Abby L. Harvey
GHG Monitor
10/2/2015
A House energy package that was reported out of subcommittee in July by unanimous vote took a turn this week when the addition of several partisan measures cost it the support of Democratic members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The two-day markup opened with the submission of an Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute more than doubling the length of the bill with new measures. The bill was reported out of committee by a vote of 32-20.
“America has the resources to become an energy superpower. All we need is the right laws and regulations to enable that to happen. Our goal remains getting something to the president’s desk that will be signed into law, and tomorrow’s vote will be an important milestone in our effort,” committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said in his opening remarks.
While Upton appeared confident the bill could pass the president’s desk, Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) painted a different picture. “The suggestion that somehow this bill is going to lead toward the president’s signature I think is totally wrong,” Pallone said at the markup. “What the committee is doing with this substitute today is going in the direct opposite direction if you’re looking to get the president to sign the bill.”
The bill as updated by the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute includes a provision that would require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to “complete an independent reliability analysis of any proposed or final ‘billion dollar’ federal rule that affects electric generating units,” according to the amendment summary. This requirement could apply to regulations such as the Environmental Protection Agency’s carbon emissions standards for existing coal-fired power plants. The rule, which was finalized in August, requires states to develop action plans to meet federally set, state-specific emissions reduction goals.
The FERC analysis called for in the bill “must evaluate the potential impacts of the rule on: 1) electric reliability and resource adequacy; 2) the electricity generation portfolio of the United States; 3) the operation of wholesale electricity markets; and 4) energy delivery and infrastructure, including electric transmission facilities and natural gas pipelines,” the summary says. A Democratic amendment was offered to attempt to remove the FERC language, but failed.
The latest version of the bill would also add carbon utilization and storage efforts to a section of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) that prioritizes fossil energy research and development efforts within the Department of Energy. This portion of the bill would add “improving the conversion, use, and storage of carbon dioxide produced from fossil fuels” into section 961 of the EPAct.
That section of the EPAct calls on DOE to “carry out research, development, demonstration, and commercial application programs in fossil energy, including activities under this subtitle, with the goal of improving the efficiency, effectiveness, and environmental performance of fossil energy production, upgrading, conversion, and consumption.”
The CCUS provision in the House bill would also direct DOE to evaluate all CCUS projects that have been awarded funds by DOE every two years. The CCUS provision was not challenged.
The bill is the House version of the Senate’s Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2015. Both bills have been reported out of committee and are expected to reach the floor.
