[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 38 (Wednesday, April 10, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2447-S2451]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL LABORATORIES PARTNERSHIP IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2001--Continued
Amendment No. 3047
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time between now
and 2 p.m. is to be equally divided and controlled before a vote in
relation to the Craig amendment No. 3047.
Who yields time? The Senator from Idaho.
[[Page S2448]]
Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from
the State of Washington.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise today in support of the Craig
amendment which would strike this bill's electricity title, with the
exception of its reliability and the Federal Trade Commission related
consumer protection provisions. I thank the Senator for offering this
amendment.
Because of the truly unique nature of the Northwest energy system--
and the historic Federal presence, predominance of public power and our
hydroelectric base, to name a few distinguishing characteristics--I
believe the electricity title of this legislation is possibly the
single most important part of this bill to consumers in Washington
State and, frankly, I believe the electricity title falls short of what
is necessary to protect our Nation's consumers in this inevitable
challenge that we have had in Washington State.
What is at stake here, I believe--and I appreciate the chairman's
efforts to try to craft a compromise electricity title. However, my
position on the importance of consumer protection provisions has me
concerned about the impact that this particular title will have on the
State of Washington where the electricity market has gone awry.
Consumers in my State are suffering from rate increases of up to 88
percent on account of the market dysfunction that unfolded in the West
last year. I believe the western electricity crisis was really
precipitated by two factors: Obviously, California adopted a
restructuring plan without adequate thought and deliberation, and the
fact that FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, signed off on
it. Then FERC allowed generators in the West to charge market-based
rates without first ensuring that those markets were sufficient in
their competition and that they were adequately monitoring those
markets over time.
What that meant is that many industries in my State could not afford
those high electricity prices, but nothing was being done to determine
whether they were just and reasonable. Many people lost their jobs, and
many children were not allowed to go to college because their families
were without income. Many consumers paid very high electricity rates.
I believe the provisions contained in the electricity title will do
nothing to prevent another western electricity crisis from occurring.
What is more, and what my colleagues should be concerned about, is that
this is an electricity title that will do nothing to prevent FERC from
making those same mistakes again in other regions.
The electricity title contained in this bill restructures the entire
utility industry without giving the Senate ample opportunity to
consider the implications of this action. In fact, these very
amendments were brought up on the floor without anyone knowing they
were being brought up.
This bill does not direct FERC to establish clear rules for when
market rates can be charged, nor does it establish effective measures
to police the market and provide needed remedies for any abuses or
market imperfections. Again, these are very important issues for
consumers.
This electricity title repeals PUCHA, the Public Utility Company
Holding Act, and moves merger approval authority from the Securities
and Exchange Commission to FERC. In doing so, it weakens the burden of
proof standard that companies must meet before they are allowed to
merge.
In the aftermath of everything that has occurred in California,
everything that has occurred with Enron, why would we take one policy
in which we have a standard by which the merger of companies and prices
are impacted and remove that standard and make it a lesser degree? I do
not believe that is in the interest of consumer protection.
I support the Craig amendment to strike the electricity title because
I believe these provisions do push the Northwest closer to a regional
transmission organization. As some of my colleagues may know, FERC has
repeatedly said the Northwest ought to join a westwide RTO. So, again,
to Northwest consumers who have lost jobs because of the electricity
crisis or are paying higher rates because of the electricity crisis who
were forced under emergency order to send our power down to California
and consequently paid a higher price, the fact that we might be
hitching our fortunes to California does not sound like a very good
issue for Washingtonians.
I am very concerned because even FERC's own cost-benefit analysis
suggests that consumers in the Northwest might suffer from the
establishment of an RTO organization on a westwide basis.
It is very important, although there are some other things such as
the renewable portfolio standard which I think is really a subpar
issue, and I think we need to improve on that, we think of the consumer
interests. I support the Craig amendment, and I hope we will be able to
change some of these issues and protect consumers in the future.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to lend my support for Senator
Craig's amendment to strip the electricity title from the energy bill.
I believe that addressing electricity in major legislation, at this
time, would not be good for the Nation.
The electricity title does not protect consumers the way it should.
We have not fully evaluated the effects of this bill on energy
consumers, particularly small consumers.
I am uncomfortable with the direction of the electricity title in
moving authority away from State regulators to the FERC.
Last year, the west went through a terrible electricity crisis which
consumers are still paying for and workers still remain out of work.
Also, in this past year we saw the collapse of Enron.
We are still trying to fully understand the causes and effects of
these two events. Hearings are occurring and legal proceedings are
ongoing. House and Senate committees as well as numerous Federal and
local government agencies are still trying to find out what happened
with Enron and why. Many people lost their jobs and many more people
lost their savings and retirement accounts.
I do not believe we should move forward on major electricity market
restructuring legislation before we completely understand what
happened. Enacting broad, far reaching electricity market restructuring
legislation before we understand what occurred would be a big mistake.
FERC has been forcing the development of Regional Transmission
Organizations around the country in recent years. I have spoken with
Chairman Wood and the other commissioners about my concern that their
vision of RTOs may not fit with the structure of the Northwest
electricity operations and market.
As I have stated earlier FERC is already exercising its broad
authority and the national electricity market is rapidly changing.
Enron, a major electricity market participant, collapsed late last
year. We are still trying to sort out what occurred.
In the Pacific Northwest, energy isn't just a commodity. It is a
resource that affects everything from our economy to our air, our
water, agriculture, salmon recovery, and our quality of life.
We should not make the same mistake California made, by restructuring
the electricity markets, before all the issues have been thoroughly
explored and resolved.
Nearly everything I am hearing from people in my State is that they
do not like this electricity title. They do not feel it is in their
best interests. They are concerned about the direction FERC will take.
I am also concerned that all market participants have not had an
opportunity to review this legislation and have not had an opportunity
to provide meaningful input. We need to make sure the legislation is
thoroughly reviewed and discussed before we enact major legislation.
This is a $200 billion industry. If bad legislation is passed, the
consequences will be significant.
The amendment is not perfect. I am unhappy to see the good provisions
of the electricity title removed. I am particularly unhappy that the
amendment does not promote renewable and diverse electricity sources.
However, Senator Craig's amendment is preferable to the existing
provisions in the electricity title.
[[Page S2449]]
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, allow me to state briefly that I will be
voting against the amendment offered by Senator Craig. I do so not
because I feel good about the existing provisions in the electricity
title of this bill, but because I believe they are a starting point
from which we ought to try to move forward.
It is no secret that I am a strong supporter of renewable energy and
a meaningful renewable energy production requirement. I admit to
disappointment in the provision currently contained in this
legislation. While it nominally contains a 10 percent renewable
requirement, the various exemptions and carve-outs bring it down
effectively to a roughly five percent requirement by the year 2020.
This level of Federal commitment to renewable energy is painfully
inadequate and I must express my concern and disappointment at this low
number.
I will also point out that, despite the assertions of my colleague
from Alaska earlier today, a 10 percent requirement by the year 2020
would not raise consumer energy costs. According to the Department of
Energy, a 10 percent Federal renewable portfolio standard would reduce
overall consumer energy costs by $3 billion per year by the year 2020.
The figures the Senator from Alaska was referring to were the gross
price of renewable energy, not the increased costs to consumers of
using renewable energy versus other forms of energy. The relevant
figure is not what the renewable energy itself will cost, but the
increased costs, if any, to consumers, from using renewable energy. As
I have stated, the Department of Energy says under a 10 percent
renewable energy mandate, consumer costs will actually go down,
compared to energy costs with no renewable energy mandate.
So even a 10 percent renewable energy requirement will benefit
consumers, and I hope we can get to a point where this Congress can
actually implement that required level. However, while I am
disappointed in the provision currently in the bill, I do believe it is
a starting point, and one upon which I hope we can improve. Senator
Craig's amendment to strike it entirely is not moving forward, but
backsliding to where we are right now, which is nothing.
As to other portions of the bill, I have long held the position that
we should not move forward with repeal of PUHCA and PURPA without
substantial consumer protections, and substantial new investments in
renewable energy, including net metering, strong interconnection
standards and substantial investments by Federal agencies in renewable
energy. Again, I am disappointed in the provisions currently in the
bill, but would hope that we could improve these provisions as the bill
moves forward, rather that just dropping everything.
For that reason, I will not support Senator Craig's amendment, but
urge my colleagues to make the needed improvements in this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I yield myself 3 minutes of the time
that is reserved in opposition to the amendment.
I understand the concerns that have been expressed by the Senator
from Idaho. I understand the concerns expressed by the Senator from
Washington. There is no question there is a lot of uncertainty about
the future of electricity markets, and we are doing our best in this
legislation on a bipartisan basis to point in a direction we know we
need to move, a direction away from command and control and toward more
of a market based system. I think all experts who have looked at it
agree that is the general direction in which we ought to go.
This legislation before us is the result of a lot of cooperation
between myself, the Senator from Wyoming, other interested Members,
and, of course, the administration as well since they have a vital
interest in seeing the comprehensive bill we are considering, the
energy bill, contain a title related to electricity that helps to
ensure we have adequate electricity for our needs in the future, helps
to ensure that the proper authority is there at the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission to ensure that mergers occur when consolidations
occur, as they inevitably will, and that ratepayers are not harmed.
We have a provision in the bill. We are taking the authority under
the Public Utility Holding Company Act and its requirements, the ones
we believe make good sense and protect consumers, and we are shifting
that responsibility to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. We are
requiring them to ensure four things in order to approve a merger or an
acquisition. No. 1, that captive ratepayers are not harmed by the
acquisition or the merger; that the capacity of regulators to regulate
is not in any way interfered with. That is another requirement. They
are required to find there is no cost subsidy between the utility that
is the subject of the merger and any other company so ratepayers are
not being asked to subsidize any other business.
Of course, they are also required to find that it is in the best
interest to go ahead with this merger before they can approve a merger.
We believe this will be more effective regulation, more effective
oversight of this industry than we have had in the past. We believe
this language is a modernization.
Title II of the energy bill represents a modernizing of the law that
is in the best interest of consumers and the best interest of our
economy long term. I believe it is strongly supported by most of those
who are interested in this issue and who have studied it.
I compliment my colleague from Wyoming for his hard work on this
issue, which has led us to the language we now have in the bill, which
my friend from Idaho, Senator Craig, would have us strip out with his
amendment. I hope Senators will vote against the amendment of the
Senator from Idaho.
I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time.
Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, may I inquire how much time is remaining
on my side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute twelve seconds.
Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. CRAIG. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from California.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I am going to be supporting this
amendment and I want to explain why. I am not happy with the part that
strips out the renewables. We can put that back in. What I like about
this amendment is that it really protects the States.
I have great respect for my friend from New Mexico, but I have to
tell him that California's experience with FERC has been nothing less
than dismal. FERC is supposed to protect against unjust and
unreasonable prices. They have done nothing to help us. They have been
unfriendly to us, and the Senator is giving them more power. PUCHA,
which is the Public Utility Holding Company Act, which the SEC is
responsible for enforcing, is being repealed.
I would rather keep the issue of mergers with the SEC any day of the
week than give it over to FERC which has not shown itself in any way
that I can tell to be particularly friendly to consumers.
So I thank the Senator. I know everyone comes at this a little bit
differently, but the bottom line is, on the whole I think this is a
good amendment and I will be supporting it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The Senator
from New Mexico controls the remainder of the time.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the remainder of our time to the Senator from
Wyoming.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed
30 seconds to close.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I thank the Senator, and I appreciate
the chance we have had to work together. Certainly, it is interesting.
I have a couple of things I want to say. First of all, regarding the
comments about FERC, that is exactly the way
[[Page S2450]]
we are going, to remove some of the authority of FERC. This has nothing
to do with California and Washington, which had their own problems, but
it certainly reduces the authority of FERC and that is what we want to
do.
I have a letter from NARUC, the National Association of Regulatory
Utility Commissioners. It came in when the bill was in its initial
stage. They point out there is an admirable compromise between Federal
and State jurisdictions, including the issues they can support, and
then they suggested some other changes which exist in the current bill
because of this.
Utility mergers sections, they support that; electric reliability
standards, they support that. They support the PUCHA substitute and the
PURPA substitute, and the net metering and consumer protection
subtitle. This is the National Association of Regulatory Utility
Commissioners which is in favor of the changes that have been made and
would be opposed to the Craig amendment.
This is a letter from the Secretary of Energy and represents the
position of the administration. It says:
I am writing to express my support for the electricity
amendment package agreed to by the Senate last week following
bipartisan negotiations. . . . These negotiations, between
Senate Republicans and Senate Democrats, resulted in a fair,
balanced and bipartisan consensus regarding several
electricity provisions of the energy bill--a consensus that
the administration endorses. Those negotiations also set
forth a process to debate and vote on reliability and
renewable portfolio standard provisions where consensus could
not be reached. As we have discussed on several occasions, I
believe that an electricity title is a fundamental component
of comprehensive energy legislation. The administration has
repeatedly stressed that appropriate electricity legislation
is necessary to protect consumers, make wholesale power
markets more competitive, strengthen the transition grid,
increase electric supply and improve reliability. Any such
legislation must also balance these ends with consideration
to the role of States. These goals are reflected in the
electricity amendments agreed to by the Senate last week.
I think certainly this is something on which we have come together.
The fact is, we have not done anything in electricity for years. It is
time to get it. Is it a complete answer? Absolutely not. We will have
to come back and do some more with it. It is responsible to pass this
bill now. The energy industry needs stability. Now is not the time to
retreat. I urge opposition to the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, let me close by reminding my colleagues
that reliability and consumer protection remain in this bill.
Electrical advocacy groups, consumer groups, and utilities, some 18
across the country, strongly support the amendment to take down the
majority of this title. Why? Because it has not been reviewed. It has
not been vetted. It has not been brought up to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission.
What is your authority? How do you plan to use it? We are extending
tremendous new authority to a central, Federal, regulatory body. That
should not be where this Senate goes at this time. The House could not
deal with it. It was much too frustrating and much too complicated. We
did not deal with it in committee in an appropriate, comprehensive way.
Yes, there have been deals made. Yes, there has been discussion.
Let's step back, take a deep breath, and review this, as we should. I
ask my colleagues to support me and the repeal of this title, leaving
in place the reliability and the consumer protection.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). The question is on agreeing to
amendment No. 3047. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will
call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 32, nays 67, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 62 Leg.]
YEAS--32
Allard
Bennett
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Burns
Campbell
Cantwell
Chafee
Cleland
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
DeWine
Feingold
Feinstein
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Inhofe
Kyl
Levin
McCain
Miller
Murray
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (OR)
Stabenow
Thurmond
Voinovich
NAYS--67
Akaka
Allen
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Brownback
Bunning
Byrd
Carnahan
Carper
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Smith (NH)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Baucus
The amendment (No. 3047) was rejected.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, there are a couple of amendments that I
believe are now ready to be considered and can be approved by all
Senators. As I understand it, the Senator from North Dakota, Mr.
Dorgan, has one.
I yield the floor to allow the Senator from North Dakota to talk
about his amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, for the information of colleagues, I will
just be a matter of 2, 3 minutes. I intend to offer an amendment on
behalf of myself and Senator Murkowski from Alaska. We have worked on
this amendment and have cleared it on both sides of the aisle.
Amendment No. 3087 To Amendment No. 2917
Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are
set aside.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself and
Mr. Murkowski, proposes an amendment numbered 3087.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 11, strike lines 9 through 14, and insert the
following:
``(1) identifying the areas with the greatest energy
resource potential, and assessing future supply availability
and demand requirements.
``(2) planning, coordinating, and siting additional energy
infrastructure, including generating facilities, electric
transmission facilities, pipelines, refineries, and
distributed generation facilities to maximize the efficiency
of energy resources and infrastructure and meet regional
needs with the minimum adverse impacts on the environment.''.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the amendment I offer today is on behalf
of myself and Senator Murkowski from Alaska. It deals with the issue of
siting future transmission infrastructure in areas that have the
greatest energy resource potential to maximize energy efficiency. This
amendment would have the Department of Energy provide technical
assistance to the States and to regional organizations to help them
identify areas with the greatest energy resource potential, and then
coordinate the development of these energy resources and future
facilities so that we can transmit this energy to the greatest extent
possible.
We have, in my State, for example, and in other areas of the country,
the potential to develop additional energy resources, but we lack the
facilities to transmit those resources.
Our transmission capabilities are not keeping up with the ability to
create this energy. We can address that in a few basic ways: by
improving the planing, siting, and development of transmission
infrastructure and corridors. We can also develop new transmission
technologies that can increase
[[Page S2451]]
the efficiency and, in some cases, perhaps double or triple the
capacity of existing transmission lines. One example of this type of
technology is the composite conductor wire, which offers great promise.
We would like the Department of Energy to provide the technical
assistance to States and regional organizations that are interested in
moving in these directions. We think there needs to be some
opportunities made available to States and regional organizations to
access technical assistance from the Department of Energy to help
facilitate and achieve these goals. Our amendment will simply do that.
I thank Senator Murkowski for working with me on the amendment. I
think it is an amendment that will add to this bill and help us address
some of the transmission issues as we plan for greater capabilities in
the future to produce and to transmit energy through a grid across the
country where energy is needed.
Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on this amendment?
If not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3087.
Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3087) was agreed to.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DORGAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3088 To Amendment No. 2917
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send another amendment to the desk on
behalf of Senator Conrad and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is
set aside.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for Mr. Conrad,
proposes an amendment numbered 3088.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To direct the Secretary of Energy to conduct an assessment of
wind energy resources and transmission capacity for wind energy)
On page 64, on line 7, strike ``resource,'' and insert
``resource, together with an identification of any barriers
to providing adequate transmission for remote sources of
renewable energy resources to current and emerging markets,
recommendations for removing or addressing such barriers, and
ways to provide access to the grid that do not unfairly
disadvantage renewable or other energy producers.''
Mr. BINGMAN. Mr. President, this amendment relates to a renewable
energy assessment.
This amendment is to section 262 of amendment No. 2917. That section
requires an annual resource assessment by the Secretary of Energy that
reviews available assessments of renewable energy resources within the
U.S. The report must contain an inventory of available amount and
characteristics of renewable resources and such information as the
Secretary believes would be useful in developing such resources,
including terrain, population and load centers, location of resources
and estimates of cost.
The amendment adds to the report identification of barriers to
providing adequate transmission, and recommendations for removing such
barriers, and ways to provide access to the grid that do not unfairly
disadvantage renewable resources.
I think the amendment is agreeable to everyone. I urge the amendment
be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the amendment is agreed to on this
side.
I want to also speak relative to Senator Dorgan's amendment.
Obviously, we cosponsored that together. I am pleased it has been
accepted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
3088.
Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3088) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
____________________