Now we're back on the bill, is there any comment from the members? Representative Harris? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a, was an original sponsor to the House companion to Senate Bill 3 , ours was a little bit more of an ambitious standard, but never-the-less, I participated in many of those 90-plus member stakeholder meetings where we got concessions from the industry, and from consumers, and from environmental advocates and others who were concerned about the state of our energy policy in North Carolina. We had contracted a study with La Capra back in 2007, that anticipated making a significant amount of clean energy jobs in North Carolina, it projected to have the energy rates reduced by a significant amount for rate payers as of 2021, it also indicated we'd be creating a clean energy economy, and creating energy security for our state. I think that the La Capra study has come to bear and we know that on recent reports that we've seen that we've got about $3.7 billion in North Carolina's economy in clean energy investments and revenues, 1100 clean energy businesses, 21,000 clean energy jobs in North Carolina, at a time when our economy wasn't in very good shape, and we've seen also a commensurate decrease in energy rates if you look at the analyses that have been performed on rates that have actually been impacted by the renewable energy standard, have been pretty much stagnant, so it has not resulted in the rate increases that have been claimed. I think it's a terrible signal to business to have this policy in place, to entice these businesses to locate here, create this energy economy which, we're the number two state in the country for clean energy job growth, and we've become a clean energy manufacturing hub here in North Carolina, so it seems crazy to just throw that all out. I know personally a large foundation that's interested in investing in swine waste energy, but has held off as a result of all the uncertainty about the potential for refilling our clean energy standards, so I just think there's so many reasons that this is bad policy, whether it's our economy or whether it's energy security, or for the rate-payer, or for clean air, I think there's all kinds of reasons that we ought to be concerned about this legislation, and I urge you to vote no.[SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar...sorry, Representative Hager, then we'll get Representative Dollar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've seen the same numbers that Representative Harris said, but I want to address one issue real quick, and this has been just a misconception as we've gone on through this, Representative Harris counted 21,000 jobs, and if you look at the La Capre report, it's not 21,000 job-years. The last time job-years were used was with the stimulus package and how many job years. As you guys know, one job created for four years is four job-years, so if you do the math, it's about 3500 jobs total, 3500-4000 jobs. And I find it funny that this is a clean energy bill, but you'll allow swine waste and poultry waste to be burned. And I find it funny that it's a clean energy bill, but you don't allow all the hydro to be used, which is one of the best renewable sources we have. So you've got to look beyond that and say, what kind of a bill was this, this is a bill in which a sector of business was born on the backs of the consumers, on the backs of State government, and the backs of the rate-payers. Why else would you have to have federal tax credits, state tax credits, and renewable energy credits in order to regulate your portfolio for your business to survive? If the business doesn't need these, and if it is cheaper than what we have now, then why do we need tax credits, why do we need subsidies, why do we need mandates? That's the question you have to ask yourself. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.[SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar.[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will apologize to the sponsors in advance, I've only recently had the time to sit down and take a look at the bill, and of course I appreciate having the PCS, and got a chance to look at it. My question is directed toward Duke Energy, as Duke is now the consolidated, primary provider of power in North Carolina, and I would like to hear, Mr. Chairman, if Duke Energy is here, a representative, I would like to pose a question to them.[SPEAKER CHANGES] Is there anyone here from Duke Energy? [SPEAKER CHANGES] If you would, come forward and state your name and who your with, for the record, and Representative Dollar, we'll let you ask your question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Kelly Cocurra, I'm with Duke Energy, three months and one week. Happy to answer any questions I can. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar, if you...[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Miss Cocurra, could you...
Tell us what analysis has been done by Duke Energy on the impact of this bill and to the extent that you all are making an assessment or have or haven't made an assessment on the PCS that's been offered. The impact of this bill with regard to rates, to power production, to availability, to the energy market here in North Carolina. [SPEAKER CHANGES] yeah, I'll be happy to share our perspective on that representative Dollar. Some of you were here in 2007 and know that senate bill three was a very carefully crafted consensus bill and while Duke Energy did not specifically request modifications to senate bill three our goal with house bill 298 would be and is to once again work with representative Hager and the other sponsors of the bill and interested stakeholders to find consensus. We have ran a number of models, just read the PCS a few moments ago so our experts will need to go back and take another look to be able to specifically answer your question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What was your analysis of the prior bill before the PCS? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The ability to recover - our concern just to back up a moment is our ability to recover for our contracts and based on this most recent PCS the ability to recover for our contracts appears to remain intact with this current PCS but again I would want someone with more experience than I have at this stage to take a look at that to be able to give us a better answer. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman if I could just ask one more question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes Representative Dollar, another question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I won't belabor the point but what's the impact? What's Duke Energy's assessment of the impact of 298 on residential consumers and others? [SPEAKER CHANGES] In terms of financials or? I'm sorry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Financial and otherwise if you... [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don't have the specific statistics or data on that based on the PCS today but I will be more than happy to provide that to you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jeter. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. If I could I'd like to make a comment and then ask a question followed by as many follow ups as you would graciously allow. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well we have 15 minutes and I have Whitmire is the only other member that I have that wants to speak, and Alexander. Are there any other... [SPEAKER CHANGES] Whitmire's pretty quick. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Let me just check, a real quick check and see who all wants to speak. Alexander did you want to speak? Leubke, is there any others? Okay, we should have time for all that. Feel free representative Jeter. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. My concern with 298 is it seems like to me that we're talking about trying to end the subsidy in an industry that is by definition subsidized. They have monopolies on where they exist. In my neighborhood I don't have an option of energy choice, I must use Energy United or I don't get electricity.That is a subsidy one way or the other. It may not be a financial subsidy but is a guaranteed monopoly. This bill doesn't change that fact. I'm also concerned that this bill doesn't affect third party sales in removing quips [??]. If we're going to go free market let's do it. To me we're splitting the baby in half, and my concern is we're allowing - and I don't want to single out Duke Energy, but we're allowing the electricity companies to have the benefit of senate bill three form 2007 and taking away the parts that aren't as beneficial maybe perhaps to them. My question if I could to the bill's sponsor is I've heard that this will reduce energy costs but yet when I got my bill from progress, Duke Progress Energy, I don't know, whatever their new name is, at my apartment literally yesterday, it had a sub-line item. So it's my understanding that this current legislation - I guess my question is, and I don't know the answer to this, I really don't know the answer. My understanding is the reps comes out at a separate...
...line item which costs me, on my current bill, 43 cents per bill, per month, and it doesn't have a direct impact on my actual electric rate. Am I incorrect in that assessment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hager. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First let me address the comment in talking about a free market and subsidies within North Carolina for a Duke Power partner/synergy, whatever. As you may or may not know, Representative Jeter, Duke has what's called a responsibility to serve. That may not mean much in your area, living around Lake Norman, but it means much to everybody in the center rural area. For instance, I live 3/4 mile off the road, they have to serve me, they don't make any money off of me, they have to serve me. And there's this thing called the transmission system that they have to keep up, there's this thing called the grid that they have to keep up, they have to...you like your refrigerator run so it at the right voltage, they have to maintain that, you like your t.v. to run, so it has to be the right frequency, they have to maintain that. There's more than just what you see as far as the generation side of Duke Power. They have a transmission side, they have a distribution side, they have a grid parity side also. So it's all that rolled in together, so if you want to unroll that, you've got to unroll the whole bill. You can't just say, "well, you can't have the part that makes money, but you've got to have the part that maintains responsibility to serve." I think that's a whole separate conversation but I do appreciate your comment. [SPEAKER CHANGES]I'm sorry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's OK. And to answer the question about the bill, it was very clever the way the bill was crafted, I look at it and as you may or may not know, there's three types of rates in North Carolina, there's Residential, there's Industrial, and there's Commercial. And you look at the numbers and you find that yes, it was true that you're paying a little bit on the Residential side, but you've got to look at the Commercial side, you've got to look at the Industrial side, and I'll tell you, those two things actually drive the economy and drive inflation, more than what you pay on your Residential bill. And as a good example, I think on the Commercial, on the Industrial side, the maximum charge is $1000 per month. It's, I think it's a couple hundred dollars right now, $200-$300 dollars right now, which is different than the 42 cents that you see on your bill. The Commercial is in the $30-$50 charge, somewhere around there. So you may see that come down, and it comes down, I think, proportionately, in the Industrial and the Commercial side too, in the cents-wise, it comes down 10 cents on your bill, it probably comes down 10 cents on the other bill. So you see the more egregious side, you don't see the more egregious side, which is actually as costs, through our small businesses, and through our manufacturers that we are trying to attract. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jeter, since I have three others in the queue, I'm going to let them speak, and if we have time, I will come back to you. We have public comment from 12:30 to 12:45, and we're voting at 12:45, but if time allows, I will come back to you and let you ask the others. Representative Whitmire. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a three-part question, I'll direct it at the bill sponsor, but quite possibly, if it needs to be deferred, I'll leave that up to you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Whitmire, if you could be all summed up in one question, it'd be great, because I do have two others, and we have ten minutes here. [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK. All right, first of all I commend the intent here, to try to get current capability and reasonable aspirations of increased renewables to a realistic level. When we look at the cost per kilowatt of wind and solar, and we look at that compared to conventional, plus the amount of subsidy it takes to create these, I would love to know the numbers, and, you know, the western part of the state has a lot of hydro production, but yet, nothing exceeding 10 megawatts with this amendment, which is now part of the bill, is allowed. Someone please quantify how small a lake or flow has to be not to exceed 10 megawatts? Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hager. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You want that in gallons? To not exceed 10, Lake Lure, for example, is a smaller generator, and it actually fits under this bill, but if you know Lake Lure is about 700-and-some miles of shoreline. Pretty good-sized lake. Really doesn't determine the size of the lake, it determines the size of the hydro in there. A lot of the small mountain lakes, like up there in Franklin and that area would qualify, and be under that 10 megawatts, around your area. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Alexander. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. I just simply wanted to make an observation that, as a student of history, I've noticed that if you want to grow a market, if you want to engender new technology, then at some point, those activities have been subsidized. I remember the 16th president, one Abraham Lincoln, who worked for the railroads, and during his first term, encouraged Congress to subsidize the development of,,,
said, railroads as they came across the great continent through the use of essentially the eminent domain powers of the federal government in order to give land to those private companies that they were able to then turn around and sell and develop. We talk about hydroelectric. The TVA is an excellent example of a government subsidy to help create and generate electricity. I could go on and on, but I say this to you to say that Senate Bill 3 was not onerous. It was not anything new and it is helping to put North Carolina at the cutting edge. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have Representative Luebke and then Representative Samuelson and then we're going to move to public comment. Representative Luebke. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think this is a question, well, it is a question for staff. Miss Fennel I think would be the one. I'm trying, as a former finance chair I'm interested in what has happened to the tax credits here and what I mean by that is as you remember we enacted some tax credits that related to renewable energy in separate bills, bills separate from Senate Bill 3, so my question is whether in this House Bill 298, which is seen as an update and change of Senate Bill 3, whether also all the tax credits are repealed that we had put in at different times and often as separate bills, sometimes as part of the finance package, etc. So can you tell me about the tax credits. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Staff. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. I will say there was one tax credit enacted in Senate Bill 3 and this bill does not touch that tax credit, and that was a tax credit for donation to a non-profit for that non-profit to invest in renewable energy property. So that is not touched by this bill. I believe you're referring to the Business and Energy Tax Credits, for example the tax credit for investing in renewable energy property. That tax credit is set to expire in 2016. That is not affected by this bill and it has not been changed. I'm not sure what other information you're looking for but these don't change those. A lot of those are expiring very shortly anyway because of some other reform efforts here at the General Assembly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just a quick follow up, Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So basically what you're saying is that bill that you just described, this energy tax credit, it has a sunset on it as we typically did in finance at that time, and it's because of the sunset, really, independent of this legislation, that that will be expiring. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Samuelson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. It's no secret that I don't support this bill and made some comments last time and I won't remake those. I've actually got a question and if there's somebody here from the utilities commission, because my understanding was not only did the original bill have cost from the renewable side, but cost from all the parts of the bill that we're not talking that are currently reflected on your bill, but I was under the impression that even that obligation to serve to the degree that it cost the utility something that they were able to recoup the cost and I think even to make that that's part of the equation in a rate case on their earning profits. So if there's somebody from the utilities in here, I thought that did, was something that they, I hate to say make money on it, but part of the equation of allowing a regulated monopolistic utility to have a profit is that that's factored into it as well. Is there somebody here? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is there some? If you would just state your name and who you're with for the record please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Dan Conner, and I'm a staff attorney with the Utilities Commission. If your question is whether or not they can recoup their investment, investment in public utility that invests in a solar or wind project would be able to pass their costs if that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Clarify my question. No, actually I was talking about the answer that this bill sponsor gave on the fact that with the obligation to serve that there are certain costs that I think the statement was, and I wasn't writing it down to get it quoted, but that when the utility has these costs to provide service that that costs them and that they don't make anything on it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] There will certainly pass through when they open up a general rate case they can put in costs. That would be required, too, when they have to provide some
-to an individual or residence. If they incur costs, those would be able to be passed through into the general rate base. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hager. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman and representatives, that's not what I said. I was telling Representative Jeter there was more than just producing power into what Duke has to do. Manage the grid, have the responsibility to serve everybody where other folks don't have those issues if you just compare apples to apples. It's not apples-apples comparison. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, I got the answer I needed which was that cost is part of the right case. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That completes the committee remarks and we will now move to the public comments and I have four people who have signed up to speak, I'm just going to call them in order. I have them here on the sheet. John Morrison, you're first, and if you will, try to limit your comments to two minutes please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you very much. I'm John Morrison, I'm the chief operating officer of Strata Solar. Strata Solar is a solar development and builder of solar farms here in North Carolina. We're the largest solar company in North Carolina, the fourth largest in the nation. Today I brought with me- well, let me back up. First of all, we build solar farms that are typically thirty-three acres in size. We sell electricity from those farms to utilities to do progress, co-ops, ??. Today I brought with me a bottle of Texas Pete. For those of you who were at the House Committee hearings a couple of weeks ago, remember that the sponsor of this bill brought forward a bottle of Texas Pete and explained a scenario whereby these premiums that are paid for renewable energy ripple through our economy and create additional costs to the ratepayers of North Carolina. If that's the case, I would like to have some, please. We do not receive additional payments from the utilities or the rate payers for the electricity that we sell to them. We sell at avoided costs. That's utility-speak for the marginal cost of the utility. That's a rate set by the Utilities Commission and it represents the cost that Duke or any other utility produced the next incremental kilowatt hour of energy. The rate is set by the commission so that the utility is financially indifferent between buying electricity from us or generating it themselves. Now, when Senate Bill 3 was passed, there was a premium for energy, and this was the genius of the legislators who created that bill, because they created a market mechanism that relied on competitive forces, and when the bill was first passed, the supply of renewable energy was very limited. The cost of renewable energy was about three times the avoided cost. Entrepreneurs, businesses like Strata Solar, jumped into that opportunity and have dramatically increased the supply of renewable energy, so much so that that premium is essentially zero at this point, and so to the point of rate payers or paying a premium for renewable energy, it simply is not true. The rapid decline that's occurred as companies like ours have come in have taken a number of people by surprise. The utilities included- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Morrison, if you could be wrapping your comments up. Your two minutes is up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much. I would close by saying that the objectives of this bill will not be realized because there is not an impact to the rate payers of North Carolina from renewable energy that we are now building, and at the same time the economic opportunities and benefits that occur from the construction of those farms and the operation of those farms to tax base to land owners and to individuals earning income, payroll from those jobs would be beneficial. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Next up I have Kent, and I apologize, I'm not going to try to pronounce your last name, so I'll let you come forward and I'll let you do that. If you could just state your name and who you're with. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Kent ??, director of ?? Academies, but lifelong engineer. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I've spent much of my engineering career working on energy-related projects, including nuclear, hydrocoil, coal, oil, gas, and renewables in the US, Europe, and Asia. The following three examples from Europe describes what happens when governments attempt to make what should be unregulated, free market decisions. Example one: wind energy. A senior manager for Denmark's "Vestas", the world's largest wind turbine maker, reported to me in 2010 that the company was downsizing as a result of reductions in government subsidies. Clearly it's an unsustainable industry. Bloomberg News reported last week that Vestas had lost its second CFO in the past eighteen months due to continued financial losses. Example two: solar energy. Despite major government support, the German newspaper "Die Welt" just reported that the German solar industry is dissolving, with one third of the country's solar related business just having closed in the past year-
the total employment in the industry having dropped by fifty percent in the last twelve months. Example three BMW Spartanburg South Carolina plant BMW USA continues to expand and is now the largest exporter of the vehicles in the United States. The price a company pays for commercial electric power in South Carolina is less than half that in Germany through the high cost of renewables in Germany compared to ?? Nuclear Power Plants that generate fifty-one percent of South Carolina's total electricity twenty-four seven even on dark windless days will cost create energy jobs like nothing else free market should and do consider all forms of energy production what is wrong however is interventionism in the form of subsidies and mandates always results in higher cost in the industry[SPEAKER CHANGES]Mr.?? if you could be wrapping it up[SPEAKER CHANGES]and consumers lost opportunity cost all less choice and eventually to the collapse of industries created to supply those artificial markets I urge members of the committee and the state house to pass the bill two-ninety-eight thank you[SPEAKER CHANGES]thank you next up on the list we have Summer Lanier[SPEAKER CHANGES]will state your name and who you're with for the record[SPEAKER CHANGES]Mr chairman, members of the committee thank you for letting me speak here today my name is Summer Lanier and I'm with Prestage Farm I'm the public relations director we're family owned and operated pork and poultry production company with over seventy company-owned facilities eleven-hundred employees and three-hundred independent producers in southeastern North Carolina we recognize and appreciate the efforts of our law makers to maintain agricultural carve-outs put forth in senate bill three Prestige Farm still opposes the proposed mini substitute the house bill two-ninety-eight and will not support any changes to the writs in any form we believe in all renewable projects should ultimately be self-sufficient but it must be understood that certain initial market risks that's associated with the development of renewable energy projects accounting for these risks and without financial encouragement of the as written legislation this state will create a business impasse in the investment of the cost effective self-sustained renewable projects ?? Energy which is a subsidiary of Prestage Farm is currently in final negotiations for a poultry litter gassification facility in Bladen County Prestage certainly see its large waste of energy project halted without the support of senate bill three as it's currently written basing the established mandate Prestage has already invested millions to help fulfill the utility company needs and our project is a cost effective repairs in North Carolina and provide financial stability to two of the largest employers in this state we will also lose the investment of millions that we already invested as well as the millions we would invest annually in the economically depressed areas that we serve a certain long time markets are establish projects similar to what Prestage is already pursuing could be develop with little or no incentives any changes to any current legislation will seriously jeopardize and discourage investments in renewable energy thank you for your time and consideration ??[SPEAKER CHANGES]thank you last on the list we have Donald Brisson it would be good to state your name and who you're with [SPEAKER CHANGES]thank you Mr chairman, committee members my name is Donald Brisson I'm the office specialist for Americans for prosperity thank you for this opportunity first I want to submit for distribution by the sergeant of arms I have copies of a letter signed by sixteen holding stations such as Americans for prosperity the John Locke foundation and Competitive Enterprise Institute who all support this bill sunsetting and rolling back the RPS firms in senate bill three we would like to distribute it really appreciate it we support the UCPS I think Representative Catlin amendment sort of underscores the complexity of an house sort of shotty set-up in the first place we really need a better energy policy in North Carolina the RPS mandate of two thousand-seven has failed to meet the stated purpose that was put forth to begin with it worsens consumers needs with higher prices general assembly business winners and losers make questionable environmental decisions if the purpose of the RPS was to benefit energy consumers why haven't rate payers seen any tangible benefit rate payers in the state had additional cost energy bill rammed down their throats people who are against this bill talk over and over how consensus people bought to the table for estate holders but the ?? holders are the rate payers of the energy themselves people who are in support of keeping the writ in place are people who have direct financial incentive to keep it in place it's ridiculous
Yes, you know. Yes we now have a substantial solar energy in North Carolina but it wouldn't have been that if the RPS in general wouldn't have guaranteed them 1/8 of the market of the energy market in North Carolina by 2020 in the first place. It's ridiculous that the general assembly was ever supposed to pick winners and losers. Since 2005 families with household incomes in North Carolina between $30,000 and $50,000 have seen their energy rates increase by 20%, not 20%, but 20% of their income used to pay for energy. That's not insignificant for low income households. Energy consumers in RPS states can bet on gradual increases for utility prices and taxes. The expected result of government intervention, the non, sorry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? if you could be rapping it up please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The non-partisan state that the research. Yes sir. Found that states with some form of RPS on average have 39% higher energy costs. I urge you to do the right thing and vote in favor of House Bill 298. The bill will cap, roll back and sunset the RPS and greatly benefit the North Carolina rate payers, your taxpayers, your constituents. These rate payers will not consider with the passage of the Senate Bill 3 and 2007. I urge you to think of them now and be a leader in this nation. Other states are watching you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hager we will recognize you for closing remarks and then we'll accept a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Now what we're talking about here guys is very simple. I think this bill is to a point now to where if you oppose this bill you oppose a mandate that allows, I mean you support a mandate and subsidy that will virtually last forever. You have to decide yourself do you want your kids, your grandkids, your great grandkids paying for a subsidy that will last forever. If you do then this is the bill for you. If you think that subsidizing a sector of business for the next year pick your number 25, 50, 100, 200 years is ok, then this is the bill for you. I think we got to end the subsidy. I think we have a fair bill here that soft lands the industry. Mr. Morrison was at the, spoke first, but he's told me himself that by, potentially they probably won't need the tax credit when it expires, it's fine. Reps will be, if they go for too long it'll be fine and they'll be in strata solar which has a good business plan, will be fine as these things go away. So I like it a lot to a bear at Yellowstone. You know there are signs there if any of you have been there that says, what does it say? Don't feed the bears. You know there's probably two reasons. One, you might get your hand bit off. Second is, if you feed those bears they don't know how to go look for food anywhere else. I'll leave you guys with that visual. Another thing to think about if the only way this sector of business can move forward and the only way that investors want will come here is to make sure we have subsidies and tax credits, I think we need to rethink the business. [SPEAKER CHANGES] There are two members hands that went up we actually are public are committee remarks are from 12 to 12:30. We have four minutes left before we're gonna vote. I will quickly allow you to ask a question or make a comment if that's what they need to do, Representative Luebke and Hamilton, and then we're gonna vote. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Actually I would have a question, but I respect what you're saying about wanting to vote at 12:45. I will say that Representative Lucas said he needed to get something to eat and oh is he back. Alright well thank you. I didn't see him and I'll pass on my question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hamilton and then we'll be ready for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'll be brief. You know, I'm just compelled after listening to all this discussion to mention the fact that the Federal Government in the United States of America for the last 40 or so years has in fact subsudized and given credits and grants and what not for reasearch and development for the oil and gas industry. So I'll ask a question and it's rhetorical and I don't expect an answer. If we're gonna go after subsidies, credits, grants, whatever you want to call them for renewable sources of energy, perhaps we should start a campaign to go after research and development dollars for the oil and gas insdustry. Now I don't believe we should do either of those things. I think it's moved this country forward in our domestic energy policy by providing government support for research and development and oil and gas just like we've done in the state of North Carolina by providing research and development and financial support for the renewable energy sources which have made us a leader in the nation. I encourage you strongly to vote against this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Collins we'll allow you to make a remark and then we'll take a vote. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you for that question Representative Hamilton. We hear that a lot that all sources of energy are getting subsidized and maybe I should have printed this up for you, but this shows Federal subsidies of electricity sources per mega watt hour and if you notice there's one line there that's real high and another one you can just barely see and the rest of them are basically flat. That one line that's really really high is solar at almost $800 per mega watt hour. The one you can see is wind at about 50 and natural gas and coal and oil
-are so small that they won't even show up at less than ten dollars per megawatt hour. So there's a huge different in the way these sources of energy are subsidized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hamilton. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If it's, not to be combative- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hamilton, we're going to take a motion now. We're going to move forward. Representative Hager, you're recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I vote that we give a favorable to the PCS with the amendments rolled into it and unfavorable to the original. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, call for the eyes and noses. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We will call for the eyes and nose. The motion is ?? before here the clerk. The clerk, if you will call the roll. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hager? Yes. Representative Dockham? No. Representative Hamilton? Representative Samuelson? Representative Warren? Representative Alexander? Representative Arp? Yes. Representative Blackwell? Representative Brawley? Representative Catlin? Representative Collins? Representative Dollar? Representative Earle? Representative Elmore? Representative Gill? Representative Hall? Representative Hanes? Representative Harrison? Representative Hollo? Representative Howard? Representative Jeter? Representative Johnson? Representative Lucas? Is that a yes? No. Representative Luebke? Representative Martin? Representative Millis? Representative Rodney Moore? Representative Tim Moore? Representative Pierce? Representative Riddell? Representative Whitmire? Representative Wray? [PAUSE] Mr. Chair? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The motion fails, thirteen to eighteen. Yes, Representative Samuelson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would like to thank the sponsors for having made sure we understood the bill and presenting it well. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee's adjourned.