[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 15 (Monday, February 5, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E162-E163]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 ELECTRIC POWER COMPETITION ACT OF 1995

                                 ______


                         HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, February 1, 1996

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing legislation aimed at 
promoting competition in the electric utility industry. This 
legislation creates Federal incentives for the removal existing State-
level barriers to competition in the generation of electricity--so that 
competition and market forces can be unleashed in a manner which will 
efficiently and reliably provide electric energy to retail consumers at 
a lower cost.
  Today, the electric utility industry operates as one of our Nation's 
last great protected monopolies. Presently, the generation, 
transmission, and distribution of electricity remains fundamentally a 
monopoly enterprise. The monopoly nature of this industry has, in turn, 
necessitated a very strict system of Federal and State utility 
regulation aimed at protecting captive utility ratepayers from 
potential overcharges, abuses, and conflicts-of-interest.
  Over the years, Congress has taken the lead in promoting increased 
competition in the electricity industry. In 1978, the Public Utility 
Regulatory Policies Act [PURPA] first opened up competition by making 
possible the growth of independent power. This was achieved by 
requiring utilities to purchase power from such independent producers 
at their avoided cost. While there have been problems in some States 
with implementation of the act, by most accounts, PURPA has been 
largely successful in achieving its objectives. The congressional 
conference report accompanying the bill predicted that 12,000 megawatts 
of nonutility projects would be on-line by 1995. In actuality, by 1991, 
32,000 megawatts was on line. In addition, the emergence of wind, 
solar, biomass, geothermal, and other renewables industries can be 
directly traced to PURPA.
  In 1982, the Energy Policy Act [EPACT] built on the foundation 
established under PURPA by adopting an amendment I authored along with 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Moorhead] which opened up wholesale 
transmission access. In the same legislation, Congress also adopted 
amendments to the Public Utility Holding Company Act [PUHCA] aimed at 
allowing utilities to establish exempt wholesale generators.
  As a result of industry changes prompted by these bills, we are now 
at a crossroads for the electric utility industry--half-way between the 
old heavily regulated monopolies of the past and the new competitive 
electricity marketplace of the future. We now have a growing 
independent power industry, increased cogeneration, and increased 
interest by industrial customers in lowering rates through competition. 
While transmission and distribution systems appear likely to remain a 
natural monopoly, we now have an historic opportunity to bring full 
competition to the business of electricity generation. The transition 
to such a competitive market, however, will require both Federal and 
State action.
  Right now, following the overall policy direction mandated by the 
transmission access provisions of EPACT, the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission [FERC] is moving forward on a proposed rulemaking on 
wholesale wheeling and stranded investment. This is a positive 
development and I look forward to adoption of a final FERC rule this 
year. In addition, several States, including Massachusetts, have 
initiated retail wheeling proceedings which, when completed, will open 
up retail competition and consumer choice by eliminating monopoly 
control over retail electricity generation.

  Unfortunately, many other States are either not moving forward all or 
have become stalled part of the way through the process. I find this 
troubling in light of the fact that many in the utility industry are 
now arguing for a repeal of PURPA by suggesting that competition is 
already here. The reality is that full competition has not yet arrived. 
We cannot and should not deregulate into a monopoly environment; we can 
and should deregulate into a competitive marketplace.
  The bill I am introducing today provides incentives to move toward 
competition. Specifically, my legislation will link any repeal of the 
mandatory power purchase provisions of PURPA to the arrival of real 
competition in the market for electricity generation. It would 
establish overall Federal standards for competition which could be met 
either by divesting generation from transmission and distribution 
assets or, alternatively by permitting retail power generation 
competition on an open and nondiscriminatory basis. In addition, the 
bill establishes certain minimum certification requirements aimed at 
ensuring that energy efficiency and renewables programs are retained 
and that the low-income consumers receive protections against price 
discrimination. Utilities in States that meet the minimum certification 
requirements and either the retail competition or divestiture standards 
in the bill would be freed of the mandatory power purchase requirements 
of PURPA. In other words, my bill deregulates--but it deregulates by 
creating the conditions in which true competition can exist.
  I agree with Commerce Committee Chairman Bliley and Energy and Power 
Subcommittee Chairman Schaefer it makes little sense to adopt piecemeal 
bills such as a repeal of the mandatory power purchase provisions of 
PURPA or a repeal of PUHCA. We cannot get rid of the protections built 
into these bills without also attaching the fundamental reason these 
laws were enacted in the first place: the continued existence of a 
government protected utility monopoly. With the bill I am introducing 
today, I hope to advance the dialog on the difficult and complex issues 
Congress will be confronting as we consider legislation regarding 
PURPA. Obviously, there are many broader restructuring issues that are 
not specifically addressed in my bill. These include the need to retain 
certain PUHCA restrictions on abusive interaffiliate transactions, the 
appropriate boundaries of Federal and State regulatory jurisdiction, 
treatment of conservation, efficiency, and renewables, and need to 
eliminate certain Government subsidizes for the power marketing 
administrations.
  While these are difficult and complex issues, I believe that electric 
utility restructuring--if done properly--will benefit all consumers of 
electricity. A properly crafted approach holds out the hope of lowering 
electricity rates through increased competition, while simultaneously 
protecting the societal and environmental benefits of conservation, 
improved efficiency, and greater fuel diversity. I look forward to 
working with the leadership of the Commerce Committee as we proceed 
into this debate on electricity restructuring legislation, so that we 
can produce a truly balanced and bipartisan approach to bringing real 
competition and consumer choice to the electricity industry.

[[Page E163]]


             LAND DISPOSAL PROGRAM FLEXIBILITY ACT OF 1995

                                 ______


                               speech of

                         HON. MICHAEL G. OXLEY

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, January 30, 1996

  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, during the 104th Congress, the Commerce 
Committee has been highlighting the problem of inflexible or 
inappropriate statutory requirements. These requirements can prevent 
EPA from issuing regulations or facility cleanups that address 
realistic and significant risks in a cost-effective and cost-reasonable 
manner.
  H.R. 2036 embodies the position of the EPA in final rules that were 
later struck down by the courts. In each case, EPA did a regulatory 
impact analysis which found that the costs of a given option were 
exceedingly high and the benefits very low. In each case, EPA sought a 
more flexible and balanced approach but was ultimately directed by the 
Courts to the most counterproductive result.
  In their March 2, 1995, summary of the Proposed Rule EPA wrote, ``the 
Agency is required to set treatment standards for these relatively low-
risk waste and disposal practices, although there are other actions and 
projects with which the Agency could provide greater protection of 
human health and the environment.''

  In this particular case, EPA estimates suggest over half a billion 
dollars will be spent with little if any improvement to human health. 
Indeed, the Agency states that less safe alternatives may be chosen 
over more safe alternatives. That is unacceptable. In their letter 
endorsing H.R. 2036 the administration wrote,'' the bill would 
eliminate a mandate that the EPA promulgate stringent and costly 
treatment requirements for certain low-risk wastes that already are 
regulated in Clean Water Act or Safe Drinking Water Act units.''
  H.R. 2036 is also endorsed by organizations representing State 
environmental programs such as the Groundwater Protection Council, and 
the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management 
Officials as well as the National Association of Counties.
  I appreciate the bipartisan efforts of Ms. Lincoln and the 
administration, including the chair of the Council on Environmental 
Quality Kathleen McGinty, and her staff, in support of H.R. 2036. It is 
important to move forward with legislation that injects common sense 
into current statutory law and H.R. 2036 is just such an infection.
  This is time-critical legislation and I hope that it can proceed 
swiftly through the process. I should note, however, that these 
issues--while important for many--are the tip of the iceberg. We must 
make fundamental reform to ensure that our regulatory programs address 
realistic and significant risks through cost-effective and cost-
reasonable means. There is much work to be done.
  I urge all the Members to vote for swift passage of H.R. 2036 to 
prevent EPA from being forced to use unnecessary and costly 
regulations.

                          ____________________