Congressional Record, Volume 148 Issue 32 (Tuesday, March 19, 2002)

[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 32 (Tuesday, March 19, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2064-S2069]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--H.R. 2356

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request I would
like to propound to the Senate. I see my friend from Kentucky, who has
spent so much time allowing us to arrive at this point. I hope we can
work this out for everyone's benefit.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 10 a.m. tomorrow, that
is Wednesday, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 2356, the
campaign finance reform bill, with the time until 1 p.m. equally
divided between the leaders or their designees prior to the vote on the
motion to invoke cloture, with the mandatory live quorum under rule
XXII being waived; further that, if cloture is invoked, there be an
additional 3 hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders or
their designees, that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate
vote on passage of the act with no amendments or motions in order, with
no intervening action or debate; further, if cloture is not invoked
this agreement is vitiated.
I further ask unanimous consent that immediately after final passage
of the bill, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of a
Senate resolution, the text of which is at the desk, and that the
resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the
table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object, and I am not going to
object, I say, once again, that what is missing from this consent
agreement is a technical corrections package which Senator McCain,
Senator Feingold, and I have agreed to. This is the first time in the
history of this debate, over all of these years, that the three of us
have actually agreed to something.
Regrettably, it has now been objected to by someone else on that side
of the aisle. I say to my friend, the assistant majority leader, I hope
at sometime during the course of the day tomorrow we can get that
objection cleared up and hopefully Senator McCain, Senator Feingold,
and I will offer a unanimous consent agreement tomorrow related to this
technical package which the three of us have agreed to and hopefully we
can work out some way tomorrow to clear that as well.
But I have no objection to this package as far as it goes. The only
caveat I issue is that we hope to be able to achieve yet another
consent agreement tomorrow, to move a technical package out of the
Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am grateful to the Senator from Kentucky
for his work on this issue. It has been a very difficult thing for him,
but he has persevered and we have gotten to the point where we are now
and look forward to trying to work on the other problem that he
mentioned today.
I will be very brief. I know the hour is late. I say to the
Republican manager of this legislation that at such time as the Senate
gets back on this legislation, the first thing that will be done is
move to table this Kyl amendment. I explained that to the floor staff.
I have explained that to Senator Kyl. But we thought, rather than doing
that today--we had the right to do that earlier today--that there was
interest in this. Even though we had the right to do that, we wanted to
make sure everyone had an opportunity to speak on this. People can
speak as long as they want on this tonight.

But I do say that as soon as we get back to this legislation, unless
there is some kind of an agreement that we will vote on this motion
where we would have 10 minutes equally divided or 20 minutes equally
divided, something reasonable, the majority leader will seek
recognition to move to table because we have spent enough time on
renewables.

Amendment No. 3038

Mr. President, I feel very strongly we need to diversify the Nation's
energy supply by stimulating the growth of renewable energy.
America's abundant and untapped renewable resources are essential for
the energy security of the United States, for the protection of our
environment, and for the health of the American people.
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.

[[Page S2065]]

I rise in opposition to the amendment by Senator Kyl to strike
provisions in this important legislation that would establish a
renewable portfolio standard. The prospect of passing an energy bill
without a renewable portfolio standard, to me, is embarrassing. It
should be, I would think, to the country.
We have already told the automobile industry to build the cars as big
as they want, using as much gas as they want. We are not going to
increase fuel efficiency standards. So I think we can at least go this
step further.
In the United States today, we get less than 3 percent of our
electricity from renewable energy sources about which I have spoken--
wind, Sun, geothermal, and biomass--but the potential is much greater.
This visual aid in the Chamber says it all.
In Nevada, we have great resources for geothermal. If you look on the
map, you'll see that we also have wind all over the State. As the
Senator from Alaska has heard me say, Nevada is the most mountainous
State in the Union, except for Alaska. We have over 300 mountain
ranges. We have 32 mountains over 11,000 feet high. By Alaska
standards, I guess that is not very high. We have one mountain that is
14,000 feet high. By most standards, Nevada is a pretty mountainous
part of the world.
In many of those areas we already have people who are beginning the
development of wind farms, especially with the production tax credit
that was passed for wind energy as part of the economic stimulus
package. So, the credit for wind energy has been renewed, which is
good. There is a 260-megawatt wind farm being constructed at the Nevada
test site, as we speak. So there really are a lot of resources in
Nevada and around America for this alternative energy.
My friend, who I have the greatest respect for, the junior Senator
from Arizona, has talked a lot about the cost in dollars of renewable
energy. It reminds me that many years ago there was a company called
the Luz Company, which was in Eldorado Valley, near Boulder City, NV.
In this big valley, they wanted to build a big solar energy plant--
about 400 megawatts.
They went to the Nevada Public Service Commission, and they were
turned down. Why? Because, in effect at that time there was a law and a
regulation by the utilities commission saying that you had to have
power produced that was the cheapest. Solar was not the cheapest in
actual dollars. But it is cheaper in many ways when it comes to
providing clean air for my children and grandchildren who live in Las
Vegas.
What has happened? In that valley today they have natural gas plants.
They are clean, but they are not as clean as solar energy. I think it
would have been wonderful to build that solar facility. The cost is not
always the dollars it takes to build a power plant. The cost is other
things including environmental and health effects. What does it do to
foul the air? What does it do to people's health? What does it do to
the environment?
That is why we need more alternative energy. It is more than just the
cost that we see in dollars and cents that you can add up when you
build a plant. It is the dollars and cents in people's health, people's
comfort.
Eldorado Valley used to be as clear as the complexion of a newborn
baby. Not anymore. So the potential for renewable energy in real terms
is significant.
Senator Dorgan from North Dakota has talked about wind. The ``Saudi
Arabia in America for wind'' is North Dakota. The ``Saudi Arabia in
America for geothermal'' is Nevada. We need to change what we have been
doing in the past and diversify the Nation's energy supply.
My State could use geothermal energy to meet one-third of its
electricity needs--a State which will soon have 2.5 million people--but
today this source of energy only supplies about 2\1/2\ percent of the
electricity needs in Nevada.
I have said before that I remember the first time I drove from Reno
to Carson City. I saw this steam coming out of the ground. I thought,
what is that? I had never seen anything like that. It was heat coming
from the depths of the Earth. Every puff that came out of the ground
was wasted energy. We need to harness that steam energy and produce
electricity.
Other nations are doing better than we are doing. We started out
doing great, but now we are falling behind. They are using a lot of
equipment that we have developed. We need to stimulate the growth of
renewable energy and become a world leader.
Drawing energy from a diversity of sources will protect consumers
from energy price shocks and protect the environment from highly
polluting fossil fuel plants.
Fourteen States have already enacted a renewable portfolio standard,
including Nevada, which has the most aggressive standard in the Nation.
I hope the Senate will be willing to establish a national portfolio
standard with achievable goals. I support Senator Bingaman, but I think
his goal of 10 percent is too low. I supported Senator Jeffords'
amendment. I think we should go for 20 percent.
In Nevada, we are going to require 15 percent of the State's
electricity needs be met by renewable energy by the year 2013. That is
pretty quick.
We must diversify the Nation's energy supply by stimulating the
growth of renewable energy. This is essential to the energy security of
the United States, the protection of the environment, and the health of
the American people.
My friend from Arizona, the junior Senator, has stated that
renewables are more expensive than conventional power sources,
including nuclear. But I would just mention in passing, no electric
utility of which I am aware--I could be wrong--has ever declared
bankruptcy because of investments in renewable energy. But I do know
that El Paso Electric, on the other hand, was driven into bankruptcy by
its investment in the Palo Verde nuclear plant in Arizona.
I think we need to be aware of the volatile nature of the supplies
and price of natural gas. There have been charts shown earlier today
where you see the amount of natural gas that is going to be used in the
future.

From 1970 up until 2020, natural gas is just going up in consumption,
but the price variables during that period of time, because of supply
and demand, have been really like a teeter-totter. With renewables, you
do not have that. You have price stability.
I am a big fan of coal. We have a lot of resources in America for
coal. But I am for clean coal technology. We should be spending more,
not less, money on clean coal technology. In the United States, we have
more coal than the rest of the world. We need to figure out a way to
use coal that burns clean. We have not done a real good job on that. We
have made progress, but we need to do more.
I hope we defeat the Kyl amendment. I cannot imagine an energy bill
that has no renewable energy in it. I heard people get on the floor and
say: Well, we have to look at this State by State. Some States are more
able to produce alternative or renewable energy. That is probably true,
but remember, we are not saying, in this legislation, it has to be
State by State. We are saying utilities have to do that. As we know, we
have excluded co-ops and a lot of the smaller producers.
But there is no reason in the world these big utilities should not
use renewables for part of their portfolio. That is what we are saying.
It is not a State by State issue; it is a utility by utility issue.
I hope we resoundingly defeat the Kyl amendment. If there were ever
an amendment that deserves defeat, it is the Kyl amendment. We need to
encourage the growth and development of renewable energy resources in
our great country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The Senator from
Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have listened very carefully to my
good friend, the majority whip, and I am certainly fascinated by the
example he has given with regard to geothermal.
Geothermal has a tremendous potential in certain parts of the United
States. One of the problems, however, is that a lot of our geothermal
is adjacent to or in national parks. Clearly, there is a tradeoff there
as to whether or not we want to develop that. But in many cases,
particularly out in California, there has been enough public

[[Page S2066]]

pressure to suggest that this natural phenomena should remain
untouched. As a consequence, to a large degree the potential has not
been realized to the extent it might have.

I am also inclined to question the tactics and the strategy of the
Democratic side relative to the announcement that the amendment is
going to be tabled. That sounds like a fishing expedition to me. They
are going to make a determination of just where the votes are, and it
might make it easier for some Members to simply justify their vote by
saying, well, we tabled it. That doesn't really mean that we have a
position one way or another on it.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a comment?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Without losing the floor, I will.
Mr. REID. Of course. We would be happy if Senator Kyl and/or the
Senator from Alaska wanted to have an up-or-down vote. We would agree
to that also.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. All I know is that I was advised that the majority had
made the decision to table it. I was not aware that the minority had
made the decision. I can only comment on what I have heard. In any
event, I would certainly honor the statement by the whip, as well as
Senator Kyl, as to just how this is disposed of. But if indeed the
commitment and the agreement is that we will have a tabling motion, it
appears we will have a tabling motion.
Again, I remind my colleagues, that kind of determination, in my
opinion, is a bit of a finesse. There is other terminology I could use.
Members have different ways of justifying tabling motions. We are all
quite aware of it. I would prefer to see an up-or-down vote.
We have had a good debate on this issue. Some of the things, however,
that I think we have overlooked are, this isn't the first time we have
come up with renewables in this country or discussed it or debated it
or argued the merits. Clearly, there is a tremendous merit to
renewables. But the question is, How fast and how far can we move?
I am told that about 4 percent of our entire energy mix comes from
renewables. That includes hydro. Two percent of our electricity is
generated from renewables. That is significant as well. But, clearly,
when you understand we have spent some $6.5 to $7 billion investing in
renewables, in tax credits, in subsidies, in loans, I am sure it is
well spent, but we have had a reasonable concentration.
So as we look at the mix now and say, here we are going to have a
mandate, a 10-percent mandate, we ought to look at just what the cost
of this is and how significant it is going to be, what effect it is
going to have on the economy. I know that is what Senator Kyl has been
commenting on for some time.
First, I would like to address a couple of statements made in this
debate. One is that the U.S. is too dependent on coal and natural gas.
I would be happy to be corrected, but I believe that was the statement
made by the chairman. We can do something about that if we wish. We
could concentrate on nuclear energy. I don't see any great support for
nuclear energy in this package, even though it is clean and the
consequences of any air quality emissions are nonexistent. We have a
problem with the waste, but everything seems to have a tradeoff.
Certainly, we could go to my State and open up ANWR. That would
address dependence on coal and natural gas.
But we have to recognize the role of coal in this country. The United
States is the Saudi Arabia of coal. U.S. coal, for all practical
purposes, is never going to run out. The question is the technology of
cleaning up the coal.
I notice a good deal of attention has been given to the chart of the
majority. That chart was rather interesting because it proposed
biomass. Let's not make any mistake; I don't think a lot of people know
what biomass is.
Biomass is primarily wood waste. What do you do with wood waste? You
burn it. And when you burn it, you generate heat. The heat generates,
in the process of generating in a boiler, steam. The steam goes into a
turbine, and it generates electricity.
But is it magic? No, it has tremendous emissions. I know in my State,
a few small sawmills that, by the Environmental Protection Agency, have
been mandated to burn their waste. They have to use so darn much fuel
oil to get it hot enough to burn that the economics are out the window.
Another thing that I can't understand why the majority doesn't face
up to is the provision in here that says you can't use any wood waste
from public land. What does that mean?
In my opinion, that is another finesse. I have another word for it,
but I shall refrain. It simply is in response to America's
environmental community. It doesn't want any timber harvesting in the
national forests, which is where the public lands are. It says you
can't, in your biomass mix, use anything from the national forests
other than residue that has come from thinning. In other words, you can
have a mill that has a timber sale in the forest, and they have mill
ends, they have bark, they have sawdust. In this legislation, you can't
use it.
That is not a practical way. The specific reading deserves to go into
the Record. These are the things that are wrong with this particular
bill. That is why I think it is so important to recognize the
contribution of the Kyl amendment. We will pick that up in a minute.
Nevertheless, it is a crass inconsistency. Good heavens, what
difference does it make? Waste is waste. If you have cut a tree from a
national forest legitimately, you could make lumber out of it, but you
can't use the residue for biomass. The issue here is obvious to those
of us out West. This is to discourage harvesting in the national
forests.
What are you going to do in my State of Alaska? I don't have any
nonpublic timber. We have two forests. We would have to, under this
legislation, go out and buy credits. We couldn't make biomass because
all our timber, all our sawdust, all our mill ends come from those
forests. Let's get realistic.
I will have to offer an amendment, and I am prepared to do it.
Let me read what it says here. This is on page 6:

With respect to material removed from the national forest
system lands, the term ``biomass'' means fuel and biomass
accumulation from precommercial thinning, slash and burn.

That is the limitation. You can't use the residue from a commercial
tree that you take out of the forest.
That is inconsistent with the utilization of the product. What are
you supposed to do, waste it? Save this and waste that?
The chart wasn't ours, but it was an interesting chart because it
showed biomass. And, again, biomass is not the magic it is cracked up
to be because you have to burn it. To burn it, you have emissions.
Because of emissions, you have to address air pollution. Air pollution
means technology. Technology means cost. Don't think you are going to
get a free ride with biomass.
Solar works great in Arizona and New Mexico, the Southern States. It
doesn't work in Barrow, AK. We have a long dark winter where the sun
never rises above the horizon for about 3 months. Solar has an
application, I grant you. I don't belittle it. But nevertheless, the
footprint is pretty broad. You would have to cover several States with
solar panels to equal what I can produce from ANWR in 2000 acres. I can
produce 1 million barrels a day, and it would take somewhere in the
area of two-thirds, three-quarters of the entire State of Rhode Island.
We had some discussion earlier today relative to wind generation.
Wind generation has an application. I think one of the tremendous
application of wind generation is using it to fill dams. In other
words, the technology is relatively simple because when the wind blows,
the wind powers electric pumps or generators that pump water from a
lower area to an upper area. And then you have the fall into the
turbines and you can generate. There is a lot of thought that says that
some areas near saltwater, where you have canyons and so forth, you
could theoretically dam up a little inlet where you have wind, and you
could have the wind generating power for the pumps. And then you pump
the saltwater up and run it through the generator. You are really
picking up something if that is the kind of technology you are talking
about. But make no mistake, there is a footprint.
This chart shows San Jacinto, CA, between Banning and Palm Springs. I

[[Page S2067]]

have driven through there many times. If you look at it, it is rather
astounding because you see literally hundreds of these windmills. And
some of them are turning; some are not. Sometimes they have technical
problems because the wind pitch and velocity is such that it can tear
up the transmissions.
We have some in a few areas of Alaska where they actually have brakes
on the ends of the blades. It has a tendency to brake itself rather
than tear the transmissions up or to get ice on them, and so forth.
But the point I want to make here is that this is about 2,000 acres
of a wind-generating area that is committed to the placement of the
wind generators and the towers, and that equates to making about 1,815
barrels of oil. So the footprint there, 2,000 acres, equates to 1,815
barrels of oil in an equivalent energy Btu comparison. Yet 2,000 acres
of our area, in ANWR, will produce a million barrels of oil. So there
is a tradeoff. So we have solar, and we have wind, and we have biomass.
They are all meaningful, they all make a contribution, but they have a
certain cost to them. Now, there is either biomass, wind, solar,
geothermal--I mentioned geothermal and a good portion of those,
unfortunately, are in or adjacent to our parks.
Another point made earlier in the debate is that this is not a State
preemption. It really is a State preemption, Mr. President. It preempts
those States that have decided that a renewables portfolio standard is
not in the consumers' interests. There are 14 now that have come in
voluntarily. But this legislation would mandate that all States achieve
it.
Let's take the State of Michigan, for example. What is in it for
Michigan? I am not from Michigan. I can't speak about it, other than to
share some observations that the staff has made. But we have some wind
in Michigan; some solar; not much hydro potential; biomass--I suppose
there is some; geothermal, very little. But they clearly don't have a
significant segment of one of these alternatives available. So what are
they going to do? Well, probably buy credits.
Another thing that came out of the debate that is wrong with this
legislation is there is nothing to prohibit. The Three Gorges dam on
the Yangtze River in China, which is about completed--but they are
putting in turbines now, and so forth--it is my understanding that
would qualify for credits. That is a pretty big project--one of the
largest hydroprojects ever undertaken in the history of the world. Are
we going to see a situation where utilities are going to be allowed to
go buy credits? There is nothing in the legislation to prohibit it.
That isn't the intent. The intent is to encourage the development of
renewables.
That is another thing wrong with this legislation. I am sure this can
be corrected; nevertheless, it suggests that we have left an open door
in this concept of buying credits.
Another point that was brought up in the debate is the issue of
transferring wealth from one part of the United States to another. It
is fair to say that the State of California, with a large population,
dynamic economy, depends on energy coming from the outside. They would
rather buy energy than develop their own. We saw that last year in the
crisis in California. We have seen it time and time again. My good
friends from Louisiana have indicated that they get a little tired of
this ``not in my backyard'' business. Louisiana is developing oil and
gas offshore. They are subject to the impact of that on their school
systems, roads, and so forth. Do they get anything extra? No. The OCS
goes into the Federal Government fund. Yet they are generating this for
the benefit of other States.
So it is not fair, necessarily, to consider this transfer of wealth
from one part of the United States to another. In other words, those
areas that have the potential of generating biomass from either solar
or wind are not going to have to buy credits. Others that don't have
this availability are going to have to do so. I suggest to you this is
not necessarily equitable.
There are other examples that I think deserve a little examination;
that is, under this mandate, each electric utility, other than public
power--and why is that, Mr. President? We have investor-owned power and
we have public power. But we make a distinction here. We do the mandate
on every electric utility other than public power. What is the politics
of that? I don't know, Mr. President, but I know public power opposes
it, and they have prevailed. They don't have to maintain a mandate. You
are a businessman, Mr. President, and so am I. What does this mean?
This means that investor-owned power companies are not necessarily
going to have the same comparative cost mechanism because investor-
owned companies are going to have to go out and buy credits or put an
investment in renewables.
Does that mean public power can increase their rates a little bit to
coincide within investor-owned? Who pays that, and is that kind of a
windfall profit? I don't know, but I think every Member who is going to
vote on this ought to be able to go home and explain this because it is
not equitable. Power produced by investor-owned and by public power--
they both do a good job, but why are we excluding one? It is because of
the politics. They don't want it. I would like to hear the debate from
the other side, but I see they have adjourned for the evening--at least
on that side of the aisle. I would like to hear an explanation of that.
So what we have here is each electric utility other than public power
must have one renewable credit for the required percentage of its
retail sales. That starts at 1 percent and increases to 10 percent in
the year 2020. Who are we exempting, Mr. President? We are exempting
Bonneville, which you heard of, out West, and TVA, WAPPA, which are
significant power groups in their own right, entitled to the process;
nevertheless, the public and we should question this.
To obtain a credit, a utility can, one, count its existing wind,
solar, geothermal, or biomass, but not hydro. Well, I have been
chairman of the committee, and I have been ranking, and how they can
conclude that hydro is nonrenewable is beyond me. But I have made my
case. It looks as if they have put this in here so it will fit. That is
what is wrong.
This legislation has been shopped on the other side to the point
where it has accommodated virtually every special interest group. That
is what is wrong with it. It never had the process that normally takes
place around here, and that is the committee process, where the
legislation is developed within the committee, the bill is introduced,
referred to the committee, hearings held and markups and so forth. We
know the history. But it is beyond me that the media has not picked up
on the injustice of that.
The majority leader obstructed the committee of jurisdiction --Energy
and Natural Resources--to do this. He said it was too contentious. He
pulled it away from the chairman. Here we are on the floor of the
Senate at 7:10 enlightening one another as to what is in the
legislation. That should have been done in the committee process. It
was not and that is a tragedy.
It is kind of interesting, to make a parallel--I will not make an
issue of this, but what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Somebody made an observation of that nature, where we had the majority
leader, in the Pickering nomination, on a question relative to sending
the matter directly to the floor, taking it up, and resolving it on the
floor. Oh, no, we had to observe the traditional process of the
committee jurisdiction. I don't know why it is not good enough for the
Energy Committee, but it certainly applies in the case of Judge
Pickering. I don't want to go down too many rabbit trails this evening,
but I wanted to point out an inconsistency.
As I have indicated, to obtain a credit, a utility can count existing
wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass, but not hydro.
It can build a new renewable powerplant or purchase the credit from
another new renewable powerplant or purchase the credit from the
Secretary of Energy. Is the Secretary of Energy going to be selling
these credits? Is that revenue to the Federal Government? What is it
worth? What is it going to cost?
My understanding is the average cost of electricity is about 3 cents
per kilowatt hour. You are going to have to pay something for these
credits. I am told it may be another 3 cents. So that

[[Page S2068]]

is 6 cents. That is going to be passed on to the consumer, Mr.
President. Public power is not going to pay it, just investor-owned
companies. Isn't there some kind of subsidy, tax credit, associated
with this of about 1.7 cents?
We are now taking power that usually goes to the consumer, about 3
cents, and that consumer is now going to be paying about 7.5 cents. Is
anybody concerned about that? I do not see a lot of concern. Evidently
the public is just willing to pay from the investor-owned business only
an increase from 3 cents to 7.5 cents. Think about that: Every Member
and staff who is watching, you had better be prepared to explain that
to your ratepayers and your consumers. That is the price you are paying
for this mandate.
In the early years of the renewable portfolio program, there will be
few tradeable credits because only new facilities produce credits for
sale. The renewable credit would be, as I said, about 3 cents per
kilowatt hour through the wholesale market price of power. This is on
top of the 1.7 per kilowatt hour renewable tax credit. That
substantiates what I said.
Let's talk about a few key States.
West Virginia: American Electric Power serves the bulk of West
Virginia. Ninety-seven percent of the American Electric Power
Generation is from coal. A smaller portion is from natural gas and
nuclear, and eight-tenths of 1 percent is hydro. We are told that
American Electric Power could not meet the renewable portfolio standard
through existing renewable generation. They would have two choices:
Build new renewable powerplants or purchase credit.
New York: Consolidated Edison serves New York City. Con Ed has
disposed of most of its generation, as we know, and now purchases 95
percent of its electricity. All of its remaining generation is gas
fired and located within the city of New York. Con Ed could not build
renewables production in New York City to satisfy its renewable
portfolio requirement. It would have to purchase credits to satisfy the
renewable portfolio standard requirement. They simply cannot do it in
New York. They acknowledge that.
Arkansas: Arkansas is served by Entergy. It is 98 percent natural
gas, nuclear, and coal, and only 2 percent hydro or wind. It would not
meet its RPS--renewable portfolio standard--requirement through
existing wind generation. It would have to purchase credits to satisfy
the RPS requirement.
Illinois: Exelon serves most of Illinois, including Chicago. It is 88
percent nuclear, coal, and natural gas, and 8 percent hydro. They would
have to build renewables or purchase credits to meet the RPS
requirement.
What are they going to do? Are they going to purchase them or build
them? They are going to make a business decision, and the business
decision is going to be made on the quickest return on investment. That
is what you make business decisions on--the least risk and the highest
return. Are they going to build renewables or buy? It depends on the
mix.
I do not think we have really reflected because the other side is so
anxious to salvage something in this energy bill. This energy bill can
only be salvaged by good amendments because it was a bad bill to start
with. It has been improved dramatically. I support the continued
process, but the continued process toward a good bill can only be
resolved by amendments.
The Kyl amendment is not a vote against renewables; it is a vote for
States, it is a vote for consumers, and it is a vote for the freedom to
choose.
This is not in the House bill. What is going to happen when it goes
over to the House for conference? There is nothing in the House bill.
We all have a little idea what the House is going to do.
The Bingaman amendment, in my opinion, subsidizes renewables at the
expense of coal, natural gas, and nuclear power. What does that mean?
To me that is a Btu tax, British thermal unit tax. It was the first
legislation introduced by former President Clinton when he first took
office, looking for revenues: We are going to put on a Btu tax.
Do my colleagues know what happened? He was defeated because the
public said: This country is energy rich. We have a broad choice of
energy mix. We have coal, we have oil, we have natural gas, we have
renewables, we have biomass, and you want to tax us first thing.
This is a Btu tax on coal, natural gas, and nuclear power, make no
mistake about it. Fourteen States have existing programs with different
fuel mixes, and they would be preempted by this legislation.
Senator Kyl's amendment replaces the Bingaman renewable mandate--and
remember, renewable mandate; we all know what mandate means: you must
do it--Senator Kyl's amendment would replace it with a program to
encourage renewables without preempting the States, without
micromanaging the market.
What is the matter with the way this market is working? Fourteen
States have initiated programs because they believed it was in the
interest of their State, the consumers, the air quality, and good
citizenship. But, no, we are going to mandate it, and at what cost?
The Kyl amendment requires State utility commissioners--and I use the
words ``to consider''; it is not a mandate--``to consider the merits of
a green energy program.'' It does not order them to implement one. It
says consumers can purchase green power if they want to; they are not
required to. And I guess the utilities can charge them for green power
if it is higher. There is nothing wrong with that if that is what they
want.
Over the past 5 years, Congress has provided more than $7 billion in
subsidies, tax incentives, and other programs to assist renewables. As
I said earlier, I support those. That is how we bring on technology.
But you do not get a free ride from it. If we do make this mandate the
law, we are going to increase the cost of electricity to the consumer,
but only for the investor-owned company, because that is to whom it
applies. It does not apply to public power. I have yet to get an
explanation as to why. We all know why. It is politics. They do not
want it. They want to enjoy a differential. Is the public aware of
that? Are they aware why one source of power should enjoy the benefits
and not another?
If you happen to have public power providing you with energy, you are
going to break. If you are an investor-owned business, you do not. This
is not the American way, and people ought to begin to understand this.
Members had better be able to explain it when they go home.
Now the Bingaman amendment, in my opinion, is not good policy,
frankly. I have the greatest fondness for my friend Senator Bingaman,
but what it does, it picks winners and losers; it favors types of fuel
based on politics, not policy; exempts public power, although there is
no policy justification.
On the other hand, the Kyl amendment points out fundamental
philosophical differences between--and we have heard that today--
Daschle-Bingaman. We really want consumers to choose for themselves. On
the other side, they want the Government to choose for the consumer.
That is what this Daschle-Bingaman proposal is all about.
We want the States to make decisions on the needs of the people. They
want the Federal Government in charge. This issue, renewable mandates,
is opposed by the United Mine Workers, Public Power, Investor Owner
Utilities, Chamber of Commerce--well, I have an explanation, and I
appreciate that. I want to make sure the record reflects it because I
have been saying that this would benefit Public Power, but I have been
corrected by my staff to say that Public Power also is opposed to it.
Why is Public Power opposed to it? Because they are fearful it will
be lost in committee, and they will in the committee process be also
included in this mandate.
The record should reflect my reference to Public Power and the
clarification.
So the renewable mandate is opposed by the Chamber of Commerce,
United Mine Workers, Public Power, Investor Owned Utilities.
The fear that Public Power has is they will be exposed in committee
and have to be subject to this as well.
I think all Members should consider the merits of what we are getting
into, the precedence we are setting, and the emotional argument
associated with: Gee, we have to do something on renewables. We have
not been able to respond on CAFE. We have not been able

[[Page S2069]]

to move in a manner in which we could address even the pickup issue, on
which we had a vote. Let us make sure the legislation we pass is good
legislation; that it is well thought out; it is applicable; that it
does something meaningful that is in the appropriate role of government
to do, as opposed to what I think the States are doing very nicely by
themselves. They are proceeding, should they wish, with their own
renewable mandate proposal, and that is where I think these types of
decisions belong.
I think we would all agree as Members of the Senate that one size
does not fit all.
With the recognition it is late, I am prepared to yield the floor. I
believe we will be on this bill in the morning. Might I ask the
Presiding Officer what the order of tomorrow might be again for those
of us who might not have heard the majority whip?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be a cloture vote tomorrow at 1
p.m. on campaign finance reform.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may ask further, upon the conclusion is there any
order from the leader as to what we would go to?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no special order. The Senate, by
default, will resume consideration of the energy bill.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
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.

Amendment No. 3039 to Amendment No. 2917

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send a technical correction to the desk
with respect to amendment No. 2917. I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the
table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 2917) was agreed to, as follows:

On page 555, line 14, after ``Secretary'', insert
``shall''.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, for the information of the Senate, this
technical correction is simply the addition of the word ``shall'' on
page 555 of the amendment.

____________________