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

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY
HEARING ON "ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005"

February 10, 2005

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased the Subcommittee is working toward developing a comprehensive energy policy for this country. We are faced with many pressing energy issues and it is appropriate that this Committee, with its expertise in these matters, be the starting point for such a discussion.

Unfortunately, by starting with last year’s failed conference report, we risk sending the signal that the Congress is not serious about developing a sensible energy plan, but rather is intent upon peddling the same tired, special interest-laden bill that the Senate rightly rejected last year. It’s as if we are being forced to watch a rerun of a television show that was never popular in the first place.

I must also register my concerns with the process to date. My regard for due process is well-established. I believe that this Committee has an obligation to understand the consequences of legislation it may pass and that hearings are the best mechanism through which to gain such understanding. While I am encouraged that Chairman Barton has agreed to hold an additional day of hearings, I still believe that two days is inadequate when we are dealing with topics this complex and important. And it could be an embarrassment to this Committee should a comprehensive energy bill go to the floor without a markup.

My friends on the other side of the aisle will say that we’ve held numerous hearings on this bill and they would be correct. But the last hearings we held were nearly two years ago, and the world has changed since that time.

For example, natural gas, crude oil, and gasoline prices have reached all-time highs in the last couple of years; revelations continue to appear regarding the conduct of the Enron Corporation and the devastating effects its malfeasance had on the western electricity markets and their consumers; and difficult questions have arisen regarding the siting and security of liquified natural gas facilities. These are just a few examples of the many policy issues facing the country. Any bill we consider should reflect our current reality, as well as look to our future needs, rather than be mired in the past.

With regard to the discussion draft released by Chairman Barton earlier this week, I still have the same concerns with this bill as I did the last time we considered it: repealing the consumer and investor protections contained in the Public Utility Holding Company Act; the absence of reform to prevent another Enron fiasco; weakening the fish and wildlife conservation standards contained in the hydroelectric relicensing process; unnecessary weakening of our environmental laws; and numerous special interest goodies that were inserted in the conference report in the dead of night without public scrutiny. These are hardly the kind of policies that will give the public comfort that we are serious about balanced and bipartisan energy legislation.

While I understand the discussion draft is largely similar to the conference report to H.R. 6, there are some differences and they are not inconsequential. The price tag for last year’s bill - at $31 billion - raised legitimate concerns. In an attempt to lower this cost, the draft places a cap on the activities of the electric reliability organization. This cap is a foolhardy and short-sighted approach. Are we to assume that the Nation should have less reliability because the Republican majority is trying to engineer its way out of a budget morass of its own making? Will the enforcement activities of the reliability organization be constrained by a budget gimmick? Surely when blackouts are estimated to cost the Nation $80 billion annually we can agree that the integrity of the transmission system is too important to tamper with in this manner.

In closing Mr. Chairman, I believe that there is still opportunity to reach bipartisan consensus, as we did in this committee in the 107th Congress, and I stand ready to roll up my sleeves and do the work required. I fear, however, that our current course will lead to another two years of partisan gridlock.

- 30 -

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