Fred Upton

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, but I support the amendment.

Mr. UPTON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the 5 minutes in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. UPTON. But there is no way I could oppose this amendment, let me just say from the beginning. This amendment directs the Secretaries of Energy and Commerce to jointly establish an energy enterprise competition to promote youth interest in careers in science, technology, engineering, and math, especially as those fields related to energy. I heard from one of my heroes today, Dean Kamen, probably the best inventor of our time. He has, on his own, started just a wonderful program employing hundreds of thousands of youth all around the country, all around the world, a competition called FIRST Robotics, to really get high school and middle school students invested in looking at the science of so many different things in competitions that I participated in. My Governor, Rick Snyder, who was in town tonight, was honored as I think the number one guy in the Nation earlier this year in Michigan. We are going to have the national competition in Detroit, I want to say, in 2 years. But I have been at the regional competition for this, and where kids and mentors and companies are invested, this is the future of science in so many different things. This is a great amendment. I would urge all my colleagues to vote for it. I know that, as I look at my friendship with Dean Kamen, he will probably never talk to me again if I oppose the amendment. It is a great amendment. It should have been done as part of our committee mark. I look forward to working with the Education committees and appropriators to make sure that it is funded. It is a good thing. I would urge all my colleagues to support it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UPTON. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for the amendment. We have talked to the Natural Resources Committee staff. Obviously, that is something that Chairman Bishop supports. This amendment does ensure the timely review for legal challenges of energy projects. It is a worthy amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but again, I strongly support this amendment.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chair, I would say that I am convinced that this is a good amendment, and I will be in support of the amendment. We have many Members, particularly Cathy McMorris Rodgers on our committee, who are strong supporters of hydropower. This amendment promotes the research, development, and demonstration of marine hydrokinetic energy technologies and improves the regulatory process for such programs. As such, we support the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I support the amendment.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires States to consider electric utilities to allow community solar projects of up to 2 megawatts to connect to the electric grid. We do know that community solar is an exciting new technology that many communities and customers are seriously considering. I could say that I support the gentlewoman's community solar goals, but there are some concerns with the amendment. Namely, as drafted, it could violate some State electric service laws, while also potentially being redundant of Federal standards currently imposed on States. But because it is not a mandate and uses PURPA for States to consider, which they are free to consider or reject, we can accept the gentlewoman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UPTON. I just want to say to the Chair and colleagues, this amendment requires the EPA to satisfy regulatory planning review requirements established by both the Clinton and Obama administrations. I think the amendment is a good one, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment strikes a number of provisions, some of which have already been enacted into law, and makes technical and conforming changes to the reported text of H.R. 8, H.R. 2295, and H.R. 2358. So the overall bill, I would say, H.R. 8, is a broad, bipartisan bill. It seeks to maximize America's energy potential, and it seeks to update and modernize outdated policies rooted in an era of energy scarcity to reflect today's era of energy abundance. I think that this is a good amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment. I would note Mr. Collins is a member of our committee. He is a cosponsor of the amendment. It is a good amendment. It needs to be included as part of this. I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.'' Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. Section 1101 makes important improvements to FERC's process for reviewing interstate natural gas pipelines. As we all know, the demand for natural gas is growing, which requires new and modernized pipeline infrastructure. It has got to happen. Unfortunately, the permitting process is becoming increasingly complex and challenging. Rate hikes hit the families and businesses that can least afford it the hardest, the most vulnerable. So we have worked very diligently to find some agreement on this provision. We have held hearings, received technical assistance from FERC, and accepted many of their recommendations. Section 1101 would authorize concurrent permitting reviews, require more transparency through the process, and allow for the use of new survey technology for citing pipelines. Just yesterday, Mr. Chairman, in a hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, FERC Chairman Bay acknowledged the need for new pipeline capacity and signaled his support for the enhanced transparency provisions and the regulatory dashboard that is required by section 1101. So this amendment, if passed, would strike a commonsense approach to introduce greater public transparency and accountability for Federal and State permitting agencies, and therefore I would ask for a ``no'' vote on the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I do so to oppose the amendment because, as we all know, this amendment reauthorizes the Federal Weatherization Assistance Program at $2.2 billion through 2020 and the State Energy Program at $375 million through 2020. But our feeling is that it is not needed because the Department of Energy's Weatherization Assistance Program is already extremely well funded. I support weatherization, as I think most of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle do, but Congress has been funding the program at or near the Department's requested levels. So this is, in essence, billions above in new spending on an existing program that the Department of Energy has not requested. I would note that the 2009 stimulus bill included an extra $5 billion to the Department of Energy for weatherization, roughly 17 times what was originally appropriated for that year. Furthermore, using experiments considered the gold standard for evidence, researchers from UC Berkeley, MIT, and the University of Chicago recently released a report on a first-of-its-kind field test of the Federal Weatherization Assistance Program. The study found that the costs of energy efficiency investments were about double the actual savings, that model-projected savings are 2\1/ 2\ times the actual savings, and that, even when accounting for the broader societal benefits of energy efficiency investments, the costs will substantially outweigh the benefits. The average rate of return is a minus 9\1/2\ percent annually. So, Mr. Chairman, the overall legislation today that is before us is extremely specific in authorizing budget-neutral spending for energy security efforts only. Authorizing additional money--beyond requested amounts--as this Weatherization amendment does, does not have the offset. Therefore, I would ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a favorable vote on the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would establish a DOE loan program to support distributed generation. While I support some of the goals in this amendment--distributed generation, microgrids, combined heat and power--I cannot support a new loan guarantee program given the failures this administration has had in issuing loans. I remember one called Solyndra a long time ago. In any event, this amendment is too broad. Locally grown energy may make some sense in some circumstances but not in others. There are often economic reasons to use nonlocal energy sources and to use them on a larger scale than distributed generation. Moreover, this provision is duplicative of other DOE programs as well as tax incentives and State programs that encourage the use of distributed renewable energy. Circumstances do vary across regions, so States should decide whether and how to encourage distributed generation. The Federal Government shouldn't be picking winners and losers. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition. Although am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 8.