A bill to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to repeal a section of that Act relating to exportation and importation of natural gas.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the Ranking Member of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Lisa Murkowski, in introducing the National Energy Efficiency Enhancement Act of 2010. This legislation would implement several agreements that have been negotiated between appliance manufacturers and energy efficiency advocates to increase national energy efficiency standards for a range of commercial products, strengthen our economy, create jobs, and reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

The major energy consuming products that would have standards established or enhanced by this legislation include furnaces, air conditioners, street lights, and external power supplies. The bill would also modify the Secretary of Energy's authority regarding administration of the program. For example, there would be changes to the criteria used by the Secretary when determining where to set a standard, so as to include consideration of the impact of a proposed standard on average energy prices and the impacts of smart grid technology. A more detailed description section-by-section summary of the bill is included at the end of these remarks.

Representatives from the energy efficiency community, such as the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, ACEEE, the Alliance to Save Energy, and the National Resources Defense Council, along with industry representatives from the National Electric Manufacturers Association, the Air Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute, and the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers and others, have done a commendable job in working through very difficult and technical issues to develop this remarkable consensus legislation. Their successes were set forth in several agreements that have been included in this bill. It is a testament to what can be achieved for the nation when interests groups work together with a commitment to the common good.

The savings from these new standards, if enacted, are estimated at 258 trillion Btu in 2020, and 677 trillion Btu in 2030. In addition, greenhouse gas emissions are estimated to be reduced by 14.6 million metric tons of CO2 in 2020, and 39 million metric tons in 2030. Other benefits of increased efficiency include consumer savings due to lower energy costs and new jobs created by the use of consumer savings for other purchases and investments.

This legislation demonstrates the continuing commitment of the Energy

Committee to build on the bipartisan bill it reported last June--the American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009, or ACELA. Title II of ACELA directs the Energy Department to establish new energy efficiency standards for portable lamps and commercial furnaces and would yield estimated energy savings in 2030 of 551 trillion Btu, and carbon dioxide emission reductions of 31.3 million metric tons. Combined, the savings from these two bills would be 1228 trillion Btu and 70 million metric tons in 2030. Note: all estimates by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy.

The energy efficiency provisions of ACELA when combined with this new legislation would substantially enhance one of the most powerful and cost-effective tools the Federal Government has to strengthen our economic and energy security.

The appliance standards program has been saving energy and money for families, businesses, and government consumers for more than 20 years. DOE currently administers standards for 35 products, and the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy estimates cumulative program savings of 5.1 Quadrillion Btu through 2010. The ACEEE projects another 3 Quadrillion Btu of savings from current standards by 2020.

This program's savings in electricity are the most significant, with an estimated reduction of nearly 16 percent in national electricity use by 2020 below what would have been used without the program.

Greater energy efficiency strengthens our economy, enhances our security, saves consumers money, creates jobs, and reduces greenhouse gas pollution. No single program or policy is going to completely end our nation's waste of energy or its carbon emissions, but increased energy efficiency through cost-effective energy standards for appliances and consumer products remains the single most-powerful tools for meeting these goals.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Energy Committee, in the Congress, and in the Administration to enact the National Energy Efficiency Enhancement Act of 2010. It would be a major enhancement to the energy savings anticipated from ACELA--more than doubling the savings--and both bills should be a part of any comprehensive national energy legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a bill summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, along with Senators Cantwell, Mikulski, Cardin, Dodd, and Merkley, I am reintroducing legislation that will repeal the authority granted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to site Liquified Natural Gas, LNG, terminals. Prior to enactment of these changes,

States, such as Oregon, had authority to site these large energy facilities--a right that was preempted by the 2005 act. At the time, 45 Senators went on record saying that cutting State siting agencies out of the LNG siting process was a bad idea.

As citizens and their public officials in my State and those of my colleagues can attest, putting FERC in the driver's seat for LNG siting has been a colossal mistake. Rather than address the critical environmental and economic questions of whether these large, potentially dangerous natural gas storage facilities are even needed or whether energy supplies could be provided with less environmental impact and risk, FERC has taken the attitude that it's not its job to make such decisions. The result is the worst of all possible public policy worlds where FERC refuses to address the tough questions and the law limits the ability of our States to step where FERC fails.

Right now, in Oregon, we have three separate LNG projects. Two of those have been approved by FERC over the objections of citizens and State officials and one is still pending. Together, they would have a combined capacity of 3.3 billion cubic feet, BCF, of gas per day. Yet, the States of Oregon and Washington, together, only use 1.33 BCF per day. Natural gas prices in North America have significantly declined and supplies have increased since these projects were proposed. Yet, FERC categorically refuses to address the basic question of whether the three proposed facilities are even needed to serve our market. FERC also refuses to consider whether any of the competing interstate pipeline proposals to bring natural gas to Oregon from the Rocky Mountains would be a better option. In fact, FERC asserts that it is not its job to determine which, if any, of these proposals best serves our market.

While the new chairman of FERC--Jon Wellinghoff--has been willing to vote against LNG siting proposals, the truth is that FERC continues to plow ahead with siting decisions that make no economic sense and which endanger forest lands, farms, vineyards, and residential neighborhoods. Given FERC's record, my colleagues and I believe that it is essential that Congress restore the local and State role in these critical decisions about where, and even whether, LNG facilities and the pipelines that connect them are to be built.

The legislative language is identical to the bill I introduced in the last Congress--S. 2822--and which garnered the support of a number of my colleagues including then-Senator Barack Obama. That bill was needed then, and it is needed now. I am going to be calling on the President for his help in fixing this serious mistake.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, along with Senators Cantwell, Mikulski, Cardin, Dodd, and Merkley, I am reintroducing legislation that will repeal the authority granted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to site Liquified Natural Gas, LNG, terminals. Prior to enactment of these changes,

States, such as Oregon, had authority to site these large energy facilities--a right that was preempted by the 2005 act. At the time, 45 Senators went on record saying that cutting State siting agencies out of the LNG siting process was a bad idea.

As citizens and their public officials in my State and those of my colleagues can attest, putting FERC in the driver's seat for LNG siting has been a colossal mistake. Rather than address the critical environmental and economic questions of whether these large, potentially dangerous natural gas storage facilities are even needed or whether energy supplies could be provided with less environmental impact and risk, FERC has taken the attitude that it's not its job to make such decisions. The result is the worst of all possible public policy worlds where FERC refuses to address the tough questions and the law limits the ability of our States to step where FERC fails.

Right now, in Oregon, we have three separate LNG projects. Two of those have been approved by FERC over the objections of citizens and State officials and one is still pending. Together, they would have a combined capacity of 3.3 billion cubic feet, BCF, of gas per day. Yet, the States of Oregon and Washington, together, only use 1.33 BCF per day. Natural gas prices in North America have significantly declined and supplies have increased since these projects were proposed. Yet, FERC categorically refuses to address the basic question of whether the three proposed facilities are even needed to serve our market. FERC also refuses to consider whether any of the competing interstate pipeline proposals to bring natural gas to Oregon from the Rocky Mountains would be a better option. In fact, FERC asserts that it is not its job to determine which, if any, of these proposals best serves our market.

While the new chairman of FERC--Jon Wellinghoff--has been willing to vote against LNG siting proposals, the truth is that FERC continues to plow ahead with siting decisions that make no economic sense and which endanger forest lands, farms, vineyards, and residential neighborhoods. Given FERC's record, my colleagues and I believe that it is essential that Congress restore the local and State role in these critical decisions about where, and even whether, LNG facilities and the pipelines that connect them are to be built.

The legislative language is identical to the bill I introduced in the last Congress--S. 2822--and which garnered the support of a number of my colleagues including then-Senator Barack Obama. That bill was needed then, and it is needed now. I am going to be calling on the President for his help in fixing this serious mistake.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Soledad Canyon High Desert, California Public Lands Conservation and Management Act of 2010. This bill would resolve a twenty-year-old mining dispute between the City of Santa Clarita and CEMEX USA, and have numerous other benefits for communities in Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, CA.

In 1990, the Bureau of Land Management awarded CEMEX two 10-year consecutive contracts to extract 56 million tons of sand and gravel from a site in Soledad Canyon. The City of Santa Clarita strongly opposed CEMEX's expansion of mining in this area. After 2 decades of conflict and nearly a decade of litigation, the two parties announced a truce in early 2007, and started working out an agreement.

This legislation would implement the terms of that agreement. It would require the Secretary of the Interior to cancel CEMEX's mining contracts in Soledad Canyon and prohibit future mining at this site. The BLM would sell lands near Victorville, CA, that are currently on its disposal list, and would use the proceeds to compensate CEMEX for the cancellation of its mining contracts. The City of Victorville and County of San Bernardino would have the right of first refusal to purchase many of these parcels, which would help satisfy their future development needs. Some of these funds would also go towards the purchase of environmentally-sensitive lands in Southern California.

My legislation would settle a twenty-year-old dispute to all parties' satisfaction, complement future development plans in Southern California, help secure important lands for conservation, and do all of this without any cost to taxpayers. That is why it has already won the support of a diverse group of interests, including the City of Santa Clarita, CEMEX, the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, and the Sierra Club.

I have worked with Representative Buck McKeon in introducing this measure and look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to secure its passage.