[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 34 (Thursday, March 21, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2223-S2230]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  NATIONAL LABORATORIES PARTNERSHIP IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2001--continued

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, at this time, I ask unanimous consent 
that the pending amendment be temporarily laid aside so that I may 
offer an amendment.

[[Page S2224]]

  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I say to my 
friend from Louisiana that we are almost getting a unanimous consent 
agreement. When we get it, we may ask the Senator to withhold so we can 
enter into this agreement.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I will have no objection to that, as long as I have an 
opportunity to offer the amendment sometime this afternoon.
  Mr. REID. The Senator can do it now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment will 
be laid aside.


                Amendment No. 3050 To Amendment No. 2917

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of myself and Senator Kyl.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follow:

       The Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), for herself and 
     Mr. Kyl, proposes amendment numbered 3050.

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

   (Purpose: To increase the transfer capability of electric energy 
      transmission systems through participant-funded investment)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. _. PARTICIPANT-FUNDED INVESTMENT.

       Section 205 of the Federal Power Act is amended by 
     inserting after subsection (h) the following:
       ``(i) Transmission expansion costs.--
       ``(1) Rates for transmission expansion.--
       Upon the request of a Regional Transmission Organization, 
     or any transmission entity operating within an RTO that is 
     authorized by the Commission, the Commission shall authorize 
     the recovery of costs on a participant-funding basis of 
     transmission facilities that increase the transfer capability 
     of the transmission system. The Commission shall not 
     authorize the recovery of costs in rates on a rolled-in basis 
     for such transmission facilities unless the Commission finds 
     that, based upon substantial evidence--
       ``(A) the transmission investment is identified and 
     incorporated in the regional transmission plan of a FERC 
     approved regional transmission organization;
       ``(B) participant funding for the investment is not 
     feasible because the beneficiaries of the investment cannot 
     be identified; and
       ``(C) the transmission investment is necessary to maintain 
     reliability of the transmission grid within the area covered 
     by the regional transmission organization.
       ``(2) Participant-funding.--The term `participant-funding' 
     means an investment in the transmission system of a regional 
     transmission organization or any Commission authorized entity 
     operating with the RTO that--
       ``(A) increases the transfer capability of the transmission 
     system; and
       ``(B) is paid for by an entity that, in return for payment, 
     receives the tradable transmission rights created by the 
     investment.
       ``(3) Tradable transmission right.--The term `tradable 
     transmission right' means the right of the holder of such 
     right to avoid payment of, or have rebated, transmission 
     congestion charges on the transmission system of a regional 
     transmission organization, or the right to use a specified 
     capacity of such transmission system without payment of 
     transmission congestion charges.
       ``(4) Regional transmission organization facilitation.--
       ``(A) In general.--To encourage the regional transmission 
     organization or any Commission-authorized transmission entity 
     operating within the RTO to identify participant-funded 
     investment, the Commission shall allow a regional 
     transmission organization or any entity constructing a 
     participant funded project within the RTO to--
       ``(i) receive a share of the value of the tradable 
     transmission rights created by the participant-funded 
     expansion; or
       ``(ii) receive a development fee.''.

  Mrs. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, many years ago Arnold Glasow said that 
``all some folks want is their fair share--and yours.''
  Today, I rise to offer an amendment that provides for true fairness 
in electricity pricing and in doing so paves the way for much needed 
transmission expansion at a national level.
  Over the past 10 years demand for electricity has increased 17 
percent while transmission investment during the same period has 
continuously declined about 45 percent.
  What is even more troubling is that current demand for electricity is 
projected to increase by 25 percent over the next 10 years with only a 
modest increase in transmission capacity of 4 percent. With projected 
demand exceeding projected additional capacity five times over, 
problems seem imminent.
  It is no surprise to this Senator that in recent years electricity 
shortages due to transmission constraints have plagued the country from 
one coast to another and various points in between. Unless we deviate 
immediately from the past ways of doing business, our economy will be 
held hostage to transmission constraints with rolling blackouts 
becoming the norm rather than the exception.
  Our existing electrical transmission system was designed to serve 
local customers from utility-owned generation on a State-by-State 
basis. However, in recent years more and more ``merchant generation'' 
operated by independent companies have begun to connect to the 
electrical grid in order to transmit electricity to local as well as 
out-of-region customers.
  Though this increased generation added much needed competition, it 
began to strain the current transmission system. The pricing mechanism 
at the wholesale level still employs the old socialized rate method of 
continuously increasing the rates for local customers even though most 
of the beneficiaries are out-of-region customers. This antiquated 
pricing method has dampened the push to enhance transmission capacity 
in energy producing States as State regulators are reluctant to pass 
excessive transmission cost off to local customers who are not 
benefitting from the electricity. Meanwhile energy dependent regions of 
the country are denied cheap and reliable electricity.
  Electricity price spikes in the Midwest during the summer of 1998 
were caused in part by transmission constraints limiting the ability of 
the region to import electricity from other regions of the country. In 
the summer of 2000, transmission constraints limited the ability to 
sell low-cost power from the Midwest to the South during a period of 
peak demand, resulting in higher prices for customers. Recent blackouts 
in northern California were the result of transmission constraints in 
southern California due to California's Path 15 transmission route. The 
east coast has also suffered from transmission constraints and price 
spikes in recent years.
  Surely, there must be a more equitable way to allocate cost while 
simultaneously enhancing our transmission capacity. It is not fair to 
expect customers in energy generating States to keep paying for 
transmission expansion when this increased transmission is primarily 
being developed for out-of-region use. In addition, the lack of 
transmission capacity under this archaic pricing method continues to 
deny customers in energy importing States the benefit of cheaper 
electricity from other regions of the country.
  The best policy for efficient competitive wholesale power markets is 
``participant-funded'' expansion. In this system, market participants 
``fund'' expansions to the transmission network in return for the 
transmission rights created by the expansion investment. This approach 
gives proper economic incentive for new generator location and 
transmission expansion decisions.
  In the new world, the numbers and volumes of interstate transactions 
are large and growing every day. In my home State of Louisiana, there 
are enough new merchant generation plants planned to almost double the 
amount of generation in the State today.
  Those who favor socializing these costs may argue that ``rolled in 
pricing is ok because transmission is such a small part of a consumer's 
total bill.'' This was true in the past but not anymore. If we must 
build enough transmission to export just a portion of this new 
generation--10,000 megawatts--the estimated cost would be $2 billion to 
$4 billion. Louisiana's share of this cost would be $90 to $180 million 
per year, and impose a retail rate increase of 5 to 11 percent. All 
with no significant benefit to local customers.
  The opponents of this amendment argue that transmission upgrades may 
be more expensive than the delivered power is worth. If it is too 
expensive to build facilities to move the power, then the plant is 
being built in the wrong place. No one should bear these costs, least 
of all local consumers.
  The developers need to take these costs into account when they site 
their plants--just like they consider gas costs, water costs, and 
environmental

[[Page S2225]]

permits. The participant funding concept is not new--this concept has 
been successfully implemented in the natural gas industry through 
incremental pricing. As a result of incremental pricing in the natural 
gas industry, proposed annual additions in 2002 to natural gas pipeline 
capacity has increased by nearly 100 percent relative to 1999.

  The opponents of this legislation want the risk and consequences of 
bad siting decisions to be socialized, so that all the ``little guys'' 
will pick up the tab. In contrast, participant funding gives proper 
price signals for new generator location, and it assures an 
economically efficient level of grid expansion.
  I realize this amendment is generating quite a bit of discussion; 
however, electricity transmission policy is not a popularity contest, 
it is about making tough but fair decisions. The electricity debate 
reminds me of something that Mark Twain once said: ``Whenever you find 
yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and 
reflect.''
  I therefore ask my fellow colleagues to pause for a moment and 
reflect over the content of this amendment, what it has meant to the 
natural gas industry and what it will mean for our economic prosperity 
in the future. Let's work together in an equitable manner toward 
building efficient and reliable electrical highways by adopting this 
amendment.
  Thank you, Mr. President, and I ask unanimous consent that my 
amendment be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Murkowski be recognized to offer a second-degree amendment to the 
Bingaman amendment relating to grandfathering; that there be 1 hour 
equally divided and controlled in the usual form, with no amendment in 
order thereto prior to a vote in relation to the amendment; that upon 
the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote in 
relation to the amendment; that if the Murkowski amendment is defeated, 
it be in order for Senator Collins to offer an amendment relating to 
renewables with 20 minutes for debate prior to a vote in relation to 
that amendment, with the time equally divided and controlled in the 
usual form; that the Collins amendment be considered following 
consideration of the Kyl amendment, which is a second-degree amendment 
relating to ``opt out,'' on which there will be 20 minutes for debate 
prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, with the time equally 
divided and controlled in the usual form; that upon disposition of the 
amendments covered under this agreement, the Senate proceed to vote on 
the Bingaman amendment, as amended, if amended, without any intervening 
action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, there is a possibility of four votes 
tonight. The two managers are aware of this. They are going to do the 
best they can. Everybody should be aware, these are complicated issues 
and pay attention to this debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


                Amendment No. 3052 to Amendment No. 3016

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

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3052 to amendment No. 3016.

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

           (Purpose: To protect State portfolio requirements)

       On page 6, on line 6, strike ``mix.'' and insert ``mix. The 
     provisions of this section shall not apply to any retail 
     electric supplier in any State that adopts or has adopted a 
     renewable energy portfolio program.''

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the amendment I have proposed would 
exempt the retail electric suppliers in any State that has a renewable 
energy portfolio requirement.
  What we have behind us is a chart that I think fairly identifies the 
issue. This chart shows States where renewable portfolio standards 
would be preempted by a Federal mandate. In other words, by this 
current proposal in the underlying Bingaman amendment, all States would 
be mandated for a renewable contribution of about 10 percent, without 
exception.
  What does this do? We have 14 States that already have initiated 
renewable mandates because they believed it was in the best interest of 
their State. We have seven other States--these are the orange States--
that are in the process of considering renewable portfolio standards. 
What are those States? We have Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania. 
We have Hawaii, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada. Then, of course, we have 
Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin. We have the west coast.
  The point is, 14 States have a program now. Again, they are Arizona, 
Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, 
Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin. 
Then there are seven States shown on the chart which are considering a 
program: California, Maryland, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oregon, 
Washington, Vermont.
  What does this really mean? This means the renewable mandate, the 
Bingaman amendment, would preempt those 14 States and the other 7 
States identified with a program which would basically disallow them 
from going forward. They would not have a choice; they would be 
mandated.
  Most, if not all, of these States' programs, in my opinion, are 
inconsistent with the renewable mandate in the Bingaman amendment. 
These 14 existing State programs were created on one simple premise--
and I would encourage Members who are watching and staffs to recognize 
this--that purpose was to match the State's needs and to take into 
account local circumstances.

  Each State is different. Each State has an opportunity to consider 
programs that match their needs and match their levels of capability. 
Some States may be able to achieve more in the area of renewability. Is 
it their business to necessarily sell credits?
  What we are trying to do is encourage across the board greater 
utilization of renewables. What is wrong with a voluntary system? 
Fourteen existing State programs were created to match their State 
needs and to take into account local circumstances.
  As we know, some States are richer than others in wind energy 
sources. Some States are richer in geothermal. Other States have the 
potential of biomass. Some States have the potential of hydro. States 
have tailored their renewable programs, through their own initiative, 
to match their local resources with their local needs.
  We are going to take that away because we are coming down, as the 
Bingaman amendment indicates, with a one-size-fits-all Federal program. 
In other words, it is not good enough for the States to address their 
responsibility and seek within the State's initiative how to reach a 
renewable mandate.
  It applies the same to Maine as it does in Texas, and clearly the 
States are different. They are in different climate locales. They are 
in different parts of the country. I do not have to explain the 
differences. But this would mandate one size fits all.
  The amendment exempts retail electric suppliers in any State that 
adopts or has adopted a renewable energy program. So it exempts retail 
electric suppliers in any State that has adopted a renewable energy 
program. This allows existing State programs to continue, and it allows 
States to adopt a program in the future. That is the purpose of our 
amendment.
  Now, if a State fails to act, then it will be subject to the 
requirements of the Bingaman amendment. So you are forcing a mandate, 
in a sense, that if they do not take the initiative and act themselves, 
then they fall under the Bingaman amendment, which is a mandate.
  This allows for the existing 14 States, it allows for the 7 that are 
in the process of considering it, and then it gives the others an 
option to initiate a renewable program, but if they do not, they fall 
under the mandate.

[[Page S2226]]

  It seems to me if we value States rights, if we recognize one size 
does not fit all, there is certainly justification for consideration of 
the merits of a State initiating a program that it sees fit in relation 
to the conscious effort to try to encourage more renewables, but where 
a State moves forward, this amendment allows that State effort to 
continue. It seems to me this is a practical, realistic, sensible 
approach that gives the States an opportunity to address their 
responsibility towards encouraging renewables by their own initiative, 
which the 14 States clearly have done, and 7 others are in the process 
of initiating that action.
  I encourage Members to reflect on the value of State rights and on 
the value of this particular effort not only working but the States 
initiating an action to address a need and fill it.
  Before we get carried away in the debate, again I want to recognize 
something I think has been overlooked rather dramatically, and that is 
there is a cost associated with renewables. We went into that a little 
bit in the debate over the Kyl amendment. But if we take a hypothetical 
utility, let us say, that generates a billion kilowatt hours and there 
is the 10-percent mandate on renewable portfolio standards, that is 100 
million kilowatt hours of renewable energy, times 3 cents per kilowatt, 
which is about the--well, the average price is generally considered 
roughly 3 cents--that is $3 million for renewable credits. Now that is 
a cost that is going to be passed on to the ratepayer--$3 million for 
requiring a 10-percent mandate.

  Let's look at a typical utility. Let's look at Wisconsin Electric: 
Retail sales over the year 2000, about 3,173,000,000 kilowatt hours, 
times a 10-percent renewable portfolio standard; that is 317,331,000 
kilowatt hours of renewables. That is what they are going to have to 
get into Wisconsin, times 3 cents per kilowatt hour; that is $9.5 
million, the cost of renewable credits that is going to be passed on to 
the ratepayer in Wisconsin.
  The current wholesale price, as I have indicated, is roughly 3 cents 
per kilowatt hour. So make no mistake about it, not only have we 
already mandated an increase to the utility consumers in this country 
by the 10-percent mandate that prevailed when the Kyl amendment failed 
but now we are mandating one size fits all. We are taking a relatively 
orderly program that the States initiated, where 14 States actually 
have renewable programs and 7 States are looking at those programs and 
saying, everybody is going to have a renewable program that meets the 
10-percent standard set in the underlying bill. It does not allow the 
States that are not addressing it an alternative other than than a 
mandate of 10 percent.
  As a consequence, I don't think this is the best way to legislate a 
portfolio renewable standard by the theory of one size fits all.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment the Senator from Alaska has offered. The amendment 
essentially guts the renewable portfolio standard contained in the 
amendment I proposed. The amendment I proposed has a provision called 
State savings clause that reads:

       This section does not preclude a State from requiring 
     additional renewable energy generation in that State or from 
     specifying technology mix.

  Any State that wants to step up and do something more, or specify the 
technology mix appropriate for their State, is encouraged. It is not 
discouraged. It will control.
  That is not what the amendment of the Senator is proposing.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Could I ask a question?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield for a question.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am curious. In the statement of the Senator from New 
Mexico that a State could go beyond, is the Senator suggesting it would 
go beyond the 10-percent norm? They could do anything above it but have 
to meet the 10 percent?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. In response to my colleague, that is exactly right. 
They can do anything in addition in the way of requiring renewable 
energy generation and they can specify any technology mix they want. 
There is nothing in the Federal law restricting a State in this regard.
  If I may continue.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I don't want to interrupt.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. You are interrupting, but go right ahead.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. If a State were 5 percent, it would be mandated to go 
10 percent. If another State were 12, it could set anything it wanted; 
is that correct?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. The Senator is correct in that a renewable portfolio 
standard that is not as effective as the one we are proposing would not 
meet the Federal standard and would not be adequate. The Federal 
standard would still prevail.
  I point out what the amendment of the Senator says:

       The provisions of this section--

  That would be this renewable portfolio standard we had the vote on 
earlier with the Kyl amendment----

     shall not apply to any retail electric supplier in any State 
     that adopts or has adopted a renewable portfolio energy 
     program.

  He then cites a variety of States that are on the chart that have 
adopted these renewable energy portfolio programs. He has included New 
Mexico on the chart. We have no renewable energy portfolio program in 
our State. We adopted one and suspended it for 6 years, but it is on 
the chart as a State qualifying to be exempt from the Federal program. 
He has included Illinois. I have a description that says on June 22, 
2001, Illinois Governor George Ryan signed legislation creating the 
Illinois Resource Development and Energy Security Act. The legislation 
states, as an explicit goal, at least 5 percent of the State's energy 
production and use derive from renewable forms of energy by 2015 and 15 
percent from renewable sources of energy by 2020.
  However, it does not include an implementation schedule. There is 
nothing in the Illinois-passed law that will actually get them to the 
stated goal. They have adopted a renewable portfolio program under the 
definition of his amendment, but it has no teeth.

  The summary on the Nebraska program he cites says in April of 1998 
the Lincoln Electric System created a wind power green pricing program 
called the Lincoln Electric System Renewable Energy Program. It is a 
green pricing program and does not require them to make available 
renewable power in any way. It says they should give an option when 
people pay their bill for so-called green pricing.
  The point is, if we want to have a national program to deal with the 
national electric grid we have talked about for several weeks, and we 
want to move this country in the direction of using renewable energy to 
a greater extent than in the past, we have to go ahead and maintain 
this renewable portfolio standard we proposed in the bill.
  To say any State that wants to can adopt something, set a goal or put 
in a program, suspend it for 6 years, as in New Mexico, and thereby 
satisfy that State from being out from under the requirements of the 
law, totally guts the effect of the law. This is essentially another 
vote like the vote we had with the Kyl amendment. The Kyl amendment 
said renewable power shall be made available to customers to the extent 
it is available.
  This amendment says States will comply with the renewable portfolio 
standard in this bill, except to the extent they determine to do 
something else.
  We cannot let them off the hook on that basis. Either we favor a 
renewable portfolio standard--and I believe a majority of the Senate 
does; that is what the Kyl vote was an indication of; the majority of 
the Senate believes we should require this modest commitment to 
renewable energy--either we do that or we do not.
  To say any State that adopts anything that they call a renewable 
portfolio program is out from under any requirement clearly guts the 
effort we are making. I strongly oppose the amendment and hope we 
defeat the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from New 
Mexico pointing out the status in his particular State. I wonder if 
Illinois and New Mexico suspended their programs,

[[Page S2227]]

I wonder if they did so primarily because they thought suspension was 
not in the best interests of the consumers in their State. I don't know 
the reason. I certainly look forward to an explanation from my friend 
from New Mexico if, indeed, there is one relative to why the State of 
New Mexico saw fit to suspend it.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am glad to respond.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. In the case of New Mexico, the renewable portfolio was 
included in a much larger deregulation proposal the State adopted 
before the difficulties in California. Once the difficulties in 
California became evident with supplies of electricity there, our 
legislature got concerned and essentially put on hold and suspended any 
effect of the entire statute until the year 2006, when they said they 
would look at it again.
  The renewable portfolio standard, which obviously is not in any way 
related to the issue of deregulation that they were struggling with in 
California, was a casualty of the concern. I am not disagreeing with 
the decision of our legislature to put off the deregulation, but I 
think they made an error in putting off the effort to move toward a 
renewable portfolio standard. Clearly, though, they are counted in what 
the Senator has in mind in his amendment as having a program in New 
Mexico, even though it is suspended until the year 2006.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am happy to respond. I will not speak 
with the expertise that obviously my friend has from his own State, but 
it is appropriate to recognize they have not initiated an action in the 
sense of most of the other 14 States. The Senator from New Mexico 
indicates Illinois and Nebraska. I cannot speak for Nebraska, 
obviously; the occupant of the chair can. Clearly, there are some 
States out of the 14 that have initiated the program on their own. That 
is great. That should be encouraged. Texas is certainly one.
  There may be a misunderstanding between the Senator from New Mexico 
and myself as to what happens under the current legislation with our 
amendment if it prevails relative to the States that are blank on the 
chart.
  The blank States are the ones in white. They have to comply with the 
10 percent that is in the Bingaman bill. They have to mandate, if you 
will, that they come up with 10 percent. So they are not left out. This 
is not a gutting, by any means, of the crux of Senator Bingaman's 
point.
  We are saying all the rest of those States, more than half the States 
in the Nation that have not initiated a renewable program, have to do 
it. They are going to be mandated under the 10-percent mandate. So do 
not be misled, as I think a reference was made, that somehow we are 
gutting this provision because we are not. Those States would be 
mandated in. But they would also be given an opportunity to come up, as 
the States in green and the States in red are, with what they believe 
is a reasonable, attainable renewable mandate.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Will my colleague yield?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I want to make one more point before I respond to my 
friend from New Mexico.
  A State with a 10-percent mandate, they say, on hydro, would now have 
to also meet an additional 10 percent--OK? An additional 10 percent, 
with something new: solar, wind--whatever, under the Federal mandate.
  I think the States ought to take a look at this. The Federal 
Government is dictating a 10-percent fuel mix, regardless of your State 
program.
  I am happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me ask this of my friend: The way I 
read his amendment, it says any State--this provision does not apply to 
any retail electric supplier in any State that adopts or has adopted a 
renewable portfolio, energy portfolio program.
  Am I correct that a State that is one of the white States on this 
map, that they do not have a program right now--if they decide to adopt 
a program which says instead of going to 10 percent, we will go to one-
tenth of 1 percent by the year 2020--that certainly is a renewable 
portfolio program in every sense of the word--they would be out from 
any other requirements because they will have adopted a program, a 
renewable portfolio program under his amendment and, therefore, our 
effort to move them in any meaningful way to use renewable power would 
be thwarted? Would he agree with that?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may respond, I think we have to make a general 
acknowledgment that States are responsible. Their utility commissions 
are responsible. Their ratepayers are responsible. They are going to 
respond as they see fit to the needs of their people as opposed to what 
the Senator from New Mexico is proposing as a mandate--everything is 
equal.
  It is not equal. It is not equal in my State. It is not equal in 
Hawaii. We are not even connected to the continental United States. Yet 
there is a mandate here. Hawaii has to come across the same way as 
Alaska, the same way as Iowa.
  I think to suggest that a State would be irresponsible is selling 
short the American citizen.
  People are concerned about energy sources. They are concerned about 
pollution. I do not think any State is going to stand by for 
irresponsible actions, or a percentage that would suggest an 
unrealistic contribution to renewables.
  Who are we to stand here and simply mandate that everybody has to be 
the same? What we have recognized is realistic. We said all those 
States in white--how many of them are left? Probably 35. They will be 
mandated under the bill of the Senator from New Mexico, 10 percent. 
They are uniform. We are giving them a chance to initiate an 
initiative based on their own recognition of what is responsible, what 
is attainable, what is available.

  We have a terrible inconsistency. Some States have the convenience--
and it is very convenient--of the renewable hydro. But under this 
proposal, a State with a 20 percent mandate based on hydro would now 
have to also meet an additional 10 percent with solar or wind, under 
the Federal mandate. The Federal Government is dictating a 10-percent 
fuel mix, regardless of the State program. This is ignoring the State 
program.
  The Senator from New Mexico says it is OK if you go above a mandate 
with your State program--that's OK.
  It is one size fits all, 10 percent, make no mistake about it.
  This one says, if you are a white State, you can initiate a program 
that meets your needs and makes a contribution. I think that is 
responsible legislation. I do not think it is gutting the renewable 
package because if a State doesn't want to do it, it is going to be 
forced to do it. But the States that have initiated a program, let's 
honor that.
  There is nothing magic about 10 percent. Where did they get 10 
percent? Why isn't it 8 or 9? Why isn't it 11?
  We said it is 10 percent, that is why it is 10 percent. Some States 
are saying it should be 6 percent. It should be 5 percent. Some States 
do better than 10 percent. Some States have hydro. Yet we are not 
recognizing hydro in this.
  I suggest Members think a little bit about this. They are going to 
have to go home and face not only the ratepayers, they are going to 
have to face their utility commissioners and people are going to say: 
So one size fits all? You made a mandate in Washington. You are going 
to take away the initiative of our own program.
  The suggestion that States would act irresponsibly I find 
unacceptable. If utility commissioners and those responsible for 
decisions act irresponsibly, they are voted out by the local process.
  What does Maine have? Maine has 30 percent renewables. They have 
hydro. What about that which comes in from Canada? You can buy power 
from Canada. I assume we can buy credits from Canada as well. I think 
we have addressed some in the technical amendments, that we address the 
issue of buying credits outside the United States?
  My friend from New Mexico has indicated we are going to, I think, 
agree to prohibit purchase of credits, say, from the Chinese, who are 
building the Three Gorges Dam, or the Canadians. These, in my opinion, 
are significant aspects that have been overlooked in this bill. The 
reason they were overlooked is we have not had an opportunity to go 
through the committee

[[Page S2228]]

process because, as you know, this bill came directly to the floor.
  So do not be misled that somehow we are getting the renewable 
program. Everybody gets it, under my amendment--everybody. The existing 
States have to maintain it, whatever they believe is their level. The 
States in red that are generating an interest in it are going to have 
to, and the rest of them, if they do not do anything, are going to have 
to come under Senator Bingaman's mandate.
  In my State we have a long winter. In some areas it is pretty hard to 
get running water, so hydro doesn't necessarily carry it. We dare not 
tread on ANWR around here because that is sacred.
  Nevertheless, we have a situation that I hope Members and staff will 
recognize. This is not by any means gutting. This is a responsible 
effort to address, if you will, the initiatives of States to set their 
own level.
  I yield the floor and retain the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains on the two sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska controls 6\1/2\ 
minutes, the Senator from New Mexico, 23 minutes.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me speak for just a few minutes on 
this issue. I don't believe I will need a full 22 minutes. Let me put 
it in context.
  The reason we believe it is important to include in this legislation 
a renewable portfolio standard is that we believe it is important that 
the Nation have a diverse group of sources--a diverse supply for its 
energy needs. We are headed in the future to a situation where that 
diversity is not present to the extent it should be.
  I have shown this chart many times. We spent nearly a week on the Kyl 
amendment. This is essentially the same issue coming back in another 
form. Let me show the chart again.
  You can see that in the year 2000 we are providing about 69 percent 
of our total energy needs from two sources; that is, from coal and 
natural gas. A lot of new generation is under construction around the 
country. We have a lot of new generation that is expected and planned 
for, and 95 percent of that new electric generation that is currently 
planned is planned to be gas fired. It is going to be using more 
natural gas. We have a problem with that in that today we are not 
producing as much natural gas as we are consuming. The disparity 
between what we are producing and what we are consuming is going to 
grow. It is continuing to grow.
  We are saying let us hedge our bets as a nation. Let us try to 
encourage utilities to develop some renewable energy sources. We give 
them a wide variety that they can pursue. But do something in this 
regard. We are saying in the amendment I have at the desk, try to do 1 
percent in the year 2005. That is what we have in the bill. Try to do 
1.6 percent in the year 2006. We have very small increments after that.
  The whole idea is that by the year 2020 we would try to do 10 percent 
of their total generation from one or more of these various sources.
  We specifically provide in the legislation that it is up to the 
States to decide the right mix. It is up to the individual utility. The 
individual utility can decide what the right mix is. We are not trying 
in any way to dictate that.
  There are some States that have stepped up and are doing something 
useful. Texas is the most successful. They have a very credible 
program. Then-Governor Bush--President Bush now--signed that into law. 
It has moved that State very significantly towards the use of renewable 
resources. I think they are being held up as a model by many experts 
for what we ought to see around the country.
  We are not saying everyone has to do as much as Texas. We are saying 
let us do as much as we have in this amendment.
  We have all sorts of flexibility about how they get from here to 
there. There are some States that produce more than the 10 percent from 
renewable resources. There are States that have adopted programs that 
will get them to a higher level than the 10 percent. More power to 
them. We do not do anything to discourage that. We want to discourage 
the opportunity for States to essentially give this lip service and not 
really do anything.
  We want to encourage the opportunity for States to do as Illinois has 
done. Illinois has a great goal. They say: We want to be at 5 percent. 
We want to be at 15 percent. That is wonderful. But they do not have 
any teeth in their bill.
  New Mexico has a good goal. I cannot recall exactly what the goal is. 
But we just suspended the goal until the year 2006 because of other 
considerations that had nothing to do with the renewable portfolio 
standard issue.
  The majority of the Senate favors having a renewable portfolio 
standard. Let us do it. Let us keep this provision in the law.
  The Senator's amendment would, in my strong opinion, gut the 
renewable portfolio standard. It says if you have adopted any other 
program that you can call a renewable energy portfolio program, it 
doesn't matter how much teeth there is in it, or standard. If you 
adopted anything, you are exempt. If you haven't adopted anything, then 
you need to adopt something in order to be exempt. We are not telling 
you what it has to be. We are just saying it has so be something. If 
you adopt anything, you are exempt.
  That is a gutting of the provision, in my opinion. Clearly, that is 
not what I believe the majority of the Senate wants to do.
  I strongly oppose the amendment by the Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wish the occupant of the chair, the 
former Governor, could join us in this debate. He may have some 
opinion.
  I remind my colleagues that ordinarily we do not practice dentistry 
here, and the reference to teeth in the bill may have an application. 
But I have to go back to my firm belief in the government being closest 
to the people as usually the government that is most responsive.
  I fail to acknowledge that if we don't adopt this mandate, we are 
somehow being irresponsible. I think the way we have crafted this 
second degree is, again, not by any means an opportunity for the States 
to opt out. On the other hand, if they don't develop a program, they 
are going to be mandated in. Let there be no mistake about it. All 
those States on the chart in white are going to be mandated to meet the 
10-percent renewable requirement.
  Talk about teeth in the bill. I think those are teeth. They are 
saying if the States don't take the initiative to do it, you are going 
to have to do it.
  The Senator from New Mexico says the majority wants a renewable 
mandate. Every State in the Union is going to be affected and, in 
effect, mandated because those in the white will have to come up with a 
program. Those in the red and green are already initiating programs.
  I think the generalization of my friend from New Mexico is a little 
misleading. All States are going to be mandated in one form or another, 
either by the fact that they don't have a program or the fact that they 
do have one. If they want to drop this program, such as the State of 
New Mexico did, they are going to be mandated into a program--a 10-
percent mandate.
  I hope I am making myself clear. Some are going to be left out of 
this. Everybody is going to have to have a renewable program. The only 
difference is, under my proposal the States affected clearly would have 
some flexibility.
  If it is up to the States to decide what the renewable mix should 
be--I say if it is up to those States--why not let them choose the 
level of their renewable?
  Does the Senate believe it knows better than the States to do what is 
cost effective and appropriate given the States' renewable resources?
  As I have said, the Midwest has wind. The East may have biomass. The 
Southwest may have solar and geothermal. Different levels are cost 
effective.
  As we practice dentistry around here, and recognize that the 
allegation has been made that there is no teeth in this, there is teeth 
in my proposal. There is plenty of teeth in it. Nobody has opted out. 
What I think we have in this proposal is some false teeth.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, might I inquire, does the Senator have about 
1 minute I could take?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes are remaining.
  Mr. KYL. I would like to take 1 minute.

[[Page S2229]]

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Go ahead and take 2.
  Mr. KYL. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, I support the amendment of the Senator from Alaska. 
Clearly, those States that have moved forward with the program for 
renewable resources to generate electricity have made a determination 
over a period of time about what they can best do in their particular 
States and what is in the best interest of their consumers.
  It seems to me, since they have taken the trouble to do that, and 
they have done a lot of work on it, that it would be wrong for us--at 
least premature for us--to come in as the Federal Government and say: 
No. No. We know what is best for you. Even though we have not had any 
hearings, we have not had any markup in the committee, we are doing 
this all on the floor of the Senate, we instinctively know what is best 
for your State. That is really a supreme arrogance, even for the U.S. 
Senate.
  So what the Senator from Alaska is saying is, look, for those States 
that have already chosen to do this, let them run their programs the 
way they want to, and even for those States that chose to do so in the 
future.
  This really satisfies the argument that those on the other side have 
made that we need to do something--they use the words--``to encourage'' 
States to use renewables. A mandate is a lot more than an 
encouragement, but be that as it may, for those that have already 
chosen to do it, they have been encouraged. Let's recognize that and 
acknowledge their programs and accept them as they are. And, perhaps, 
for the rest of the States, our mandatory program will encourage them 
as well. They, then, should be allowed to move forward with the 
programs as they see fit.
  So given the fact the Kyl amendment was defeated before--and I accept 
that--it seems to me this is a very good compromise, in effect, that 
recognizes what the other side wants: to make the States have some kind 
of a program, but it also provides them flexibility in recognition of 
the unique circumstances of their individual States.
  I think it is a good compromise. I think the Senator from Alaska 
should be complimented for it. I certainly support his amendment and 
hope others will as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seventeen minutes.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. All of that is in opposition?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am informed that Senator Jeffords 
wants to speak in opposition. I also want to speak for another couple 
minutes, but I would like to do that after him. I would have to suggest 
the absence of a quorum at this time in order to preserve his right to 
speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. We have had a few requests for time from Senators who 
would like to catch airplanes.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I assume time runs against me during the quorum call.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time would run against the Senator.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Akaka). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me be very brief. I will speak for a 
couple minutes and then yield back the remainder of our time. I am 
informed Senator Jeffords will not be arriving in time to speak prior 
to this vote.
  Mr. President, I strongly urge Senators to oppose this Murkowski 
amendment. It does, in my strong opinion, gut the underlying provision 
which we have been debating now for the last several days.
  The renewable portfolio standard that we have in the amendment I have 
sent to the desk requires certain things from utility companies over 
the next 18 years, between now and the year 2020. We all understand 
that.
  What the Murkowski amendment says is that any utility located in any 
State that has something else in the way of a renewable portfolio 
program, no matter how weak it is, is exempt from the Federal 
requirement. It also says that if you are in a State that does not have 
anything, the State can adopt anything, no matter how weak. And then 
utilities in that State are also exempt. So it is very clear that his 
amendment does eliminate any meaningful mandate on utilities anywhere 
in the country.
  I strongly urge Senators to oppose the Murkowski amendment. It would 
gut our renewable portfolio provision. For that reason, I think it 
should be defeated.
  Mr. President, I know of nobody else on our side who wishes to speak 
in opposition. So I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3052. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), the 
Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Spector), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. 
Stevens), and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Thurmond), are 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 39, nays 57, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 58 Leg.]

                                YEAS--39

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Frist
     Gramm
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Warner

                                NAYS--57

     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Enzi
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
  The amendment (No. 3052) was rejected.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I see several of the interested parties are 
here, and I do want to propound unanimous consent requests on a couple 
of issues.
  I had hoped we would be able to reach agreement to move on the debt 
ceiling before the Senate went out of session. It appears that we are 
not going to be able to do that. I think we should.
  Also, I had the impression we were going to try to do the Andean 
trade bill before we left. The President is on his way to Mexico, and 
he is going to Peru. The Andean countries feel very strongly about this 
issue and have said it is not only a trade issue, but has become a very 
serious political issue.
  I would like for us to do these two things, and I will propound 
unanimous consent requests on both. Is there a preference as to which 
one I do first? I will propound the Andean request first.

[[Page S2230]]



                          ____________________