a noncontroversial amendment that
encourages government buildings to use geothermal technology.
Geothermal technology is simple; when you dig down and use the energy
within and beneath the Earth, you save energy. For example, in
Nebraska, and all over, you can dig down 100 feet where the temperature
is a consistent 60 degrees. So therefore, for example, at this time of
year when it's in the 90s and high humidity, instead of cooling the air
from 100 degrees to 72, you're

[[Page H9844]]

bringing it up from 60 degrees to 72. You save anywhere from 60 percent
and as high as up to 80 percent, depending on the time of year, on
energy costs to heat and cool and also to create hot water. This is the
major use of energy within buildings, whether commercial or
residential, and I think government should be the leader in this.
Simple amendment. I appreciate the help and encouragement I have
received on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. BOUCHER. Will the gentleman hold for just one moment, please?
Mr. TERRY. I can keep talking.
Reclaiming my time from the gentleman from Virginia, while the
technology to implement geothermal, for example, a smaller building may
increase the building cost by a mere $3,000 or $4,000, studies have
shown that for commercial or residential buildings that they will
recoup those costs within a matter of 3 years because of the energy
savings by using the Earth's own energy to heat and cool.
Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield to the gentleman
from Virginia.
Mr. BOUCHER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I regret the
delay.
Let me commend the gentleman for two things. First of all, for his
very helpful work as a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce,
and secondly, for bringing this amendment before the body today.
Geothermal heat pump technology is a promising means of meeting
heating and cooling needs with high energy efficiency. It uses the
Earth itself, as the gentleman has described, as a kind of a heat
battery, but also as a natural coolant during the summertimes. And that
is a natural battery and also a natural coolant upon which we can draw
with great efficiency.
The amendment would direct the Federal Government to take the lead in
adopting geothermal heat pump technologies. It would have the
government lead by example, and I think it is an excellent addition to
the measure. We are pleased to accept the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the gentleman's acceptance
of this, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as the committee of jurisdiction
on the minority side, we do not oppose the amendment, we support it,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Udall of New Mexico

The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6
printed in part B of House Report 110-300.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Udall of New Mexico.
In title IX, after subtitle F, insert the following new
subtitle and make the necessary conforming changes in the
table of contents:

Subtitle G--Federal Renewable Portfolio Standard

SEC. 9600. FEDERAL RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD.

(a) In General.--Title VI of the Public Utility Regulatory
Policies Act of 1978 is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``SEC. 610. FEDERAL RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD.

``(a) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
``(1) Biomass.--
``(A) In general.--The term `biomass' means--
``(i) cellulosic (plant fiber) organic materials from a
plant that is planted for the purpose of being used to
produce energy; or
``(ii) nonhazardous, plant or algal matter that is derived
from any of the following:

``(I) An agricultural crop, crop byproduct or residue
resource.
``(II) Waste such as landscape or right-of-way trimmings
(but not including municipal solid waste, recyclable
postconsumer waste paper, painted, treated, or pressurized
wood, wood contaminated with plastic or metals).
``(III) Gasified animal waste.
``(IV) Landfill methane.

``(B) National forest lands and certain other public
lands.--With respect to organic material removed from
National Forest System lands or from public lands
administered by the Secretary of the Interior, the term
`biomass' covers only organic material from (i) ecological
forest restoration; (ii) pre-commercial thinnings; (iii)
brush; (iv) mill residues; and (v) slash.
``(C) Exclusion of certain federal lands.--Notwithstanding
subparagraph (B), material or matter that would otherwise
qualify as biomass are not included in the term biomass if
they are located on the following Federal lands:
``(i) Federal land containing old growth forest or late
successional forest unless the Secretary of the Interior or
the Secretary of Agriculture determines that the removal of
organic material from such land is appropriate for the
applicable forest type and maximizes the retention of late-
successional and large and old growth trees, late-
successional and old growth forest structure, and late-
successional and old growth forest composition.
``(ii) Federal land on which the removal of vegetation is
prohibited, including components of the National Wilderness
Preservation System.
``(iii) Wilderness Study Areas.
``(iv) Inventoried roadless areas.
``(v) Components of the National Landscape Conservation
System.
``(vi) National Monuments.
``(2) Eligible facility.--The term `eligible facility'
means--
``(A) a facility for the generation of electric energy from
a renewable energy resource that is placed in service on or
after January 1, 2001; or
``(B) a repowering or cofiring increment.
``(3) Existing facility.--The term `existing facility'
means a facility for the generation of electric energy from a
renewable energy resource that is not an eligible facility.
``(4) Incremental hydropower.--The term `incremental
hydropower' means additional generation that is achieved from
increased efficiency or additions of capacity made on or
after January 1, 2001, or the effective date of an existing
applicable State renewable portfolio standard program at a
hydroelectric facility that was placed in service before that
date.
``(5) Indian land.--The term `Indian land' means--
``(A) any land within the limits of any Indian reservation,
pueblo, or rancheria;
``(B) any land not within the limits of any Indian
reservation, pueblo, or rancheria title to which was on the
date of enactment of this paragraph either held by the United
States for the benefit of any Indian tribe or individual or
held by any Indian tribe or individual subject to restriction
by the United States against alienation;
``(C) any dependent Indian community; or
``(D) any land conveyed to any Alaska Native corporation
under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
``(6) Indian tribe.--The term `Indian tribe' means any
Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or
community, including any Alaskan Native village or regional
or village corporation as defined in or established pursuant
to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et
seq.), which is recognized as eligible for the special
programs and services provided by the United States to
Indians because of their status as Indians.
``(7) Renewable energy.--The term `renewable energy' means
electric energy generated by a renewable energy resource.
``(8) Renewable energy resource.--The term `renewable
energy resource' means solar (including solar water heating),
wind, ocean, tidal, geothermal energy, biomass, landfill gas,
or incremental hydropower.
``(9) Repowering or cofiring increment.--The term
`repowering or cofiring increment' means--
``(A) the additional generation from a modification that is
placed in service on or after January 1, 2001, to expand
electricity production at a facility used to generate
electric energy from a renewable energy resource or to cofire
biomass that was placed in service before the date of
enactment of this section; or
``(B) the additional generation above the average
generation in the 3 years preceding the date of enactment of
this section at a facility used to generate electric energy
from a renewable energy resource or to cofire biomass that
was placed in service before the date of enactment of this
section.
``(10) Retail electric supplier.--The term `retail electric
supplier' means a person that sells electric energy to
electric consumers (other than consumers in Hawaii) that sold
not less than 1,000,000 megawatt-hours of electric energy to
electric consumers for purposes other than resale during the
preceding calendar year; except that such term does not
include the United States, a State or any political
subdivision of a State, or any agency, authority, or
instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing, or a
rural electric cooperative.
``(11) Retail electric supplier's base amount.--The term
`retail electric supplier's base amount' means the total
amount of electric energy sold by the retail electric
supplier, expressed in terms of kilowatt hours, to electric
customers for purposes other than resale during the most
recent calendar year for which information is available,
excluding--
``(A) electric energy that is not incremental hydropower
generated by a hydroelectric facility; and
``(B) electricity generated through the incineration of
municipal solid waste.

[[Page H9845]]

``(b) Compliance.--For each calendar year beginning in
calendar year 2010, each retail electric supplier shall meet
the requirements of subsection (c) by submitting to the
Secretary, not later than April 1 of the following calendar
year, one or more of the following:
``(1) Federal renewable energy credits issued under
subsection (e).
``(2) Federal energy efficiency credits issued under
subsection (i), except that Federal energy efficiency credits
may not be used to meet more than 27 percent of the
requirements of subsection (c) in any calendar year.
``(3) Certification of the renewable energy generated and
electricity savings pursuant to the funds associated with
State compliance payments as specified in subsection
(e)(3)(G).
``(4) Alternative compliance payments pursuant to
subsection (j).
``(c) Required Annual Percentage.--For calendar years 2010
through 2039, the required annual percentage of the retail
electric supplier's base amount that shall be generated from
renewable energy resources, or otherwise credited towards
such percentage requirement pursuant to subsection (d), shall
be the percentage specified in the following table:

Required annual
``Calendar Years percentage
2010...........................................................2.75
2011...........................................................2.75
2012...........................................................3.75
2013............................................................4.5
2014............................................................5.5
2015............................................................6.5
2016............................................................7.5
2017...........................................................8.25
2018..........................................................10.25
2019..........................................................12.25
2020 and thereafter through 2039................................ 15
``(d) Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Credits.--(1)
A retail electric supplier may satisfy the requirements of
subsection (b)(1) through the submission of Federal renewable
energy credits--
``(A) issued to the retail electric supplier under
subsection (e);
``(B) obtained by purchase or exchange under subsection (f)
or (g); or
``(C) borrowed under subsection (h).
``(2) A retail electric supplier may satisfy the
requirements of subsection (b)(2) through the submission of
Federal energy efficiency credits issued to the retail
electric supplier obtained by purchase or exchange pursuant
to subsection (i).''
``(3) A Federal renewable energy credit may be counted
toward compliance with subsection (b)(1) only once. A Federal
energy efficiency credit may be counted toward compliance
with subsection (b)(2) only once.
``(e) Issuance of Credits.--(1) The Secretary shall
establish by rule, not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this section, a program to verify and issue
Federal renewable energy credits to generators of renewable
energy, track their sale, exchange and retirement and to
enforce the requirements of this section. To the extent
possible, in establishing such program, the Secretary shall
rely upon existing and emerging State or regional tracking
systems that issue and track non-Federal renewable energy
credits.
``(2) An entity that generates electric energy through the
use of a renewable energy resource may apply to the Secretary
for the issuance of renewable energy credits. The applicant
must demonstrate that the electric energy will be transmitted
onto the grid or, in the case of a generation offset, that
the electric energy offset would have otherwise been consumed
on site. The application shall indicate--
``(A) the type of renewable energy resource used to produce
the electricity;
``(B) the location where the electric energy was produced;
and
``(C) any other information the Secretary determines
appropriate.
``(3)(A) Except as provided in subparagraphs (B), (C), and
(D), the Secretary shall issue to a generator of electric
energy one Federal renewable energy credit for each kilowatt
hour of electric energy generated by the use of a renewable
energy resource at an eligible facility.
``(B) For purpose of compliance with this section, Federal
renewable energy credits for incremental hydropower shall be
based, on the increase in average annual generation resulting
from the efficiency improvements or capacity additions. The
incremental generation shall be calculated using the same
water flow information used to determine a historic average
annual generation baseline for the hydroelectric facility and
certified by the Secretary or the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission. The calculation of the Federal renewable energy
credits for incremental hydropower shall not be based on any
operational changes at the hydroelectric facility not
directly associated with the efficiency improvements or
capacity additions.
``(C) The Secretary shall issue 2 renewable energy credits
for each kilowatt hour of electric energy generated and
supplied to the grid in that calendar year through the use of
a renewable energy resource at an eligible facility located
on Indian land. For purposes of this paragraph, renewable
energy generated by biomass cofired with other fuels is
eligible for two credits only if the biomass was grown on
such land.
``(D) For electric energy generated by a renewable energy
resource at an on-site eligible facility and used to offset
part or all of the customer's requirements for electric
energy, the Secretary shall issue 3 renewable energy credits
to such customer for each kilowatt hour generated.
``(E) If both a renewable energy resource and a non-
renewable energy resource are used to generate the electric
energy, the Secretary shall issue the Federal renewable
energy credits based on the proportion of the renewable
energy resources used.
``(F) When a generator has sold electric energy generated
through the use of a renewable energy resource to a retail
electric supplier under a contract for power from an existing
facility, and the contract has not determined ownership of
the Federal renewable energy credits associated with such
generation, the Secretary shall issue such Federal renewable
energy credits to the retail electric supplier for the
duration of the contract.
``(G) Payments made by a retail electricity supplier,
directly or indirectly, to a State for compliance with a
State renewable portfolio standard program, or for an
alternative compliance mechanism, shall be valued for the
purpose of subsection (b)(2) based on the amount of electric
energy generation from renewable resources and electricity
savings that results from those payments.
``(f) Existing Facilities.--The Secretary shall ensure that
a retail electric supplier that acquires Federal renewable
energy credits associated with the generation of renewable
energy from an existing facility may use such credits for
purpose of its compliance with subsection (b)(1). Such
credits may not be sold or traded for the purpose of
compliance by another retail electric supplier.
``(g) Renewable Energy Credit Trading.--A Federal renewable
energy credit, may be sold, transferred or exchanged by the
entity to whom issued or by any other entity who acquires the
Federal renewable energy credit, except for those renewable
energy credits from existing facilities. A Federal renewable
energy credit for any year that is not submitted to satisfy
the minimum renewable generation requirement of subsection
(c) for that year may be carried forward for use pursuant to
subsection (b)(1) within the next 3 years.
``(h) Renewable Energy Credit Borrowing.--At any time
before the end of calendar year 2012, a retail electric
supplier that has reason to believe it will not be able to
fully comply with subsection (b) may--
``(1) submit a plan to the Secretary demonstrating that the
retail electric supplier will earn sufficient Federal
renewable energy credits within the next 3 calendar years
which, when taken into account, will enable the retail
electric supplier to meet the requirements of subsection (b)
for calendar year 2012 and the subsequent calendar years
involved; and
``(2) upon the approval of the plan by the Secretary, apply
Federal renewable energy credits that the plan demonstrates
will be earned within the next 3 calendar years to meet the
requirements of subsection (b) for each calendar year
involved.
The retail electric supplier must repay all of the borrowed
Federal renewable energy credits by submitting an equivalent
number of Federal renewable energy credits, in addition to
those otherwise required under subsection (b), by calendar
year 2020 or any earlier deadlines specified in the approved
plan. Failure to repay the borrowed Federal renewable energy
credits shall subject the retail electric supplier to civil
penalties under subsection (i) for violation of the
requirements of subsection (b) for each calendar year
involved.
``(i) Energy Efficiency Credits.--
``(1) Defintions.--In this subsection--
``(A) Customer facility savings.--The term `customer
facility savings' means a reduction in end-use electricity at
a facility of an end-use consumer of electricity served by a
retail electric supplier, as compared to----
``(i) consumption at the facility during a base year;
``(ii)i n the case of new equipment (regardless of whether
the new equipment replaces existing equipment at the end of
the useful life of the existing equipment), consumption by
the new equipment of average efficiency; or
``(iii) in the case of a new facility, consumption at a
reference facility.
``(B) Electricity savings.--The term `electricity savings'
means----
``(i) customer facility savings of electricity consumption
adjusted to reflect any associated increase in fuel
consumption at the facility;
``(ii) reductions in distribution system losses of
electricity achieved by a retail electricity distributor, as
compared to losses attributable to new or replacement
distribution system equipment of average efficiency (as
defined by the Secretary by regulation);
``(iii) the output of new combined heat and power systems,
to the extent provided under paragraph (5); and
``(iv) recycled energy savings.
``(C) Qualifying electricty savings.--The term `qualifying
electricity savings' means electricity saving that meet the
measurement and verification requirements of paragraph (4).
``(D) Recycled energy savings.--The term `recycled energy
savings' means a reduction in electricity consumption that is
attributable to electrical or mechanical power, or both,
produced by modifying an industrial or commercial system that
was in operation before July 1, 2007, in order to recapture
energy that would otherwise be wasted.

[[Page H9846]]

``(2) Petition.--The Governor of a State may petition the
Secretary to allow up to 25 percent of the requirements of a
retail electric supplier under subsection (c) in the State to
be met by submitting Federal energy efficiency credits issued
pursuant to this subsection.
``(3) Issuance of credits.--
``(A) The Secretary shall issue energy efficiency credits
in States described in paragraph (2) in accordance with this
subsection.
``(B) In accordance with regulations promulgated by the
Secretary, the Secretary shall issue credits for----
``(i) qualified electricity savings achieved by a retail
electric supplier in a calendar year; and
``(ii) qualified electricity savings achieved by other
entities (including State agencies) if ----

``(I) the measures used to achieve the qualifying
electricity savings were installed or place in operation by
the entity seeking the credit or the designated agent of the
entity; and
``(II) no retail electric supplier paid a substantial
portion of the cost of achieving the qualified electricity
savings (unless the utility has waived any entitlement to the
credit).

``(4) Measurement and verification ofelectricty savings.--
Not later than June 30, 2009, the Secretary shall promulgate
regulations regarding the measurement and verification of
electricity savings under this subsection, including
regulations covering----
``(A) procedures and standards for defining and measuring
electricity savings that will be eligible to receive credits
under paragraph (3), which shall----
``(i) specify the types of energy efficiency and energy
conservation that will be eligible for the credits;
``(ii) require that energy consumption for customer
facilities or portions of facilities in the applicable base
and current years be adjusted, as appropriate, to account for
changes in weather, level of production, and building area;
``(iii) account for the useful life of electricity savings
measures;
``(iv) include specified electricity savings values for
specific, commonly-used efficiency measures;
``(v) specify the extent to which electricity savings
attributable to measures carried out before the date of
enactment of this section are eligible to receive credits
under this subsection; and
``(vi) exclude electricity savings that (I) are not
properly attributable to measures carried out by the entity
seeking the credit; or (II) have already been credited under
this section to another entity;
``(B) procedures and standards for third-party verification
of reported electricity savings; and
``(C) such requirements for information, reports, and
access to facilities as may be necessary to carry out this
subsection.
``(5) Combined heat and power.--Under regulations
promulgated by the Secretary, the increment of electricity
output of a new combined heat and power system that is
attributable to the higher efficiency of the combined system
(as compared to the efficiency of separate production of the
electric and thermal outputs), shall be considered
electricity savings under this subsection.
``(6) State delegation.--On application of the Governor of
a State, the Secretary may delegate to the State the
administration of this subsection in the State if the
Secretary determines that the State is willing and able to
carry out the functions described in this subsection.''
``(j) Enforcement.--A retail electric supplier that does
not comply with subsection (b) shall be liable for the
payment of a civil penalty. That penalty shall be calculated
on the basis of the number of kilowatt-hours represented by
the retail electric supplier's failure to comply with
subsection (b), multiplied by the lesser of 4.5 cents
(adjusted for inflation for such calendar year, based on the
Gross Domestic Product Implicit Price Deflator) or 300
percent of the average market value of Federal renewable
energy credits and energy efficiency credits for the
compliance period. Any such penalty shall be due and payable
without demand to the Secretary as provided in the
regulations issued under subsection (e).
``(k) Alternative Compliance Payments.--The Secretary shall
accept payment equal to 200 percent of the average market
value of Federal renewable energy credits and Federal energy
efficiency credits for the applicable compliance period or
3.0 cents per kilowatt hour adjusted on January 1 of each
year following calendar year 2006 based on the Gross Domestic
Product Implicit Price Deflator, as a means of compliance
under subsection (b)(4).
``(l) Information Collection.--The Secretary may collect
the information necessary to verify and audit--
``(1) the annual renewable energy generation of any retail
electric supplier, Federal renewable energy credits submitted
by a retail electric supplier pursuant to subsection (b)(1)
and Federal energy efficiency credits;
``(2) annual electricity savings achieved pursuant to
subsection (i);
``(3) the validity of Federal renewable energy credits
submitted for compliance by a retail electric supplier to the
Secretary; and
``(4) the quantity of electricity sales of all retail
electric suppliers.
``(m) Environmental Savings Clause.--Incremental hydropower
shall be subject to all applicable environmental laws and
licensing and regulatory requirements.
``(n) State Programs.--(1) Nothing in this section
diminishes any authority of a State or political subdivision
of a State to--
``(A) adopt or enforce any law or regulation respecting
renewable energy or energy efficiency, including but not
limited to programs that exceed the required amount of
renewable energy or energy efficiency under this section, or
``(B) regulate the acquisition and disposition of Federal
renewable energy credits and Federal energy efficiency
credits by electric suppliers.
No law or regulation referred to in subparagraph (A) shall
relieve any person of any requirement otherwise applicable
under this section. The Secretary, in consultation with
States having renewable energy programs and energy efficiency
programs, shall preserve the integrity of such State
programs, including programs that exceed the required amount
of renewable energy and energy efficiency under this section,
and shall facilitate coordination between the Federal program
and State programs.
``(2) In the rule establishing the program under this
section, the Secretary shall incorporate common elements of
existing renewable energy and energy efficiency programs,
including State programs, to ensure administrative ease,
market transparency and effective enforcement. The Secretary
shall work with the States to minimize administrative burdens
and costs to retail electric suppliers.
``(o) Recovery of Costs.--An electric utility whose sales
of electric energy are subject to rate regulation, including
any utility whose rates are regulated by the Commission and
any State regulated electric utility, shall not be denied the
opportunity to recover the full amount of the prudently
incurred incremental cost of renewable energy and energy
efficiency obtained to comply with the requirements of
subsection (b). For purposes of this subsection, the
definitions in section 3 of this Act shall apply to the terms
electric utility, State regulated electric utility, State
agency, Commission, and State regulatory authority.
``(p) Program Review.--The Secretary shall enter into a
contract with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a
comprehensive evaluation of all aspects of the program
established under this section, within 8 years of enactment
of this section. The study shall include an evaluation of--
``(1) the effectiveness of the program in increasing the
market penetration and lowering the cost of the eligible
renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies;
``(2) the opportunities for any additional technologies and
sources of renewable energy and energy efficiency emerging
since enactment of this section;
``(3) the impact on the regional diversity and reliability
of supply sources, including the power quality benefits of
distributed generation;
``(4) the regional resource development relative to
renewable potential and reasons for any under investment in
renewable resources; and
``(5) the net cost/benefit of the renewable portfolio
standard to the national and State economies, including
retail power costs, economic development benefits of
investment, avoided costs related to environmental and
congestion mitigation investments that would otherwise have
been required, impact on natural gas demand and price,
effectiveness of green marketing programs at reducing the
cost of renewable resources.
The Secretary shall transmit the results of the evaluation
and any recommendations for modifications and improvements to
the program to Congress not later than January 1, 2016.
``(q) State Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Account
Program.--(1) The Secretary shall establish, not later than
December 31, 2009, a State renewable energy account program.
``(2) All money collected by the Secretary from the
alternative compliance payments under subsection (k) shall be
deposited into the State renewable energy and energy
efficiency account established pursuant to this subsection.
``(3) Proceeds deposited in the State renewable energy and
energy efficiency account shall be used by the Secretary,
subject to annual appropriations, for a program to provide
grants to the State agency responsible for administering a
fund to promote renewable energy generation and energy
efficiency for customers of the state, or an alternative
agency designated by the state, or if no such agency exists,
to the state agency developing State energy conservation
plans under section 363 of the Energy Policy and Conservation
Act (42 U.S.C. 6322) for the purposes of promoting renewable
energy production and providing energy assistance and
weatherization services to low-income consumers.
``(4) The Secretary may issue guidelines and criteria for
grants awarded under this subsection. At least 75 percent of
the funds provided to each State shall be used for promoting
renewable energy production and energy efficiency through
grants, production incentives or other state-approved funding
mechanisms. The funds shall be allocated to the States on the
basis of retail electric sales subject to the Renewable
Portfolio Standard under this section or through voluntary
participation. State agencies receiving grants under this
section shall maintain such records and evidence of
compliance as the Secretary may require.''.

[[Page H9847]]

(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for such
title is amended by adding the following new item at the end:

``Sec. 610. Federal renewable portfolio standard''.
(c) Sunset.--Section 610 of such title and the item
relating to such section 610 in the table of contents for
such title are each repealed as of December 31, 2039.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 615, the gentleman
from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an
amendment to establish a 15 percent national renewable electricity
standard by the year 2020. In doing so, utilities are permitted to meet
up to 4 percent of this requirement through energy efficiency measures.
This amendment will save consumers money, stimulate our economy, and
strengthen our national security.
The aim of this amendment may seem far reaching, but the mechanism
for doing so is not. A 15 percent national renewable electricity
standard by the year 2020 is essential to our national security future.
Equally important to this debate, however, and contrary from what you
hear from our opponents, the RES is absolutely achievable. In fact,
almost half of the States of the Union already have an RES in place,
but the full potential for renewable electricity will be left
unrealized without the adoption of a Federal program to enhance the
efforts of these States. We must enact a Federal RES, and we must do so
now.
Momentum has been building, as evidenced by the fact that many of the
RES standards enacted by States already have been exceeded.
Subsequently, the standards have been increased. A national RES has
passed the Senate three times. It has proven itself effective,
efficient and popular. And it's time for the New Direction Congress to
bring those benefits to the rest of the Nation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that
we have an additional 10 minutes on this amendment equally divided by
the minority and the majority because we have lots of speakers on both
sides.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment and I yield myself 2 minutes.
First let me say that we're not opposed to all renewable portfolio
standards, but we are opposed to this one for a number of reasons.
First of all, it only applies to investor-owned electric utilities. It
doesn't apply to electric co-ops. It doesn't apply to municipal
utilities. It just applies to investor-owned electric utilities. That's
one of the reasons that the Edison Electric Institute is opposed to
this amendment.
It doesn't meet the standards that have been put out for renewable
portfolio standards. It should apply to all utilities. This one
doesn't. It should complement and not preempt State programs. This one
doesn't. It should be technology neutral. This one is not technology
neutral. It should provide credit for early action. This doesn't do
that. It should allow for a national trading mechanism, including
standardized monitoring, verification and distribution of credits. It
doesn't do that. And it should include specific provisions assuring
cost recovery for retail electric providers. It doesn't do that. It
doesn't include nuclear as a renewable energy, and we think that it
should. We think all hydros should be included. This one doesn't.
So, it is certainly worthy of debate, and I support it being made in
order to be debated on the floor, but I would hope that we would oppose
it when it comes time for the vote.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2
minutes to my Republican cosponsor, Todd Platts, who has worked very,
very hard on this amendment. And I would emphasize that this is a
bipartisan amendment, and we have worked all along on it together.

{time} 1345

Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I
certainly appreciate his leadership on this very important issue. I do
appreciate the ranking member's issues he has raised and that perhaps
this amendment doesn't go far enough in what it includes in the type of
renewable energy that is acknowledged.
I would say that this is a starting point. If we support this
amendment, if we get into conference, then we can build on this to look
at other options. But we have to start somewhere. I think this is a
good starting point.
So I rise in support of this amendment which would establish a
National Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard of 15 percent by 2020. A
15 percent RPS is an important step that we can take to meet our
growing energy needs in an environmentally friendly manner and decrease
our dependence on foreign oil and create more jobs.
A study by Woods McKenzie found that a 15 percent RPS would decrease
the price of natural gas by 15 to 20 percent, decrease wholesale
electricity prices by 7 to 11 percent, for a savings of $240 billion to
consumers and would avoid almost 3 billion tons of carbon dioxide by
the year 2030.
In addition, a Federal RPS would create hundreds of thousands of new
jobs. In fact, the top five States that have been hit hardest with the
loss in their manufacturing economy over the past 6 years, California,
Ohio, Texas, North Carolina, and my home State of Pennsylvania, would
benefit most from the creation of new agricultural and manufacturing
jobs because of the passage of this amendment. My home State of
Pennsylvania has established an RPS of 18 percent by 2020.
Since its inception in 2004, the Renewable Energy Standard is
associated with the creation of several thousand new jobs. Projections
show that a national RPS would create an additional 7,000 jobs in my
State alone. Momentum has been steadily growing for a national RPS.
Currently, almost half of all States have implemented such an RPS
standard.
Mr. Chairman, I believe a national RPS is an important step to make
to reduce pollution and lessen addiction to foreign energy sources. I
urge a yes vote, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman
from the great State of Oklahoma (Mr. Boren).
Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this amendment
that is essentially an electricity tax on utilities and their
consumers, with the greatest burden falling on States without renewable
resources.
Utility companies must be allowed to develop their renewable capacity
in relation to consumers' acceptance of the resource and its related
additional costs. We have done that in the great State of Oklahoma.
Congress needs to recognize there are significant regional
differences in the availability, amounts and types of renewable energy
resources in different regions of the country. A one-size-fits-all
Federal RPS mandate ignores the uneven distribution of available
resources and the economic needs of individual States.
Mr. Chairman, I didn't get elected from these other States. I got
elected from Oklahoma. This is bad for Oklahoma. This is bad for
working families. I am the only Democrat in Oklahoma, but my district
is one of the poorest in the country. This will do damage to working
families who are on fixed incomes.
Mr. Chairman, this mandate for renewable electricity is nothing more
than a thinly veiled tax.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), who has been a key player on
this issue.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy,
and I appreciate his leadership.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan amendment.
I could not disagree more with my good friend from Oklahoma. This is
not a one-size-fits-all. Indeed, this has been recalibrated to be able
to make it more flexible, reduce the standard, and give more
flexibility in ways to achieve it. There is no State that does not have
opportunities for renewable energy.

[[Page H9848]]

The ranking member suggests that it doesn't go far enough. Well, I
would suggest that part of the reason that some of the exemptions have
been made for co-ops and whatnot is to recognize the differences and to
make it actually easier politically.
I will guarantee you that within the next 3 or 4 years after we adopt
this we will be coming back, because the public will be demanding that
more happen. That is why States are already ahead of the Federal
Government and are adopting portfolio standards that are higher than we
have.
People recognize that that is a source of new jobs in Oklahoma and in
Florida. It is a new source of jobs in my State of Oregon. There is a
new plant in Arkansas. There are tremendous opportunities. That is why,
when people from coast to coast have an opportunity to vote on
establishing them, these have been overwhelmingly approved, as I hope
we overwhelmingly approve this today.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from the great State of Florida (Mr. Stearns), a distinguished member
of the committee.
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, let me first of all agree with the
Democrat from Oklahoma. He said this is a bad bill for the State of
Oklahoma. This is also a bad bill for the State of Florida. Why is this
bad? First of all, it is a giant tax increase.
Now, Mr. Udall has indicated that part of the reason this bill should
be passed is because it stimulates the economy. I suggest when you
stimulate the economy with an increase in taxes, you are not going to
get the stimulation that you expect.
The Udall amendments proposes, as was mentioned, a one size that fits
all States. Let each State work this out themselves.
Mr. Chairman, do all the Members realize that the Renewable Portfolio
Standard does not include municipal solid waste? That does not qualify
as renewable under the RPS proposal. In fact, a lot of the States that
you represent use municipal solid waste. That is not even going to be
part of this portfolio stand?.
This one size fits all is not going to work and does not take into
account the nuances and the specific energy and economic needs of
individual States. They are working on this themselves. We do not need
this bill. Vote against the Udall amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by
the gentleman from New Mexico. I appreciate his effort to support
renewable energy and ensure clean, renewable sources of energy but this
amendment is not the way to go about it. The Udall amendment proposes a
one size fits all renewable portfolio standard RPS that would
drastically increase electricity costs for Floridians and the entire
Southeast without promoting investment in renewable energy generation.
Because of its design, the proposed Federal RPS imposes an unequal
burden on States. Utilities located in areas of the country with poor
renewable resources, like Florida, will be required to purchase credits
from utilities located in areas with strong renewable resources
potential, leading to significant wealth transfers out of Southeastern
States.
This one-size-fits-all Federal mandate does not take into account the
specific energy and economic needs of individual States by requiring
that 15 percent of retail electricity sales be generated from specific
renewable resources which are not prevalent in the Southeast. Because
Florida and the Southeast lack sufficient quantities of such resources,
utilities in our region would be forced to pay harsh penalties for
noncompliance.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, renewable
resources currently account for only 3 percent of Florida's total
electric generation. More than one-third of this power is generated
from municipal solid waste, but municipal solid waste does not fully
qualify as renewable under this RPS proposal. In fact, the majority of
renewables currently used in Florida do not qualify under this
proposal. Even if all existing renewable resources were included in the
RPS, Florida would still have difficulty meeting the requirements given
our limited availability of solar, landfill gas and virtually no wind
power in the State.
And because Florida lacks the renewable resources as defined in this
RPS proposal, this mandate would force electric utility companies to
purchase renewable energy credits to meet the federal requirements.
Since most of these credits would be purchased from the government and
would not be based on actual renewable generation, it would essentially
amount to an energy tax on all Floridians and anyone who lives in the
Southeast. If Congress enacts a 15 percent RPS, this tax would cost
Florida ratepayers billions of dollars and greatly increase the average
annual energy cost to residential customers. In a report released by
the Department of Energy in June 2007, the proposed RPS would cause
residential customers to spend $7.2 billion more for electrtity.
Every single State public service commission in the Southeast,
including the Florida PSC, recognizes this amendment will significantly
raise electric bills for the ratepayers they represent. The Southern
Legislative Conference, representing the legislatures of Southeastern
states, has also recognized how unfair the Federal RPS is and has
recommended that States be allowed to write their own standard.
In fact, 23 States already have an RPS tailored to fit their own
available resources and energy needs and many more States are presently
in the process of creating an RPS. Florida is one of those States.
Governor Crist recently announced a 20 percent renewables program by
2020. However, he remains strongly opposed to a one-size-fits-all
Federal mandate. It is Florida's position that individual States can
best determine what is attainable in their State and should be allowed
to set standards tailored to their specific capabilities and needs. I
believe that renewable energy programs should be based on customer
demand, regional differences, and appropriate incentives, not on
unrealistic Federal mandates that selectively penalize electricity
consumers in certain regions of the country. Regrettably, a Federal RPS
mandate would impose significant additional costs to Floridians and the
entire Southeast without providing any new investment in renewable
generation within their State.
The Udall amendment will impose a giant new tax, while doing little
to promote renewable energy, and absolutely nothing to lesion our
dependence on foreign oil. I encourage my colleagues to oppose this
one-size-fits-all RPS and vote against this amendment.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. HINOJOSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3221, the New
Direction For Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer
Protection Act.
This important legislation puts our Nation on a new course in energy
policy--a course towards additional energy supply, energy efficiency,
conservation, environmental stewardship, and a leadership role in the
worldwide effort to confront global warming.
This legislation trains our workforce to provide the energy needs of
future generations. Through the ``Green Jobs'' program, our Nation will
train workers to manufacture sources of renewable energy and energy
efficiency. We will also re-tool our economy and our workforce to bring
about a diversified energy supply while assisting at-risk youth in
developing the skills needed to join a new green economy.
This bill returns the United States to a leadership role in the
international effort to halt climate change. As the world's leading
economy and a largest emitter of greenhouse gas, our Nation must
participate in negotiating new international treaties and agreements on
the environment. The new Ambassador-at-Large for Global Climate Change
will work to build consensus in the global community on this
international problem.
The planet will be protected from global warming only through global
cooperation and effort. This bill will task the State Department with
attaining binding emissions reduction commitments from all major
emitters, including China, India, and Brazil.
This monumental legislation is only the first step in bringing
America towards a cleaner, safer, and productive future. I wish to
acknowledge Chairman Miller of the Education and Labor Committee,
Chairman Lantos of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and all the other
Committee Chairs for their strong leadership in drafting this bill.
Most importantly, I applaud Speaker Pelosi's visionary leadership in
crafting a national energy policy that we can be proud of and future
generations will be eternally grateful for. I hope all of my colleagues
join me in supporting this important and overdue legislation.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), who has been another key
player, organizer and leader on this issue.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, this is the energy vote of the decade. This
is

[[Page H9849]]

the most important vote of the day, because this vote is about the
future. This vote will decide whether or not we are going to have 15
percent of our electricity by 2020 generated by wind, by solar, by
biomass and by the other renewable electricity energy resources.
Climate change, dependence upon imported oil, all of it is in this
fossil fuel agenda. This gives us a chance to move to a new agenda, a
new way of generating energy in our country: 15 percent by 2020.
This is the challenge for our country. This is what the American
people expect from us, not to be held hostage by OPEC, not to be
polluting the atmosphere, not to be exacerbating climate change, but to
be moving to a renewable future.
This is the vote of the decade on the energy future of our country.
This will send a signal to Europe, to China, to India, that we are
serious about climate change, that we are serious about energy
independence.
Vote yes on the Udall-Platts amendment. Vote for the future and not
for the past.
Mr. Chairman, it is time for us to move on to the new agenda.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to the time
remaining on each side on this amendment?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas has 11\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Eleven? I started out with 5. Now I have 11.
This is good.
The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman will suspend.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I like that ruling, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. We are going to make sure it is a correct ruling.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. We have some renewable minutes here, it looks
like.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. With all those renewable minutes, I hope
you're for the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. I am informed that the Chair was correct.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Really? Praise the Lord.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. How much time remains on our side?
The CHAIRMAN. Eight minutes. The Chair was correct.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, since I have got a bonus of time
here, I am going to yield myself 1 minute to comment on my good friend,
Hopalong Markey's, comments.

{time} 1400

If this is the energy amendment of the decade, what happened to the
Markey-Boehlert amendment on CAFE in the last Congress, or the pending
Markey amendment on CAFE in this Congress, or the amendment on ANWR in
the last Congress, or the pending amendments we are going to have on
the climate change bill that is going to come out later this fall, or
the vote on the Energy Policy Act conference report, which is the most
comprehensive energy bill in the last 40 years that has been adopted?
If this is now the energy amendment of the decade, my friends on the
majority are not planning on doing much on energy in the next decade.
It is a worthy amendment. It is good to have a bipartisan debate.
Renewable Portfolio Standards are obviously something that need to be
debated and discussed and continually developed. But I do not believe
this is the energy amendment vote of the decade.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), a member
of the committee.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment unfairly penalizes
consumers in States like North Carolina, where investor-owned utilities
provide a majority of the State's power using coal-fired generation and
nuclear power, and it also undermines the State's Renewable Portfolio
Standards. States in the Southeast and the Midwest are dependent upon
coal-fired generation and investor-owned utilities have pioneered
carbon sequestration techniques which substantially reduce further
CO<inf>2</inf> emissions.
Many States don't have the environmental capacity to generate
significant power through solar or wind. Western States are capable of
harnessing wind, solar and hydroelectric power; and they benefit from
meeting this. But they also would be able to sell credits to the States
in the South, Southeast and Midwest, while higher retail energy costs
will adversely affect the consumers and employers in States like North
Carolina.
Any jobs created to meet a government-mandated RPS will be miniscule
compared to the manufacturing job losses that will result from higher
energy costs. If the goal of the amendment is to reduce emissions and
develop domestic energy forces, why not factor in nuclear power?
Nuclear power is very important.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. The great
State of Nevada has had a renewable energy standard for a number of
years. It is a 20 percent standard. It is about time the rest of the
Nation caught up with the great State of Nevada. Let's do this for the
future of our Nation and the future of our children.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), the distinguished chairman of the
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.
(Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas
for yielding this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. There are a
variety of reasons that we should not impose a requirement for the use
of renewables for electricity generation as a matter of Federal law
that would be applicable across the country.
The renewable resources for electricity generation are truly regional
in nature and not every region of the country has them in sufficient
quantity. The Southeast, for example, is deficient in both wind and
solar resources; and these are the two renewable resources that are the
closest to commercial viability across the country.
Some proponents have said that every area of the country has biomass
and biomass could be used as a renewable resource for electricity
generation. But, Mr. Chairman, it simply cannot be a primary way that a
large electric utility meets a renewables requirement of 15 percent of
its total generating capacity.
In fact, one utility estimated that it would have plant and harvest
biomass from an area the size of the State of Connecticut if it is
going to meet its 15 percent obligation using biomass. So it simply is
not practical. That utility has little wind or solar potential. It
would simply have to pay a large penalty that is estimated at about $20
billion between 2020 and 2030 to the Federal Government for its failure
to meet its obligation to use renewables to the extent of 15 percent of
generating capacity, and that is money that would ultimately have to be
paid by the ratepayers.
Twenty-five States where renewable resources exist have their own
renewables mandates. That is the way it ought to be handled, State by
State, not through a one-size-fits-all national solution. In fact, one
can hardly imagine a circumstance that is better suited to State by
State decisionmaking and less well suited to a national mandate.
The 25 States with their own programs have local renewable resources,
and they have tailored their State laws to fit that resource
availability. Their State laws make eligible a variety of different
kinds of fuels and other kinds of offsets in order to meet that 15
percent requirement. That is all tailored based on their local
resources available.
Virtually all of the States with programs make a broader range of
fuels eligible for inclusion under the mandate than does the amendment
that is pending before the committee for national application.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the House not to penalize ratepayers who happen
to live in areas that have few renewable

[[Page H9850]]

resources. I think that renewables should be encouraged, and in fact I
would like to see them encouraged to the greatest feasible extent. The
way to do that is State by State, not as a national mandate.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). He has just written a book on
energy. He is one of our big thinkers in the Democratic Party on this
issue.
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment really is critical because
we know one thing about America: when it sets grand goals, it is roused
to great advance. When John F. Kennedy on May 9, 1961, stood right
behind me and set a goal of America to go to the Moon in 10 years, the
U.S. Congress did not complain that at that moment we did not have all
the technologies we need to set that goal. But Kennedy knew that when
America sets goals, it achieves them.
Today, we set a goal to have 15 percent of our energy from renewable
sources. We know this is an achievable goal. We know that every State
in the continental United States, including the Southeast, has more
solar energy capacity than Germany, that today, cloudy Germany is
getting massive amounts of solar energy.
The reason is that we understand that we are the people who invented
the airplane, the Internet, software and mapped the human genome. And
we are going to do this together. We are going to use clean coal for
80, perhaps 89, percent using our fossil fuel. Is it too much to say
that we will use 11 percent for renewables, for wave, biofuels, solar,
and 4 percent for efficiency?
This is a moment for America to have the same spirit of the original
Apollo Project, and for the moment do not shirk and fear. Let's live
our dreams. Let's live our aspirations. Let's pass this amendment.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from the great State of Oregon (Mr. Walden), a member of the committee.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and I thank our
ranking member for yielding the time.
Mr. Chairman, I have been a believer that when it comes to RPS, they
are best implemented locally at the State level or regionally, and,
indeed, our State of Oregon has done so very effectively after much
consideration.
I came to the floor today thinking maybe this was a national version,
if we were going to have one, to incent renewable energy, which I am a
big advocate of, that this might work. But in reading this amendment as
it has been proposed over the last few days, there are some issues that
are contained therein that bring me to the point where I have to oppose
it.
Predominantly they relate around the sections that preclude certain
biomass, depending on where it came from, from counting toward the
Renewable Portfolio Standards requirement. I just don't understand why
if biomass taken off one part of a forest counts, biomass taken off
another part of a forest doesn't count. These are arbitrary decisions
contained on page 3 and elsewhere in this legislation.
I have an area in my district that has juniper trees that need to be
removed, and everyone agrees they need to be removed. You could remove
those juniper trees off the land not under the National Landscape
Conservation District boundaries and they would count toward the
biomass, toward Renewable Portfolio Standards, but those contained
therein would not. The same with roadless wilderness study areas and
things of that nature.
Additionally, I am concerned about a definition I just ran across
involving rural electric co-ops and how that could be defined, because
I know there are some co-ops that aren't necessarily rural only.
Finally, I would love to know why Hawaii is completely exempted from
it.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my friend from Oregon and
colleague's concerns, and as we have talked, I think his point is well
taken in terms of the definition of biomass. I have indicated to the
gentleman that I would be willing to work with him to make sure that
this modest adjustment is made. I don't think there is any intent, and
I look forward to working with him to make sure that that is solved.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to work with
both of the gentleman to see that we correct this. I think this is
something that we can work on and we can iron out.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Kirk), who I know is very interested in renewable energy issues and has
been a leader on that front.
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, because
an increase in renewable energy for our country will be an increase in
American energy. Frankly, I would rather pay the Midwest than the
Mideast for energy.
As someone who still serves in the military, I would like to
accelerate a day in the future in which our dependence on foreign
energy is less of a concern to the Pentagon. Half of our States have
already led with these kinds of standards.
The Founding Fathers intended States to advance laws and standards
before the national government did. They have led on this, and now it
is time for our country to pitch in.
This amendment helps us to pay Americans, not foreigners; it reduces
our impact on the environment; but, most importantly, it makes it less
likely than the Pentagon of 2020 is worried about foreign sources of
energy.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from the great State of Arkansas (Mr. Ross), a member of the committee.
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the development of
renewable resources. However, establishing a nationwide standard
through a one-size-fits-all approach makes this goal unachievable for
States like my home State of Arkansas.
In fact, if this amendment passes, I will be forced to vote against
an energy bill that I helped write. The energy bill went nine, 10 or 11
committees without this language, and here we are in the eleventh hour
trying to put it on the bill in the House floor.
My home State's wind capacity is minimal. And while we have great
potential for biomass, the industry is years away. That means that in
the meantime, this requirement would force consumers to have to bear
the burden of making these technologies cost effective.
Arkansans are among some of the lowest income in the United States,
and this requirement will disproportionately affect them, resulting in
their being forced to pay up to $15 more a month for electricity. That
is why the Arkansas Public Service Commission, appointed by a
Democratic Governor, has come out against this amendment.
If this amendment is so great, why has its authors exempted municipal
power systems, the TVA, electric co-ops and the State of Hawaii?
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, let me take this opportunity, first of
all, to thank you. This is a historic day. We hear the Presidential
candidates on both sides, Republican and Democrat, talk about the
importance of securing our Nation with energy. This is one of the first
steps in order to do that. We have to take these steps. This gives us
an opportunity to begin to secure our Nation, to reduce our dependency
on the volatile supply of fossil fuels so we will be able to be more
independent as we move forward.
This opportunity also provides economic security for our Nation as a
whole. It is also a historical moment in terms of renewing that energy
that is out there besides in terms of just looking at the existing
ones.
In addition, let me just take this opportunity to say that this is
about ensuring a clean and healthy future for our children and
grandchildren and future generations. This has to begin to occur now.
Yes, it has got its difficulties, but it is the first step in the
right direction, to make sure we do the right thing. I want to
encourage each and every one of you to vote in favor of this particular
bill.

[[Page H9851]]

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to
a former Member of the committee from the great State of California
(Mr. Bilbray).
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the
exemptions in this motion. I find it hard to believe that anyone who
wants to really fight greenhouse gases is going to try to have winners
and losers and allow these major exemptions that are in this bill.
The City of Los Angeles is going to continue to go without the same
mandates and requirements and standards that the City of San Diego
would have. Why are public utilities exempt in this bill, as if their
emissions are not going to affect the environment, as if government is
somehow immune? Government should be leading, not being exempted.
Mr. Chairman, as many surfers know, like myself, Hawaii has some of
the most sun, wind and surf of any State in America. Why are Hawaii
emissions exempt from this mandate when the rest are included? These
exemptions are irresponsible and do not justify the environmental
intention of this motion.
I have strongly supported the intention, but it is too bad that
special interests, special lobbying and the back-room deals have snuck
in these exemptions that should not have ever existed.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), who has worked on these issues
for many years.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I waited 20 years for a debate like this, so
thank you to this Congress.
I live, all of us live, in the greatest country in the world; but we
consume and waste too much energy and we are vulnerable to oil-rich
states in a part of the world that would do us harm. We need to work
towards energy independence, freedom from declining energy sources,
freedom from nations who would do us harm.
Thirteen years to reach 11 percent renewable and 4 percent efficiency
that is doable. We need to set this goal and then strive every day to
reach it. And it is not as hard as the opponents would have us believe.
Biomass, which includes so much, incremental hydropower, solar and
solar water heating, wind, ocean tidal, geothermal, distributed energy,
PURPA-qualified facilities. This is a goal we can reach. At least we
should strive to reach it. We have 13 years to do it, and we need to
start today.

{time} 1415

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from the Keystone State of Pennsylvania, Mr. Clean Energy, Mr.
Peterson.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I thank the chairman of the committee
for yielding me this time.
Currently, 3 percent of the grid is renewables. I wish there was a
quick way we could turn the switch on and get to 15 in this short
period of time. Such a mandate will raise power rates for many. A
Federal RPS will undermine the existing programs in 25 States. Nowhere
will this be more harmful than in Pennsylvania where we allow 20
different sources of energy to meet our 12 percent RPS.
Folks, wind and solar are our hope and dreams, but they are very,
very small. And when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine,
we have a redundant source of energy for them, and that is natural gas,
which has become the most expensive source of electricity today because
we have been unwilling to produce it.
We will cause States that don't have what they need to pay much
higher rates, and we will not have the growth and increase of renewable
electricity that we want. We have 50 States. Incentivize all of them to
go out and meet these standards, but don't do a Federal mandate. It
will work some places; it will cause harm in other places. Let the 50
States determine.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from California, chairman of the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform and a real leader on renewable energy issues, Mr.
Waxman.
Mr. WAXMAN. People should not look for reasons to be against this
amendment, they should look for reasons to be for it. It is in our
natural interest. It is a win for our environment. It is a win for
energy independence. It is a win for our national security.
L.A. County is a municipal system. They are reducing 20 percent and
diverting it to renewables.
Let's recognize when we have more renewable energy, it provides jobs,
it provides a better future and a better chance to accomplish what we
need to do in this Nation.
I congratulate Mr. Platts and Mr. Tom Udall, and urge my colleagues
to vote for the amendment.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am the remaining speaker. I know
Mr. Udall has the right to close, so I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New Hampshire, a leader in the freshman class on this
issue, Mr. Paul Hodes.
Mr. HODES. Mr. Chairman, the challenge of energy independence is
perhaps the greatest challenge we face for the future of this country
and our planet. It means national security, and it means jobs in the
21st century, and it means meeting the challenge of global climate
change.
Twenty-three States have already adopted a renewable portfolio
standard. In my State of New Hampshire, we have a standard of 25
percent by the year 2025. We should not be hampered by fear that we
cannot accomplish great things in the country. Our entrepreneurs and
our free market system are ready to meet the challenge. They are
waiting for a national standard, for a renewable portfolio standard to
provide them the certainty to move forward. It is certainty to the free
market that this standard will meet. It is time for a national
standard.
I support this amendment. I urge my colleagues and all those who
understand the power of the entrepreneur in America and the free
markets to support this amendment. It is time for full speed ahead.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. May I inquire if the sponsor has any other
speakers?
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Yes, I do.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I would like the gentlewoman
from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) to speak for 1 minute. She has helped
enormously in this effort. She is a key player on the Energy and
Commerce Committee.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, if we really want to achieve energy
independence, we need to make a national commitment to a common floor
for a renewable portfolio standard. One size does not fit all, and
that's why this amendment sets up a flexible, market-based trading
system that lets utilities choose whether to develop renewable
generation themselves or purchase credits from firms that have lower
costs. If everybody does this, natural gas in the south and other
places will go down.
The concept of an RPS is not new, but recently it is gaining support
like never before. Twenty-three States have passed versions of this. In
my State of Colorado, the voters passed this over the objection of
industry and the utilities. It was so successful that the legislature
and Governor, with the support of industry, utilities and the farm
community, increased our RPS by 20 percent by 2020 this year.
It is the right thing to do. It is a good national commitment, and we
believe by working together we can all meet this standard.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I recognize the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) for 30 seconds. He knows this issue very well
and I think has some important words for us.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the question: Is
ingenuity dead in America? I don't think it is.
If we look at the bottom of the bottomless pit, the bottom of the
bottomless pit which we assume is an oil well, we will not find oil, we
will find ingenuity. This is an issue of how America can rise to the
occasion, provide for better national security, provide for a dynamic
economy based on new technology, provide for a sound environment, and
provide for the question of morality in this issue to our
grandchildren.
Ingenuity is not dead in America. Vote ``aye'' on this amendment.

[[Page H9852]]

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have been informed as a member
of the committee I have the right to close. I would ask the sponsor to
close, and then I will close.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, the staff work has been
incredible on this, including my legislative director. I want to thank
them all.
My cousin, who has been a key part in this effort, gave up his time
so the Republicans could speak in a spirit of bipartisanship. With
that, I would urge the rest of my colleagues to join me and my friends
in passing this amendment and putting America on a path to a more
secure energy future, create hundreds of thousands of jobs, and reduce
the energy bills for our children and grandchildren.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
We have had a good debate, Mr. Chairman. It is an issue that needs to
be debated. But the amendment reminds me of a Hollywood starlet, and
the authors remind me of a Hollywood cosmetic surgeon. This amendment
has been nipped and tucked so much that it is hard to recognize the
original amendment. It is still not ready for its screen test.
I would hope that we defeat the amendment so we can then work
together on a bipartisan basis on a renewable portfolio standard that
could be supported. If you included nuclear power, if you included all
sources of biomass, if you included the entire United States of
America, and you didn't exempt one from the other, if you included
municipal utilities like the Los Angeles Power and Light Utility that
Mr. Waxman spoke about, you might have a basis on coming to an
agreement that could be agreed upon by both sides of the aisle and some
of the people that are now opposed to it.
But this particular amendment needs to be opposed for all of the
reasons that people like Mr. Boucher has said and Mr. Stearns has said
and Mr. Ross and Mr. Boren and others have said. So I do hope when it
comes time for the vote that the House rejects this amendment so we can
work in the future on something that might be supported. I ask for a
``no'' vote.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to
this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud to come from a state that has an impressive
renewable energy standard--or RES--that was developed by Texans, for
Texans, and that meets the needs of our state.
Unlike most state RES plans, which are based on a specific percentage
of sales, the Texas RES plan has a fixed statewide renewable capacity
requirement of 5,880 megawatts (MW) by 2015, which would represent
about 5 percent of the state's energy capacity.
This isn't a question of whether or not we should encourage states to
produce more electricity from renewable sources--we should. The
question is whether a one-size-fits-all federal mandate is the best way
to accomplish this goal.
States like ours are already encouraging the development of renewable
energy resources. Because of the diversity of state RES plans, any
federal RES mandate could undercut or preempt those efforts. Some
states promote resources--like nuclear, fuel cells, biogas, or bio-
diesel--that are not considered an eligible resource under this
amendment.
I am most concerned with the impact on my constituents' electricity
bills with a federal RES. I represent an underserved area where hard-
working families cannot afford to face higher energy costs.
In order to meet a 15 percent Federal RES by 2020, based on a 30
percent capacity factor, Texas would need 29,159 MW of intermittent
renewable capacity in operation by 2020. This is a 953 percent increase
over its existing wind capacity, a 767 percent increase over its
existing non-hydro renewable capacity, and a 396 percent increase over
the 2015 state RES requirement of 5,880 MW.
Texas utilities will likely be forced to make payments to the Federal
Government to meet this federal mandate.
Voting against this amendment doesn't mean you're against renewable
electricity generation. It only means you believe each state should
decide for themselves the goals and targets that meet each state's
unique capabilities.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the
Udall/Platts amendment that will establish a Federal renewable
portfolio standard of 15 percent by the year 2020.
By ensuring that 15 percent of the electricity we produce comes from
renewable sources by 2020, we take another great step forward, just
like we did when we passed the Energy Policy Act of 2007, in working
towards the goal of energy independence.
In addition to the goal of energy independence, this amendment also
takes steps toward an issue that we as a country need to ban together
to fight . . . and that is global warming.
The Federal renewable portfolio standard we are debating here today
by 2030 will save consumers an estimated $16.4 billion on their energy
bills and an estimated $10 billion on their electricity bills.
In addition, the amendment will increase our renewable energy
capacity to 91 gigawatts and it's estimated that annual power plant
carbon emissions will be reduced by 180 million metric tons.
For my rural 11th District of Illinois, renewable sources of energy
like wind and biomass are producing new jobs and revitalizing many
small towns.
There are currently two wind farms in my district, Mendota Hills and
Crescent Ridge, with an additional two more, Twin Groves and McLean
Wind Energy Center, in the works. The Crescent Ridge project, once
completed will be one of the largest wind farms in the country.
Since passage of the Energy Bill, we have seen over $100 million
invested in Wind energy with a total investment of close to a billion
dollars.
The American Wind Energy Association estimates that for every new
megawatt (MW) of wind energy, 15-19 direct and indirect jobs are
created. There are about 826 MWs of planned wind production in various
stages in Illinois. That translates into 14,868 jobs in Illinois.
By establishing a Federal renewable portfolio standard, we can
continue this growth in renewable energy and continue to produce many
more new jobs.
While I do support the underlying amendment, I believe it lacks one
critical component. That is the inclusion of nuclear power as part of
the standard.
I have the distinct pleasure of representing a district that has the
most nuclear power plants of any member of Congress.
Accounting for close to 20% of the electricity produced here in the
United States, nuclear energy cannot be ignored.
With the focus of an RPS to not only drive us towards energy
independence but to reduce carbon emissions, you cannot leave out an
energy source like nuclear that produces 0 emissions.
I am hopeful that when we move forward with this policy that I can
work with the sponsors of this amendment to have this clean burning
energy source included.
In closing, I would like to take the opportunity to commend
Congressmen Udall and Platts for offering their amendment today and ask
that all of my colleagues support this amendment.
Most of our States are moving towards renewable portfolio standards;
its time for our country as a whole to become the leader.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Van Hollen

The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in part B of House Report 110-300.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Van Hollen:
In section 9117(a), in the amendment adding paragraph (18)
to section 111(d) of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies
Act of 1978, in paragraph (18)(B), strike ``and'' in clause
(iv), strike the period at the end of clause (v) and insert
``; and'' and after clause (v) insert:

``(vi) offering home energy audits, publicizing the
financial and environmental benefits associated with making
home energy efficiency improvements, and educating homeowners
about all existing Federal and State incentives, including
the availability of low-cost loans, that make home energy
efficiency improvements more affordable.''.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 615, the gentleman

[[Page H9853]]

from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, this bill before us establishes many
important incentives for consumers to make savings through the use of
improvements in energy efficiency. However, I think we all understand
that those incentives only work if consumers know about them and they
are easily accessible, and that is what this noncontroversial amendment
aims to do.
It simply adds a sixth policy option for States to consider in title
IX of the underlying bill. It asks States and asks utilities to partner
with us to promote the use of home energy audits, to educate homeowners
about the financial and environmental benefits associated with
residential energy efficiency improvements, and to publicize the
availability of Federal and State incentives to make residential energy
efficiency improvements more affordable. In short, this amendment
represents a voluntary, commonsense way to drive consumers towards the
very incentives we encourage them to use in this bill.
Mr. Chairman, this comprehensive energy package represents a long-
overdue course correction and a new vision for energy policy in the
United States. Today, we are beginning to make good on our commitment
to redirect many of the wasteful subsidies away from already highly
profitable oil and gas companies towards the renewable energy and
energy efficiency technologies of the future.
These investments will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. They
will help combat the growing problem of climate change by reducing our
carbon dioxide emissions by 10.4 billion tons through the year 2030,
more than the total of all tailpipe emissions from all of the cars on
the road today.
As we generate cleaner power, we will also generate an estimated 3
million good-paying jobs over the next 10 years while investing in
small business, economic development and high-payoff research at the
Department of Energy.
And its energy efficiency provisions that we hope this amendment will
encourage more consumers to go toward will save consumers if they take
advantage of them, a staggering $300 billion through the year 2030,
demonstrating once again that the cheapest kind of energy is the kind
we never have to use.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is designed to ensure that American
consumers know of the new possibilities before them. Many who oppose
this bill focus on what they claim America cannot do. Those of us who
support this bill have great faith in the creative energy and
entrepreneurial spirit of the American people and our capacity to find
innovative solutions to the challenges we face.
I encourage my colleagues to adopt this amendment which is in the
spirit of the overall bill.
Mr. Chairman, this bill establishes many important incentives for
consumers to make savings through the use of improvements in energy
efficiency. However, those incentives only work if consumers know about
them and they are easily accessible. That is what this non-
controversial amendment aims to do. It simply adds a sixth policy
option for states to consider in Title IX of the underlying bill. It
asks states and utilities to partner with us to promote the use of home
energy audits; to educate homeowners about the financial and
environmental benefits associated with residential energy efficiency
improvements and to publicize the availability of Federal and State
incentives to make residential energy efficiency improvements more
affordable. In short, this amendment represents a voluntary, common-
sense way to drive consumers toward the incentives we encourage them to
use.
Mr. Chairman, this comprehensive energy package represents a long
overdue course correction and a new vision for energy policy in the
United States. Today, we are making good on our commitment to redirect
huge wasteful subsidies away from our already highly profitable oil and
gas companies toward the renewable energy and energy efficiency
technologies of the future.
These new investments will reduce our dependability on foreign oil.
They will significantly enhance our ability to combat global climate
change--by reducing our carbon dioxide emissions by 10.4 billion tons
through 2030, more than the total tailpipe emissions from all the cars
on the road today.
And while these investments generate more clean energy they will also
generate an estimated 3 million good-paying jobs over the next 10 years
while investing in small business economic development and high-payoff
research at the Department of Energy.
And its energy efficiency provisions will save consumers and
businesses a staggering $300 billion through 2030--demonstrating once
again that the cheapest kind of energy is the kind you never have to
use.
This amendment is designed to ensure that American consumers know of
the new possibilities before them. Many who oppose this bill focus on
what they claim America cannot do. Those of us who support this bill
have great faith in the creative energy and entrepreneurial spirit of
the American people and our capacity to find innovative solutions to
the challenges we face.
I encourage my colleagues' support.
Mr. BOUCHER. Would the gentleman from Maryland yield?
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I would be happy to yield to Mr. Boucher, and I want
to commend him for his important work on this bill.
Mr. BOUCHER. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his comments.
I want to commend the gentleman for bringing this amendment before the
committee today.
Home energy audits can be extremely helpful in encouraging energy
efficiency. Most people are very surprised to learn just how energy
inefficient, how leaky their homes actually are, and how inexpensively
those energy leaks can be remedied and plugged simply by putting
sealing and other kinds of technologies around doors and windows and
around the roof.
Requiring States to consider holding their utilities to a Federal
standard that would enable them to offer home energy audits, and in
fact require that, to educate consumers and to publicize low-interest
loans to finance these improvements could lead to many audits that
otherwise are not likely to occur. Those audits in turn would lead to
major energy savings we are not currently obtaining.
As long as implementation of the amendment takes into proper account
any potential to create undue competition between utilities that are
offering home energy audits and the private entities that are already
doing so, this amendment would create an excellent standard for
consideration by the States. I am pleased to urge its adoption.

{time} 1430

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Virginia, and
I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does anyone rise in opposition?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I can't say we really support it,
but we don't oppose it. So we don't seek any time on it.
I yield back my time.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, in that case, I urge adoption of the
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Schwartz

The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in House Report 110-300.
Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 8 offered by Ms. Schwartz:
In part 4 of subtitle A of title IX, add at the end the
following new section:

SEC. 9053. GREEN MEETINGS.

(a) Purchase of Meeting and Conference Services.--Not later
than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,
the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy shall ensure
that the Federal Acquisition Regulation is revised to require
each Federal agency to consider, in each purchase of meeting
and conference services, the environmentally preferable
features and practices of a vendor in a manner substantially
similar to that required of the Environmental Protection
Agency in section 1523.703-1 (relating to acquisition of
environmentally preferable meeting and conference services)
and section 1552.223-71 (relating to EPA Green Meetings and
Conferences) of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations, as set
forth in the Environmental Protection Agency final rule
published on pages 18401 through 18404 of volume 72, Federal
Register (April 12, 2007).

[[Page H9854]]

(b) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the terms ``environmentally preferable'' and ``Federal
agency'' have the meanings given them by section 2.101 of the
Federal Acquisition Regulation; and
(2) the term ``meeting and conference services'' means the
use of off-site commercial facilities for a Federal agency
event, including an event for a meeting, conference, training
session, or other purpose.

Amend the table of contents accordingly.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 615, the
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.
Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
First, let me say I'm strongly supportive of the underlying bill that
we are debating today. I think it moves us forward toward energy
independence. It's exciting for all American businesses, for
conservation, for energy efficiency and for the future of this country
and this world.
My amendment is fairly straightforward. It helps us move us toward
more green policies. Each year, the Federal Government spends $14
billion for travel, most of that money going for hotels and for meeting
spaces. These are taxpayer dollars that should be used to encourage the
reduction of energy consumption. For instance, if one hotel initiates a
linen and towel reuse program, it can conserve 200 barrels of oil,
enough to run a family car 180,000 miles.
My amendment moves the United States towards green government by
ensuring that the Federal Government considers the environmental
benefits of the vendors with which they contract for meetings and
conferences. This proposal expands upon a policy already used by the
Environmental Protection Agency.
The EPA says this policy, they hope, ``is seen as a template that
eventually may be emulated governmentwide.'' My amendment expedites
implementation of this policy across the Federal Government and
requires that within 180 days all Federal agencies must consider the
environmentally preferable features and practices of a vendor in a
manner that's substantially similar to the EPA.
I urge support of this amendment.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. SCHWARTZ. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and
I rise in support of her amendment and am pleased to urge its adoption.
The Environmental Protection Agency has criteria presently assuring
that any conferences that the EPA conducts are held at the highest
standards for energy efficiency and for minimum environmental impact.
This amendment would simply require all Federal agencies holding
conferences and meetings to consider meeting these criteria. It's a
step forward, and I'm pleased to urge its adoption.
Ms. SCHWARTZ. I thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does anyone rise in opposition?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, we're neutral on the amendment and
seek no time in opposition.
I yield back my time.
Ms. SCHWARTZ. I yield back my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Arcuri

The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9
printed in part B of House Report 110-300.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Arcuri:
In title IX, insert the following at the end of part 1 of
subtitle B and make the necessary conforming amendments in
the table of contents:

SEC. 9119. EMINENT DOMAIN AUTHORITY.

Section 216 of the Federal Power Act (as added by section
1221 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005) is amended by
repealing subsections (f) and by amending subsection (e) to
read as follows:
``(e) Acquisition of Rights-of-Way.--In the case of a
permit under subsection (b) for electric transmission
facilities to be located on property other than property
owned by the United States or a State, if the permit holder
cannot acquire by contract, or is unable to agree with the
owner of the property to the compensation to be paid for, the
necessary right-of-way to construct or modify the
transmission facilities, the permit holder may acquire the
right-of-way in accordance with State law for the State in
which the property is located.''.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 615, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Arcuri) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My amendment would remove the right of a private company with a
project that has already been approved by FERC to use the Federal
Government's supreme power of eminent domain to take private property
from landowners. Contrary to what the utility companies claim, my
amendment would not leave an approved company without any recourse.
No, instead it would merely require the approved company to follow
the existing State law procedure for obtaining a right-of-way. States
have laws that help companies with approved power projects obtain the
necessary right-of-ways, and these laws work. They have worked for many
years. I know of no power line project anywhere in the country that has
ever failed to be completed once it had been approved and the company
held the necessary permits to begin construction.
We understand that there are serious energy needs facing this country
that must be addressed swiftly and judiciously. All this amendment does
is permit an already approved company from using Federal eminent domain
to drag a property owner into Federal court and take his land. That is
a supreme power of the Federal Government.
This is not a Democratic or Republican issue or liberal or
conservative issue. This is about protecting the rights of the citizens
of this country.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to
this amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I think that those of us who are
Members of the House who have watched this debate have seen that, as we
have actually debated various amendments, I've gone out of my way to be
as supportive of as many of the amendments as possible. We have
accepted a number of them with no debate at all. So it's not in any
spirit of partisanship or anything like that that I rise in opposition
to this.
In the Energy Policy Act 2 years ago, at the request and after
extensive consultation with stakeholders, we put in a provision that in
certain cases gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the
authority to go in and arbitrate in some of these interstate
transmission, grid transmission lines where the States have not been
able to reach agreements among themselves. It's a very limited
authority, but part of that does give eminent domain authority that is
the intent of this amendment to strike.
We don't have enough transmission grid capacity in this country right
now. We need to be building more power plants. We also need to be
building more transmission lines to get that power to the market. This
amendment, if successfully passed, would gut what we just did 2 years
ago.
There have been a number of other attempts to change this part of the
Energy Policy Act. The latest attempt was in June when Congressman
Hinchey tried to strip out or gut section 216. It lost on the House
floor 174-257. I hope that this amendment has a similar fate if it
comes to a rollcall vote.
We simply have to have the ability in this country to move
electricity from where we generate it to where we consume it, and in
some States like Texas, Alaska, some of the large Western States, you
can actually generate it in one State and use it in the same

[[Page H9855]]

States, which means you are transmitting it in intrastate commerce, but
in most of our States, you're going to have transmission lines across
State lines. So we have to have some Federal agency to serve as an
arbitrator when the States can't agree amongst themselves.
And in the Energy Policy Act 2 years ago, we gave that authority,
under limited circumstances, to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission. I think it was the appropriate thing to do, and I hope that
we keep that authority, and I hope we would, thus, oppose this
particular amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully disagree with my colleague
from Texas. This amendment would not gut the bill. In fact, it would
just give the States the right to have some input into where the power
lines are going to be run in the State the same way that they have
input in the State of Texas.
With that, I yield 1 minute to my good friend and fellow New Yorker
(Mr. Hall).
Mr. HALL of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding, and I stand in strong support of this amendment.
I stand here speaking for my constituents at the Mount Hope
Presbyterian Church in Orange County, New York, whose right-of-way to
their church, a pillar of their community, will be cut off by the 130-
foot-high tower for a power line that will be stuck in their driveway.
I stand here speaking for the owner of the Otisville, New York,
hardware store, another mainstay of the community, and for his
customers and his employees whose store will be leveled to put a tower
there for the transmission line because they are running it literally
down Main Street in patriotic, hardworking, taxpaying, all-American
town of Otisville, New York.
Only one of the many stories of the NYRI power line, one of these
supposedly national interest electric transmission corridors. In the
name of property rights and in the name of States' rights and in the
name of due process and protecting ordinary Americans from having their
rights run over by some distant Federal agency that they don't
understand, I plead for support of this amendment.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. May I ask how much time I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas has 2 minutes.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, this is a complex issue,
and I wish we had more time to really debate it, but it is a very
important issue because this language was in the energy bill because we
had problems across this country around our centers where a lot of
electricity is used.
New York is the biggest user of electricity, but if we do this, we're
saying that we have enough. If surrounding States such as Pennsylvania,
an energy exporting State, took the same attitude, New York would be in
the dark. Indeed, more reasonable New Yorkers realize this as
demonstrated by the following statement from Mr. Gil Quiniones, Chair
of the New York Energy Policy Task Force: ``The designation of vitally
needed transmission corridors will enhance the public welfare both in
the Nation at large and in New York City as the Nation's most critical
financial and commercial center.''
Join me in defeating this amendment. This is scare tactics. These are
very limited powers that are used already on gas transmission lines.
They've not been abused, but when we have disagreements between States
and we have local groups who are just anti everything in energy, we
need the ability to get electric and gas to our cities so they can
function.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have
remaining?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York has 3 minutes.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Chairman, I would submit that this is nothing about
scare tactics. In fact, this morning I received notice from our
Governor, who is a resident of New York City, supporting this amendment
because this will help us get power to New York City in a responsible
way. That's what this amendment is about. It's not about preventing it.
It's about helping it to be done in a responsible way.
And with that, I yield 1 minute to my fellow New Yorker (Mr.
Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. I express my appreciation to my friend and colleague
from New York (Mr. Arcuri) for putting this amendment out so that we
can have an opportunity to discuss it.
As we have just heard, this amendment is supported strongly by the
Governor of New York, and in fact, it is supported essentially by every
Governor across the States. Why is that? Because this amendment makes
it clear that the issue of eminent domain constitutionally belongs in
the hands of the State, not the Federal Government, and it simply says
that there is no impediment about these lines but decisions with regard
to eminent domain should be placed in the hands of the State and the
State government.
People should have a right to be able to protect their private
personal property rights, and issues involving transmission lines and
others that may require the use of private property are to be dealt
with in a reasonable and lawful way, and this is what this amendment
simply does.
It's very straightforward, very direct, and in no way impedes
anything that is going to be injurious to any issue involving
electricity or anything else. It simply asserts the rights of private
property.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to a member of
the committee, Mr. Green of Texas.
(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
amendment.
I don't know how many times this Congress has to vote against this.
It's been defeated twice during the appropriations process.
Every analysis of the past decade has confirmed the critical need to
expand and upgrade our Nation's transmission infrastructure, a need
that's already raising the cost of electricity to many Americans and
proving a barrier to diversifying our energy resources. Now is not the
time to take a step backward.
I think it's interesting our three colleagues from New York, if it's
an interstate line, it doesn't matter, but you may have problems
getting it to New York. But also, New York was the last place that had
a blackout simply because there was a problem in Ohio.
We need to have these transmission corridors across our country.
This amendment removes from federal law the grant of eminent domain
authority that comes with the issuance of a construction permit by the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, to a critical transmission
project located in severely congested areas.
The Arcuri amendment would eliminate from the Energy Policy Act of
2005 the incentive provided for states to cure gaps in their state
siting laws that are especially apparent when interstate projects are
needed.
Nowhere else has Congress authorized FERC to grant approval for
energy projects--such as natural gas pipelines--without also assuring
the necessary federal eminent domain authority accompanies the permit,
license, or certificate.
Under EPAct 2005, the only projects FERC will consider are those that
are critically needed and for which States could not or would not act
to approve in timely manner.
Yet, the Arcuri-Hinchey-Hall amendment would establish greater
barriers to the success of these projects than any other energy
project.
The same grant of eminent domain authority that is available to all
other energy projects approved by FERC should be available to these
critical transmission projects.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

{time} 1445

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Chairman, in closing, there is an old saying that we
should think globally but act locally. That is exactly what this
amendment attempts to do. That is the idea behind this amendment.
We crafted it very narrowly, and despite some of the comments by the
speakers about the problems that this would create, it does no such
thing. In fact, it does just the opposite. This achieves all of the
things that we need in this country. That is, getting energy and power
to our large communities, to our large cities, to New York, to Los
Angeles, to the places that need it.

[[Page H9856]]

It does it in a responsible way. It does it in such a way that the
localities, the areas that we call the faucet, have some say in getting
the power to the sink, and that's the area that FERC refers to as the
place that needs the power, and, equally as important, that the people
along the way have some say as well.
That's what this amendment does; and, as I say, it is supported by,
as my friend, Mr. Hinchey, said, most of the Governors in this country.
The amendment deals with the concerns of localities. It deals with
the constitutional rights, the States' rights that our States are most
concerned with and, most importantly, it deals with the needs of all
Americans.
I strongly support this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do so
as well.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me simply say that
the Energy Policy Act requires that you go through the State siting
process first, including going through the State court system first. If
you have a problem there, you then have to get the Department of Energy
to designate the particular corridor as an electric transmission
corridor that's in the national interest. Then you go to the FERC, and
then they go through a hearing process that then can be subject to the
Federal court system.
What's in current law is carefully crafted to protect States' rights,
to protect the local community but also give the ability on rare
occasions to get a transmission line built that needs to be built.
I urge the defeat of the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Hodes

The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10
printed in part B of House Report 110-300.
Mr. HODES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Hodes:
In part 3 of subtitle A of title IX, add at the end the
following new section:

SEC. 9035. RENEWABLE ENERGY REBATE PROGRAM STUDY.

Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Energy shall conduct, and transmit to
Congress a report on, a study regarding the rebate program
described in section 206(c) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
The study shall--
(1) develop a plan for how such a rebate program would be
carried out if it were funded; and
(2) determine the minimum amount of funding the program
would need to receive in order to accomplish the goal of
encouraging consumers to install renewable energy systems in
their homes or small businesses.
Amend the table of contents accordingly.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 615, the gentleman
from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Hampshire.
Mr. HODES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today in support of an amendment offered by Mr. Welch of
Vermont, my distinguished colleague, and me. This amendment would order
a study using already appropriated funds to determine how best to
administer a renewable energy rebate program for homes and small
businesses.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 directed the Energy Secretary to
establish a rebate program to encourage consumers to use renewable
energy to power their homes and small businesses. It included a broad
definition of renewable energy, allowing Americans from every corner of
the country to benefit from such a rebate.
The program has great potential for helping those without the initial
capital to make their homes or small businesses green. However, after
the program's inclusion in the 2005 Act, Congress did not follow
through on its goal of encouraging renewable energy for families and
small business owners. While it was authorized for a total of $1
billion from fiscal years 2006 through 2010, not one penny has been
appropriated under this program to provide rebates under this program.
Now, more than ever, this program is essential to kick-start a clean
green energy revolution for millions of American family and our small
business owners.
Congress needs to know how we can make this program work. Our
amendment would require a study using existing Department of Energy
funds to create a plan for administering the rebate system and
estimating how much money the program would need to effectively
encourage families and small business owners to install renewable
energy systems. With this information in hand, Congress will be better
equipped to determine the best way to encourage renewable energy use.
Families and small businesses are among those who face the toughest
challenges in coping with rising energy costs. Congress has had the
good judgment to authorize a program to fix this program, and it's time
we make it work.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Boucher).
Mr. BOUCHER. I thank my distinguished colleague from New Hampshire
for yielding, and I commend him on bringing the amendment before the
committee.
Mr. Chairman, his amendment to title IX would order the Secretary of
Energy to conduct a study of the Renewable Energy Rebate Program for
homes and small businesses as that program is defined in the Energy
Policy Act of 2005. The study would require the creation of a plan for
the program and also determine a minimum amount of funding that the
program would need to be viable. It is a helpful addition to energy
policy, and I encourage its adoption.
Mr. HODES. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am only in mild opposition to
this, but I am in opposition. I don't really think we need this
particular study. It seems to be duplicative. It wouldn't be the worst
amendment ever adopted on the House floor, if it were to be adopted,
but I don't really think that it's necessary.
What I really want to talk about is the current Republican chief of
staff to the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Bud Albright, who is in
the Chamber behind me.
Last evening, the other body confirmed him to be the Under Secretary
of Energy, and so he will be leaving in the very near future to try to
use some of the great things he has learned from myself and Mr. Dingell
and Mr. Boucher and others for the benefit of the Department of Energy
and the people of the United States of America as the number three
person at the Department.
He began his public service career with the Department of Justice,
where he was a prosecutor. I got to know him when he came to the Energy
and Commerce Committee as my general counsel on the Oversight and
Investigations Subcommittee back in 1995. He went into private practice
for a time. Then, when I became the chairman of the committee 3\1/2\
years ago, I asked him to be the majority chief of staff; and he has
performed those duties in outstanding fashion. He has performed the
duties of the minority chief of staff in an outstanding fashion. He
will be leaving us to go to the Department of Energy.
I simply wanted to wish him the very best and tell him that he has
many, many friends on both sides of the aisle in the House of
Representatives. We fully expect him to comply with every Dingellgram
and every letter of request for information and witness appearance list
for the Department of Energy, which he will shortly be receiving in his
new duties as Under Secretary.
Mr. DINGELL. Would the gentleman yield?

[[Page H9857]]

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the distinguished chairman of the
full committee, Mr. Dingell.
Mr. DINGELL. I want to thank my distinguished friend from Texas (Mr.
Barton) for all the good work that he does. I want to express my
affection and respect for him. I want to thank him for raising the
question about the departure of Mr. Albright.
Mr. Albright has served the committee with distinction. He has been a
friend to all of us. He has been a wise counselor. He will be an
extraordinarily fine public servant when he moves to the Department of
Energy.
He will be missed here. He carries with him the affection, the
respect and the good wishes of all of us. I wish to have him know of my
friendship, affection and respect for him.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to my friend from Virginia (Mr.
Boucher).
Mr. BOUCHER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I want to associate myself with the comments of the chairman of our
committee, Mr. Dingell. Mr. Albright has performed a tremendous public
service in the years that he has served as staff director on the
Republican side of the committee, both in the majority and now in the
minority.
He now embarks on another phase of his career, and I am pleased to
note will be continuing in public service. I know he will do a fine
job. We are going to miss him, and I join with the other Members in
wishing him well.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I ask for a ``no'' vote on the amendment and
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HODES. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to my remaining time?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Hampshire has 2\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. HODES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my distinguished
colleague, Mr. Wolf of Virginia.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Arcuri
amendment.
This amendment simply authorizes the use of State eminent domain
authority rather than Federal eminent domain.
For those on our side, referencing for our side, this is, this is a
States' rights amendment. I urge Members on my side to support the
Arcuri amendment.
I want to say congratulations to Mr. Albright.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply authorizes the use of State
eminent domain authority rather than Federal eminent domain authority
when siting federally approved transmission lines.
This amendment is vital to the protection of the landscapes in my
district by recognizing State and local conservation easements and
designations. In the 10th District of Virginia, which I represent,
these designations protect the lands that George Washington surveyed,
that inspired Thomas Jefferson, and that Chief Justice John Marshall
farmed.
Millions of Federal, State, local and private funds have been used to
preserve and protect the lands now threatened by the designation of a
National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor which authorized the
Federal Government to override state transmission siting authority.
We must give these lands this limited protection. I urge you to
support this commonsense amendment to protect our private citizens and
our national treasures.
Mr. HODES. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting that this noncontroversial
amendment for a study is opposed. Since 2005, although the program has
been authorized, no money has been appropriated. It is an effective,
efficient use of resources to embark on a study with results to be
delivered to us in 120 days, so Congress knows how best to implement
the provisions of the program already authorized and how much it will
cost. We will then be in a position to make educated determinations
about how much money to appropriate for this very important program.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Barton

The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11
printed in House Report 110-300.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Mr. Murphy of
Pennsylvania, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Barton:
In section 9502(a), insert ``improvements in data on solid
byproducts from coal-based energy-producing facilities,''
after ``oil and gas data,''.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 615, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Barton) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would modify
section 9502(a) of H.R. 3221 to ensure that the Energy Information
Administration restores its previously terminated collection of data on
solid byproducts from coal-based energy producing facilities and makes
improvements on these data.
I don't think it's controversial, and I would ask its adoption.
Mr. BOUCHER. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from
Virginia.
Mr. BOUCHER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
A major purpose of our provisions in subtitle F of title IX is to
provide that the Energy Information Administration begin collecting
again important data that it once collected but discontinued collection
of under budget or personnel constraints, and data on solid byproducts
of coal use fell into that category.
Mr. Murphy's amendment would simply require that this data on solid
byproducts of coal use once again be corrected. We support it and urge
that amendment be adopted.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
The amendment was agreed to.

{time} 1500

Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Murphy of Connecticut

The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Serrano). It is now in order to consider
amendment No. 12 printed in part B of House Report 110-300.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Murphy of Connecticut:
In title IX, insert the following at the end of part 1 of
subtitle B and make the necessary conforming amendments in
the table of contents:

SEC. 9119. PUBLIC MEETINGS FOR CERTAIN FERC ACTIONS.

(a) In General.--Before issuing a permit, license, or other
authorization under part I of the Federal Power Act for any
action that may affect land use in any locality, the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission shall hold a public meeting in
that locality regarding such permit, license or other
authorization if such a meeting is requested by 5 or more
individuals or an organization representing 30 or more
individuals. The meeting shall be held before the end of any
period for public comment under Commission rules. Not more
than one public meeting need be held with respect to a single
permit, license or other authorization
(b) Multiple Areas.--In the case of a facility that affects
multiple areas, the meeting shall be held in a statistical
metropolitan area at a location reasonably central to the
affected areas.
(c) Motions To Reconsider.--The Commission shall hold such
a meeting whenever a request for reconsideration is granted
if the request was filed before the enactment of this section
and the Commission did not hold a hearing prior to issuing
the permit, license, or other authorization concerned.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 615, the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer an
amendment to H.R. 3221, to require the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, or better known as FERC, to hold public local meetings
before issuing permits or authorizations that will affect land use
decisions, if that meeting is requested by local citizens.

[[Page H9858]]

While FERC is required to have an open comment period before they
issue a rule, there is currently no mechanism right now to require that
they hold a public local hearing in an affected locality.
I bring this issue to the floor today, Mr. Chairman, because my
constituents who live in the community surrounding Candlewood Lake in
Connecticut were unable to secure a public hearing from FERC to air
their concerns regarding a shoreline management plan that would impose
new hefty fees on the residents that surround that lake and enjoy that
lake.
This amendment is based on a simple premise: Public policymakers
cannot and should not, frankly, act without the input of citizens who
will be affected by the decisions that they make.
As legislators, we know we can't simply sample public opinion by
sitting in our offices here in Washington and reading the mail that may
come in. We need to go back to our districts and solicit opinion there.
A regulatory agency should be held to the same standard, especially in
relation to hydropower assets, around which many citizens reside.
My amendment is a commonsense solution to the problem that any of us
could face. It does nothing to alter or constrain the decisions that
FERC may ultimately make; it just ensures the commission would hear all
sides before making any determination on land use issues and ensures
that our constituents' voices are heard.
Mr. Chairman, I understand that this issue may need more time for the
committee.
I would be happy to yield to the chairman for a short colloquy.
Mr. BOUCHER. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
commend him for bringing this matter before the committee today. It is
my understanding that he intends to ask that his amendment be withdrawn
momentarily.
Let me give assurance to the gentleman that we are sensitive to the
valid concerns that he has raised about the need to have public
participation in the processes of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission; and I want to pledge to him that we will work with him and
with the FERC to ensure that his constituents are heard with regard to
matters that affect them.
I thank the gentleman for yielding and commend him on bringing this
concern before the House.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Chairman, my intention is to withdraw this amendment. I look
forward also to working with my colleagues on the greater issue of
making sure that, in all cases, our constituents' voices are heard when
these decisions are handed down. As we move more control over Federal
power assets from States to the Federal Government, it seems that we
should still have safeguards in place to make sure that local citizens'
issues and concerns are taken into consideration by FERC, and I plan to
continue my advocacy of that cause.
I ask unanimous consent to have the amendment withdrawn at this
point.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.

Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Sali

The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13
printed in part B of House Report 110-300.
Mr. SALI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Sali:
In title IX, add at the end the following new subtitle:

Subtitle G--Large and Small Scale Hydropower

SEC. 9601. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

Congress recognizes and supports renewable energy.
Specifically, the clean, consistent, pollution free large and
small scale conventional hydropower energy.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 615, the gentleman
from Idaho (Mr. Sali) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Idaho.
Mr. SALI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to this
energy bill.
Let me start out by saying bluntly that I feel that this energy bill
is a step backward with virtually every topic that it covers.
With that being said, I do want to bring to light an issue that I
feel this bill does not cover and that issue is hydropower. My
amendment is simple. It expresses the sense of Congress recognizing and
supporting renewable energy; specifically, it will add clean,
consistent, pollution free, large and small scale conventional
hydropower to this bill.
My amendment is a sense of Congress supporting hydropower. If we are
going to discuss renewable energy, then we need to include hydropower.
It is clean, renewable, consistent, and, most importantly, pollution
free. Hydropower works all the time and should be a part of this bill
because hydropower in America produces no greenhouse gas emissions. In
fact, hydropower offsets more carbon emissions than all other renewable
energy resources combined. Let me say that again: hydropower offsets
more carbon emissions than all other renewable energy resources
combined.
We have heard a lot about greenhouse gas emissions. Mr. Chairman, if
we are serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, than we need to
recognize hydropower produces zero greenhouse gas emissions. Last year
alone, we avoided some 160 million tons of carbon emissions by the use
of hydropower here in the United States.
I am from the Pacific Northwest, from Idaho. We are truly blessed to
have more than 60 percent of the power in the Pacific Northwest come
from hydropower. In fact, there is so much power produced in the
Northwest from hydropower that we often sell our excess supply to areas
such as Southern California, where they historically have a shortage at
certain times of the year.
I feel strongly that Congress needs to support conventional
hydropower, and that is why I am offering this amendment today.
In closing, I want to remind my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
that hydropower is emission free, completely renewable, clean, and
domestic. That is right, it is domestic. I would urge my colleagues to
vote ``yes'' on this Sali amendment.
Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 2\1/2\ minutes left.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SALI. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. BOUCHER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I commend him on
this amendment that would simply express the sense of the Congress,
recognizing the benefits of both large-scale and small-scale
hydroelectric projects. We accept the amendment and urge its adoption.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. SALI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for accepting the
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Sali).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. SALI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Idaho will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Welch of Vermont

The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14
printed in part B of House Report 110-300.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Welch of Vermont:
In part IV of subtitle A of title IX, add at the end the
following new section:

SEC. 9077. ENERGY SUSTAINABILITY AND EFFICIENCY GRANTS FOR
INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION.

Part G of title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation
Act is amended by inserting

[[Page H9859]]

after section 399 (42 U.S.C. 371h) the following:

``SEC. 399A. ENERGY SUSTAINABILITY AND EFFICIENCY GRANTS FOR
INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION.

``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Energy sustainability.--The term `energy
sustainability' includes using a renewable energy resource
and a highly efficient technology for electricity generation,
transportation, heating, or cooling.
``(2) Institution of higher education.--The term
`institution of higher education' has the meaning given the
term in section 2 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C.
15801).
``(b) Grants for Energy Efficiency Improvement.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall award not more than
100 grants per year to institutions of higher education to
carry out projects to improve energy efficiency on the
grounds and facilities of the institution of higher
education, including not less than 1 grant to an institution
of higher education in each State.
``(2) Condition.--As a condition of receiving a grant under
this subsection, an institution of higher education shall
agree to--
``(A) implement a public awareness campaign concerning the
project in the community in which the institution of higher
education is located; and
``(B) submit to the Secretary, and make available to the
public, reports on any efficiency improvements, energy cost
savings, and environmental benefits achieved as part of a
project carried out under paragraph (1).
``(c) Grants for Innovation in Energy Sustainability.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall award not more than
250 grants per year to institutions of higher education to
engage in innovative energy sustainability projects,
including not less than 2 grants to institutions of higher
education in each State.
``(2) Innovation projects.--An innovation project carried
out with a grant under this subsection shall--
``(A) involve--
``(i) an innovative technology that is not yet commercially
available; or
``(ii) available technology in an innovative application
that maximizes energy efficiency and sustainability;
``(B) have the greatest potential for testing or
demonstrating new technologies or processes; and
``(C) ensure active student participation in the project,
including the planning, implementation, evaluation, and other
phases of the project.
``(3) Condition.--As a condition of receiving a grant under
this subsection, an institution of higher education shall
agree to submit to the Secretary, and make available to the
public, reports that describe the results of the projects
carried out under paragraph (1).
``(d) Awarding of Grants.--
``(1) Application.--An institution of higher education that
seeks to receive a grant under this section may submit to the
Secretary an application for the grant at such time, in such
form, and containing such information as the Secretary may
prescribe.
``(2) Selection.--The Secretary shall establish a committee
to assist in the selection of grant recipients under this
section.
``(e) Allocation to Institutions of Higher Education With
Small Endowments.--Of the amount of grants provided for a
fiscal year under this section, the Secretary shall provide
not less than 50 percent of the amount to institutions of
higher education that have an endowment of not more than
$100,000,000, with 50 percent of the allocation set aside for
institutions of higher education that have an endowment of
not more than $50,000,000.
``(f) Grant Amounts.--The maximum amount of grants for a
project under this section shall not exceed--
``(1) in the case of grants for energy efficiency
improvement under subsection (b), $1,000,000; or
``(2) in the case of grants for innovation in energy
sustainability under subsection (c), $500,000.
``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to
carry out this section for each of fiscal years 2008 through
2012.''.
Amend the table of contents accordingly.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 615, the gentleman
from Vermont (Mr. Welch) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Chairman, at the outset I want to thank the
dean of the House, Mr. Dingell. Last night I needed his help, and he
gave it to me to help make this amendment in order. He told me a story,
and it was a simple story: If you have a chance to help somebody, take
it. And it is a good lesson to live by. Although, he didn't say he was
for the amendment, I hope he finds the content of the amendment okay as
well as being in order. And I want to thank his staff for the
tremendous work they have done.
This amendment is very simple, Mr. Chairman. It establishes or
authorizes the Federal fund to support energy sustainability and energy
efficiency projects on colleges and universities campuses through
grants, authorizes but doesn't appropriate.
Public institutions are playing a major role in this energy debate.
They lead by example. Giving them the possibility of having funds to
actually implement programs would be a very good thing.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. BOUCHER. I want to thank the gentleman from Vermont for yielding
and commend him on bringing this amendment before the committee. It
would establish a grant program for colleges and universities to invest
in sustainable and efficient energy projects. I think this is a step
forward for energy policy and I would encourage adoption of the
amendment. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I thank the gentleman.
I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me thank the gentleman from Vermont for
his thoughtful amendment, and I thank Chairman Dingell as well for
helping him, and the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Boucher, and all
of our Members for dialoguing on this very crucial issue.
I happen to represent the University of Houston that has brought a
wind research project to Houston, a $24 million project, and I know
that Texas has enormous amount of commitment to wind.
This research grant program will help other universities look at
issues such as fossil fuel and the efficiency of it, refineries and the
efficiency of it, exploration and the efficiency of it in other places
other than public lands. So I am here to support this amendment and as
well to support the underlying energy bill, H.R. 3221.
I thank the gentleman, Mr. Welch. Universities around America will
look forward to this grant program, including Texas Southern University
and many other universities that we have in my district.
Mr. Chairman, first and foremost, I think it is imperative that we
all agree on the vital importance of America achieving energy
independence in the 21st century. We must end our addiction to foreign
sources of oil, most of which are found in regions of the world which
are unstable and in some cases, opposed to our interests. Accordingly,
there is no issue more integral to our economic and national security
than energy independence.
Although I must admit that I do have reservations about certain
aspects of this bill, I nevertheless support it as a step in the right
direction of America achieving energy independence. H.R. 3221, the New
Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer
Protection Act is important and multifaceted legislation which will
make substantial strides towards energy independence and security for
our Nation, while also encouraging the development of innovative new
technologies, creating new jobs, reducing carbon emissions, protecting
consumers, shifting production to clean and renewable energy, and
modernizing our energy infrastructure.
I would like to begin by commending the Speaker of the House, Ms.
Pelosi, for her leadership in introducing this legislation and bringing
it to the floor. The bill we have before us today represents the work
of eleven House committees, and it fulfills the Democrats' promise to
bring a comprehensive new direction to the people of the United States.
In addition to being from the energy capital of the world, for the
past 12 years I have been the Chair of the Energy Braintrust of the
Congressional Black Caucus. During this time, I have hosted a variety
of energy Braintrusts designed to bring in all of the relevant players
ranging from environmentalists to producers of energy from a variety of
sectors including coal, electric, natural gas, nuclear, oil, and
alternative energy sources as well as energy producers from West
Africa. My Energy Braintrusts were designed to be a call of action to
all of the sectors who comprise the American and international energy
industry, to the African American community, and to the nation as a
whole.
Energy is the lifeblood of every economy, especially ours. Producing
more of it leads to more good jobs, cheaper goods, lower fuel prices,
and greater economic and national security. Bringing together
thoughtful yet disparate voices to engage each other on the issue of
energy independence has resulted in the beginning of a transformative
dialectic

[[Page H9860]]

which can ultimately result in reforming our energy industry to the
extent that we as a Nation achieve energy security and energy
independence.
Because I represent the city of Houston, the energy capital of the
world, I realize that many oil and gas companies provide many jobs for
many of my constituents and serve a valuable need. The energy industry
in Houston exemplifies the stakeholders who must be instrumental in
devising a pragmatic strategy for resolving our national energy crisis.
That is why it is crucial that while seeking solutions to secure more
energy independence within this country, we must strike a balance that
will still support an environment for continued growth in the oil and
gas industry, which I might add, creates millions of jobs across the
entire country.
We have many more miles to go before we achieve energy independence.
Consequently, I am willing, able, and eager to continue working with
Houston's and our Nation's energy industry to ensure that we are moving
expeditiously on the path to crafting an environmentally sound and
economically viable energy policy. Furthermore, I think it is
imperative that we involve small, minority and women owned, and
independent energy companies in this process because they represent
some of the hard working Americans and Houstonians who are on the
forefront of energy efficient strategies to achieving energy
independence.

This bill contains numerous important provisions. It represents a
major national investment in renewable energy that has the potential to
create 3 million ``green'' jobs. Further, it provides training
opportunities for American workers, particularly our disadvantaged
groups and our brave veterans, to fill these new positions. It gives
small businesses the tools they need to be more energy efficient,
including technical assistance. It encourages research and innovation
into new energy technology, including biofuels, carbon capture, and
solar energy. It encourages mass transit and alternative fuels, it
protects Federal lands and wildlife, and it promotes the efficient use
of energy.
However, I am concerned that H.R. 2776, the Renewable Energy and
Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007, contains provisions repealing tax
incentives for oil and gas companies which may have a negative effect
on access to important sources of energy. In particular, I am concerned
that the domestic manufacturing deduction, Section 199 of H.R. 2776,
could discourage new domestic oil and natural gas investment by making
these investments comparatively less competitive than competing foreign
investments. Moving forward, I think it would be prudent for this
Congress to consider linking an increase on taxes with an increase in
access to domestic exploration of available sources of energy, such as
the Gulf Coast.
According to the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS), America's
deep seas on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) contain 420 trillion
cubic feet of natural gas (the U.S. consumes 23 TCF per year) and 86
billion barrels of oil (the U.S. imports 4.5 billion per year). Even
with all these energy resources, the U.S. sends more than $300 billion
(and countless American jobs) overseas every year for energy we can
create at home. I believe that we should mandate environmentally safe
and efficient exploration techniques in the Gulf Coast which energy
companies have demonstrated a willingness and capacity to utilize. By
ensuring access to increasing sources of energy in an environmentally
conscious way, I believe we can decrease our dependence on foreign oil.
This bill also contains a crucial international component. Global
climate change is a truly global problem. It is real; it is imminent;
and it is our responsibility to work with the rest of the international
community to develop a coordinated global response to this potentially
devastating phenomenon. This legislation calls for the United States to
re-engage and lead international efforts to reach an agreement
requiring binding emissions reduction commitments from all major
emitters, including China, India, and Brazil. A truly monumental
diplomatic effort is needed to begin to arrest the catastrophic effects
of climate change, and this bill is an important step toward beginning
global negotiations to establish a coordinated response.
Mr. Chairman, I was pleased to work with the Chairman of the
Committee on Foreign Affairs to incorporate important language in this
legislation to ensure that its provisions and benefits are available to
some of our nation's disadvantaged populations. My language, seen in
Section 2102 of H.R. 3221, guarantees that Historically Black Colleges
and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, Tribal Colleges and
Universities, and other Minority Serving Institutions are able to
participate in the visits and exchanges between scientific researchers
of the United States and other nations provided for in this bill. My
amendment would also seek to include minority- and women-owned
businesses in these exchange programs.
Additionally, I worked with the Chairman and the Committee to include
language that global climate change negotiations would address the
perspectives and concerns of indigenous and tribal populations, who
often bear the brunt of climate change but have traditionally been
neglected in the negotiation process.
Furthermore, I support innovative solutions to our national energy
crisis such as my legislation which alleviates our dependence on
foreign oil and fossil fuels by utilizing loan guarantees to promote
the development of traditional and cellulosic ethanol technology.

The Energy Information Administration estimates that the United
States imports nearly 60 percent of the oil it consumes. The world's
greatest petroleum reserves reside in regions of high geopolitical
risk, including 57 percent of which are in the Persian Gulf.
Replacing oil imports with domestic alternatives such as traditional
and cellulosic ethanol can not only help reduce the $180 billion that
oil contributes to our annual trade deficit, it can end our addiction
to foreign oil. According to the Department of Agriculture, biomass can
displace 30 percent of our Nation's petroleum consumption.
Along with traditional production of ethanol from corn, cellulosic
ethanol can be produced domestically from a variety of feedstocks,
including switchgrass, corn stalks and municipal solid wastes, which
are available throughout our nation. Cellulosic ethanol also relies on
its own byproducts to fuel the refining process, yielding a positive
energy balance. Whereas the potential production of traditional corn-
based ethanol is about 10 billion gallons per year, the potential
production of cellulosic ethanol is estimated to be 60 billion gallons
per year.
In addition to ensuring access to more abundant sources of energy,
replacing petroleum use with ethanol will help reduce U.S. carbon
emissions, which are otherwise expected to increase by 80 percent by
2025. Cellulosic ethanol can also reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 87
percent. Thus, transitioning from foreign oil to ethanol will protect
our environment from dangerous carbon and greenhouse gas emissions.
I also commend my colleague from Vermont, Mr. Welch, for his
amendment which would establish a grant program for colleges and
universities to invest in sustainable and efficient energy projects. I
commend the University of Houston, which led the Lone Star Wind
Alliance succeed in bringing one of the Department of Energy's large
turbine-testing facilities to the Texas Gulf Coast. This major step
forward in developing clean, renewable wind energy will result in the
University of Houston directing a $24 million world-class research and
test facility in Texas. This will ensure that Texas becomes a global
leader in wind energy technology, which will be assisted by pledges
from the Lone Star Wind Alliance of $18 million, by the Texas
Legislature of $5 million, and $2 million from the Department of
Energy.
Mr. Chairman, this comprehensive legislation addresses the full range
of concerns raised by global climate change. It offers wide-ranging
solutions to the serious problems we, as a Nation and as an
international community, face. It demonstrates the ongoing commitment
of this Democratic Congress to address these important issues, and to
provide tangible and beneficial solutions.
I urge my colleagues to be balanced and prudent in their approach in
addressing our energy needs. By investing in renewable energy and
increasing access to potential sources of energy, I believe we can be
partners with responsible members of America's energy producing
community in our collective goal of reaching energy independence.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in doubt about the
amendment. I would like to engage the author in a colloquy.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman rise in opposition?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I guess for the time being I am in mild
opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. And I may not be in opposition. I want to ask
the distinguished author: these grants that would be established if the
program were to be established, would they be granted on a competitive
basis?
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Yes, they will.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. So this is not specified certain institutions?
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. No, it is not.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. It would be an open process with criteria, and
all comers would get to submit an application and then a merit-based
review of those applications?
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. That is correct.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. With that understanding, I would support the
amendment.
I yield 2 minutes to my good friend from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

[[Page H9861]]

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I would yield to the desires of our ranking
member on the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the underlying bill of that amendment offers us clear
choices on the environment. It lays before us the kind of choices, the
kind of development we should support. My Republican colleagues and I
believe that we should support and expand our domestic energy supply.
This picture is a picture of American energy. This offshore rig
produces between 100,000 and 150,000 barrels of oil a day from
America's Outer Continental Shelf. The production is clean, with a
limited impact on the surrounding ocean. The impact it has causes the
creation of a new column of ocean life on the legs of the platform.
During Katrina, these did not spill one drop of oil, not one drop, in
one of the worst hurricanes in American history. I believe that this
clean development is what we should produce more of. That is why I am
going to vote for this bill.
Many of our friends see life differently. They are going to say that
this is not the way to produce. To quote my friend from New York, ``Let
us import as much energy as we possibly can.''
Now, I have traveled overseas and I have looked at oil production
overseas. When they say, let's import as much as we can, some of that
production comes from places like this, with absolutely no
environmental standards. And we are going to export our problems,
export the environmental contamination from this country to others, all
in the guise of making ourselves energy independent.
Many in the majority of Congress is going to vote today, and I would
recommend that we very carefully think about the problems that we are
going to export and think about that tremendous energy industry that
has developed here and is a model for the rest of the world.
I thank the ranking member for yielding time and thank the chairman,
and appreciate the opportunity to speak.

{time} 1515

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.
The Speaker pro tempore (Mrs. Tauscher) assumed the chair.

____________________