[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 103 (Monday, July 21, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7746-S7748]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      AMENDMENT NO. 937 TO S. 1023

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the amendment Senator Murkowski and I 
have offered strikes section 630 of the bill. If enacted, section 630 
would foreclose all Federal agencies from taking advantage of energy 
conservation programs offered by their local utility company. I believe 
section 630 would needlessly restrict an option that helps the Federal 
Government, the Nation's largest energy user, implement cost-effective 
energy-savings programs at Federal facilities.
  Mr. President, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 set a goal of reducing 
by 20 percent the average energy consumed by the Federal Government. 
Federal facilities were given various approaches for reducing energy 
consumption. For example, an agency can sign an energy savings 
performance contract with an energy service company, or it can work 
with the local utility company to take advantage of utility-sponsored 
energy conservation measures. Under current law, Federal agencies may 
select the option that is best for their situation.
  It is important to have this flexibility because working with the 
private sector to reduce a facility's energy use is not an ordinary 
procurement. Purchasing energy efficiency isn't like buying paper clips 
or furniture. The Federal Energy Management Program has made 
substantial progress in streamlining the contracting process for energy 
management services at Federal facilities. If an agency chooses to work 
with the local utility company, it may go directly to the utility on a 
sole-source basis to obtain the energy efficiency and management 
services that are available to all utility customers. In most cases, 
the utility teams with energy service companies to maximize cost-
effective energy savings for the Government.
  Section 630 would eliminate the option of working with the local 
utility. If section 630 remains in the bill, Federal agencies will not 
be able to take advantage of the financial incentives, goods, or 
services generally available to all other customers of the utility. 
This could represent literally millions of dollars lost to the 
taxpayers. Section 630 could also prevent payments on existing energy 
management contracts between Federal agencies and utilities.

  Over the years, I have spoken frequently here on the critical need 
for Federal agencies to make better efforts to reduce their energy use. 
According to a recent GAO report, the taxpayers' electric bill for 
Federal facilities is more than $3.5 billion a year. There is no 
question we could be saving a substantial portion of this amount 
through cost-effective energy measures that frequently have payback 
times less than 10 years. I am pleased to see the substantial progress 
now being made.
  For example, the Government's largest single energy user is the 
Department of Defense, which accounts for half of all Federal 
electricity consumption. The Department is now on a track to save up to 
$1 billion per year in total energy spending by the year 2005. The 
Department of Defense believes section 630 would significantly reduce 
its authority and opportunity to take advantage of private sector 
energy conservation expertise and capital, and would, in fact, 
seriously reduce the amount of work offered to all sectors of the 
energy community.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter 
from Millard Carr of the Department of Defense be printed in the Record 
at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Earlier, I described the options available to Federal 
agencies to secure energy management services. If I could Mr. 
President, I'd like to take a moment to give two examples demonstrating 
that the program is on the right track and illustrating the risks of 
hasty and ill-considered changes.
  The first example is the New Mexico initiative from my home state. 
The

[[Page S7747]]

General Services Administration has a contract with a local utility, 
Public Service Co. of New Mexico, that covers the Federal facilities in 
PNM's service territory. Under the terms of this agreement, PNM 
partners with energy service companies on a competitive basis to 
implement the actual energy-saving measures. This initiative is 
expected to result in $60 million in new investments in conservation 
and energy efficiency technologies. The initial pilot project is at the 
White Sands Missile Range, where I understand that substantial 
reductions of energy and water use have been achieved. This successful 
program would be terminated if section 630 were enacted.
  The other option available to Federal agencies is to contract with 
energy service companies. I understand there may be concerns that these 
companies are left out of the Federal Energy Management Program when 
the agencies choose to work with their local utilities. Mr. President, 
I don't believe this is the case. An article from the May 22, 1997, New 
York Times describes the Department of Energy's awarding of five 
competitive contracts worth up to $750 million dollars. These contracts 
cover Federal buildings in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, 
Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. The winning companies include energy 
service companies such as Honeywell, Inc., and Johnson Controls. Five 
more awards are planned over the next 2 years for a total contract 
value of $5 billion. It seems to me that all commercial players are 
helping Uncle Sam reduce his energy bill. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that a copy of this article be printed in the Record 
at the conclusion of my remarks.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 2.)
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, these are but two examples from the 
Federal Energy Management Program. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 
simplified the contracting procedures Federal agencies may use to 
implement energy conservation measures. The last thing we should be 
doing is eliminating options. We should be striving for maximum 
flexibility and not hamstringing the agencies as they strive for 
substantial progress.
  Mr. President, last week the distinguished chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee stated that section 630 ``reflects no change 
in the law'' and that the section ``directs federal agencies to abide 
by the law.'' I must respectfully disagree with the chairman. Section 
630 would make very substantial changes in energy-management measures 
enacted as part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, which Senator 
Murkowski and I, and the other members of the Energy Committee, worked 
to pass.
  Last week, in speaking on section 630, the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee listed what he stated were the provisions that 
are, in his view, relevant to Federal agency contracting programs for 
energy services. However, with all due respect Mr. President, the 
distinguished Chairman omitted the sections of the existing law that 
section 630 would overturn. In particular, section 152 of the Energy 
Policy Act of 1992 describes the implementation options available to 
agencies. If I may, I'd like to read the exact text: Each agency shall 
``take maximum advantage of contracts authorized under subchapter VII 
of this chapter, of financial incentives and other services provided by 
utilities for efficiency investment, and of other forms of financing to 
reduce the direct costs of Government * * *.''
  Section 630 would effectively eliminate the option for Federal 
agencies to work with utilities, receive any available financial 
incentives, or take advantage of attractive forms of financing. This 
would be a bad deal for the taxpayer.
  Another part of section 152 of the Energy Policy Act that section 630 
would repeal specifically describes utility incentive programs:

       (1) Agencies are authorized and encouraged to participate 
     in programs to increase energy efficiency and for water 
     conservation or the management of electricity demand 
     conducted by gas, water, or electric utilities and generally 
     available to customers of such utilities.
       (2) Each agency may accept any financial incentive, goods 
     or services generally available from any such utility, to 
     increase energy efficiency or to conserve water or manage 
     electricity demand.
       (3) Each agency is encouraged to enter into negotiations 
     with electric, water, and gas utilities to design cost-
     effective demand management and conservation incentive 
     programs to address the unique needs of facilities utilized 
     by such agency.
       (4) If an agency satisfies the criteria which generally 
     apply to other customers of a utility incentive program, such 
     agency may not be denied collection of rebates or other 
     incentives.

  Congress placed very similar requirements on the Department of 
Defense in the Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1993. Mr. 
President, I will not read any more of the existing energy or defense 
authorizations that would be wiped out by section 630. Instead, I ask 
unanimous consent that there be printed in the Record at the conclusion 
of my remarks all the relevant provisions that allow local utility 
participation in Federal energy management programs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 3.)
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I have heard no arguments here as to why 
these good provisions should now be repealed. In addition, the 
Appropriations Committee's report offers no explanation of the need for 
section 630.
  Let me also observe that section 630 attempts to make these 
controversial changes in energy legislation through an appropriations 
bill. As far as I can tell, no formal notification to or consultation 
with the Energy Committee has taken place. I doubt that such a far-
reaching change would be considered by the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee without at least a hearing.
  The proponents of section 630 should have their views heard in the 
appropriate forum. I am recommending to the chairman of the Energy 
Committee that hearings be held so that we can get all the issues out 
on the table and, if changes are needed, come to a reasonable solution.
  In the meantime, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and 
strike section 630.

                               Exhibit 1

         Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Defense 
           Pentagon,
                                    Washington, DC, July 18, 1997.
     To: Mr. Dan Alpert, Office of Senator Bingaman.
     Subject: Section 630 Senate Treasury and Postal Service 
         Appropriations bill.

       This is in response to your phone request for a Defense 
     position on the proposed Section 630 to the Senate Treasury 
     and Postal Appropriation bill which would preclude any 
     Federal agency from obtaining energy conservation services on 
     a sole source basis.
       I understand the intent of the section is to assure best 
     value to the government through competition. I cannot comment 
     on the jurisdictional issues, but I believe very strongly 
     that the language as written would significantly reduce the 
     authority and opportunity this Department has to take 
     advantage of private sector energy conservation expertise and 
     capital. I can only assume that the sponsor of this section 
     has been seriously misled as to its implications.
       The Department of Defense is the single largest energy user 
     in the country and as such we have been and continue, to be 
     committed to achieving the energy efficiency improvement 
     goals of the Energy Policy Act and President Clinton's 
     Executive Order 12902. If those goals are achieved, we will 
     realize a billion dollar reduction in our annual energy bill 
     by 2005 and implement the most cost effective environmental 
     improvement result possible through pollution prevention. 
     With the reduction in available appropriated funds and 
     technical personnel to achieve the buildings and energy 
     systems improvements necessary to meet program goals, we are 
     turning to the private sector for those resources.
       The Military Departments and this office have worked for 
     over a year to develop a memorandum of agreement with the 
     Edison Electric Institute to expedite participation in 
     existing energy conservation programs offered by many of 
     their member companies to all customers. There is no question 
     that Department of Defense installations, and all Federal 
     agencies, should have the same ability to access those 
     programs provided to other similar customers. The agreement, 
     based on authority in the Energy Policy Act, includes 
     direction that a competitive procurement process be used to 
     select the most cost effective and competent private sector 
     firm capable of doing the specific technical work. It is our 
     belief that this utility ``prime contract'' process will lead 
     to a significant increase in the actual work done by the 
     energy savings performance contractor and Architect/Engineer 
     communities.
       The intent of the DoD/EEI agreement was simply to expedite 
     the contracting process through which Defense installations 
     could access private sector energy conservation experts and 
     resources. Passage of Section 630 would in fact seriously 
     reduce the amount of work offered to all sectors of the 
     energy community.

[[Page S7748]]

       I urge you to work to convince the Congress to strike 
     Section 630.
                                            Millard E. Carr, P.E.,
     Director, Energy and Engineering.
                                  ____


                               Exhibit 2

                [From the New York Times, May 22, 1997]

 United States To Renovate Federal Buildings To Cut Energy Bills by 25 
                                Percent

                          (By Matthew L. Wald)

       Washington.--The Federal Government, the Nation's largest 
     landlord, will undertake a $5 billion renovation of its 
     buildings to cut energy bills by about one quarter, and all 
     the money will come from private companies, the Energy 
     Secretary, Federico F. Pena, announced today.
       Mr. Pena named five corporate teams that will do the first 
     $750 million of work. When all the Government's 500,000 
     buildings are renovated, he said, energy costs will be cut by 
     $1 billion a year from the current $4 billion.
       ``That is real money, even by Washington standards,'' Mr. 
     Pena said.
       An aide said the improvements, including better lamps, 
     motors, air conditioning systems and heating equipment, were 
     expected to save the Government $22 billion over their 
     lifetime.
       The Energy Department has tried the approach before, on its 
     headquarters on Independence Avenue here and in other 
     buildings, but has found it cumbersome, as contracts are bid 
     building by building, officials said. Now the Government has 
     a standard contract and a list of vendors and hopes to 
     complete all Federal buildings by 2005.
       The Government will invite an outside contractor to perform 
     an ``energy audit'' and suggest improvements, stating a price 
     for which it will do the work. If the Government accepts the 
     bid, the contractor installs the new equipment at the 
     contractor's expense, an approach taken by many private 
     building owners.
       The Government will pay the contractor part of the money 
     that it saves on electric and fuel bills. The payments will 
     continue for a fixed period, usually five years. For the 
     contracts announced today, the maximum payments will be $750 
     million.
       John Archibald, the deputy director of the Federal Energy 
     Management Program at the department, said he believed that 
     the contractors would invest about $500 million directly. In 
     addition, officials said, the contractors' burdens include 
     being paid back over several years, and the risk that the 
     savings would not justify their improvements.
       The buildings to be improved range ``from military posts to 
     post offices, and from Federal monuments to memorials,'' Mr. 
     Pena said. Most are office buildings, officials said. The 
     contracts announced today cover all Federal buildings in 
     Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon 
     and Washington. Electricity prices in Washington and Oregon 
     are among the lowest in the nation, making savings more 
     difficult.
       The work will be done by Honeywell, Inc., of Minneapolis, 
     which helped devise the concept of contractor-financed energy 
     improvements, Johnson Controls, of Walnut Creek, Calif., ERI 
     Services Inc., of Brideport, Conn., and two corporate teams. 
     One team comprises The Bently Company/BMP Team, of Walnut 
     Creek, Calif., Puget Sound Energy, of Bellevue, Wash., and 
     Macdonald Miller Company, of Seattle. The other team is 
     Enova, which is the parent company of San Diego Electric and 
     Gas, and Pacific Enterprises, also of San Diego.
                                  ____


                               Exhibit 3

              Excerpts From the Energy Policy Act of 1992


              Section 152(c)(2) (42 u.s.c. 8253(d)(1)(C))

       Each agency shall take maximum advantage of contracts 
     authorized under subchapter VII of this chapter, of financial 
     incentives and other services provided by utilities for 
     efficiency investment, and of other forms of financing to 
     reduce the direct costs to the Government.


                   Section 152(f)(4) (42 U.S.C. 8256)

                       Utility incentive programs

       (1) Agencies are authorized and encouraged to participate 
     in programs to increase energy efficiency and for water 
     conservation or the management of electricity demand 
     conducted by gas, water, or electric utilities and generally 
     available to customers of such utilities.
       (2) Each agency may accept any financial incentive, goods 
     or services generally available from any such utility, to 
     increase energy efficiency or to conserve water or manage 
     electricity demand.
       (3) Each agency is encouraged to enter into negotiations 
     with electric, water, and gas utilities to design cost-
     effective demand management and conservation incentive 
     programs to address the unique needs of facilities utilized 
     by such agency.
       (4) If an agency satisfies the criteria which generally 
     apply to other customers of a utility incentive program, such 
     agency may not be denied collection of rebates or other 
     incentives.
                                  ____


 Excerpts From the Department of Defense Authorization, Public Law 102-
                        484 (10 U.S.C. 2865(d))

                        Energy saving activities

       (1) The Secretary of Defense shall permit and encourage 
     each military department, Defense Agency, and other 
     instrumentality of the Department of Defense to participate 
     in programs conducted by any gas or electric utility for the 
     management of electricity demand or for energy conservation.
       (2) The Secretary of Defense may authorize any military 
     installation to accept any financial incentive, goods, or 
     services generally available from a gas or electric utility, 
     to adopt technologies and practices that the Secretary 
     determines are cost-effective for the Federal Government.
       (3) Subject to paragraph (4), the Secretary of Defense may 
     authorize the Secretary of a military department having 
     jurisdiction over a military installation to enter into 
     agreements with gas or electric utilities to design cost 
     effective demand and conservation incentive programs 
     (including energy management services, facilities 
     alterations, and the installation and maintenance of energy 
     saving devices and technologies by the utilities) to address 
     the requirements and circumstances of the installation.
       (4)(A) If an agreement under paragraph (3) provides for a 
     utility to advance financing costs for the design or 
     implementation of a program referred to in that paragraph to 
     be repayed by the United States, the cost of such advance may 
     be recovered by the utility under terms no less favorable 
     than those applicable to its most favored customer.
       (B) Subject to the availability of appropriations, 
     repayment of costs advanced under paragraph (A) shall be made 
     from funds available to a military department for the 
     purchase of utility services.
       (C) An agreement under paragraph (3) shall provide that 
     title to any energy savings device or technology installed at 
     a military installation pursuant to the agreement vest in the 
     United States. Such title may vest at such time during the 
     agreement, or upon expiration of the agreement, as determined 
     to be in the best interests of the United States.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to speak for 20 minutes in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________