Statement of Congressman John D. Dingell, Ranking Member
Committee on Energy and Commerce

Committee on Energy and Commerce
Markup of H.R. __, the Energy Policy Act of 2005

April 5, 2005

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this markup. I understand a decision was made by your leadership to seek passage of last year’s conference report, and to do so on a compressed schedule. Within that context, you have managed to hold some useful hearings, and you have acted in good faith to see if we could develop a bipartisan bill.

Unfortunately, this compressed schedule means that we are essentially meeting to consider last year’s failed conference report. The hearings we requested have not been held, and we were not able to start bipartisan negotiations on a clean slate.

Last year’s energy bill, which is reflected in this Committee Print, is a flawed bill on many levels. The Administration’s own Energy Information Administration analyzed the bill saying, “changes to production, consumption, imports, and prices are negligible.” They even found that gasoline prices under the bill would increase by two percent more than if the bill were not enacted.

While the bill will do little to improve our energy independence, it is far from a benign bill. Quite simply, it will harm the environment, hurt consumers, and cost the taxpayers a bundle. For these reasons, dozens of newspapers denounced the bill in editorials.

On the environmental side, let me briefly mention subjects which will be discussed further when amendments are offered:

• The bill changes hydroelectric power policies by undercutting safeguards for dam relicensing. By giving power producers more rights than states, tribes, and other public entities, the bill jeopardizes not only fish, but the overall health of our river systems and the recreational activities they sustain.

• The bill weakens the Safe Drinking Water Act by tying the hands of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate hydraulic fracturing.

• The bill weakens the Leaking Underground Storage Tank program, undermining the critical “polluter-pays” principle. Michigan alone is facing a $1.7 billion funding need for over 4,000 facilities with leaking tanks, and this bill will only make it more costly for taxpayers.

• The bill eliminates requirements for public participation and deference to the states in decisions about the siting of electric transmission lines and natural gas facilities.

On the consumer side, let me touch upon several matters:

• It is hard to imagine a better case for increasing consumer protections than the debacle that took place in 2000 and 2001 with west coast electricity markets. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has determined widespread fraud existed. There are tapes to prove it. Yet this bill includes only cosmetic reforms to the law.

• Even worse, the bill repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 that protects consumers and investors, and does nothing to ensure refunds of unjust and unreasonable overcharge.

• Although blackouts cost consumers $80 billion, this bill holds a sensible reliability provision hostage to its more controversial provisions, and caps the necessary spending to do the job right.

On the taxpayer side, we do not know the total cost of the bill yet. Last time the bill cost over $30 billion, or four times the amount requested by the Administration. We do not even have a budget resolution in place. In addition, the bill’s provision protecting manufacturers of MTBE from liability for contaminating water supplies means quite simply that taxpayers will bear billions in cleanup costs, while at the same time paying MTBE manufacturers $1.75 billion in subsidies.

Mr. Chairman, rather than working from the flawed bill of last Congress which had its origins in the secret Cheney Energy Task Force and was negotiated in secret conference meetings that excluded Democrats, we could have done what we did in the 107th Congress, when this Committee reported a bill with a vote of 50-5. There is much we can agree upon without hurting the environment, taxpayers, or consumers. Democrats will be offering a number of amendments to address the shortcomings of the conference product, and we ask that you and your colleagues keep an open mind on them.

- 30 -

(Contact: Jodi Seth, 202-225-3641)