PALLONE OPENING REMARKS AT ENERGY SUBCOMMITTEE MARKUP

Press Release

"Today we're marking up three energy bills. While I'm pleased that we are moving forward with a bipartisan bill that passed the House last Congress, I am concerned the Republican majority continues to pave a partisan path when it comes to energy policy to the detriment of the American people.

H.R. 3277, the Energy Emergency Leadership Act, is a bipartisan bill that directs the Secretary of Energy to designate energy emergency and security matters to an Assistant Secretary. This legislation will ensure the continued prioritization of addressing our energy infrastructure and cybersecurity threats, and I thank Representatives Blunt Rochester and Walberg for their leadership on this legislation this Congress.

Unfortunately, the good ideas end there. H.R. 1630, the so-called "Save Our Gas Stoves Act" is nothing more than a cheap political stunt to continue the Republican scare tactics and outright misinformation when it comes to energy efficiency standards.

H.R. 1630 prevents the Department of Energy (DOE) from finalizing a common sense, Congressionally-mandated, energy efficiency standard for new cooktops. The proposed rule simply requires new cooktops to be more efficient. This will reduce energy bills for consumers and cut harmful indoor air pollution that disproportionately impacts children's health.

We are likely to hear a lot of scare tactics about this rule today. And despite what you will hear from my Republican colleagues; it does not ban gas stoves; it does not remove gas stoves from homes; and it does not prevent you from putting a gas stove in your home. In fact, fifty percent of the stoves on the market today are already in compliance with the proposed standard -- which will not take effect until three years after it's finalized.

Republicans claim to care about energy prices, but this bill prohibits DOE from finalizing a rule that could save consumers up to $1.7 billion. DOE is only trying to make stoves more efficient and lower energy bills for Americans, but Republicans are moving a bill today that will increase energy prices for consumers. Rather than focusing on the facts, Republicans are misleading Americans in order to keep their fossil fuel friends happy. I urge my colleagues to oppose this political stunt.

We will also consider H.R. 1042, the "Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports Act." America's nuclear power reactors are far too reliant on Russian enriched uranium for fuel. Today, about 20 percent of the uranium used to power these reactors is imported from Russia. This was a problem before Putin's invasion of Ukraine, but this tragic war has only underscored how problematic it is that America is so reliant on Russia for nuclear fuel.

The United States needs to develop a more robust domestic nuclear fuel cycle industry. The problem here is not mining the uranium -- the real choke point is uranium conversion and enrichment, two critical steps necessary before mined uranium can be placed into a reactor. Our nation only has one enrichment facility, and not a single currently operating conversion facility. Because of this, no matter how much uranium is mined domestically, we still rely on other countries to process it.

I support ending our dangerous reliance on Russia for enriched uranium. But simply banning the importation of Russian uranium will not solve this problem. We need more domestic conversion and enrichment capability, or else we could face a problematic situation in which our nation's nuclear power reactors might struggle to find the fuel they need to operate. Secretary Granholm voiced support for a more comprehensive solution to build this infrastructure domestically when she testified before this Subcommittee last Thursday. When asked about a ban on Russian uranium, Secretary Granholm said, "I'm worried about the gap. We need to build up the supply here."

So I plan to oppose H.R. 1042. I find our continued reliance on Russian uranium very troubling. My staff requested that any Russian uranium ban also include investments in domestic fuel cycle infrastructure, but we were told that was not on the table at this time. We should not pass a ban without addressing the underlying lack of domestic nuclear fuel cycle infrastructure. I hope we can find a way to work together to achieve both of these important goals.

And with that, I yield back the balance of my time."

Source