mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time . 
i rise in opposition to this rule . 
the state of california sends $ 50 billion more to the federal government while getting nothing in return for that $ 50 billion . 
with this bill , californians are being asked to sacrifice even more while getting nothing in return . 
here are some examples : according to the department of energy , the bill will raise gasoline prices by 8 cents a gallon . 
i think that that is an outrage . 
the bill 's mtbe liability waiver will let refiners off the hook for cleaning up drinking water that has been contaminated by their product . 
local governments are going to have to pay the entire cost . 
and the cbo has said this is an unfunded mandate . 
the bill will undermine the ability of states to ensure that liquefied natural gas terminals are sited and operate safely . 
the bill will undermine states ' appeals rights under the coastal zone management act . 
the bill paves the way for building energy facilities on the outer continental shelf , including areas subject to gas and oil drilling . 
in listening to state leaders about this bill , i could not find anyone , from the governor on down , who has said that this is a wonderful bill and it should be supported and passed . 
instead , i have heard many concerns , from the lieutenant governor , from members of the governor 's cabinet , the attorney general , the coastal commission , the public utilities commission , local governments , and water utilities . 
mr. speaker , i will include in the record a packet of letters from the coastal commission , the california puc , the lieutenant governor , and the california ocean protection council . 
under this rule , i do not think we even have the opportunity to debate and vote on the most important amendments dealing with them . 
i ask my colleagues , particularly my california colleagues , to join me in voting against the rule and the underlying bill . 
the letters previously referred to are as follows : house of representatives , washington , dc , april 19 , 2005 . 
dear governor schwarzenegger , on april 13th , our committees ( the house committee on energy and commerce and the house committee on resources ) completed work on elements of a comprehensive energy bill that will come before the full house of representatives as soon as april 20th . 
after participating in the debate and reviewing the products that emerged from our respective committees , we foresee serious dangers for the state of california if this legislation is enacted . 
while the delegation has received your letter supporting the removal of the participant funding section from the electricity title of the bill , we have not heard from you about other provisions that will more directly and immediately affect california . 
as we and other members of the delegation determine how to best represent the interests of our state , we believe it 's important to understand your views on some of the key provisions before us as well as your overall position on the legislation . 
most of the elements of the legislation are not new . 
they were part of the conference report on h.r. 6 , which was considered by the house and senate in 2003 . 
among the few new provisions are those that would further disadvantage our state . 
we 've described below some of the provisions that we consider most troubling for california . 
the bill will hand over exclusive jurisdiction for the siting of liquefied natural gas ( lng ) facilities to the federal energy regulatory commission ( ferc ) , preventing the states from having a role in approving the location of lng terminals and the conditions under which these terminals must operate . 
in addition , states will have to seek ferc permission before conducting safety inspections , and they will be barred from taking any independent enforcement action against lng terminal operators for safety violations . 
finally , for the next six years , lng terminal operators will be allowed to withhold underutilized capacity from other lng suppliers . 
in other words , lng terminal operators can legally exercise market power to drive up the cost of natural gas . 
when the el paso corporation and its independent affiliates allegedly conspired to withhold natural gas pipeline capacity in order to inflate the costs of natural gas and electricity in california in 2000 and 2001 , the state sought relief for these reasons , the provision is unanimously opposed by the california public utilities commission , which , as you know , is fighting ferc in the courts for jurisdiction over an lng terminal in the heart of the port of long beach . 
this provision is also opposed by the california ocean protection council , which includes two members of your cabinet , and the california coastal commission . 
erosion of states ' rights under the coastal zone management act ( czma ) ( provisions from h.r. 6 ) the bill weakens california 's rights under the coastal zone management act to object to a ferc-approved coastal pipeline or energy facility project when the project is inconsistent with the state 's federally-approved coastal management program . 
currently when there is a disagreement about a project , the secretary of commerce , through an administrative appeals process , determines whether and under what conditions the project can go forward . 
states can present new evidence supporting their arguments to the secretary . 
under this bill , states will not be allowed to present new evidence to the secretary , and the secretary will not be allowed to seek out evidence on his or her own . 
the secretary will only be allowed to rely on the record compiled by ferc . 
furthermore , the bill imposes an expedited timeline for appeals , which may not allow a full review of the facts . 
the california coastal commission and the california ocean protection council oppose this provision . 
energy related facilities on the outer continental shelf ( ocs ) ( provisions from h.r. 6 ) the bill will give the department of interior permitting authority for `` alternative '' energy projects , such as wind projects , situated on the outer continental shelf ( ocs ) . 
it also grants the department of interior authority to permit other types of energy facilities , including facilities to `` support the exploration , development , production , transportation , or storage of oil , natural gas , or other minerals. '' these facilities could be permitted within coastal areas currently subject to congressional moratoria on oil and gas leasing . 
( again , both the california coastal commission and the california ocean protection council have indicated that they oppose this provision. ) ethanol mandate ( provision from h.r. 6 ) the clean air act 's two percent oxygenate requirement forces refiners selling gasoline in california to blend more ethanol into their fuel than is needed for air quality purposes . 
instead of improving air quality , the unnecessary use of ethanol is increasing pollution in parts of the state , according to a preliminary report from the california air resources board . 
the oxygenate requirement is also adding to the cost of fuel . 
last year , you asked the u.s. epa to waive the oxygenate requirement , and last week , 50 members of the california congressional delegation reiterated support for your request in a letter to acting epa administrator stephen l. johnson . 
under the energy bill coming before the house , however , california refiners will have to blend even more ethanol into their gasoline or pay ( in the form of credit purchases ) not to use it . 
two years ago , a department of energy analysis of this provision indicated that it could add more than 8 cents to the cost of a gallon of gasoline . 
in a time of skyrocketing gas prices , this new mandate amounts to hidden tax on california motorists , which will subsidize a single industry located largely in the midwest . 
while some have argued that the ethanol mandate will be a boon to california agriculture , we see no evidence to support this argument . 
according to the u.s. energy information administration ( eia ) , the ethanol mandate will greatly expand production of corn-based ethanol , but only 0.2 % of the nation 's corn is produced in california . 
more important , eia projects that the ethanol mandate will result in no increase in the production of cellulosic ethanol ( ethanol made from agricultural and forestry residues and other resources ) , which is the primary type of ethanol that can be produced in california . 
mtbe liability waiver and transition fund ( provisions from h.r. 6 ) the bill provides liability protection for the producers of the gasoline additive mtbe , hampering the efforts of local governments , water utilities , and others to hold producers and oil companies responsible for the costs of cleaning drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by mtbe . 
in california , south lake tahoe and santa monica have been able to reach settlements with the industry for the cleanup of their drinking water after successfully arguing that the industry sold a defective product . 
if the liability protection in the bill is enacted , then mtbe will be deemed a safe product and the industry will be relieved from virtually any obligation to pay cleanup costs . 
in june 2003 , fourteen state attorneys general wrote in opposition to this this bill includes language which will require the secretary of energy to designate `` refinery revitalization zones '' in areas that have experienced mass layoffs or contain an idle refinery and have an unemployment rate that exceeds the national average by 10 percent . 
in areas that meet these criteria , the secretary of energy is given authority to site a new refinery within six months of receiving a petition for approval . 
the criteria outlined in the language would result in much of california being designated a `` refinery revitalization zone , '' from imperial to east los angeles and north of san jose . 
in fact , more than half of california 's 53 congressional districts would be subject to these provisions . 
this language erodes the state , air board and communities permitting and enforcement authority for these refineries by granting sweeping new authority to the department of energy . 
the department is empowered to coordinate and set binding deadlines for all federal authorizations and environmental reviews , including those currently conducted by air quality management districts . 
the department of energy , however , is not trained and experienced in issuing air permits and is not familiar with the various rules implemented by local agencies as part of the state implementation plan ( sip ) required by the clean air act . 
for these reasons , the south coast air quality management district has expressed serious reservations about this provision . 
an amendment added to the bill in the energy and commerce committee will preempt california 's new efficiency standards for ceiling fans , pending the implementation of a federal standard . 
the u.s. department of energy has been notoriously slow in propounding efficiency standards , falling years behind statutory deadlines for setting or updating efficiency standards for other appliances , such as air conditioners . 
preempting california and forcing it to wait indefinitely for a federal standard runs completely against the state 's effort to reduce electricity demand . 
indeed , the ceiling fan standard is part of a california energy commission demand reduction package that will reduce peak power demand by 1 , 000 megawatts within 10 years , saving consumers $ 75 a year in energy costs and conserving as much power as can be generated by three large power plants . 
hydroelectric dam relicensing ( provisions from h.r. 6 ) the bill restructures the hydroelectric relicensing process to give special preference to dam operators . 
other parties with legitimate interests in relicensing , including states , tribes , conservationists , farmers , and fishermen , would not be afforded the same opportunities . 
under current law , federal resource agencies can impose conditions on a hydroelectric license for the protection of natural resources and wildlife . 
under the bill a dam operator , and only a dam operator , will be entitled to a trial-type hearing before a resource agency to dispute the evidence that the agency uses to justify placing conditions on a license . 
the bill also requires resource agencies to accept alternative license conditions proposed by a dam operator . 
otherwise , the agencies must meet nearly impossible standards to justify a decision to deny the alternative . 
river resources belong to more than dam operators . 
with licenses that last for up to 50 years , relicensing is one of the few chances to make sure that resources are adequately protected for all stakeholders . 
in california , there are more than 300 federally-regulated hydroelectric dams ; over 200 will undergo relicensing in the next 10 to 15 years . 
denying all stakeholders equal footing in the process is fundamentally unfair and is a recipe for protracted litigation . 
we believe there are many other aspects of the legislation which will have a negative impact on our state , but these provisions clearly run contrary to the interests of california , and we believe they will undermine the policies and positions the state is pursuing under your administration . 
before the delegation votes on this legislation , members should have the benefit of your views on these provisions and the bill as a whole . 
this legislation is too important a matter for the nation 's largest state to be silent on . 
although time is short , the issues we 've outlined have been in the public domain for the past several months , going back to november 2003 in most cases . 
therefore , we ask for your input before the house votes on this legislation this week . 
thank you for timely consideration of this important request . 
sincerely , & lt ; center & gt ; anna g. eshoo , & lt ; /center & gt ; & lt ; center & gt ; & lt ; em & gt ; committee on energy and commerce. & lt ; /em & gt ; & lt ; center & gt ; henry a. waxman , & lt ; /center & gt ; & lt ; center & gt ; & lt ; em & gt ; committee on energy and commerce. & lt ; /em & gt ; & lt ; center & gt ; lois capps , & lt ; /center & gt ; & lt ; center & gt ; & lt ; em & gt ; committee on energy and commerce. & lt ; /em & gt ; & lt ; center & gt ; grace f. napolitano , & lt ; /center & gt ; & lt ; center & gt ; & lt ; em & gt ; committee on resources. & lt ; /em & gt ; & lt ; center & gt ; george miller , & lt ; /center & gt ; & lt ; center & gt ; & lt ; em & gt ; committee on resources. & lt ; /em & gt ; & lt ; center & gt ; hilda l. solis , & lt ; /center & gt ; & lt ; center & gt ; & lt ; em & gt ; committee on energy and commerce. & lt ; /em & gt ; protection council , sacramento , ca , april 4 , 2005 . 
dear representatives waxman , eshoo , capps and solis : thank you for your march 15 , 2005 letter to the california ocean protection council regarding the pending national energy bill and your concerns about potential impact of this legislation on ocean and coastal protection . 
the california ocean protection act is intended to help california coordinate and act on ocean and coastal issues of statewide and national significance . 
the membership of the council includes the secretary of the resources agency , who serves as chairman , the secretary of the california environmental protection agency ( cal/epa ) , and the chair of the state lands commission , who is currently the lieutenant governor . 
one state senator and one assemblymember also are appointed to serve as non-voting members of the council . 
the council is committed to maintaining california as a leader in ocean and coastal management . 
the council stands ready to fully implement the california ocean protection act and governor schwarzenegger 's ocean action plan . 
at our first meeting on march 21 the council discussed the need to maintain strong ocean and coastal protection measures . 
as a council we did not suggest a position on the energy bill , but reached consensus on the need to re-affirm california 's position on the following ocean and coastal protection issues : congressional oil and gas moratorium . 
the council opposes any effort to lift the congressional moratorium on offshore oil and gas leasing activities that has been protecting our shores since 1982 . 
coastal zone management act . 
the council opposes efforts to reduce the ocean and coastal protections provided by the coastal zone management act . 
liquefied natural gas facility siting . 
the council objects to efforts to reduce or eliminate a state 's role in the siting of liquefied natural gas facilities . 
we appreciate the opportunity to provide input on these critical issues facing california and other coastal states . 
please contact brian maird , assistant secretary for ocean and coastal policy , california resources agency if you have additional questions , or would like to further engage california in efforts to protect and manage ocean and coastal resources . 
he can be reached at ( 916 ) 657-0198 or via e-mail at brian @ resources.ca.gov . 
sincerely , & lt ; center & gt ; mike chrisman , & lt ; /center & gt ; & lt ; center & gt ; & lt ; em & gt ; chairman , california ocean protection council , secretary for resources. & lt ; /em & gt ; & lt ; center & gt ; cruz bustamante , & lt ; /center & gt ; & lt ; center & gt ; & lt ; em & gt ; california lieutenant governor. & lt ; /em & gt ; & lt ; center & gt ; alan lloyd , & lt ; /center & gt ; & lt ; center & gt ; & lt ; em & gt ; secretary for california epa. & lt ; /em & gt ; march 23 , 2005 . 
dear congresswoman eshoo : as chair of the california state lands commission and a member of the newly-created california ocean protection council , i am writing to express my strong opposition to the energy legislation currently pending in congress . 
california is world-renowned for its 1 , 100 miles of breathtaking coastline . 
our ocean supports an abundance of marine life that is critical to the health of the world 's ecosystem and our state 's economy . 
a healthy ocean is inseparable from california 's heritage and way of life . 
the proposed energy legislation is a threat to our state 's environmental autonomy and coastal stewardship . 
protecting our coast means protecting a vital asset of california 's economy , as it provides more than $ 450 billion and hundreds of thousands of jobs to our state . 
the house energy and commerce committee is currently reviewing substantial changes in federal energy policy , including the rewriting the outer continental shelf lands act to grant the federal administration sweeping new authority over california 's coastal management and role in planning for coastal development . 
these changes would give the secretary of the interior new authority over energy-related leases , easements and right-of-way issues without any role for the affected state . 
this invasion of states ' rights would eliminate california 's ability to adequately protect our coast . 
another concern to californians is the federal government 's effort to strip the state of the ability to determine the siting of liquefied natural gas ( lng ) terminals . 
the state should be able to continue to play a meaningful role in determining the appropriate location of any gas terminal within the state 's boundaries . 
finally , any proposal that would give way to the lifting of the moratorium on offshore oil drilling along our coast is abhorrent to the vast majority of california 's voters and its public officials . 
the moratorium was put in place in 1990 by then-president george h.w . 
bush . 
californians continue to overwhelmingly support making the moratorium permanent . 
on march 21 , the other members of the ocean council joined me in expressing opposition to this `` so-called '' energy bill as the council 's first official act . 
today , i ask that you let the voice of californians prevail in any decisions being made about the future of our coast . 
with kindest regards , california coastal commission , san francisco , ca , march 23 , 2004 . 
dear representatives barton and dingell : on behalf of the california coastal commission ( the commission ) , i write to express our strong objection to provisions in the energy bill that would compromise the outer continental shelf ( ocs ) moratorium on oil drilling , seriously weaken the coastal zone management act ( czma ) protection of states rights , and eviscerate california 's role in siting new liquefied natural gas ( lng ) terminals . 
relative to the ocs moratorium , the legislation calls for a study that would open the door to carrying out an exploratory inventory of natural gas reserves within moratoria areas off the california coast . 
such an inventory would seriously undermining the longstanding bipartisan legislative moratorium on new mineral leasing activity on submerged lands of the ocs that has been included the commission also objects to proposed amendments to the czma . 
the proposed legislation would severely undercut the ability of coastal states to exercise their right to protect coastal resources pursuant to the federal consistency review provisions of the czma that have been law for more than thirty years . 
it would eliminate meaningful state participation in the appeal to the secretary of commerce of consistency decisions relative to ocs oil drilling and other federal activities by imposing unreasonable and unworkable time limitations for the processing of the appeal . 
the time limits set forth in the legislation are totally inadequate to enable the secretary of commerce to develop a complete record for the appeal and to review all the materials finally , the commission opposes the legislation 's provisions to trump state 's rights by giving the federal energy regulatory commission ( ferc ) authority over the siting of lng terminals . 
the commission objects to any amendments to the natural gas act and natural gas policy act that would expand ferc 's authority to preempt state regulations , condemn property for siting and construction of natural gas pipelines , and establish schedules and develop the exclusive record for administrative review of all state and federal decisions under federal law . 
the energy legislation 's provisions are directly contrary to california 's strong interest in safeguarding its precious coastal resources from offshore oil and gas drilling-related activities . 
if you or your staff has questions , please contact peter douglas , executive director , at ( 415 ) 904-5201 . 
sincerely , meg caldwell , public utilities commission , san francisco , ca , april 11 , 2005 . 
dear representative eshoo : the california public utilities commission ( cpuc ) strongly opposes the liquefied natural gas ( lng ) provisions in section 320 of title iii of the energy policy act of 2005 ( epact ) , and urges you to vote in favor of any proposed amendment to strike section 320 from title iii during markup , which we understand will take place on tuesday , april 12 , 2005 . 
section 320 would give the federal energy regulatory commission ( ferc ) exclusive jurisdiction over proposed liquefied natural gas ( lng ) facilities . 
this disproportionate control in the hands of ferc could have very serious consequences for california , due to ferc 's lack of understanding of local conditions , such as seismic issues , and refusal to have hearings to consider the cpuc agrees that lng terminals are necessary . 
it is not a question for us should there be lng terminals on the west coast , including california . 
the real issue is how to make sure they are safely located , and what safeguards would be sufficient to mitigate the risks , especially for sites in densely populated areas . 
the cpuc is aware of at least seven different lng proposals to serve southern california . 
whether the market would support more than two or three of them has been questioned by many experts . 
similarly , of the 56 proposed lng import terminals along the coast of north america , most of them will never be built due to market conditions . 
the point is that even without the lng provisions in this bill , there will be new lng terminals to meet our needs . 
the lng provisions in the proposed epact , if enacted , would severely undermine the careful evaluation of the safety issues that is necessary , particularly in densely populated areas , by depriving the states of decisionmaking authority , and by allowing the ferc to expedite the processes an control the administrative records . 
in addition , in sharp contrast to europe and japan , the lng provisions would insulate the lng terminal operators from any regulatory safeguards against their exercise of market power at least through january 1 , 2011 . 
as a result of these risks can be prevented or minimized if a more balanced approach , such as concurrent jurisdiction , were utilized . 
in that way , the states could apply their expertise , not to block lng terminals , but to ensure that they are safely sited and some regulatory check could exist to protect the consumers . 
the consequences of these risks , if there were an accident , earthquake or terrorist attack at one of the california lng terminals , would be to the nearby communities . 
the state of california should have decisionmaking authority and should not be made helpless and unable to protect the health and safety of our citizens . 
similarly , if there were a new energy crisis caused by lng terminal operators exercising market power , california utilities and their ratepayers would be the victims . 
the lng provisions should be stricken from title iii , so that the cpuc and other states can help prevent such a crisis from occurring . 
this concurrent jurisdiction approach worked in the 1970s when the cpuc and the ferc both certificated proposed lng facilities at point conception , instead of going forward with the initial proposal approved by the ferc at the city of oxnard . 
although the cpuc has been blamed for defending our jurisdiction over lng terminals in california in the current litigation between the ferc and cpuc in the ninth circuit , the cpuc tried to resolve the dispute and work cooperatively with the ferc at the outset . 
it was the ferc , who resisted our efforts and chose to make this a test case for the courts . 
it was the ferc , who rejected the cpuc 's request for a hearing in that proceeding even though the proposed lng facilities at the port of long beach would be in a densely populated area and built on landfill with 27 active for these reasons , we urge you to oppose section 320 and vote in favor of striking the lng provisions from the proposed epact . 
we urge you 'to consider a more balanced approach , such as concurrent jurisdiction , which would combine the expertise of federal and state agencies , and result in real cooperation . 
sincerely , michael r. peevey , 