Rep. Peters Calls out Republican Cuts to Clean Energy and Fossil Fuel Favoritism in Tax Plan

Washington, D.C. - Today, during the Energy and Commerce Committee's consideration of the Republican tax plan, which will kick 13.7 million people off their healthcare, Representative Scott Peters (CA-50) called out provisions that will make it easier to build polluting coal power plants and cut back on investments in clean energy technologies.

Watch Rep. Peters' opening statement against the Republican tax plan here.

Speaking on the Republican plan, Rep. Peters said, "Last Congress, my Republican colleagues were insistent that we should have an all-of-the-above energy strategy, one that leveraged our natural resources, unleashed American innovation, and cut through bureaucratic red tape. Which is why I am confused that we are considering a reconciliation bill that picks winners and losers, and elevates expensive, outdated, and inefficient sources like coal over cheap American-made energy like solar, wind, and storage."

He continued, "Why does this bill provide government-backed insurance to coal plants, as the President of the United States single-handedly kills hundreds if not thousands of clean energy jobs across the country by illegally targeting projects and weaponizing the permitting process?"

And he concluded, "We need to face reality; we can't build anything in America anymore. North America has built about 7 gigawatts of interregional transmission since 2014, with less than half of that in the U.S. In that same time frame, South America has built 22 gigawatts, Europe has built 44 gigawatts, and China has built 260. There is a growing bipartisan coalition for permitting reform. Whether it's forest management, electric transmission, or building housing, I have reached across the aisle and found success in moving solutions forward. Many of us have voiced our desire to work in a bipartisan way to make America more energy dominant. Now is the time to put our money where our mouth is, and focus on durable, common-sense, and all-of-the-above policies that provide certainty for industry and consumers."

CA-50 Medicaid Facts:

• 156,100 people in the district rely on Medicaid for health coverage-that's 20 percent of all district residents.
• • 34,700 children in the district are covered by Medicaid.
  • 17,700 seniors in the district are covered by Medicaid.
  • 64,900 adults in the district have Medicaid coverage through Medicaid expansion-that includes pregnant women who are able to access prenatal care sooner because of Medicaid expansion, parents, caretakers, veterans, people with substance use disorder and mental health treatment needs, and people with chronic conditions and disabilities.
• At least five hospitals in the district had negative operating margins in 2022. These hospitals would be especially hard-hit by cuts to Medicaid. For example:
• • Scripps Mercy Hospital had a negative 25.3 percent operating margin-and nearly 22 percent of its revenue came from Medicaid.
  • Sharp Coronado Hospital had a negative 3.5 percent operating margin-and over 36 percent of its revenue came from Medicaid.
  • University of California San Diego Medical Center had a negative 2.4 percent operating margin-and nearly 19 percent of its revenue came from Medicaid.
• There are 54 health center delivery sites in the district that serve 529,944 patients.
• Those health centers and patients rely on Medicaid-statewide, 69 percent of health center patients rely on Medicaid for coverage.
• Health centers will not be able to stay open and provide the same care that they do today, with more uninsured and underinsured patients. They are already operating on thin margins-in 2023, nationally, nearly half of health centers had negative operating margins.
• Medicaid cuts put health centers at risk, including:
• • Family Health Centers of San Diego
  • Neighborhood Healthcare
  • North County Health Project
  • San Diego American Indian Health Centers
  • St. Vincent De Paul Village

Read Rep. Peters full remarks below:

Last Congress, my Republican colleagues were insistent that we should have an all-of-the-above energy strategy, one that leveraged our natural resources, unleashed American innovation, and cut through bureaucratic red tape.

Which is why I am confused that we are considering a reconciliation bill that picks winners and losers, and elevates expensive, outdated, and inefficient sources like coal over cheap American-made energy like solar, wind, and storage.

Why does this bill expedite permitting for natural gas pipelines - an undeniably important component of our energy system - while completely ignoring transmission lines, without which we would not be able to meet a single kilowatt of energy demand?

Why does this bill provide government-backed insurance to coal plants, as the President of the United States single-handedly kills hundreds, if not thousands, of clean energy jobs across the country by illegally targeting projects and weaponizing the permitting process?

This entire Congress, my Republican colleagues have focused almost exclusively on our need to build baseload power to meet energy demand from data centers, manufacturing, and AI.

However, when they have an opportunity to ensure this baseload power can move from where it's generated to where it will be used, my Republican colleagues have not only chosen to completely ignore the problem, but are rescinding funds to make it easier to build out the energy infrastructure we need to reduce costs and keep the lights on.

We need to face reality; we can't build anything in America anymore. North America has built about 7 gigawatts of interregional transmission since 2014, with less than half of that in the U.S. In that same time frame, South America has built 22 gigawatts, Europe has built 44 gigawatts, and China has built 260.

There is a growing bipartisan coalition for permitting reform. Whether it's forest management, electric transmission, or building housing, I have reached across the aisle and found success in moving solutions forward.

Many of us have voiced our desire to work in a bipartisan way to make America more energy dominant. Now is the time to put our money where our mouth is, and focus on durable, common-sense, and all-of-the-above policies that provide certainty for industry and consumers.

This bill, however, doesn't come anywhere close to meeting the moment. It isn't real permitting reform, it doesn't make us energy dominant, and it only makes things more uncertain for industry, for Americans, and for our future.

Instead of making it easier to build everything, once again we are cutting off our feet in the race to energy resilience. This is the definition of picking winners and losers. And this not the way we will achieve a resilient, energy-abundant future.