[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 29 (Thursday, March 14, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1871-S1914]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       NATIONAL LABORATORIES PARTNERSHIP IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2001

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume consideration of S. 517, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 517) to authorize funding for the Department of 
     Energy to enhance its mission areas through technology 
     transfer and partnerships for fiscal years 2002 through 2006, 
     and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Daschle/Bingaman further modified amendment No. 2917, in 
     the nature of a substitute.
       Feinstein amendment No. 2989 (to amendment No. 2917) to 
     provide for increased average fuel economy standards for 
     passenger automobiles and light trucks.

[[Page S1872]]

       Kerry/McCain amendment No. 2999 (To amendment No. 2917) to 
     provide for increased average fuel economy standards for 
     passenger automobiles and light trucks.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Thomas, is recognized to offer an amendment.


                Amendment No. 3012 to Amendment No. 2917

  Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I send to the desk an amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Thomas], for himself and Mr. 
     Murkowski, proposes an amendment numbered 3012.

  Mr. THOMAS. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 21, strike line 16 and all that follows through 
     page 23, line 24 and insert the following:
       ``Part II of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824 et seq.) 
     is amended by inserting the following after section 215 as 
     added by this Act:

     ``SEC. 216. ELECTRIC RELIABILITY.

       ``(a) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) `bulk-power system' means the network of 
     interconnected transmission facilities and generating 
     facilities;
       ``(2) `electric reliability organization' means a self-
     regulating organization certified by the Commission under 
     subsection (c) whose purpose is to promote the reliability of 
     the bulk power system; and
       ``(3) `reliability standard' means a requirement to provide 
     for reliable operation of the bulk power system approved by 
     the Commission under this section.
       ``(b) Jurisdiction and Applicability.--The Commission shall 
     have jurisdiction, within the United States, over an electric 
     reliability organization, any regional entities, and all 
     users, owners and operators of the bulk power system, 
     including but not limited to the entities described in 
     section 201(f), for purposes of approving reliability 
     standards and enforcing compliance with this section. All 
     users, owners and operators of the bulk-power system shall 
     comply with reliability standards that take effect under this 
     section.
       ``(c) Certification.--
       ``(1) The Commission shall issue a final rule to implement 
     the requirements of this section not later than 180 days 
     after the date of enactment of this section.
       ``(2) Following the issuance of a Commission rule under 
     paragraph (1), any person may submit an application to the 
     Commission for certification as an electric reliability 
     organization. The Commission may certify an applicant if the 
     Commission determines that the applicant--
       ``(A) has the ability to develop, and enforce reliability 
     standards that provide for an adequate level of reliability 
     of the bulk-power system;
       ``(B) has established rules that--
       ``(i) assure its independence of the users and owners and 
     operators of the bulk power system; while assuring fair 
     stakeholder representation in the selection of its directors 
     and balanced decision-making in any committee or subordinate 
     organizational structure;
       ``(ii) allocate equitably dues, fees, and other charges 
     among end users for all activities under this section;
       ``(iii) provide fair and impartial procedures for 
     enforcement of reliability standards through imposition of 
     penalties (including limitations on activities, functions, or 
     operations, or other appropriate sanctions); and
       ``(iv) provide for reasonable notice and opportunity for 
     public comment, due process, openness, and balance of 
     interests in developing reliability standards and otherwise 
     exercising its duties.
       ``(3) If the Commission receives two or more timely 
     applications that satisfy the requirements of this 
     subsection, the Commission shall approve only the application 
     it concludes will best implement the provisions of this 
     section.
       ``(d) Reliability Standards.--
       ``(1) An electric reliability organization shall file a 
     proposed reliability standard or modification to a 
     reliability standard with the Commission.
       ``(2) The Commission may approve a proposed reliability 
     standard or modification to a reliability standard if it 
     determines that the standard is just, reasonable, not unduly 
     discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. 
     The Commission shall give due weight to the technical 
     expertise of the electric reliability organization with 
     respect to the content of a proposed standard or modification 
     to a reliability standard, but shall not defer with respect 
     to its effect on competition.
       ``(3) The electric reliability organization and the 
     Commission shall rebuttably presume that a proposal from a 
     regional entity organized on an interconnection-wide basis 
     for a reliability standard or modification to a reliability 
     standard to be applicable on an Interconnection-wide basis is 
     just, reasonable, and not unduly discriminatory or 
     preferential, and in the public interest.
       ``(4) The Commission shall remand to the electric 
     reliability organization for further consideration a proposed 
     reliability standard or a modification to a reliability 
     standard that the Commission disapproves in whole or in part.
       ``(5) The Commission, upon its own motion or upon 
     complaint, may order an electric reliability organization to 
     submit to the Commission a proposed reliability standard or a 
     modification to a reliability standard that addresses a 
     specific matter if the Commission considers such a new or 
     modified reliability standard appropriate to carry out this 
     section.
       ``(e) Enforcement.--
       ``(1) An electric reliability organization may impose a 
     penalty on a user or operator of the bulk power system if the 
     electric reliability organization, after notice and an 
     opportunity for a hearing--
       ``(A) finds that the user or owner or operator of the bulk 
     power system has violated a reliability standard approved by 
     the Commission under subsection (d); and
       ``(B) files notice with the Commission, which shall affirm, 
     set aside or modify the action.
       ``(2) On its own motion or upon complaint, the Commission 
     may order compliance with a reliability standard and may 
     impose a penalty against a user or owner or operator of the 
     bulk power system, if the Commission finds, after notice and 
     opportunity for a hearing, that the user or owner or operator 
     of the bulk power system has violated or threatens to violate 
     a reliability standard.
       ``(3) The Commission shall establish regulations 
     authorizing the electric reliability organization to enter 
     into an agreement to delegate authority to a regional entity 
     for the purpose of proposing and enforcing reliability 
     standards (including related activities) if the regional 
     entity satisfies the provisions of subsection (c)(2)(A) and 
     (B) and the agreement promotes effective and efficient 
     administration of bulk power system reliability, and may 
     modify such delegation. The electric reliability organization 
     and the Commission shall rebuttably presume that a proposal 
     for delegation to a regional entity organized on an 
     interconnection-wide basis promotes effective and efficient 
     administration of bulk power system reliability and should be 
     approved. Such regulation may provide that the Commission may 
     assign the electric reliability organization's authority to 
     enforce reliability standards directly to a regional entity 
     consistent with the requirements of this paragraph.
       ``(4) The Commission may take such action as is necessary 
     or appropriate against the electric reliability organization 
     or a regional entity to ensure compliance with a reliability 
     standard or any Commission order affecting the electric 
     reliability organization or a regional entity.
       ``(f) Changes in Electricity Reliability Organization 
     Rules.--An electric reliability organization shall file with 
     the Commission for approval any proposed rule or proposed 
     rule change, accompanied by an explanation of its basis and 
     purpose. The Commission, upon its own motion or complaint, 
     may propose a change to the rules of the electric reliability 
     organization. A proposed rule or proposed rule change shall 
     take effect upon a finding by the Commission, after notice 
     and opportunity for comment, that the change is just, 
     reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, is in 
     the public interest, and satisfies the requirements of 
     subsection (c)(2).
       ``(g) Coordination With Canada and Mexico.--
       ``(1) The electric reliability organization shall take all 
     appropriate steps to gain recognition in Canada and Mexico.
       ``(2) The President shall use his best efforts to enter 
     into international agreements with the governments of Canada 
     and Mexico to provide for effective compliance with 
     reliability standards and the effectiveness of the electric 
     reliability organization in the United States and Canada or 
     Mexico.
       ``(h) Reliability Reports.--The electric reliability 
     organization shall conduct periodic assessments of the 
     reliability and adequacy of the interconnected bulk-power 
     system in North America.
       ``(i) Savings Provisions.--
       ``(1) The electric reliability organization shall have 
     authority to develop and enforce compliance with standards 
     for the reliable operation of only the bulk-power system.
       ``(2) This section does not provide the electric 
     reliability organization or the Commission with the authority 
     to order the construction of additional generation or 
     transmission capacity or to set and enforce compliance with 
     standards for adequacy or safety of electric facilities or 
     services.
       ``(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt 
     any authority of any State to take action to ensure the 
     safety, adequacy, and reliability of electric service within 
     that State, as long as such action is not inconsistent with 
     any reliability standard.
       ``(4) Within 90 days of the application of the electric 
     reliability organization or other affected party, and after 
     notice and opportunity for comment, the Commission shall 
     issue a final order determining whether a state action is 
     inconsistent with a reliability standard, taking into 
     consideration any recommendations of the electric reliability 
     organization.
       ``(5) The Commission, after consultation with the electric 
     reliability organization, may stay the effectiveness of any 
     state action, pending the Commission's issuance of a final 
     order.
       ``(j) Application of Antitrust Laws.--

[[Page S1873]]

       ``(1) In general.--To the extent undertaken to develop, 
     implement, or enforce a reliability standard, each of the 
     following activities shall not, in any action under the 
     antitrust laws, be deemed illegal per se:
       ``(A) activities undertaken by an electric reliability 
     organization under this section, and
       ``(B) activities of a user or owner or operator of the bulk 
     power system undertaken in good faith under the rules of an 
     electric reliability organization.
       ``(2) Rule of reason.--In any action under the antitrust 
     laws, an activity described in paragraph (1) shall be judged 
     on the basis of its reasonableness, taking into account all 
     relevant factors affecting competition and reliability.
       ``(3) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, 
     `antitrust laws' has the meaning given the term in subsection 
     (a) of the first section of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 
     12(a)), except that it includes section 5 of the Federal 
     Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45) to the extent that 
     section 5 applies to unfair methods of competition.
       ``(k) Regional Advisory Bodies.--The Commission shall 
     establish a regional advisory body on the petition of at 
     least two-thirds of the States within a region that have more 
     than one-half of their electric load served within the 
     region. A regional advisory body shall be composed of one 
     member from each participating State in the region, appointed 
     by the Governor of each state, and may include 
     representatives of agencies, States, and provinces outside 
     the United States. A regional advisory body may provide 
     advice to the electric reliability organization, a regional 
     reliability entity, or the Commission regarding the 
     governance of an existing or proposed regional reliability 
     entity within the same region, whether a standard proposed to 
     apply within the region is just, reasonable, not unduly 
     discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest, 
     whether fees proposed to be assessed within the regional are 
     just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, 
     and in the public interest and any other responsibilities 
     requested by the Commission. The Commission may give 
     deference to the advice of any such regional advisory body if 
     that body is organized on an interconnection-wide basis.
       ``(l) Application to Alaska and Hawaii.--The provisions of 
     this section do not apply to Alaska or Hawaii.''.

  Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I ask that Senator Crapo and Senator 
Gordon Smith be added as sponsors, please.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, we of course are into our energy bill. 
One of the important components of an energy bill is the electricity 
section. There are a number of things we have done. Yesterday we did 
some things on PUHCA and PURPA--had those eliminated. We have done some 
other things to make it work. The committee chairman and others were 
gracious enough to accept those.
  Today we have some other issues we want to talk about, that are very 
important. This amendment deals with one of those. It is called 
reliability.
  Of course, there is nothing more important than ensuring our electric 
transmission grid will continue to be safe and continue to be reliable; 
that consumers will be able to get the power they need where they need 
it and when they need it, the lights will go on and stay on. In fact, 
probably no aspect of our energy program touches more people than does 
electricity.
  The amendment we are offering today does those things. It makes 
electricity available and puts some reliability into it by establishing 
a nationwide organization which has the authority to establish and 
enforce reliability standards.
  We have had our reliability standards, we have worked with them, 
there are organizations, but we have not really been able to cause 
those things to happen. This amendment takes into account--and this is 
very important--the regional differences that occur between the West 
and the East. You can imagine, simply by geography, how different they 
are.
  Under this amendment, the new reliability organization will be run by 
market participants and will be overseen by FERC. Basically what we are 
saying is that the States and local people and various interested 
parties can participate in setting this up and will participate in it, 
overseen by FERC to make sure it works. The reliability organization 
will be made up of representatives from everyone who is affected--
residential, commercial, industrial consumers, State public utility 
commissioners, independent power producers, electric utilities, and 
others.
  There is no question we need a new system to safeguard the integrity 
of our power grid. Both the amendment and the Daschle bill create 
mandatory and enforceable reliability rules, and they do so in 
different ways, and that is what we are talking about--the difference. 
The Daschle bill gives all the authority and responsibility to FERC. 
FERC is to set the standards, FERC is to enforce the standards. The 
fact is, FERC is not prepared to do this job, nor do they have the 
expertise to do it.
  The amendment, instead, establishes a participant-run, FERC-overseen 
electric reliability organization. This is key to this whole amendment 
and this whole direction. It is a blend of Federal oversight along with 
industry expertise. It is similar to the bill the Senate passed 
unanimously in this Congress last year.
  Over the years, the grid has been well protected through the 
voluntary standards established by the North American Electric 
Reliability Council. NERC's voluntary reliability standards, which are 
not enforceable currently, have generally been complied with by the 
electric power industry. But with the opening of wholesale power market 
to competition, our transmission grid is being used in ways in which it 
has not been used before and, frankly, was not designed to be used.

  This is one of the big changes that has happened. It used to be that 
a utility that did the distribution in the area produced the power for 
that area. Now, of course, we have merchant generators. And more and 
more of that will go, where they sell it outside of their distribution 
area or, indeed, have no distribution area at all.
  New system strains are also being created by the disillusion of 
vertically integrated utilities and by the emergence of new market 
structures and participants. Cooperation is being replaced with 
competition.
  The result of these changes has been an increase in the number and 
severity of violations of NERC's voluntary reliability rules.
  On occasion, we have even seen utilities take power from the grid in 
direct violation of NERC's rules, and they suffer no penalty.
  We all agree we need to protect reliability. The question is not 
whether we protect it. The question is, How do we protect it? That is, 
of course, what this issue is all about.
  Unfortunately, the reliability provisions in the Daschle bill take 
the wrong approach. The Daschle bill gives FERC the exclusive 
responsibility for establishing and enforcing reliability standards. 
This is very technical work that will require a very large commitment 
of resources.
  Unfortunately, FERC does not have either the technical capability or 
the manpower to take on such a significant new responsibility. FERC's 
expertise is ratemaking, not in technical standard setting.
  Another key problem with the Daschle bill is that it does not 
recognize regional differences in electrical systems due to the 
geography, the market design, the economics, and the operational 
factors. Many fear that FERC does not have the sensitivity to the 
regional differences that are so critically important, and I suppose 
you could say particularly in the West, in that the West has moved a 
little more quickly to this, but the rest of the country will be moving 
necessarily soon.
  Regional differences are best taken into account by those who are 
closest to the problem and those who understand what needs to be done, 
and that, unfortunately, is not FERC.
  In addition, the Daschle bill simply does not address adequately the 
needs of the States for a meaningful role in the process of setting and 
enforcing reliability standards. This is, of course, an issue in lots 
of things, but it has always been an issue in this electric 
reregulation business; that is, that the States outside of a State 
ought to have a great deal of involvement. And particularly when we end 
up, as inevitably we will, with RTOs and different kinds of 
distribution systems coming off a main national distribution 
transmission channel, then the States and the regions need to have that 
ability to have input.
  Under the Daschle bill, the States, as any other interested or 
affected party, can make their views known to FERC as part of any 
formal rulemaking, but

[[Page S1874]]

FERC can disregard those State views, substituting FERC's judgment for 
that of the States.
  So I ask, who is more interested in ensuring reliability than those 
who would be directly affected? Why would anyone believe that FERC 
knows better what to do than those who are directly affected? I feel 
very strongly about that, as I think most of us do.
  Far too often we have seen that FERC is more interested in abstract 
notions of competition instead of concrete issues of price and supply, 
which is what is really important in this reliability aspect to 
consumers.
  The Daschle bill also fails to account for the international nature 
of our transmission grid. Canada is already part of a seamless North 
American grid, and Mexico is also an interconnect.
  If reliability is given to FERC, as in the Daschle bill, FERC will be 
trying to set standards applicable to and affecting transmission in 
Canada and Mexico, over which FERC has no authority. I fear Canada and 
Mexico simply will not allow their systems to be regulated directly or 
indirectly by FERC. After all, of course, they are sovereign nations.
  If these two nations withdraw from collaborative efforts, not only 
will it jeopardize the reliability of the entire North American grid, 
it will certainly also seriously impair cross-border trade in 
electricity.
  Continued international trade is critical to our supply of power. As 
we have seen in California, even a minor shortfall of electricity can 
create significant problems in terms of price spikes and blackouts. In 
short, we need to have that Canadian component. And they are a 
voluntary part of this system.
  This amendment addresses all of those concerns. In a nutshell, the 
amendment converts the existing NERC voluntary reliability system into 
a mandatory reliability system.
  The new reliability organization will have enforcement powers, with 
real teeth to ensure reliability. The amendment provides that mandatory 
reliability rules will apply to all users of the transmission grid. 
There are no loopholes. No one will be exempt.
  It will be participant run but subject to oversight by FERC in the 
United States and with the appropriate regulatory authorities in Canada 
and Mexico.
  It will utilize industry's technical expertise to create reliability 
rules, and everyone will be able to participate. It assures a 
meaningful role for the States and regional organizations in the 
development and enforcement of the reliability standards.
  There can be appropriate regional variations that recognize that the 
East is different from the West. It will allow the participation of 
Canada and Mexico without violating national sovereignty.
  The amendment has the backing of the North American Electric 
Reliability Council; the National Association of Regulatory Utility 
Commissioners, which represent State public utility commissions, the 
Western Governors' Association, and the administration.
  The need for such a reliability system has been cited in the 
President's national energy policy. It is one thing that Congress 
really should do as part of any energy bill. We have the opportunity 
now to do that.
  Both the Daschle bill and the amendment speak to reliability of the 
transmission system. If you want more Federal command and control by 
the FERC, and if you do not mind jeopardizing cross-border electric 
trade with Canada and Mexico, then vote against this amendment. But if 
you want a realistic and effective reliability program that protects 
consumers, does not disrupt international trade, and allows for 
regional differences to be taken into account, then we need to vote for 
this amendment.
  There are a couple letters I would like to read from that we have 
received. This one is from the North American Electric Reliability 
Council. It says:

       For more than 30 years, NERC has sought to assure the 
     reliability of the North American bulk transmission system, 
     working with all segments of the industry, consumers and 
     federal and state regulators. Your amendment would put in 
     place a reliability management system that builds upon this 
     proven reliability mechanism, but upgrades it to provide for 
     mandatory and enforceable reliability standards. The Federal 
     Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, will provide oversight 
     and coordination in the United States, but unlike the 
     existing language in S. 517, your amendment would not have 
     FERC directly promulgating and enforcing reliability rules.

  That is from this national group that, by the way, is located in New 
Jersey.
  This one is from APPA's over 2,000 State and locally owned not-for-
profit electric utilities:

       [This] amendment would ensure that a broad-based industry 
     self-regulating reliability organization would be vested with 
     the authority to set and enforce reliability standards. This 
     type of organization--the North American Electric Reliability 
     Council--already exists, but legislation is required to give 
     NERC the ability to enforce the standards that industry 
     agrees should be promulgated. . . .
       In contrast, [the Daschle bill] would allow the Federal 
     Energy Regulatory Commission to confer enforcement authority 
     to a wide range of organizations--with potential for varied 
     and conflicting enforcement.

  We also have a letter from the Canadian Embassy and from the Western 
Governors' Association.
  I think there is a real opportunity, obviously, to deal with 
reliability. Our choices are whether we want to use what is in place 
that has been proven or whether we want to shift it to another agency 
of the Federal Government to make all the decisions at the top level 
rather than including everyone in it.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I rise to discuss the issue before the 
Senate and explain my perspective on it and hope that Senators can give 
their attention, those in their offices, and their staffs. This is a 
complex issue we are debating, the issue of reliability and how we deal 
with it.
  The underlying energy bill contains provisions that are intended to 
create a system to ensure that the grid for delivery of electricity is 
reliable. This is an issue on which, as the Senator from Wyoming 
indicated, we all agree. Something needs to change in Federal law to 
ensure that the grid is reliable.
  The most recent wake-up call was what happened in California when the 
lights went out. All of a sudden, everybody starts looking around. Who 
do we hold accountable? Whose job was it to keep the lights on?
  We have an interstate transmission system in this country. It is one 
which most would acknowledge is not adequate for future demands. For 
that reason, we are trying to ensure that the proper safeguards and 
mechanisms are in place to keep this system reliable.
  Up until now, the reliability of the transmission system has been up 
to a private organization. There is no Federal responsibility for it. 
You could call the head of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
over and have a hearing in front of the Energy Committee. He could say: 
You haven't given us that job. You, the Congress, have not given us, 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the job of keeping this 
system reliable. That belongs to NERC, which is the North American 
Electric Reliability Council. They are the ones responsible.
  Everybody, the industry included, realizes that is not adequate for 
today's demands. We need to have some governmental accountability in 
addition to the expertise that NERC and other organizations can bring 
to the system.

  The reliability system needs to apply to all users. The rules need to 
be enforceable. There need to be penalties if you do not comply with 
the rules. Someone has to be able to slap your wrist and say: Get in 
line and do what everyone has agreed to do.
  Nobody disagrees with the conclusion that FERC should have oversight 
of the system that contains these requirements. There are differences, 
however, about how these principles should be implemented.
  I believe the provisions in the bill before us, S. 517, take the 
simplest approach possible. That is what we have tried to do. We give 
FERC the responsibility. We provide tremendous flexibility for FERC to 
defer to experts, to

[[Page S1875]]

defer to regional entities, to defer to private groups to implement the 
obligation. But when push comes to shove, FERC has the responsibility 
to be sure this system is reliable so when the lights go out, we have 
someone to hold accountable.
  The Western Governors' Association has proposed an amendment--the 
Senator from Wyoming has now offered that amendment--that would take a 
far more cumbersome and complicated approach to accomplishing these 
goals. The proposal would create a tangle of procedural red tape that 
could tie up attempts to make certain the grid is reliable. For that 
reason, I have to oppose the amendment.
  The Thomas amendment would require FERC to create a reliability 
structure that first creates a national electric reliability 
organization to be approved by FERC. Clearly, there are such 
organizations. We have NERC, which I referred to a few minutes ago, 
that exists. That should continue. But to put this requirement in law 
takes away flexibility.
  The amendment allows creation of regional reliability entities. It 
creates a rebuttable presumption that the standard set by any such 
regional entity, on an interconnection-wide basis, should be accepted 
by FERC. That is a concern I will get into in more detail.
  The amendment creates a rebuttable presumption that standards offered 
by an interconnection-wide entity are just and reasonable and not 
unduly discriminatory. It writes that into the law. It allows FERC only 
to remand to an electricity reliability organization or to regional 
entity rules that it determines are not just and reasonable. It creates 
a complaint process that is very cumbersome and would take months, if 
not years, to finally result in a compliance award.
  The structure is complex. It is largely unworkable as proposed. If 
someone is acting in a way that the national reliability experts think 
endangers the stability of the delivery system, those experts should 
not have to go through a cumbersome process in order to remedy the 
problem.
  These problems in the reliability of the system are extremely time 
sensitive. And you can't set up a maze of procedural requirements that 
have to be maneuvered before a remedy can be found. Only in one part of 
the country is there any likelihood that an interconnection-wide entity 
can be created, and that is the West, beyond the Rocky Mountains.

  Let me put up a map of the country. As I indicated, the amendment the 
Senator is proposing is being offered by Governors from the western 
part of the country--his Governor, my Governor from New Mexico, who--I 
don't know the extent to which he is focused on what he is proposing 
here. The only interconnection-wide entity that is likely to exist and 
meet these requirements--or get the provisions under here is in the 
West, this large pink area here.
  The reliability structure, in my view, needs to be simple and 
dependable. We should require that FERC implement a system, give them 
guidelines and flexibility to confer with experts, flexibility to defer 
to regional bodies. That is what we do in the underlying bill. We 
should not create a system that is too complicated and causes the 
reliability of our electric system to remain in question.
  Let me take this down and just go through more of a detailed 
explanation of what I understand this proposal to be. This amendment 
that the Senator from Wyoming is offering would add a new section, No. 
215, to the Federal Power Act.
  Just a second here. Let me jump ahead. The provision the Senator from 
Wyoming is proposing contains a provision that is as a result of an 
attempt by NERC to reach a consensus among industry participants about 
what needs to be done about reliability. This process has been going on 
many years now.
  About 4 years ago, they came up with a 30-page document purporting to 
represent the agreement of a broad range of industry participants. The 
proposal was renegotiated several times over the course of the years, 
often with key constituencies dropping out of that consensus as they 
went forward. The most recent iteration--the one we are considering 
here--was a result of discussions last fall. At the conclusion of those 
discussions, very few of the original consentees--if that is a good 
word--remained on board. The Electric Power Supply Association and the 
Association of Marketers and Independent Power Producers oppose this 
new version--the version now being offered as an amendment. The 
Electric Institute--which is, of course, central in issues related to 
electricity--was unable to endorse the proposal because they had 
opposition from several of their members.
  The Western Governors' Association has proposed language and that is 
what we have before us.
  Let me try to summarize their proposal. Their proposal gives the 
Commission jurisdiction within the U.S. over an electric reliability 
organization and any regional entities and all users, owners, and 
operators for the bulk power system for the purpose of improving 
reliability and enforcing reliability standards. The FERC must issue a 
rule within 180 days of enactment of this law, if it is enacted. FERC 
must certify an applicant, if it determines it has the ability to 
develop and enforce reliability standards, and that the applicant has 
rules that assure its independence of users, owners, and operators 
while assuring fair stakeholder representation of directors in balanced 
decisionmaking in any committee.
  Compliance with standards is mandatory. So the electric reliability 
organization must file proposed standards or modifications with FERC. 
This is under the amendment of the Senator from Wyoming. Instead of 
FERC issuing them, the electric reliability organization would file the 
proposed standards of modification with FERC. FERC may approve them if 
it determines that the standards are just, reasonable, and not unduly 
discriminatory or preferential and in the public interest. FERC must 
give due weight to the technical expertise of the electric reliability 
organization but shall not defer with respect to a standard's effect on 
competition.

  The electric reliability organization and FERC must rebuttably 
presume--and that is in the statute. I know our Presiding Officer is 
very familiar with presumptions in the law and rebuttal presumptions in 
the law, and here there is a rebuttable presumption that a proposal for 
a standard or a modification that comes from a regional entity that is 
organized on an interconnection-wide basis is just and reasonable and 
not unduly discriminatory.
  Let me go to the map again. As to that provision that says there is a 
rebuttable presumption, a rebuttable presumption that any proposal for 
a standard or modification that comes from a regional entity organized 
on an interconnection-wide basis is just and reasonable, where do we 
have a regional entity organized on an interconnection-wide basis? One 
place: California, in the West. The rest of the country doesn't benefit 
from that so-called rebuttable presumption.
  If FERC cannot approve a standard, it must remand the standard to the 
electric reliability organization. FERC may order the electric 
reliability organization to propose a different standard or a 
modification. The electric reliability organization may impose a 
penalty on a user of the system that violates a standard. After notice 
and the opportunity for hearing, filing with the Commission, the FERC 
may order compliance or a penalty. The Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission must establish rules authorizing the electric reliability 
organization to delegates its authority to a regional entity.
  All of this is in the amendment the Senator from Wyoming is 
proposing. This goes on and on. Let me try to summarize this by putting 
up a chart or two and try to explain to the Senate how this would work, 
as I understand it. Let me start with ``Standard Proposal.'' It really 
should have been entitled, ``How Do You Propose a Reliability 
Standard?'' What is the process for proposing a reliability standard? 
FERC has a responsibility and jurisdiction to establish an electric 
reliability organization. That is what they do here. So the ERO, 
electric reliability organization, under the Senator's amendment, would 
be established.
  Now, the ERO can delegate its authority to a regional entity for 
standard proposals and enforcement. That is this box over here, which 
says ``delegated regional entity.'' Remember that the regional entity 
is organized on an interconnection-wide basis. Then that is when the 
rebuttable presumption

[[Page S1876]]

comes in. So if you are in the western part of the country, then there 
is the rebuttable presumption that comes in that the regional entity 
should be approved. There is only one region in the country where this 
interconnection-wide deference is applicable, and that is the West. The 
rest of the country doesn't benefit.
  There are three interconnections: The 14 Western States that are in 
the Western Electric Coordinating Council; ERCOT, Electric Reliability 
Council of Texas; and then there is the rest of the country. Currently, 
there are eight regional reliability councils besides these two--the 
one in the West and the one in Texas. They are all in the eastern 
interconnection. It is a near certainty that these eight entities will 
not be able to organize into an interconnection-wide regional body so 
that the rest of the country does not receive, under this amendment, 
the same deference as the West would receive.
  As a consequence, there will be different structures for reliability 
compliance and enforcement in different parts of the country.
  Perhaps the most disturbing detail of the proposal is that any entity 
that is organized on an interconnection-wide basis must be assumed to 
be functional just because it is organized on an interconnection-wide 
basis. We are saying if you are organized on an interconnection-wide 
basis, shown in pink on this map of the country, then you have the 
presumption that you are a functional organization. In the rest of the 
country, a regional entity must prove it is up to the task before there 
can be any delegation of authority to it. In the West, and perhaps in 
Texas, it would work the other way around.

  The Commission and the national reliability organization on which we 
will be depending to keep the lights on, to keep the electricity 
operating, must prove that any regional entity is not adequate, instead 
of requiring the entity to prove it is adequate. Reliability, in my 
view, is more important than that, and we need to require that all 
parts of the structure in all parts of the country demonstrate 
competence to shoulder this heavy responsibility.
  There is no reason we should write into law presumptions that any 
particular organization, which we do not yet even have established in 
some cases, knows what they are doing.
  How are standards proposed? Let me go through this chart as best I 
can. If the electric reliability organization, the ERO, that has been 
set up by FERC, wants to propose a standard, it needs to file that with 
FERC.
  The Commission has the choice: It can approve the standard or, if it 
does not find it is just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory 
or preferential, it can remand the proposal back to the electric 
reliability organization. It has two options: It can approve it or 
remand it.
  If the electric reliability organization has delegated its authority 
to a regional entity, the proposal will then be remanded to the 
regional entity instead of FERC. If the regional entity does not accept 
the proposal, it may resubmit it to the electric reliability 
organization, and the electric reliability organization then resubmits 
it to FERC. It would go up to a delegated regional entity, over to the 
electric reliability organization, and then to FERC.
  Remember, there is a rebuttable presumption for both the electric 
reliability organization and for FERC that any proposal from a regional 
entity that is organized on an interconnection-wide basis is just and 
reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential. We have these 
rebuttable presumptions to which everyone is obligated to defer.
  The consequence of this rebuttable presumption/remand circle is that 
a regional entity that wanted to prevent a change in a standard could 
tie up the decision for virtually forever. The important rule that 
governs reliability of the transmission system could circle through 
this system pretty much indefinitely, with nobody ever able to come to 
a final decision.
  These are time-sensitive decisions. We are trying to keep the lights 
on. These are not the kinds of decisions that should be allowed to bog 
down in this maze.
  Let me change charts and put up a different chart. This is one that 
is called FERC Proposed Modification. Again, I am trying to describe 
the amendment as I understand it, and if I am wrong about how this 
amendment works, then I invite my colleagues who are proposing the 
amendment to explain why I am wrong.
  This is called FERC Proposed Modification. If FERC believes it needs 
to propose a change, it can order the electric reliability organization 
to submit the modification. We have an order going from FERC to the 
electric reliability organization. Then the electric reliability 
organization submits the modification to FERC and the circle starts 
again. There are rebuttal presumptions in here. There are remands going 
around in this chart as well. Neither the electric reliability 
organization nor FERC is empowered under this amendment, as I read it, 
to bring this to a conclusion.

  Let me go to one other chart. This is a chart on how complaints are 
to be handled under the system that is being proposed in this 
amendment.
  If the electric reliability organization receives a complaint that 
someone has failed to comply with a rule--and that is obviously what 
this whole system is intended to deal with--it may, after notice of 
hearing--that is shown on the chart as: Does the electric reliability 
organization want to act? The complaint is filed. If they want to act, 
they have to give notice, have a hearing, and propose a penalty.
  They do not have authority under this amendment--and I underline 
this--they do not have authority to issue a compliance order. They 
cannot say: Do this. All they can do is penalize for failing to comply, 
and they can impose a penalty. The penalty is then submitted to FERC, 
which reviews it and may modify, affirm, or set aside the electric 
reliability organization's action.
  That is, they have that authority unless the electric reliability 
organization has already delegated its authority to a regional entity. 
If there is a regional entity with a delegated enforcement authority, 
then they have first dibs at dealing with this issue.
  If the regional entity disagrees with the electric reliability 
organization, it may not have the authority to file an enforcement 
action with FERC. But that action needs to be filed by the regional 
entity, so that the electric reliability organization is essentially 
displaced from its authority and the authority then has to be exercised 
by the regional entity at that point. Whether the electric reliability 
organization then files with FERC--exactly what happens in that 
circumstance is not very clear.
  This may seem confusing. To me it is confusing. I have heard other 
bills over the course of the time in the Senate referred to as the 
lawyer's full employment act of 19 whatever. This is the Lawyer's Full 
Employment Act of 2002, particularly the Utility Lawyer's Full 
Employment Act of 2002.
  I hope that if a participant in a market is acting in some manner 
that is not in compliance with reliability rules, some action can be 
taken to change that behavior quickly. That is in everyone's interest. 
That is what we were trying to do when we proposed language to 
essentially say, OK, FERC, you are responsible for being sure the 
reliability is guaranteed in the system.
  With this structure that is proposed in this amendment, the complaint 
has come to the ERO, to this electric reliability organization. They 
have to have time for notice. They have to have a hearing. They, then, 
can impose a penalty. They cannot issue a compliance order. Then their 
proposal needs to be filed with FERC for further review and further 
action.
  So the real question is, Will the lights still be on? Will the 
electricity still be flowing? How long does this take before a 
compliance order can be issued to stop the action that is threatening 
the reliability of the system? Is it going to take weeks? Is it going 
to take months? Is it going to take years?
  This amendment requires FERC to establish regional advisory councils 
on the petition of at least two-thirds of the States in the region. 
This is a good idea. This is a part of the amendment I think is a good 
idea. I am not sure as much process needs to be specified as the 
amendment does, but the general idea is one that I certainly support. 
If this were the amendment being offered, we would gladly accept that 
amendment.

[[Page S1877]]

  I think, though, the amendment that is offered and the way it is 
worded gives most States less deference than the language in our bill 
does. Our bill would allow FERC to defer to NERC, to defer to a 
regional council, to a similar organization, or to a State regulatory 
authority. In other words, if States create a regional advisory 
council, FERC clearly can defer to that under the legislation that we 
proposed.
  The language we have before us in this amendment would allow FERC to 
defer only to a regional advisory body if it is organized on an 
interconnection-wide basis.
  So, again, we have this map. I will put the map up again to reiterate 
the point.
  This amendment was put together by the Western Governors' 
Association. I understand that. That is the part of the country in 
which I live. I know that is the part of the country in which my 
colleagues who are proposing the amendment live. But in each case, the 
preference under the amendment goes to this part of the country. The 
deference goes to another part of the country.
  I do not really think that is the right way to make national policy. 
I think we ought to have a uniform national policy. The whole idea is 
to set up a system that will work everywhere.
  I will summarize my objections. I know my colleague from Oregon is 
anxious to speak in favor of the amendment. I will summarize some of my 
other views, and then I will defer to him.
  In general, the proposal of the Western Governors' Association 
specifies matters that I believe are better left to experts to sort 
out. The proposal we have in the bill would allow FERC to approve a 
reliability organization that fits this description to defer to 
regional entities or to the electric reliability organization, but it 
does not require it. Our language does not contain all of these 
rebuttable presumptions.
  When I first read through this, I thought to myself: Why in the world 
are we putting in all these rebuttable presumptions? A rebuttable 
presumption is essentially a burden of proof, a standard of proof, that 
is put in in order to be in a position that later on someone can review 
that, when it is appealed, to see whether the standard was met, whether 
or not the burden of proof was met.
  I shudder to think of the number of appeals that will be taken from 
decisions by one or another of these entities on the basis that the 
presumption, which we are being asked to write into law, was not 
adequately rebutted. I do not really know why we see it in our 
interest, why it would be in the national interest, for us to write 
into law all sorts of rebuttable presumptions which then complicate the 
situation and invite appeal from whatever decision is made. We have 
some real interest in seeing some finality brought to these decisions 
if we are going to have a reliable system.

  I think the requirement that FERC only be able to remand standards 
that it finds not to be just and reasonable eliminates flexibility that 
FERC may well need to have. This interconnection-wide presumption 
essentially says, if one happens to be in this pink area of the 
country, they are in this interconnection-wide area, and therefore all 
these rebuttable presumptions apply. And what they say gets particular 
deference.
  I do not, quite frankly, understand, and we are still trying to 
educate people on this amendment, but I cannot understand why Governors 
of these other States--there are a lot of States that are not in this 
pink area. I do not know why Governors in these other States and 
commissioners in these other States would support this proposal. It 
gives them far fewer rights than the Governors and the commissioners in 
the West have. So I have some concerns about it.
  I will mention one other concern, and then I will defer to my 
colleague, who is anxious to speak. As chairman of the Energy 
Committee, we have had several hearings so far this last year where we 
bring in the FERC Commissioners and we basically try to cross-examine 
them and ask them why they have not done this and why they have not 
done that and why they are not living up to their responsibilities in 
this regard. We had a bunch of those hearings when the lights were 
going out in California.
  If we pass this amendment, my firm belief is next time the lights go 
out somewhere, and we bring those Commissioners before the committee 
and say, now, why were you not carrying out your responsibility, they 
have a ready answer. Their answer will be: We were carrying out our 
responsibility. You told us our responsibility was to presume these 
folks knew what they were doing, and we have been presuming it, and now 
it turns out they did not know what they were doing. So do not 
criticize us. You are putting the responsibility somewhere else. You 
told us there is a rebuttable presumption that they know exactly what 
they are doing and they can handle all of this.
  So we were trying to get out of that. We were trying to say: Look, 
let us fix responsibility in the hands of a group that the President 
appoints and that we confirm and then encourage them to delegate that 
as they say fit, but not give them the out of saying they are not 
responsible; that it was someone else's job and it was not theirs.
  I very much fear this amendment, if adopted, will give them a very 
convenient out. We will then be having long, complicated hearings going 
through charts about whose rebuttable presumption was met and whose 
rebuttable presumption was rebutted, and that is not going to be good 
for the country. It is not going to keep the electricity going. It is 
not going to keep the lights on.
  For those reasons, I urge that my colleagues oppose the amendment and 
keep the bill as it is, which is much simpler, which is much more 
straightforward and which does not get into all kinds of complexities 
which will be contrary to our national interest.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Edwards). The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I thank our chairman for his 
statement. I rise, though, in opposition to his view, and I support the 
view of the Senator of Wyoming and his amendment. I happen to be a 
cosponsor of it.
  I think for people looking in, the C-SPAN junkies like ourselves, may 
wonder what all the charts and all the maps and all the rhetoric might 
boil down to. In my view, it really boils down to this: Should all 
power over power be vested within the beltway or should we trust 
regional organizations that know their areas, that know their systems, 
to manage these systems? That, in my view, is what this debate is all 
about.
  It is very important. There are great implications for how we 
reliably transmit energy and keep the lights on in the regions of this 
country.
  This amendment would ensure that a self-regulating organization would 
be given the authority to establish and enforce reliability 
standards. This amendment is supported by the Western Governors' 
Association, the American Public Power Association, and most of the 
transmitting utilities of the West.

  For those in the West who lived through the blackout of August 10, 
1996, the need for an enforcement mechanism for transmission 
reliability standards is clear. That blackout, which literally 
stretched from Texas to Portland to Los Angeles, was the result of a 
series of seemingly independent events that sent the western 
transmission system cascading into a blackout. The ensuing blackout 
covered parts of seven Western States and caused severe economic 
disruption on the west coast. The event caused the Western Systems 
Coordinating Council to reevaluate its notification procedures. Such an 
event has not been repeated since.
  The only thing that regional transmission reliability organizations 
lack is an enforcement mechanism. That is what we provide in this 
amendment.
  To date, we have relied upon voluntary compliance by transmitting 
utilities to keep the lights on. While such voluntary compliance has 
been largely successful, there are growing concerns that such voluntary 
means may not work in a deregulated wholesale electricity market. 
Frankly, if we are going to move away from a voluntary system, I would 
much rather give the enforcement authority envisioned under this bill 
to established regional organizations that are well respected and know 
the intricacies of the systems which they regulate.

[[Page S1878]]

  This approach is embodied in the amendment before the Senate today. I 
thank Senator Thomas for offering this commonsense solution to 
transmission reliability. Our chairman's approach, again, moves all 
enforcement authority to Washington, DC, under FERC's jurisdiction. We 
do not need to vest this authority with FERC, which has no history on 
this issue and, in my view, no technical expertise on standards for 
transmission systems.
  The amendment before the Senate mirrors in spirit, if not in detail, 
the reliability legislation which was reported out of the Senate Energy 
and Natural Resources Committee in the 106th Congress and was passed by 
the full Senate. I introduced this legislation at the beginning of this 
Congress, and I urge my colleagues to follow the action of this body in 
the last Congress. We do not need to change that. What was offered 
then, what is offered today, is the right fix for transmission 
reliability.
  In conclusion, I reference a letter by the Canadian Ambassador to 
Senator Daschle dated March 13, 2002. I ask unanimous consent the 
letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                             Canadian Embassy,

                                   Washington, DC, March 13, 2002.
     Hon. Thomas A. Daschle,
     Senate Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Daschle: I wrote to you on November 2, 2001, 
     to express concern that certain legislative proposals 
     regarding electricity reliability could have a negative 
     impact on Canada-U.S. electricity trade. I also met with 
     Senator Bingaman to discuss this issue in early January 2002.
       These problematic proposals have now found their way into 
     the new Energy Policy Act of 2002 (S. 517). The electricity 
     reliability section would vest the U.S. Federal Energy 
     Regulatory Commission (FERC) with the authority to establish 
     and enforce mandatory reliability standards for the 
     electricity grid.
       The approach taken in S. 517 could impede our strong cross-
     border electricity trade. While this bill suggests some 
     cooperation with Canadian utilities, it does not provide for 
     meaningful coordination between regulators in the United 
     States and Canada. As I explained in my earlier letter, 
     different jurisdictions could develop and enforce different 
     standards in the absence of such meaningful coordination: 
     this could lead to variations in reliability standards which 
     could impede trade. Consistent standards are required for the 
     interconnected North American grid.
       An essential tool for managing the reliability of the 
     interconnected grid is the remand function, which is key for 
     ensuring consistent standards and respect for the 
     jurisdiction of sovereign regulatory bodies. This function 
     would allow regulatory bodies to return any standards that 
     are not approved to the reliability organization for 
     reconsideration. In this manner, the reliability organization 
     can work with all relevant regulatory bodies to avoid 
     inconsistent standards. A remand function therefore provides 
     meaningful recognition that U.S. and Canadian regulators 
     share an important role in establishing and enforcing 
     standards in the interconnected grid.
       Canada's position is that a self-regulating reliability 
     organization, with members representing both countries, would 
     be best placed to develop, implement and enforce consistent 
     reliability standards for the interconnected North American 
     electricity grid, while respecting the jurisdiction of 
     sovereign regulatory bodies. I understand that a similar 
     position is supported by the Western Governors Association 
     and by major electricity associations.
       The approach in S. 517 will not provide for the effective 
     management of reliability standards for the interconnected 
     North American electricity grid. I urge you to give strong 
     consideration to our shared interest in an increasingly 
     integrated North American market and to our mutually 
     beneficial electricity trade.
           Yours sincerely,
                                                   Michael Kergin,
                                                       Ambassador.

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I note a few of the words in particular. He 
expressed to Senator Daschle a concern that this legislation would 
``have a negative impact on Canadian-U.S. electricity trade.''
  I can say in the California debacle last year, but for Canadian 
power, it would have been far worse than it ended up being. Anything we 
are doing that could disrupt the trade we have with Canada on energy 
would be a step back, not a step forward. That is why the Canadian 
Government has notified the Senate leadership that the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Wyoming is the right thing to do. The 
underlying proposal is the wrong thing to do in terms of our 
relationship with Canada.
  I urge support for the Thomas amendment. It is the amendment we 
passed in the Senate in the 106th Congress. We ought to pass it again 
in the 107th Congress as part of this important energy regulation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Senator from Oregon for his insight. I cannot 
think, frankly, of anyone in the whole country who has had more 
experience in this than the people on the west coast connected to the 
California project. I appreciate very much the Senator's thoughts.
  This bill has come to the Senate without the committee being 
involved. This very bill was passed by the committee last year with no 
objection from the Senator from New Mexico. This went through the 
committee, although what is before the Senate now was never talked 
about in the committee. That is a procedural question we have discussed 
quite a bit.
  Now I will discuss some of the objections. There are two points of 
view, very clearly. The Senator from Oregon said it very well: To whom 
are you going to look?
  I have been involved in this business in the past. The people in the 
business, the people who are responsible in your State, the people who 
have joined together in a region, have a much better view than bringing 
it back to the beltway for these decisions. That is the bottom line.
  It is a complicated business. However, in the current underlying 
bill, practically anyone can go to FERC. It is not uncomplicated there. 
The bill we are discussing gives FERC responsibility to defer to other 
organizations. FERC need not defer to anyone on anything if they choose 
not to. It is given sweeping new authority to preempt the judgments of 
existing State and national organizations with respect to the 
availability for transmission systems to supply the demand. That is 
where we are with the amendment.
  The amendment builds on an existing system. If you go to FERC, there 
is nothing to build on. Here, there is. Go to FERC: There are no people 
who have the expertise to do these things. In the existing system, 
there are.
  It does not require a new bureaucracy which would come about under 
the existing bill. Bulk power system reliability will continue to be 
managed outside of FERC's hearing rooms unless a problem arises. Then, 
of course, we can invoke FERC's intervention. That is the way it is 
designed to be, to start at the grassroots, do the decisionmaking 
there, and still have the opportunity to go to FERC through the 
network. That is not strange and unusual. That is why we have States. 
That is why we have local government.
  The amendment in the existing bill, under the Daschle bill, requires 
FERC to create a reliability structure. Ours does not. FERC need only 
approve reliability organizations that meet the requirements specified. 
S. 517 requires FERC to create a new reliability bureaucracy to take 
over the function that FERC now does not have the expertise to 
perform--where, indeed, we have expertise now.
  Cumbersome? We talked about it being cumbersome. Nothing in the 
amendment makes it cumbersome. FERC can entertain a complaint at any 
time, move as quickly as it deems warranted. I do not think you can ask 
for much more than that.
  We talked about only one part of this country when this was created. 
The interconnect-wide entity exists in Texas. Whether an eastern-wide 
entity is created is up to the East. It has been done in the West 
because there are unique problems there. These problems can be solved 
better by an interconnect and will be done throughout the rest of the 
country as well. This is what we are seeking to do.
  The complaint here is the structure is so complicated as to render it 
unworkable. Actually, the structure reflects the way the reliability 
has been managed by the North American bulk power system--rather 
successfully, as a matter of fact--and the legislation is needed to 
ensure that reliability experts who are not at FERC can take the 
actions necessary to protect the grid. That is what it is all about. We 
have people, and it has been successful. Certainly we need to build on 
that. It becomes more important as we go.

[[Page S1879]]

  It would be ironic for the industry to come to consensus on how to 
deal with these issues. There is no industry consensus on how to 
structure the relationship. That is why the arrangement is there. The 
bulk of the industry agrees they should continue with separate 
organizations that focus solely on reliability. That organization 
should coordinate closely with whatever organization devises the 
business practices. Because FERC has the ultimate oversight for 
reliability and whatever business standard is ultimately approved, FERC 
can assure the necessary coordination exists.
  That is really what it is all about. Out there, there are people who 
have done this. We know how to do it. We have evidence of that. But 
what we have not had is the opportunity for someone to really have the 
authority to do that. So this is what this does, giving that to FERC.
  You can argue if you want to, and I understand that and I hope 
Members understand, if you like having the Federal Government do it 
from here, that is what you ought to do. If you like working with your 
own public service commission--and by the way, the national public 
service commissions have supported this amendment. Talk about being 
just a regional thing, the national public service commissions support 
this amendment.
  I think we will have some more Senators over here to speak shortly. I 
think we ought to continue to delve into how we can best serve the 
American people with electric reliability, whether we transfer that to 
an agency that does not have the expertise or whether we try to use 
what is in place to make it more efficient.
  I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Campbell of Colorado as a 
cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, at this point I want to refer to and 
then have printed in the Record a few letters that support the 
underlying provision that we have in the bill on reliability and oppose 
the Thomas amendment. I have five. Let me go through each of them and 
indicate what they are and what they say.
  This first one is a letter from the Mid-Atlantic Area Council, the 
regional reliability council for this area of the country. It is 
located in Norristown, PA. It is directed to me. It is dated March 13. 
It says:

       The Mid-Atlantic Area Council--

  MAAC is the acronym. We always like acronyms here in Washington--

     would like to express its support for the reliability 
     provisions in section 207 of your amendment in the nature of 
     a substitute to S. 517.

  They are supporting the underlying bill, not the amendment by the 
Senator from Wyoming.

       MAAC appreciates your continued efforts to promote 
     legislation that increases our energy supply and advances the 
     effort to establish wholesale electricity markets in the 
     United States.
       It is our understanding that the North American Electric 
     Reliability Council (NERC) and the Western Governors' 
     Association are seeking to strike your language in order to 
     substitute an amendment they drafted. This amendment is based 
     upon the now very stale NERC reliability proposal developed 
     over three years ago. The subsequent convergence of 
     reliability and market issues has rendered this language 
     obsolete, and we urge you to oppose the amendment.
       MAAC recognizes the need for mandatory reliability 
     standards that are broadly applicable to the wholesale power 
     industry. However, the language in the amendment will limit 
     the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's--FERC--and the 
     industry's ability to properly restructure the wholesale 
     transmission system which is essential for reliable, 
     efficient and well-functioning markets. As currently drafted, 
     the amendment removes most aspects of standards development 
     and enforcement from FERC and grants sweeping powers to a new 
     electric reliability organization, likely to be NERC.
       The amendment largely ignores the important role that 
     regional transmission organizations--RTOs--will play in 
     reliability and market management and appears to assume that 
     assuring real-time reliability is purely an engineering 
     function with no significant economic content or effect on 
     markets, while your language would permit FERC to recognize 
     the interplay between reliability and markets and allow RTO-
     administered market mechanisms to preserve and foster 
     reliability.
       Furthermore, a December, 2001 FERC Order commenced a broad 
     industry collaborative effort to arrive at a consensus on how 
     to best merge NERC's activities into the standard setting 
     process of the new North American Energy Standards Board--
     NAESB, formerly Gas Industry Standards Board. The industry 
     will make a filing to FERC by March 15. This amendment could 
     derail the efforts supported by a large number to 
     stakeholders to establish NAESB as the standards developer 
     best able to accommodate NERC and commercial concerns.
       Your reliability language is compatible with recent efforts 
     by the industry to develop a new and innovative approach to 
     standards setting. The amendment would stifle industry 
     efforts to forge a standards setting process that is in the 
     best interest of America. Unlike the amendment [the Thomas 
     amendment], your language does not set into law a complex and 
     burdensome set of rules and processes which would institute a 
     command and control system of enforcement ignoring was that 
     market forces could enhance reliability. The language of the 
     amendment, if substituted for your language, would result in 
     a major setback of the efforts to reduce power costs through 
     innovation and market forces.
       MAAC urges that you strenuously oppose the changes to your 
     reliability provision, and offers our assistance to you as 
     the Senate considers this important legislation.

  The States that are covered by MAAC are Pennsylvania, New Jersey, 
Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. That is an indication at least that 
some States are not totally enthusiastic about this amendment Senator 
Thomas is proposing.
  Next, I refer to a letter we have received, also directed to me, 
dated March 13, from the Electric Consumers Resource Council--ELCON. 
This is the national association representing large industrial users of 
electricity. They indicate in their letter they were established in 
1976, their member companies have long supported policies furthering 
competition in wholesale and retail electric markets, and their members 
operate in every State in the Union.
  I will quote a couple of sentences out of their letter:

       We are obviously following the Senate debate on S. 517 very 
     closely. One provision that might be overlooked is the issue 
     labeled ``reliability.'' By way of background, ELCON was part 
     of the original group working on this issue with the North 
     American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) to develop then-
     consensus language roughly four years ago. We have continued 
     to work with NERC and with the Gas Industry Standards Board 
     (GISB), now the North American Energy Standards Board 
     (NAESB), to develop a structure for an organization to 
     develop reliability standards for our interstate electricity 
     grid and the impact of those standards on commercial 
     activity.
       Since our members operate throughout the Nation, we 
     strongly believe that rules should be as consistent as 
     possible in every area. To do otherwise would balkanize the 
     grid and hinder competition. For that reason we find the 
     proposal now being promoted by NERC (and supported by several 
     groups including the Western Governors Association) to be 
     counterproductive. Granting deference to any region, even if 
     that region constitutes an entire interconnection, invites 
     conflict with other regions. By diminishing the authority of 
     the national standard-setting organization, we are less 
     likely, not more likely, to have an effective and fully 
     functioning wholesale market.
       We hope that these views are helpful to you in your 
     deliberations.

  I will go next to the PJM Interconnection. It is the Pennsylvania-New 
Jersey-Maryland interconnection. This, again, is a letter dated the 
same date, March 13, to me, by Phillip Harris. He is the president and 
CEO of PJM. He says:

       I am writing to express our support for electricity title, 
     Title II, of Senator Bingaman's energy legislation, S. 517. 
     We believe Title II will serve to fundamentally improve 
     electricity markets in North America and urge your support of 
     it.

  Then, going down the letter, it says:

       In the PJM region, we have been able to work successfully 
     with States and local governments to ensure that electricity 
     markets and the grid work in a way that meets the needs of 
     wholesale and retail electric customers, while improving 
     regional reliability. We are pleased that section 207 of 
     Title II contains simplified reliability legislation that 
     places reliability authority directly with the Federal Energy 
     Regulatory Commission and enables it to objectively defer to 
     regional solutions without preference. We urge you to reject 
     any attempts by Senators from other regions to impose 
     alternative legislation that would significantly blur or 
     weaken the government accountability over reliability found 
     in Section 207 or impose improper restrictions on FERC's 
     authority over Regional Transmission Organizations. The 
     substance of the reliability amendment runs counter to an 
     ongoing industry effort to reconcile business and reliability 
     concerns.

  As I said, that was signed by Phillip Harris, the president and chief 
executive officer for PJM.
  Next, I will refer to a letter dated March 14, 2002, from Elizabeth 
Moler,

[[Page S1880]]

who is representing Exelon, Commonwealth Edison of Chicago, and PECO 
Energy in Pennsylvania.
  She says:

       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to share Exelon 
     Corporation's views on the Sen. Thomas' proposed reliability 
     amendment to S. 517, the pending energy bill.
       Exelon Corporation is one of the nation's largest electric 
     utilities. Our major subsidiaries are Commonwealth Edison, 
     the public utility that serves Chicago; PECO Energy, the 
     public utility that serves the Philadelphia area, and Exelon 
     Generation. We have roughly five million retail customers 
     in Illinois and Pennsylvania, which have both restructured 
     their electricity markets. Exelon owns 22.5 gigawatts of 
     generation (including nuclear, coal-fired, gas-fired, gas-
     oil fired, pumped storage and run-of-river hydro units) 
     and controls an additional 15 gigawatts of capacity. We 
     have additional capacity under development.

  Then the letter goes on and says:

       Exelon opposes the Thomas amendment, principally because we 
     believe it would interfere with the development of 
     competitive wholesale markets. As the United States Supreme 
     Court recognized just last week in reviewing FERC Order No. 
     888, electricity markets are fundamentally interstate in 
     nature. The Thomas amendment seeks to deny this fact, by 
     encouraging individual states or regions to development 
     unique reliability standards. We believe that the Nation 
     needs uniform, national reliability standards. The rules 
     should not vary from region to region. National reliability 
     guidelines and standards will facilitate the development of 
     more seamless electricity markets and encourage much-needed 
     investment in both generation and transmission. We believe 
     that the Thomas amendment would further balkanize electricity 
     markets, rather than facilitating development of a national 
     electricity marketplace.

  That is a quotation out of that letter from Exelon.
  The final letter I wish to refer to is the one from the Electric 
Power Supply Association. Quoting their letter:

       The Electric Power Supply Association would like to affirm 
     our support for the reliability provision in Section 207 of 
     your amendment in the nature of a substitute to S. 517. We 
     appreciate your continued efforts to promote legislation that 
     increases our energy supply and advances the effort to 
     establish wholesale electricity markets in the United States.
       It has come to our attention that efforts are being made to 
     strike your language in order to substitute an amendment 
     supported by the North American Electric Reliability Council 
     and the Western Governors' Association. This amendment is 
     based upon the NERC reliability proposal development over 
     three years ago. However, the subsequent convergence of 
     reliability and market issues has rendered this language 
     obsolete, and we urge you to oppose the amendment.
       The Electric Power Supply Association endorses the need for 
     mandatory reliability standards that are broadly applicable 
     to the wholesale power industry. However, the language in the 
     amendment could limit the industry's ability to address the 
     challenges presented by the ongoing development and 
     restructuring of the wholesale transmission system which is 
     essential for reliable, efficient and well-functioning 
     markets. As currently drafted, the amendment shifts 
     significant aspects of standards development and enforcement 
     away from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to a new 
     electric reliability organization. The text also does little 
     to reflect the role that will need to be played by regional 
     transmission organizations in future market management.
       This amendment would prevent FERC from carrying out its 
     responsibility to ensure the reliable and efficient operation 
     of the transmission grid and would hinder the development of 
     effective RTOs. Energy standards have an inevitable impact on 
     bulk power transmission systems and market operation 
     essential for reliability. Accordingly, the standard setting 
     process outlined in the amendment raises serious concerns 
     that failing to centralize this activity with FERC could lead 
     to confusion and conflicts among multiple entities.
       Further, the amendment fails to account for recent industry 
     efforts to rethink the nature, scope and organizational 
     structure for a new standard setting process that recognizes 
     the need to integrate reliability and market practices. The 
     industry, spurred by a December, 2001 FERC Order and 
     encouraged by the U.S. Department of Energy, is currently 
     engaged in a broad collaborative effort to consider how to 
     combine NERC's activities with standard setting that will be 
     done by the new North American Energy Standards Board, that 
     the Gas Industry Standards Board approved in December of 
     2001. The industry will make a filing to FERC by March 15. 
     This amendment [the Thomas amendment] could preempt the more 
     extensive consolidation of NERC into NEASB that is supported 
     by many industry stakeholders.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these letters in their 
entirety be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                    Mid-Atlantic Area Council,

                                   Norristown, PA, March 13, 2002.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Bingaman: The Mid-Atlantic Area Council 
     (``MAAC,'' a NERC regional reliability council covering all 
     or part of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, 
     Virginia, and the District of Columbia) would like to express 
     its support for the reliability provision in Section 207 of 
     your amendment in the nature of a substitute to S. 517. MAAC 
     appreciates your continued efforts to promote legislation 
     that increases our energy supply and advances the effort to 
     establish wholesale electricity markets in the United States.
       It is our understanding that the North American Electric 
     Reliability Council (NERC) and the Western Governors' 
     Association are seeking to strike your language in order to 
     substitute an amendment they drafted. This amendment is based 
     upon the now very stale NERC reliability proposal developed 
     over three years ago. The subsequent convergence of 
     reliability and market issues has rendered this language 
     obsolete, and we urge you to oppose the amendment.
       MAAC recognizes the need for mandatory reliability 
     standards that are broadly applicable to the wholesale power 
     industry. However, the language in the amendment will limit 
     the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) and the 
     industry's ability to properly restructure the wholesale 
     transmission system which is essential for reliable, 
     efficient and well-functioning markets. As currently drafted, 
     the amendment removes most aspects of standards development 
     and enforcement from FERC and grants sweeping powers to a new 
     electric reliability organization, likely to be NERC.
       The amendment largely ignores the important role that 
     regional transmission organizations (RTOs) will play in 
     reliability and market management and appears to assume that 
     assuring real-time reliability is purely an engineering 
     function with no significant economic content or effect on 
     markets, while your language would permit FERC to recognize 
     the interplay between reliability and markets and allow RTO-
     administered market mechanisms to preserve and foster 
     reliability.
       Furthermore, a December, 2001 FERC Order commenced a broad 
     industry collaborative effort to arrive at a consensus on how 
     to best merge NERC's activities into the standard setting 
     process of the new North American Energy Standards Board 
     (NAESB) (formerly Gas Industry Standards Board). The industry 
     will make a filing to FERC by March 15. This amendment could 
     derail the efforts supported by a large number to 
     stakeholders to establish NAESB as the standards developer 
     best able accommodate NERC and commercial concerns.
       Your reliability language is compatible with recent efforts 
     by the industry to develop a new and innovative approach to 
     standards setting. The amendment would stifle industry 
     efforts to forge a standards setting process that is in the 
     best interest of America. Unlike the amendment, your language 
     does not set into law a complex and burdensome set of rules 
     and processes which would institute a command and control 
     system of enforcement ignoring ways that market forces could 
     enhance reliability. The language of the amendment, if 
     substituted for your language, would result in a major 
     setback of the efforts to reduce power costs through 
     innovation and market forces.
       MAAC urges that you strenuously oppose the changes to your 
     reliability provision, and offers our assistance to you as 
     the Senate considers this important legislation. Please 
     contact us with any questions or requests for additional 
     information.
           Very truly yours,
                                                  P.R.H. Landrieu,
     Chairman.
                                  ____



                                                        ELCON,

                                                   March 13, 2002.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Electricity Consumers Resource 
     Council (ELCON) is the national association representing 
     large industrial users of electricity. We were established in 
     1976 and our member companies have long supported policies 
     furthering competition in wholesale and retail electricity 
     markets. Our members operate in every State.
       We are obviously following the Senate debate on S. 517 very 
     closely. One provision that might be overlooked is the issued 
     labeled ``reliability.'' By way of background, ELCON was part 
     of the original group working on this issue with the North 
     American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) to develop then-
     consensus language roughly four years ago. We have continued 
     to work with NERC and with the Gas Industry Standards Board 
     (GISB), now the North American Energy Standards Board 
     (NAESB), to develop a structure for an organization to 
     develop reliability standards for our interstate electricity 
     grid and the impact of those standards on commercial 
     activity.
       Since our members operate throughout the Nation, we 
     strongly believe that rules should be as consistent as 
     possible in every area. To do otherwise would balkanize the 
     grid and hinder competition. For that reason we find the 
     proposal now being promoted by NERC (and supported by several 
     groups including

[[Page S1881]]

     the Western Governors Association) to be counterproductive. 
     Granting deference to any region, even if that region 
     constitutes an entire interconnection, invites conflict with 
     other regions. By diminishing the authority of the national 
     standard-setting organization, we are less likely, not more 
     likely, to have an effective and fully functioning wholesale 
     market.
       We hope that these views are helpful to you in your 
     deliberations. Please feel free to call on us for additional 
     information.
           Sincerely,
     John A. Anderson.
                                  ____



                                          PJM Interconnection,

                                                   March 13, 2002.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bingaman: I am writing to express our support 
     for electricity title (Title II) of Senator Bingaman's energy 
     legislation (S. 517). We believe Title II will serve to 
     fundamentally improve electricity markets in North America 
     and urge your support of it. We also urge you to resist any 
     amendments that would weaken important provisions associated 
     with reliability of the electric grid or the authority of the 
     Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to oversee the 
     operation of electricity markets.
       PJM operates the largest competitive wholesale electricity 
     market in the world. We maintain reliability of the electric 
     transmission grid and also operate a successful spot market 
     for electricity in a five state region, which includes all or 
     a portion of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, 
     Virginia, and the District of Columbia. We are awaiting final 
     FERC approval of PJM West which will expand the market to 
     include significant parts of Ohio and West Virginia. PJM has 
     been recognized as a deregulation success story.
       In the PJM region, we have been able to work successfully 
     with States and local governments to ensure that electricity 
     markets and the grid work in a way that meets the needs of 
     wholesale and retail electric customers, while improving 
     regional reliability. We are pleased that Section 207 of 
     Title II contains simplified reliability legislation that 
     places reliability authority directly with the FERC and 
     enables it to objectively defer to regional solutions without 
     preference. We urge you to reject any attempts by Senators 
     from other regions to impose alternative legislation that 
     would significantly blur or weaken the government 
     accountability over reliability found in Section 207 or 
     impose improper restrictions on FERC's authority over 
     Regional Transmission Organizations. The substance of the 
     reliability amendment runs counter to an ongoing industry 
     effort to reconcile business and reliability concerns. I have 
     attached talking points and a comparison chart in furtherance 
     of our position.
       As this debate unfolds, many important issues will arise. I 
     have instructed my Washington staff to be available to meet 
     your needs and respond promptly to question about the effect 
     of various electricity issue legislative provisions on your 
     State. If we learn of any harmful electricity amendments, we 
     will alert your office as soon as possible. Please feel free 
     to call Craig Glazer, PJM's Manager of Regulatory Affairs in 
     Washington at 202-393-7756 or Robert Lamb of Wright & 
     Talisman at 202-393-1200.
       We look forward to working with you and meeting the needs 
     of the millions of citizens you so ably represent in the 
     United States Senate.
           Very truly yours,
                                                Phillip G. Harris,
     President and CEO.
                                  ____

                                                   March 14, 2002.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to share Exelon 
     Corporation's views on the Sen. Thomas' proposed reliability 
     amendment to S. 517, the pending energy bill.
       Exelon Corporation is one of the nation's largest electric 
     utilities. Our major subsidiaries are Commonwealth Edison, 
     the public utility that serves Chicago; PECO Energy, the 
     public utility that serves the Philadelphia area, and Exelon 
     Generation. We have roughly five million retail customers in 
     Illinois and Pennsylvania, which have both restructured their 
     electricity markets. Exelon owns 22.5 gigawatts of generation 
     (including nuclear, coal-fired, gas-fired gas-oil fired, 
     pumped storage and run-of-river hydro units) and controls an 
     additional 15 gigawatts of capacity. We have additional 
     capacity under development. Exelon's PowerTeam is one of the 
     largest power marketers in North America; we market power 
     nationally 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
       Exelon opposes the Thomas amendment, principally because we 
     believe it would interfere with the development of 
     competitive wholesale markets. As the United States Supreme 
     Court recognized just last week in reviewing FERC Order No. 
     888, electricity markets are fundamentally interstate in 
     nature. The Thomas amendment seeks to deny this fact, by 
     encouraging individual states or regions to develop unique 
     reliability standards. We believe that the Nation needs 
     uniform, national reliability standards. The rules should not 
     vary from region to region. National reliability guidelines 
     and standards will facilitate the development of more 
     seamless electricity markets and encourage much-needed 
     investment in both generation and transmission. We believe 
     that the Thomas amendment would further balkanize electricity 
     markets, rather than facilitating development of a national 
     electricity marketplace.
       We appreciate the leadership that you and Sen. Murkowski 
     have shown on electricity issues. The bipartisan electricity 
     amendment adopted unanimously yesterday by the United States 
     Senate is a giant step toward enactment of much-needed 
     legislation to reform the laws that govern our industry. We 
     look foward to continuing to work with you in the days and 
     weeks ahead in support of enacting a comprehensive national 
     energy policy that will enable us to continue to provide our 
     customers reliable service at reasonable prices.
       Thank you for your consideration of our views.
       With best wishes,
           Sincerely,
     Elizabeth A. Moler.
                                  ____



                                                         EPSA,

                                    Washington, DC, March 6, 2002.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Bingaman: The Electric Power Supply 
     Association (EPSA) would like to affirm our support for the 
     reliability provision in Section 207 of your amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute to S. 517. We appreciate your 
     continued efforts to promote legislation that increases our 
     energy supply and advances the effort to establish wholesale 
     electricity markets in the United States.
       It has come to our attention that efforts are being made to 
     strike your language in order to substitute an amendment 
     supported by the North American Electric Reliability Council 
     (NERC) and the Western Governors' Association. This amendment 
     is based upon the NERC reliability proposal developed over 
     three years ago. However, the subsequent convergence of 
     reliability and market issues has rendered this language 
     obsolete, and we urge you to oppose the amendment.
       EPSA endorses the need for mandatory reliability standards 
     that are broadly applicable to the wholesale power industry. 
     However, the language in the amendment could limit the 
     industry's ability to address the challenges presented by the 
     ongoing development and restructuring of the wholesale 
     transmission system which is essential for reliable, 
     efficient and well-functioning markets. As currently drafted, 
     the amendment shifts significant aspects of standards 
     development and enforcement away from the Federal Energy 
     Regulatory Commission (FERC) to a new electric reliability 
     organization. The text also does little to reflect the role 
     that will need to be played by regional transmission 
     organizations (RTOs) in future market management.
       This amendment would prevent FERC from carrying out its 
     responsibility to ensure the reliable and efficient operation 
     of the transmission grid and would hinder the development of 
     effective RTOs. Energy standards have an inevitable impact on 
     bulk power transmission systems and market operation 
     essential for reliability. Accordingly, the standard setting 
     process outlined in the amendment raises serious concerns 
     that failing to centralize this activity with FERC could lead 
     to confusion and conflicts among multiple entities.
       Further, the amendment fails to account for recent industry 
     efforts to rethink the nature, scope and organizational 
     structure for a new standard setting process that recognizes 
     the need to integrate reliability and market practices. The 
     industry, spurred by a December, 2001 FERC Order and 
     encouraged by the U.S. Department of Energy, is currently 
     engaged in a broad collaborative effort to consider how to 
     combine NERC's activities with standard setting that will be 
     done by the new North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) 
     that the Gas Industry Standards Board (GISB) approved in 
     December of 2001. The industry will make a filing to FERC by 
     March 15. This amendment could preempt the more extensive 
     consolidation of NERC into NAESB that is supported by many 
     industry stakeholders.
       The implications of these developments are clear: 
     legislation should not deny FERC or industry stakeholders the 
     opportunity to develop new approaches to energy standards 
     development. Your reliability language is compatible with 
     recent efforts by the industry to develop a new and 
     innovative approach to standards setting. Furthermore, your 
     language does not set into law a complex and burdensome set 
     of rules and processes which would hamper the development and 
     enforcement of standards. Replacing your language with the 
     amendment can only serve to delay the evolution of the energy 
     markets and threaten the reliable operation of the 
     transmission grid.
       We urge you to fight efforts to make such changes to your 
     reliability provision, and we look forward to working with 
     you as the Senate considers this important legislation. 
     Please don't hesitate to contact us with further questions or 
     to request additional information.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Lynne H. Church,
     President.
                                  ____

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will yield the floor. I see my 
colleague from Massachusetts is prepared to speak. I will defer to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.

[[Page S1882]]

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to 
speak for 10 minutes as in morning business and that my remarks be 
printed at the appropriate place in the Record and not interfere with 
the debate on the energy bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Kennedy are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). The Senator from 
Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise to address the pending amendment. 
The Senator from New Mexico cited a number of the people supporting his 
part of the bill, several of whom were companies, of course. Maybe the 
fact that the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners 
supports the amendment would be an interesting change. In terms of 
looking out for the public's interest, I would guess that is more 
likely to be the case--certainly the North American Electric 
Reliability Council. Again, there are letters on each one's desk that 
the administration supports this proposal. We are looking toward 
getting together a balanced program.
  A number of things have been mentioned that need to be talked about a 
little bit. The FERC industry standards board was mentioned as being an 
alternative. The fact is that is only a concept. Years of work will be 
needed to make it happen. There is no consensus among industry 
stakeholders. More has developed in the West, and that is why this has 
sort of started there because these people were forced to come together 
and others will be as well.
  I don't think it is time to jettison 30 years of experience in doing 
this thing so that you can hand it over to a new bureaucracy that has 
neither the expertise nor, indeed, the background to take care of this 
task.
  It has been mentioned, but it is very true that we need to have an 
opportunity for whatever we put into place to deal also with uniformity 
in reliability with the United States, Mexico, and western Canada. That 
is very important, particularly to the Northwest, of course, as 
mentioned by the Senator from Oregon.
  There is a need to move fairly quickly. I don't think there is much 
doubt that the NERC process would be able to act much more quickly in 
consensus building than FERC. The thing that it seems we always try to 
push aside is that FERC still has the final responsibility. That is 
probably the way it ought to be.
  The standard setting, we talked a little about that. I don't think 
that system has to recognize the realities of the differences that do 
exist. The enforcement of standards is well defined and responsive to 
differences in interactions, and it has to be that way. There is no 
definition process that is going to emerge from the industry. Often 
there are things going on here that just aren't actually the case on 
the ground.
  There was some suggestion that NERC's proposal was organized 3 years 
ago and is now obsolete. There is nothing obsolete about the NERC 
proposal.
  In fact, during this Western crisis of the last couple years, 
reliability standards was one of the few elements that worked well. So 
I think the evidence is that we have on the ground a group that is 
deeply involved and has shown expertise, representing different parts 
of the country, the needs of different parts of the country--certainly 
with the oversight that exists.
  So the Bingaman approach--the Daschle bill--does not provide a role 
for the States. There is no assurance of independence or any standard 
setting. Therefore, we need to look at the concept of how we are doing 
this. We are expecting a couple more Senators to come and speak 
momentarily. In the meantime, I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are in the process of preparing to 
propound a unanimous consent request. That should be done within the 
next few minutes. We hope we can set up a vote at 2 o'clock this 
afternoon. Prior to that time, Senator Bingaman is planning to start 
debate on renewable portfolio. Senator Jeffords is standing by to come 
at the appropriate time. It is my understanding that Senator Kyl will 
follow with his amendment. We should be able to do that in the next few 
minutes.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Thomas 
amendment No. 3012 be set aside to recur at 2 p.m. today; that at 2 
p.m., the Senate vote in relation to the amendment, with no second-
degree amendments in order prior to the vote in relation to the Thomas 
amendment; that Senators may speak until 2 p.m. today on the Thomas 
amendment, notwithstanding its pendency; that Senator Dayton be 
recognized to offer an amendment relating to gasohol; that after a 
period of debate, the amendment be set aside for consideration later 
today; that following that period of debate, Senator Bingaman be 
recognized to offer an amendment relating to renewable portfolio 
standards.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we will have a vote at 2 o'clock. Senator 
Dayton is going to offer an amendment on his behalf and that of Senator 
Grassley. That debate will take just a few minutes. There are others 
who want to speak on the amendment of Senator Thomas. They can do that 
until 2 o'clock.
  In the meantime, Senator Bingaman is going to start the debate today 
dealing with renewable portfolio standards. A very important part of 
the bill deals with renewables. He will offer his amendment and Senator 
Jeffords will offer a second-degree amendment, I am told. I spoke with 
his chief of staff. Following that, Senator Kyl will offer another 
amendment dealing with renewables. This should take care of renewables 
once and for all on this bill.
  Once we get that done, there are some other amendments, but the big 
one still left is that dealing with ANWR. We are eliminating a lot of 
contentious matters on this bill.
  Senators can be expected to come to the Chamber a number of times 
this afternoon and evening regarding votes on renewable portfolio 
standards.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.


                Amendment No. 3008 to Amendment No. 2917

  Mr. DAYTON. I thank the Chair. I thank Senator Thomas for his 
acquiescence.
  Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and Senator 
Grassley.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Dayton], for himself and 
     Mr. Grassley, proposes an amendment numbered 3008 to 
     amendment No. 2917.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require that Federal agencies use ethanol-blended gasoline 
  and biodiesel-blended diesel fuel in areas in which ethanol-blended 
       gasoline and biodiesel-blended diesel fuel are available)

       At the end of subtitle B of title VIII, add the following:

     SEC. 8____. FEDERAL AGENCY ETHANOL-BLENDED GASOLINE AND 
                   BIODIESEL PURCHASING REQUIREMENT.

       Title III of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 is amended by 
     striking section 306 (42 U.S.C. 13215) and inserting the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 306. FEDERAL AGENCY ETHANOL-BLENDED GASOLINE AND 
                   BIODIESEL PURCHASING REQUIREMENT.

       ``(a) Ethanol-Blended Gasoline.--The head of each Federal 
     agency shall ensure that, in areas in which ethanol-blended 
     gasoline is available, the Federal agency purchases ethanol-
     blended gasoline containing at least 10 percent ethanol (or 
     the highest available percentage of ethanol), rather than 
     nonethanol-blended gasoline, for use in vehicles used by the 
     agency.
       ``(b) Biodiesel.--
       ``(1) Definition of biodiesel.--In this subsection, the 
     term `biodiesel' has the meaning given the term in section 
     312(f).
       ``(2) Requirement.--The head of each Federal agency shall 
     ensure that the Federal agency purchases, for use in fueling 
     fleet vehicles used by the Federal agency at the location at 
     which fleet vehicles of the Federal agency are centrally 
     fueled--
       ``(A) as of the date that is 5 years after the date of 
     enactment of this paragraph, biodiesel-blended diesel fuel 
     that contains at least 2 percent biodiesel, rather than 
     nonbiodiesel-blended diesel fuel; and

[[Page S1883]]

       ``(B) as of the date that is 10 years after the date of 
     enactment of this paragraph, biodiesel-blended diesel fuel 
     that contains at least 20 percent biodiesel, rather than 
     nonbiodiesel-blended diesel fuel.''.

  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I thank the Senators from Nevada and New 
Mexico for making the time available.
  I am pleased to offer today, along with my very distinguished 
colleague from our neighboring State of Iowa, Senator Grassley, an 
amendment that will significantly increase the use of ethanol and soy 
diesel fuels across our country.
  Our amendment requires all Federal Government vehicles to use 10-
percent ethanol-blended gasoline where it is available or whatever 
lesser percent of ethanol blend is available in that particular locale.
  Our amendment also requires Federal vehicles which run on diesel fuel 
to use at least a 2-percent biodiesel blend or higher by the year 2007, 
and a 20-percent biodiesel blend by the year 2012.
  If we want to improve our Nation's energy security, provide cleaner 
air, boost farm income, and strengthen many rural communities across 
this country, increasing the use of ethanol and soy diesel is a golden 
opportunity. Both of these fuels have come into their own as better 
alternatives to blend with regular gasoline and diesel fuel than the 
oil-based additives which currently predominate across the country.
  Regular car and truck engines can use up to 10-percent ethanol with 
no modifications required, and centrally fueled trucks and other 
vehicles can similarly use up to 20-percent biodiesel blend even more 
efficiently and effectively than other diesel blends today. In fact, my 
Minnesota office leases a regular Chrysler minivan that travels all 
across Minnesota burning fuel which is 85-percent ethanol. That van has 
had no problems whatsoever in its performance and, fortunately, we have 
had no problem finding this 85-percent ethanol throughout my State.
  One of the reasons ethanol is so readily available in Minnesota is 
that our State legislature had the foresight 7 years ago to pass a law 
requiring that a 10-percent ethanol blend be available to all gas 
stations across the State. Just 3 days ago, the Minnesota Legislature 
passed a similar mandate which, if signed by the Governor, will require 
stations to provide a 2-percent blend of biodiesel fuel.
  When people have positive experiences using these blends and then 
become confident they can obtain them wherever they travel, the usage 
of these alternative fuels sores.
  By the end of this year, it is estimated that our country's ethanol 
production capacity will reach 2.7 billion gallons. If this amount of 
ethanol were used in cars and trucks across our country, it would 
displace approximately 9 percent of all the foreign oil imported into 
our Nation this year.
  Of all the measures being considered in this legislation and of all 
the measures that are being discussed or implemented in America today, 
nothing can reduce our dependency on foreign oil or increase our 
domestic energy production but ethanol and biodiesel fuels.
  Increasing the use of these fuels is what I call the grand slam: No. 
1, it boosts the prices of corn and soybeans and other suitable crops 
in the marketplace and, thus, both raises farmers' incomes and reduces 
taxpayers' subsidies; No. 2, it improves the local economies and 
communities throughout agricultural America; No. 3, it reduces U.S. 
dependence on foreign oil; and No. 4, it provides cleaner air.
  The Federal Government ought to be leading the way in expanding these 
markets for these renewable fuels, but, unfortunately, the Federal 
fleet consumption of these fuels is currently only 2 percent, despite 
several Executive orders signed by President Clinton during his two 
terms. Thus, our amendment is essential to requiring that the 600,000 
vehicles in the Federal fleet do their part in expanding the 
utilization of ethanol and soy diesel.

  When I was commissioner of energy and economic development for the 
State of Minnesota back in the 1980s, ethanol was being produced and 
touted as just this kind of alternative fuel blend for this Nation. 
Unfortunately, like so many other forms of alternative energy which 
have been around for years or even decades, it has been sadly 
underutilized.
  I believe as a nation we are utilizing less than 5 percent of our 
potential for alternative sources of energy, energy conservation, and 
other economically and ecologically sound measures to improve our 
energy security. We have been taking these small baby steps when we 
could have and should have been progressing by leaps and bounds.
  This energy bill is an opportunity we cannot afford to miss. Senator 
Daschle and Senator Bingaman have performed a great service to all of 
us and to our entire country by bringing before us this bill which 
makes so many important contributions to a balanced national energy 
policy.
  Senator Grassley and I believe our amendment is another important 
contribution, and I respectfully urge our colleagues to support it.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as all of my colleagues know, I strongly 
support the production of renewable domestic fuels, particularly 
ethanol and biodiesel. As domestic, renewable sources of energy, 
ethanol and biodiesel can increase fuel supplies, reduce our dependence 
on foreign oil, and increase our national and economic security.
  Historically, Congress and the administration have asked the Federal 
Government to lead by example when moving this country to new 
standards. Since we are talking about the future of energy in this 
country, we as a Federal Government must lead by example. The Dayton-
Grassley amendment is largely symbolic and it will codify what many 
administrations have already directed the Federal Government to do: to 
use renewable fuels where practicable.
  For instance, the last administration issued an Executive order 
directing the Federal Government to exercise leadership in the use of 
alternative fuel vehicles, to develop and implement aggressive plans to 
fulfill the alternative fueled vehicle acquisition requirements of the 
Energy Policy Act of 1992, which required 25 percent in 1996, 33 
percent in 1997, 50 percent in 1998, and 75 percent in 1999 and 
thereafter.
  The Executive order was never adhered to because it was not generally 
practicable, but the Dayton-Grassley amendment is much easier to 
implement, because we are talking about setting a standard using 
normally blended renewable fuels.
  The Federal Government should be using as much renewable fuels as is 
practicably available.
  This amendment would require just that--where available, Federal 
fleet vehicles should be using ethanol and biodiesel, the two most 
practicably available renewable fuels.
  I support this amendment, because it makes good sense for the Federal 
fleet to use as much ethanol and biodiesel as it possibly can.
  The requirements for ethanol and biodiesel usage under this amendment 
are easily attainable and does not require the Federal fleet to comply 
if the blended fuel is not readily available.
  I am pleased to offer this amendment with Senator Dayton.
  Mr. DAYTON. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise in support of the 
amendment of the Senator from Minnesota. His amendment is the kind of 
creativity and inventiveness and American can-do ingenuity we have to 
have as we approach this energy crisis, energy shortage.
  Clearly, the production of ethanol and its substitution for otherwise 
fossil fuels is of benefit to Minnesota. There is not particularly any 
benefit to my State, so I wish to rise as a nonconflicted party to 
endorse the Chair's amendment to say, as we approach the crisis of how 
we are going to continue to have the energy resources we need for a 
nation that consumes a lot of energy, we have to be inventive and 
creative.
  I think the Senator from Minnesota has proposed one alternative. I 
think we will see other alternatives produced in an amendment by the 
Senator from New Mexico on renewables, wind, the

[[Page S1884]]

use of waste to produce energy which we do in Florida in 13 different 
locations. I have been assured by the Senator from New Mexico that we 
will be able to continue, as part of the credit, with those existing 
facilities which are turning waste into energy.
  Years ago, when I was in the Florida Legislature, we established the 
Florida Solar Energy Center, which is in the shadow of Cape Canaveral 
right outside the gates of our space center. It, today, is a thriving 
center of research and development in using the God-given rays and heat 
of the Sun and converting that into energy.
  Clearly, we have seen that, for example, so successfully employed in 
our space program, of taking the solar arrays, very high-tech kinds of 
mechanisms, folded out in huge arrays in the zero gravity and vacuum of 
space and having that sunlight come down and penetrate those arrays and 
that being converted into electricity for the spacecraft.
  Another thing used on the spacecraft called the space shuttle is a 
device that takes oxygen and hydrogen and suddenly makes electricity 
and has water as a byproduct. That is why our astronaut crews on the 
space shuttle have to perform, at the end of each flight day, water 
dumps where water, which is the byproduct of making this electricity by 
the combining of hydrogen and oxygen, is dumped overboard in space. As 
one sees it come out the nozzle and it starts to freeze in that very 
cold atmosphere of space, it is a beautiful sight, particularly when 
the rays of the Sun happen to hit those water crystals. It is another 
example.
  Ultimately, we will be able to use hydrogen in automobiles. Think 
what that will save us in the way of fossil fuels.
  Why do we need to find alternatives to fossil fuels? Because of the 
obvious: They are limited. The amounts of oil for energy purposes are 
going to be used up over the course of the next 50 years. So we have to 
be planning for that.
  There is another reason right now that is so important, and that is 
the United States is dependent on foreign-imported oil, and that 
dependence causes us to be in the unenviable position that we have to 
assure the flow of that oil out of the Persian Gulf region. As we are 
engaged in this war against terrorism, where is a lot of that activity? 
It is over in the Middle East. It is over in central Asia.

  I will never forget. I clearly learned what a military chokepoint was 
when I looked out the window of our spacecraft as we were coming across 
the Persian Gulf and from that altitude of space saw the 19-mile-wide 
Strait of Hormuz. That is a military chokepoint, and we have understood 
that and that is why we have so much military over in that part of the 
world to assure that oil in the supertankers of the world flows out of 
that oil-rich region of the gulf, and those supertankers flow to the 
industrialized world.
  So somewhere there is a terrorist who is planning to try to sink one 
of those supertankers in the Strait of Hormuz, and if that were to 
occur, what huge economic dislocations and economic disruptions would 
occur throughout the globe. And it is because we are dependent on that 
oil.
  We ought to be reducing our dependence, and I think the amendment of 
the Senator from Minnesota is one good illustration of how we lessen 
our dependence on that foreign oil.
  Another good illustration is--and unfortunately, we were not 
successful yesterday--increasing the miles per gallon, otherwise known 
as the CAFE standards. That does not mean anything to most Americans, 
but when we start talking about do Americans want to get more miles per 
gallon in their automobile, the answer is a resounding ``yes.'' Yet 
yesterday we were not able to increase the miles per gallon in our 
fleet of automobiles.
  That is a political travesty. It will have profound economic 
consequences. Sooner or later, when we have another crisis, that oil is 
not going to be able to be as accessible from foreign shores; then we 
will have to get serious again about the greatest consumption of energy 
in America, which is in the transportation sector, about increasing 
miles per gallon.
  That is a decision the Senate rendered yesterday. I think it is 
unfortunate. However, the fact is there are creative and genius 
Senators, such as the Senator from Minnesota, who is offering his 
amendment. I add my voice of support to his amendment.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). Without objection, it 
is so ordered.
  The Senator from Alaska.


                           Amendment No. 3012

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment offered 
by the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Craig Thomas. I will discuss the 
amendment. It is an amendment that deserves understanding. I compliment 
the Senator from Wyoming for the manner in which he has focused on this 
amendment from the standpoint of keeping responsibility for the most 
part at the level where it belongs, which is at the State level.
  The amendment replaces the Federal command and control in the Daschle 
substitute. That amendment has FERC setting and enforcing reliability 
standards. There are some things wrong with that, and I will go through 
that in detail. This is a provision similar to legislation the Senate 
unanimously passed last Congress which has the North American Electric 
Reliability Council continuing to set standards but not with the 
ability to enforce them. This is a group that knows what they are 
talking about when it comes to reliability.
  Under this amendment, there is an enforcement mechanism. It is 
important to note that the amendment is broadly supported by Governors 
and State public utility commissions. Since Ben Franklin went kite 
flying, we have known of electricity's unique attributes. Customers 
count on the fact that when they turn the light on, it goes on; the 
electricity will be there. It is probably one of the largest industries 
in our country that is so taken for granted. It works. Anytime Congress 
comes in and proposes to fix it when it is still working, there are 
those who become concerned. I am one.
  More than reading lights and television are at stake. Reliable, 
affordable electricity moves the economy forward. It makes possible 
computers that research solutions to our most pressing problems and the 
instruments that save lives.
  This amendment ensures our electric transmission grid will continue 
to be safe and reliable. We know that grid, in some areas particularly, 
is overtaxed, with inadequate transmission lines. Yet it works. So the 
tendency is, do not disturb it. We have to recognize there are more and 
more demands for greater electric energy as a consequence of computers 
and various other appliances we take for granted in our homes.
  This amendment ensures that our electric transmission grid will 
continue to be safe and reliable. Consumers will be able to get the 
power they need when they need it--the lights will go on, and they will 
stay on.
  The amendment establishes a nationwide reliability organization which 
has the authority to establish and enforce reliability standards. I 
emphasize two words: Establish and enforce. This is a nationwide 
reliability organization that has proven itself. The new reliability 
organization will be run by market participants and will be overseen by 
the FERC.
  To give an example: When the Enron company collapsed, the system 
worked. There was not a price increase. There was not a shortage of 
electricity. The free market system worked. I have often said, if those 
companies, on the demise of Enron, had to go to FERC to get authority 
to take over the slack, one wonders how long it would take. The public 
would probably be inconvenienced. The price would probably be adjusted 
because of a crisis.
  My point is, the free market system can work. That is why it is so 
important we address reliability. This amendment does it.
  Our existing voluntary reliability system has been with us for some 
time. Under current law, reliability standards are set by the North 
American Electric Reliability Council and its 10 regional councils. 
These standards are entirely voluntary. There is no penalty

[[Page S1885]]

mechanism for violation. The pending amendment gives an enforcement 
mechanism that is good. In a nutshell, the pending amendment takes the 
existing voluntary program and gives it some enforcement powers. The 
new reliability organization sets the standard with FERC, and FERC 
becomes the backstop, not the individual who necessarily carries the 
ball upfront. The reliability organization will be made up of 
representatives of those who are affected: Residents, commercial and 
industrial customers, independent power producers, electric utilities, 
and others.

  There is no question we need a system to safeguard the integrity of 
our electric grid. Both the amendment and the Daschle bill create 
mandatory and enforceable reliability rules. But they do so in very 
different ways. This is where Members are going to have to look at this 
amendment and recognize its contribution vis-a-vis what is in the 
Daschle bill.
  The Daschle bill gives all authority and responsibility to FERC. This 
is a States rights issue. Clearly, when it comes to interstate 
transmission of power, FERC has, and should have, a role. We believe 
the Daschle bill, in giving all the authority and responsibility to 
FERC, takes away from the States their right to address intrastate 
power matters that can best be addressed by the States. In the Daschle 
bill, in giving all the authority and responsibility to FERC, FERC sets 
the standards and FERC enforces the standards. It is that simple.
  Unfortunately, in our opinion, FERC does not have all the expertise 
in the world to set highly technical and complex reliability standards 
that can only be done by industry experts. Where do the industry 
experts reside? They reside within the States.
  The amendment instead establishes a participant-run, FERC-overseeing, 
electric reliability organization. It is a blend of Federal oversight 
along with industry expertise. It is similar to the bill that passed 
unanimously last Congress.
  Over the years, the grid has been well protected through voluntary 
standards established by the North American Electric Reliability 
Council. FERC's voluntary reliability standards, which are not 
necessarily enforceable, have subsequently been complied with by the 
electric power industry; in other words, a kind of self-policing 
mechanism.
  But with the changing nature of the electric power market, it is time 
to change that to create a new organization with enforcement powers. 
That is what we have done. The answer to every problem is not 
necessarily another layer of Federal command and control or, in this 
case, more FERC. This is the central failure, in our opinion, of the 
Daschle bill. Federal standards and Federal enforcement are simply not 
necessary across the board.
  The amendment offered by the Senator from Wyoming adopts the language 
developed by the North American Reliability Council. It recognizes and 
addresses the regional differences. It is supported by State Governors, 
including western Governors, and State public utility commission. As we 
did last year, the Senate should unanimously support the language and 
reject the Federal preemption and command and control that is in the 
Daschle legislation.
  I support the amendment and encourage its adoption.
  I would like to point out that this is a pretty complex piece of 
legislation contained in this amendment. I encourage Members to talk to 
members of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee because we have 
had previously--not this time--hearings on this matter.
  I previously discussed my displeasure with the process that brought 
the bill to the Senate floor. However, unlike most of this bill, the 
reliability language does have some committee history. During the last 
Congress, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources specifically 
considered the issue of whether we should have more Federal controls or 
whether we should, instead, provide enforcement authority to the 
current voluntary standards and those would be administered by NERC.
  On June 21, 2000, the committee reported legislation that took the 
approach contained in the amendment offered by Senator Thomas and the 
Senate passed that approach. That approach recommended by the Energy 
Committee and passed by the Senate has been abandoned in this 
legislation. I think that is regrettable.
  The reliability language in the current legislation was circulated by 
the chairman of the committee as part of the chairman's mark on 
electricity. They ignored our committee position and the action taken 
by the Senate at that time. We had a markup scheduled to consider 
electricity. This is when the majority leader basically shut down the 
committee process and, in my opinion, obstructed the advancement of 
this energy legislation.
  We have never had the opportunity to vote on this provision. I can 
tell you what that vote would have been, however. I have said the 
majority leader shut down the Energy Committee because he feared our 
vote over ANWR. Everyone knows a majority of the committee and a 
bipartisan majority of the Senate support responsible development of a 
resource that could replace some 30 years of imports from Iraq. 
However, in all honesty, ANWR was not the pending subject when the 
chairman and majority leader started counting votes--electricity was 
the subject.
  Reliability, Federal mandates, Federal command and control--these 
were the issues. I went through this in great detail in the last 
Congress. We had 2 days of markup going through these issues. When we 
were done, the committee voted and, as I said, the Senate decided to do 
reliability in a manner substantially similar to that being proposed by 
Senator Thomas.
  I agree with many of my colleagues that we should have done this in 
committee and not be conducting these business meetings, necessarily, 
or educational processes, in the Chamber. That is not our option, 
however. Given the circumstances, the Senate should follow the 
recommendations of the Energy Committee on this matter and its own 
unanimous action in the last Congress and support the Thomas amendment.
  I see the Senator from Louisiana seeking recognition, and I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thought I would come to the floor and 
speak for just a moment about an amendment that I propose to lay down 
sometime either today or tomorrow, for, hopefully, a good debate next 
week.
  This amendment is rather simple. I am sure it is going to cause a lot 
of interest and debate. I am going to explain it in a moment, but it 
will be proposed because of what I have come to believe after studying 
now for several years the current situation with our energy policy. 
Senator Bingaman and Senator Murkowski have worked so hard on the bill 
before us, and I have supported many of their efforts. I have nothing 
but the most wonderful things to say about the two of them and the 
patience they displayed trying to bring the bill together into one that 
can unite this body and one that can really help move this country 
forward.
  I am going to vote for the bill, whether ANWR is in it or not. I am 
supporting Senator Murkowski's effort to open up more domestic drilling 
in this Nation because I think he was absolutely correct. But I want to 
say I think it is going to take a more fundamental shift in attitude 
and policy. Although the bill gives us great hope in tax credits for 
more production, great hope in tax credits for more alternatives, we 
are still, if you will, arguing about the margins and missing the big 
picture.
  The big picture is really this: I think the solution is for this 
country to get serious about becoming energy independent. I think the 
President is absolutely right when he talks about a freedom car or a 
freedom truck or a freedom system. This is about freedom. This is about 
being able to be a leader in the world based on what our real values 
are, and not being held hostage because we need something that someone 
else has and because we will not produce it, even though we have it. 
Our foreign policy is compromised and the lives of our men and women 
are put in danger.
  It is not right. It is not smart. It is dangerous. If we did a better 
job of communicating to the American people this reality, I think they 
would rise and demand a fundamental change.

[[Page S1886]]

  So the amendment I am going to lay down is a simple one. It says 
this: All States are to submit a plan to the Secretary of Energy within 
1 year to show how they can become basically energy self-sufficient.
  Whatever they are consuming, they must come up with a plan of 
producing--not 100 percent, because I think that would be very 
difficult for some States, recognizing that some States are small. So 
my amendment is going to say that whatever you consume, you must try to 
produce 85 percent of what you consume. The money in this budget, the 
money that the Federal Government--taxpayers--provide, is contingent 
upon the State submitting such a plan.
  If you do not submit a plan, you are not permitted to receive any 
money. I will tell you why. On the floor I said one of the founding 
principles of this Nation was: He who doesn't work doesn't eat. It is 
why the Plymouth Colony survived. It is why this Nation not only is 
surviving but thriving; it is because it is an American principle that 
we live by every day--not perfectly, but it is an undergirding 
principle of this Nation.
  It is not the communistic principle, not other principles. The 
principle in America is you live by the fruit of your labor. You work 
and use the talents that God has given you. When you produce, you can 
live and consume. But if you don't work, if you don't produce, you 
should not pick up the paycheck. We have done it in welfare reform. We 
do it everywhere. But we do not do it in energy.
  I will show you why we do not do it. This is a chart of the States 
that produce power. The purple States shown here produce enough power 
for themselves, and are net exporters of power. They produce it in all 
different ways. Some produce it by coal, some produce it by oil and 
gas, some produce it by using their great water resources with which 
their regions are blessed. These States have figured out what resources 
they have.
  They are trying--I admit with a lot of mistakes in the past. When we 
didn't have the great science and technology of today--using basically 
just carriages and horseback--we were just trying to make it work and 
build this country. So they found all these resources and started 
putting them together, to give power to a nation that is truly the 
light of the world.
  Now notice the red States here. They are consuming much more--in some 
cases dramatically more--than they are producing. That is the problem. 
I will submit for the Record the numbers that are quite dramatic for 
these consuming States which indicate their unwillingness and their 
reluctance to produce the energy they need to sustain their economy and 
their dependence on others to produce.
  If that were as far as we have gone, maybe we could even live with 
that. Not only are these States not willing to produce, but they are 
telling other States they can't produce--not only not in my backyard, 
but not in your backyard. I think that kind of attitude is driven by 
populations that might not quite realize what is at stake. It is, I 
think, jeopardizing our Nation and causing us to work around the 
margins and not really work on the core points.
  We cannot conserve our way out of where we are. We have to produce 
more domestically.
  Let me give you another reason why I am very passionate about this.
  Every time we drive domestic production off our shores, it goes 
somewhere else. It doesn't go away. It just goes somewhere else. When 
it goes to Canada, it is not bad because Canada is a stable country 
with good laws and good environmental rules and regulations. We in some 
ways benefit when it goes to Canada--not only as a nation but as a 
world--because Canada is a developed, progressive, and friendly 
country. But that is about it.
  It might go to Mexico and to South and Central America. Mexico is a 
friend. Our relations are warming. They are an ally, but I would not 
say that Mexico or Central America or Latin America have the strongest 
environmental policies. I think they have fairly transparent business 
operations. I am not so sure they have the highest level of ethics in 
terms of their business, at least compared to the United States.
  When we drive production off the shores of the greatest country in 
the world, which has the best regulations, the best laws, the most 
transparent system, and an assurance that drilling is done in the right 
way, we drive it to places in the world where environmental destruction 
is inevitable because they do not have the technology. They do not have 
the laws. They do not have the organized environmental groups.
  In our great righteousness of trying to clean up the United States of 
America, we are messing up the rest of the world. It doesn't make sense 
from an environmental perspective. It doesn't make sense from a 
security perspective. Children, young people, spouses, and parents are 
dying today over this issue.
  Why can't we help Israel anymore? Because we are so dependent on Arab 
countries to supply us with oil, and so we don't have to drill anywhere 
in the United States for oil. We see in the paper every day that 
another 60 people have died in Israel, and we say we are sorry.
  This Senator is going to do everything in her power to help change 
this view in the United States.
  When a person runs for President in this country, they have to go to 
California to get a lot of votes. They have to go to Florida to get a 
lot of votes. They have to go to other big States to get a lot of 
votes. There are some interest groups there that I think have captured 
and held hostage some of the general public in those States and 
convinced them that they can just continue to consume. They don't have 
to produce anything. They do not have to produce it by coal. They don't 
have to produce it by nuclear. They don't have to produce it by 
hydro. They don't have to produce it by gas. They don't have to produce 
it. They can just consume.

  Again, the States in red on this chart are importers of electricity. 
They consume sometimes 3, 5, 10, and 15 percent more than they produce. 
The States in purple produce more than they consume. They are net 
exporters.
  The amendment that I am going to lay down later today is a message 
amendment. I think this message is compelling. I think this is a 
message worth giving. I hope somebody will listen to it. States are to 
submit a plan to the Secretary of Energy within 1 year. In that plan, 
every State has to show how they are going to become energy independent 
within 10 years. If they do not submit a plan, they are not allowed to 
get one penny from this energy bill for any projects because then they 
go on their own.
  The country was founded on the principle of those who work eat, and 
those who do not work don't eat.
  Let me say something about by State. This isn't just about Louisiana. 
I am proud of what my State does. We are trying to do a better job of 
protecting our environment. We are making a lot of strides. Our 
universities are doing great, and our businesses are trying. We 
acknowledge that we have made some mistakes. I am very proud of my 
State. We produce a lot, and we consume a great amount.
  I will show you on this chart, but you can understand that our 
consumption is not just for ourselves. We have a lot of industry that 
makes a lot of products that go everywhere in the country and in the 
world. Not only do we produce everything that the 4.5 million of us 
need every day for our lives, but we also produce enough to run this 
great industrial complex. Even then, we send another half of what we 
produce out to everybody else. We do it because we are very blessed to 
have oil and gas. We thank God for it. We didn't make it. It was there 
where our State was founded. But we are wise enough to try to recover 
it and use it for the great growth of the Nation.
  In addition, we sit on the greatest river system that drains the 
entire Nation, that produces fish, and we have levy systems, at some 
sacrifice to our environment. Who in America would say we don't need 
the Mississippi River? I don't know what we would do without it. I do 
not know what our farmers in the Midwest would do without the mighty 
Mississippi and its tributaries.
  The people in Louisiana have done more than their fair share. It is 
not just about Louisiana. It is about the principles that we need to 
get straight.
  This chart is an illustration of how much natural gas comes from 
offshore.

[[Page S1887]]

This is the big trunk--Louisiana and Mississippi. This represents where 
our gas comes from that is firing our economy and meeting new 
environmental clean air standards. Why? Because natural gas is a clean 
way to produce energy. It helps keep our air clean. That is the benefit 
when you have a pro-production attitude.
  Just imagine if we had a pro-production attitude in other places in 
this Nation. Instead of one tree trunk, we could have 10 tree trunks. 
So in the event that some terrorists tried to shut down one of these 
tree trunks, we might have several others. Or in the event of some 
natural catastrophe, such as a major hurricane, or some other event 
that might shut down some of the infrastructure here, we could be self-
reliant. But we are not self-reliant because we have one big trunk, and 
it comes right off the Mississippi and Louisiana coast. Nowhere else.
  It cannot come off anywhere here as shown on this portion of the 
chart because we have blocked everything else. We are just like sitting 
ducks. We have one tree trunk. If that tree trunk gets cut down, we are 
out of business.
  Let me show you another chart. This shows you the other fallacy.
  I am so tired of hearing people say: Senator, even if we opened up 
drilling everywhere, we could only get enough gas to last us for a year 
or 2 years or 3 years.
  Let me just say something: Hogwash. Hogwash. It is not true. I say to 
anybody who says it, please come to this Chamber and let's debate the 
numbers because I am going to show you what I just learned this week, 
after being here several years. I was looking at these charts, and then 
something very significant dawned on me.
  As seen on this chart of the United States, for those areas shown in 
the gold-orange color, we have said, either through law or through 
regulation, you cannot drill here. It was not always this way; we did 
not start the country this way--but in the last several years, a small 
group of people who think you can consume and not produce have 
convinced enough people of that mistruth, and successfully blocked 
production in these areas.
  Here are the areas shown on the chart. You cannot drill anywhere up 
the east coast and the eastern part of the Gulf of Mexico. You cannot 
drill in California or any place such as Washington or Oregon.
  But what these charts are not accurate about is this: Minerals 
Management Service, for instance, offers these estimates. MMS does a 
beautiful job. It isn't that they are trying to mislead, but I just 
learned how they calculate these numbers and they are not really 
accurate or show the right picture. They are calculating, if we open 
this area, we could maybe get 2.5 trillion cubic feet of gas. The 
United States needs 22 trillion cubic feet of gas a year.
  So that would only be such a small percentage, you could ask 
yourself: Is it worth it? I would ask myself that. Is it worth it to 
open it up if you could only get a few months' worth of gas? Maybe that 
answer would be wrong. I will show you the reason these charts are very 
misleading.
  On this chart, look at the Gulf of Mexico, where we have been 
drilling since about 1950. It is a very developed field. We know what 
is there because we have taken a lot out. Our industry is very 
knowledgeable about this area.
  Look what this chart says: Gas, 105.52, which means this is 105 
trillion cubic feet of gas in just one part of the gulf. But right over 
this line, between Alabama and Florida, the estimate drops to 12.31 
trillion cubic feet of gas.
  So I tell you again, that could not possibly be true because any 
geologist--and I am not a geologist--but any geologist can tell you 
that the formations do not stop at State boundaries. They do not stop 
at political boundaries. If these formations are true for the western 
part of the gulf, it has to be true for the eastern part.
  So when we say no drilling anywhere in the eastern part of the gulf 
because there might be only a little bit of gas--so why go there? It is 
not just a little bit of gas. It is the difference between imports and 
freedom. It is the difference between being hostage to enemy countries 
and freedom. It is a big difference. And it is a big decision. And we 
mislead our people when we say: Why drill? There is just not a lot of 
gas there.
  There is a lot of gas in the gulf. There is enough gas, just in my 
little place to keep the country going for 5 years--just in one part. 
Five years--just in my part. And we are willing to do it. But why 
should we try to keep it going for the next 20 years? Can't someone 
else contribute? For 5 years we could keep it going. And that is on one 
little part. And we have already taken half of our gas out.
  So I am just going to make a rough estimate that if Florida would 
open up--not close to the shore because I do not want to put oil rigs 
off the coast of Florida. I have spent my life growing up off the 
Florida coast. I am used to seeing oil rigs. I understand people do not 
like them. I think they are pretty nice. I have been on them. But I 
understand that.
  I am not talking about right off the coast. I am talking about 25 
miles out. You cannot even see them. And with the directional drilling 
now, you could drill with a minimal footprint and provide this Nation 
with 10 years of freedom. You could tell Saudi Arabia, no. You could 
say: No, we are not sending our soldiers. But, no, we have people who 
think: Fine. Send the soldiers.
  I don't want to send my son. He is only 9. I hope I can keep him 
home. That is what this debate is about. I do not want him to go when 
he is 18. If I have to come to this Chamber every day until he is 18 to 
fight on this point, it is worth it--for him, for my family, for 
everybody's family.
  But I am not going to listen to ``because MMS says.'' I asked MMS 
this morning. I asked: How do you all come up with these numbers?
  They said: Senator, since we have done no exploration there, we 
really don't know. We just low-ball it. These are just bare minimum 
numbers.
  But I can use my brain and figure out what the truth is. Today I 
figured it out. There is a lot of gas. There is a lot of oil. There is 
enough in that little part in Alaska where Senator Murkowski and 
Senator Stevens want to drill. And it is not the last great place on 
Earth, which is something else I want to talk about. With all due 
respect to the environmental leaders who have done a good job in our 
country helping us to find a balance, we have, in this case, gone too 
far, in my opinion. It is not the last great place on Earth.
  This Earth has a lot of great places left. There are a lot of 
wonderful oceans and rivers and streams and things that are getting 
cleaner and brighter every day. It is not the last great place. But 
they would drive drilling off the most sophisticated Nation on Earth 
into places that are worth preserving in this world. But they are not 
going to exist anymore because the environmental movement itself is 
going to destroy them. Because there are no regulations in other 
countries--not up to our standards--there is no oversight, there are no 
democracies, there is no free press to tell you when you have gone too 
far.
  We have a free press in this country. And, believe me, that is a 
great thing because if the industry goes too far, the press will be 
right there, writing: You didn't abide by your permit. You went too 
far. You have polluted this stream, and you should not do it. Then we 
respond to it and we shut them down. That does not exist in places like 
Brazil or Honduras, and other places, to that great of an extent.
  So I challenge the environmental community: Could you think about 
somebody else besides us for a change? Could we think about the world? 
We are not thinking about the world. We are leading the country in the 
wrong direction.
  I challenge the leadership to tell the people the truth. Just tell 
them the truth. We are not telling them the truth. And, as a result, 
when they do not have the truth, they cannot then respond in a way that 
is right.
  It is our job to say the truth, and I am going to say it every day in 
hopes that we will get energy independent in this Nation. We can do it. 
And we can do it by producing more in the right ways, and by--as 
Senator Bingaman has been so good at--focusing on new freedom 
technologies, such as fuel cells and hydrogen and new reactors that 
Senator Domenici has been leading us on for the nuclear industry. And 
soon it will be wonderful to live in a country where we are energy 
independent. Then we can set our goals and our principles

[[Page S1888]]

according to our values and according to the reason we fought and died 
in every war: The values for which this country stands.
  I hope I see that day. I am young enough that hopefully I will see 
it. I have a lot of years left to fight.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
these numbers that show which States produce and which States do 
nothing but basically consume.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                                             STATE ENERGY PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         1999 Production Quadrillion Btus (Quads)                                     1999 Consumption
                                                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             State                                 Total       Primary                                                         MMBtu per                 MMBtu per       1999
                                                                electricity  electricity      Oil           NG          Coal     Total quads     capita    Quads total     capita     Population
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.......................................................        0.413        0.148        0.065        0.608        0.414        1.234        282.4        2.005        458.8    4,369,862
Alaska........................................................        0.020        0.003        2.223        0.514        0.033        2.773       4476.1        0.695       1121.4      619,500
Arizona.......................................................        0.286        0.138        0.000        0.001        0.250        0.389         81.5        1.220        255.3    4,778,332
Arkansas......................................................        0.162        0.061        0.041        0.000        0.000        0.103         40.4        1.204        471.8    2,551,373
California....................................................        0.630        0.328        1.584        0.425        0.000        2.336         70.5        8.375        252.7   33,145,121
Colorado......................................................        0.135        0.005        0.107        0.821        0.636        1.570        387.1        1.156        284.9    4,056,133
Connecticut...................................................        0.095        0.052        0.000        0.000        0.000        0.052         15.8        0.839        255.7    3,282,031
Delaware......................................................        0.023        0.000        0.000        0.000        0.000        0.000          0.0        0.279        370.0      753,538
Dist. Of Columbia.............................................        0.001        0.000        0.000        0.000        0.000        0.000          0.0        0.170        327.2      519,000
Florida.......................................................        0.639        0.135        0.028        0.007        0.000        0.170         11.3        3.853        255.0   15,111,244
Georgia.......................................................        0.408        0.134        0.000        0.000        0.000        0.134         17.1        2.798        359.3    7,788,240
Hawaii........................................................        0.035        0.003        0.000        0.000        0.000        0.003          2.8        0.241        203.6    1,185,497
Idaho.........................................................        0.049        0.048        0.000        0.000        0.000        0.048         38.3        0.518        414.1    1,251,700
Illinois......................................................        0.557        0.282        0.070        0.000        0.858        1.210         99.7        3.883        320.1   12,128,370
Indiana.......................................................        0.416        0.002        0.011        0.000        0.722        0.735        123.7        2.736        460.3    5,942,901
Iowa..........................................................        0.130        0.016        0.000        0.000        0.000        0.016          5.6        1.122        390.9    2,869,413
Kansas........................................................        0.144        0.031        0.168        0.615        0.009        0.823        310.2        1.050        395.6    2,654,052
Kentucky......................................................        0.316        0.009        0.016        0.000        2.963        2.988        754.5        1.830        462.1    3,960,825
Louisiana.....................................................        0.305        0.062        0.696        5.904        0.063        6.725       1538.1        3.615        826.9    4,372,035
Maine.........................................................        0.041        0.023        0.000        0.000        0.000        0.023         18.1        0.529        421.9    1,253,040
Maryland......................................................        0.178        0.054        0.000        0.000        0.081        0.135         26.2        1.378        266.5    5,171,634
Massachusetts.................................................        0.135        0.024        0.000        0.000        0.000        0.024          3.9        1.569        254.1    6,175,169
Michigan......................................................        0.354        0.062        0.045        0.308        0.000        0.415         42.1        3.240        328.4    9,863,775
Minnesota.....................................................        0.168        0.056        0.000        0.000        0.000        0.056         11.8        1.675        350.8    4,775,508
Mississippi...................................................        0.120        0.035        0.104        0.123        0.000        0.263         95.1        1.209        436.5    2,768,619
Missouri......................................................        0.252        0.035        0.001        0.000        0.008        0.044          8.1        1.768        323.3    5,468,338
Montana.......................................................        0.100        0.040        0.087        0.068        0.872        1.067       1208.8        0.412        467.2      882,779
Nebraska......................................................        0.107        0.040        0.015        0.000        0.000        0.056         33.5        0.602        361.3    1,666,028
Nevada........................................................        0.105        0.015        0.004        0.000        0.000        0.019         10.4        0.615        340.1    1,809,253
New Hampshire.................................................        0.056        0.039        0.000        0.000        0.000        0.039         32.3        0.335        279.2    1,201,134
New Jersey....................................................        0.194        0.103        0.000        0.000        0.000        0.103         12.6        2.589        317.9    8,143,412
New Mexico....................................................        0.111        0.001        0.373        1.679        0.619        2.672       1536.1        0.635        365.0    1,739,844
New York......................................................        0.495        0.210        0.001        0.000        0.000        0.211         11.6        4.283        235.4    18,196,60
North Carolina................................................        0.402        0.147        0.000        0.000        0.000        0.147         19.2        2.447        319.8    7,650,789
North Dakota..................................................        0.107        0.009        0.191        0.059        0.661        0.919       1450.6        0.366        577.1      633,666
Ohio..........................................................        0.486        0.060        0.035        0.000        0.477        0.572         50.8        4.323        384.1   11,256,654
Oklahoma......................................................        0.187        0.011        0.409        1.745        0.035        2.201        655.5        1.378        410.2    3,358,044
Oregon........................................................        0.193        0.157        0.000        0.001        0.000        0.159         47.9        1.109        334.5    3,316,154
Pennsylvania..................................................        0.664        0.257        0.009        0.000        1.621        1.887        157.3        3.716        309.8   11,994,016
Rhode Island..................................................        0.023        0.000        0.000        0.000        0.000        0.000          0.4        0.261        263.5      990,819
South Carolina................................................        0.306        0.179        0.000        0.000        0.000        0.179         46.0        1.493        384.2    3,885,736
South Dakota..................................................        0.036        0.023        0.006        0.000        0.000        0.029         39.8        0.239        326.0      733,133
Tennessee.....................................................        0.319        0.120        0.002        0.000        0.064        0.187         34.0        2.071        377.6    5,483,535
Texas.........................................................        1.220        0.137        2.606        6.797        1.126       10.666        532.1       11.501        573.8   20,044,141
Utah..........................................................        0.125        0.005        0.094        0.292        0.560        0.951        446.3        0.694        325.8    2,129,836
Vermont.......................................................        0.019        0.019        0.000        0.000        0.000        0.019         32.0        0.165        277.9      593,740
Virginia......................................................        0.255        0.106        0.000        0.000        0.685        0.791        115.1        2.227        324.1    6,872,912
Washington....................................................        0.397        0.355        0.000        0.000        0.087        0.443         76.9        2.241        389.3    5,756,361
West Virginia.................................................        0.323        0.003        0.009        0.000        3.353        3.365       1862.0        0.735        407.0    1,806,928
Wisconsin.....................................................        0.202        0.052        0.000        0.000        0.000        0.052          9.9        1.811        344.8    5,250,446
Wyoming.......................................................        0.149        0.004        0.355        0.914        7.155        8.428      17573.6        0.422        879.5      479,602
Other States..................................................                                               0.889                     0.889
Other.........................................................                                                                         0.000                    0.0577
Federal Offshore..............................................                                  3.096
                                                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      U.S. Total..............................................       12.594        3.839       12.451       21.771       23.356       61.416        225.2       95.683        350.9  272,690,813
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Then I am going to submit other things for the Record 
and lay down the amendment when the Senator from Alaska suggests we lay 
it down.
  I yield whatever time I have remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BAYH). The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have listened to the Senator from 
Louisiana. I look forward to being a cosponsor of her amendment.
  For far too long, we have not identified the issue of equity which 
the Senator from Louisiana has certainly shown with her chart. I have a 
slightly bigger chart which basically shows the same thing.
  I will take a few moments, if I may. I ask the Senator from Louisiana 
to look at this chart. As she displayed on her own chart, the areas 
that are off limits for oil and gas exploration are clearly the entire 
east coast of the United States, from Maine to Florida. This is the 
entire area in gray. Then we have the area of lease sale 181 that was 
addressed by the Senators from the States of jurisdiction. I respect 
the attitude prevailing within those States relative to what happens 
off their shores.
  The entire west coast of the United States is off limits, from 
Washington to California. The Senator from Louisiana did not show what 
happened in the overthrust belt, where we have the producing States of 
Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, northern parts of New Mexico; they 
have been taken basically off limits by the roadless policy, as has a 
lot of public land.
  As we begin to look at this country, we recognize who produces the 
energy: Texas; Louisiana; Mississippi; Alabama, to a degree; California 
is still a major producer; Montana; my State of Alaska. But the 
inconsistency, as the Senator from Louisiana pointed out, is that we 
have an inequity. And it is ironic that Senators who do not want energy 
production from Federal lands of their States are very much opposed to 
supporting the States that want to have the development. Whether we 
talk about CAFE or some reasonable form of revenue back to the States 
that bear the impact associated with offshore activity, such as 
Louisiana or others, we get into a fight over equity there. Clearly, 
Louisiana has to provide the infrastructure to support an offshore 
activity, but they don't receive necessarily any Federal consideration 
on revenue sharing that is any more significant than another State that 
doesn't have that impact.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am happy to yield.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. The Senator is aware that there is a great injustice on 
which I hope we can make some headway before this bill leaves the 
Senate. The injustice is that Federal law allows interior States--and I 
think rightfully so, and I most certainly support it and would even 
argue it should be increased--but in the interior States,

[[Page S1889]]

when they do any kind of mining or resource recovery on Federal land, 
the State that hosts that Federal land and the surrounding communities 
share 50 percent to compensate for impacts because there are roads that 
have to be built.
  There are other impacts where if the Federal Government is going to 
benefit from drilling within your State, even on State land, we think 
the State should share the benefit.
  But the tragedy is that for coastal States, such as Louisiana, Texas, 
Mississippi, Alabama, and, to some degree, Alaska, you must drill 
within 3 miles of your coast to get any compensation. So we are sending 
$4 and $5 billion in royalties and revenues to the Federal Treasury. In 
addition to sending the oil, in addition to sending the gas, we are 
also sending huge amounts of money to the Federal Treasury, and our 
States get nothing, nothing in direct aid.
  My next amendment is going to be about changing that. I have an 
amendment that is going to ask for a portion. I hope everyone will 
support that. I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't, considering what I 
have just shown. I thank the Senator for raising this issue.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Senator from Louisiana. I will comment on 
a couple of other points she made. One is that States such as Louisiana 
and other energy-producing States contribute extraordinarily to the 
standard of living we all enjoy. We enjoy it without having the impact 
of resource development in some States.
  I would appreciate it if they would leave that one chart up that 
showed the electricity because that in itself--even though I am not 
over there, I hope the camera can pick it up--does represent a 
significant reality that the purple States are contributing for the 
production of electric energy so that the other States can share a 
standard of living that is equal to the States that are generating the 
electric production. That means somebody is burning coal in a purple 
State, and a red State enjoys theoretically the potential of not the 
impact of air emissions but the generation of prosperity through 
inexpensive electricity because of various efficiencies we have in the 
system.
  For a producing State not to get any other consideration seems kind 
of inequitable when we look at technology and issues of where are we 
going to generate the power we consume.
  That chart specifically is limited to electricity, but it is a very 
interesting one because it shows a harsh reality. I encourage my 
colleagues to feel a little guilty if they are a red State. If they are 
a red State, they are depending on a purple State to support the 
quality and standard of living they enjoy.
  I appreciated the Senator's comment relative to her young son and the 
reality that we have fought a war over energy oil specifically--before. 
The paper this morning showed a very dismal picture relative to what is 
happening in the Mideast, the threat from Iraq. I am always reminded of 
Senator Mark Hatfield, who was a respected Member of this body from the 
State of Oregon, who said time and time again: I would rather vote for 
opening up ANWR than send another American man or woman to fight a war 
on foreign soil over oil. That is what the Senator is talking about 
with regard to her own son.
  As we look at our vote yesterday, really that vote was over safety. 
It was families; it was children. We sacrificed to some extent a CAFE 
for that assurance and that reality. I think we have to look similarly 
to the merits of our dependence on greater sources of imported oil from 
overseas and the price we are going to have to pay for it, not just in 
dollars but American lives. There is a parallel.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield for one moment? I would ask him 
if he could imagine if we put some kind of chart up like this where 
there were some States that said: We want to produce food. And then 
other States said: No, we are not going to produce any food. We want 
you to produce the food, and we don't want to produce the food. Not 
only do we not want to produce the food, but we want to have a 
moratorium on food production. Not only are we going to have a 
moratorium on food production in our State, we are going to tell you, 
the purple States, what kind of food you can grow and how you can grow 
it, and that is just the way it is going to be.
  I realize this might be stretching this analogy, but we have to break 
through to the American people in some way and explain that there are 
certain things we all need. We all have to be able to produce them. 
Food is one. Energy is one.
  Then some people will come down here and argue: Senator, this is not 
right, because some States produce food, some States produce energy, 
some States produce this, some States produce that, and that is what a 
union is all about. I have thought about that. But there will not be a 
moratorium on food. Nobody is saying don't grow food in my State. But, 
about energy, they are saying we don't want to produce energy in our 
State. We don't want the gas plants, don't want the oil; we don't want 
to produce it through nuclear or through coal. Some States are even 
going so far as to say: We don't want the electricity lines. They are 
not nice to look at. We don't want merchant powerplants.

  How in the heck do they think, when you walk into a building, these 
lights go on? There is some electricity line, or a powerplant, or there 
is some man or woman in a coalfield working for power production. We 
have done a great disservice to our country by not making this 
connection. It is very dangerous. I thank the Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Senator from Louisiana. I look forward to 
seeing her amendment, which I intend to cosponsor and support.
  As we reflect on this debate, make no mistake about it, yesterday's 
vote was a vote where we were willing to give up CAFE for the safety of 
our children. I think that is pretty basic. We are going to have the 
same opportunity to address the parallel when we get to the issue 
specifically of trying to reduce our dependence on imported oil--
whether we want to trade off domestic production here at home, the 
opening of ANWR, or, indeed, recognize the threat we have to young men 
and women fighting a war overseas on foreign soil over oil.
  I will take a few moments to remind our colleagues that our President 
had some very strong words today for Saddam Hussein. Yesterday, during 
his press conference, he shared them with many of our colleagues. I 
want to quote from that press conference. I ask that Members who 
haven't looked at the front page of the Washington Post to recognize 
the potential threat we have with regard to our relationship with Iraq. 
Yesterday he said:

       I am deeply concerned about Iraq. . . . This is a nation 
     run by a man who is willing to kill his own people by using 
     chemical weapons, a man who won't let the inspectors into the 
     country, a man who's obviously got something to hide.

  Further, the President states:

       And he is a problem, and we're going to deal with him . . . 
     we've got all options on the table. . . . One thing I will 
     not allow is a nation such as Iraq to threaten our very 
     future by developing weapons of mass destruction.

  We know that Saddam Hussein has been up to no good. We have not had 
inspectors there for over 2\1/2\ years, and we have reason to believe 
he has a missile development capability. He has already shown it in the 
Persian Gulf war and with the missiles that were fired at Israel. We 
have every reason to believe he has a biological, and perhaps a 
nuclear, capability. We know he has been developing weapons of mass 
destruction.
  Now, the President said:

       We've got all the options on the table.

  I don't need to remind my colleagues what Saddam Hussein means to the 
world in which we live. He is much more than just one of the world's 
greatest threats to peace and stability. He is more than just an enemy 
with whom we went to war. Unfortunately, he is a partner at the same 
time. He is a partner we rely on to power our economy. What is going to 
happen to the roughly million barrels a day we import each day when and 
if President Bush's words turn into deeds? Are we still going to be 
able to count on Saddam Hussein for a million barrels a day? How are we 
going to replace that oil?
  I want colleagues to understand an important reality of one of our 
efforts on the energy bill. By an overwhelming

[[Page S1890]]

majority, 62 to 38, yesterday's vote on CAFE was a victory for common 
sense, for the American family, and the American worker. As I indicated 
earlier, it was a very basic vote where we gave up CAFE for the safety 
of our citizens and our children. By insisting that sound science 
decides where we should set our fuel standards, we protected America's 
ability to choose the automobiles that meet their needs and the 
American workers who build them.

  But in so doing, those who objected to this more reasonable approach 
to CAFE standards for reducing our dependence on foreign oil--that was 
basically rejected as an alternative. Keep in mind that one of the 
treaties of that particular concept was that we don't need to develop 
more oil here at home. We don't need to develop ANWR. We can do it 
through CAFE savings.
  Well, perhaps that might have been possible, but that was simply 
addressed in real terms by a rejection of that thought. So that 
alternative of CAFE savings--picking up what we would otherwise have to 
perhaps depend on in ANWR, opening up domestic oil and gas reserves--
was rejected.
  Between the CAFE victory and the President's words on Iraq, I think 
it is clear we have to act to fill the energy voids. If we are not 
going to do it through CAFE, how are we going to do it? If we are going 
to terminate our relationship with Iraq under some set of 
circumstances, that is certainly going to affect our ability to import 
oil. Where will we get the difference?
  The Senator from Louisiana said it right. Charity begins at home. We 
have to develop those areas where we have possible oil and gas 
potential to lessen our dependence on foreign oil.
  I think her theory of holding each State accountable is a good one. 
We have technology and ingenuity within our States. Some States may be 
able to generate energy from solar, or wind, or nuclear. Let's get on 
with it here at home.
  We have a lot of coal in this country, and we have gas offshore, and 
we have oil potential in certain areas. Let's commit ourselves to 
becoming more energy independent. We can do that if we concentrate on 
it.
  Isn't that a good thing for the American economy? If we made this 
kind of a commitment, you would see the OPEC cartel come to an 
emergency meeting where they would say, just a minute, maybe we should 
lower the price of oil, maybe we should make a little more available--
instead of what they are doing now.
  So I think the Senator from Louisiana brought up some interesting 
ideas, and we should concentrate a little bit more on getting our act 
together. You have heard it time and again, but one of the major 
sources is the promise of ANWR. ANWR has more oil in it than Texas 
currently shows in reserves. It offers us an opportunity to potentially 
eliminate Iraqi dependence for more than a century or 30 years from 
Saudi Arabia. With American technology, we can reach oil safely and we 
can create thousands of jobs.
  It is interesting to note that today we are going to have James 
Hoffa, the Teamster president, for a press conference and one of the 
things we will be discussing is how to reduce our dependence on foreign 
oil. One of the items is opening ANWR. That debate lies ahead of us. 
Keep in mind the realities of the choices we make when we choose from 
where our oil comes.
  Mr. President, 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. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARPER. The Presiding Officer and I, before we were hired on as 
Senators, used to earn our keep by serving as Governors of Indiana and 
Delaware. As Governors, we were mindful of the prerogatives of the 
States and our roles and responsibilities as chief executives of our 
States. We worked through our national and regional organizations to 
make sure the concerns of our region and the Governors and the States 
in general were respected.
  Whenever a group of Governors today raises a concern about an issue 
that is before the Congress, I listen. In this case, we have heard from 
a number of Governors from the western part of the United States 
raising concerns with respect to the electric reliability provisions 
that are in the underlying bill before us.
  We have had a chance to try to better understand what the concerns of 
the Governors are, and we have had an opportunity to try to understand 
how their concerns, if adopted as proposed, would affect the rest of us 
who do not happen to be from those 14 or so Western States that have 
banded together to present their message to us.
  That having been said, I nonetheless must feel compelled to rise in 
support of the electric reliability provisions that are in the 
underlying amendment. Senator Bingaman has sent out a Dear Colleague 
letter to all of us dated yesterday, March 13, on this issue. I urge 
our colleagues to take a few minutes to read it as we approach the vote 
at 2 p.m.
  The underlying language that is in the bill Chairman Bingaman has 
developed represents what I believe is a simplified approach that 
places appropriate authority for liability within the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, which we call FERC. FERC is the proper body to 
address electric reliability issues. FERC has the expertise to 
harmonize reliability and to commercialize issues that States and 
utilities face.
  Under Senator Bingaman's proposal, FERC can objectively defer to 
regional and State solutions if FERC does not think they have the 
expertise and that the expertise lies elsewhere. They have the 
flexibility to look elsewhere for those solutions.
  I believe what Senator Bingaman has provided for us is a thoughtful 
compromise. It is based on the premise that a reliability structure 
should be both simple and dependable. The language in the underlying 
bill requires FERC to implement a system that applies to all regions in 
what I believe is a fair manner. It also includes a flexibility to 
defer, as I said earlier, where appropriate, to regional entities and 
to States. I believe this is a good solution to the important issue of 
ensuring the reliability of our electric grid. The electric grid is a 
national infrastructure, and the oversight of its reliability should be 
national in scope as well.
  This morning Senator Bingaman introduced into the Record a letter 
from PJM. PJM is the entity which coordinates the electric grid in 
Delaware and in five other States in the mid-Atlantic region. PJM is 
recognized, we believe, as the best in the country in ensuring the 
reliability of our grid. They said they support Senator Bingaman's 
efforts as well. So do I.
  I would be surprised if our colleagues, especially those from the 
mid-Atlantic or from the Northeast, voted for the amendment that is 
being offered by the Senator from Wyoming later today, particularly if 
they will take the time to listen to the input, as I have, from their 
PJM in their part of the country, and especially if they will take the 
time to read this letter. It is a Dear Colleague letter from Senator 
Bingaman.

  As Governors, we always tried to find solutions that were simple and 
dependable: The old ``kiss'' principle, keep it simple stupid. I often 
find that would underlie what we attempted to do. We would often seek, 
as Governors, to make sure what we tried to do for one region of the 
country did not somehow inconvenience or undermine the interests of 
another part of the country.
  My concern about what our friends from the West have proposed is it 
is not simple and it would undermine and put the rest of us at a 
disadvantage.
  I urge my colleagues to support Senator Bingaman's position in the 
underlying bill and oppose the amendment of Senator Thomas.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Miller). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Oregon, when the 
time arrives that he has his amendment in hand, I will be happy to 
yield the floor to him.

[[Page S1891]]

  In the meantime, I note that after the 2 o'clock vote Senator 
Bingaman will lay down an amendment. The purpose of the amendment, as I 
understand it, is to change the renewable portfolio in the underlying 
bill. The underlying bill says in effect that 10 percent of the 
electricity in this country must be renewables by a certain time. 
Senator Bingaman's amendment changes that to 8\1/2\ percent, lowering 
it. Senator Jeffords will offer an amendment to raise that amount to 20 
percent--double the amount in the underlying bill. Following that, 
Senator Kyl of Arizona will offer an amendment to delete all renewables 
from the bill.
  Senators will have an opportunity to vote for a lowering of the 
amount from 10 to 8\1/2\ percent, sponsored by Senator Bingaman and 
others; they will have an opportunity to vote for raising that standard 
to 20 percent; or eliminating them altogether. We will complete those 
votes this afternoon sometime.
  Although the amendment has not been laid down, I will speak in 
support of the Jeffords amendment. Why would I do that? The State of 
Nevada would benefit significantly from renewable energy because the 
Nevada Test Site--where we for 50 years have set off nuclear weapons 
and are still performing testing--could produce enough electricity for 
the whole United States, every need in the United States for 
electricity, by putting solar panels that cover the Nevada Test Site. 
There is that much sun. We are not going to do that, but we could.
  Also, the State of Nevada is the most mountainous State in the Union. 
We have more mountains than any State in the Union, except Alaska. We 
have 340 separate mountain ranges. We have 32 mountains over 11,000 
feet high. As a result of that, we have wind all over the State of 
Nevada. Nevada, other than Alaska, is the most dangerous State in which 
to fly. Why? Because of the mountains. We have weather changing very 
quickly because of the mountains. People do not realize Nevada is the 
most mountainous State except for Alaska.
  People think of Nevada as being desert, like Las Vegas. That is not 
the case. We have, in addition, the ability to produce large amounts of 
energy with sun. We have the ability to produce large amounts of energy 
with wind. However, it does not stop there. Nature gave Nevada also the 
greatest geothermal resource in the United States.
  I remember when I first went to Reno. I traveled from Reno to Carson 
City, about 25 miles. Driving along that road on the side is steam 
coming from the ground. I had never seen anything like that before. The 
steam is from the heat of the Earth. What we have been able to do is 
tap that heat. Now we are producing electricity in Nevada, the 
geothermal energy. That is why I am so in favor of the Jeffords 
proposal.
  Senator Murkowski, my friend from Alaska, wants to produce more 
energy as a result of this bill. He wants to produce energy in the ANWR 
wilderness. That is not going to happen.
  On the other side, people want to cut down the consumption of fuel. 
That was debated all day yesterday with CAFE standards. That is not 
going to happen.
  On one side, we have Members who want more production out of Alaska 
and are not going to get it; and those who want to cut down the 
consumption of fuel on automobiles will not get it.

  Where does that leave us? It leaves us with the opportunity to demand 
that we do more with renewables. We can do that. There is no question 
we can do that. We are not as well advanced in technology as we should 
be, but we could be. The link between environment and energy must be 
forged and tempered in this century. I know everyone understands the 
importance of developing renewable energy resources in homes and 
businesses without compromising our air or water quality. Senator 
Jeffords, in his position as chairman of the Environment and Public 
Works Committee, is in a very good position to proceed on this. That is 
what he is going to do. He will offer a second-degree amendment to 
increase the supply of renewables. He will offer that at a later time.
  Congress needs to step up to the plate and diversify this Nation's 
energy supply by stimulating the growth of renewable energy, America's 
abundant and untapped renewable energy, and fuel our journey to a more 
prosperous tomorrow. We should harness the brilliance of the Sun, the 
strength of the wind, and the heat of the Earth to provide clean, 
renewable energy for our Nation.
  Other nations are developing renewable energy sources at a faster 
rate than we are in the United States. Ten years ago, America produced 
90 percent of the world's wind power; today, 25 percent of the world's 
wind power. Germany has the lead in wind energy, and Japan in solar 
energy. They are using technology that we developed, but we are not 
moving forward on it. They have surpassed us because their governments 
have provided support for renewable energy production and use.
  In the United States today, we get less than 3 percent of our 
electricity from renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and 
geothermal. But the potential from a State such as Nevada is 
unbelievably large. To meet the goals for 2013, for example, Nevada 
has, through their State legislature, indicated they must produce more 
electricity. I am proud of the State of Nevada for doing that. They 
have set goals. If they set goals, there is no reason we as a Federal 
Government cannot set goals.
  In Saudi Arabia--we refer to them as the energy source of the world--
they literally can punch a hole on top of the ground and oil comes out. 
We do not do that in the United States; it is hard to get our oil. 
However, Nevada is referred to as a Saudi Arabia of geothermal. My 
State can use geothermal to meet a third of its electricity needs. 
Today, this source of energy produces only a little over 2 percent of 
our electricity needs. We must reestablish America's leadership in 
renewable energy.
  How can Congress help? Clearly, the two most important legislative 
means are a renewable portfolio standard and a production tax credit. 
The renewable portfolio standard provides a strategic framework for 
renewable energy development while the production tax credit acts as a 
market force. They are both essential. We need a permanent production 
tax credit to encourage businesses to invest in wind farms, geothermal 
plants, and solar arrays.

  Within the stimulus bill we passed, and the President signed last 
week, there is a tax credit for wind. We had that before. It is so 
important. All over America we have companies wanting to go forward 
with wind farms. They could not do it because they did not have the tax 
credit. Now, within a short period of time, they are off and running 
again.
  When the wind energy tax credit first came into being, it took a 
little over 22 cents to produce a kilowatt of electricity by wind. At 
the same time, coal and natural gas was 2 cents to 3 cents. Wind was 
way behind these other two sources. But today, because of the tax 
credit, wind is the same price as coal and natural gas. That is why we 
need to make sure we have a production tax credit. It would cause 
people to invest in wind farms. We also need it, though, Mr. 
President--we do not have the same tax credit for Sun, solar. We do not 
have it for geothermal. We do not have it for biomass--and we need to 
get that. That is why I am looking forward with great interest to the 
Finance Committee Chairman's work, Senator Baucus, to offer something 
on this bill to allow us to do that.
  A permanent tax credit would provide business certainty and ensure 
the growth of renewable energy development. It would signal America's 
long-term commitment to renewable energy. As I have already said, I 
look forward to Senator Baucus's bill.
  I hope to have more to say about the production tax credit when we 
begin debate on the tax provisions of the energy bill. For the time 
being, let me focus my remarks on the need for a national renewable 
portfolio standard.
  I see the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee is 
in the Chamber. I say to my friend, I have been indicating you are 
going to offer a second-degree amendment at a subsequent time to the 
Bingaman amendment, which has not yet been laid down.
  I have been laying on the Senate all the reasons you are so visionary 
in offering this amendment.
  We have to do this. I said earlier to those here in the Chamber that 
this energy bill has turned into an interesting

[[Page S1892]]

bill. On the one hand, people want to produce more by drilling in ANWR. 
That is not going to happen. We also wanted to increase the fuel 
efficiency of cars. That is not going to happen. I think all we have 
left to point to for progress with energy policy in this country is 
your amendment.
  I really do believe we need to do more with wind, Sun, geothermal, 
and biomass. So I commend and certainly applaud my friend from Vermont 
for his work in this area.
  As I indicated, there is no question that the amendment of Senator 
Jeffords, which I understand will call, in 2020, for a 20-percent 
renewable portfolio standard--starting at 5 percent in 2005. A 20-
percent goal is achievable.
  I am proud that Nevada has adopted the most aggressive renewable 
portfolio standard in the Nation, requiring that 5 percent of the 
State's electricity needs be met by renewable energy resources in 
2003--that is next year--and then climbing to 15 percent by the year 
2013.
  If Nevada can meet its renewable energy goal of 15 percent by 2013, 
then the Nation certainly should be able to meet its goal, 20 percent, 
in the Jeffords amendment.
  To meet the goals of 2013, Nevada will develop 400 megawatts of wind, 
400 megawatts of geothermal, and will do other things such as solar and 
biomass facilities. But it can be done. If it can be done in Nevada, it 
certainly can be done in the rest of our Nation. Fourteen States have 
already adopted a renewable portfolio standard. Why? Because they 
believe it works. We need a renewable portfolio standard, national 
standard, to ensure the energy security of this Nation and diversify 
our energy supply; to reduce the price volatility in energy markets; to 
set clear, reachable goals for the growth of renewable energy 
resources; to establish a system of tradable credits that allow a 
utility flexibility to meet these goals and reduce the cost of 
renewable energy technologies to create a national market.

  I was listening to public radio one morning last week. I was stunned 
to hear a report of an article in the Journal of the American Medical 
Association that linked, clearly, lung cancer to soot particles from 
powerplants and motor vehicles. This study was exhaustive--500,000 
people in 16 American cities whose lives and health have been tracked 
since 1982, for 20 years. Experts gave the study high marks.
  The conclusions are obvious. We need to improve the quality of our 
air for the health and well-being of the American people.
  These adverse health effects cost us billions in medical care, and 
their cost in human suffering cannot be measured.
  My good friend, Senator Jeffords, knows better than anyone that 
America needs to build its energy future on an environmental foundation 
that doesn't compromise air and water quality.
  If we begin to factor in environment and health effects, the real 
cost of energy becomes more apparent. At the Nevada Test Site, I have 
indicated to the Senate what could happen there with solar power 
production. But a new wind farm there--it has already received 
permission from the DOE to be built--will provide 260 megawatts to meet 
the needs of 260,000 Nevadans. The energy cost for this wind farm will 
be 3 cents to 4.5 cents per kilowatt hour with the benefit of 
production tax credits. There are concerns about migratory birds, but 
basically that is the only environmental impact--some birds may hit the 
windmills. We will work on that, but that is the only environmental 
impact. There are no adverse health impacts to humans.
  Taking health and environmental effects into account, wind still 
costs, as I have indicated, about 3 cents per kilowatt hour. Compare 
that to coal.
  About half the electricity in the United States is generated by coal. 
It is going to be that way for a while. But in Nevada, it is an even 
higher percentage. That is why development of clean coal technology is 
vital. I supported Senator Byrd in all his efforts for clean coal 
technology. We have a northern Nevada clean coal plant. Energy costs 
for new coal plants are about the same as wind. But coal mine dust 
killed 2,000 U.S. miners a year. Since 1973, the Federal black lung 
disease benefits program has cost $35 billion. Coal emissions cause 
pollution and adverse health effects. Taking health and environmental 
effects into account, using coal actually costs us, some say, up to 8.3 
cents per kilowatt hour.
  So a national renewable energy portfolio standard by 2020 will not 
only protect the environment and the health of our citizens, it would 
create nearly $80 billion in new capital investments, and $5 billion a 
year in property tax revenues to communities.
  Renewable technologies are highly capital intensive. As a result, we 
typically pay much more in income taxes per megawatt produced than 
conventional fossil fuel plants. A recent analysis by the National 
Renewable Energy Laboratory points out that Federal royalties and 
income taxes generated by geothermal plants are 3 to 4 times that of 
electricity produced from new natural gas combined-cycle powerplants.

  So replacing conventional powerplants with renewable powerplants mean 
more tax revenue to the Treasury, even with the production tax credit 
in place.
  In places such as Nevada, expanding renewable energy production will 
provide jobs in rural areas, areas that have been largely left out of 
America's recent economic growth.
  I say to my friend from Vermont, I appreciate the information in your 
legislation that says rural electrics will not be bound by this. So 
people do not have to worry about these local areas having to meet this 
20-percent margin. Renewable energy, as an alternative to traditional 
energy sources, is a commonsense way to make sure American people have 
a reliable source of power at an affordable price.
  The World Energy Council estimates that global investment in 
renewable technologies over the next 10 years will total up to $400 
billion. With a renewable portfolio standard in place, American 
companies will be ready to lead the way in the 21st century by tapping 
the Nation's vast potential of clean renewable energy. Congress should 
pass energy legislation with a vision that looks to the future and 
assures the Nation of continued prosperity and a cleaner environment.
  This Congress, this Senate, must commit ourselves to renewable energy 
for the security of the United States, for the protection of our 
environment, and for the health and welfare of our people.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


                Amendment No. 3014 to Amendment No. 2917

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden], for himself and Mrs. 
     Feinstein, proposes an amendment numbered 3014.

  Mr. WYDEN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To establish within the Department of Justice the Office of 
                           Consumer Advocacy)

       On page 57, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:

     SEC. 253. OFFICE OF CONSUMER ADVOCACY.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal 
     Energy Regulatory Commission.
       (2) Energy customer.--The term ``energy customer'' means a 
     residential customer or a small commercial customer that 
     receives products or services from a public utility or 
     natural gas company under the jurisdiction of the Commission.
       (3) Natural gas company.--The term ``natural gas company'' 
     has the meaning given the term in section 2 of the Natural 
     Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717a), as modified by section 601(a) of 
     the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (15 U.S.C. 3431(a)).
       (4) Office.--The term ``Office'' means the Office of 
     Consumer Advocacy established by subsection (b)(1).
       (5) Public utility.--The term ``public utility'' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 201(e) of the Federal Power 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 824(e)).
       (6) Small commercial customer.--The term ``small commercial 
     customer'' means a commercial customer that has a peak demand 
     of not more than 1,000 kilowatts per hour.
       (b) Office.--
       (1) Establishment.--There is established within the 
     Department of Justice the Office of Consumer Advocacy.

[[Page S1893]]

       (2) Director.--The Office shall be headed by a Director to 
     be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate.
       (3) Duties.--The Office may represent the interests of 
     energy customers on matters concerning rates or service of 
     public utilities and natural gas companies under the 
     jurisdiction of the Commission--
       (A) at hearings of the Commission;
       (B) in judicial proceedings in the courts of the United 
     States; and
       (C) at hearings or proceedings of other Federal regulatory 
     agencies and commissions.

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Nevada for the 
excellent statement on the importance of renewable energy. He and 
Senator Jeffords have really made the case.
  I want it understood that I very much share Senator Reid's views with 
respect to renewable energy. He and Senator Jeffords have really been 
our leaders.
  This amendment has been cleared on both sides of the aisle.
  As I begin my remarks, I would especially like to express my 
appreciation to Senators Bingaman, Murkowski, Leahy, and Hatch. All of 
them have been very gracious in terms of working with me on this issue.
  This amendment would establish within the Department of Justice the 
Office of Consumer Advocacy. This is especially important right now 
because our Nation's electric power system is undergoing dramatic 
changes. New sources of power are produced by State-regulated utility 
companies. Unregulated power marketers are providing an increasing 
share of new power generation in this country.
  At the State level, many States--in fact, the majority of the 
States--have put in place consumer advocates whose job it is to stand 
up for the energy ratepayer. The fact is that across this country, in 
the last year, America's energy consumers--particularly senior citizens 
and small businesses--have many millions of dollars taken from their 
pockets. The fact is that the Federal Government really is not in a 
position to deal with many of the rate hikes, nor are the State 
governments, because much of this activity relates to energy trading 
and energy activity that is interstate in nature.
  We have the States across the country trying to stand up for the 
ratepayer. Many of the legislatures have created these consumer 
advocates that monitor energy prices to make sure the State-regulated 
utilities are charging fair rates. But when power is being traded like 
pork bellies and so much of the energy business has moved interstate, 
the State advocates have no way to investigate or address the wholesale 
power prices that eventually raise retail consumer rates and that are 
spawned by interstate activity.

  What I am proposing in this legislation--which is a part of what my 
colleagues, Senators Bingaman, Murkowski, Hatch, and Leahy, have 
already made clear--is that we will continue to refine this bill as we 
go through the legislative process, and we will create a Federal 
advocate for the energy consumer. That advocate at the Department of 
Justice will have the authority to address the interstate trading of 
wholesale power and to spotlight unfair wholesale price hikes before 
they get to the State-regulated utilities and their retail ratepayers.
  My view is that consumer advocates provide an independent watchdog 
over a variety of important issues that come before the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission and a number of agencies that affect energy 
policy and the American consumer.
  Power, of course, used to be produced and sold by State-regulated 
utilities. Those advocates were able to watchdog the entire process. 
But today, with State advocates being forced to rubberstamp a lot of 
these electric rate increases caused by spikes in interstate wholesale 
prices, consumers are more vulnerable than ever before. The purpose of 
this amendment is to close the gap which is leaving consumers 
unprotected from wholesale wheeling and dealing.
  When prices spike in the wholesale energy market, the fact is that 
our States and public utility commissions really do not have the 
authority to challenge these rate increases due to increased wholesale 
prices. But the Federal consumer advocate could ask for protection of 
consumer interests. If the increases weren't just and reasonable, the 
advocates could represent the consumer in a complaint before the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, challenging those prices.
  Some may say as they consider this issue that there really isn't a 
need for a Federal advocate, that utilities and other buyers of energy 
can bring cases on their own at the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission if someone is manipulating the market. But that approach 
won't work when the buyer of energy is the utility owned by an energy 
marketer. The utility isn't going to bring a case at the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission against its parent company.
  In cases where a utility engages in transactions with the parent 
company, the consumer advocate can independently investigate to make 
sure the utility ratepayers are not harmed by deals which enrich the 
parent company at the expense of the utility and its ratepayers.
  A number of organizations support this legislation. I want to take a 
minute to particularly commend the American Association of Retired 
Persons. I have worked with them on these issues, going back to my days 
when I was codirector of the Oregon Gray Panthers and ran a voluntary 
legal aid program for the elderly. They have pulled together a 
grassroots juggernaut on behalf of this effort involving the public 
interest--research organizations, State associations of advocates for 
ratepayers, and the ones that I think do a very good job given the 
limited tools they have today.
  I ask unanimous consent that a set of letters endorsing this 
amendment be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                Washington DC,

                                                February 28, 2002.
       Dear Senator: As the Senate begins consideration of S. 517, 
     the comprehensive energy bill, we urge you to support several 
     amendments that would protect consumers, especially as 
     electricity markets continue to be deregulated.
       First, Senator Wyden will likely be introducing an 
     amendment to create an Office of Consumer Advocacy to handle 
     energy issues within the Department of Justice (DOJ). This 
     new office will represent the interests of consumers within 
     the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), before the 
     courts and in front of Congress. Having an independent energy 
     ombudsman within DOJ will provide important protections for 
     consumers as FERC continues to deregulate the electricity 
     market. Nothing demonstrates the need for this office more 
     than the price spikes and blackouts in the western 
     electricity market in 2000-2001. Moreover, the office will 
     serve to protect consumers as FERC performs its general day-
     to-day energy sector oversight functions, which will become 
     ever more crucial as the growing Enron scandal unfolds and 
     efforts are made to provide greater oversight of energy 
     trading markets.
       With regard to the energy trading markets, Senator 
     Feinstein is planning to address regulatory shortcomings made 
     evident by Enron's collapse through an amendment that would 
     provide for regulatory oversight by the Commodity Futures 
     Trading Commission (CFTC) of derivative transactions on 
     energy commodities. This would ensure that energy traders 
     cannot operate without appropriate federal oversight that 
     makes market transactions transparent. Given that it was the 
     CFTC that initially allowed these types of transactions to 
     escape scrutiny, it is important that Congress be explicitly 
     clear in this legislation regarding what it expects of the 
     CFTC in closing this loophole. In addition, we believe that 
     it would be appropriate for FERC to have a greater role in 
     this area as its primary concern should be the stability of 
     the nation's energy markets, while the CFTC is set up to 
     protect investors.
       To further address the market problems that have become 
     clear in the wake of the western electricity crisis, Senator 
     Cantwell is planing to offer an amendment that would direct 
     FERC to define precisely what a competitive market is and 
     establish rules for when market-based rates will be 
     permitted. In addition, the amendment would put in place 
     market monitoring procedures so that FERC can better detect 
     problems, before they lead to a complete breakdown in the 
     market, and give FERC more authority to take action to 
     protect consumers when the market is failing. This change is 
     necessary to ensure that electricity suppliers do not 
     continue to manipulate the market to the detriment of 
     consumers, as was seen in the western market in 2000-2001.
       S. 517 would simply repeal the Public Utility Holding 
     Company Act (PUHCA) in its entirety, including consumer 
     protections that have been in place for decades. Now, more 
     than ever, it is clear that these protections are absolutely 
     necessary. We believe that regulators could have used their 
     authority under PUHCA to prevent some of the abuses that have 
     come to light in the Enron debacle. If there are going to be 
     amendments to PUHCA to make it more relevant to today's 
     situation, then Congress must take affirmative steps to 
     ensure that PUHCA's consumer

[[Page S1894]]

     protection provisions remain in force, and where necessary 
     are strengthened. For example, Senator Wyden will likely 
     offer an amendment, which we support, to require that 
     transactions between utilities and their affiliates be 
     transparent, and to shield consumers from the costs and 
     risks of interaffiliate transactions. The amendment would 
     provide for: Streamlined FERC review of utility 
     diversification efforts to ensure that there is 
     appropriate regulatory oversight so that consumers are not 
     the victims of abusive affiliate transactions; and 
     structural limits on affiliate transactions to protect not 
     only consumers, but unaffiliated competitors as well.
       Finally, Senators Dayton and Conrad are planning to offer 
     an amendment that would ensure that mergers in the energy 
     sector ``promote the public interest,'' based on objective 
     criteria that would be evaluated by FERC. Under current law, 
     all that is necessary for merger approval is a determination 
     that the merger is ``consistent with the public interest.'' 
     Given the wave of mergers sweeping through the electric 
     industry, and the collapse of meaningful competition in 
     California and other states, we believe that a more 
     protective standard than the current one is necessary to 
     adequately protect consumers from abuse. FERC must hold the 
     public interest paramount in evaluating any potential energy 
     company mergers. The Dayton/Conrad amendment would: Establish 
     criteria for FERC to consider in order to determine that a 
     merger would ``promote the public interest,'' including 
     efficiency gains, impact on competition, and its ability to 
     effectively regulate the industry; clarify that these 
     provisions would apply to all potential financial 
     arrangements (not just stock acquisitions) which could lead 
     to exertion of control over the entity, including 
     partnerships; and clarify that FERC review applies to all 
     electric and gas combinations.
       We would also like to reiterate our organizations' support 
     for Senator Jeffords' efforts to include a national renewable 
     portfolio standard in the legislation, which would help 
     diversify our energy mix and avoid future energy shortages 
     and price spikes. We also support the Kerry/Hollings 
     provision in the legislation to raise the national corporate 
     average fuel economy (CAFE) standards, which will likewise 
     help to provide energy security and protect the environment. 
     In addition, we urge you to oppose efforts that will damage a 
     pristine Alaskan ecosystem, supposedly in the name of energy 
     security--the supply is too limited, the environment too 
     fragile, and the costs too high.
       Thank you for considering the needs and concerns of 
     consumers while moving forward with this legislation. Please 
     do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or 
     need any information regarding how this comprehensive energy 
     package will affect consumers.
           Sincerely,
     Adam J. Goldberg,
       Policy Analyst, Consumers Union.
     Mark N. Cooper,
       Director of Research, Consumer Federation of America.
     Anna Aurelio,
       Legislative Director, U.S. PIRG.
                                  ____

                                           National Association of


                             State Utility Consumer Advocates,

                                 Silver Spring, MD, March 5, 2002.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. 
         Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Bingaman: I am writing to express the 
     National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates 
     strong support for an amendment we expect to be offered by 
     Senator Wyden establishing an Office of Consumer Advocacy in 
     the Department of Justice.
       Restructuring experiences in the states have consistently 
     shown that the road to competition is a rocky one. In many 
     instances, consumers have faced higher prices and limited, if 
     any, choices. State consumer advocate offices have worked 
     diligently to protect consumers during this difficult 
     transition.
       However, they have found their limited resources (half of 
     our members' budgets are $1 million or less with less than 10 
     employees) stretched to the limit, particularly as wholesale 
     prices set by FERC in Washington increasingly determine what 
     consumers ultimately pay back home. Most consumer advocate 
     offices simply do not have the resources to fight in both 
     venues.
       An Office of Consumer Advocacy would give residential 
     consumers much needed representation in Washington and a 
     fighting chance to benefit from legislation passed by 
     Congress. We urge you to support this critical amendment.
       Thank you for your leadership to enact comprehensive energy 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                               Charles A. Acquard,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as I indicated earlier, my colleagues--
particularly Senators Bingaman, Murkowski, Leahy, and Hatch--have been 
very gracious in working with me on this position. We are going to 
continue to work with them as this legislation is considered in the 
Senate and when this bill gets to conference.
  As we go forward with this today, I hope we will ensure that there is 
a strong Federal presence to advocate for the consumer. I think these 
advocates at the State level do a good job given their limited 
resources.
  Given the fact that so much of the energy business has moved 
interstate, and those interstate transactions can result in higher 
bills to small businesses in Georgia, Oregon, and across this country 
for senior citizens and others of modest means, I think we need to now 
have a Federal advocate.
  I am pleased we have been able to assemble a bipartisan group that is 
going to help pass this today and continue to work to refine it as it 
is considered through the evolution of this legislation in the Senate 
and in conference.
  I ask the Senate to approve the amendment at this time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this is a good amendment. I congratulate 
the Senator from Oregon for his leadership in bringing this amendment 
to the Senate and for us to consider it as part of this bill. It has 
been cleared on both sides. I am authorized by the Republican manager 
as well to indicate that.
  There is a lot already in the bill that protects consumers. 
Obviously, a main theme of this bill is to empower and protect 
consumers. This will add to that and further strengthen the bill.
  We very much appreciate the cooperation of the other side in having 
this amendment added.
  I urge all colleagues to support the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3014) was agreed to.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am going to address, in a few moments, 
the pending issue involving the energy bill, particularly when it comes 
to the renewable portfolio standard for energy. Before I do that, 
though, I ask the indulgence of the Senate for a few moments to address 
an unrelated issue which I think is of critical importance to our 
Nation.
  (The remarks of Mr. Durbin are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak to the pending matter 
being debated concerning the renewable portfolio standard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, if I may propound a unanimous consent 
request before my colleague from Illinois continues with his comments, 
I ask unanimous consent, since we have a vote at 2 o'clock on the 
Thomas amendment, that at 1:50 we reserve 10 minutes equally divided 
between Senator Thomas and myself where he can explain his amendment, 
and I can explain the arguments against it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I will try to make my presentation briefer 
so they have more time if needed. I thank the Senator from New Mexico 
for his leadership on this issue.
  This is supposed to be an energy bill which is going to give America 
more energy security, make us more independent of foreign oil sources, 
clean up our environment, and provide for the energy needs of the 
growing American economy in the 21st century. That is a tall order for 
any single piece of legislation.
  What happened on the floor of the Senate yesterday calls into 
question whether or not we are facing this challenge responsibly. If we 
cannot pass a fuel economy standard, a fuel efficiency standard for 
cars and trucks in America, then we have given a great victory not only 
to the special interests who are fighting it but a great victory to 
OPEC. Yesterday was a wonderful day of victory for OPEC and all of

[[Page S1895]]

the foreign oil producers who have America hooked on foreign sources of 
oil.
  We came to the Senate floor and, by a vote of 67 to 32, better than a 
2-to-1 margin, we rejected the notion that we would establish new fuel 
efficiency standards for cars and trucks in America. We haven't had 
such a standard since 1985. So for 17 years, no progress has been made. 
And by its decision, 67 to 32 yesterday, this Senate said: And we are 
not interested in changing it in the future.
  The Senate gave authority to NHTSA, the National Highway 
Transportation Safety Administration, to take a look at it, consider 
it, view it, wrestle with it, to get back to us when they want to. That 
is totally unacceptable. It is an abdication of our responsibility to 
future generations. It is a decision which will come back to haunt us 
as we continue to be dependent on foreign energy sources.
  This is going to drag us into political tight fixes and situations 
around the world where American lives will be at stake because the 
Senate does not have the courage to stand up and say to the American 
people: we need to give real leadership; to say to the Big Three in 
Detroit: you can do a better job, you can make better cars and trucks, 
and we challenge you to do it over a period of time; and to say to the 
American people: yes, you may not be able to buy the fattest, biggest 
SUV that can come out of your dream sequence, but we believe you can 
have a vehicle that is safe and fuel efficient for you and your family 
and your business.
  We were unwilling to do that yesterday--too much to ask of the 
American people to consider that possibility. I looked at some of the 
comments that were written and said on the floor yesterday suggesting 
that the American people are just too self-centered to be prepared to 
make any sacrifices for the good of this country. How could anybody 
start with that premise after what we have seen since September 11?

  This country is prepared to roll up its sleeves and fight the war on 
terrorism. This country is prepared to sacrifice if necessary to make 
us more secure. The families and businesses across this country are 
waiting for leadership from this Congress to make this a better, safer, 
and stronger Nation.
  Yesterday, colleagues in opposition to fuel efficiency said: We 
wouldn't dare ask Americans to consider making that kind of sacrifice.
  I am sorry. We missed a golden opportunity. I am afraid today we are 
about to do the same thing. It is bad enough that we can't have fuel 
efficiency standards. Now we are talking about what is known as a 
renewable portfolio which means looking at alternative forms of energy 
that do not threaten the environment and give us energy independence.
  I applaud Senator Jeffords of Vermont. I was happy to cosponsor his 
amendment. He says America should move to the point where in the year 
2020, about 18 years from now, 20 percent of our electricity is 
generated from renewable sources. Today it is about 4 percent. The 
underlying bill sets a goal of about 10 percent.
  Why is this important? Because as we find other sources for 
electricity, we lessen our dependence on foreign sources, and we also 
have a cleaner environment. We create a new industry to promote and 
produce this technology which is going to make us less and less 
dependent on our current sources for the generation of electricity. 
Those sources would obviously be, in most instances, coal; in some 
instances it would be gas, natural gas; oil; or it could be nuclear.
  I come from a State that produces coal. I would like to see us return 
to the day when coal becomes an environmentally responsible alternative 
to other sources of energy. I have voted, for 20 years, and I will 
continue to do so, for research to find ways to use that coal in an 
environmentally sensible way so that we can promote energy sources in 
the United States not at the expense of America's public health. We 
need to do that.
  At the same time, we need to look to other sources that are benign, 
sources that can produce electricity without damaging the environment 
in any way. One of those that is clearly obvious is wind power. This is 
a new concept for a lot of people. They have not seen the wind 
generating stations across the United States, but they are popping up 
all over the place. Senator Grassley from Iowa is in the Chamber. The 
State of Iowa is seeing more and more of the wind-generated turbines 
that are, frankly, generating electricity for small and large uses. 
That makes a lot of sense, and it is part of the renewable portfolio.
  It is important for us to keep an eye on these elements that can give 
us energy independence and a cleaner environment.
  Wind power is used for electricity. It lights our homes, our office 
buildings, and powers our industries. It is very misleading for people 
to say we don't need to worry about wind power; we are going to go and 
drill for oil and gas in the Arctic; we are going to go to the ANWR 
area, the National Wildlife Refuge. That seems to be the only answer 
from the other side of the aisle when you talk about America's future 
energy needs. I think that is a false choice and a bad choice. There 
are many other concepts of conservation and fuel efficiency and making 
certain that we have alternative fuels that are going to be encouraged.
  Can this be done? Can we really move to a 20-percent standard by the 
year 2020? We would have to work hard at it. We would have to have 
leadership in Washington. Take a look at some of the other countries 
around the world that have said they are going to do the same thing. 
Denmark, Spain, and Germany are already near 20 percent in their 
electricity production just from wind turbines alone. The European 
Union has a goal of reaching 22-percent renewable energy in electricity 
by the year 2010. The State of Nevada has a 15-percent RPS by 2013. 
Connecticut and Massachusetts are looking for similar goals. The State 
of California is currently at 12 or 13 percent in their renewable 
portfolio. The city of Chicago, under the leadership of Mayor Daley, 
has said they will move toward more wind power as a source of 
electricity.
  In individual settings around the country and around the world, 
leaders are stepping up and saying: We accept the challenge. We believe 
we can do this. Whether we are going to use wind power, solar energy, 
geothermal or biomass, there are ways to do it that can be attained and 
attained successfully.
  There will be critics who will come to the floor and say this is an 
idea that is also flawed, much like fuel efficiency in vehicles. They 
will toss out this opportunity for us to look ahead with vision and 
determination to become a nation that is more energy secure, more 
energy independent, and using sources of energy that are more 
environmentally acceptable.
  I say to my colleagues: I hope we don't gut this provision when it 
comes to the renewable portfolio. Senator Jeffords has a valuable 
suggestion. I hope it is offered and that it passes. Please, let's not 
go any further down the chain lower than the 10 percent that is being 
called for by the underlying bill. If this is truly going to be an 
energy bill to meet our Nation's energy needs, we have to address the 
real issues of fuel efficiency, of conserving energy in this country, 
and of finding alternative sources that are environmentally acceptable.
  At this point, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, under the unanimous consent agreement 
entered into, we reserved 10 minutes--5 for myself, 5 for Senator 
Thomas--and I think the protocol is that since Senator Thomas has the 
amendment, he would want his 5 minutes last. I will go ahead with my 
statement at this point and urge people not to support the Thomas 
amendment.
  Let me, once again, make the large points that need to be made. I 
will put up the map of the country again. These are the electricity 
regions that are all over the country. This largest one, by far, of 
course, is in the western part of the country and contains 14 States. 
The amendment before us, which Senator Thomas offered, is an amendment

[[Page S1896]]

that the Western Governors' Association has put together, which, as I 
see it, does several things.
  First, it dramatically complicates the process by which we try to 
ensure that the system for transmitting power around this country is 
reliable. Let me put up another chart that tries to make that point. I 
will not go through every detail of it. I will try to make the point 
that if a complaint is filed and it is indicated that some utility is 
not abiding by the standards that need to be abided by in order to 
ensure the reliability of the system, and it is not doing what is 
required, then under Senator Thomas's amendment you have a very complex 
procedure that could, in fact, take place, where the electric 
reliability organization that is called for in his amendment decides it 
wants to take action, and before it can, it is required to give notice, 
have a hearing. If it decides to take action, all it is permitted to do 
is impose a penalty. It cannot compel compliance or issue an order 
compelling compliance, as FERC can.
  This electric reliability organization is also required to approve 
regional entities and delegate enforcement authority to them; and there 
are presumptions written into this that say, just in the western part 
of the country, just in this area here in the pink, there are 
rebuttable presumptions that anything they do is right--that FERC has 
one set of standards that apply to the rest of the country, but in this 
area there are rebuttable presumptions that what is done is accurate.
  In my view, this complicates matters. It is an inconsistent set of 
rules. It is not an appropriate set of national rules. It is not fair, 
quite frankly, to the rest of the country. I come from a State that is 
in this area, so perhaps I should be on the other side of this issue. 
But this is not good national policy. In my view, it is not fair to a 
lot of the other States. We have letters I have put into the Record 
already to indicate that various of the regional transmission 
organizations are upset about this inconsistent treatment.
  Quite frankly, the complexity of this amendment undercuts any 
meaningful accountability in the system. We have been trying to ensure 
that someone can be held accountable when the lights go out, when the 
electricity quits flowing. You have to know whom to call to say they 
have fallen down on the job: it was your responsibility to do this, and 
you have fallen down on the job.
  Under this amendment, it is going to be really tough to tell whom you 
ought to call because the electric reliability organization might be 
the right one, or the regional entity might be, or FERC might have some 
authority. Quite frankly, we can see the time down the road when we can 
wind up with a hearing in the Energy Committee, the lights will have 
gone out somewhere in the country, power will have failed, and we will 
call in the FERC Commissioners and say: What is the problem? Why were 
you not doing your job? They will say: We were doing our job. Under the 
statute you passed, you told us to presume these people knew what they 
were doing. It was a rebuttable presumption. We took you at your word. 
It turns out they didn't know what they were doing.
  I think the proposal we have in the underlying bill is far 
preferable, much simpler. It puts accountability right at FERC and 
gives FERC flexibility to continue to defer to the industry 
organization, continue to defer to regional organizations, as they 
determine appropriate. I urge people to oppose the Thomas amendment on 
those grounds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we have gone over this pretty thoroughly. 
We have pretty much explained the direction we are taking.
  I might say this to the Senator from New Mexico regarding his last 
comment that FERC would have the authority to make these decisions. Now 
we have local input and different kinds of things, but FERC has the 
authority. To make the suggestion that FERC would somehow say we could 
not do it simply is not accurate.
  So we are trying to ensure transmission grids and delivery of 
electricity that will be safe and reliable. Consumers need that. The 
lights will go on, and they must stay on.
  The amendment I am offering establishes a nationwide organization 
that has the authority to establish and enforce reliability standards. 
The new reliability organization would be run by participants and be 
overseen by FERC. The idea that somehow there is no authority here is 
simply not true. The reliability organization would be made up of 
representatives of everybody affected--residential, commercial, 
industrial, State, independent power producers, electric utilities, and 
others, as opposed to only FERC.
  There is no question but that we need a new system. The question is--
we can do it in different ways--how will we do it? It gives all the 
responsibility to FERC and sets the standards. We agree that we need 
protection. It is not whether we need it, but it is how we get it. I 
think the Daschle bill takes the wrong approach; hence our amendment. 
We know there are great differences in geography, market designs, and 
economics over the different parts of the country. So we want to have 
those people in those areas having input into how to resolve it in that 
particular area. FERC is not necessarily sensitive to those particular 
changes and differences that are there. So we believe very strongly we 
need to do that.
  There is a very important question to the Northwest, particularly, 
and that is standards applicable for transmission from Mexico and 
Canada. The Canadian import of power is particularly important, of 
course, and we don't want to let that happen. So this amendment 
addresses these concerns. It converts the existing NERC voluntary 
reliability system into a mandatory reliability system.
  The new reliability organization will have enforcement powers with 
real teeth to ensure reliability. The amendment provides mandatory 
reliability rules that will apply to all uses of the transmission grid. 
No loopholes, nobody is exempted. It is the kind of thing, certainly, 
that most of us believe is the direction we ought to take in 
government; that is, to empower local people who are experts in what 
they are doing.
  FERC has been working for a very long time. When we look at the 
California situation of last summer, we see that reliability was the 
issue that was least important. Reliability was there. So we ought to 
use that experience rather than trying to build a new bureaucracy in 
FERC which doesn't have the authority or the capability of doing these 
kinds of things.
  I urge that you vote for this amendment.
  If I might, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Shelby be added as a 
cosponsor to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. I strongly support what the Senator from Wyoming has 
brought to the floor. As we have moved to restructure the electrical 
systems of our country, the Senator from New Mexico sweepingly turns it 
into a Federal single authority without the kind of flexibility we have 
sought.
  The Senator from Wyoming is absolutely correct. What we have had has 
stood the test of time. Western Governors believe in that. If you want 
to take the authority away from the States and put it with the 
bureaucracy in Washington, DC, then you would oppose the Senator from 
Wyoming. I believe that is exactly the opposite direction in which we 
are heading. Therefore, I hope my colleagues will support the amendment 
dealing with the reliability issue of this important title.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the pending 
amendment violates section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I move to waive the pertinent section of 
the Budget Act, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  I also have to add, we did not even know about this until 10 minutes 
ago. We have not even had time to look at what they are talking about. 
The Budget Committee is not able to tell us. I guess if my colleagues 
want to play this game, we can do it on the whole bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.

[[Page S1897]]

  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 60, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 49 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lincoln
     Lott
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--40

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). On this vote the yeas are 60 
and the nays are 40. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn 
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to and the point 
of order fails.
  If there is no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the 
amendment No. 3012 of the Senator from Wyoming.
  The amendment (No. 3012) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I will comment for a couple of minutes 
regarding what we went through in the last 20 minutes. I note the 
presence of the majority whip on the floor, for whom I have the 
greatest respect and total trust in terms of fair treatment.
  Regarding the point of order raised on this amendment, which no one 
knew about until it was raised, from what I can tell, on our side of 
the aisle--it would have been a good and fair thing had it been called 
to the attention of the proponent of the amendment. I assure Members, 
had the opponents of the amendment prevailed on the point of order, on 
this particular amendment, all one had to do was change it. Instead of 
directed spending, it would be subject to an appropriation and it would 
no longer be subject to a point of order, from what I have been 
informed in my conversations with the Parliamentarian.
  So that means we would just go through two votes because somebody 
thought making a point of order on the Budget Act would have gotten rid 
of that amendment. It would not have. Had that vote been 59 instead of 
60, we would fix the amendment, re-offer it, and do what I just said by 
way of altering it.
  That could have all been understood between enlightened staffers and 
Senators who would like to do that. I don't think the Senators were 
aware of it. I just raise it because it shocked me that this very 
important amendment, which I worked on and participated in, was subject 
to a point of order. I didn't know it or I would have advised them to 
fix it.
  I yield the floor.
  I say to Senator Bingaman, no aspersions on you whatsoever on that.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, just to make clear for the information 
of my colleague, I did advise the sponsor of the amendment about a half 
hour before the vote that I had been informed that a Budget Act point 
of order could be raised, and I would intend to raise it. I understand 
from him now that was not adequate time for him to get the advice he 
needed in this connection. Perhaps we should have delayed the vote for 
a longer period. That was not even considered by me or him.
  At this point, unless there are other Members seeking recognition, I 
will offer another amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I thank my colleague from New Mexico. 
I encourage Members to have our staffs try to work a little more 
closely so we can avoid duplication.
  Clearly, I personally had not been notified, although I was off the 
floor. I was across the street with some of the folks who were putting 
on a press conference. As a consequence, I had staff going back and 
forth.
  Rather than belabor that point, I think the recognition that clearly 
we had an alternative, as the senior Senator from New Mexico indicated, 
under a budget provision, suggests that in the future we could work a 
little more closely to ensure we move along because there may be other 
points of order on other amendments that will be coming up.
  I encourage Senator Bingaman to proceed with his proposed amendment, 
and we will move on with this process. We look forward to 
participating.


                Amendment No. 3016 To Amendment No. 2917

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3016 to amendment No. 2917.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To clarify the provisions relating to the Renewable Portfolio 
                               Standard)

       On page 67, strike line 6 and all that follows through page 
     76, line 11, and insert the following:
       Title VI of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 
     1978 is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 606. FEDERAL RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD.

       ``(a) Minimum Renewable Generation Requirement.--For each 
     calendar year beginning in calendar year 2005, each retail 
     electric supplier shall submit to the Secretary, not later 
     than April 1 of the following calendar year, renewable energy 
     credits in an amount equal to the required annual percentage 
     specified in subsection (b).
       ``(b) Required Annual Percentage.--
       ``(1) For calendar years 2005 through 2020, the required 
     annual percentage of the retail electric supplier's base 
     amount that shall be generated from renewable energy 
     resources shall be the percentage specified in the following 
     table:

``Calendar Years                             Required annual percentage
    2005 through 2006...............................................1.0
    2007 through 2008...............................................2.2
    2009 through 2010...............................................3.4
    2011 through 2012...............................................4.6
    2013 through 2014...............................................5.8
    2015 through 2016...............................................7.0
    2017 through 2018...............................................8.5
    2019 through 2020..............................................10.0

       ``(2) Not later than January 1, 2015, the Secretary may, by 
     rule, establish required annual percentages in amounts not 
     less than 10.0 for calendar years 2020 through 2030.
       ``(c) Submission of Credits.--(1) A retail electric 
     supplier may satisfy the requirements of subsection (a) 
     through the submission of renewable energy credits--
       ``(A) issued to the retail electric supplier under 
     subsection (d);
       ``(B) obtained by purchase or exchange under subsection 
     (e); or
       ``(C) borrowed under subsection (f).
       ``(2) A credit may be counted toward compliance with 
     subsection (a) only once.
       ``(d) Issuance of Credits.--(1) The Secretary shall 
     establish, not later than one year after the date of 
     enactment of this section, a program to issue, monitor the 
     sale or exchange of, and track renewable energy credits.
       ``(2) Under the program, an entity that generates electric 
     energy through the use of a renewable energy resource may 
     apply to the Secretary for the issuance of renewable energy 
     credits. The application shall indicate--
       ``(A) the type of renewable energy resource used to produce 
     the electricity,
       ``(B) the location where the electric energy was produced, 
     and
       ``(C) any other information the Secretary determines 
     appropriate.
       ``(3)(A) Except as provided in paragraphs (B), (C), and 
     (D), the Secretary shall issue to an entity one renewable 
     energy credit for each kilowatt-hour of electric energy the 
     entity generates from the date of enactment of this section 
     and in each subsequent calendar year through the use of a 
     renewable energy resource at an eligible facility.
       ``(B) For incremental hydropower the credits shall be 
     calculated based on the expected increase in average annual 
     generation resulting from the efficiency improvements or

[[Page S1898]]

     capacity additions. The number of credits shall be calculated 
     using the same water flow information used to determine a 
     historic average annual generation baseline for the 
     hydroelectric facility and certified by the Secretary or the 
     Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The calculation of the 
     credits for incremental hydropower shall not be based on any 
     operational changes at the hydroelectric facility not 
     directly associated with the efficiency improvements or 
     capacity additions.
       ``(C) The Secretary shall issue two renewable energy 
     credits for each kilowatt-hour of electric energy generated 
     and supplied to the grid in that calendar year through the 
     use of a renewable energy resource at an eligible facility 
     located on Indian land. For purposes of this paragraph, 
     renewable energy generated by biomass cofired with other 
     fuels is eligible for two credits only if the biomass was 
     grown on the land eligible under this paragraph.
       ``(D) For renewable energy resources produced from a 
     generation offset, the Secretary shall issue two renewable 
     energy credits for each kilowatt-hour generated.
       ``(E) To be eligible for a renewable energy credit, the 
     unit of electric energy generated through the use of a 
     renewable energy resource may be sold or may be used by the 
     generator. If both a renewable energy resource and a non-
     renewable energy resource are used to generate the electric 
     energy, the Secretary shall issue credits based on the 
     proportion of the renewable energy resource used. The 
     Secretary shall identify renewable energy credits by type 
     and date of generation.
       ``(5) When a generator sells electric energy generated 
     through the use of a renewable energy resource to a retail 
     electric supplier under a contract subject to section 210 of 
     this Act, the retail electric supplier is treated as the 
     generator of the electric energy for the purposes of this 
     section for the duration of the contract.
       ``(6) The Secretary may issue credits for existing facility 
     offsets to be applied against a retail electric suppliers own 
     required annual percentage. The credits are not tradeable and 
     may only be used in the calendar year generation actually 
     occurs.
       ``(e) Credit Trading.--A renewable energy credit may be 
     sold or exchanged by the entity to whom issued or by any 
     other entity who acquires the credit. A renewable energy 
     credit for any year that is not used to satisfy the minimum 
     renewable generation requirement of subsection (a) for that 
     year may be carried forward for use within the next four 
     years.
       ``(f) Credit Borrowing.--At any time before the end of 
     calendar year 2005, a retail electric supplier that has 
     reason to believe it will not have sufficient renewable 
     energy credits to comply with subsection (a) may--
       ``(1) submit a plan to the Secretary demonstrating that the 
     retail electric supplier will earn sufficient credits within 
     the next 3 calendar years which, when taken into account, 
     will enable the retail electric suppliers to meet the 
     requirements of subsection (a) for calendar year 2005 and the 
     subsequent calendar years involved; and
       ``(2) upon the approval of the plan by the Secretary, apply 
     credits that the plan demonstrates will be earned within the 
     next 3 calendar years to meet the requirements of subsection 
     (a) for each calendar year involved.
       ``(g) Credit Cost Cap.--The Secretary shall offer renewable 
     energy credits for sale at the lesser of 3 cents per 
     kilowatt-hour or 200 percent of the average market value of 
     credits for the applicable compliance period. On January 1 of 
     each year following calendar year 2005, the Secretary shall 
     adjust for inflation the price charged per credit for such 
     calendar year, based on the Gross Domestic Product Implicit 
     Price Deflator.
       ``(h) Enforcement.--The Secretary may bring an action in 
     the appropriate United States district court to impose a 
     civil penalty on a retail electric supplier that does not 
     comply with subsection (a), unless the retail electric 
     supplier was unable to comply with subsection (a) for reasons 
     outside of the supplier's reasonable control (including 
     weather-related damage, mechanical failure, lack of 
     transmission capacity or availability, strikes, lockouts, 
     actions of a governmental authority. A retail electric 
     supplier who does not submit the required number of renewable 
     energy credits under subsection (a) shall be subject to a 
     civil penalty of not more than the greater of 3 cents or 200 
     percent of the average market value of credits for the 
     compliance period for each renewable energy credit not 
     submitted.
       ``(i) Information Collection.--The Secretary may collect 
     the information necessary to verify and audit--
       ``(1) the annual electric energy generation and renewable 
     energy generation of any entity applying for renewable energy 
     credits under this section,
       ``(2) the validity of renewable energy credits submitted by 
     a retail electric supplier to the Secretary, and
       ``(3) the quantity of electricity sales of all retail 
     electric suppliers.
       ``(j) Environmental Savings Clause.--Incremental hydropower 
     shall be subject to all applicable environmental laws and 
     licensing and regulatory requirements.
       ``(k) State Savings Clause.--This section does not preclude 
     a State from requiring additional renewable energy generation 
     in that State, or from specifying technology mix.
       ``(l) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Biomass.--
       ``(A) Except with respect to material removed from National 
     Forest System lands, the term `biomass' means any organic 
     material that is available on a renewable or recurring basis, 
     including dedicated energy crops, trees grown for energy 
     production, wood waste and wood residues, plants (including 
     aquatic plants, grasses, and agricultural crops), residues, 
     fibers, animal wastes and other organic waste materials, and 
     fats and oil.
       ``(B) With respect to material removed from National Forest 
     System lands, the term `biomass' means fuel and biomass 
     accumulation from precommercial thinnings, slash, and brush.
       ``(2) Eligible facility.--The term `eligible facility' 
     means--
       ``(A) a facility for the generation of electric energy from 
     a renewable energy resource that is placed in service on or 
     after the date of enactment of this section; or
       ``(B) a repowering or cofiring increment that is placed in 
     service on or after the date of enactment of this section at 
     a facility for the generation of electric energy from a 
     renewable energy resource that was placed in service before 
     that date.
       ``(3) Eligible renewable energy resource.--The term 
     `renewable energy resource' means solar, wind, ocean, or 
     geothermal energy, biomass (excluding solid waste and paper 
     that is commonly recycled), landfill gas, a generation 
     offset, or incremental hydropower.
       ``(4) Generation offset.--The term `generation offset' 
     means reduced electricity usage metered at a site where a 
     customer consumes energy from a renewable energy technology.
       ``(5) Existing facility offset.--The term `existing 
     facility offset' means renewable energy generated from an 
     existing facility, not classified as an eligible facility, 
     that is owned or under contract to a retail electric supplier 
     on the date of enactment of this section.
       ``(6) Incremental hydropower.--The term `incremental 
     hydropower' means additional generation that is achieved from 
     increased efficiency or additions of capacity after the date 
     of enactment of this section at a hydroelectric dam that was 
     placed in service before that date.
       ``(7) Indian land.--The term `Indian land' means--
       ``(A) any land within the limits of any Indian reservation, 
     pueblo or rancheria,
       ``(B) any land not within the limits of any Indian 
     reservation, pueblo or rancheria title to which was on the 
     date of enactment of this paragraph either held by the United 
     States for the benefit of any Indian tribe or individual or 
     held by any Indian tribe or individual subject to restriction 
     by the United States against alienation,
       ``(C) any dependent Indian community, and
       ``(D) any land conveyed to any Alaska Native corporation 
     under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
       ``(8) Indian tribe.--The term `Indian tribe' means any 
     Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or 
     community, including any Alaska Native village or regional or 
     village corporation as defined in or established pursuant to 
     the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et 
     seq.), which is recognized as eligible for the special 
     programs and services provided by the United States to 
     Indians because of their status as Indians.
       ``(9) Renewable energy.--The term `renewable energy' means 
     electric energy generated by a renewable energy resource.
       ``(10) Renewable energy resource.--The term `renewable 
     energy resource' means solar, wind, ocean, or geothermal 
     energy, biomass (including municipal solid waste), landfill 
     gas, a generation offset, or incremental hydropower.
       ``(11) Repowering of cofiring enforcement.--The term 
     `repowering or cofiring enforcement' means the additional 
     generation from a modification that is placed in service on 
     or after the date of enactment of this section to expand 
     electricity production at a facility used to generate 
     electric energy from a renewable energy resource or to cofire 
     biomass that was placed in service before the date of 
     enactment of this section.
       ``(12) Retail electric supplier.--The term `retail electric 
     supplier' means a person, that sells electric energy to 
     electric consumers and sold not less than 1,000,000 megawatt-
     hours of electric energy to electric consumers for purposes 
     other than resale during the preceding calendar year; except 
     that such term does not include the United States, a State or 
     any political subdivision of a state, or any agency, 
     authority, or instrumentality of any one or more of the 
     foregoing, or a rural electric cooperative.
       ``(13) Retail electric supplier's base amount.--The term 
     `retail electric supplier's base amount' means the total 
     amount of electric energy sold by the retail electric 
     supplier to electric customers during the most recent 
     calendar year for which information is available, excluding 
     electric energy generated by--
       ``(A) an eligible renewable energy resource;
       ``(B) municipal solid waste; or
       ``(C) a hydroelectric facility.
       ``(m) Sunset.--This section expires December 31, 2030.''.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, this amendment I am offering is a 
substitute amendment for the provision that is in the bill at the 
current time related to renewable portfolio standards. I am offering it 
today to ensure

[[Page S1899]]

we establish a clear policy statement of our need as a nation to 
diversify our power generation sector.
  This amendment establishes a renewable portfolio standard for the 
electricity sector. This is the corollary, as I see it, to the 
renewable fuel standard that we have heard so many laudatory statements 
about yesterday. This amendment will ensure that all retail sellers of 
electricity have a portion of their generation--produce a portion of 
their generation from renewable resources.
  The amendment is modeled after the very successful Texas program that 
President Bush implemented when he was Governor of Texas. The basic 
outline is as follows.
  All retail sellers with annual sales greater than a million megawatt 
hours will be required to contract for and secure a certain amount of 
generation annually from eligible renewable resources. Most co-ops and 
municipals would be exempt.
  Beginning January 2005, 2 years after the date of enactment, retail 
suppliers will be required to include a minimum of 1 percent of 
renewables in their electricity sales. The percentage would increase 
annually by .6 percent until 2020.
  There are several adjustments to the calculation based on existing 
renewables. A retailer can subtract from its sales base all existing 
generation from renewable generation resources, including hydro. The 
renewable resources include solar, wind, ocean, biomass, landfill gas, 
geothermal, generation offsets from renewables that are ``net metered'' 
at a customer's facility, and generation from incremental hydropower 
improvements and incremental generation from repowering or cofiring.
  For new renewables placed in service after the date of enactment, the 
retailer will get one credit per kilowatt hour generated; 2 credits for 
net metered offsets; and 2 credits for grid-connected renewables on 
Indian land. Retailers can apply the credits to their own obligations, 
or they can sell the credits.
  Existing nonhydro renewables, including municipal solid waste, can be 
used to offset a retail provider's own annual obligation, but they 
could not be used for credit trading.
  To facilitate the ramp-up of the program, retailers can start to 
accrue credits from the date of enactment, which they can bank to use 
within the next 5 years.
  The first year of the program, the retailer may borrow against 
expected generation to be installed within the next 3 years. The price 
cap of the lesser of 3 cents per kilowatt hour or 200 percent of the 
average market value of credits for the previous year is contained in 
the bill.
  This is not a guarantee for any renewable generator. This is not a 
new version of PURPA. Every renewable developer will have to compete in 
the marketplace. There will be no bureaucrats dictating prices.
  I think this would be a major step forward in ensuring that we do 
develop a diverse set of sources from which we can generate power in 
this country. I commend to my colleagues the reports on the experience 
they have had in Texas, in particular, since we have modeled this 
proposal closely after what was approved in Texas.
  I think it is an excellent proposal. I hope very much at the 
conclusion of our deliberations on this renewable portfolio issue, this 
amendment can be adopted.
  I understand my colleague from Vermont is here and has a second-
degree amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
Bingaman amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I believe Senator Bingaman and I can 
just indicate amendments that we have. I will certainly defer to you on 
Senator Jeffords. We have a couple of Collins amendments, I believe, on 
our side, and a Kyl amendment that we know about at this time.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, for the information of my colleague, I 
am not familiar with the Collins amendments. But I do know of Senator 
Jeffords' intent to offer an amendment, and I did know of Senator Kyl's 
intent to offer an amendment. I will be glad to consult with my 
colleague about any additional amendments that would be offered.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I direct a question to the Senator from Alaska through the 
Chair: The Collins amendment applies to the same subject matter?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. In response to the Senator from Nevada, it is my 
understanding that they do. One is, I believe, on existing renewables, 
that they would count. I am not sure that I have information on the 
other one at this time, but I will be happy to provide it.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Alaska, it would be good if today 
we can finish this renewable part of the amendment package. We do know, 
as has been talked about here, the amendment of the Senator from New 
Mexico decreases what is in the bill 8.5 percent.
  The Jeffords amendment increases it to 20 percent, and the Kyl 
amendment would wipe out all of them.
  We will be happy to work procedurally any way possible to have a fair 
vote and have this issue resolved. Maybe we could do all these votes 
later this evening.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I would be happy to encourage Senators on our side to 
come over with their amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                Amendment No. 3017 to Amendment No. 3016

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3017 to amendment No. 3016.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in the Record under ``Amendments 
Submitted.'')
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I rise to offer an amendment which 
would do more to encourage development of renewable energy in this 
country than any other provision in the legislation currently before 
us.
  My amendment will gradually increase the amount of electricity 
generated by renewable energy in this country to 20 percent by 2020.
  I am deeply convinced that it is not only possible to achieve this 
goal, it is the best policy for this country, and for our energy 
future.
  For over 20 years I have pushed clean, renewable energy in this 
Congress.
  In fact, 25 years ago when I came into this body, we were in another 
energy crisis. That was brought about by the oil cartel that was 
holding up oil coming from the Middle East. We suffered greatly with 
long lines of cars. I have been involved with this kind of a problem 
ever since then. In fact, during that period of time where we had 
problems created by the OPEC cartel, I was able to offer very 
significant amendments, working with my partners at the time.
  For instance, at that time, we introduced an amendment to make sure 
we had a photovoltaic effort going on which would help increase the 
utilization of renewable energy by looking to the Sun for the answer. 
That was a time when a number of us had come to Congress and were 
freshmen, but we knew the kind of chaos we had.
  The amendment was to the appropriations bill. It was an $18 million 
amendment. I remember it very well. When I went to offer it, the 
chairman of the subcommittee, Tom Bevill of Alabama, came up to me and 
wrapped his arm around me. He said: Son, you don't offer amendments to 
appropriations bills until you have checked with me. I said: Gee, I am 
sorry, but I can't wait for that. He said: Well, why not? I said: 
Because I have 80 cosponsors. He said: 80 cosponsors? I said: Yes, 80 
cosponsors. He said: Well, I guess we will have to go ahead.
  We went ahead. It passed. We created a photovoltaic industry in this 
Nation at that time which brought forward a considerable amount of 
energy relief.
  In addition, at the same time, three of us--Congressman Mineta, 
Congressman Blanchard, and myself--introduced one to create development 
for

[[Page S1900]]

wind energy. At that time, we did not know who was going to get the 
credit, so we all kind of flipped coins. The winner was Congressman 
Blanchard from Michigan who went on to be Governor. Of course, Norm 
Mineta is now Secretary of Transportation. And I am still here.
  But those really were the only two significant renewable energy 
provisions that passed. They are still there. They were important 
contributions. But it is time for us to put further emphasis and create 
further opportunities with respect to the renewable energy field.
  It is hard not to, when you see the lakes and forests in my State 
dying from acid rain.
  We have to clean up our act.
  It is hard to read the health statistics from air pollution, 
particularly for the very young and elderly, and not worry about the 
emissions that continue to pour from this country's smokestacks.
  It is difficult not to care about renewable energy when the northern 
maple trees are disappearing and our ocean temperatures are rising.
  We all should care. I am disappointed that this White House and many 
in this Congress do not care quite enough.
  It is unconscionable to continue to shackle ourselves to fuels that 
dirty our air and water, and that compromise our national security, 
when clean, abundant, and affordable domestic alternatives exist.
  We owe something better to our children, to our environment and to 
our future.
  The amendment that I am offering this morning would gradually 
increase the amount of electricity produced from renewable energy 
nationwide, reaching 20 percent by the year 2020.
  States are already out in the forefront on this issue, with 12 States 
having already enacted renewable energy standards and almost a dozen 
others actively considering one.
  Governor Bush signed one into law in Texas in 1999. Nevada law 
currently requires that 15 percent of state electricity come from 
renewable energy by 2013, and California is on the verge of passing a 
state requirement of 20 percent renewables by 2010. This is twice as 
aggressive as the standard in my amendment.
  The technology to produce renewables is clearly sufficient to meet 
these standards.
  During the more than 20 years that I have been in this Congress, the 
costs of generating wind and solar energy have decreased by 80 percent. 
Throughout the world, wind is the fastest growing source of electricity 
generation, and in this country wind-generated electricity is generally 
competitive with traditional fossil and other fuels.
  In 2001, the U.S. wind industry installed $1.7 billion worth of new 
generating equipment. As this chart illustrates, current installed wind 
capacity almost doubled between 2000 and 2001, bringing total wind 
capacity in the United States to 4,258 megawatts, representing billions 
of dollars in jobs and investments.
  These two very different windmill projects, one from the 1800s and a 
modern Texas wind farm, illustrate how wind has moved from the past, 
and into our future.
  This Hawaii power plant is operating on geothermal energy, which is 
also found abundantly throughout the American West.
  This office complex in Louisville, KY, is heated and cooled by 
geothermal heat pumps.
  Vast sources of biomass, such as the wood pulp that fires this 
California power plant, are found throughout the United States. Biomass 
currently generates more electricity than any other U.S. renewable 
resource.
  As for solar, the Sacramento Municipal Utility District estimates 
that if every home built in California subdivisions each year had 
photovoltaic energy roofs similar to the one in this picture, they 
would produce the energy equivalent of a major 400 to 500 megawatt 
power plant every year.
  So the technology to produce renewable energy is clearly here. The 
resources also are here. Vast quantities of wind power are found along 
the East Coast, the West Coast, across large parts of the American West 
and across the Appalachian Mountain Chain. North Dakota also has 
consistent wind energy sufficient to supply 36 percent of the 
electricity needed in the lower 48 states.
  The United States has the technical capacity to generate 4.5 times 
its current electricity needs from a combination of wind, bioenergy, 
and other renewable resources.
  As to affordability, Federal studies have consistently shown that a 
Federal renewables standard of 20 percent will have little or no impact 
on overall consumer energy costs. The most recent study by the 
Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration has found that 
consumer prices for electricity under a 20 percent standard would be 
largely the same as without one, resulting in an increase of only 3 
percent by 2020.
  Further, as indicated on the chart--with purple indicating ``business 
as usual,'' and green representing a 20 percent RPS by 2020--EIA 
studies have shown that by 2020, a 20 percent Federal RPS would have no 
measurable impact on overall consumer energy bills, which would include 
electricity bills along with home heating and cooling bills, and 
commercial and industrial energy costs. So the technology is there, the 
resource is there, and the costs to consumers are minimal.
  Despite this, the contribution of renewables to the U.S. electricity 
market is still well under 3 percent. We must help promote these 
industries, the same way this Federal Government of our has assisted 
traditional fuels such as coal, oil and gas, nuclear and hydropower 
throughout their histories. We must level the playing field for the 
renewables industry and facilitate market entry of these valuable 
resources.
  Why focus so much on these resources? Renewable energy is good for 
the environment, provides jobs and investment, and increases our energy 
security.
  The U.S. Department of Energy has found that, as the demand for 
energy grows, without changes to Federal law, U.S. carbon emissions 
will increase 47 percent above the 1990 level by the year 2020. 
However, as this chart shows--with green representing carbon emissions 
with a 10 percent RPS by 2020, purple representing a 20 percent RPS by 
2020 and pink showing the improvements that can be made by additional 
energy efficiency provisions--with a 20 percent renewables standard, 
U.S. carbon dioxide emissions will decrease by more than 18 percent by 
the year 2020.
  Adding renewables to our energy mix will also reduce emissions of 
mercury, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide, which contribute to the 
problems of smog, acid rain, respiratory illness, and water 
contamination.
  A Federal 20 percent renewable energy standard will create thousands 
of new, high-quality jobs and bring a significant new investment to 
rural communities. It will create an estimated $80 million in new 
capital investment, and more than $5 billion in new property tax 
revenues.
  It will bring greater diversity to our energy sector, creating 
greater market stability, and reducing our vulnerability to terrorist 
attacks to our energy infrastructure.
  For all these reasons, I strongly support a requirement that would 
achieve the maximum amount of renewable energy production in this 
country.
  Claims that a 20 percent renewable portfolio standard by 2020 is 
impossible to achieve, would cost the American consumer billions, and 
would place an undue burden on industry are simply not supported by the 
facts. Clearly, renewable standards below this 20 percent are easily 
achievable, and should be strongly supported by this body.
  I urge my colleagues to support inclusion of a strong renewables 
standard in this bill. Without such a standard, I think we all must 
question whether this bill is in fact going in the right direction to 
ensure a clean, secure America.
  My amendment creates a renewable energy standard under which 
utilities would be required to gradually increase the amount of 
electricity produced from renewable energy resources, starting at 5 
percent in 2005 and leveling out at 20 percent in 2020. That is plenty 
of time to adjust, plenty of time to make sure we can get to that goal 
without really creating any problems
  This level allows a long ramp-up time before utilities must begin to 
comply, and also gives them the flexibility of adjusting their 
renewable energy generation within 5 year increments rather than every 
year.

[[Page S1901]]

  My amendment places a cap on the cost of renewable energy credits by 
allowing retailers to purchase credits directly from the Secretary of 
Energy at 3 cents per credit, thereby ensuring price predictability for 
retail suppliers.
  The amendment recognizes the special economics of small entities, and 
excludes small retailers which sell 500,000 megawatt hours or less of 
electric energy from the requirements of the bill.
  However, my amendment recognizes that not only do we want to 
encourage renewable energy production and purchase by these small 
entities, they comprise a large part of the market for larger 
retailers. The amendment therefore directs the Secretary of Energy to 
apply money generated by the purchase of renewable energy credits to a 
program to maximize generation and purchase of renewable energy by 
these small retailers.
  My amendment will also allow utilities credit for existing renewable 
energy production, thereby increasing the potential for additional 
renewable production from existing facilities and rewarding those who 
have taken the initiative to develop green energy.
  Madam President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time limit.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, 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. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, is there a quorum call in progress?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is not.
  Mr. HELMS. I understood there to be one.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me 
to make my brief remarks seated at my desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Helms are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, 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. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). Without objection, it 
is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I rise to enlighten my colleagues 
about renewables because we are going to be spending a good deal of 
time on the issue of renewables. Senator Jeffords has called for an 
increase to the underlying bill.
  I want to make sure everybody knows that we didn't suddenly find 
renewables. Renewables have been around for a long time. Some Members 
aren't too sure of where we have been on renewables. Some are of the 
opinion that we haven't spent much money, time, or attention. Let me 
try and turn that around because we have spent $6.4 billion on 
renewables in the past 5 years. That money has been well spent. We are 
going to continue to spend money on renewables.
  We spent $1.5 billion in direct research and development for 
renewables; $500 million for solar; $330 million for biomass; $150 
million for wind; $100 million for hydrogen; and nearly $5 billion in 
tax incentives; $2.6 billion in reduced excise taxes for alcohol fuels, 
ethanol. So it is not that we have been asleep in this process.
  The problem we have is that nonhydro renewables make up less than 4 
percent of our total energy needs and less than 2 percent of our 
electric consumption. I am sorry Senator Jeffords is not present. But 
it isn't that we don't support renewables; the question is, At what 
price?
  As I indicated, we spent $6.5 billion in the last 5 years, and we 
have about 4 percent of our total energy needs in nonhydro renewables, 
and less than 2 percent of our electric consumption. We can throw 
enough money at this. The question is, How much do taxpayers and 
consumers want to pay?
  We have some charts. Before I show these charts, I want to show other 
charts that show a little bit about the footprint of renewables. There 
is a misunderstanding on what kind of footprint is involved in the 
consideration of renewables and the application of that footprint.

  If you want to talk about solar, it certainly has an application in 
certain areas. In my State of Alaska in the wintertime, it doesn't work 
very well. Go up to Barrow where there are probably 4 months of 
darkness; solar panels aren't going to work very well. Go down to the 
Southern States; clearly they have an application. But they also have a 
footprint. The same is true with windmills. They have a significant 
footprint. I will show you some of those charts as soon as the staff 
brings them to the Chamber.
  The point I want to make is, we haven't walked into the discovery 
that renewables are important. They are important. They are so 
important we have spent $6.5 billion in the last 5 years. They are so 
important that while we have concentrated on them, they still only 
address 4 percent of our total energy needs and less than 2 percent of 
electric consumption.
  Let me show you a little bit about renewables. They are worthy of 
consideration and further examination. Wind power is real as long as 
the wind blows, but sometimes the wind doesn't blow. Around here, we 
can usually generate enough hot air to keep a little draft going. 
Sometimes it doesn't blow. This is the San Jacinto wind farm located 
outside of Banning, CA. If you have driven from Los Angeles to Palm 
Springs, you have driven through it. I guess we all have our views of 
the beautiful mountains and what lies between the vision. That is a lot 
of windmills. They are probably in this picture, 150 windmills in the 
background. Some of them work; some don't.
  Sometimes the transmissions are torn up because the wind doesn't 
always blow at the same velocity. Sometimes there are problems. 
Engineering advancements have come along, and it is a significant 
contributor to energy. What about the footprint? This particular wind 
farm, which is one of the largest in the United States, takes about 
1,500 acres, and the energy production is 800 million kilowatts of 
electricity. What does that equate to? That is about 1,360 barrels of 
oil. So here we have an equation, 1,500 acres of footprint producing 
1,360 barrels of oil.
  I hate to be rhetorical, but in comparison, what does 2,000 acres of 
ANWR produce? One million barrels of oil.
  Some people suggest that these windmills are Cuisinarts for the 
birds. The birds do have a bit of a time getting through there if they 
are flying low. The point is, there is a footprint to renewables.
  There are a couple other renewables we think highly of and want to 
promote. This is one: Solar panels. Solar panels produce the energy 
equivalent of 4,400 barrels of oil a day. That is 2,000 acres; 2,000 
acres of solar panels is a lot of acreage. Two thousand acres of ANWR 
produce 1 million barrels of oil a day. So, again, we are simply 
talking about comparisons. It would take two-thirds of the State of 
Rhode Island to equate to 448,000 acres which would produce as much 
energy as 2,000 acres of oil in ANWR. So we virtually cover two-thirds 
of Rhode Island with solid solar panels.
  We have another significant contribution to energy, and that is 
ethanol. Ethanol is made from corn. There is a comparison here because 
if you took 2,000 acres of ethanol from the farm, 2,000 acres, and 
produced the energy equivalent of that, it would produce 25 barrels of 
oil a day.
  Mr. President, 2,000 acres of ANWR will produce a million barrels a 
day. So you are talking about an awful lot of acreage to produce an 
equivalent. All I am talking about is a footprint. It

[[Page S1902]]

would take 80 million acres of farmland, or all of the land of New 
Mexico and Connecticut, to produce as much energy as we can get out of 
2,000 acres of ANWR.
  I think I have made my point, Mr. President. There is a footprint. 
Renewables are important. They do cost money. The question is, How much 
does the American taxpayer want to pay?
  I rise in opposition to the renewable portfolio mandate. I oppose the 
Federal renewable mandate in the underlying Daschle bill. I oppose the 
Federal renewable mandate proposed by Senator Bingaman's amendment, and 
I also oppose the Federal renewable mandate proposed by Senator 
Jeffords. The reason is all three are the same theme: Federal command 
and control of the market.
  Now, all three propose that the Federal Government--Congress, as a 
matter of fact--decides what kind of energy we like and don't like and, 
as a consequence, force the markets to comply with our views of 
political correctness. Let me say that again. Congress decides what 
kind of energy we like and what kind we don't like. Do we want Congress 
to pick the energy ``flavor of the month,'' so to speak, pick the 
winners and the losers based on regional or local politics? It is one 
thing to support technologies on resource development by tax incentives 
or grants or other direct programs. We do that with conservation, 
renewables, and our basic fuels. We encourage exploration and 
development in the ultra deepwaters of the Gulf of Mexico, as we 
should. That is one thing, but arbitrary dictates on what you must buy, 
well, that is another issue.
  I oppose Federal command and control of the market. We have a free 
market in this country. If there is anything that we should have 
learned from the past 200 years in this Nation's existence, it is that 
free markets work and Government command and control, as a rule, 
doesn't work. I think the proof is out there.
  For example, in the 1960s and 1970s, we tried to micromanage the 
natural gas business. What did we get? We got shortages and price 
spikes. When we deregulated natural gas, we got an abundant gas supply 
and lower prices.
  Even more fundamental, the U.S. exists today and the Soviet Union 
does not exist. Our economy is the envy of the world. Their economy 
collapsed. I have no doubt that this Nation, and our industry, can meet 
any demand we put upon them. There is no question that it can. If we 
put a man on the Moon, we can certainly build all the windmills we 
want.
  So the question isn't, Can it be done? The question is, Should it be 
done? Should we dictate the market--have Congress tell consumers what 
is good energy and what is bad energy; what they should buy or should 
not buy?
  Mr. President, the consumers are better able to decide what is in 
their own best interest than is Congress. If consumers want to pay 
extra for ``green power,'' then they should be able to do it. A number 
of States have created programs to allow them to do that. In Colorado, 
for example, there is a very robust market for green energy.
  But I ask: Why should Congress tell consumers to purchase something 
they don't want and that might not even be available? In my opinion, 
the mandate is not honest. Those States with portfolio mandates have 
considered the costs and the fuel mix that is available and made a 
decision.
  This amendment decides that customers in Maine--which already has a 
locally established 30-percent mandate based on local decisions--must 
buy wind and solar renewables.
  On its face, the amendment admits that there are utilities that will 
not have access to the particular mix of fuels that the sponsors 
support. Their customers will be forced to pay for credits and to pay 
for power that they may never receive--power that is uneconomical and 
not available in their particular area.
  Why is there this fascination with Federal preemption of State 
decisions? If the Northwest wants to develop clean, emission-free 
hydro, why must they buy credits to support solar in from the 
Southwest? The argument will be made that we need to foster renewables 
in order to lessen our dependence on foreign energy. That is a good 
argument--as far as it goes. But if they are really serious about 
lessening our foreign dependence, we need to do much more: Nuclear 
power--there is no cleaner form of power, zero emissions--oil from 
Alaska and other regions, such as the gulf, that have been shut down; 
coal--we have all kinds of coal in this country; we are the Saudi 
Arabia of coal; hydroelectric generation--zero emissions. It amazes me 
that some people consider hydro nonrenewable.
  Let me focus for a moment on the Federal renewable dictate in the 
underlying Daschle bill, which is very similar to the Bingaman 
amendment. The Daschle renewable dictate would require a 600-percent 
increase in renewables by the year 2020. Let me repeat that--a 600-
percent increase in renewables by 2020.
  As I indicated in my earlier statement on renewables and what our 
percentage was, clearly, it is a cost. We have expended $6.4 billion in 
the last 5 years, and it still constitutes less than 4 percent of our 
total energy needs and less than 2 percent of our electric consumption.
  So the question is, If we are going to follow the Daschle renewable 
dictate, we would require a 600-percent increase in renewables by 2020, 
at what cost? Well, I don't think this is achievable. It might be, but 
it would drive costs simply through the roof. After 20-plus years of 
PURPA, and billions of dollars of renewable tax credits and other 
Federal subsidies, renewables today provide a very small percentage of 
U.S. electric power--approximately 2 percent.
  The 10-percent additional renewable dictate, by 2020, would require 6 
times the amount of renewables we are currently generating. Is a 10-
percent dictate achievable? Well, anything is achievable, but at what 
cost?
  We have a chart that shows what the Energy Information Administration 
of the Department of Energy has done. It is an analysis of the proposed 
10-percent renewable portfolio mandate. The EIA estimates that the cost 
of renewable portfolio mandate will grow to $12 billion per year by 
2020.
  Let me refer to the chart. This chart is perhaps a little difficult 
to comprehend, but what we have are credits moving up in the blue to 
the very top, where we are comparing, if you will, the penalty payments 
and the credit purchases. The credit purchases are in the light blue 
and the penalty is in the dark red.
  As we start from 2005 with the credits, you can see they are roughly 
at $2 billion, and they go up in the year 2017 to approximately $10 
billion. And they go up more with the advent of the penalty payments.
  So this attempts to show simply the escalating costs associated with 
trying to achieve this 10-percent renewable portfolio mandate. There is 
a corresponding reference as well. The theory is, as the renewables go 
up, the gas consumption comes down, and when the renewables go up, the 
price of gas goes down, and the price of renewables comes down. So you 
have a bit of a tradeoff there, and we can debate that.
  The fact remains this kind of an increase to 10 percent from our 
current 4 percent--actually 2 percent, less than 2 percent electric 
consumption, 4 percent of total energy--comes at a significant cost.
  Who is going to pay that, Mr. President? The consumers are going to 
pay it. There is nobody else out there. The companies are not going to 
be able to offset that cost out of their capital.
  It is estimated that over a 15-year period, between 2005 and 2020, 
the renewable portfolio dictate will cost a total of about $30 billion. 
Wilbur Mills once said: A billion here, a billion there; after a while, 
it all adds up to real money. To an average family of four struggling 
to pay their grocery bill and put kids through college, this is a lot 
of money.
  As is pointed out by the Energy Information Administration analysis 
of the renewable portfolio mandate:

       In simple terms, a renewable portfolio standard is a way of 
     subsidizing . . . renewables . . . through a fee on . . .

  What?

     coal, gas, nuclear, and oil facilities.

  It has to come from somewhere. It does not come from thin air. It is 
at the expense of our more traditional energy sources. In other words, 
it is one thing. It is a Btu tax. Remember that: Btu tax. Where have 
you heard it? It was one of the first efforts of the Clinton 
administration when they came

[[Page S1903]]

into office. They tried to put on a Btu--British thermal unit--tax on 
energy. They failed, coming in the back door.
  EIA says consumers will not see most of this cost in terms of higher 
retail rates. Instead, it will be paid for by other segments of the 
power industry. I am not that optimistic about EIA's assessment of cost 
or impact to consumers. EIA's numbers are based on a set of assumptions 
about technology--sending, transmission capacity--economics which may 
or may not pan out.
  If there is anything more certain than death and taxes, it is that 
the utilities will pass on consumer costs. In other words, as I have 
said, anything more certain than death and taxes is the utilities will 
pass on to the consumers the costs.
  The only exception to that was in California when California chose 
not to pass on the cost to the consumers because they capped retail 
rates and were not allowed to pass through the true cost of 
electricity. And what did we have? We had some of the major generating 
companies in the United States in chapter 11. We learned something from 
that, but hopefully we will not forget it so soon.
  Those costs are going to show up in consumer electric bills one way 
or another, you can be sure of that. Do not be lulled to sleep by 
assertions that the renewable dictate is a free ride. If you believe 
that, I have a bridge to sell you in Ketchikan, and it has not even 
been built yet.
  Let me point out some of the requirements of the renewable dictate. 
Under these circumstances, if the utility is not able to meet its 
renewable portfolio through generation, it is going to have to purchase 
the credits from someone else who is generating electricity or pays a 
Federal penalty. They have to do it one way or another. In other words, 
consumers in regions and States that do not have renewable 
opportunities will have to pay for electricity they do not even 
receive.
  Let me repeat that. Consumers in regions or States that do not have 
renewable opportunities will have to pay for electricity they do not 
even receive. I do not know how many people you know, Mr. President, 
but I know a lot of people who would not want to do that.
  How much is this going to cost the consumer in New York or Chicago? 
It is clear what is going on. It is a Btu tax--a British thermal unit 
tax--which will transfer massive amounts of money to one politically 
favored segment of the electric power industry. What is that? Renewable 
source. I find it unacceptable to require consumers to subsidize large 
renewable generators, such as--well, let's choose Enron as an example, 
to the tune of up to $12 billion per year.

  I also wonder why this Federal mandate is necessary. These 14 States 
have already established a renewable portfolio mandate program. They, 
too, would be preempted.
  I admire what these States have done. They have taken the initiative 
to establish a State renewable portfolio mandate. They did it 
themselves: Arizona, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, 
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, 
Texas, Wisconsin.
  This is the market working. People in those States are concerned. 
They want renewables and are ready to pay for them. They have set up a 
system, and it works.
  This legislation would mandate it across the country. The renewable 
mandate would thus penalize those States that have already acted to 
establish a renewable program by requiring these States to replace 
their State program with a new Federal program. For Heaven's sake, if 
it works in these States, why not leave it alone? They are doing their 
job. People are happy. They would be increasing or rejecting. Other 
States have considered and rejected a renewable portfolio mandate as 
being unworkable or too expensive.
  Senator Jeffords wants to raise the renewable dictate. What does he 
want to raise it to? He wants to raise it to 20 percent. I oppose that. 
I think it is impractical, unrealistic, and beyond reasonable costs.
  Senator Bingaman's amendment differs from the underlying Daschle bill 
in a relatively minor aspect. It retains the 10-percent mandate from 
the underlying bill and gives double credits to renewables on Indian 
land, gives credit for not using energy, and it lengthens the program 
by 50 percent out to the year 2030.
  I have a little problem with extending these programs out to 2010, 
2020, 2030. My problem is, how many of us are going to be around here 
in 30 years or 28 years to be held accountable for what we are setting 
as a standard today? It lengthens the program by 50 percent by the year 
2030.
  We should hold ourselves accountable for realistic goals in the 
future and not put them out so far that other people are going to come 
along and look at it and say that was simply unattainable or the cost 
of it was beyond comprehension.
  In a nutshell, the Bingaman amendment makes only minor changes to the 
Daschle bill. I oppose the Bingaman amendment as well, just as I oppose 
the Daschle renewable dictate.
  I believe Federal command and control of the market leads to terrible 
distortions, economic waste, and inefficiency. It is bad for consumers 
and bad for our economy.
  I will support Senator Kyl when he offers his amendment to allow the 
States to set up their own renewable portfolio program. As I mentioned 
before, 14 States already have them. They seem very happy with them. 
They are working. Why do we always have to jump into something the 
States seem to be doing reasonably well with a Band-Aid as if this is a 
Federal project and we should take the initiative away from the States. 
The best government is the government closest to you.
  As I mentioned before, 14 States already have it. Senator Kyl's 
amendment will allow States to set up their own renewable portfolio 
program. The Kyl amendment requires each State utility commission and 
each nonregulated utility to consider offering consumers renewable 
energy if available, but it does not require them to do so--only 
consider doing it. If a State or nonregulated utility concludes that a 
renewable program is not in their consumers' best interest, then they 
should be free to not adopt it. That is exactly what the Kyl amendment 
does.
  If a State adopts the program, then consumers will still be free to 
decide whether or not green power is worth the cost. Consumer choice 
has worked well in States such as Colorado where 2 percent of the 
customers have chosen to pay a modest premium to have their power 
generated by wind turbines, and I believe there is some of that in 
California as well. Allowing consumers to decide what is in their best 
interest is the essence of good public policy.
  I have a letter signed by 32 trade associations in opposition to the 
renewable portfolio mandate in this bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                    March 5, 2002.
     Hon. Thomas A. Daschle,
     Hart Senate Office Building, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Daschle: We are writing to express our deep 
     concern over the economic impact of the renewable electricity 
     portfolio mandates contained in the Substitute Amendment (the 
     Energy Policy Act of 2002) to S. 517. This renewable 
     portfolio standard would require that 10 percent of all 
     electricity generated in 2020 must be generated by renewable 
     facilities built after 2001. The renewable portfolio standard 
     would become effective next year, and the amount of renewable 
     generation required would increase every year between 2005 
     and 2020. While we believe that renewable source of 
     generation should have an important, and growing, role in 
     supplying our electricity needs, the provisions contained in 
     the Substitute Amendment are not reasonable and cannot be 
     achieved without causing dramatic electricity price 
     increases. This in turn would have the unintended consequence 
     of reducing the competitiveness of American businesses in the 
     global economy and, thereby, reducing economic growth and 
     employment.
       Today, according to the Energy Information Administration, 
     non-hydro renewables placed in service over past decades make 
     up only about 2.16 percent of the total amount of electricity 
     generated in the United States. However, even this modest 
     existing renewable capacity will not count under the 
     Substitute Amendment toward satisfying the renewable 
     portfolio requirement. Generally, under that Amendment, 
     renewable facilities that can be used to meet the 10 percent 
     minimum must be placed in service in 2002 or thereafter. 
     Therefore, compliance with the Substitute Amendment's 2.5 
     percent renewables mandate for 2005 would require doubling 
     the amount of non-hydro renewables that we now have in just 
     three years--even though it took us more than 20 years to get 
     to where we are today.

[[Page S1904]]

       In addition, because the Substitute Amendment requires that 
     10 percent of all electricity generation, not capacity, must 
     come from renewables, vast numbers of renewable electricity-
     generating facilities will have to be built. Wind energy, 
     perhaps the most promising non-hydro renewable technology, 
     operates effectively only between 20 percent to 40 percent of 
     the time. Solar is also intermittent. Therefore, the actual 
     amount of newly installed capacity needed to generate enough 
     electricity to meet the Daschle Amendment's requirements 
     could well exceed 20,000 megawatts by 2005. To put this into 
     context, according to the American Wind Energy Association, 
     we currently have less than 5,000 megawatts of installed wind 
     capacity in the United States.
       Simply imposing an unreasonably large, federally mandated 
     requirement to generate electricity from renewables will not 
     guarantee that enough windmills and other renewable 
     facilities can be built on schedule; that the wind (or sun or 
     rain) will cooperate; or that the generating costs will be as 
     low as would be the case from a more diverse, market-dictated 
     portfolio of conventional, as well as renewable and 
     alternative fuels. If retail suppliers do not comply with the 
     mandate, they would face a 3 cent per kilowatt hour civil 
     penalty. Some may suggest that this penalty would operate as 
     a ``cap'' on the inevitable run up of electricity costs under 
     the Amendment. Even if this penalty were effective at 
     limiting skyrocketing electricity costs--and experience with 
     similar ``penalties'' indicates that it will not--the penalty 
     still would constitute an almost doubling of current 
     wholesale electricity prices for renewable power. Clearly, 
     electricity rates will substantially increase if the 
     Substitute Amendment becomes law.
       The Federal government's past record in choosing fuel 
     ``winners and losers'' is dismal. The Powerplant and 
     Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978, which prohibited the use of 
     natural gas in electric powerplants and discouraged its used 
     in many industrial facilities, was essentially repealed less 
     than a decade later when its underlying premises were 
     conceded to be wrong. While holding back the use of natural 
     gas, the Federal government spent billions of dollars 
     attempting to commercialize ``synthetic fuels,'' including 
     oil shale and tar sands, with little to show for its efforts.
       While we believe that the Federal government has an 
     important role to play in encouraging the development of 
     renewable and other energy technologies, we are troubled when 
     that role turns to mandates and market set-asides for one 
     particular fuel or technology. Mandates and set-asides 
     usually don't work, and create unintended consequences far 
     more severe than the underlying problem being addressed.
       For these reasons, we respectfully request that you support 
     efforts to modify the language in section 265 of the 
     Substitute Amendment to S. 517, in order to eliminate or 
     mitigate the harmful economic consequences of the renewable 
     fuels portfolio mandate.
           Sincerely,
         Adhesive and Sealant Council, Inc.
         Alliance for Competitive Electricity
         American Chemistry Council
         American Iron and Steel Institute
         American Lighting Association
         American Paper Machinery Association
         American Portland Cement Alliance
         American Textile Manufacturers Institute
         Association of American Railroads
         Carpet and Rug Institute
         Coalition for Affordable and Reliable Energy
         Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry
         Edison Electric Institute
         Electricity Consumers Resource Council
         Independent Petroleum Association of America
         Industry Energy Consumers of America
         International Association of Drilling Contractors
         Interstate Natural Gas Association of America
         National Association of Manufacturers
         National Lime Association
         National Mining Association
         National Ocean Industries Association
         North American Association of Food Equipment 
           Manufacturers
         Nuclear Energy Institute
         Ohio Manufacturers' Association
         Oklahoma State Chamber of Commerce & Industry
         Pennsylvania Foundry Association
         Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association
         Texas Association of Business and Chambers of Commerce
         U.S. Chamber of Commerce
         Utah Manufacturers Association
         Westbranch Manufacturers Association.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. The signers represent a broad range of affected 
industries, including chemicals, metals, paper, textiles, cement, 
carpeting, petroleum, natural gas, mining, nuclear power, as well as 
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
  A Federal renewable dictate is, in my opinion, bad energy policy, bad 
social policy, and bad economic policy.
  I thank the Chair for persevering with me, and I yield to Senator 
Bingaman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will say a few words about the various 
amendments we are considering this afternoon. I proposed an amendment 
to the underlying bill which does modify the provisions we had related 
to this issue of a renewable portfolio standard, and that is the 
pending first-degree amendment, and essentially that calls for us 
trying to increase the generation of electricity from renewable energy 
sources over the next 18 years, between now and the year 2020, up to 10 
percent. That is what we have proposed in the amendment I sent to the 
desk.
  Senator Jeffords has sent a second-degree amendment to the desk, and 
he has asked that we change that goal and requirement, and that instead 
of going to 10 percent of power having to be generated from renewable 
sources, it should be 20 percent. He has made his statement in support 
of that, and he has indicated a desire to come back and reiterate those 
points before we actually cast a vote on his amendment.
  Then there is also, as I understand it, expected to be an amendment 
by Senator Kyl from Arizona which will essentially eliminate any kind 
of a Federal program or requirement to increase the amount of renewable 
energy that utilities generate. So those are the three main issues 
before us.
  Obviously my position, which is I think is clear to all my 
colleagues, is that the 10-percent goal we have in the bill and in the 
substitute I have sent to the desk is an appropriate goal. It is 
something we can achieve. It makes sense. It moves us, as a country, in 
the direction we ought to be going. It reduces our dependence on fossil 
fuels in very important ways.
  There are some obvious reasons why I think it is important we act on 
this as part of a national energy bill. When one looks at a 
comprehensive energy bill, which we are now debating, there are various 
things that can be done. The supply can be increased, and we are trying 
to increase the supply of energy from our traditional sources, from oil 
and gas, from coal, from nuclear, from hydroelectric power. All of 
those are existing sources of energy upon which we believe we are going 
to remain dependent. They should continue to flourish. We support that 
and we have provisions in the bill that support them.

  I firmly believe it is also important we put a particular emphasis on 
renewable power, renewable energy sources. It is important we do that 
to get a diverse set of sources. It is important we do that because the 
renewable energy sources do not produce emissions. They are extremely 
benign to the environment and there are substantial benefits in job 
creation, quite frankly, from putting a heavier emphasis here.
  I will put up a couple of charts I referred to earlier in the debate 
so people can be reminded this is where we produce electricity today. 
This is ``Electricity Generation by Fuel.'' There seems to be a lot of 
information on this chart, but it is pretty clear what the big points 
are.
  The first big point is, this is from the period 1970 to the year 
2020. So over this 50-year period, it shows that by far the biggest 
contributor to electric generation today is coal. It has been all 
along. It continues to be, it is going to be in the future--that is a 
given--and we have provisions in this bill to encourage additional 
research to try to find ways to continue using coal in the most 
environmentally benign way possible.
  Down beneath that we have nuclear. This is as of the year 2000 in 
this period. The next line is nuclear. Nuclear accounts for something 
in the range of 20 percent of the power we produce today in this 
country. It will continue to account for a substantial portion of the 
power we produce for the indefinite future, even if there are no 
nuclear powerplants built, and there may well be. I do not know the 
answer to that.
  The other fuel, which is now third as far as the contributors to 
electrical generation, is natural gas. That is this green line. 
Although it is third now, we can see that it is growing dramatically as 
a contributor to electricity generation in this country. We are now in 
a situation where today 69 percent of the electricity we generate in 
this country comes from two fuels: coal and natural gas. That is going 
to change by the year 2020, unless we enact legislation in the nature 
of this renewable portfolio standard that I have proposed.

[[Page S1905]]

  The way that is going to change is we are going to be much more 
dependent upon those two fuels, coal and natural gas, by the year 2020 
than we are today. Instead of 69 percent, which is where it is today, 
it will be up to 80 percent. So we will be 80-percent dependent upon 
those two types of fuel.
  Why is this a problem, some might ask. Who cares? It is a problem 
because price spikes, particularly in natural gas, can play havoc with 
people's electric bills, can play havoc with our ability to maintain a 
stable market for electricity in the country.
  Eighteen months ago, it was $10 per million Btu of natural gas. Today 
it is more like two-fifty. There is a tremendous volatility in those 
prices, and that is what we are setting ourselves up for if we do not 
diversify the sources of fuel upon which we rely. We do have real 
concerns about the adequacy of our supply of natural gas as we go 
forward to the year 2020. We may well be buying a larger and larger 
percentage of our natural gas in the form of liquefied natural gas that 
is brought in by tanker from overseas. This is being brought in from 
the Middle East, from a lot of countries that we do not currently 
consider particularly stable suppliers.

  Just as we are currently dependent upon foreign sources of oil, we 
can see the day, possibly in the future, when we will be substantially 
dependent upon foreign sources of natural gas. A lot of that dependence 
will be because we have not diversified the sources of power to 
generate electricity.
  Also, of course, if one thinks climate change is a problem, which 
many people do, it is important we try to find some sources of energy 
that do not contribute to that problem, and that is exactly what we are 
trying to do with this renewable portfolio standard.
  Another one of these charts I think makes the point we have a lot of 
opportunity to do better in this area. This chart is entitled ``The 
Commitment to Renewable Generation.'' This is the period 1990 to 1995. 
The point it makes is, over on the left-hand side, this is the 
percentage increase in nonhydro renewable generation during that 5-year 
period, 1990 to 1995. Spain increased their nonhydro renewable 
generation over 300 percent during those 5 years; Germany increased 
theirs something around 170, 180 percent; Denmark, nearly 150 percent; 
Netherlands, about 70 percent; France, something in the range of 30 
percent; and then there is the United States. We can see from this 
chart there was hardly any increase during that 5-year period, in 
nonhydro renewable generation in the United States.
  Frankly, we have a lot of opportunity to catch up with some of the 
European nations in producing more power from renewable sources.
  In my State of New Mexico, I asked why we did not have wind power. I 
have seen the charts that say New Mexico is a natural source of wind 
power. We have a lot of wind, particularly this time of year. I found 
there was very little renewable power generated in my State. I asked if 
we had any U.S. manufacturers of wind turbines come and put up wind 
power, and I found out the major manufacturers of wind turbines are in 
Europe, not in this country. The main market for wind turbines is in 
Europe, not here.
  We may want to do in New Mexico what the neighboring State of Texas 
has done. We have a love-hate relationship between New Mexico and 
Texas; it grates on me to say that Texas did something right, but the 
reality is they have done something right in this area.
  Frankly, President Bush did something right in this area when he was 
Governor of Texas. He signed a law to put in place a renewable 
portfolio standard that was very much the same in its provisions as we 
propose as a national program. They have moved ahead very dramatically 
in adding generation capacity based on renewable energy. It is the kind 
of action I wish we had taken in New Mexico. I hope we do it in the 
near future.
  I know our major utility in New Mexico is considering putting in a 
wind farm. They realize it is cost effective. It does make sense. They 
have seen the successes our neighboring State has had.
  Let me show another chart entitled ``U.S. Renewable Electricity 
Consumption.'' This points out that today 3\1/2\ to 4 percent of the 
electricity that we consume is generated from renewable sources--
nonhydro renewable sources. Under this bill, under the renewable 
portfolio standard we are proposing--not the one Senator Jeffords is 
proposing; that is more ambitious, but the one I am proposing--we would 
increase that between now and 2020 up to around 12 to 13 percent. That 
is the expectation under this bill.

  The green area on the chart is what will be added as renewable 
generation if this bill is passed with the renewable portfolio standard 
in it. Absent the renewable portfolio, if the Kyl amendment succeeds 
and we eliminate any national renewable portfolio standard, the 
expectation is we would have this orange strip that we are now at, with 
3\1/2\ percent of our generation coming from nonhydro renewables; that 
would be the same in 2020. We would still be producing about 3\1/2\ 
percent from nonhydro renewables.
  I think there is a very strong case to be made that a forward-
looking, comprehensive effort to diversify sources of energy, to deal 
with global climate change in a responsible way, to ensure we are 
diversifying our sources and producing all the power we need in the 
future, would lead us to conclude we ought to have this modest 
requirement. This is a modest requirement. This is not excessive. There 
are many people who advocate renewable generation and are critical of 
what I have proposed as a renewable portfolio standard because they 
think it is insufficient. They think we should be doing more. I would 
love to see more. I think this is a realistic proposal given the 
reality we face today.
  My proposal is there for anyone to study and review. I think it would 
be very good public policy for the country.
  I have some letters I call to my colleagues' attention. One is from 
the American Wind Energy Association, dated March 13.

       While we believe that all of America's renewable energy 
     technologies--wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and 
     hydropower--are capable of contributing higher levels of 
     electricity generation than would be required by the proposed 
     RPS, the provision is a significant step forward in meeting 
     America's growing energy needs.
       In 2001 alone the wind energy industry installed close to 
     1,700 megawatts of new generating capacity, enough to meet 
     the needs of about 475,000 households. More than half of this 
     new wind power development (915 megawatts) was produced in 
     Texas--a state with the most effective renewable energy 
     requirement law in the nation. In addition to producing 
     electricity without emitting any pollutants, each megawatt of 
     wind power creates at least $1 million in economic activity.

  Obviously, I would like to see some of that economic activity in my 
State. I assume the Presiding Officer would like to see some in his. 
That would occur as part of the implementation of this.
  I also refer to a letter from MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company, 
which is headquartered in Omaha, NE. The Presiding Officer is familiar 
with that company. This is a letter to me from David Sokol, chairman 
and chief executive officer.

       Dear Chairman Bingaman: I am pleased to write in support of 
     your efforts to include provisions to promote the development 
     of renewable energy resources for electric generation in the 
     Senate's comprehensive energy bill. MidAmerican Energy 
     Holdings Company is one of the world's largest developers of 
     renewable energy, including geothermal, wind, biomass and 
     solar.
       MidAmerican has been a long-time proponent of both a 
     production tax credit for electricity generated by renewables 
     and a federal government purchase standard for renewable 
     electricity. We strongly support these provisions in the 
     comprehensive energy bill before the Senate, as well as 
     recent modifications to the bill's renewable portfolio 
     standard (RPS) section that will ensure that implementation 
     of the RPS is achievable and affordable.
       Renewable electricity can play a critical role in 
     diversifying the nation's fuel mix and providing emissions-
     free electricity for American consumers. By including both 
     supply and demand side components in the comprehensive energy 
     package, your legislation will benefit the environment and 
     American energy security.
       Thank you again for your leadership in promoting renewable 
     energy.

  I have one other letter from the American Bioenergy Association. This 
group is headquartered in Washington. There are various members of the 
group who have signed the letter to me, dated March 13.


[[Page S1906]]


       Dear Senator Bingaman: We, the undersigned members of the 
     American Bioenergy Association (ABA)--the leading industry 
     group representing biofuels, biomass power, and bioproducts--
     are writing to thank you for your support to date and to 
     encourage you to offer an amendment for a renewable portfolio 
     standard that is both aggressive and realistic.
       It is critical that we level the playing field for 
     renewable energy generation. State RPS programs have met with 
     enormous success. A federal RPS would allow clean energy 
     developers and their customers to use biomass power in all 
     regions of the country where it is technically feasible. The 
     ABA believes that the biomass industry provide a significant 
     contribution to the standard you will offer as a substitute 
     amendment to the Daschle bill. This RPS uses the already 
     over-subscribed Texas legislation as a model. The national 
     policy you propose would allow all renewable energy resources 
     to be developed where they are most applicable.

  I have one other brief issued by the National Hydropower Association.
  It says:

       The National Hydropower Association writes to strongly urge 
     you to support the Energy & Natural Resources Committee 
     Chairman Jeff Bingaman and Majority Leader Tom Daschle's 
     compromise amendment to S. 517 on the Renewable Portfolio 
     Standard.

  They go on to explain why they believe that is very much in the 
interests of the Nation.
  Finally, there is a letter I have here from Michael Wilson, vice 
president of the Florida Power & Light. He says in a letter to me dated 
March 14:

       Please consider this letter an endorsement of the 
     compromise Renewable Portfolio Standard contained in S. 517, 
     the Energy Policy Bill.
       As you may know, FPL Group, comprised of the two major 
     subsidiaries--

  He lists what those are--

     is one of America's cleanest, most progressive energy 
     companies. Our commitment to the environment is manifested. . 
     . .

  He goes on and on and indicates they are intending to add 2000 
megawatts of new wind generation over the next 2 years and that this 
renewable portfolio standard will allow wind generation to contribute 
to America's energy independence and security.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the letters I referred to be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                             American Wind Energy Association,

                                   Washington, DC, March 13, 2002.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     Chairman, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Bingaman: I write on behalf of the Board of 
     Directors and member companies of the American Wind Energy 
     Association (AWEA) in support of the Renewables Portfolio 
     Standard (RPS) contained in the proposed substitute to S. 
     517, the Energy Policy Act of 2002.
       While we believe that all of America's renewable energy 
     technologies--wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and 
     hydropower--are capable of contributing higher levels of 
     electricity generation than would be required by the proposed 
     RPS, the provision is a significant step forward in meeting 
     America's growing energy needs.
       In 2001 alone the wind energy industry installed close to 
     1,700 megawatts of new generating capacity, enough to meet 
     the needs of about 475,000 households. More than half of this 
     new wind power development (915 megawatts) was produced in 
     Texas--a state with the most effective renewable energy 
     requirement law in the nation. In addition to producing 
     electricity without emitting any pollutants, each megawatt of 
     wind power creates at least $1 million in economic activity.
       The wind industry is proud to support the RPS contained in 
     S. 517, aimed at diversifying America's energy production 
     while also enhancing our efforts to secure cleaner air and a 
     more sustainable energy future. Thank you.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Randall Swisher,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                                MidAmerican Energy


                                             Holdings Company,

                                        Omaha, NE, March 14, 2002.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Bingaman: I am pleased to write in support of 
     your efforts to include provisions to promote the development 
     of renewable energy resources for electric generation in the 
     Senate's comprehensive energy bill. MidAmerican Energy 
     Holdings Company is one of the world's largest developers of 
     renewable energy, including geothermal, wind, biomass and 
     solar.
       MidAmerican has been a long-time proponent of both a 
     production tax credit for electricity generated by renewables 
     and a federal government purchase standard for renewable 
     electricity. We strongly support these provisions in the 
     comprehensive energy bill before the Senate, as well as 
     recent modifications to the bill's renewable portfolio 
     standard (RPS) section that will ensure that implementation 
     of the RPS is achievable and affordable.
       Renewable electricity can play a critical role in 
     diversifying the nation's fuel mix and providing emissions-
     free electricity for American consumers. By including both 
     supply and demand side components in the comprehensive energy 
     package, your legislation will benefit the environment and 
     American energy security.
       Thank you again for your leadership in promoting renewable 
     energy.
           Sincerely,
                                                   David L. Sokol,
     Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.
                                  ____



                               American Bioenergy Association,

                                   Washington, DC, March 13, 2002.
     Re Renewable Portfolio Standard Amendment.

     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bingaman: We, the undersigned members of the 
     American Bioenergy Association (ABA)--the leading industry 
     group representing biofuels, biomass power, and bioproducts--
     are writing to thank you for your support to date and to 
     encourage you to offer an amendment for a renewable portfolio 
     standard that is both aggressive and realistic.
       It is critical that we level the playing field for 
     renewable energy generation. State RPS programs have met with 
     enormous success. A federal RPS would allow clean energy 
     developers and their customers to use biomass power in all 
     regions of the country where it is technically feasible. The 
     ABA believes that the biomass industry provide a significant 
     contribution to the standard you will offer as a substitute 
     amendment to the Daschle bill. This RPS uses the already 
     over-subscribed Texas legislation as a model. The national 
     policy you propose would allow all renewable energy resources 
     to be developed where they are most applicable.
       In addition, we applaud your support of a renewable fuels 
     standard, increased biomass research and development, and a 
     production tax credit for biomass. ABA hopes that these 
     policies, along with this strong renewable portfolio 
     standard, will be accepted by the Senate.
       Again, the ABA thanks you for your strong support for 
     biomass. We truly believe that, by supporting energy and tax 
     policies in clean, renewable biomass, we can begin to wean 
     ourselves from foreign oil and clean up our air.
           Sincerely,

                                        Katherine Hamilton and

                                                      Megan Smith,
                                                     Co-Directors.

          Supporting Members of American Bioenergy Association

       Biofine, South Glen Falls, NY.
       Cargill Dow, Minneapolis, MN.
       Chariton Valley RC&D, Chariton Valley, IA.
       FlexEnergy, Mission Viejo, CA.
       Future Energy Resources Corporation, Norcross, GA.
       Genencor International, Rochester, NY.
       PureEnergy, Paramus, NJ.
       Renewable Energy Corporation, Limited, Charlotte, NC.
       Sealaska Corporation, Juneau, AK.
       State University of New York (SUNY), Syracuse, NY.
                                  ____


                      Issue Brief, March 13, 2002.

       The National Hydropower Association (NHA) writes to 
     strongly urge you to support Energy & Natural Resources 
     Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman and Majority Leader Tom 
     Daschle's compromise amendment to S. 517 on the Renewable 
     Portfolio Standard (RPS).
       Senators Bingaman and Daschle's amendment to S. 517 
     resolves many of the issues associated with their original 
     RPS proposal and clearly recognizes that hydropower, our 
     nation's leading renewable resource, must play an important 
     role in meeting future energy needs.
       The amendment that will be offered by the Senators will 
     exempt all existing hydropower from a retail electric 
     supplier's base amount and include incremental hydropower--
     new hydropower generation at existing facilities through 
     efficiency improvements and additions of new capacity--as a 
     qualifying renewable resource. This policy validates a recent 
     poll which showed that 93% of registered voters believe that 
     hydropower should play an important role in meeting future 
     energy needs. What's more 74 percent of America's registered 
     voters support federal incentives for incremental hydropower.
       With the inclusion of incremental hydropower in the 
     Bingaman-Daschle RPS amendment, approximately 4,300 Megawatts 
     (MWs) of new hydro generation could be developed without 
     building a new dam or impoundment. This additional power will 
     provide clean, renewable, domestic and reliable energy for 
     America's energy consumers in an environmentally-responsible 
     way. Senator Jeffords' amendment, however, has no such role 
     for hydropower.
       Once again, NHA strongly urges you to vote yes on the 
     Bingaman-Daschle RPS amendment and to oppose the RPS 
     amendment offered by Senator Jeffords.
       If you have any questions, please contact Mark R. Stover, 
     NHA's Director of Government Affairs, at 202-682-1700 x-104, 
     or at [email protected].

[[Page S1907]]

     
                                  ____
                                Florida Power & Light Company,

                                   Washington, DC, March 14, 2002.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     Chairman, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Dirksen 
         Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Bingaman: Please consider this letter an 
     endorsement of the compromise Renewable Portfolio Standards 
     (RPS) contained within S. 517, the Energy Security Policy 
     Bill.
       As you may know, FPL Group, comprised of its two major 
     subsidiaries, Florida Power & Light (FPL) and FPL Energy 
     (FPLE), is one of America's cleanest, most progressive energy 
     companies. Our commitment to the environment is manifested by 
     FPL's diverse generation mix and by FPLE's largely renewable 
     energy portfolio. FPLE operates the two largest solar 
     projects in the world, over 1,000 megawatts of hydroelectric 
     power, a number of geothermal projects, and a number of 
     biomass plants. And, significantly, with over 1,400 megawatts 
     of net ownership in wind energy, FPLE is the nation's largest 
     generator of wind power.
       FPLE plans on adding up to 2,000 megawatts of new wind 
     generation over the next two years. Due to the wind energy 
     production tax credit (IRC Sec. 45(c)(3)) and the industry's 
     success in reducing production costs, wind energy has become 
     economically feasible. A long-term extension of the credit 
     combined with your RPS will allow wind generation--and, 
     hopefully, other renewable sources--to contribute to 
     America's energy independence and security. Ultimately, such 
     an aim should be the keystone of any American energy policy.
       We appreciate your leadership on this important issue, and 
     we strongly support your efforts to enact a fair and balanced 
     RPS. Please do not hesitate to call on me should you require 
     any assistance in your endeavor.
           Sincerely,
                                                Michael M. Wilson,
                                                   Vice President.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. I will have other comments to make later in the debate, 
but at this point I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bingaman). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I came to the Chamber in support of the 
amendment of Senator Jeffords. I am proud to join him on this 
amendment.
  We are talking about a portfolio that has to do with renewable energy 
for production of electricity. The bill would require the amount of 
electricity produced from renewable to increase from 2.5 percent in 
2005 to 10 percent in 2020. This is certainly an improvement in the 
right direction.
  The amendment I am cosponsoring with Senator Jeffords argues that the 
Senate should go higher. We are talking about basically going up to 20 
percent by the year 2020.
  I wish to make three or four points.
  First, I admit that I am speaking as a Senator from Minnesota. For 
Minnesota, this is a no-brainer. We are a cold-weather State. We are at 
the other end of the pipeline. When we import barrels of oil--although 
we are not talking about so much oil, because we also rely on natural 
gas and coal--we have the following consequences: First of all, we 
import the energy and we export the dollars--probably to the tune of 
about $11 billion a year.
  The more we can produce of our own energy, the more capital we keep 
in our communities, and the better it is for our States.
  On environmental grounds, I don't, frankly, know what we are doing 
with more reliance on coal.
  In our State, we love our lakes. We are the ``land of 10,000 lakes.'' 
But if you look in different manuals, you will see the warnings: If you 
are a woman expecting a child, don't eat fish. We love walleye. Don't 
eat too many walleye a week; or, don't eat any; or, for small children, 
don't let them eat walleye. One way to get to the hearts of Minnesotans 
is to talk about walleye. Why? Because of airborne toxins, poison, 
PCBs, acid rain, and coal.

  What in the world are we doing relying more on coal, relying more on 
fossil fuels, and relying more on utility industries that barrel us 
down a path which goes exactly in the wrong direction?
  Minnesota is rich in wind. In rural Minnesota and farm country, we 
are talking about biomass electricity. We are talking about solar. We 
are talking about renewables. We are talking about safe energy. We are 
talking about clean technology. We are talking about small business 
opportunities. We are talking about job-intensive and job-creating 
industries that are respectful of the environment, that are respectful 
of our community, that lead tomorrow's economic development, and that 
make all the sense in the world.
  When we are able to rely more on renewable energy policy--we have the 
technology--we are far less dependent not only on Mideastern oil but we 
are far less dependent on large energy companies that end up being the 
ones making decisions that affect all of our lives, not always so much 
for the good.
  I am pleased to join Senator Jeffords. Frankly, I know the votes on 
this. I don't think we will get very many votes. As a matter of fact, 
maybe we will. I shouldn't say that on the floor of the Senate before 
the vote. But there are other amendments that want to go below 10 
percent.
  I must admit that the position I take in this debate doesn't get me a 
heck of a lot of support from the utility industry. That is true. I am 
not sure I had much in the beginning anyway. But, with all due respect, 
I do know what is best for my State. I don't think it is just for 
Minnesota. I think it is good for people in this country.
  I will say this one more time. Our country is behind the curve. Clean 
technology is going to be a big growth industry. We can do so much 
better than we are doing right now. We can do that if we set a target, 
and we make it clear that we are committed to making sure that 
renewable energy is much more a part of the production of electricity.

  Look again at what we do that is good. We do a so much better job for 
our environment. Coal, I mentioned. Nuclear power. I am not giving a 
speech today in this Chamber that says: Let's dismantle all the nuclear 
powerplants. As a matter of fact, that is not my position. But we do 
not know what to do with the waste. We are going to now build more 
plants which are incredibly capital intensive.
  I think the Presiding Officer is one of the people here who knows the 
most about finances. I am not even sure it is a go from the point of 
view of cost-effectiveness.
  But beyond that, can anybody tell me whether or not we should be 
going forward with more nuclear powerplants when we do not even know 
what to do with the waste right now? In case anybody has not noticed, 
our good friends from Nevada do not want it there. If all of us were 
Senators from Nevada, we would take the same position. And there are 
some legitimate questions that are being raised about Yucca Mountain.
  Then others say: Well, maybe not. Then it should be above ground, in 
dry-cast storage. Then others will say: What about the transportation 
of it?
  So we do not know what to do with the waste. Yet we are now talking 
about maybe we are going to rely more on nuclear power. We do not know 
what to do with the expense. By the way, most people do not want the 
plants near where they live. There are all sorts of public health 
concerns. I have already mentioned coal. What do we need? More acid 
rain? Why do we want to rely on these big utility companies to 
basically be in charge of our energy future? Have the consumers of the 
country maybe noticed they are not always so kind to us in terms of the 
bills that we pay?
  We could make the decisionmaking much more back at the State level, 
much more back at the community level with renewable energy policy. 
Between the potential of wind and biomass electricity and solar, along 
with what we have been talking about with biodiesel and other clean 
alternative fuels, such as ethanol, we have a real opportunity. It is a 
perfect marriage. I will finish on this point and then take a question 
from my colleague. It is a marriage made in Heaven between being 
respectful of the environment and a huge growth industry, which is much 
more small business oriented, with the creation of more jobs and 
keeping capital in the community and having better economic 
development.
  It could be done, and it should be done. If we took a poll, 80 
percent of the American people would agree. The only problem is, these 
utility companies and this big energy industry have too much clout. 
They have too much money, they have too much power, and

[[Page S1908]]

they have too much influence. We should be reaching beyond 10 percent. 
I think Senator Jeffords and I are attempting to lay down a landmark 
because we want to be part of the debate and, at a very minimum, not 
turn the clock backward and even go below the 10-percent requirement. 
Frankly, we should be doing much better.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield for a question.
  Mr. REID. Does my friend agree that on this energy bill yesterday he 
and I were terribly disappointed because we had the opportunity to do 
something about consumption in this country, to cut the amount of 
fossil fuels we use, by making our automobiles more energy efficient, 
and we lost on that? Does the Senator agree that we lost on that?

  Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct.
  Mr. REID. Also, there is an effort here where some think we can 
produce our way out of the energy crisis in which we find ourselves. 
Does the Senator acknowledge, out of the worldwide reserves of 
petroleum, the United States has 3 percent, including Alaska, and the 
rest of the world has 97 percent? Does the Senator acknowledge that as 
a fact?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct.
  Mr. REID. So I say to my friend, I do not personally know how we are 
going to produce our way out of this situation. We are not going to do 
it by drilling in ANWR. So when this legislation is ended, we are going 
to get nothing out of ANWR, and we are going to have no more fuel-
efficient vehicles.
  So I ask my friend, isn't the only thing left for the American 
consumer to look to with pride that we will have done on the energy 
bill is to do something with renewables? Isn't that right?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nevada 
because that is why I said to Senator Jeffords earlier today that I 
would be out here joining him on this amendment.
  Frankly, the rest of my time on this bill will be on this renewable 
portfolio because this is the only item left in the bill that is 
strongly proconsumer and also enables our country to reduce our energy 
consumption and presents some alternatives to barreling down exactly 
the wrong path. Absolutely.
  The sad thing--I know this sounds a little arrogant; and I don't mean 
to sound arrogant; and I don't think I am being arrogant--I used to be 
on the Energy Committee. If we took a poll, about 80 percent of the 
people in this country would agree, saying: Absolutely, more 
renewables. We really like that idea. We like it because of the 
environment. We like it because we can keep the capital in our 
community. We like it because small businesses can develop. We like it 
because it is job intensive. We like it because it is good for our 
country's independence.
  Remember, with electricity we are talking less about oil; we are 
talking about coal, nuclear, whatever.
  I am not arguing conspiracy. And I am not arguing every Senator who 
votes the other way votes that way because of money. That is a horrible 
argument to make. We could all say that about each of us on every vote.
  I will say this. Institutionally, from a sort of systemic point of 
view, the unfortunate thing is there are these huge energy 
conglomerates, these big utility companies. They do not want to budge 
from the monopoly they now have. They do not want to see this 
alternative future. But, boy, this is the direction in which we have to 
go. That is why I thank Senator Jeffords and am honored to be a part of 
this debate and do this amendment with him.
  Am I making sense?
  Mr. REID. Of course. That is why I came to the Chamber, because the 
Senator is making a lot of sense. I feel so desperate to get something 
that helps the American consumer when we finish this energy bill, which 
we have been talking about for so long.
  Does the Senator realize that in 1990 the United States produced 90 
percent of the electricity produced by wind? We produced 90 percent 10, 
11 years ago. Today, we produce--not 90 percent--25 percent of the 
power. Germany--the relatively small area of Germany--produces more 
electricity by wind than we do.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes. I say to my colleague, first of all, again, wind 
is near and dear to my heart. You should see Buffalo Ridge in 
Minnesota. We produce much of the wind power in the country in 
Minnesota.
  Brian Baenig, who does wonderful work here, points out that there 
have been two Department of Energy analyses, and they have found, under 
a 20-percent renewable portfolio standard, total consumer energy bills 
would be lower in 2020 than ``business as usual'' because this would 
also reduce the natural gas prices. This would be far better for our 
consumers. But also other countries--that is what I was saying 
earlier--are putting us to shame. The thing of it is, this isn't just 
an environmental issue. This is also, I say to both colleagues in the 
Chamber, a business issue.
  Mark my words--let me shout it from the mountaintop of Senate today--
clean technology will be a huge growth industry in this new century. We 
should be at the cutting edge of it, we should be nurturing it, and we 
should be promoting it. It is absolutely the right direction in which 
to go.
  That is what is so important about this amendment.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Minnesota, I join with him in 
complimenting the Senator from Vermont, the chairman of the Environment 
Committee, for moving this issue forward. I think he has not done it in 
a tepid fashion. I say that because we should be able to do this. There 
are 14 States in the United States that have renewable portfolios. 
States do it. Why can't we, as a country, do it? The answer is there is 
no reason in the world we should not be able to do this.
  I believe this so much that, in addition to this--I say to my friend 
from Minnesota, he talked about the cost. One of the costs that he 
cannot attribute to alternative energy is what it saves in lost lives, 
what it saves in added health care costs for this country.
  The three of us in this Senate Chamber are not kids. We have all 
lived a long time and are very fortunate in that regard. But we can all 
remember, even the State of Vermont, as pristine as the State of 
Vermont is, how the air quality has changed over our lifetimes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to the Senator, on the whole issue of air 
quality, I am out here with a little bit of a sense of urgency. I want 
to hold on to this standard, and I want to increase it because it is 
the best thing for my State.
  It is for all the reasons I just mentioned, but also having to do 
with what we love the most. We love our lakes and rivers and streams. 
In fact, I don't know how it came to be. It is as though people in the 
country have lost their sense of indignation. Their expectations are so 
lowered about the environment. I am surprised that people are not 
furious. I think they are, but they don't know what to do.
  As to a lot of our beautiful lakes, people are being told with regard 
to lake after lake after lake in Minnesota, if you are expecting a 
child, don't eat the fish. If you have little children, don't let them 
eat the fish because of the air toxins. This is acid rain. This is 
coal. This is mercury poisoning.
  I want to put a stop to it. That is in part what the amendment is 
about, much less all the good economic and energy efficiency arguments 
I could make.
  I yield the floor and thank both of my colleagues. I am proud to join 
them in this effort.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Corzine). The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I commend my good friend. He has 
articulately outlined and put the issues in focus as to what we are 
discussing. Coming from Vermont, one of the States that has the most 
desire, perhaps, to take advantage of the situation, going to my own 
personal history back to 1939, I was just a kid, but we had the first 
commercial windmill in the United States. It was working fine until a 
hurricane blew it away. It was an example to us of what the potential 
is.
  Now we have windmills going over the State, up and down the State. 
Hopefully, there will be more and more. We have them located in nice 
places that do not spoil the view. What a great source of energy to 
take advantage of, especially in a State that is really being hard hit 
by all of the acid

[[Page S1909]]

rain and other stuff that floats to us from places known and unknown. 
But I want to share with everyone the experiences we have had.
  Going back again, 29 years ago, the wind energy program started. It 
has come quite a ways, but now is the time to really maximize its 
utility and to keep this Nation going in the direction which will lead 
us away from the huge problems we have with being so dependent upon 
foreign oil and all those matters.
  Perhaps my good friend, the leader, can tell us what we are going to 
do next, but at this point I will save the floor and then come back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. In response to the Senator from Vermont, Senator Kyl is 
tied up in the Judiciary Committee. They are on a very important 
judicial nomination now dealing with an appellate court judge to be or 
not to be. Therefore, he is unable to come and offer his amendment at 
this time. There have been a number of things we have talked about 
doing. One would be to vote soon on the Jeffords amendment, then debate 
the Kyl amendment as soon as he gets here, and vote on that tonight or 
tomorrow. That is where we are.
  The Senator has arrived. I say to my friend--because I know he has 
been so tied up in the Judiciary Committee; I listened to his statement 
on television--the Bingaman amendment has been laid down. That calls 
for 10 percent, but the growth on renewables is ramped up more slowly 
and gives credit to hydropower and existing renewables. The Jeffords 
amendment is a second-degree amendment. That calls for raising the 
renewables to 20 percent. It is my understanding the Senator from 
Arizona wishes to offer an amendment to eliminate the renewables in 
this bill.
  Maybe we could have a brief quorum call to explain to the Senator 
what procedurally we would like to do.
  Mr. KYL. Might I inquire, my understanding is the pending second-
degree amendment would have to be disposed of before I could offer my 
second-degree amendment. It would have to be defeated. I guess it could 
prevail either way. Then I would offer a second-degree amendment.
  Mr. REID. We would be happy to work that out with the Senator however 
he wishes. We have talked about it for a couple days, this being the 
case. The only question is when we vote on his amendment.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the pending business is the Jeffords 
amendment. I am going to speak briefly to that. I am also going to 
assume we are going to be disposing of that amendment sometime around 5 
o'clock. If the vote on that amendment is in the negative, then I will 
offer an amendment in the nature of a second degree to the underlying 
Bingaman amendment. I will discuss that. In order to conserve time, I 
will discuss some elements of that right now, while there is no other 
business pending. I will have to go back to the Judiciary Committee and 
vote on the Pickering nomination as soon as that rollcall starts. I can 
at least take some of the time necessary to respond to my colleague 
from Vermont and also describe the amendment I intend to offer.
  I am going to show the nature of the cost of the Jeffords amendment 
and the underlying Bingaman amendment in a moment on the charts behind 
me. I will describe the issue before us and what my approach is, as 
opposed to the approach that has been presented so far by the Senators 
from New Mexico and Vermont.
  The underlying bill has a premise, which is that it is a good thing 
for the U.S. Government to foster the increased production of 
electricity through so-called renewable energy sources. Now, current 
law does that through a series of incentives--some tax breaks--to 
entities that develop windmill farms or solar energy production or 
other kinds of so-called renewable electrical energy production. That 
costs quite a bit of money--about a billion dollars a year. But the 
idea is that we need to foster the development of these renewable 
sources because they are good energy; whereas, existing nuclear and 
oil-fired, coal-fired, or gas-fired are not the preferred sources of 
energy production.
  Today there is something in the neighborhood of 2 percent of our 
energy being supplied by so-called renewables. The definition of 
renewable, by any logic, would also include hydropower. That, as I 
understand it, accounts for about another 7 percent of the electrical 
generation in the country. So the total of renewables would be about 9 
percent. But, of that, only 2 percent is the nonhydro kind of energy. 
The idea is to get that to a much higher percentage.
  In fact, I have to put a footnote here. One of the problems is that 
the Bingaman amendment has been very much in flux. It has changed at 
least three times since last night at 11 o'clock--that I am aware of--
in terms of the amount of coverage. I am not sure right now whether it 
mandates that 8.5 percent of the electricity be generated by renewables 
and what the definition is or whether it is 10 percent. It has gone 
back and forth yesterday and today.
  The underlying bill has a philosophy that the U.S. Government must 
now go beyond the mere incentives for renewable energy electricity 
production and move toward a mandate, and that the U.S. Government now 
has the responsibility to tell utilities all over the United States of 
America that they must, under penalty of law--severe penalties, which I 
will get to in a moment--produce a certain percentage of their 
electricity through the use of these so-called renewable energy 
sources, such as solar, wind power, biomass, and the like--10 percent, 
as I understand it. Again, I think the underlying Bingaman amendment 
may be 8.5 percent now, but it is not clear to me at this time.
  That is a mandate not just on the States but one that will directly 
impact all electric customers throughout the United States because, 
obviously, most utilities are not just going to say, thank you, we will 
be happy to pay for that. It costs a lot more than production through 
nuclear, coal, or gas. I think they are going to pass those costs on to 
the consumers. That is what they are entitled to do and probably will 
do.
  We are talking about basically a Btu tax on the electric customers of 
the United States of America. I say a Btu tax because the reality is 
that the cost is going to be shifting to the people who buy their power 
that is produced by coal or nuclear or gas from those who produce it 
from these so-called renewable sources of energy production.
  The way the U.S. Government will do this is through a Federal law, 
which we are debating right now, on a mandate to the State that the 
utilities in the State must achieve this level of production within a 
timeframe. Essentially, the timeframe goes for the next 15 years--
roughly, from 2005, when it begins, to 2020, a 15-year period. We have 
the cost calculations for that. I will get though that in a moment.
  There is an alterative way to do this. Senator Jeffords said, ``10 
percent isn't good enough; I propose we go to 20 percent.''
  I hope my colleagues will agree that is not a good idea, that we do 
not want to mandate that kind of percentage on the States. In fact, we 
should not mandate anything. That goes to my alternative, which is to 
say the States must consider all of these alternatives, including a 
mandate of a percentage of renewable energy production, even 
consideration of a program, a so-called green program whereby customers 
within a State would be entitled to buy renewable energy as long as 
they were willing to pay the cost of it, and the producers there must 
produce that energy so that under the law, all of the States would have 
to consider all of these different options, but they would be required 
to implement no particular option.
  It is the difference, on the one hand, between those of us in the 
Senate and the House of Representatives knowing what is best for the 
entire country: We know that 10 percent or 20 percent or 8.5 percent is 
exactly the right number; that we should mandate production through 
renewable energy sources regardless of what the cost of that may

[[Page S1910]]

be, versus my proposal which says: We can suggest to the States that 
they consider different forms of incentives or even mandates if they 
want to do that, but we should leave it up to the States to decide what 
they want to implement.
  There are three or four different reasons that I think this is a 
better approach. First, obviously, is I do not think the source of all 
wisdom in the United States resides in 100 U.S. Senators. I think there 
are a lot smarter people in the States with respect to the particular 
needs of their States.
  I point out to the distinguished Presiding Officer, for example, that 
on the east coast, the opportunities for solar and wind power are not 
great. So the net result of the passage of the Bingaman amendment or 
the underlying bill or the Jeffords amendment is going to be a huge 
transfer of wealth from New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, and other 
States, to States such as mine, Arizona, which has lots of sunshine and 
can produce lots of solar energy, and California that has lots of solar 
energy opportunities and windmills to produce wind energy.
  There will be a huge transfer of wealth. Why? Because the law will 
say: If you do not produce electricity through these renewable sources, 
then you have to pay a penalty, you basically have to buy credits from 
those States that do, and that is going to cost you money. Do you get 
electricity from it? No. You just pay money, and that keeps you out of 
trouble. You do not get any electricity for what you are paying. But 
the cost of the penalties or the cost of doing this either way is going 
to be passed on to your electric customers.
  I say to any of my friends from the States that are not blessed, 
shall we say, with a lot of wind or sun: Get ready, you are going to be 
sending a lot of money to States in the Southwest, States such as 
Arizona that I represent.
  Let me give an idea of the cost. Let's look at how much it is going 
to cost to develop this renewable production capability. It is 
represented by the blue. It starts in the year 2005 on the far left-
hand side where the arrow is pointing. That is about $2 billion a year 
cost to produce this much power with renewable sources. This is gross 
cost.
  The far line on the chart is the year 2020. The blue line goes up to 
about $10 billion a year to produce the power, but under the law, as 
the bill is currently written, there would be little incentive to 
continue to build the facility since it sunsets. My understanding is 
the amendment may remove the sunset, but the total cost is the same 
either way.

  The red represents the penalties that will have to be paid because 
you cannot build the generating capability to meet the requirement 
called for under the law. That would total just about $12 billion a 
year in the year 2020.
  Whether it is the actual construction of the facilities or the 
payment of the penalties, we are talking just under $12 billion a year. 
Much of that, as I said, is going to be paid by States that do not 
develop the generation but have to buy the credits and send them to the 
States that do provide the generation and excess amount of that 
generation. The total amount of that is $88 billion over the 15-year 
period. That is $88 billion gross cost.
  To show what the pending Jeffords amendment will do, it is even 
worse.
  The Jeffords amendment: Starting in the year 2005, $20 billion a 
year, which goes up to, in the year 2020, more than $22 billion a year; 
again, the production capacity lining out at about $13 billion a year 
and the remainder in penalty, but there is a total gross cost of about 
$23 billion, and the total cost over the 15 years is about $181 
billion.
  Have we done a cost-benefit analysis to understand what we are going 
to be getting with $181 billion? These charts are produced by the U.S. 
Department of Energy. They have done the numbers, but nobody has done a 
cost-benefit analysis of what we are going to get out of this.
  Some say: Maybe this will replace some of the fuels that are 
currently being used, such as coal or oil, and therefore there will be 
less demand for those particular fuels, so the cost of those fuels will 
go down, so energy produced by coal or gas will go down--you get the 
idea.
  That may happen, but obviously we are still talking about a huge cost 
to implement this law. Let's just take a wild presumption and say that 
all of this generation replaced the generation from natural gas and it 
drove the gas prices down to such an extent that we ended up with a 
wash, which is not the case even according to the Department of Energy, 
but even if we did that, what would that represent? It represents a Btu 
tax, as I said, on nuclear, coal, oil, and gas production, and even 
hydro production, as a matter of fact, and a big wealth transfer from 
States that would have to buy the credits to States that generate the 
electricity from the preferred fuels, these so-called renewable 
sources.
  I think that is bad public policy. It is arrogant on the part of the 
Federal Government to mandate something such as this, to presume we 
would know the right mix of fuels to use in producing electricity in 
this country, to require that some States would get hurt by it more 
than other States, to not have ever done any kind of cost-benefit 
analysis, notwithstanding the huge costs involved.
  I am assuming, by the way, that this is possible, that we can do 
this, even though 2 percent of the generation today is through the so-
called renewable sources. This is why President Bush supports our 
approach, which is a voluntary approach by the States where the States 
can determine themselves what mandate to impose.
  By the way, 14 States already have a mandate. My State has a 2-
percent mandate. The State of Maine has a 30-percent mandate. Texas has 
a mandate. What the President believes is each State should be able to 
decide for itself, based on its unique circumstances, what is possible 
in that State. It may be in my State it is possible to do a lot of wind 
and solar generation. It may not be so possible in New Jersey or New 
York. That is why each State ought to determine for itself what the mix 
should be, of course, based upon what it is willing to impose upon the 
retail and wholesale customers in the respective States.

  I spoke with the Secretary of Energy today, who assured me I could 
represent to all of my colleagues that he supports the Kyl amendment, 
that he opposes the underlying Bingaman amendment and the underlying 
bill and, of course, the Jeffords amendment, which would all impose by 
Federal mandate a standard for renewable portfolio.
  Let me address this cost in another way. As I said, this is a 
mandate. The Federal Government already provides an incentive, and the 
cost of that incentive right now is about $2 billion over a 2-year 
period. This is the production tax credit which will be renewed, 
extended, and expanded in terms of its scope. That is what came out of 
the Finance Committee, on which I sit.
  We are going to be providing for expanded and extended tax credits 
for the production of electricity through these renewable fuels. It is 
not necessary for the U.S. Government to mandate it as long as we can 
achieve that result through the use of the tax incentives which we will 
be, as I say, dealing with here a little bit later on, but that is what 
came out of the committee.
  I want now to address briefly this question of discrimination. It is 
apparent to me that the effort being made is to round up votes by 
picking and choosing between the politically correct fuels and those 
that are not politically correct and making some other changes in the 
amendments so some areas are impacted and other areas are not. Let me 
give an illustration.
  We know this underlying amendment of Senator Bingaman and the 
amendment of Senator Jeffords that is pending would both impose 
significant unfunded mandates on the States and localities. Part of 
this is due to the fact that States would have to buy credits. Part of 
it is due to the fact there are a lot of municipal power producers in 
almost every State.
  It is my understanding--and I would love to be corrected by the 
Senator from New Mexico if I am wrong on this--that as a result of the 
fact that a point of order would lie against his amendment because of 
this unfunded mandate, the provision with respect to municipal 
generation or public subdivision generation, Federal or State or local, 
has been removed from the bill. I will assume, unless I am corrected, 
that is the case. I am seeing a nod, so that is good.

[[Page S1911]]

  I do not think we should impose this mandate on our political 
subdivisions. So that would remove the point of order with respect to 
the generation.
  I am not sure with respect to the purchase of credits, and I would 
have to analyze that. But at least what we have done is to say that 10 
percent of the power, more or less, that is produced in the country by 
the municipal generators would not be subject to this mandate.
  In my State I have a fairly large public power producer and a bunch 
of little co-ops and a couple of very large investor-owned utilities. 
So I ask: Is it fair for the Senate to impose upon one group a mandate 
that 10 percent or 20 percent or even 8\1/2\ percent of power be 
generated by renewables, whereas it would not apply to the political 
subdivisions?

  I am happy for the political subdivisions. I am glad they do not have 
the mandate applied to them, although they do in the case of Arizona 
because the State applies a mandate, but that is the determination of 
the State. I do not think it is fair. I think it is discriminatory.
  I also understand hydro is treated a little differently; that hydro 
is only considered a renewable resource. Now if water is not renewable, 
I do not know what is. Water over the dam has always been considered a 
renewable, the best of the renewable resources, but it is not 
politically correct by certain environmental groups and so it is not 
included, except to the extent there are incremental economic 
improvements or efficiency improvements in the electrical generation 
facility, the dam through which the water passes. You rewind the 
turbines and that gives a greater efficiency, and apparently you get 
some credit for doing that. But otherwise you get no credit for 
hydrogeneration.
  I understand Senator Collins will have an amendment to say, wait a 
minute, in Maine we do a lot of hydrogeneration and we should get some 
credit for that. I understand that may be accepted. I do not know 
whether or not it will be, but clearly there is discrimination going on 
when one kind of clearly renewable resource counts but another kind 
does not count. Why would we have a double credit for solar energy or 
energy produced on Indian lands versus biomass or hydro, for that 
matter, or wind? Why is that? Perhaps the authors of the bill could 
explain that to us.
  In other words, my point about discrimination is we have done some 
picking and choosing, some winners and losers. It, again, is the 
arrogance of Federal power that we decide what is best. Based upon 
science? Based upon the merits? No, based upon what it is going to take 
to get the amendment passed. That is what is happening.
  Let us get real specific about it. What we are doing is trying to 
construct something that can pass, and what I am saying is that the 
fairest and most nondiscriminatory way of all is to say, let each State 
decide for itself. That is really fair. So if New Mexico decides to do 
solar generation, it can do that. If my State of Arizona says, wait a 
minute, you mean we are going to have to put acres and acres of shiny 
mirrors in our pristine desert that we love to look at because it is so 
beautiful--that is the way we could generate that power in Arizona is 
through solar--that is how we would have to do it? We are going to be 
required to degrade our environment by putting--I do not know how many 
hundreds of acres of mirrors it would take to generate this solar 
power; that is how we would do it, I guess----
  I think the State of Arizona would say that is environmentally 
unacceptable; we are not going to do that. We are not going to spoil 
the beauty of our State, not to mention what would happen to the flora 
and fauna that could be affected in an adverse way by such a massive 
amount of solar in the State of Arizona. I think we would like to make 
that decision ourselves. If it is possible to produce, let us say, 3 
percent of power through solar generation in Arizona, and our people in 
the State decide that can be done and it can be done in an 
environmentally sensitive way, and that is a good thing, then let the 
State of Arizona decide that.

  I do not think representatives from the State of Florida, which also 
has a lot of good sun, or the State of Vermont, which may not have 
quite as much sun, should be dictating that to the State of Arizona.
  I have one more point, and then I will make the rest of my points 
later.
  The procedure--and I will close very quickly--as I understand it, is 
we have the underlying bill, that pending to that is a Bingaman 
amendment that would reduce the Federal mandate to 8\1/2\ percent, but 
it still would be a Federal mandate--and correct me if I am wrong on 
that, but it would exclude the municipal providers and it has a phase-
in period different from the underlying bill; those are some of the 
essential differences between that and the underlying bill--that the 
pending second-degree amendment is a Jeffords amendment that would 
mandate 20 percent and does not exclude the municipal generators, and 
if that is defeated, then we would be back to the point I could offer 
my second-degree amendment, which very simply provides that the States 
must consider the alternative of renewable fuels generation, as well as 
consumer choice, so the consumers could require that they be provided 
renewable fuel electricity if they are willing to pay for it but it 
would be up to each individual State as to what to order.
  What I would hope is we would defeat the Jeffords amendment, that we 
could then approve the Kyl amendment which would be a substitute for 
the underlying Bingaman amendment, and there may be later some 
clarifying amendment by Senator Collins that we would consider at that 
point. That would deal with the subject of renewable fuels, and I think 
it would do so in a fair way, in a nondiscriminatory way, in a way that 
would not necessarily cost as much, although each State could decide to 
impose those costs on themselves if they chose to do so in a way that 
would be consistent with the President's energy plan and a way that I 
suggest to my colleagues would be much more likely to be successful 
with our House colleagues in a conference on this bill.
  So I hope when we get to the point, after I have offered my 
amendment, we will be able to support that which will have the effect 
of defeating the underlying Bingaman amendment.
  Excuse me. I stand corrected. I am advised the Bingaman amendment is 
still at 10 percent, but it pushes out to the year 2019. So it is still 
a 10-percent mandate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. During the debate today, the Bingaman amendment was 
changed, it was modified, and a substitute maintaining the 10 percent 
of the bill made it a different way of getting there. I made the same 
mistake the Senator of Arizona did today.
  Prior to the Senator from Arizona leaving, I wanted to make a 
unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent that the time until 
5:35 p.m. today be for debate with reference to the Jeffords second-
degree amendment No. 3017, with the time equally divided and controlled 
in the usual form; that at 5:35 p.m., the Senate vote on or in relation 
to the Jeffords amendment; that upon disposition of amendment No. 3017, 
Senator Kyl be recognized to offer a second-degree amendment to the 
Bingaman amendment No. 3016; that no intervening amendment be in order 
prior to disposition of either amendment, nor any language which may be 
stricken.
  I further ask that Senator Craig be recognized for 25 minutes; and 
that Senator Nelson be recognized for 5 minutes--Senator Craig has no 
objection to Senator Nelson going first--and that Senator Jeffords have 
the final 5 minutes prior to the vote that would occur at 5:35.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Hearing this debate, it reminds me a little 
bit about the debate on miles per gallon, whether or not that would be 
etched into law that would have to be met.
  If we do not set such a standard, we will never get to it. If we do 
not set a percentage of years that are required in the energy 
production, we are not going to have that standard to meet.
  I support the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I believe under the unanimous consent 
agreement I have 25 minutes.

[[Page S1912]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we are discussing a very important 
amendment to a very complicated bill that will once again require a 
Federal mandate to meet a specific goal; or should we allow our States, 
through the incentive of the marketplace, to meet the goals relating to 
certain levels of energy production being of a given type.
  The reason I mention this is that, for the past couple of weeks, we 
have witnessed an unprecedented attempt to write very complex 
legislation on the floor of the Senate--an electricity title of an 
energy bill.
  Three years ago, Senator Murkowski, then serving as chairman of the 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, on which I am privileged to 
serve, laid out three criteria for action as we move toward the 
development of a comprehensive energy policy.
  Deregulate where possible; streamline when deregulation is not 
possible; and the third, respect the prerogatives of the States.
  While that was not a mandate of the committee, it was certainly 
something to which all Members largely agreed.
  To that, I add a fourth elementary principle that I think is 
pertinent in crafting the legislation: Know what we are doing when we 
legislate and when we grant new authority or change our delegation of 
authority to a regulatory agency. In other words, look at the whole and 
not just each of the pieces now scurrying to the Chamber to be attached 
to this Title of the Bill.
  Title 2 fails all four tests.
  The approach we are taking to create this Title is simply too 
dangerous for me: Trying to write complex legislation without 
understanding it, without allowing our staffs in a bipartisan way to 
collectively make sure all the pieces fit together. Somehow politics 
leads us to this very precarious endeavor.
  A few general observations before I go into the provisions of this 
title that the Senator from Vermont is amending. We have this month 
received a landmark Supreme Court decision on the authority of the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to order transmission 
restructuring that has significant implications on the balance of 
Federal-State responsibility and authority for regulation of public 
utilities.
  The majority opinion requires careful analysis in light of the 
statements, on the one hand, that the Federal Commission could not 
assume jurisdiction over retail transmission without possibly running 
afoul of the Federal Power Act that gave jurisdiction to States over 
retail sales, and, on the other hand, that the Commission could take 
control if it makes certain factual findings.
  Mr. President, what have I just said? Has anyone really, here, 
understood the intricacy of what I have just said. Are we, today, 
measuring our actions against what the Supreme Court laid down 
recently?
  We must know how far the Commission can go now and how far we want it 
to go before we enact this law. Yet there is fundamentally no effort to 
make that happen. The Commission has pursued a restructuring program to 
establish regional transmission organizations, a virtual stand-alone 
transmission business, as the Commission called it in 1999.
  Before we enact a law, we need to carefully study that new reality. 
How does the Supreme Court's decision in New York v. FERC affect those 
regional transmission organizations or RTOs? I note also that in all 
these hundreds of pages of comprehensive energy bill, not one word 
addresses the issue of regional transmission organizations.
  How can we enact a title on electricity without taking RTOs into 
account, now that the Supreme Court has ruled? Yet we are not doing 
that. If we are to call the electric title ``comprehensive,'' then we 
have just taken a big chunk out of it, letting what the Court has said 
stand without explanation in the context of the current policies of the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
  Even if we choose to remain silent on this important topic of the 
day, our choice should be a conscious one, clearly expressed and based 
on a complete record and, at a minimum, after hearings in the committee 
of jurisdiction, not the lapse of haphazardly working out numerous 
specifics on the floor of the Senate.
  We are now in a scurry with amendments, one that has just been 
offered and one that is about to be offered. Staff are over speaking 
with the Budget committee right now, seeing if amendments violate the 
Budget Act. Why? Because they were never tested, discussed, or reviewed 
in jurisdictional committees. So we are literally at this moment doing 
something that to my knowledge rarely occurs on the floor of the 
Senate.
  Many experts and the administration's ``National Energy Policy 
Report'' note that this country needs more investment in transmission. 
Better returns bring investment. The Commission, in its RTO rule in 
1999, provided for certain kinds of price reforms to make investment 
more attractive. This title has not one word on the reform of 
transmission rates or prices.
  Even if we conclude that it is not necessary to address the issue in 
a statute because we support the course that the Commission is on, our 
conclusion should come from conscious choice after hearings in the 
appropriate committee--not, as I have already said, the lapse of 
haphazardly legislating on the floor.
  If you read these provisions, and I have, you will notice that, 
except for repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 and 
the Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act of 1978--two obsolete 
statutes, I think most recognize, whose repeal I support--not one word 
in the title takes authority away from the Federal Government.
  So as was our intent in 1992 to move electrical production in this 
country away from a structured environment, we now have an amendment on 
the floor that takes us back to Federal mandates and Federal controls 
under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
  I would like to spend a few minutes now, before my time runs out, on 
some of the other provisions within this electrical title. Mr. 
President, let me assure you. At the end of the day, this is what I 
plan to do.

  I have filed at the desk an amendment, an amendment that would strike 
the electric title as it is proposed and amended by the actions of the 
Senate. In striking it, my amendment would replace the reliability 
language that was just put in this afternoon, and would include the 
current language in the bill repealing PURPA and PUHCA. It would also 
include consumer protection language that is currently in the bill 
covering information disclosure, consumer privacy, and involuntary 
slamming and cramming.
  These provisions address issues that have been debated in Committee 
and considered for quite some time. The provisions offered fall within 
a general consensus that has evolved over the several years. These 
provisions will do no harm, and will advance important solutions to 
problems that have hobbled efforts to assure that our electricity 
system remains the most reliable in the world as well as ensure that 
consumers of electricity are protected. Leaving the Title as is does 
not advance deregulation, or a reform, but reregulation and a move 
towards the centralizing of Federal authority at the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission.
  Let me go to a provision in the bill, if I can: electricity mergers. 
The provision raises the floor on merger review to $10 million from 
$50,000. How many transactions does it affect? I doubt that anyone has 
any idea. There have been no hearings, no analysis of the market to 
determine the impact of this proposal. More importantly, section 
(a)(1)(D) gives the Federal Government jurisdiction over acquisitions 
of generating plants, unless they are used exclusively in retail. 
Utilities sell at wholesale and retail, largely from the same plants. 
They don't create separate generating facilities for those kinds of 
purposes. This section blurs the distinction between regulation of 
retail suppliers of electricity, traditionally the province of the 
States, with the regulation of wholesale supply of electricity.
  Why? Have States not been vigilant? Have they been too restrictive? 
Will the Federal Commission now preempt State procedures for assuring 
adequate supply? Will the Commission now use generation acquisitions as 
a club to force restructuring, as it did with mergers previously?
  No one knows the answer to what I believe is a significant question 
that I

[[Page S1913]]

have just asked. Yet if we had done our homework in committee, those 
answers would already be on the table. You or I may agree or disagree 
on them, but at least we would not be on the floor asking what is going 
on and what are we doing. On the floor we cannot swear in witnesses and 
ask questions. We cannot deliberate and write a committee report.
  Finally, on mergers, paragraph (5) says:

       The Commission shall, by rule, adopt procedures for the 
     expeditious consideration of applications . . ..

  I like that.
  It goes on to say:

       Such rules shall identify classes of transactions or 
     specify the criteria for transactions that normally meet the 
     standards established in paragraph (4).

  What does ``normally'' mean? If you have ever watched these kinds of 
transactions or determinations, then you better understand what the 
word means because there is a long history of meaning as determined by 
Courts of law.
  In the vacuum of the floor deliberations, we don't know nor will FERC 
understand our intent because they will have to thumb through pages and 
pages of Congressional Record instead of a full committee report.
  Going further, if the Commission does not act within 90 days on these 
transactions, such application shall be deemed granted.
  Maybe that is fine. Now comes the hook:
  Unless the Commission finds that further consideration is required to 
decide the issues and the Commission issues one or more orders tolling 
the time for acting on the application for an additional 90 days.
  What am I saying? How complicated is that? Is there a clear 
understanding of what is intended here?
  The provision appears to permit the Commission to recoil from the 
very speed the proposal is attempting to introduce.
  As I said, I am generally for speed in decision-making, within 
reason, so that it isn't dragged out month after month and hundreds of 
thousands, if not millions, of dollars are lost and ultimately recouped 
from the ratepayers.
  Under this provision, as I read it, the Commission could take away 
with one hand what we have required with the other.
  What standard do we set here to make sure FERC doesn't toll away the 
90 days into long delay? How does FERC intend to use this loophole? 
What has FERC done in the past? We cannot know because in the Chamber 
we cannot hold a hearing to get an interpretation from the Commission 
itself or legal and consumer groups as to what they believe the intent 
would be and how they would choose to carry it out.
  That is the reality.
  Let me touch on one other subject, market-based rates.
  This section in the legislation on the floor would tell the 
Commission it can do what it wants because this section says it shall 
consider ``such factors as the Commission may deem relevant.'' That is 
a phenomenal grant of authority.
  The Federal Commission can use this as a club for forcing 
restructuring, as it has in the past forced, and it can again force 
utilities to buy and sell electricity against their will, subordinate 
capital retail consumers, reveal proprietary information, and join 
regional transmission organizations. Each of these goals appears very 
much to be in the Commission's sights as we speak.
  The section lists possible factors: ``the nature of the market and 
its response mechanisms.'' What does ``the nature'' of the market mean? 
Response mechanisms? What kind? And to what? To me, the best response 
mechanism we have is the law of supply and demand. But that is not 
necessarily the response mechanism at which the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission would be looking.
  My colleagues may argue that the Commission knows what it means. 
Maybe so. But we need to know what this means before we give the 
Commission such vast authority.
  Revocation of market-based rates in section (f) says FERC shall set 
the just and reasonable rates by order. Under what terms? From the time 
it does so forward, or can FERC subject utilities to open-ended 
retroactive refunds, as it is trying to do now?
  Of course, in all of those situations we have seen the frustration 
that has been brought about by the attempt of FERC to do this recently. 
We don't know because we are legislating on the fly again without 
committee deliberations.
  How about a refund effective date?
  This section changes the date from which the Commission can order 
refunds of existing rates. Current law makes it, at the earliest, 60 
days from the complaint or FERC investigation. This gives utilities 
time to digest the complaint to know the extent of their jeopardy. 
Sixty days also gives companies time to secure financial hedges and, 
most importantly, in this era of post-Enron disclosure, to make timely 
disclosure to the investors, the shareholders, and security regulators.
  Perhaps other considerations of consumer protection outweigh these 
harms. But can anyone tell me what they are? Has the current law harmed 
anyone? Will this fix any harm? This would not have appeased my 
colleagues from California two summers ago, I can tell you that. We 
cannot know when we legislate from the floor.
  I could go on. My time is running out. I will speak more about this 
possibly tomorrow and on Monday because I want to walk my colleagues 
through the substance of this title and to justify why I think it is 
necessary to strike this Title and replace consensus provisions. We 
must do no harm and we do no harm by establishing not only reliability 
but by repealing obsolete law--PURPA and PUHCA and by putting in the 
kind of consumer protections that all of us, or most of us, have agreed 
are fitting and proper.
  That is what we ought to do in the Senate. But there is a rush to 
judgment today in a time when the committee has had no opportunity to 
hold this fine print up to the light of day and to have our staff in a 
bipartisan way--our professional staff who have dealt with this law and 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for years--to examine it and 
at least give us the reasonable interpretation of what all of this 
might mean.
  If I have confused anyone today, I hope I have because this is 
phenomenally complicated law. My guess is that most of my colleagues 
have not read the bill. If they had, they could not understand it. That 
is in no way to impugn the chairman of the committee. It is his bill. 
My guess is he is ready, and certainly his staff is. But when it deals 
with the kind of complications that I bring out and the simple 
interpretation that can turn a utility on its head, destroy hundreds of 
millions of dollars of investment, or redirect it in another manner, it 
is time we understand what ``normal'' means in the eyes of the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, and a lot of other words that are now 
injected into what could become new utility law for this country.
  I will conclude my remarks for the day. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, if I may, I would like to respond to 
some of the statements that have been made by my colleagues.
  First of all, my friend from Alaska quoted a figure of $6.4 billion 
having being spent in the last 5 years on renewable energy. That sounds 
like a lot. The Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimates 
that between 1999 and 2003 the oil and gas industry received $11 
billion in direct tax breaks--over three times what was given, in that 
sense, to renewables.
  If you want to take a look at where your money ought to go, it ought 
to go where you can get the best buck. It is certainly not with coal.
  These kinds of subsidies have been there for decades and decades--in 
some years greater than others. For example, in a typical year, $21 
billion in Federal subsidies go to fossil fuels, $11 billion to 
nuclear, and $1 billion to renewables.
  Again, when you look at energy costs with those kinds of subsidies, 
renewables are obviously the best way to go. But you have to have the 
sources to be able to provide the electricity.
  As to the cost of the Federal 20 percent RPS, I note that the U.S. 
Department of Energy has consistently found that it will not raise the 
average overall energy sector costs at all.
  My friend says that whatever costs are incurred are passed on to the 
consumer. That is true. Consumers also

[[Page S1914]]

pay the massive cost from powerplant emissions, both environmental and 
health related.
  For instance, recent studies have shown that emissions from coal-
fired plants lead to a massive 12-percent increase in lung cancer. 
Obviously, if you are using wind, you do not have any ramifications.
  The Senator from Alaska, who just came back to the Chamber, points to 
a large ``footprint'' from wind turbines. Let me show you this picture, 
which shows how wind turbines are indeed ``multiple use'' in the best 
sense, with farmers able to raise crops and graze livestock beneath 
them.
  The wind energy alone from a 20-percent renewable standard will 
provide $1.2 billion in new income for farmers, ranchers, and rural 
landowners. That is $1.2 billion in income to our farmers.
  My amendment of a 20-percent standard by 2020 is achievable, good for 
the economy, good for consumers, and good for the environment.
  I urge all Members to please support my amendment. We have to make 
progress. It has been some 30 years that we have been working on 
renewables. The successes are growing, and they are spreading 
throughout world. But we are not maximizing it. In this Nation, we are 
not taking anywhere near the advantage we should in renewables.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote for my amendment. Hopefully, this 
will lead to a much more prosperous future for not only the energy 
users but for those who produce the energy, such as those on our farms.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. How much time is remaining prior to the vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 4 minutes 12 seconds under the 
control of Senator Craig.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  My colleague was referring to millions rather than billions. I think 
he used the term ``billions of dollars saved.'' I think on the chart it 
shows ``millions.'' But nevertheless, I----
  Mr. JEFFORDS. The total was $1.2 billion.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. So $1.2 billion. The chart said $125 million.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. That was only for that farm.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Just that farm?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Yes.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Senator.
  I want to make a point on renewables because renewables certainly 
have a value. But this isn't the first time we have come to find the 
contribution of renewables.
  We have expended $6.4 billion on renewables in the past 5 years. We 
are going to continue to do that at a relatively high rate.
  We have had $1.5 billion for R&D, $500 million for solar, $330 
million for biomass, $150 million for wind; and $100 million for 
hydrogen; almost $5 billion in tax benefits, and $2.6 billion in 
reduced excise taxes for alcohol fuels.
  I support renewables, as does virtually every Member of this body. 
But the question in my mind, of increasing to the point that the 
Senator has suggested--an aggressive 10 percent to 20 percent--will 
cost an extraordinary amount of money when you consider that nonhydro 
renewables make up less than 4 percent of our total energy needs and 
less than 2 percent of our electricity consumption.

  So we need a realistic national energy strategy that includes 
renewables as part of a balanced energy portfolio. But let's not fool 
the public into thinking that renewable energy can replace coal, oil, 
natural gas, and nuclear anytime soon.
  Even if we adopt an aggressive 10- to 20-percent RPS, where will the 
other 80 to 90 percent of our electric needs come from? Fossil and 
nuclear, clearly.
  Even with 3 to 5 percent renewable fuels, the other 95 to 97 percent 
would still come from oil. Let's move it. Let's recognize the world 
moves on oil.
  As a consequence, Mr. President, I encourage Members to reject the 
proposed doubling of renewables simply because the cost-benefit ratio 
is so far out of line with what is technically achievable.
  I think the National Research Council that reviewed the Department of 
Energy's renewable energy programs would substantiate that substantial 
improvements in performance and reductions in the costs of renewable 
energy technologies certainly have been made. But deployment goals for 
renewable technologies are based on unreasonable expectations and on 
unrealistic promises, and to mandate this would put an extraordinary 
cost on the consumer. And I assure you, that is where the costs would 
have to be passed.
  So I encourage Members to reject the proposal.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to the Jeffords amendment No. 3017. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Torricelli) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 29, nays 70, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 50 Leg.]

                                YEAS--29

     Baucus
     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Collins
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Harkin
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--70

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Torricelli
       
  The amendment (No. 3017) was rejected.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Wellstone). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, there will be no more votes tonight.
  In consultation with the Republican leader and the managers of the 
bill, and Senator Reid, I do not believe we are in a position to come 
to any further conclusions on amendments tonight. So I do not expect 
there will be any additional rollcalls.
  There will be a rollcall vote on one of the two judicial nominations 
pending on the calendar tomorrow morning at 9:15. Then there will be an 
additional vote on the second judicial nomination on Monday at 6 
o'clock. So Senators should be made aware that tomorrow morning we will 
have a vote on a judicial nomination. It appears that may be the only 
vote we will have scheduled tomorrow, unfortunately. Then, on Monday, 
we will have a second vote which may or may not be the only vote. We 
are not sure at this time.

                          ____________________