[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5595-5612]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  NATIONAL LABORATORIES PARTNERSHIP IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2001--Continued

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending 
amendment be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3197 To Amendment No. 2917

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, amendment No. 3197 is at the desk. I ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Carper], for himself, Ms. 
     Collins, Mr. Levin, Ms. Landrieu, Ms. Stabenow, and Mr. 
     Jeffords, proposes an amendment numbered 3197 to amendment 
     No. 2917.

  Mr. CARPER. 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 encourage the efficient generation of electricity through 
    combined heat and power and to modify the provision relating to 
  termination of mandatory purchase and sale requirements under PURPA)

       Beginning on page 47, strike line 23 and all that follows 
     through page 48, line 20, and insert the following:
       ``(m) Termination of Mandatory Purchase and Sale 
     Requirements.--
       ``(1) Obligation to purchase.-- After the date of enactment 
     of this subsection, no electric utility shall be required to 
     enter into a new contract or obligation to purchase electric 
     energy from a qualifying cogeneration facility or a 
     qualifying small power production facility under this section 
     if the Commission finds that the qualifying cogeneration 
     facility or qualifying small power production facility has 
     access to independently administered, auction-based day ahead 
     and real time wholesale markets for the sale of electric 
     energy.
       ``(2) Obligation to sell.--After the date of enactment of 
     this subsection, no electric utility shall be required to 
     enter into a new contract or obligation to sell electric 
     energy to a qualifying cogeneration facility or a qualifying 
     small power production facility under this section if 
     competing retail electric suppliers are able to provide 
     electric energy to the qualifying cogeneration facility or 
     qualifying small power production facility.
       ``(3) No effect on existing rights and remedies.--Nothing 
     in this subsection affects the rights or remedies of any 
     party under any contract or obligation, in effect on the date 
     of enactment of this subsection, to purchase electric energy 
     or capacity from or to sell electric energy or capacity to a 
     facility under this Act (including the right to recover costs 
     of purchasing electric energy or capacity).

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Snowe 
be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARPER. Senator Collins of Maine joins me in offering this 
amendment.
  Mr. President, the issue that is before us involves cogenerating 
facilities which create both heat and power. They are highly efficient 
and environmentally attractive. They exist in almost all of our States. 
Unfortunately, section 244 of the Senate energy bill before us would 
eliminate the provisions in current law which support both existing 
combined heat and power generating systems and new ones that are being 
developed. I believe that until competitive conditions in electricity 
markets make these existing requirements unnecessary, the changes that 
are incorporated in this bill are premature.
  Today, combined heat and power plants, which typically produce 
electricity and deliver steam used for manufacturing purposes, produce 
about 7 percent of our Nation's electricity. Combined heat and power 
facilities are, on average, twice as fuel efficient as conventional 
utility plants and thus produce about half the emissions of 
conventional utility plants.
  The U.S. Department of Energy and our Environmental Protection Agency 
have set the goal of doubling the Nation's capacity from combined heat 
and power facilities by 2010. Section 244 of the Senate energy bill 
runs counter to this goal by repealing, perhaps inadvertently, 
statutory support for existing and new combined heat and power 
generating facilities.
  Under existing law, section 210 of PURPA, the Public Utility 
Regulatory Policies Act, has, since 1978, required electric utilities 
to purchase electricity generated by so-called qualifying facilities--
which includes cogenerators and renewable energy facilities--at the 
utility's ``avoided cost.'' ``Avoided cost'' is the cost the utility 
would have paid to generate the same electricity itself or to purchase 
it elsewhere. PURPA also requires electric utilities to sell qualifying 
facilities backup power at just and reasonable rates and without 
discrimination.
  So under current law, under PURPA, these qualifying facilities, 
cogenerating facilities, are permitted to sell the power that they 
create at a price that is agreed to at the utility's avoided cost. 
Also, they have the ability to purchase electricity power as it is 
needed at a reasonable rate and without discrimination. That is current 
law. They would lose that ability under the language of the bill that 
is before us. We do not want them to lose that ability.
  Section 244 of the bill would terminate the obligation of electric 
utilities, under PURPA, to enter into new contracts to either purchase 
electric energy from these qualifying facilities or to sell electricity 
to new qualifying facilities.
  Some would argue that these PURPA requirements are no longer needed 
because electricity markets are competitive. In many cases, however, 
electricity markets are not competitive. I realize in a number of 
markets they are. Delaware is among them. But in a number of other 
markets, electricity is

[[Page 5596]]

not competitive, and these qualifying facilities do not have access to 
competitive options for buying or selling electricity.
  The existing PURPA protections should not be lifted, in my judgment, 
and that of Senator Collins' and our other cosponsors' judgment, until 
competitive electricity markets are found to render these protections 
no longer necessary.
  The amendment that Senator Collins and I offer today would modify 
section 244 of the bill before us by conditioning the termination of 
the PURPA obligation for utilities to buy electricity from these 
qualifying facilities on a finding by the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, FERC, that the qualifying facility has access to an 
independent, competitive, wholesale market for the sale of electricity. 
A FERC finding of a competitive wholesale market assures that there 
will be real opportunities for a qualifying facility to sell its 
electrical output, including intermittent power, at a competitive 
price.
  This amendment would also modify section 244 in this bill to clarify 
that the termination of a utility's obligation to sell backup power to 
a qualifying facility under PURPA is conditioned on the qualifying 
facility having the ability to purchase backup power from competing 
retail electricity suppliers. Until a cogenerator can shop for backup 
power from competing suppliers, it is critical to maintain the current 
PURPA obligation for the local utility to sell backup power at just and 
reasonable rates and without discrimination.
  Let me say, in conclusion, I support reform of PURPA, but I do not 
think we should do it in a way that runs contrary to our other goals of 
generating efficient electricity and developing competitive markets. 
This amendment does just that. I urge my colleagues to join us in 
support of the amendment.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my 
distinguished colleague from Delaware, Senator Carper, in offering an 
amendment to the energy bill that would keep in place, for a limited 
time, incentives for the generation of clean, efficient energy using a 
technology known as combined heat and power, or cogeneration.
  Such cogeneration plants use a variety of fuels, from biomass to 
natural gas, to produce both electricity and steam. Combined heat and 
power currently produces about 9 percent of our Nation's electricity. 
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, there are more 
than 1,000 facilities operating combined heat and power units in the 
United States, including hospitals, universities, and industries. There 
are 95 cogeneration facilities in my home State of Maine alone.
  By capturing the heat that would be rejected by traditional power 
generators, combined heat and power is extremely efficient. While a 
typical coal-fired powerplant only achieves about 34 percent 
efficiency, cogeneration facilities achieve 70 to 85 percent 
efficiency. On average, combined heat and power facilities are twice as 
fuel efficient as conventional utility plants.
  By keeping in place incentives for using combined heat and power, the 
Carper-Collins amendment adds to the competitiveness of our domestic 
manufacturing. Because cogeneration is so efficient, it reduces cost. 
The President's national energy policy makes clear that combined heat 
and power offers energy efficiency and cost savings important to many 
manufacturers that compete in the international marketplace.
  Our amendment also increases energy security and electric 
reliability. Dispersing power generation at manufacturing sites is an 
important tool to reduce the risk to the electricity supply. Generating 
electricity close to where it will be used reduces the load on existing 
transmission infrastructure. It reduces the amount of energy lost in 
transmission while eliminating the need to construct expensive power 
lines to transmit power from large central station powerplants.
  In addition, cogeneration reduces the U.S. dependency on foreign 
sources of energy by encouraging energy efficiency and fuel diversity 
in electric power generation.
  Also, our amendment is good for the environment. Because combined 
heat and power facilities are twice as efficient as conventional 
plants, they have fewer emissions. They reduce emissions of the 
chemicals that cause smog and acid rain and cut greenhouse gas 
emissions in half. For this reason, cogeneration is an important 
component of any plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and is 
included in the President's climate initiative.
  The U.S. Department of Energy and the EPA have set the goal of 
doubling U.S. cogeneration capacity by 2010. At industrial facilities 
alone, cogeneration could reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions by 44 
million metric tons. They could also reduce emissions of smog-forming 
nitrogen oxides by 614,000 tons per year.
  Let me now add to the comments made by Senator Carper on why this 
amendment is necessary. The Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act, known 
as PURPA, requires utilities to sell backup power to qualifying 
nonutility power facilities at just and reasonable rates. It also 
obligates utilities to purchase excess power from cogeneration 
facilities at prices equal to that utility's own cost of production, 
known as the avoided cost. The Senate energy bill, however, repeals 
PURPA. Repealing PURPA would be a good idea if competitive electricity 
markets existed all across this Nation. Unfortunately, the legislation 
before us repeals PURPA even if competitive markets are not achieved.
  Our amendment would keep certain PURPA provisions in place until 
competitive electricity markets were established. For a limited time 
our amendment would keep in place the PURPA provisions requiring 
utilities to provide backup power and buy electricity from qualifying 
cogeneration facilities. As soon as competitive electricity markets 
were established, these requirements would be repealed.
  Without competition, there is no incentive for utilities to provide 
backup power or purchase electricity from combined heat and power 
facilities even though that electricity is cleaner and more efficient 
than most other electricity generation. Until a combined cogeneration 
facility can shop for backup power from competing suppliers and sell 
power at a competitive price, PURPA should not be unconditionally 
repealed.
  The amendment Senator Carper and I are offering today will keep in 
place incentives that continue to operate combined heat and power 
facilities until true competition exists in electricity markets.
  This amendment is good for the economy, good for the environment, 
good for our energy policy, and good for the competitiveness of 
American manufacturing.
  I thank my colleague from Delaware for involving me in this 
amendment. I urge our colleagues to support our proposal.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Alaska is 
planning to come to the floor to speak against the amendment. At this 
point, unless the proponents of the amendment would like to do initial 
debate, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. REID. For Members of the Senate, within the next 15 minutes there 
will be a rollcall vote, so everybody who is off the Hill should start 
heading back. The vote will occur probably around 1:05.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the amendment pending, as I understand

[[Page 5597]]

it, would extend PURPA's mandatory purchase obligation until such time 
as FERC determined that a PURPA ``qualifying facility'' had access to 
``independently administered, auction-based day ahead and real time 
wholesale markets for sale of electric energy.''
  The amendment would also require purchasing utilities to continue to 
sell backup power to qualified facilities unless competing retail 
electric suppliers were able to provide electric energy to the 
qualified facility.
  This basically means that FERC is in charge of certain retail sales 
of electricity--preempting State public utility commissioners on backup 
retail sales, at least for the foreseeable future. As a consequence, 
with all due respect, I believe the amendment is flawed. It would 
continue PURPA's mandatory purchase obligation indefinitely into the 
future by conditioning repeal on an affirmative FERC finding on a 
powerplant-by-powerplant basis that the statutory test is met.
  There are no requirements in the amendment regarding the process or 
timing for FERC action. Satisfying this test could take virtually 
forever, including numerous court challenges. Nor is there any guidance 
as to how FERC is to define the existence of an ``independently 
administered, auction-based day ahead and real time wholesale market'' 
for electricity.
  I guess the question is, Who knows really what it means? It is not a 
term of art in the Federal Power Act. Moreover, many areas of the 
country likely do not now meet--and may never meet--this test.
  So I suggest that we not be fooled by claims that the only thing the 
qualifying facilities want is access to the transmission grid. They 
have that now under FERC order No. 888. It is the law of the land, and 
it has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
  What do the supporters of this amendment really want? In my opinion, 
they really want to continue PURPA's mandatory purchases at above-
market rates. Who pays the cost above market rates? Obviously, the 
consumer--to have their power purchased at the ``avoided cost'' rate, 
even if that rate is far above the market rate.
  Well, I think this is wrong policy. The language in the underlying 
Daschle-Bingaman bill leaves existing contracts in place; but there 
should be no new PURPA contracts. I think most Members agree with that. 
Since its enactment--and we have had this debate previously on the 
bill--in 1978, PURPA has forced customers to pay lots of money. It is 
estimated that they have paid tens of billions of dollars more for 
electricity than would have been the case had it not been enacted.
  PURPA is incompatible with competitive wholesale markets. It has been 
used by the qualifying facilities that are cogenerators--producing both 
power and steam for industrial uses--in name only.
  Further, the last three administrations have proposed the repeal of 
PURPA's mandatory purchase obligation, and almost every comprehensive 
electric bill introduced over the past two Congresses has contained 
nearly identical language to the bipartisan consensus PURPA language 
contained in the Daschle-Bingaman amendment.
  Keeping PURPA is contrary to protecting consumers. Thus, in my 
opinion, the amendment should be rejected. I propose that we table the 
amendment and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  At this time, there is not a sufficient second.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have no objection if Senator Carper 
wants to speak, even though the motion was made. I would certainly 
defer to my friend.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kohl). The Senator from Delaware is 
recognized.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
  With the combined heat and power facilities, we have the ability to 
generate energy almost twice as efficiently as we generate it from 
traditional utilities, traditional generating plants. With combined 
heat and power facilities, we see emissions that are roughly half those 
of traditional powerplants.
  The administration's national energy plan envisions a doubling and 
relies on combined heat and power facilities in this country because 
they are so energy efficient and also environmentally friendly.
  The downside, unfortunately, is that, inadvertently, the language of 
this bill before us takes away the ability for FERC to help ensure that 
these combined heat and power facilities have the opportunity to sell 
power at reasonable prices into the grid and to buy power, if and when 
they need to buy it, at reasonable prices.
  I think all of us would agree that to have the ability to create more 
facilities that are twice as energy efficient as traditional generating 
facilities and produce half the emissions is a good thing. That is why 
the administration has offered doubling these facilities in their plan.
  Unfortunately, if we leave the language as it is in the bill, we are 
going to find that the potential that is embodied in the generating 
capability of the combined heat and power facilities will not be 
realized. Nobody is interested in utilities having to sell electricity 
at rates that are above market. We want to simply make sure that a 
combined heat and power facility, which is twice as energy efficient, 
and twice as environmentally friendly, has the opportunity to expand. 
That is what we seek to do here.
  With that in mind, I ask our colleagues to oppose the motion to 
table.
  Again, I express my thanks to the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, 
for joining me and a number of colleagues in offering this amendment 
today.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to table the pending amendment, 
and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to table amendment No. 
3197. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Daschle) 
and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 37, nays 60, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 82 Leg.]

                                YEAS--37

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bunning
     Burns
     Cantwell
     Cochran
     Craig
     Crapo
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--60

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Carnahan
     Carper

[[Page 5598]]


     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Thompson
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Daschle
     Helms
     Johnson
  The motion was rejected.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
3197.
  The amendment (No. 3197) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Georgia, Mr. Cleland, be recognized for up to 15 minutes to speak 
as in morning business, and the time be counted against the postcloture 
30 hours.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Cleland are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I have an amendment I would like to 
send forward, modify, and set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.


        Modification of Submitted Amendments Nos. 3239 and 3146

  Mr. BROWNBACK. I call up amendment No. 3239 and ask for its immediate 
consideration, and I ask unanimous consent to modify amendment No. 
3239.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I do not 
think we have had a chance to see that modification. I have spoken to 
the Senator from Kansas in the Chamber this morning. I spoke also with 
Senator Hagel. We have to do both at the same time. We cannot do them 
separately.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I spoke with Senator Hagel and told him I would send 
it forward, then ask for the modification, and then set it aside. If we 
want to do those at the same time, that is fine. I just wanted to get 
the amendment and its modifications forward. It is not to get ahead of 
anybody. If they want to do the modifications at the same time, I will 
yield to the distinguished floor leader from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I withdraw my reservation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, to remove the confusion, I withdraw my 
request at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is withdrawn.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend, it is my understanding 
what he wants to do is modify his amendment.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. That is correct.
  Mr. REID. I also want to modify Senator Hagel's amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent, notwithstanding rule XXII, that it be in 
order to modify amendments Nos. 3239 and 3146. I think that 
accomplishes what we want to accomplish.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Submitted amendments Nos. 3239 and 3146, as modified, are as follows:


               Submitted amendment no. 3239, as modified

       Strike all after the title heading and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 1101. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this title is to establish a greenhouse gas 
     inventory, reductions registry, and information system that--
       (1) are complete, consistent, transparent, and accurate;
       (2) will create reliable and accurate data that can be used 
     by public and private entities to design efficient and 
     effective greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies; and
       (3) will acknowledge and encourage greenhouse gas emission 
     reductions.

     SEC. 1102. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
       (2) Baseline.--The term ``baseline'' means the historic 
     greenhouse gas emission levels of an entity, as adjusted 
     upward by the designated agency to reflect actual reductions 
     that are verified in accordance with--
       (A) regulations promulgated under section 1104(c)(1); and
       (B) relevant standards and methods developed under this 
     title.
       (3) Database.--The term ``database'' means the National 
     Greenhouse Gas Database established under section 1104.
       (4) Designated agency.--The term ``designated agency'' 
     means a department or agency to which responsibility for a 
     function or program is assigned under the memorandum of 
     agreement entered into under section 1103(a).
       (5) Direct emissions.--The term ``direct emissions'' means 
     greenhouse gas emissions by an entity from a facility that is 
     owned or controlled by that entity.
       (6) Entity.--The term ``entity'' means--
       (A) a person located in the United States; or
       (B) a public or private entity, to the extent that the 
     entity operates in the United States.
       (7) Facility.--The term ``facility'' means--
       (A) all buildings, structures, or installations located on 
     any 1 or more contiguous or adjacent properties of an entity 
     in the United States; and
       (B) a fleet of 20 or more motor vehicles under the common 
     control of an entity.
       (8) Greenhouse gas.--The term ``greenhouse gas'' means--
       (A) carbon dioxide;
       (B) methane;
       (C) nitrous oxide;
       (D) hydrofluorocarbons;
       (E) perfluorocarbons;
       (F) sulfur hexafluoride; and
       (G) any other anthropogenic climate-forcing emissions with 
     significant ascertainable global warming potential, as--
       (i) recommended by the National Academy of Sciences under 
     section 1107(b)(3); and
       (ii) determined in regulations promulgated under section 
     1104(c)(1) (or revisions to the regulations) to be 
     appropriate and practicable for coverage under this title.
       (9) Indirect emissions.--The term ``indirect emissions'' 
     means greenhouse gas emissions that--
       (A) are a result of the activities of an entity; but
       (B)(i) are emitted from a facility owned or controlled by 
     another entity; and
       (ii) are not reported as direct emissions by the entity the 
     activities of which resulted in the emissions.
       (10) Registry.--The term ``registry'' means the registry of 
     greenhouse gas emission reductions established as a component 
     of the database under section 1104(b)(2).
       (11) Sequestration.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``sequestration'' means the 
     capture, long-term separation, isolation, or removal of 
     greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.
       (B) Inclusions.--The term ``sequestration'' includes--
       (i) soil carbon sequestration;
       (ii) agricultural and conservation practices;
       (iii) reforestation;
       (iv) forest preservation;
       (v) maintenance of an underground reservoir; and
       (vi) any other appropriate biological or geological method 
     of capture, isolation, or removal of greenhouse gases from 
     the atmosphere, as determined by the Administrator.

     SEC. 1103. ESTABLISHMENT OF MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the President, acting through the 
     Director of the Office of National Climate Change Policy, 
     shall direct the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of 
     Commerce, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of 
     Transportation, and the Administrator to enter into a 
     memorandum of agreement under which those heads of Federal 
     agencies will--
       (1) recognize and maintain statutory and regulatory 
     authorities, functions, and programs that--
       (A) are established as of the date of enactment of this Act 
     under other law;
       (B) provide for the collection of data relating to 
     greenhouse gas emissions and effects; and
       (C) are necessary for the operation of the database;
       (2)(A) distribute additional responsibilities and 
     activities identified under this title to Federal departments 
     or agencies in accordance with the missions and expertise of 
     those departments and agencies; and
       (B) maximize the use of available resources of those 
     departments and agencies; and
       (3) provide for the comprehensive collection and analysis 
     of data on greenhouse gas emissions relating to product use 
     (including the use of fossil fuels and energy-consuming 
     appliances and vehicles).

[[Page 5599]]

       (b) Minimum Requirements.--The memorandum of agreement 
     entered into under subsection (a) shall, at a minimum, retain 
     the following functions for the designated agencies:
       (1) Department of energy.--The Secretary of Energy shall be 
     primarily responsible for developing, maintaining, and 
     verifying the registry and the emission reductions reported 
     under section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 
     U.S.C. 13385(b)).
       (2) Department of commerce.--The Secretary of Commerce 
     shall be primarily responsible for the development of--
       (A) measurement standards for the monitoring of emissions; 
     and
       (B) verification technologies and methods to ensure the 
     maintenance of a consistent and technically accurate record 
     of emissions, emission reductions, and atmospheric 
     concentrations of greenhouse gases for the database.
       (3) Environmental protection agency.--The Administrator 
     shall be primarily responsible for--
       (A) emissions monitoring, measurement, verification, and 
     data collection under this title and title IV (relating to 
     acid deposition control) and title VIII of the Clean Air Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 7651 et seq.), including mobile source emissions 
     information from implementation of the corporate average fuel 
     economy program under chapter 329 of title 49, United States 
     Code; and
       (B) responsibilities of the Environmental Protection Agency 
     relating to completion of the national inventory for 
     compliance with the United Nations Framework Convention on 
     Climate Change, done at New York on May 9, 1992.
       (4) Department of agriculture.--The Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall be primarily responsible for--
       (A) developing measurement techniques for--
       (i) soil carbon sequestration; and
       (ii) forest preservation and reforestation activities; and
       (B) providing technical advice relating to biological 
     carbon sequestration measurement and verification standards 
     for measuring greenhouse gas emission reductions or offsets.
       (c) Draft Memorandum of Agreement.--Not later than 15 
     months after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     President, acting through the Director of the Office of 
     National Climate Change Policy, shall publish in the Federal 
     Register, and solicit comments on, a draft version of the 
     memorandum of agreement described in subsection (a).
       (d) No Judicial Review.--The final version of the 
     memorandum of agreement shall not be subject to judicial 
     review.

     SEC. 1104. NATIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS DATABASE.

       (a) Establishment.--As soon as practicable after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the designated agencies, in 
     consultation with the private sector and nongovernmental 
     organizations, shall jointly establish, operate, and maintain 
     a database, to be known as the ``National Greenhouse Gas 
     Database'', to collect, verify, and analyze information on 
     greenhouse gas emissions by entities.
       (b) National Greenhouse Gas Database Components.--The 
     database shall consist of--
       (1) an inventory of greenhouse gas emissions; and
       (2) a registry of greenhouse gas emission reductions.
       (c) Comprehensive System.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the designated agencies shall jointly 
     promulgate regulations to implement a comprehensive system 
     for greenhouse gas emissions reporting, inventorying, and 
     reductions registration.
       (2) Requirements.--The designated agencies shall ensure, to 
     the maximum extent practicable, that--
       (A) the comprehensive system described in paragraph (1) is 
     designed to--
       (i) maximize completeness, transparency, and accuracy of 
     information reported; and
       (ii) minimize costs incurred by entities in measuring and 
     reporting greenhouse gas emissions; and
       (B) the regulations promulgated under paragraph (1) 
     establish procedures and protocols necessary--
       (i) to prevent the reporting of some or all of the same 
     greenhouse gas emissions or emission reductions by more than 
     1 reporting entity;
       (ii) to provide for corrections to errors in data submitted 
     to the database;
       (iii) to provide for adjustment to data by reporting 
     entities that have had a significant organizational change 
     (including mergers, acquisitions, and divestiture), in order 
     to maintain comparability among data in the database over 
     time;
       (iv) to provide for adjustments to reflect new technologies 
     or methods for measuring or calculating greenhouse gas 
     emissions; and
       (v) to account for changes in registration of ownership of 
     emission reductions resulting from a voluntary private 
     transaction between reporting entities.
       (3) Baseline identification and protection.--Through 
     regulations promulgated under paragraph (1), the designated 
     agencies shall develop and implement a system that provides--
       (A) for the provision of unique serial numbers to identify 
     the verified emission reductions made by an entity relative 
     to the baseline of the entity;
       (B) for the tracking of the reductions associated with the 
     serial numbers; and
       (C) that the reductions may be applied, as determined to be 
     appropriate by any Act of Congress enacted after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, toward a Federal requirement under 
     such an Act that is imposed on the entity for the purpose of 
     reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

     SEC. 1105. GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION REPORTING.

       (a) In General.--An entity that participates in the 
     registry shall meet the requirements described in subsection 
     (b).
       (b) Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--The requirements referred to in subsection 
     (a) are that an entity (other than an entity described in 
     paragraph (2)) shall--
       (A) establish a baseline (including all of the entity's 
     greenhouse gas emissions on an entity-wide basis); and
       (B) submit the report described in subsection (c)(1).
       (2) Requirements applicable to entities entering into 
     certain agreements.--An entity that enters into an agreement 
     with a participant in the registry for the purpose of a 
     carbon sequestration project shall not be required to comply 
     with the requirements specified in paragraph (1) unless that 
     entity is required to comply with the requirements by reason 
     of an activity other than the agreement.
       (c) Reports.--
       (1) Required report.--Not later than April 1 of the third 
     calendar year that begins after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, and not later than April 1 of each calendar year 
     thereafter, subject to paragraph (3), an entity described in 
     subsection (a) shall submit to each appropriate designated 
     agency a report that describes, for the preceding calendar 
     year, the entity-wide greenhouse gas emissions (as reported 
     at the facility level), including--
       (A) the total quantity of each greenhouse gas emitted, 
     expressed in terms of mass and in terms of the quantity of 
     carbon dioxide equivalent;
       (B) an estimate of the greenhouse gas emissions from fossil 
     fuel combusted by products manufactured and sold by the 
     entity in the previous calendar year, determined over the 
     average lifetime of those products; and
       (C) such other categories of emissions as the designated 
     agency determines in the regulations promulgated under 
     section 1104(c)(1) may be practicable and useful for the 
     purposes of this title, such as--
       (i) direct emissions from stationary sources;
       (ii) indirect emissions from imported electricity, heat, 
     and steam;
       (iii) process and fugitive emissions; and
       (iv) production or importation of greenhouse gases.
       (2) Voluntary reporting.--An entity described in subsection 
     (a) may (along with establishing a baseline and reporting 
     reductions under this section)--
       (A) submit a report described in paragraph (1) before the 
     date specified in that paragraph for the purposes of 
     achieving and commoditizing greenhouse gas reductions through 
     use of the registry; and
       (B) submit to any designated agency, for inclusion in the 
     registry, information that has been verified in accordance 
     with regulations promulgated under section 1104(c)(1) and 
     that relates to--
       (i) with respect to the calendar year preceding the 
     calendar year in which the information is submitted, and with 
     respect to any greenhouse gas emitted by the entity--

       (I) project reductions from facilities owned or controlled 
     by the reporting entity in the United States;
       (II) transfers of project reductions to and from any other 
     entity;
       (III) project reductions and transfers of project 
     reductions outside the United States;
       (IV) other indirect emissions that are not required to be 
     reported under paragraph (1); and
       (V) product use phase emissions;

       (ii) with respect to greenhouse gas emission reductions 
     activities of the entity that have been carried out during or 
     after 1990, verified in accordance with regulations 
     promulgated under section 1104(c)(1), and submitted to 1 or 
     more designated agencies before the date that is 4 years 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, any greenhouse gas 
     emission reductions that have been reported or submitted by 
     an entity under--

       (I) section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 
     U.S.C. 13385(b)); or
       (II) any other Federal or State voluntary greenhouse gas 
     reduction program; and

       (iii) any project or activity for the reduction of 
     greenhouse gas emissions or sequestration of a greenhouse gas 
     that is carried out by the entity, including a project or 
     activity relating to--

       (I) fuel switching;
       (II) energy efficiency improvements;
       (III) use of renewable energy;
       (IV) use of combined heat and power systems;

[[Page 5600]]

       (V) management of cropland, grassland, or grazing land;
       (VI) a forestry activity that increases forest carbon 
     stocks or reduces forest carbon emissions;
       (VII) carbon capture and storage;
       (VIII) methane recovery;
       (IX) greenhouse gas offset investment; and
       (X) any other practice for achieving greenhouse gas 
     reductions as recognized by 1 or more designated agencies.

       (3) Exemptions from reporting.--
       (A) In general.--If the Director of the Office of National 
     Climate Change Policy determines under section 1108(b) that 
     the reporting requirements under paragraph (1) shall apply to 
     all entities (other than entities exempted by this 
     paragraph), regardless of participation or nonparticipation 
     in the registry, an entity shall be required to submit 
     reports under paragraph (1) only if, in any calendar year 
     after the date of enactment of this Act--
       (i) the total greenhouse gas emissions of at least 1 
     facility owned by the entity exceeds 10,000 metric tons of 
     carbon dioxide equivalent (or such greater quantity as may be 
     established by a designated agency by regulation); or
       (ii)(I) the total quantity of greenhouse gases produced, 
     distributed, or imported by the entity exceeds 10,000 metric 
     tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (or such greater quantity 
     as may be established by a designated agency by regulation); 
     and
       (II) the entity is not a feedlot or other farming operation 
     (as defined in section 101 of title 11, United States Code).
       (B) Entities already reporting.--
       (i) In general.--An entity that, as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act, is required to report carbon dioxide 
     emissions data to a Federal agency shall not be required to 
     re-report that data for the purposes of this title.
       (ii) Review of participation.--For the purpose of section 
     1108, emissions reported under clause (i) shall be considered 
     to be reported by the entity to the registry.
       (4) Provision of verification information by reporting 
     entities.--Each entity that submits a report under this 
     subsection shall provide information sufficient for each 
     designated agency to which the report is submitted to verify, 
     in accordance with measurement and verification methods and 
     standards developed under section 1106, that the greenhouse 
     gas report of the reporting entity--
       (A) has been accurately reported; and
       (B) in the case of each voluntary report under paragraph 
     (2), represents--
       (i) actual reductions in direct greenhouse gas emissions--

       (I) relative to historic emission levels of the entity; and
       (II) net of any increases in--

       (aa) direct emissions; and
       (bb) indirect emissions described in paragraph (1)(C)(ii); 
     or
       (ii) actual increases in net sequestration.
       (5) Failure to submit report.--An entity that participates 
     or has participated in the registry and that fails to submit 
     a report required under this subsection shall be prohibited 
     from including emission reductions reported to the registry 
     in the calculation of the baseline of the entity in future 
     years.
       (6) Independent third-party verifica-
     tion.--To meet the requirements of this section and section 
     1106, a entity that is required to submit a report under this 
     section may--
       (A) obtain independent third-party verification; and
       (B) present the results of the third-party verification to 
     each appropriate designated agency.
       (7) Availability of data.--
       (A) In general.--The designated agencies shall ensure, to 
     the maximum extent practicable, that information in the 
     database is--
       (i) published;
       (ii) accessible to the public; and
       (iii) made available in electronic format on the Internet.
       (B) Exception.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply in any 
     case in which the designated agencies determine that 
     publishing or otherwise making available information 
     described in that subparagraph poses a risk to national 
     security.
       (8) Data infrastructure.--The designated agencies shall 
     ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that the database 
     uses, and is integrated with, Federal, State, and regional 
     greenhouse gas data collection and reporting systems in 
     effect as of the date of enactment of this Act.
       (9) Additional issues to be considered.--In promulgating 
     the regulations under section 1104(c)(1) and implementing the 
     database, the designated agencies shall take into 
     consideration a broad range of issues involved in 
     establishing an effective database, including--
       (A) the appropriate units for reporting each greenhouse 
     gas;
       (B) the data and information systems and measures necessary 
     to identify, track, and verify greenhouse gas emission 
     reductions in a manner that will encourage the development of 
     private sector trading and exchanges;
       (C) the greenhouse gas reduction and sequestration methods 
     and standards applied in other countries, as applicable or 
     relevant;
       (D) the extent to which available fossil fuels, greenhouse 
     gas emissions, and greenhouse gas production and importation 
     data are adequate to implement the database;
       (E) the differences in, and potential uniqueness of, the 
     facilities, operations, and business and other relevant 
     practices of persons and entities in the private and public 
     sectors that may be expected to participate in the registry; 
     and
       (F) the need of the registry to maintain valid and reliable 
     information on baselines of entities so that, in the event of 
     any future action by Congress to require entities, 
     individually or collectively, to reduce greenhouse gas 
     emissions, Congress will be able--
       (i) to take into account that information; and
       (ii) to avoid enacting legislation that penalizes entities 
     for achieving and reporting reductions.
       (d) Annual Report.--The designated agencies shall jointly 
     publish an annual report that--
       (1) describes the total greenhouse gas emissions and 
     emission reductions reported to the database during the year 
     covered by the report;
       (2) provides entity-by-entity and sector-by-sector analyses 
     of the emissions and emission reductions reported;
       (3) describes the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse 
     gases; and
       (4) provides a comparison of current and past atmospheric 
     concentrations of greenhouse gases.

     SEC. 1106. MEASUREMENT AND VERIFICATION.

       (a) Standards.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the designated agencies shall jointly 
     develop comprehensive measurement and verification methods 
     and standards to ensure a consistent and technically accurate 
     record of greenhouse gas emissions, emission reductions, 
     sequestration, and atmospheric concentrations for use in the 
     registry.
       (2) Requirements.--The methods and standards developed 
     under paragraph (1) shall address the need for--
       (A) standardized measurement and verification practices for 
     reports made by all entities participating in the registry, 
     taking into account--
       (i) protocols and standards in use by entities desiring to 
     participate in the registry as of the date of development of 
     the methods and standards under paragraph (1);
       (ii) boundary issues, such as leakage and shifted use;
       (iii) avoidance of double counting of greenhouse gas 
     emissions and emission reductions; and
       (iv) such other factors as the designated agencies 
     determine to be appropriate;
       (B) measurement and verification of actions taken to 
     reduce, avoid, or sequester greenhouse gas emissions;
       (C) in coordination with the Secretary of Agriculture, 
     measurement of the results of the use of carbon sequestration 
     and carbon recapture technologies, including--
       (i) organic soil carbon sequestration practices; and
       (ii) forest preservation and reforestation activities that 
     adequately address the issues of permanence, leakage, and 
     verification;
       (D) such other measurement and verification standards as 
     the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Agriculture, the 
     Administrator, and the Secretary of Energy determine to be 
     appropriate; and
       (E) other factors that, as determined by the designated 
     agencies, will allow entities to adequately establish a fair 
     and reliable measurement and reporting system.
       (b) Review and Revision.--The designated agencies shall 
     periodically review, and revise as necessary, the methods and 
     standards developed under subsection (a).
       (c) Public Participation.--The Secretary of Commerce 
     shall--
       (1) make available to the public for comment, in draft form 
     and for a period of at least 90 days, the methods and 
     standards developed under subsection (a); and
       (2) after the 90-day period referred to in paragraph (1), 
     in coordination with the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary 
     of Agriculture, and the Administrator, adopt the methods and 
     standards developed under subsection (a) for use in 
     implementing the database.
       (d) Experts and Consultants.--
       (1) In general.--The designated agencies may obtain the 
     services of experts and consultants in the private and 
     nonprofit sectors in accordance with section 3109 of title 5, 
     United States Code, in the areas of greenhouse gas 
     measurement, certification, and emission trading.
       (2) Available arrangements.--In obtaining any service 
     described in paragraph (1), the designated agencies may use 
     any available grant, contract, cooperative agreement, or 
     other arrangement authorized by law.

     SEC. 1107. INDEPENDENT REVIEWS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 5 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and every 3 years thereafter, the 
     Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to 
     Congress a report that--
       (1) describes the efficacy of the implementation and 
     operation of the database; and
       (2) includes any recommendations for improvements to this 
     title and programs carried out under this title--

[[Page 5601]]

       (A) to achieve a consistent and technically accurate record 
     of greenhouse gas emissions, emission reductions, and 
     atmospheric concentrations; and
       (B) to achieve the purposes of this title.
       (b) Review of Scientific Methods.--The designated agencies 
     shall enter into an agreement with the National Academy of 
     Sciences under which the National Academy of Sciences shall--
       (1) review the scientific methods, assumptions, and 
     standards used by the designated agencies in implementing 
     this title;
       (2) not later than 4 years after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, submit to Congress a report that describes any 
     recommendations for improving--
       (A) those methods and standards; and
       (B) related elements of the programs, and structure of the 
     database, established by this title; and
       (3) regularly review and update as appropriate the list of 
     anthropogenic climate-forcing emissions with significant 
     global warming potential described in section 1102(8)(G).

     SEC. 1108. REVIEW OF PARTICIPATION.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 5 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of National 
     Climate Change Policy shall determine whether the reports 
     submitted to the registry under section 1105(c)(1) represent 
     less than 60 percent of the national aggregate anthropogenic 
     greenhouse gas emissions.
       (b) Increased Applicability of Requirements.--If the 
     Director of the Office of National Climate Change Policy 
     determines under subsection (a) that less than 60 percent of 
     the aggregate national anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions 
     are being reported to the registry--
       (1) the reporting requirements under section 1105(c)(1) 
     shall apply to all entities (except entities exempted under 
     section 1105(c)(3)), regardless of any participation or 
     nonparticipation by the entities in the registry; and
       (2) each entity shall submit a report described in section 
     1105(c)(1)--
       (A) not later than the earlier of--
       (i) April 30 of the calendar year immediately following the 
     year in which the Director of the Office of National Climate 
     Change Policy makes the determination under subsection (a); 
     or
       (ii) the date that is 1 year after the date on which the 
     Director of the Office of National Climate Change Policy 
     makes the determination under subsection (a); and
       (B) annually thereafter.
       (c) Resolution of Disapproval.--For the purposes of this 
     section, the determination of the Director of the Office of 
     National Climate Change Policy under subsection (a) shall be 
     considered to be a major rule (as defined in section 804(2) 
     of title 5, United States Code) subject to the congressional 
     disapproval procedure under section 802 of title 5, United 
     States Code.

     SEC. 1109. ENFORCEMENT.

       If an entity that is required to report greenhouse gas 
     emissions under section 1105(c)(1) or 1108 fails to comply 
     with that requirement, the Attorney General may, at the 
     request of the designated agencies, bring a civil action in 
     United States district court against the entity to impose on 
     the entity a civil penalty of not more than $25,000 for each 
     day for which the entity fails to comply with that 
     requirement.

     SEC. 1110. REPORT ON STATUTORY CHANGES AND HARMONIZATION.

       Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the President shall submit to Congress a report that 
     describes any modifications to this title or any other 
     provision of law that are necessary to improve the accuracy 
     or operation of the database and related programs under this 
     title.

     SEC. 1111. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this title.
                                  ____



                      submitted amendment no. 3146

 (Purpose: To establish a national registry for accurate and reliable 
reports of greenhouse gas emissions, and to further encourage voluntary 
                     reductions in such emissions)

       Strike Title XI and insert the following:

               TITLE XI--NATIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS REGISTRY

     SEC. 1101. SHORT TITLE.

       This amendment may be cited as the ``National Climate 
     Registry Initiative.''

     SEC. 1102. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this title is to establish a new national 
     greenhouse gas registry--
       (1) to further encourage voluntary efforts, by persons and 
     entities conducting business and other operations in the 
     United States, to implement actions, projects and measures 
     that reduce greenhouse gas emissions;
       (2) to encourage such persons and entities to monitor and 
     voluntarily report greenhouse gas emissions, direct or 
     indirect, from their facilities, and to the extent 
     practicable, from other types of sources;
       (3) to adopt a procedure and uniform format for such 
     persons and entities to establish and report voluntarily 
     greenhouse gas emission baselines in connection with, and 
     furtherance of, such reductions;
       (4) to provide verification mechanisms to ensure for 
     participants and the public a high level of confidence in 
     accuracy and verifiability of reports made to the national 
     registry;
       (5) to encourage persons and entities, through voluntary 
     agreement with the Secretary, to report annually greenhouse 
     gas emissions from their facilities;
       (6) to provide to persons or entities that engage in such 
     voluntary agreements and reduce their emissions transferable 
     credits which, inter alia, shall be available for use by such 
     persons or entities for any incentive, market-based, or 
     regulatory programs determined by the Congress in a future 
     enactment to be necessary and feasible to reduce the risk of 
     climate change and its impacts; and
       (7) to provide for the registration, transfer and tracking 
     of the ownership or holding of such credits for purposes of 
     facilitating voluntary trading among persons and entities.

     SEC. 1103. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title--
       (1) ``person'' means an individual, corporation, 
     association, joint venture, cooperative, or partnership;
       (2) ``entity'' means a public person, a Federal, 
     interstate, State, or local governmental agency, department, 
     corporation, or other publicly owned organization;
       (3) ``facility'' means those buildings, structures, 
     installations, or plants (including units thereof) that are 
     on contiguous or adjacent land, are under common control of 
     the same person or entity and are a source of emissions of 
     greenhouse gases in excess for emission purposes of a 
     threshold as recognized by the guidelines issued under this 
     title;
       (4) ``reductions'' means actions, projects or measures 
     taken, whether in the United States or internationally, by a 
     person or entity to reduce, avoid or sequester, directly or 
     indirectly, emissions of one or more greenhouse gases;
       (5) ``greenhouse gas'' means--
       (A) an anthropogenic gaseous constituent of the atmosphere 
     (including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, 
     hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur 
     hexafluoride) that absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation 
     and influences climate; and
       (B) an anthropogenic aerosol (such as black soot) that 
     absorbs solar radiation and influences climate;
       (6) ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Energy;
       (7) ``Administrator'' means the Administrator of the Energy 
     Information Administration; and
       (8) ``Interagency Task Force'' means the Interagency Task 
     Force established under title X of this Act.

     SEC. 1104. ESTABLISHMENT.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the enactment 
     of this title, the President shall, in consultation with the 
     Interagency Task Force, establish a National Greenhouse Gas 
     Registry to be administered by the Secretary through the 
     Administrator in accordance with the applicable provisions of 
     this title, section 205 of the Department of Energy Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7135) and other applicable provisions of that Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7101, et seq.).
       (b) Designation.--Upon establishment of the registry and 
     issuance of the guidelines pursuant to this title, such 
     registry shall thereafter be the depository for the United 
     States of data on greenhouse gas emissions and emissions 
     reductions collected from and reported by persons or entities 
     with facilities or operations in the United States, pursuant 
     to the guidelines issued under this title.
       (c) Participation.--Any person or entity conducting 
     business or activities in the United States may, in 
     accordance with the guidelines established pursuant to this 
     title, voluntarily report its total emissions levels and 
     register its certified emissions reductions with such 
     registry, provided that such reports--
       (1) represent a complete and accurate inventory of 
     emissions from facilities and operations within the United 
     States and any domestic or international reduction 
     activities; and
       (2) have been verified as accurate by an independent person 
     certified pursuant to guidelines developed pursuant to this 
     title, or other means.

     SEC. 1105. IMPLEMENTATION.

       (a) Guidelines.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     establishment of the registry pursuant to this title, the 
     Secretary shall, in consultation with the Interagency Task 
     Force, issue guidelines establishing procedures for the 
     administration of the national registry. Such guidelines 
     shall include--
       (1) means and methods for persons or entities to determine, 
     quantify, and report by appropriate and credible means their 
     baseline emissions levels on an annual basis, taking into 
     consideration any reports made by such participants under 
     past Federal programs;
       (2) procedures for the use of an independent third-party or 
     other effective verification process for reports on emissions 
     levels and emissions reductions, using the authorities 
     available to the Secretary under this and other provisions of 
     law and taking into account, to the extent possible, costs, 
     risks, the voluntary nature of the registry, and other 
     relevant factors;

[[Page 5602]]

       (3) a range of reference cases for reporting of project-
     based reductions in various sectors, and the inclusion of 
     benchmark and default methodologies and practices for use as 
     reference cases for eligible projects;
       (4) safeguards to prevent and address reporting, 
     inadvertently or otherwise, of some or all of the same 
     greenhouse gas emissions or reductions by more than one 
     reporting person or entity and to make corrections and 
     adjustments in data where necessary;
       (5) procedures and criteria for the review and registration 
     of ownership or holding of all or part of any reported and 
     independently verified emission reduction projects, actions 
     and measures relative to such reported baseline emissions 
     level;
       (6) measures or a process for providing to such persons or 
     entities transferable credits with unique serial numbers for 
     such verified emissions reductions; and
       (7) accounting provisions needed to allow for changes in 
     registration and transfer of ownership of such credits 
     resulting from a voluntary private transaction between 
     persons or entities, provided that the Secretary is notified 
     of any such transfer within 30 days of the transfer having 
     been effected either by private contract or market mechanism.
       (b) Consideration.--In developing such guidelines, the 
     Secretary shall take into consideration--
       (1) the existing guidelines for voluntary emissions 
     reporting issued under section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy 
     Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13385(b)), experience in applying such 
     guidelines, and any revisions thereof initiated by the 
     Secretary pursuant to direction of the President issued prior 
     to the enactment of this title;
       (2) protocols and guidelines developed under any Federal, 
     State, local, or private voluntary greenhouse gas emissions 
     reporting or reduction programs;
       (3) the various differences and potential uniqueness of the 
     facilities, operations and business and other relevant 
     practices of persons and entities in the private and public 
     sectors that may be expected to participate in the registry;
       (4) issues, such as comparability, that are associated with 
     the reporting of both emissions baselines and reductions from 
     activities and projects; and
       (5) the appropriate level or threshold emissions applicable 
     to a facility or activity of a person or entity that may be 
     reasonably and cost effectively identified, measured and 
     reported voluntarily, taking into consideration different 
     types of facilities and activities and the de minimis nature 
     of some emissions and their sources; and
       (6) any other consideration the Secretary may deem 
     appropriate.
       (c) Experts and Consultants.--The Secretary, and any member 
     of the Interagency Task Force, may secure the services of 
     experts and consultants in the private and non-profit sectors 
     in accordance with the provisions of section 3109 of title 5, 
     United Sates Code, in the areas of greenhouse gas 
     measurement, certification, and emissions trading. In 
     securing such services, any grant, contract, cooperative 
     agreement, or other arrangement authorized by law and already 
     available to the Secretary or the member of the Interagency 
     Task Force securing such services may be used.
       (d) Transferability of Prior Reports.--Emissions reports 
     and reductions that have been made by a person or entity 
     pursuant to section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 
     (42 U.S.C. 13385(b)) or under other Federal or State 
     voluntary greenhouse gas reduction programs may be 
     independently verified and registered with the registry using 
     the same guidelines developed by the Secretary pursuant to 
     this section.
       (e) Public Comment.--The Secretary shall make such 
     guidelines available in draft form for public notice and 
     opportunity for comment for a period of at least 90 days, and 
     thereafter shall adopt them for use in implementation of the 
     registry established pursuant to this title.
       (f) Review and Revision.--The Secretary, through the 
     Interagency Task Force, shall periodically thereafter review 
     the guidelines and, as needed, revise them in the same manner 
     as provided for in this section.

     SEC. 1106. VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS.

       (a) In General.--In furtherance of the purposes of this 
     title, any person or entity, and the Secretary, may 
     voluntarily enter into an agreement to provide that--
       (1) such person or entity (and successors thereto) shall 
     report annually to the registry on emissions and sources of 
     greenhouse gases from applicable facilities and operations 
     which generate net emissions above any de minimis thresholds 
     specified in the guidelines issued by the Secretary pursuant 
     to this title;
       (2) such person or entity (and successors thereto) shall 
     commit to report and participate in the registry for a period 
     of at least 5 calendar years, provided that such agreements 
     may be renewed by mutual consent;
       (3) for purposes of measuring performance under the 
     agreement, such person or entity (and successors thereto) 
     shall determine, by mutual agreement with the Secretary--
       (A) pursuant to the guidelines issued under this title, a 
     baseline emissions level for a representative period 
     preceding the effective date of the agreement; and
       (B) emissions reduction goals, taking into consideration 
     the baseline emissions level determined under subparagraph 
     (A) and any relevant economic and operational factors that 
     may affect such baseline emissions level over the duration of 
     the agreement; and
       (4) for certified emissions reductions made relative to the 
     baseline emissions level, the Secretary shall provide, at the 
     request of the person or entity, transferable credits (with 
     unique assigned serial numbers) to the person or entity 
     which, inter alia--
       (A) can be used by such person or entity towards meeting 
     emissions reductions goals set forth under the agreement;
       (B) can be transferred to other parties or entities through 
     a voluntary private transaction between persons or entities; 
     or
       (C) shall be applicable towards any incentive, market-
     based, or regulatory programs determined by the Congress in a 
     future enactment to be necessary and feasible to reduce the 
     risk of climate change and its impacts.
       (b) Public Notice and Comment.--At least 30 days before any 
     agreement is final, the Secretary shall give notice thereof 
     in the Federal Register and provide an opportunity for public 
     written comment. After reviewing such comments, the Secretary 
     may withdraw the agreement or the parties thereto may 
     mutually agree to revise it to finalize it without 
     substantive change. Such agreement shall be retained in the 
     national registry and be available to the public.
       (c) Emissions in Excess.--In the event that a person or 
     entity fails to certify that emissions from applicable 
     facilities are less than the emissions reduction goals 
     contained in the agreement, such person or entity shall take 
     actions as necessary to reduce such excess emissions, 
     including--
       (1) redemption of transferable credits acquired in previous 
     years if owned by the person or entity;
       (2) acquisition of transferable credits from other persons 
     or entities participating in the registry through their own 
     agreements; or
       (3) the undertaking of additional emissions reductions 
     activities in subsequent years as may be determined by 
     agreement with the Secretary.
       (d) No New Authority.--This section shall not be construed 
     as providing any regulatory or mandate authority regarding 
     reporting of such emissions or reductions.

     SEC. 1107. MEASUREMENT AND VERIFICATION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Commerce, through the 
     National Institute of Standards and Technology and in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Energy, shall develop and 
     propose standards and practices for accurate measurement and 
     verification of greenhouse gas emissions and emissions 
     reductions. Such standards and best practices shall address 
     the need for--
       (1) standardized measurement and verification practices for 
     reports made by all persons or entities participating in the 
     registry, taking into account--
       (A) existing protocols and standards already in use by 
     persons or entities desiring to participate in the registry;
       (B) boundary issues such as leakage and shifted 
     utilization;
       (C) avoidance of double-counting of greenhouse gas 
     emissions and emissions reductions; and
       (D) such other factors as the panel determines to be 
     appropriate;
       (2) measurement and verification of actions taken to 
     reduce, avoid or sequester greenhouse gas emissions;
       (3) in coordination with the Secretary of Agriculture, 
     measurement of the results of the use of carbon sequestration 
     and carbon recapture technologies, including--
       (A) organic soil carbon sequestration practices;
       (B) forest preservation and re-forestration activities 
     which adequately address the issues of permanence, leakage 
     and verification; and
       (4) such other measurement and verification standards as 
     the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Agriculture, and 
     the Secretary of Energy shall determine to be appropriate.
       (b) Public Comment.--The Secretary of Commerce shall make 
     such standards and practices available in draft form for 
     public notice and opportunity for comment for a period of at 
     least 90 days, and thereafter shall adopt them, in 
     coordination with the Secretary of Energy, for use in the 
     guidelines for implementation of the registry as issued 
     pursuant to this title.

     SEC. 1108. CERTIFIED INDEPENDENT THIRD PARTIES.

       (a) Certification.--The Secretary of Commerce shall, 
     through the Director of the National Institute of Standards 
     and Technology and the Administrator, develop standards for 
     certification of independent persons to act as certified 
     parties to be employed in verifying the accuracy and 
     reliability of reports made under this title, including 
     standards that--
       (1) prohibit a certified party from themselves 
     participating in the registry through the ownership or 
     transaction of transferable credits recorded in the registry;
       (2) prohibit the receipt by a certified party of 
     compensation in the form of a commission where such party 
     receives payment based on the amount of emissions reductions 
     verified; and

[[Page 5603]]

       (3) authorize such certified parties to enter into 
     agreements with persons engaged in trading of transferable 
     credits recorded in the registry.
       (b) List of Certified Parties.--The Secretary shall 
     maintain and make available to persons or entities making 
     reports under this title and to the public upon request a 
     list of such certified parties and their clients making 
     reports under this title.

     SEC. 1109. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       Not later than 1 year after guidelines are issued for the 
     registry pursuant to this title, and biennially thereafter, 
     the President, through the Interagency Task Force, shall 
     report to the Congress on the status of the registry 
     established by this title. The report shall include--
       (a) an assessment of the level of participation in the 
     registry (both by sector and in terms of national emissions 
     represented);
       (b) effectiveness of voluntary reporting agreements in 
     enhancing participation in the registry;
       (c) use of the registry for emissions trading and other 
     purposes;
       (d) assessment of progress towards individual and national 
     emissions reduction goals; and
       (e) an inventory of administrative actions taken or planned 
     to improve the national registry or the guidelines, or both, 
     and such recommendations for legislative changes to this 
     title or section 1605 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 
     U.S.C. 13385) as the President believes necessary to better 
     carry out the purposes of this title.

     SEC. 1110. REVIEW OF PARTICIPATION.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 5 years after the date of 
     enactment of this title, the Director of the Office of 
     National Climate Change Policy shall determine whether the 
     reports submitted to the registry represent less than 60 
     percent of the national aggregate greenhouse gas emissions as 
     inventoried in the official U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas 
     Emissions and Sinks published by the Environmental Protection 
     Agency for the previous calendar year.
       (b) Mandatory Reporting.--If the Director of the Office of 
     National Climate Change Policy determines under subsection 
     (a) that less than 60 percent of such aggregate greenhouse 
     gas emissions are being reported to the registry--
       (1) all persons or entities, regardless of their 
     participation in the registry, shall submit to the Secretary 
     a report that describes, for the preceding calendar year, a 
     complete inventory of greenhouse gas emissions (as reported 
     at the facility level), including--
       (A) the total quantity of each greenhouse gas emitted by 
     such person or entity, expressed in terms of mass and in 
     terms of the quantity of carbon dioxide equivalent;
       (B) an estimate of the emissions from products manufactured 
     and sold by such person or entity in the previous calendar 
     year, determined over the average lifetime of those products; 
     and
       (C) such other categories of emissions as the Secretary 
     determines by regulation to be practicable and useful for the 
     purposes of this title, such as--
       (i) direct emissions from stationary sources;
       (ii) indirect emissions from imported electricity, heat, 
     and steam;
       (iii) process and fugitive emissions; and
       (iv) production or importation of greenhouse gases; and
       (2) each person or entity shall submit a report described 
     in this section--
       (A) not later than the earlier of--
       (i) April 30 of the calendar year immediately following the 
     year in which the Director of the Office of National Climate 
     Change Policy makes the determination under subsection (a); 
     or
       (ii) the date that is 1 year after the date on which the 
     Director of the Office of National Climate Change Policy 
     makes the determination under subsection (a); and
       (B) annually thereafter.
       (c) Exemptions From Reporting.--
       (1) In general.--A person or entity shall be required to 
     submit reports under subsection (b) only if, in any calendar 
     year after the date of enactment of this title--
       (A) the total greenhouse gas emissions of at least 1 
     facility owned by the person or entity exceeds 10,000 metric 
     tons of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gas (or such 
     greater quantity as may be established by a designated agency 
     by regulation);
       (B) the total quantity of greenhouse gas produced, 
     distributed, or imported by the person or entity exceeds 
     10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse 
     gas (or such greater quantity as may be established by a 
     designated agency by regulation); or
       (C) the person or entity is not a feedlot or other farming 
     operation (as defined in section 101 of title 11, United 
     States Code).
       (2) Entities already reporting.--A person or entity that, 
     as of the date of enactment of this title, is required to 
     report carbon dioxide emissions data to a Federal agency 
     shall not be required to report that data again for the 
     purposes of this title. Such emissions data shall be 
     considered to be reported by the entity to the registry for 
     the purpose of this title and included in the determination 
     of the Director of the Office of National Climate Change 
     Policy made under subsection (a).
       (d) Enforcement.--If a person or entity that is required to 
     report greenhouse gas emissions under this section fails to 
     comply with that requirement, the Attorney General may, at 
     the request of the Secretary, bring a civil action in United 
     States district court against the person or entity to impose 
     on the person or entity a civil penalty of not more than 
     $25,000 for each day for which the entity fails to comply 
     with that requirement.
       (e) Resolution of Disapproval.--If made, the determination 
     of the Director of the Office of National Climate Change 
     Policy made under subsection (a) shall be considered to be a 
     major rule (as defined in section 804(2) of title 5, United 
     States Code) subject to the congressional disapproval 
     procedure under section 802 of title 5, United States Code.

     SEC. 1111. NATIONAL ACADEMY REVIEW.

       Not later than 1 year after guidelines are issued for the 
     registry pursuant to this title, the Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Interagency Task Force, shall enter 
     into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to 
     review the scientific and technological methods, assumptions, 
     and standards used by the Secretary and the Secretary of 
     Commerce for such guidelines and report to the President and 
     the Congress on the results of that review, together with 
     such recommendations as may be appropriate, within 6 months 
     after the effective date of that agreement.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be 
permitted to speak as in morning business for a period of up to 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Dayton are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the time that was 
used by the Senator from Minnesota be counted against the 30 hours.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                Amendment No. 3256 To Amendment No. 2917

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask that amendment No. 3256 be 
considered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles], for himself, Mr. 
     Breaux, and Mr. Miller, proposes an amendment numbered 3256.

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

       At the appropriate place in Title II, insert the following:
       Sec.   . Not withstanding any other provision in this Act, 
     ``3 cents'' shall be considered by law to be ``1.5 cents'' in 
     any place ``3 cents'' appears in Title II of this Act.

  Mr. NICKLES. The amendment I called up, sponsored by Senator Breaux, 
Senator Miller, Senator Voinovich, and myself, will reduce the penalty 
if a utility doesn't achieve the renewable standard that is set in the 
legislation.
  The legislation says that 10 percent of the electricity produced has 
to be from renewable sources. Renewable sources are defined as wind and 
solar, biomass--interestingly enough, not hydro. That is a very 
difficult standard to achieve. I am not sure any State can achieve it 
now or any State will be able to achieve it in the future. We will have 
to see.
  Varying States have different renewable standards. I am all in favor 
of

[[Page 5604]]

that, whatever States want to decide. We are getting ready to have a 
Federal mandate that says: 10 percent of your power has to be from 
renewable sources. Most people think renewables is nonfossil fuel, but 
that is not the case here. We are talking about primarily wind, solar, 
and biomass. Nuclear fuel is not included. Hydro, or at least old 
hydro, is not included. But if you don't achieve that 10 percent 
standard, there is a penalty.
  How do you get to the 10 percent? Let's say you do everything you 
can, but primarily most of the production in your State is fossil fuel. 
You run off coal or natural gas generators. And if you are short of the 
10 percent, what do you do? Under the bill, you can buy it from other 
utilities, if they have surplus credits, or you can pay the Federal 
Government. You can pay the Government for the credits. You could call 
them credits. You could call them a tax. You could call them a penalty. 
But you have to pay, if you don't meet this 10 percent standard. 
Actually, the standard starts at 1 percent and it is phased up to 10 
percent in the year 2019.
  If you don't make the standard, you have to pay something. It is a 
tax. Your utility has to write a check to the Federal Government, a 
large check. In many cases, it could be hundreds of millions of 
dollars. In many cases, the cost to the utilities--and I will enter 
into the Record some statements from different utilities--could be 
billions of dollars, because they have to pay 3 cents per kilowatt hour 
for whatever they are short of this target we are getting ready to 
mandate.
  How much is 3 cents per kilowatt hour? Most of us don't know. When we 
pay our utility bill, we don't know how much utilities really cost. The 
wholesale price of electricity right now, nationwide, is about 3 cents. 
If you don't meet the target, basically you have to pay 100 percent of 
whatever you are short on renewables in electricity cost. That is a 
lot, for 10 percent of your power.
  If you produce no electricity from the renewables, this bill is the 
equivalent of a 5-percent surcharge because you are paying in effect a 
100-percent increase for that last 10 percent. If you average that over 
your entire cost, it is about a 5-percent increase in your utility 
bill.
  I will tell you, few if any utilities will meet this standard in this 
bill, even those utilities that are very progressive and aggressive in 
trying to meet renewable standards and have renewable energy sources 
such as wind, solar, and biomass. Few are able to meet this standard 
that is in this bill. So you are going to have to buy these credits and 
pay a lot of money.
  The essence of this amendment is, let's reduce that 3-cent penalty to 
a penny and a half. You might say, where did you get the penny and a 
half? It happens to be half of what is in the underlying bill, and it 
also happens to be half of what the Clinton administration proposed.
  President Clinton, in 1999, proposed that we have a renewable 
standard. Incidentally, he didn't go up to 10 percent; he only went to 
7.5 percent of your electricity would have to be renewable. He also 
said: If you don't meet that objective, the penalty will be a penny and 
a half. That is the cost of the credits.
  Secretary Bill Richardson--many of us got to know him over the years 
and enjoyed working with him in Congress--when he was Secretary of 
Energy, that was the penalty, a penny and a half, not 3 cents.
  So the amendment Senator Breaux, Senator Miller, Senator Voinovich, 
and I have is to reduce the penalty from 3 cents to a penny and a half. 
That sounds as if we are talking about pennies. We are talking about 
billions of dollars, because we are talking about, 10 percent of all 
the electricity that is produced in the United States must come from 
renewables, and if you don't make it, you have to pay this 3 cents per 
kilowatt hour.
  What does that mean? I will cite a couple of letters. I have them 
from different companies and different States.
  I will start with my State. Oklahoma Gas and Electric said the 
penalty under the bill, as written right now--their estimate is it 
would cost $794 million through the year 2020. We would cut that in 
half. We have almost every utility in the country supporting of this 
amendment. This is a rather large utility called Southern Company. I 
mentioned the largest one in my State, Oklahoma Gas and Electric. 
Southern Company, which is in several Southern States, said it would 
cost them from $676 million to $1.014 billion annually by the year 
2020.
  I hope my colleagues understand this. I have a letter I will also 
have printed in the Record from the president of Southern Company, one 
of the largest utilities in America that says the total cost across 
several states could be over a billion dollars--from $676 million up to 
over a billion dollars a year--if the 3-cent penalty stays in the bill. 
We would cut that in half under our amendment.
  I could go on and on. Is it going to cost the utilities ultimately? 
Probably not. They are going to pass it, if they can; and I expect that 
they can. Residential consumers and industrial consumers will pay for 
it. Frankly, if industrial consumers are paying for it, they are going 
to pass that on, too.
  If you want to set about an inflationary spiral, we are doing that. 
We are increasing utility costs if we allow the Daschle-Bingaman 3-cent 
penalty per kilowatt hour to stay in the bill. I think it should be 
zero. Senator Kyl had an amendment to strike out the renewable section, 
but I am coming up with half a loaf. I am saying cut it in half. I am a 
legislator. If we can pass a bill half as damaging, I am willing to do 
it. If we can reduce the numbers by half, I think we will have made a 
big step in the right direction. Why in the world would we have a cap 
or a penalty higher than the Clinton administration proposed?
  Incidentally, it didn't pass. Some people said we should not pass it 
because it costs too much.
  Look at some of the other States that are involved. Kansas City Power 
and Light said it would cost over $300 million, and that is the current 
cap. We would cut that in half.
  Different companies have used different ways of stating the costs. 
Pinnacle West in Arizona talks about it costing billions of dollars to 
comply. They even said it may have a residential rate increase of 28 
percent.
  In Pennsylvania, PP&L, which has facilities in Pennsylvania and 
Montana, estimates penalties at $178 million per year in 2006, growing 
to $260 million by 2020. The reason they start out low is the renewable 
section starts out low, at 1 percent, but it grows every year, up to 
the very expensive 10 percent by 2019.
  Let me mention a couple letters, which I will enter into the Record, 
so that this won't just be little excerpts from my floor speech. This 
is a note from Allegany Energy. It says:

       The rates under the restructuring initiative to lower 
     consumer costs may restrict Allegany Energy, a conservative--
     1 percent requirement would cost $13 million annually, and a 
     10 percent requirement would cost $135 million annually, 
     assuming no growth in customer electricity consumption.

  I think most people would assume the consumption would go up over 
that period of time. That is a very conservative estimate.
  Exelon: I will read various segments of this:

       Meeting the Bingaman RPS amendment will cost our customers 
     between $2.3 billion and $4.6 billion more than they would 
     otherwise pay for electricity between 2005 and 2020.

  I hope my colleagues have a chance to absorb some of these numbers. 
This is a very large utility, and they are primarily in Illinois and 
Pennsylvania. They said it could cost $4.6 billion if we don't change 
the Bingaman amendment. Our amendment says we will cut it in half. I 
hope the Senators from Pennsylvania, the Senators from Illinois, and 
others will stop and say, wait a minute, who pays for that? Are we 
really passing something where we know what we are doing? Are we going 
to mandate those cost increases on consumers?
  Wait a minute, we are giving people a chance to cut it in half. That 
is what this amendment does. Listen to this comment made from Bill 
Richardson

[[Page 5605]]

before a House committee in June 17 of 1999:

       To hold program costs down, the administration's proposal 
     would allow electricity sellers to purchase credits from the 
     Department of Energy at a cost of 1.5 cents per kilowatt 
     hour. As a result, sellers would not be forced to pay 
     excessive amounts for credits that are sold by other 
     electricity providers that exceed the 7.5 percent RPS 
     requirement.

  This bill has a 10-percent requirement, and if you don't meet it, it 
says you have to pay 3 cents per kilowatt hour. As I have mentioned by 
a few examples, the cost is absolutely enormous.
  I want to mention a couple others. This is a the Public Service 
Commission for the State of Florida:

       However, in order to mitigate the ``tax impact'' of this 
     poorly conceived national program, we support the Nickles 
     amendment to lower the amount of penalty from 3 cents to 1.5 
     cents per KWH. This would reduce the potential cost of this 
     federal mandate on Florida ratepayers.

  That is a copy of a letter to Senator Gramm.
  This is a note from American Electric Power. It says:

       AEP is joining in this effort with Allegany Energy, Console 
     Energy, Peabody Energy, and the U.S. Mineworkers of America. 
     AEP and Allegany are the two largest utilities in West 
     Virginia and are responsible for all the electricity 
     distributed in the State.

  I will enter into the Record a letter from Southern Company. This is 
signed by Allen Franklin, chairman and president and CEO:

       The cumulative cost of the RPS mandate to Southern Company 
     through the year 2020 will be from $3 billion to $6.5 
     billion. This does not include substantial transmission and 
     interconnection costs for remote wind turbines located in the 
     upper Midwest. . . .

  I will enter this into the Record. That is a major company, covering 
several States, saying this will cost billions of dollars over the next 
15 years. I just tell my colleagues that when we talk about a penalty 
of a penny and a half and 3 cents per kilowatt, that doesn't sound like 
much. When you multiply it times all the electricity and mandate that 
10 percent of the electricity meet the standard and, if it doesn't, 
they have to pay this 3 cents--basically a 100-percent tax on 
electricity, equal to the value of 100 percent of wholesale cost of 
electricity-- you are talking about an enormous utility increase. We 
have a chance to mitigate that; we have a chance to reduce it by 
basically agreeing to the same standard that was proposed by the 
Clinton administration in 1999. I urge my colleagues to do so.
  I ask unanimous consent to have the letters to which I referred 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                             Southern Company,

                                 Atlanta, Georgia, April 16, 2002.
     Hon. Don Nickles,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Nickles: As the Senate continues its 
     consideration of S. 517, the Daschle/Bingaman energy bill, I 
     wanted to thank you for your continued efforts to improve the 
     Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) mandate in the bill. This 
     ill-advised policy will mandate the use of un-economic 
     generation and is not practical in several regions of the 
     nation.
       In many parts of the country, the RPS mandate can not be 
     achieved due to the lack of wind resources and the 
     intermittent nature of solar energy. The requirement to 
     purchase penalty credits under such circumstances equates to 
     a tax on consumers in those regions with no resulting benefit 
     for those same consumers. The cumulative cost of the RPS 
     mandate to Southern Company through the year 2020 will be 
     from 3 billion dollars to 6.5 billion dollars. This does NOT 
     include substantial transmission and interconnection costs 
     for remote wind turbines located in the upper Midwest, which 
     is the likely location for such an option. Obviously these 
     dramatic costs would increase the price of electricity to our 
     customers and threaten their lifestyles and the economic 
     health of their communities.
       One way to reduce these costs would be to lower the 3-cents 
     per kilowatt-hour penalty contained in the Bingaman RPS 
     language. This penalty is double the 1.5-cents per kilowatt-
     hour renewable credit cost in a renewable portfolio standard 
     proposed by the Clinton Administration. I understand you 
     intend to offer an amendment to lower the RPS penalty to 1.5-
     cents per kilowatt-hour, and we will support you in that 
     regard. This will not remove the negative impacts on our 
     customers of an ill-advised RPS mandate, but it will at least 
     lessen those costs significantly.
       We appreciate your continued efforts to improve energy 
     legislation as it moves through Congress.
           Sincerely,

     Allen Franklin
                                  ____



                                             OGE Energy Corp.,

                                Oklahoma City, OK, April 16, 2002.
     Hon. Blanche L. Lincoln,
     Dirksen Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lincoln: On behalf of Oklahoma Gas & Electric 
     (OG&E) I strongly urge your support of an amendment to be 
     offered by Senator Don Nickles to reduce by half the cost to 
     Arkansas consumers of the mandatory Renewable Portfolio 
     Standard provision in the pending energy bill, S. 517. The 
     Nickles amendment would reduce the cost of the renewable 
     energy credit from 3 cents per kilowatt-hour to 1.5 cents per 
     kw/hour.
       Based on the year 2001 actual total retail sales and full 
     implementation of the 10% RPS requirement, we calculate that 
     it would cost our customers an additional $73 million per 
     year, suggesting an increase of 5% in our retail rates. OG&E 
     opposes such federal mandate on investor-owned utilities 
     since it will skew the competitive playing field toward 
     cooperatives and public power that have been unfairly 
     exempted from the federal RPS mandate. The exemption of the 
     coops and public power utilities is equivalent to a 5% 
     penalty for our Company and a 5% windfall for coops and 
     public power. Although we are opposed to renewable mandates, 
     OG&E is willing to purchase power generated by renewable 
     sources if customers desire to purchase it. But thus far, our 
     customers in Arkansas and Oklahoma have not evidenced a 
     willingness to purchase higher priced renewable power to 
     justify our investment in these sources. Instead, our 
     customers clearly prefer the highly reliable and much less 
     expensive range of generation options that we currently 
     offer. The RPS provision in the energy bill will force our 
     Arkansas customers to pay more for a renewable product they 
     do not yet want enough to pay for. In so doing, the RPS will 
     raise costs to residential and business customers without 
     countervailing benefit either to them or to the Fort Smith 
     regional economy.
       Senator Nickles' amendment would at least reduce the 
     economic impact of the RPS provision by half. It makes real 
     sense to me. I hope you will support Senator Nickles' effort. 
     If you have any questions, please let me know.
           Sincerely,

                                              Steven E. Moore,

                                     Chairman, President and Chief
     Executive Officer.
                                  ____



                         Progress Energy Service Company, LLC,

                                      Raleigh, NC, April 22, 2002.
     Senator Don Nickles,
     Senate Hart Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Nickles: As the Senate continues debate on the 
     energy bill (S. 517), I must share with you my company's 
     strong conviction that this legislation is poor energy policy 
     for our customers and the country. The bill represents an 
     enormous policy reversal that gives important state 
     jurisdiction directly to the federal government.
       Progress Energy was formed in 2000 when Carolina Power & 
     Light merged with Florida Progress. Through two subsidiaries, 
     the company provides electricity to nearly three [2.8] 
     million customers in the Carolinas and Florida by employing a 
     diverse generation portfolio of more than 20,000 megawatts. 
     Our service territory has enjoyed substantial growth based, 
     in part, on our ability to produce reliable low-cost energy. 
     We use the market to select the best fuel mix for energy 
     production, a process that is grossly jeopardized by the 
     mandated renewable portfolio standards (RPS).
       Under the RPS cap of 3 c/kWh, between 2005 and 2020, 
     Progress Energy's customers would be forced to absorb $3.5 
     billion in extra costs. This RPS mandate would eventually 
     sidetrack economic growth. Additionally, the RPS could limit 
     the benefits of emissions-free energy our customers currently 
     enjoy since we use a large percentage of electricity 
     generated with nuclear and hydropower.
       Thank you for your interest and concern regarding the RPS 
     amendment and please know that we would be very supportive of 
     any relief you could give on this mandate.
           Sincerely,
                                                 David G. Roberts,
     Director Federal Affairs.
                                  ____

                                                 State of Florida,


                                    Public Service Commission,

                                  Tallahassee, FL, April 22, 2002.
     RE: S. 517, the Energy Bill

     Hon. Bob Graham,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: The Florida Public Service Commission 
     (FPSC) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on 
     three areas of amendments to S. 517, the energy bill. These 
     areas are: (1) The Renewable

[[Page 5606]]

     Portfolio Standards; (2) the Landrieu amendment on 
     participant-funded transmission expansion; and (3) the 
     amendments referred to as the consumer protection package.


   (1) nickles amendment to the renewable portfolio standards section

       The FPSC continues to oppose the Federal Renewable 
     Portfolio Standards. Florida utilities will have difficulty 
     meeting the federal standards. We believe that state 
     legislatures are best suited to set policies on renewable 
     standards for their state. In fact, during the current 
     legislative session, the Florida legislature directed the 
     FPSC to complete a study on renewables by February 2003. A 
     strict one-size-fits-all standard could put companies in the 
     position of having to purchase credits from elsewhere or of 
     being in noncompliance. The impact will ultimately be on the 
     retail ratepayer. Again, we oppose the Federal Renewable 
     Portfolio Standard. However, in order to mitigate the ``tax 
     impact'' of this poorly-conceived national program, we 
     support the Nickles amendment to lower the amount of the 
     penalty from 3 cents to 1.5 cents per KWH. This would reduce 
     the potential cost of this federal mandate on Florida 
     ratepayers.


(2) landrieu amendment on ``participant-funded transmission expansion''

       We believe this amendment to place the costs of 
     transmission expansion on the cost causer has merit, but we 
     do have some concerns about the provisions included in the 
     amendment. For example, there is a provision on market 
     monitoring that possibly could be interpreted to view the 
     Regional Transmission Organization as the primary market 
     monitor. Surely, that is not the intention of the amendment. 
     Moreover, the FPSC has initiated its own RTO proceeding to 
     address a Florida-specific RTO. That proceeding may also 
     address the entity appropriate to cover market monitoring. 
     The language within that provision is positive regarding the 
     RTO publicizing: (1) Projects that increase capacity or 
     transfer capability of the transmission system, and (2) the 
     tradeable transmission rights and costs associated with the 
     project. Thus, perhaps the section could be revised to 
     address only the ``RTO Publication of Information'' instead 
     of ``Market Monitoring,'' or the section could be deleted. 
     Thus, we believe the amendment has merit, but should be 
     revised.


                    (3) consumer protection package

       In general, the amendments, referred to as ``the Consumer 
     Protection Package'' look superior to the language in S. 517, 
     as amended by Senator Thomas. They create a standard on 
     proposed mergers that they must ``advance the public 
     interest'' which is a higher standard than ``consistent with 
     the public interest.'' Also, the package expands the list of 
     factors to be considered by FERC in reviewing mergers.
       In addition, the amendments require public disclosure of 
     transactions, and establish clear standards on affiliate 
     transactions. Also, there would be access to utility holding 
     company books and records. We see benefit to these 
     provisions, and they are consistent with this Commission's 
     Bedrock Principles on National Energy Policy.
       We do want to raise a concern, however, that States not be 
     preempted. In particular, there is the provision on market 
     based rates which directs FERC to remedy market flaws and 
     abuses. To the extent that one of those remedies might be to 
     require divestiture of a utility's assets, we believe the 
     FERC should be required to consult with those state 
     commissions that have statutory authority prior to ordering 
     such a remedy. Thus, in general we commend the ``consumer 
     protection'' package of amendments, but urge that any 
     potentially preemptive language be closely scrutinized.
       We appreciate your staff staying in close contact with FPSC 
     staff, and hope this information is useful.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Lila A. Jaber,
     Chairman.
                                  ____



                                          Great Plains Energy,

                                  Kansas City, MO, April 17, 2001.
     Hon. Don Nickles,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Nickles: On behalf of the employees of Great 
     Plains Energy, including our regulated subsidiary Kansas City 
     Power & Light, I am writing to express my appreciation for 
     your leadership and support on an issue of great concern.
       During the Senate's recent consideration of S. 517, the 
     energy bill, you spoke about the adverse effect a renewable 
     portfolio standard (RPS) would have on utilities and cited 
     information from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) 
     that the cost of purchasing credits in lieu of complying with 
     a renewable mandate would cost KCPL $16 million--in your 
     words, ``a pretty good hit.''
       Unfortunately, EIA grossly understated the costs of a 10 
     percent mandate to KCPL, and ``the hit'' is much worse than 
     that. We project the total costs of purchasing the credit to 
     be more than $300 million over the 15-year period between 
     2005 and 2020, when the RPS would ramp up to the full 10 
     percent. For a company of our size, these costs are 
     intolerable.
       While we appreciate the need to diversify our energy mix, 
     doing so by imposing a federal mandate that ignores the 
     availability and cost-effectiveness of renewable resources is 
     not sound public policy. In our area, wind energy, for 
     example, certainly would not be competitive with fuels such 
     as coal, oil, natural gas, or nuclear. That is why we 
     strongly support your efforts to amend the RPS by reducing 
     the credit cost from $0.03 per kWh to $0.015 per kWh. Even 
     with the credit cut in half, we would still be saddled with 
     extraordinary costs.
       We pride ourselves on providing reliable and affordable 
     electric service, yet the hidden tax imposed by the RPS may 
     be felt by many who can ill afford higher electricity prices.
       We appreciate your efforts to reduce the burden of the 
     renewable energy mandate, and offer our assistance to enact a 
     more reasonable approach.
           Sincerely,

     Bernie Beaudoin.
                                  ____



                            American Corn Growers Association,

                                   Washington, DC, April 16, 2002.
     Hon. John B. Breaux,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Breaux: I am writing to urge your support for 
     the amendment that Senator Nickles plans to offer to the 
     renewable portfolio standard of the energy bill, S. 517. Wind 
     energy is fast becoming a major new ``crop'' for the farming 
     and ranching community in many areas of the nation. The 
     American Corn Growers Association (ACGA), has developed its 
     Wealth From the Wind Program for farmers, and has strongly 
     supported wind energy tax credits in the Energy Bill as well 
     as other favorable legislative initiatives in the Energy 
     Title of the Farm Bill. ACGA also supports a fair and 
     equitable renewable portfolio standard (RPS) requiring a 
     portion of the nation's energy to come from renewable 
     sources. However, while we want to do everything we can to 
     promote renewable production by farmers we must oppose undue 
     mandates that will impose additional fuel costs on all rural 
     consumers.
       Senator Nickles' amendment will significantly reduce the 
     cost of complying with the standard, and in turn protect 
     rural America from excessive price increases for electricity, 
     by cutting the energy credits from 3 cents per kilowatt-hour 
     to 1.5 cents per kilowatt-hour.
       As you know fuel prices have fluctuated wildly over the 
     last two years and some regions have seen shortages of 
     electricity. With the price of gasoline and diesel rising 
     steadily now is not the time to add to these uncertainties.
       We urge you to support the amendment offered by Senator 
     Nickles.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Larry Mitchell,
     Chief Executive Officer.
                                  ____

         MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company,
                                   Omaha Nebraska, April 11, 2002.
     Hon. Don Nickles,
     Assistant Republican Leader, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Nickles: Thank you for your continued support 
     of the inclusion of electricity modernization provisions in 
     the Senate energy bill. The bipartisan vote yesterday by the 
     Senate to maintain the bill's electricity title was a great 
     step forward.
       With regard to your concerns about the renewable portfolio 
     standard (RPS) in the Daschle/Bingaman energy bill, 
     MidAmerican Energy Company has analyzed this proposal and 
     developed estimates of the increase in costs that will result 
     from enactment of the RPS. According to our preliminary 
     calculations, implementing the RPS in S. 517 will begin 
     increasing electricity costs for MidAmerican's regulated and 
     competitive customers in 2007 by almost $600,000, with costs 
     rising to more than $40 million in 2019.
       Because of the comparatively high availability of 
     affordable renewables in the region served by MidAmerican, we 
     based our calculations on an estimated additional cost of 1.5 
     cents/kilowatt hour for qualifying sources. As a major 
     developer of renewable electricity through our CE Generation 
     subsidiary, MidAmerican believes that renewables can and 
     should play an increasing role in the nation's electric 
     generation mix, and the Company has expressed its support for 
     Senator Bingaman's overall efforts to promote increased use 
     of these resources. At the same time, MidAmerican has long 
     believed that applying a reasonable cap on the cost of 
     renewable credits would ensure that consumer costs do not 
     escalate beyond those anticipated by RPS proponents.
       I understand that you are holding ongoing discussions with 
     Chairman Bingaman about the possibility of adjusting the cost 
     cap in the underlying legislation to address some of your 
     concerns about the RPS. We have contacted Chairman Bingaman's 
     staff to express our hope that a mutually acceptable 
     compromise can be reached on this issue. Thanks again for 
     your inquiry and continued support for PUHCA repeal and other 
     important industry modernizations.
           Sincerely,
                                                    David L. Sokl,
                             Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.

[[Page 5607]]

     
                                  ____
                                 Electric Consumers' Alliance,

                                 Indianapolis, IN, April 16, 2002.
     Re: Consumer support for Sen. Nickles' Amendment to S. 517 
         regarding Renewable Portfolio Standards

       Dear Senator: On behalf of Electric Consumers' Alliance, 
     its more than 300 member organizations representing all 50 
     states, and its tens of millions of residential and small 
     business constituents, I am writing to indicate our strong 
     support for Senator Nickles' proposed amendment to S. 517, 
     the pending energy bill. Simply put, Sen. Nickles seeks to 
     implement the mandatory Renewable Portfolio Standard in a way 
     that is more equitable and cost effective for consumers 
     across the nation by reducing the renewable energy credit 
     from 3 cents to 1.5 cents per kilowatt-hour.
       Renewable energy resources can and will play an important 
     role in America's future energy infrastructure. As such, ECA 
     supports their development, including the creation of 
     subsidies to accelerate their deployment. At the same time, 
     however, we are cognizant that our members will continue to 
     expect a reliable, affordable supply of electricity over the 
     next decade, and this will come predominantly from 
     traditional resources. It is important to encourage the 
     development of new resources, but this must be tempered 
     against the more important goals of maintaining service that 
     is reliable and affordable. There is a danger in transferring 
     too much of the cost burden for development of these 
     resources to consumers, rather than encouraging the market to 
     work.
       The mandated RPS requirement will not necessarily lessen 
     the need for or reliance on traditional generation in the 
     short-term. This is because of the intermittent nature of 
     renewable resources. Consumers won't wait for the sun to 
     shine or wind to blow to turn on appliances or flip the 
     lights. The renewable credits that are to be paid under S. 
     517 will likely be an adder to the cost of electricity for 
     consumers. As a result, these credits--while well-
     intentioned--will almost certainly have a direct impact on 
     raising the price of electricity for many Americas (assuming 
     reliability is not compromised, which we certainly do not 
     advocate).
       The Nickles proposal is a reasonable attempt to mitigate 
     the impact of the almost certain consumer price hike that 
     will be caused by mandated RPS. At a time when energy 
     affordability is an issue for a growing number of residential 
     and small business consumers, it is an appropriate balancing 
     of the interests at stake. If consumers are to shoulder the 
     burden for development of renewable resources through 
     credits, which S. 517 requires, then that cost burden should 
     be mitigated to more reasonable levels. Sen. Nickles' 
     proposal to reduce this impact by reducing the credit from 3 
     cents to 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour is a reasonable 
     compromise. It deserves your support.
       Thank you for your kind consideration.
                                                Robert K. Johnson,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                                   April 18, 2002.
     Hon. Don Nickles,
     Hon. John B. Breaux,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Nickles and Senator Breaux: The undersigned 
     associations thank you for your leadership in offering your 
     amendment to reduce the costs of the renewable portfolio 
     standard (RPS) contained in the pending Daschle/Bingaman 
     amendment to the Energy Policy Act of 2002 (S. 517).
       Your amendment would make a modest, but economically 
     critical, change to the cost cap aspect of the RPS program. 
     The current RPS provisions mandate that an increasing 
     percentage of electricity sold be generated from renewable 
     resources. The RPS program further provides that those 
     electricity generators that cannot economically achieve the 
     required level of generation using renewable energy sources 
     can purchase ``credits'' from the Department of Energy to 
     meet their shortfall. The bill price for these credits is 
     three cents per kilowatt hour. This credit price is intended 
     to act as a cap on the cost increases that will result as 
     demand for renewable power increases in response to the RPS 
     requirement.
       Unfortunately, this three-cent credit price is simply set 
     too high. Current wholesale electricity prices are only 
     slightly above three cents per kilowatt hour in most areas of 
     the country. With a three-cent credit, the result will be 
     that in most areas of the country the cost of electricity 
     mandated by the RPS provision could be almost double the 
     current wholesale cost of electricity. These higher costs 
     will be passed on to businesses and homeowners across the 
     country.
       Your amendment would halve the credit price to one and one-
     half cents per kilowatt hour. This is the same price set by 
     the Clinton Administration in its RPS proposals made in 1999. 
     Consumers will still pay more for electricity, but the cost 
     to consumers will be only half as much as it would be with a 
     three cent cost cap. Thus, the Nickles/Breaux amendment would 
     reduce the overall cost of the RPS provision.
       Your amendment will ensure that businesses and homeowners 
     alike will have more affordable electricity supplies in the 
     future; reduce the economic costs of the federal renewable 
     portfolio standard program in the energy bill; and to promote 
     economic growth and prosperity for all Americans.
           Sincerely,
         Alliance for Competitive Electricity, American Chemistry 
           Council, American Gas Association, American Iron and 
           Steel Institute, American Petroleum Institute.
         American Portland Cement Association, Associated 
           Petroleum Industries of Pennsylvania, Association of 
           American Railroads, Carpet and Rug Institute, Coalition 
           for Affordable and Reliable Energy.
         Edison Electric Institute, Electric Consumers Alliance, 
           Electricity Consumers Resource Council, Greater Raleigh 
           [NC] Chamber of Commerce, Indian River [FL] Chamber of 
           Commerce.
         International Association of Drilling Contractors, 
           Manhattan [NY] Chamber of Commerce, Massachusetts 
           Petroleum Council, Metropolitan Evansville [IN] Chamber 
           of Commerce, Missouri Oil Council.
         Naperville [IL] Chamber of Commerce, National Association 
           of Manufacturers, National Electrical Manufacturers 
           Association, National Federation of Independent 
           Business, National Lime Association.
         National Mining Association, National Ocean Industries 
           Association, Natural Gas Supply Association, Nebraska 
           Restaurant Association, Nevada Hotel & Lodging 
           Association.
         Nevada Restaurant Association, Nuclear Energy Institute, 
           Oklahoma State Chamber of Commerce & Industry, Stowe 
           [VT] Area Association, Tacoma-Pierce County [WA] 
           Chamber of Commerce, U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I did not want to speak if the chairman 
wanted to speak at this time, but in the absence of his desire to speak 
at this particular moment, I will make a few comments on the Nickles-
Breaux amendment.
  I have joined the Senator from Oklahoma in cosponsoring this 
amendment. This is a good amendment. It is good for consumers, 
certainly, it is good for the renewable energy industry in this 
country, and it is also good for the traditional suppliers of energy in 
this country.
  Let me state at the very beginning that I support the so-called 
renewable portfolio standard. If I were in Louisiana, I would try to 
explain it by saying it is a requirement of the Federal Government that 
power companies have to look for renewable sources of energy in 
producing energy in this country.
  What do we mean by that? Windmill power, for instance, biomass power, 
renewable alternative forms of energy that should be encouraged in this 
country. I am for that. I am from a traditional oil-and-gas-producing 
State, but I found out that we also have one of the largest 
manufacturers of windmills in Louisiana for the production of energy 
through wind power. That makes sense. It is not going to solve all of 
our problems, but it can contribute to a proper mix of renewable 
energy, as well as traditional forms of energy.
  We have a substantial number of tax credits in this energy bill 
coming from our Finance Committee to encourage these alternative 
sources of energy. As an example, there is already in the legislation a 
1.7 cent production tax credit to be received by wind and biomass 
producers. Mr. President, 1.7 cents per kilowatt is a lot when one 
considers that the wholesale price of energy is about 3 cents a 
kilowatt. When we are giving people who produce alternative sources of 
energy a 1.7 cent per kilowatt subsidy, that is significant. The person 
who produces those windmills in Louisiana are going to say: Wow, look, 
if I get a 1.7 cent per kilowatt tax credit, this is a good deal. 
People are going to want to buy power from windmill producers if it 
means 1.7 cents less per kilowatt than the ordinary regular 3 cent per 
kilowatt wholesale price of energy in this country. The legislation, as 
it is, encourages these alternative sources of energy through the Tax 
Code.
  This is the second issue we are talking about right now. The 
legislation also requires energy producers to reach a certain standard, 
a percentage, required by Congress using these alternative sources of 
energy by the year 2019. The legislation currently says 10 percent of a 
power company's production in the year 2019 shall come from these 
alternative sources of energy. Some people wanted it at 20 percent. It

[[Page 5608]]

is down to 10 percent. I support that. That is an achievable goal that 
power companies can reach, especially if we give them a 1.7 cent per 
kilowatt subsidy to encourage them to do it. That is good public 
policy.
  The concern is there is an additional subsidy that is proposed in the 
legislation, and this is what the Nickles-Breaux amendment addresses. 
The legislation says, if you do not reach that 10-percent goal of using 
alternative sources of renewable energy, we are going to, in essence, 
penalize you 3 cents per kilowatt; that you are going to have to make 
up that 10-percent goal by purchasing power from other producers that 
have met that goal or purchasing power from the Department of Energy 
through tax credits, and you are going to have to pay up to 3 cents per 
kilowatt for that extra energy you will be required to buy from other 
companies that have met that standard.
  What does that mean in the real world, to the person in their home 
who turns on the light switch every day and is concerned about the cost 
of electricity? What it means is if you add the 3 cents plus the 1.7 
cent tax credit, you are talking about a huge subsidy which I think is 
far more than it needs to be.
  The problem is that if they are required to purchase that tax credit 
from the Department of Energy at 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour, they 
could be looking at doubling the cost of electricity per kilowatt hour.
  The concern I have is, who is going to pay for this? It is not going 
to be the power companies. If they have to purchase additional electric 
tax credits at 3 cents a kilowatt, they are just going to pass the cost 
on to the consumer, back to the person in the house who flicks the 
switch. That person is going to pay not 3 cents but double that price 
per kilowatt for the electricity they use.
  Power companies are going to pass it through, and in a deregulated 
market they are going to add it to their bill at the end of the month. 
In a regulated market, they are going to go to the public service 
commission and say: Look, we are having to pay 3 cents more per 
kilowatt and we want it to be passed on to our rate base; we are just 
going to charge you 3 cents a kilowatt more than you are paying now. 
You are already paying 3 cents, so we are going to pay 3 cents more.
  That is too much. We do not need more incentives than are necessary.
  The tax credit of 1.7 cents per kilowatt hour and the Nickles-Breaux 
amendment with a penalty, in essence, of another 1.5 cents is a 
substantial incentive to encourage the development of what we call the 
renewable portfolio standard on the use of alternative sources of 
energy.
  It is interesting. I have a letter from the Electric Consumers' 
Alliance which says:

       On behalf of Electric Consumers' Alliance, its more than 
     300 member organizations representing all 50 states, and its 
     tens of millions of residential and small business 
     constituents, I am writing to indicate our strong support for 
     Senator Nickles' proposed amendment to S. 517, the pending 
     energy bill.

  The only disagreement now is the Nickles-Breaux amendment. But the 
support from consumers is clear. Support from people who provide 
electricity is very clear. They support it.
  The simple fact is that, when put together, the credit price of 1.5 
cents, coupled with the tax credit of 1.7 cents, means consumers and 
taxpayers will be providing a subsidy to wind power and to these 
biomass producers at a level of 3.2 cents. That is currently above the 
wholesale cost of power. That is a huge subsidy and incentive to 
developing sources of power.
  With the Nickles-Breaux amendment, we will still have a substantial 
subsidy, but it will be at a less cost to taxpayers and consumers of 
electric power. Bear in mind, every time we add 1 cent or half a cent, 
it is going to be passed on to the consumers of electricity in this 
country.
  The Nickles-Breaux amendment is a good approach and one that should 
be supported.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from 
the Electric Consumers' Alliance, to which I referred.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 Electric Consumers' Alliance,

                                 Indianapolis, IN, April 16, 2002.
     Re Consumer support for Sen. Nickles' Amendment to S. 517 
         regarding Renewable Portfolio Standards.

       Dear Senator: On behalf of Electric Consumers' Alliance, 
     its more than 300 member organizations representing all 50 
     states, and its tens of millions of residential and small 
     business constituents, I am writing to indicate our strong 
     support for Senator Nickles' proposed amendment to S. 517, 
     the pending energy bill. Simply put, Sen. Nickles seeks to 
     implement the mandatory Renewable Portfolio Standard in a way 
     that is more equitable and cost effective for consumers 
     across the Nation by reducing the renewable energy credit 
     from 3 cents to 1.l5 cents per kilowatt-hour.
       Renewable energy resources can and will play an important 
     role in America's future energy infrastructure. As such, ECA 
     supports their development, including the creation of 
     subsidies to accelerate their deployment. At the same time, 
     however, we are cognizant that our members will continue to 
     expect a reliable, affordable supply of electricity over the 
     next decade, and this will come predominantly from 
     traditional resources. It is important to encourage the 
     development of new resources, but this must be tempered 
     against the more important goals of maintaining service that 
     is reliable and affordable. There is a danger in transferring 
     too much of the cost burden for development of these 
     resources to consumers, rather than encouraging the market to 
     work.
       The mandated RPS requirement will not necessarily lessen 
     the need for or reliance on traditional generation in the 
     short-term. This is because of the intermittent nature of 
     renewable resources. Consumers won't wait for the sun to 
     shine or wind to blow to turn on appliances or flip on 
     lights. The renewable credits that are to be paid under S. 
     517 will likely be an adder to the cost of electricity for 
     consumers. As a result, these credits--while well-
     intentioned--will almost certainly have a direct impact on 
     raising the price of electricity for many Americans (assuming 
     reliability is not compromised, which we certainly do not 
     advocate).
       The Nickles proposal is a reasonable attempt to mitigate 
     the impact of the almost certain consumer price hike that 
     will be caused by mandated RPS. At a time when energy 
     affordability is an issue for a growing number of residential 
     and small business consumers, it is an appropriate balancing 
     of the interests at stake. If consumers are to shoulder the 
     burden for development of renewable resources through 
     credits, which S. 517 requires, then that cost burden should 
     be mitigated to more reasonable levels. Sen. Nickles' 
     proposal to reduce this impact by reducing the credit from 3 
     cents to 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour is a reasonable 
     compromise. It deserves your support.
       Thank you for your kind consideration.
                                                Robert K. Johnson,
                                               Executive Director.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I will be very brief. I wish to recognize the effort 
by Senator Nickles to remind us all of the obligation we have with 
regard to the cost of renewables. We have had an extended debate 
previously. This amendment obviously would change the fee and the 
renewable portfolio standard from 3 cents to 1.5 cents.
  We have already seen the estimate by the Energy Information 
Administration, from the Department of Energy, relative to the 
calculation of what a 3-cent renewable would cost the economy and the 
consequence to the ratepayers, $88 billion over the next 20 years. 
Changing the credit from 3 cents to 1.5 cents will save about $44 
billion through the year 2020.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will take a few minutes to respond to 
the comments that have been made and to oppose the amendment that my 
colleague from Oklahoma has offered.
  First, to put this in perspective for Senators, this is the fourth 
amendment we have seen that is designed to either eliminate or 
dramatically weaken the renewable portfolio standard we have in the 
bill. There were three others we voted on earlier that were not 
successful. A majority of Senators did not favor weakening the 
standard, and accordingly those amendments were not successful.
  I think the structure we have in the bill is important if we are 
going to actually accomplish the purpose of bringing renewable 
technologies into use in this country, and that is the purpose of

[[Page 5609]]

the renewable portfolio standard. What we are saying in the renewable 
portfolio standard is each utility is directed to begin, starting in 
the year 2005, to produce or obtain some of the power that it sells 
from renewable sources. They do not have to produce it from those 
sources, but they have to obtain it from those sources.
  We are saying you do not have to do anything this year, you do not 
have to do anything next year, you do not have to do anything the next 
year, but in the year 2005 you have to achieve 1 percent. One percent 
of the power you sell must come from renewable sources.
  There are obvious ways that one can go about this. First, one can add 
some renewable power generation capability to the mix of sources for 
generating power. That is one option. That is, of course, what we are 
intending to facilitate and to incentivize with this provision.
  A second thing that can be done is if one does not want to add it 
themselves, they can contract with someone who has that power or who is 
willing to provide that power from renewable sources. That is a second 
option.
  A third option, under the bill, the way we have it drafted, is one 
can buy a credit from somebody who does have more than the 1 percent--
and there are a lot of utilities today that are in a position, 
beginning in the year 2005, to try to sell their credits. That is good. 
We are providing for that. We are saying, OK, if a particular utility 
does not want to either produce the power from renewable sources or buy 
the power, someone who is producing it from renewable sources can then 
go buy a credit.
  The provision we have in the bill is patterned after the provision in 
the Texas renewable portfolio standard legislation that President Bush 
signed into law, and that has been acclaimed by all as a model kind of 
a bill. It has had great success in Texas in encouraging more use of 
renewables and diversifying the supplies of energy upon which they 
depend.
  What that Texas provision said was we would not charge 3 cents per 
credit. What we charge in Texas is 5 cents per credit. That is what 
President Bush signed into law, in Texas, when he was Governor of 
Texas. It would either be 5 cents per credit or 200 percent of the 
average price of traded credits, whichever is less, so that if one 
could not go ahead and buy the credit from someone who is producing 
power, who has an extra credit, then as sort of a last option, they 
could go to the State of Texas and say, OK, I will pay 5 cents per 
credit or I will pay 200 percent of the tradable price of credits at 
this time.
  What has the tradable price of credits turned out to be in Texas? It 
is five-tenths of 1 cent. Half of a cent is the tradable price of 
credits today in Texas.
  So essentially what the Texas provision says is that one would have 
to pay 200 percent of the trading price for credits, which would be a 
full cent, so 200 percent of the half cent would be a full cent, and 
that would be the price that would have to be paid to the State of 
Texas to get a credit; not the 5 cents but the 1 cent. That is under 
their provision.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Let me finish my comments and then I will be glad to 
yield for a question.
  We took that provision and we said, let's do the same thing at the 
Federal level and try to say we do not need to have a 5-cent credit; 
let us have a 3-cent credit, but let us also put that provision in 3 
cents or 200 percent of the average price of traded credit, whichever 
is less.
  So if, in fact, the same thing happens nationally that has happened 
in Texas, which I think it likely would--credits would be trading for 
substantially less than the 3 cents--then it is very likely the credits 
that would be purchased from the Government, if a utility decided to go 
that step and purchase credits from the Government, would be 
substantially cheaper.
  All of this, to some extent, is estimating where we think things will 
be once this legislation becomes law, if it does become law. I am glad 
to join with my colleague from Oklahoma or any other Senator in urging 
the Energy Information Agency to update their models, update their 
studies, and give us good information about what the right amount of 
credit ought to be. I am not certain 3 cents is the right amount, but 
it seems like the right amount based on what we know today.
  Based on the review of the numbers of different economic analyses, we 
have determined that 5 cents is too much. We have also determined that 
the 1.5 cents is probably too little. So our estimate is the 3 cents is 
about where it ought to be.
  The reason we think it ought to be at 3 cents is because we believe 
all of the different types of renewable energy ought to be encouraged 
to be developed under this proposal.
  We have a chart, which I would like to put up, to make the point. The 
renewable portfolio standard requirement can be met; renewable energy 
can be generated from any of a variety of sources. The main ones we 
think about are biomass and biofuels resources, solar insulation 
resources, geothermal resources, and wind resources. Those are the four 
logical areas.
  The concern is that if we lower the cost of this credit too much, the 
price of this credit too much, that this will skew away from the use of 
several of these and wind up favoring one over the others. In that 
regard, let me cite a letter to my colleagues. This is a letter 
directed to all Senators, I believe. This was dated April 18 and it is 
from a large group of organizations. It is from the Alliance for 
Affordable Energy, Louisiana; American Bioenergy Association; Citizen 
Action Coalition of Indiana; Citizen Action/Illinois; Dakota Resource 
Council; Hoosier Environmental Council, Iowa Citizen Action Network; 
Iowa SEED Coalition; I-Renew, Iowa; Michigan Environmental Council; 
Minnesotans for an Energy-Efficient Economy; North Dakota SEED. There 
are a whole range of organizations that have signed on to this letter.
  Their letter says:

       The undersigned environmental, consumer, and industry 
     groups urge you to oppose an amendment that would be offered 
     by Senator Nickles to further weaken the renewable portfolio 
     standard contained in Senate bill S. 517. The Nickels 
     amendment is the latest in a sustained attempt by power 
     companies to undermine efforts to diversify America's energy 
     supply with clean renewable energy.

  Then they go on to say further down in the letter:

       Under a lower priced cap--

  And that is what Senator Nickles is recommending here, 1.5 cents--

     only the very lowest-cost renewable energy technologies can 
     benefit from the RPS--primarily wind power at the very best 
     sites. Biomass, geothermal, and solar would be at a 
     significant disadvantage to meet this standard.

  That is three of the four on this chart.
  They say biomass would be a substantial disadvantage; solar, 
geothermal. The Nickles amendment would reduce benefits to Western 
States with good geothermal resources, to the Midwest, Southeast, and 
Northeast that have good biomass resources, and reduce benefits to all 
other States with good solar resources.
  I ask unanimous consent this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                   April 18, 2002.
       Dear Senator: The undersigned environmental, consumer, and 
     industry groups urge you to oppose an amendment that may be 
     offered by Senator Don Nickles to further weaken the 
     renewable portfolio standard (RPS) contained in Senate Energy 
     Bill (S. 517).
       The Nickles amendment is the latest in a sustained attempt 
     by power companies to undermine efforts to diversify 
     America's energy supply with clean renewable energy. The 
     Nickles amendment would reduce the cost cap for procuring 
     renewable energy credits under the RPS from 3 cents per 
     kilowatt-hour to 1.5 cents per kilowatt-hour. This provision 
     would:
       Reduce the number of technologies and states that would 
     benefit from the RPS--states with biomass, geothermal and 
     solar resources would be especially disadvantaged;
       Reduce the amount of renewable energy developed by 
     encouraging companies to pay a penalty rather than developing 
     or procuring more renewable energy; and
       Undermine the RPS competitive mechanism and potentially 
     even increase costs to consumers.

[[Page 5610]]

       The Nickles amendment would reduce diversity of 
     technologies and states that benefit from the RPS.--Under a 
     lower price cap, only the very lowest-cost renewable energy 
     technologies can benefit from the RPS--primarily wind power 
     at the very best sites. Biomass, geothermal and solar would 
     be at a significant disadvantage to meet the standard. The 
     Nickles amendment would therefore reduce benefits to Western 
     states with good geothermal resources; reduce benefits to the 
     Midwest, Southeast and Northeast states which have good 
     biomass resources, and reduce benefits to all other states 
     with good solar resources.
       The Nickles amendment would reduce the amount of renewable 
     energy developed.--An Energy Information Administration (EIA) 
     study of a 1.5-cent price cap (in a stronger RPS than the 
     Bingaman proposal) found that it could reduce the amount of 
     new renewable energy generated by the RPS by 84%. (AEO 2000)
       As Governor of Texas, President Bush signed a RPS law that 
     included a 5-cent per kWh price cap for renewable energy 
     credits. That law is working well and is one of the most 
     successful examples of a state RPS in existence today. The 
     Bingaman 3-cent price cap represents a reasonable compromise 
     between the 1.5 cent price cap proposed in the 1999 Clinton 
     RPS and the 5 cent price cap signed by President Bush as 
     Governor of Texas.
       The Nickles amendment would undermine the RPS competitive 
     mechanism and potentially even increase costs to consumers.--
     The RPS is designed to create competition among many 
     renewable energy technologies to reduce their costs. EIA also 
     found that it would create new competition for fossil fuels--
     reducing fossil fuel prices for electricity generators and 
     consumers. According to the most recent EIA analysis, these 
     reduced prices will save energy consumers over $13 billion 
     through 2020.
       By setting the price cap too low, the Nickles amendment 
     would reduce competition among many types of renewable 
     energy. It would reduce the total amount of renewable energy 
     developed, undermining the potential of renewable energy to 
     restrain fossil fuel price increases. Electric companies 
     would have to buy credits from DOE for 1.5 cents, but without 
     new renewables necessarily being developed. Therefore, the 
     Nickles amendment could actually increase electricity prices.
       Please don't believe the industry's claim that the RPS will 
     cost too much. The Bush Administration's EIA found that a 10% 
     RPS would save consumers money. Please reject the Nickles 
     amendment and any other weakening amendments, and preserve 
     the diversity, environmental and consumer benefits of the 
     Daschle/Bingaman RPS.
           Sincerely,
       Alliance for Affordable Energy, Louisiana.
       American Bioenergy Association.
       Citizen Action Coalition of Indiana.
       Citizen Action/Illinois.
       Dakota Resource Council.
       Environmental & Energy Study Institute.
       Environmental Law & Policy Center of the Midwest.
       Hoosier Environmental Council.
       Iowa Citizen Action Network.
       Iowa SEED Coalition.
       I-Renew, Iowa.
       Michigan Environmental Council.
       Minnesota Project.
       Minnesotans for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
       National Environmental Trust.
       Natural Resources Defense Council.
       North Dakota SEED.
       Renewable Northwest Project.
       Sierra Club.
       Solar Energy Industry Association.
       Southern Alliance for Clean Energy.
       Union of Concerned Scientists.
       U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. NICKLES. Did we have a hearing on any proposal to have this 
penalty?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I don't believe there was a specific hearing on it, and 
that is why I have suggested we request the Energy Information Agency 
to update their studies and recommend whether they think this is the 
appropriate level or not. We certainly would have time to do that 
between now and any conference with the House of Representatives on 
this bill. If there is a need to make an adjustment to come in line 
with what the Energy Information Agency recommends, I would be glad to 
work with my colleagues to try to do that in the conference.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. NICKLES. Did we have a hearing on the renewable portfolio 
standards as proposed by the Senator in this bill, period?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, we have had a hearing on the subject of 
renewable energy and renewable portfolio standards, not on the specific 
language in the bill.
  Mr. NICKLES. In the last 2 years, did we have a hearing on a mandate 
of 10 percent and a cost of 3 cents?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I don't know that we had a hearing on a 
specific level of required mandate or specific level of cost of credit. 
I don't believe we did.
  Mr. NICKLES. I know the House had a hearing in 1999. The Clinton 
administration proposed a 1.5-cent credit penalty per kilowatt hour. 
Why did the chairman come up with a 3-cent penalty, double what the 
Clinton administration proposed a couple of years ago?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. What we did, in response to my friend's question, we 
modeled our proposal on the successful program legislated into effect 
in Texas. That is the basis upon which we came up with our estimate. It 
was very different from the Clinton administration recommendation, not 
just with the credits but in various other aspects. We did not follow 
the Clinton administration proposal with regard to renewable portfolio 
standards in fashioning ours.
  Mr. NICKLES. Correct me if I am wrong; Texas has a requirement that 
has a goal of 2,000 megawatts of new renewable energy by the year 2009. 
That represents 2.6 percent of their present generating capacity. Also 
correct me if I am wrong, but Texas has their whole basis on capacity, 
not on electricity produced. So that Texas mandate is a whole lot less 
than the 10 percent mandate as proposed by the Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, my understanding is that is inaccurate; 
that, in fact, although the Texas language does talk about capacity, 
the calculation as put in place by their utility commission was on the 
basis of actual power produced. My information is that through the 
period that is covered by the Texas law, the percentage requirement for 
renewable energy is higher than the one we require.
  Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator will require the Texas utility code 
section 39.904, goals for renewable energy is 2,000 megawatts of 
generating capacity. I mention this because capacity is one thing, to 
generate electricity is another. For wind, you need three times the 
facilities to actually generate because they don't operate 24 hours a 
day. The wind does not always blow. Capacity is less intrusive and less 
expensive. And factually, the amount of megawatts produced equals right 
now 2.6 percent of the Texas generating capacity and less than 2 
percent anticipated by the year 2009.
  I heard my colleague say this is modeled after Texas. But it is not 
modeled after Texas. It did not follow Texas in any way, shape, or 
form. That is an editorial comment.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me once again try to put this in 
perspective for my colleagues. As I indicated, this is an effort, 
another effort, to weaken the renewable portfolio standards we have in 
the bill. We put the renewable portfolio standards in here because we 
believe strongly it is in our national interest that we diversify the 
sources from which we obtain energy and that we encourage the 
development and improvement of the new technologies which we know can 
be sources of energy as we move into the future. That is why we have a 
renewable portfolio standard in the bill.
  The requirement we have is not that onerous. When we require 1 
percent of the power sold by a utility by the year 2005 to be generated 
from renewable sources, that is not an unduly onerous requirement. All 
of the numbers we have been hearing about how it will cost such 
enormous amounts for the utilities to comply, assuming they are going 
to do nothing to meet excess demand in the future--the truth is, they 
are going to be adding generating capacity in the future to meet 
increased consumer demand. That is as it should be.
  All we are saying is, as they make those decisions about adding new 
generating capacity in the future, they should be encouraged, they 
should be incentivized, to look at renewable energy as the source for 
some of that

[[Page 5611]]

power. That is, to my mind, a responsible course to follow. We are way 
behind other industrial allies, the countries in Europe, in beginning 
to use renewable energy in our country. It is time we began to use 
these new technologies, began to improve these technologies. They have 
proven themselves to be effective. It would be extremely unfortunate, 
in my view, if we further weakened the renewable portfolio standard at 
this time.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I know my colleague from Ohio desires to 
speak, but I wish to make a couple of rebuttals to the comments made by 
the Senator from New Mexico. Then I am delighted to have my friend from 
Ohio speak.
  We didn't reduce the renewable portfolio standard. It is still 10 
percent. I don't think it should be there, but my decision was to 
minimize the damage under the Bingaman proposal, and we decided to cut 
the penalty in half, the same amount the Clinton administration 
proposed--the only proposal that had a hearing before Congress, and 
that happened to be a hearing not before this Congress but the last 
Congress in 1999. To think we would even have a proposal that has an 
indirect tax on utility users and consumers of billions of dollars, 
estimated by the Energy Information Agency of $88 billion, without even 
having a hearing, I find ridiculous.
  I hear colleagues say it was based on Texas, and it was not; there is 
a world of difference between capacity and generated electricity, 
especially when you talk about renewables. Texas has a standard that 
would equal 2 percent of their generation, and we are talking about a 
10 percent mandate. There is a lot of difference. There is a lot of 
difference when the cost impact is in the millions and billions of 
dollars for utilities all across the country. And I will put in more 
estimates.
  When I made this speech earlier, trying to strike the provision, I 
said something about a chart we got from the Department of Energy that 
said Kansas City Power and Light said it would cost $16 million--that 
is per year--when fully implemented. I mentioned that was pretty good 
for the consumers of Kansas City Power and Light.
  They said, in a letter: Unfortunately, EIA grossly understated the 
cost of 10 percent mandate to Kansas City Power and Light. The hit is 
much worse than that. We project total costs being more than $300 
million over the 15-year period between 2005 and 2020 for the full 10 
percent. For a company of our size, these costs are intolerable.
  So for people to say we don't think it will be very much, Senator 
Breaux, Senator Voinovich, Senator Miller, and I are at least trying to 
reduce the cost and trying to keep the cost at somewhat more affordable 
levels as proposed by the previous administration.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise to support the Nickles-Breaux 
amendment on renewable portfolio standards.
  Last month, the Senate debated the renewable portfolio standard 
included in the legislation before us today. I want to make it clear 
that I applaud the efforts of my colleagues to encourage the use of 
renewable electricity generation.
  I agree that renewable energy is an important part of the future and 
should be developed. I also strongly believe renewable sources are 
vital as this country seeks to diversify energy supplies and decrease 
our dependence on foreign sources to meet our energy needs.
  As my colleagues know, the Bingaman amendment that was accepted last 
month stipulates that we must develop a mandatory minimum standard for 
renewable energy of 10 percent by the year 2019. At the time, I opposed 
the requirement because I believed it mandated an unrealistic level of 
renewable usage in a short period of time, at the virtual expense of 
other sources of electricity generation.
  I think one point that seems to get lost over the use of renewables 
in America is that, right now, very little of our power in this Nation 
is generated by renewables. As a matter of fact, it is 1.6 of 1 
percent. My colleagues should understand when we are talking renewables 
in this bill, we are talking solar, we are talking wind, we are talking 
geothermal and we are talking biomass; that is it.
  When I stood to oppose the original mandate, I pointed out that in my 
home State of Ohio, our use of renewable energy is much lower than the 
national average. Renewables, including hydropower, generate 1 percent 
of our electricity.
  I also pointed out there are many other States which rely on 
renewable sources for electricity generation. According to the 1998 
data from the Energy Information Administration--and this is really 
important because it gets at the regionalism and how unfair this 
mandate is, as it is written, to certain regions of the country--at 
least 10 percent of the electricity generated in 16 States comes from 
renewable power. Of these 16, 5 States receive more than 50 percent of 
their electricity from renewable sources, and the primary source is 
hydroelectric power. Four of the five States--Idaho, Oregon, South 
Dakota, Washington--rely on hydroelectric power for more than 60 
percent of their electricity. Maine is the only State east of the 
Mississippi to rely on renewables for more than 50 percent of its 
electricity, 30 percent coming from hydro and 30 percent from other 
renewables.
  Regions and even individual States that currently have a high 
percentage of renewable energy sources would be less impacted by the 
underlying provisions. However, forcing a mandatory minimum would 
unduly burden States such as Ohio.
  Let me tell you a little about my State and States in the Midwest. We 
rely heavily on coal. Mr. President, 86 percent of our energy comes 
from coal. As Members of this Senate know, there are bills that have 
been introduced that will increase and require us to reduce 
NOX, SOX, mercury, and some are even talking 
about carbon. In our State, we are putting our money into clean coal 
technology, not into switching to renewables.
  What this underlying bill requires is that, in a place such as 
Cleveland, OH, my kilowatt--maybe some of my colleagues are not aware 
of this--my cost per kilowatt hour in Cleveland is 4.7 cents. This bill 
is talking about increasing that by 3 cents per kilowatt hour. That is 
a tremendous increase we are going to have to bear in States such as 
Ohio.
  AEP, which has its home office in Ohio, American Electric Power, 
estimates that they would have to install an additional cumulative 
total of 2,100 megawatts of renewables by 2011, a total of 4,100 
megawatts by 2015, and a total of 7,000 megawatts by 2020 under this 
requirement. This should be compared with their total generation, which 
is 38,000 megawatts. That is in 11 States. And this calculation does 
not include a safety valve or cost cap. The cost impact on AEP alone 
would range from $100 million to $400 million net present value.
  One of the things that bothers me when we debate these things in the 
Senate is, we are talking about the utilities. The utilities are the 
ratepayers.
  In my State, our manufacturers are taking it in the back of the neck. 
We are losing manufacturing jobs in the Midwest. One of the things that 
triggered this was a year ago we had a spike in gas prices, which put 
most of the small businesses in a negative position. Then, with the 
high cost of the dollar, they are in deep trouble, especially if they 
export.
  So we are talking about adding costs on a specific segment of our 
economy, which happens to fall heavily in my State. We use a lot of 
electricity. It also puts a negative burden on the people who live in 
my inner cities.
  People just talk about these things as if it didn't matter. But the 
people who make less than $10,000 a year pay about 30 percent of 
whatever they have for energy costs. This kind of legislation, as it is 
written, is going to drive those costs up. Let's talk about those 
people who are going to pay the cost.
  What I am saying today, to my colleagues, is give me a break. Give us 
a

[[Page 5612]]

break. Some of you are from regions that do not have the problems we 
have. We have 23 percent of the manufacturing jobs in this country in 
the Midwest. In my State alone, we have more manufacturing jobs than 
they have in the entire northeastern part of the country.
  What we are trying to do today is come up with a reasonable number in 
terms of this mandate. It may not mean a lot to some people who live in 
some of the other States that do not have manufacturing, but it does 
mean a great deal in States like my State. I think of Paul's Letter to 
the Romans, Chapter 12: We are all part of one body. We have different 
functions.
  It would be really nice if on the floor of this Senate we would start 
to give a little more consideration to some of the specific problems 
some of us have in our States so we could continue to survive and 
prosper and have reasonable energy costs, continue our manufacturing, 
and not drive up the cost for the least of our brethren.
  I urge my colleagues to really give serious consideration to this. 
This is a reasonable proposal we are making today. It does not 
eliminate the mandate. It just says, if we have to comply with it, we 
comply with it in a way that is less oppressive than what is contained 
in the underlying bill.
  Mr. REID. Under the previous order, the Senate is going to stand in 
recess so we can all listen to our Secretary of State in room 407. I 
ask, however, that the recess be extended until the hour of 4:15. I 
cleared this with my colleague, Senator Nickles. I ask that that time 
count against the 30 hours.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________