[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 39 (Thursday, March 25, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3174-S3175]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        STAND-ALONE RELIABILITY

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to begin the process of 
placing directly on the Senate calendar stand-alone electric 
reliability legislation.
  As all my colleagues in this body are well aware, devising a 
comprehensive policy that will help this nation achieve its energy 
independence is a task that has divided the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee on which I serve, the United States Senate and the 
Congress as a whole for three years now. Regardless, I believe that 
there is at least one thing on which every Senator can agree--and that 
is the need to pass legislation giving the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, working closely with regional entities, the statutory 
authority to put in place mandatory and enforceable reliability 
standards.
  The call for legislation of the kind we are introducing today dates 
back to at least 1997, when both a Task Force established by the 
Clinton Administration's Department of Energy and a North American 
Electric Reliability Council, or NERC, blue ribbon panel independently 
determined that reliability rules for our nation's electric system 
needed to be mandatory and enforceable.
  In response, the Senate passed stand-alone legislation on this 
matter, authored by my predecessor Senator Gorton, in June 2000. Since 
then, under the leadership of both parties, the Senate has twice passed 
consensus-based electric reliability provisions--most recently, last 
July.
  There is no doubt that this nation's consumers and businesses cannot 
afford further delay in improving the reliability of the electricity 
grid. Last August's Northeast/Midwest blackout, which affected 50 
million consumers from New York to Michigan, again sounded the wake up 
call for federal electric reliability legislation.
  I would like to quote from a January 1, 2004 letter published in the 
New York Times from North American Electric Reliability Council 
President and CEO Michehl R. Gent. Mr. Gent wrote that interim steps 
NERC has taken to improve grid reliability since last August's blackout 
does ``not reduce the need for federal legislation that would provide 
authority to impose and enforce mandatory reliability standards. 
Whether legislation is adopted on a stand-alone basis or as part of a 
comprehensive energy bill, passage is essential. If reliability 
legislation had been enacted when first proposed [in 1999], I believe 
that the blackout would not have occurred.''
  Mr. Gent reiterated this position in February 24, 2004 testimony 
before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I asked Mr. 
Gent whether in fact it wouldn't be irresponsible of this body not to 
pass reliability legislation this year, even if we are to pass it on a 
stand-alone basis. Quite simply, Mr. Gent replied, ``I agree.''
  We are beginning the process of putting this legislation directly on 
the Senate calendar because we believe American consumers have waited 
long enough for Congress to take this simple step, putting in place 
mandatory and enforceable reliability standards to govern operation of 
the electric transmission grid--the backbone of our nation's economy.
  There are those who will argue that we are ill-advised to take this 
step. They ill argue in favor of taking up and passing last year's 
failed energy bill conference report (H.R. 6), or S. 2095--the so-
called ``slimmed down'' energy bill introduced this year, which happens 
to be 100 pages longer than the original. However, I am of the firm 
belief that we cannot allow these crucial reliability provisions to be 
held hostage to a flawed comprehensive energy bill.
  Now, I know that the distinguished Chairman of the Senate Energy and

[[Page S3175]]

Natural Resources Committee has worked to strip one of the most 
outrageous provisions of the H.R. 6 conference report--the MTBE 
liability protection, which many Senators simply cannot abide--from the 
new version of his energy bill. But I am one of the many who believe 
that the bill that remains requires very, very substantial revision and 
thorough debate. With its origins in last year's conference report, 
there are far too many provisions in the new bill that the Senate 
Energy Committee has simply never considered. Moreover, if one of our 
primary policy goals is to improve the reliability of our nation's 
electricity grid, I am hard-pressed to see how many of the provisions 
in that bill are relevant.
  How will weakening the Safe Drinking Water Act help keep the lights 
on?
  Will providing MTBE producers with $2 billion in taxpayer-funded 
``transition'' assistance in any way reduce the likelihood of outages?
  How would delaying Clean Air Act implementation in our nation's most 
polluted cities ensure reliable operation of our electricity grid?
  Can anyone really argue that exempting oil companies form Clean Water 
Act requirements will make our high-voltage transmission lines more 
reliable?
  S. 2095 might not subsidize Hooters, but there remain plenty of 
handouts to the polluters and corporate looters--none of which have 
anything to do with bolstering the reliability of our transmission 
infrastructure. And that's before a non-existent conference with the 
House, the Leadership of which has publicly expressed its complete 
disinterest in revisiting the provisions of H.R. 6 most objectionable 
to the Senate. In fact, I ask my colleagues to consider the following 
passage, published in the February 14, 2004 edition of CQ Today.
  ``You can't start carving out pieces of a deal you already made,'' 
said Frank Maisano, a lobbyist who represents several MTBE producers. 
`What the Senate does at this point is irrelevant. This is just a 
vehicle to get to conference.' '' MTBE lobbyists--and perhaps our 
colleagues on the other side of the Capitol--believe that whatever the 
Senate does within the context of a debate on the new energy bill is 
``irrelevant.'' As the saying goes, ``fool us once, shame on you. Fool 
us twice, shame on us.''

  So Mr. President, in view of the existing gridlock on comprehensive 
energy legislation, I believe the only responsible course is for this 
body to bring up and pass stand-alone electric reliability legislation. 
I reject the notion that passing comprehensive energy legislation--such 
as it is--is the sole path to improving the reliability of our nation's 
electricity grid. We can pass stand-alone reliability legislation. 
We've done it before. We can--and must--do it again. Good energy policy 
must not be held hostage to the bad, and I am pleased to begin the 
process of placing the bill directly on the Senate calendar.

                          ____________________