[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 83 (Monday, June 27, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 27, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                 INTRODUCTION OF OHIO POWER LEGISLATION

                                 ______


                         HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, June 27, 1994

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join today, with the 
gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Boucher, the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. 
Sharp, and the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Dingell, in introducing 
legislation which would protect some 49 million households in 30 States 
from the threat of excessive utility rates.
  In 1935, Congress simultaneously enacted the Public Utility Holding 
Company Act [PUHCA] and the Federal Power Act [FPA] in response to the 
myriad of abuses to utility ratepayers and investors that occurred in 
the 1920s. The SEC was assigned the primary mission of protecting 
utility shareholders from pyramiding holding company structures, self-
dealing transactions that benefitted utility officers and directors at 
the expense of the shareholders, and fraudulent and deceptive financial 
reporting. The FERC and its predecessor agency was assigned the primary 
Federal role in protecting captive utility ratepayers from having to 
foot the bill for excessive charges resulting from interaffiliate 
transactions. The States, in turn, retained authorities to develop and 
enforce integrated resource planning regulations.
  The court's decision in the Ohio Power v. FERC case, 934 F.2d 779, 
D.C. Cir. 1992, severely impacts the ability of FERC and the States to 
effectively regulate the rates charged by registered public utility 
holding companies. On May 26, 1994, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Power, on which I serve, held a hearing to examine the consequences of 
the Ohio Power decision. This hearing clearly demonstrated the need for 
a legislative remedy to assure that captive utility ratepayers were not 
forced to pay higher electricity bills because FERC or the States were 
prevented from taking action to protect them from the effects of 
imprudent or abusive affiliate transactions.
  As chairman of the Telecommunications and Finance Subcommittee, which 
has jurisdiction over the SEC's administration of PUHCA, I have been 
particularly concerned about the impact of the Ohio Power decision, 
since the SEC lacks the resources or the statutory mandate to take 
effective action to regulate wholesale or retail rates charged by 
public utility subsidiaries of a registered electric utility company.
  I believe that this legislation provides an effective remedy to the 
regulatory gap opened by the Ohio Power decision, and I look forward to 
early action on this important legislation.

                          ____________________