Lower Energy Costs Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I rise in deep opposition to H.R. 1, or as we have heard, the polluters over people act.
When House Democrats had an opportunity to bring an H.R. 1 to the floor, it was to protect Americans' sacred right to vote and curb the influence of dark money and politics.
Compare that to this H.R. 1, which is nothing short of a bonanza for corporate polluters.
It creates loopholes in our Nation's most important environmental laws, laws that exist to ensure Americans have clean air, that they have clean water, and do not need to live in fear of industrial accidents in their backyards.
It does this so that the richest oil and gas companies in the world can indeed continue to achieve a record-breaking bit of profits at the expense of everyday Americans. We know the best way for us to avoid volatile fossil fuel price shocks is to become less reliant on fossil energy by transitioning to a strong, clean energy future, one that will also protect our air and our water and create millions of well-paying American jobs.
This is exactly what the Inflation Reduction Act is doing. New clean energy projects are underway across our country. There have been tens of billions of dollars in domestic manufacturing announcements, which will ensure that solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, EVs, and the other technologies we will need will be made here in America.
This bill seeks to stop that progress. It would repeal critical sections of the IRA. The greenhouse gas reduction fund will leverage private funding to make clean energy investments across the country, including in disadvantaged communities.
The methane emissions reduction program is going to drive down highly potent climate pollution from the oil and gas sector. New rebates will enable low- and moderate-income Americans to save significant money by upgrading their appliances. These programs will be wiped out by this bill.
Mr. Chair, I am not opposed to examining how we can improve permitting processes, but it must be done with the intention of accelerating the clean energy transition--building out our transmission infrastructure to enable our electricity system to be cleaner, more reliable, and, yes, more affordable.
Unfortunately, this bill is only interested in giveaways to outdated, outmoded, and polluting industries, not in bringing our energy system into this 21st century.
Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to oppose it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, the gentleman appears to be fixated on undermining key EPA safeguards put in place over the last 15 years under the guise of being too costly, while the history of environmental protection, especially under the Clean Air Act, shows this is simply untrue.
The United States can have both a clean environment and a strong economy. It is a false choice to assume otherwise. Republicans who claim that ambitious climate action and economic prosperity are at odds are simply ignoring the facts. This is the same argument that industry has used every time the Clean Air Act has been strengthened, and it has been debunked each and every time.
When Congress debated the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, the oil industry said, ``The technology to meet these standards simply does not exist today,'' and predicted major supply disruptions, while chemical companies said the law would cause severe economic and social disruption.
None of these gloom-and-doom predictions has ever come true. Instead, our air got cleaner, and our economy flourished.
The history of the Clean Air Act shows that the United States can reduce carbon pollution while creating jobs and strengthening our economy. Since its adoption in 1970, the Clean Air Act has reduced key air pollutants by roughly 78 percent, while the economy has almost quadrupled in size.
By EPA's own estimates, the benefits derived from the Clean Air Act exceed costs by a factor of more than 30-1. Let that sink in for a minute. Republicans like to claim that protecting Americans from pollution and tackling the climate crisis will sink the United States economy, but time and time again, we have seen that economic prosperity and environmental protection do go hand in hand.
The Clean Air Act has also made the United States the world leader in pollution control technology, generating hundreds of billions of dollars for U.S. companies and creating millions of jobs.
The standards targeted by this amendment are also widely popular: Clean car standards that help Americans drive cleaner and more fuel- efficient vehicles; mercury and air toxics standards that clean up deadly mercury and other hazardous air pollutants from power plants; and methane standards for the oil and gas sector that are supported by industry.
The polluters over people act is the latest in a long line of sad attempts to undermine critical environmental and public health protections. These tired arguments continue to ring false and hollow. This amendment is more of the same.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose it and yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I choose not to speak in opposition to the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, let me reiterate what has been said before. Neither the Biden administration nor the Department of Energy is trying to ban gas stoves. No one is coming into your home to remove that stove. I implore my colleagues across the aisle to stop lying to the American people about this. Apparently, Republicans think that standards to make something better, to make it more efficient, is a ban.
Regardless, this amendment makes no sense. This amendment calls for a study on how banning natural gas appliances will affect rates and charges for electricity. As I said, no one is actually talking about a ban, but the funny thing is we already know that electrification does result in lowering energy bills.
Electric appliances like heat pumps save households money because they are more efficient than gas appliances. Especially as we see fuel prices rise, electrification becomes even more critical, more important.
Republicans see the tide turning against their friends in the oil and gas industry, so how do they respond?
With a big energy package and a bunch of amendments that attempt to lock Americans into a dirty, expensive fossil fuel choice.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I will start by saying I have good news for my colleagues across the aisle.
The Department of Energy isn't banning gas stoves. It doesn't even have the authority to ban gas stoves. This amendment, like this whole bill, is political messaging.
What DOE is doing is proposing a standard to make new residential gas stoves more efficient and cut gas waste, not to ban them.
The proposed standard is so reasonable that half of the current models already meet it, including all entry-level models.
They already meet the standard, and for those that don't meet the standard, manufacturers have until 2027 to upgrade their product line, so this really isn't anything outrageous.
Also, DOE is required by law to review and update standards for appliances like refrigerators and air conditioning units.
DOE is actually late with this stove standard. It was supposed to be completed in 2017, but we are glad they are working on it now.
Models that meet the proposed standard consume 30 percent less energy than the least efficient models on the market. That is, indeed, significant.
The full proposed rule, which also includes updated standards for electric and gas residential stoves and ovens, would result in up to $1.7 billion worth in savings for United States consumers and avert about 22 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions over 30 years of sales.
I stand in deep opposition to this amendment. This amendment would bar DOE from finalizing any future efficiency standards for gas stoves, locking consumers into less efficient appliances that are certainly more costly to use.
This is just political fearmongering. It is a waste of our time, and I do urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source