[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 73 (Wednesday, May 22, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H2898-H2899]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1920
   RESOLVING ENVIRONMENTAL AND GRID RELIABILITY CONFLICTS ACT OF 2013

  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 271) to clarify that compliance with an emergency order under 
section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act may not be considered a 
violation of any Federal, State, or local environmental law or 
regulation, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 271

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Resolving Environmental and 
     Grid Reliability Conflicts Act of 2013''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL POWER ACT.

       (a) Compliance With or Violation of Environmental Laws 
     While Under Emergency Order.--Section 202(c) of the Federal 
     Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824a(c)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(c)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) With respect to an order issued under this subsection 
     that may result in a conflict with a requirement of any 
     Federal, State, or local environmental law or regulation, the 
     Commission shall ensure that such order requires generation, 
     delivery, interchange, or transmission of electric energy 
     only during hours necessary to meet the emergency and serve 
     the public interest, and, to the maximum extent practicable, 
     is consistent with any applicable Federal, State, or local 
     environmental law or regulation and minimizes any adverse 
     environmental impacts.
       ``(3) To the extent any omission or action taken by a 
     party, that is necessary to comply with an order issued under 
     this subsection, including any omission or action taken to 
     voluntarily comply with such order, results in noncompliance 
     with, or causes such party to not comply with, any Federal, 
     State, or local environmental law or regulation, such 
     omission or action shall not be considered a violation of 
     such environmental law or regulation, or subject such party 
     to any requirement, civil or criminal liability, or a citizen 
     suit under such environmental law or regulation.
       ``(4)(A) An order issued under this subsection that may 
     result in a conflict with a requirement of any Federal, 
     State, or local environmental law or regulation shall expire 
     not later than 90 days after it is issued. The Commission may 
     renew or reissue such order pursuant to paragraphs (1) and 
     (2) for subsequent periods, not to exceed 90 days for each 
     period, as the Commission determines necessary to meet the 
     emergency and serve the public interest.
       ``(B) In renewing or reissuing an order under subparagraph 
     (A), the Commission shall consult with the primary Federal 
     agency with expertise in the environmental interest protected 
     by such law or regulation, and shall include in any such 
     renewed or reissued order such conditions as such Federal 
     agency determines necessary to minimize any adverse 
     environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable. The 
     conditions, if any, submitted by such Federal agency shall be 
     made available to the public. The Commission may exclude such 
     a condition from the renewed or reissued order if it 
     determines that such condition would prevent the order from 
     adequately addressing the emergency necessitating such order 
     and provides in the order, or otherwise makes publicly 
     available, an explanation of such determination.''.
       (b) Temporary Connection or Construction by 
     Municipalities.--Section 202(d) of the Federal Power Act (16 
     U.S.C. 824a(d)) is amended by inserting ``or municipality'' 
     before ``engaged in the transmission or sale of electric 
     energy''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Olson) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson).


                             General Leave

  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
insert extraneous materials in the Record on H.R. 271.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 271, Resolving Environmental and Grid 
Reliability Conflicts Act of 2013.
  My colleagues and I carefully drafted this bill last year to resolve 
a conflict between the Federal Power Act and environmental rules that, 
if left unresolved, could create serious problems for the reliability 
of our Nation's electric grid. With the hot summer coming and power 
demands set to surge, the potential for dangerous power outages is 
rising, alongside the mercury.
  Just last week, States like California and my own State of Texas were 
warned by regulators that electricity reserve margins could dip 
dangerously low. Texas faces critical electricity shortages in the next 
few years. We simply won't have enough reliable power to guarantee our 
grid. Rolling blackouts in Texas alone would impact over 25 million 
people. As coal plants continue to be shut down, pockets of areas 
across the country could quickly experience blackouts. When the power 
fails and the AC shuts down on a hot 100-degree day, it's the elderly, 
the young, and the poor who suffer first.
  Prior experience shows that in rare and limited circumstances, 
emergency actions have been needed to ensure the reliable delivery of 
electricity. When an emergency exists due to a sudden increase in a 
demand for electricity or a shortage of supply, the Department of 
Energy has a tool of last resort to address the emergency. That tool is 
an emergency order under section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act.
  DOE can order a grid connection to be made or power plant to generate 
electricity when outages occur due to weather events, equipment 
failures, or the electricity supply is too low to avoid a blackout. As 
they should, DOE can mandate a company to comply with a 202(c) order, 
even if it means a brief violation of environmental laws.
  Unfortunately, under current law, a company or individual can be 
penalized for violating environmental laws even when they're following 
a Federal order to avoid a blackout. In recent years, these conflicting 
Federal laws have resulted in lawsuits and heavy fines for electricity 
providers complying with legal orders. Unless Congress passes this 
legislation to resolve the potential conflict in laws, the section 
202(c) tool is in jeopardy.
  H.R. 271 eliminates the uncertainty facing power generators and their 
customers by providing a needed safety valve which clarifies that 
compliance with an emergency order under section 202(c) of the Federal 
Power Act may not be considered a violation of any

[[Page H2899]]

Federal, State, or local environmental law or regulation. To be clear, 
these emergency orders are not issued lightly and only under extreme 
power reliability scenarios. In the last 30 years, this authority has 
only been invoked about half a dozen times.
  If the need arises, my legislation will ensure that DOE works to 
minimize any adverse environmental impacts by balancing environmental 
interests with liability considerations.
  While some people are concerned that H.R. 271 doesn't go far enough 
to protect plant operators who might face lawsuits from environmental 
groups, my bill is a vast improvement over current law.
  Major utilities, both public and investor-owned power trade 
associations believe that a Federal court would be hard pressed to 
overrule an emergency order issued by the DOE. In a crisis, if this 
bill becomes law, DOE will be given deference, which will apply to 
utilities following these orders. DOE will consult with clean air 
regulators, but the final decision in emergencies will always firmly 
remain in the hands of those charged with keeping the power flowing.
  The protection H.R. 271 offers is critical; and given the number of 
plant retirements that have been announced, as operators grapple with 
new EPA air and water rules, I worry that DOE may need to use its 
emergency authority more often in the future.
  I still expect DOE emergency orders to be the exception and not the 
rule. In those rare instances when the authority is invoked, we should 
not punish generators who are simply following orders from the Federal 
Government to keep the power on in an emergency.
  Resolving this conflict is critical, which is why I reintroduced this 
bipartisan legislation in the 113th Congress. It will allow America's 
power companies to comply with Federal orders to maintain grid 
reliability during a power emergency without the threats of lawsuits or 
penalties.
  I'm pleased with the widespread bipartisan support this bill has 
received. This bill is proof that we can find common ground in 
Washington, D.C., when working to address a glitch in Federal law and 
provide a reliable energy supply to all Americans.
  I want to thank Chairman Fred Upton, Ranking Member Henry Waxman, 
Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield, and Subcommittee Chairman Bobby 
Rush for their support and assistance in moving this bill forward. I 
also want to thank my original cosponsors on the committee, Gene Green 
of Texas, Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania, Lee Terry of Nebraska, Adam 
Kinzinger of Illinois, and their staffs for working with me to fix this 
problem, to keep the power running for all Americans in an emergency.

  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, 
bipartisan legislation that protects energy consumers, the environment, 
and those who provide the power.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 271, the 
Resolving Environmental and Grid Reliability Conflicts Act.
  I'm proud to be an original cosponsor to this bill that we worked on 
with my good friends, Congressman Pete Olson and Congressman Mike 
Doyle, last Congress. This bipartisan legislation addresses a conflict 
in Federal law where a company or individual can be held liable for 
violating environmental laws when the Federal Government orders them to 
generate power to avoid blackouts.

                              {time}  1930

  Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act gives the Department of 
Energy the authority to order an electric generating facility to 
generate power in order to avoid an electric reliability emergency.
  At the same time, the possibility of violating environmental laws and 
regulations may restrict the operation of power plants or transmission 
lines. For example, a company may have mothballed a power plant because 
it had reached its Clean Air Act emissions limit for the year. So if a 
company, or publicly owned utility, is ordered by DOE to operate under 
section 202(c), and at the same time is prohibited from operating in 
accordance with the DOE order due to environmental limitations, the 
operator must choose which legal mandate to follow. These conflicting 
legal mandates should not complicate an electric reliability crisis, 
but they do. It is not fair for the government to put a power generator 
in this position.
  As a longtime member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and someone 
who has worked on both reliability and environmental legislation during 
that time, I can honestly say that it was never our intention to put 
electric generating facilities in the position of having to choose 
between compliance with one law over another. And while there have only 
been a couple of instances to date where a generator has been in this 
situation, this potential for conflict will only grow as several coal-
fired plants are scheduled to be taken offline in the coming years.
  That is why Congress needs to address this issue. Otherwise, we risk 
threatening our electric reliability and for certain regions of the 
country, this issue is coming fast. H.R. 271 simply clarifies that if 
an emergency order issued pursuant to section 202(c) of the Federal 
Power Act may result in a conflict with an environmental law or 
regulation, the order shall expire no later than 90 days after 
issuance.
  This deadline does two things. First, this ensures that the 
Department of Energy continues to have the necessary authority to 
``keep the lights on'' in true emergencies. However, it then gives DOE 
the opportunity to renew or reissue the order for an additional 90-day 
period only after consulting with the appropriate Federal agencies and 
including conditions submitted by these agencies to mitigate any 
potential adverse environmental impacts.
  This is not a messaging bill. It's not an anti-EPA bill or an anti-
air toxic standards bill. Instead, it's a commonsense bill that 
addresses a very worrisome deficiency in current law that is only going 
to become more prominent in the coming years.
  I want to thank our ranking member, Mr. Waxman, for his continued 
support of this bill. This is one of a handful of bills that actually 
were supported by both Democrats and Republicans in the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, and it has support across the utility industry. My 
hope is that the committee will continue to refer to the floor truly 
bipartisan bills like this one. It's time we get back to legislating 
and not messaging. With that, I encourage my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle to support this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I have no other Members wanting to speak, and 
I'm willing to close if my colleague is as well.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to 
support this great legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to thank Chairman Upton, 
Ranking Member Waxman, subcommittee Chairman Whitfield, and 
subcommittee Ranking Member Rush for their assistance in getting this 
bill passed in the 113th Congress.
  If my colleagues want to go home next week with an example of 
bipartisanship for their constituents, vote for H.R. 271.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stewart). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson) that the House suspend 
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 271.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________