[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 70 (Monday, May 21, 2001)]
[House]
[Page H2366]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




A BRIEF DISCUSSION OF PART OF THE PRESIDENT'S PROPOSED NATIONAL ENERGY 
                                 POLICY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this evening for a 
brief discussion of a part of the President's proposed national energy 
policy, the document of May, 2001.
  This goes to the issue of electricity and electricity supply. If we 
look in Appendix I, way in the back of the report here under ``Summary 
of Recommendations,'' there are a couple of things which I think 
Members of the House and members of the public should pay attention to.
  At the top of this unnumbered page, in Appendix I it says, ``The NEPD 
Group recommends the President direct the Secretary of Energy to 
propose comprehensive electricity legislation that promotes 
competition, protects consumers, enhances reliability, promotes 
renewable energy, improves efficiency, and repeals,'' there is the key 
part, ``the Public Utility Holding Company Act and reforms the Public 
Utility Regulatory Policy Act.''
  What does that mean? That means national deregulation. Now, of course 
there is a little problem in proposing national deregulation. We have 
the California model, where this year the same amount of electricity 
will be sold as 2 years ago. Two years ago, that electricity sold for 
$7 billion. This year that same amount of electricity, despite the 
myths about huge increases in the demand and all that, the same 
electricity as 2 years ago will sell for $70 billion, a 1,000 percent 
increase in the price in 2 years.
  That money has to be going somewhere, and it is. A good deal of it is 
flowing to a number of large energy companies based in Houston, Texas. 
They are saying this is such a successful model. The lights were on in 
parts of California for part of the day yesterday, and most people 
still can afford to pay their energy bills, although they are about to 
get a retroactive 47 percent-plus rate increase and tiered rates, which 
will penalize anybody with an all-electric home.
  The President, under the guise of the summary buried in the back of 
this report, wants to take that across the Nation. People will say, 
that is not fair. The California plan was poorly written. Look at some 
of the other great models of deregulation. Let us look at some of the 
other great models of deregulation.
  We have Montana, right near my State. Montana, until 2 years ago, had 
the sixth cheapest electricity in the United States of America. They 
were producing 150 percent, 1\1/2\ times their peak demand, on their 
own hydro power; affordable, cheap, reliable. But what happened? They 
deregulated. Montana Power sold all of its generation resources to 
PP&L, Pennsylvania Power & Light, who now controls the generation in 
Montana.
  Pennsylvania Power & Light finds they can sell Montana's electricity 
more lucratively elsewhere, and they have lifted the cap on industrial 
customers, so industry after industry in Montana is closing. They are 
laying people off. They are saying they cannot afford the huge increase 
in electric rates.
  Luckily for residential consumers, their prices are capped for 
another year. But a year from today, it will hit them, too. They will 
say, Montana did not work out too well, California did not work out too 
well, but look at the deregulation in Pennsylvania. Look how well it is 
working.
  First off, dereg is supposed to give us choice. I have yet to have a 
consumer come up to me and say, Congressman, I want to choose my energy 
company. I am tired of this company that just delivers the electricity 
day in, day out, reliably at a low price. I would like to choose, to 
gamble. I would like to see what would happen. Nobody, nobody wants 
that except a few big energy companies that are getting filthy rich off 
this scheme.
  So they gave choice to Pennsylvanians, and very few of them chose it. 
Now, even though they had rate caps, and that is why people say it is a 
success, rates did not go up; yes, if we have capped rates. What 
happens when the caps go away? The same thing that has happened in 
California, the same thing that is happening in Montana: huge increases 
in price.
  This is nothing but a scheme to extract more money from tens of 
millions of Americans and small businesses and big businesses across 
this country, and move that money to a few big energy companies.
  So I would hope that this Congress, as it has in the last two 
Congresses when President Clinton proposed national energy, as they 
want to call it now, restructuring, because deregulation has become a 
dirty word, we cannot use that. It is like around here we do not talk 
about the estate tax, but we call it the death tax. Now they call 
deregulation restructuring, as does this report.
  It is a scam on the American public. Let us not have it perpetrated 
under the guise of this report.

                          ____________________