Lower Energy Costs Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1, the Lower Energy Costs Act, which includes the Water Quality Certification and Energy Project Improvement Act. That bill is the one that I introduced alongside my friend and colleague from Louisiana, Mr. Garret Graves.

One of many key components in this package, this specific part of the bill helps ensure development of our Nation's energy infrastructure at a time when it is most necessary. This is accomplished by clarifying that projects subject to section 401 of the Clean Water Act are approved or denied based on water quality alone.

Unlike what my colleagues have been saying on the other side of the aisle that we are going to permit dirty water, et cetera, et cetera, if it is related to water, guess what, section 401 still applies.

The water quality certification process has been and continues to be weaponized by certain States to stifle important energy projects they oppose, particularly pipelines, for political reasons completely unrelated to water quality and outside the scope and the intent of the Clean Water Act. That is all this particular provision addresses.

Instead of fairly analyzing a project based on the Federal standards set forth by Congress, what has happened is States on the East and West Coast have increasingly weaponized section 401 for their own ideological purposes, again totally and completely unrelated to water quality.

Here are some examples: In my home State of North Carolina, the Mountain Valley Southgate project was denied, not because of water quality but because the deciding bureaucrats hold an inherent opposition to the project as a whole.

Projects in Washington and New York have been denied due to noise and cultural resources. Nothing to do with water quality.

These are just a few examples of the weaponization of section 401 of the Clean Water Act statute.

The language that is included here in this package quite simply will end this abuse.

At a time when American energy production and distribution is under tremendous assault from some in this country, ensuring that America can build the energy infrastructure necessary to responsibly utilize our natural resources, unleash American energy independence, and lower costs for American families is a top priority that this broader bill achieves.

Let me put it this way: Low cost, reliable energy is fundamental to prosperity. It isn't the only critical aspect necessary for a nation and her people to be prosperous, but it is awfully hard for a nation to be prosperous without it.

Low cost and reliable energy helps America to produce more goods and therefore put downward pressure on inflation, and, boy, do we need all the help we can get. It will enable America to be energy dominant again, increasing American strength abroad. Put another way, it is critical to our economy, our food security, and our national security. That is why this legislation is so badly needed at this critical time in American history.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened to some comments from my friends on the other side, and I am just going to share some examples of how section 401 of the Clean Water Act has been weaponized. Some of these I touched on a little earlier, and some of these have yet to be stated, as far as I know.

In Oregon, a proposed liquified natural gas pipeline and export terminal, which would have had the capability to liquefy over 1 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day, was blocked by that State. The reason? After giving the project applicants the runaround, Oregon denied the certification, citing incomplete information given to the State.

Once again, that was a project that was estimated to have generated up to $100 million in revenue annually, blocked, just like that.

Despite FERC finding that the project's plan for environmental mitigation and impact minimization was satisfactory, Oregon denied certification based on reasons outside the scope of the CWA, the Clean Water Act.

My second example here comes from a proposed natural gas pipeline's 37-mile extension that New York denied. The project would have added enough additional natural gas per day to meet the needs of approximately 2.3 million homes in a region where demand for natural gas is at an all-time high. Additionally, the project would add an estimated $327.2 million to the region's economy.

Again, in this case, FERC concluded that any long-term effects would be limited to air quality and noise and that all project effects would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Once again, the State forced the project applicants to come back multiple times with more documents, continuing to move the goalposts each time.

When the State finally gave a straight reason for denying the project, they nominally cited ``indirect effects on water resources,'' but none of these were provisions of the Clean Water Act section 401.

Those are just a couple of examples of how water quality wasn't even an issue. It was other aspects. They were just using the loopholes in the statute to achieve their end.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Chairman, passage of H.R. 1 is critical for boosting our domestic energy production and lowering energy costs for all Americans.

I thank Majority Leader Scalise for his leadership on this bill, as well as the chairman of the Energy and Commerce and Natural Resources Committees and our own chairman, Sam Graves, of Transportation and Infrastructure.

As has been stated, this bill contains many provisions to help streamline the permitting process for energy projects, allowing America to unleash its domestic energy potential.

I am particularly proud of division C of H.R. 1, which passed out of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, that will stop States from using section 401 of the Clean Water Act as an excuse to block critical energy projects.

Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

The motion was agreed to.

Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. LaMalfa) having assumed the chair, Mr. Lawler, Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1) to lower energy costs by increasing American energy production, exports, infrastructure, and critical minerals processing, by promoting transparency, accountability, permitting, and production of American resources, and by improving water quality certification and energy projects, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source