[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for the quorum call be rescinded.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]]
____________________