I am so pleased to join my fellow Green Dogs to talk about the subject. I couldn't help but pick up, if I may, to our friend from New York, Mr. Tonko, the point he was making about the power of research and development, R&D dollars, in…
I am so pleased to join my fellow Green Dogs to talk about the subject. I couldn't help but pick up, if I may, to our friend from New York, Mr. Tonko, the point he was making about the power of research and development, R&D dollars, in innovative technology.
Let's just take the potential power of the advanced battery research. What could that do? Well, in the automotive industry, advanced lithium batteries, for example, could get you plug-in hybrid vehicles that get an average equivalent of 100 miles per gallon. If every vehicle in America got an average of 100 miles per gallon, you would almost wipe out the need for any imported oil in the United States of America. It is not science fiction. It is around the corner, but it needs an extra investment. It is an investment with an enormous potential return that would more than return dollars to U.S. taxpayers and, of course, contribute to the economy.
Similarly, advanced battery research is desperately needed to essentially bring the solar industry in the United States to that next step. What we lack in solar right now is the ability to really store the sun. And if we could have
a breakthrough, and, again, it is not rocket science, it is not science fiction, if we could have a breakthrough in advanced battery research so that we can extend storage capacity, so on sunny days we can store that energy on overcast days, especially in climates that aren't as warm as, say, the Southwest where our friend Mr. Heinrich comes from in New Mexico, we could absolutely transform the solar industry and make it a practical either supplement or alternative for households and businesses all across the United States.
What could that do in terms of job creation and reviving the manufacturing sector of the United States? An almost endless return on a very wise investment of dollars.
If my colleague would yield, because the point you've both been making about the need for that competitive edge for American industry is really underscored by the various American companies that, in fact, have endorsed this legislation. Let's just take the automotive sector. Ford, Chrysler, GM, John Deere, Caterpillar have all endorsed this legislation. There's a reason for that. They understand that to stand still with existing technology is not going to cut it. They're going to continue to lose market share, and they're going to lose to foreign competition.
If I may, I'd just like to read into the Record some of the other companies, especially in the energy sector. And the reason I want to read these names into the Record is because so often we hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle, this is going to destroy American business as we know it. Well, that would come as news to the following list of companies who've enthusiastically endorsed this specific bill. Duke Energy, coal, by the way, represents 75 percent of Duke's portfolio. American Electric Power; Edison Electric Institute; Exelon; PG&E Corporation; FPL Group in Florida; Entergy; Austin Energy; Constellation Energy; Seattle City Light; Public Service Enterprise; P&M resources in New Mexico, Mr. Heinrich; Shell Oil; Conoco; BP America; Entergy Energy; GE; Alcoa; Dupont; Dow Chemical; Johnson & Johnson; Rio Tinto; Siemens; National Venture Capital Association.
These are American companies that understand the point you were making a little bit earlier, Mr. Polis, that to stand still is to lose ground; and that actually, we have an enormous opportunity here to regain America's competitive edge, create jobs and, once again, lead the world in innovative technologies and techniques. But we've got to make that initial step. This bill creates that framework.
Absolutely. And the bill takes care, where there are trade-sensitive and energy-intensive sensitive industries, to give them a transition period of time, in some cases a very generous transition period of time in which to get themselves competitive again.
I might add to the point you're making, Mr. Polis, in my State of Virginia, for example, we have a gubernatorial election going on right now, and one of the candidates, the Republican nominee, has talked about drill now, right off the shore of Virginia. Maybe that makes sense; maybe it doesn't. But the wind power potential off the shore of Virginia dwarfs any estimates of what possible oil and gas reserves there might be offshore and could create jobs and could actually make Virginia an enormous net exporter to the Northeast and the Mid-Atlantic of a renewable source of energy forever.
Would my colleague yield on that point, because that's such a good point you're bringing up, Mr. Polis, because we hear from the other side, seemingly deliberate misinformation on the floor of this House. And the figure constantly cited is a little over $3,100; this is going to cost everybody $3,100 a year. The opposite is true, as you just indicated. There's a new study the American Council for Energy Efficient Economy just issued that says that the Federal energy efficiency provisions in this bill will, in fact, save $750 per household by 2020, as you indicated, and $3,900 per household by 2030. So maybe our Republican colleagues just have their numbers inverted.
I might point out that that magical figure of $3,100 per year that they cite, and derive this bill as a cap-and-tax bill, not a cap-and- trade bill, is based on a study done by an MIT professor--a rather obscure study. And interestingly, that professor, the author of that study, has written the Republican leadership of this body objecting to the use of this study, saying they vastly overstate any potential costs that in fact might accrue to consumers. And it is based on faulty analysis as well.
The provisions of this bill are carefully drafted so that any increase in utility costs, for example, that aren't already protected by the provisions in the bill would not be allowed to be passed on to consumers. It is patently false. And talk about not reading the bill; clearly our friends on the other side of the aisle either haven't read the bill or choose to ignore the facts therein. But there are carefully crafted provisions that not only protect consumers, but as our colleague, Mr. Polis, indicated, and as this recent study indicates, will in fact save, not cost, consumers hundreds of dollars--and ultimately thousands of dollars--every year.
Would my colleague yield just for a moment on that? Because this same study that Mr. Polis and I are referring to, I just want to read a paragraph that addresses the very point you're making, Mr. Tonko.
It says, In total, the energy-efficiency provisions of H.R. 2454 could reduce U.S. energy use by 4.4 quadrillion BTUs by 2020. These energy-efficiency savings are more than the annual use of 47 of the 50 States, including your home State of New York. Moreover, such savings will avoid 293 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions by 2020, the equivalent--this is astounding--of taking 49 million automobiles off the road every year. By 2030, these energy efficiency savings go to 11 quadrillion BTUs, accounting for about 10 percent of projected U.S. energy use that year.
This is incredible. And that's what you're getting at, that there are other efficiencies that can be achieved by this bill that, by the way, also will lead to innovation, job creation, and savings for consumers we haven't even calculated.
Mr. Heinrich.
Mr. Polis, right on message, I visited a company in my district the other day that manufactures microchips. That market is very cyclical. And the manufacturing capacity in the United States has shrunk and shrunk and shrunk.
They had a factory they had to close in the Midwest. They are retrofitting, and they are going to make solar panels at this factory should we pass this bill. They are waiting for this bill to pass, and almost overnight they are going to start to manufacture solar panels.
And to the point you're making, Mr. Heinrich, and yours, Mr. Polis, the legislation specifically addresses the steel and cement industries and provides them a very generous transition through the year 2025. Thereafter, the President could still extend that transition should he or she decide it's warranted. And if he or she decides it's not, it's phased out, but on a maximum of 10 percent per year. So it is a very generous set of circumstances to make sure that our domestic steel industry and our domestic cement-producing industries have the requisite period of time in which to make this transition.
Boy, are you right, Mr. Polis. You know, I listen sometimes to the rhetoric of our friends on the other side of the aisle, and they never talk about that. They never talk about the fact that the cost of inaction to the automotive industry is the utter collapse of any automotive manufacturing capacity in the United States. They don't talk about the challenge of power generation. They don't talk about the extraction industries. They don't talk about what it means to any other kind of manufacturing capacity.
For that matter, technology today, the industry that dominates my district, the information technology industry, is dependent on a reliable source of energy. And they understand that reliable source of energy needs to be, if we are going to stay competitive with foreign competition in the technology sector, a renewable source of energy.
And if I might interject just one thing, Mr. Polis, because when you said that, I am reminded of what we went through just 1 year ago this very summer, where the volatility of the price of gasoline really hit the pocketbook of the average American consumer. You want to talk about cost--it affected people's choices. If affected whether they could take that vacation. It affected their commutes. It affected discretionary travel in terms of shopping or seeing movies or even seeing friends and relatives because the cost of gasoline had become almost prohibitive for so many of our citizens. That's the cost, too, if we do nothing.