Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, just to make clear for the information of my colleague, I did advise the sponsor of the amendment about a half hour before the vote that I had been informed that a Budget Act point of order could be raised, and I would intend to raise it. I understand from him now that was not adequate time for him to get the advice he needed in this connection. Perhaps we should have delayed the vote for a longer period. That was not even considered by me or him. At this point, unless there are other Members seeking recognition, I will offer another amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this is a good amendment. I congratulate the Senator from Oregon for his leadership in bringing this amendment to the Senate and for us to consider it as part of this bill. It has been cleared on both sides. I am authorized by the Republican manager as well to indicate that. There is a lot already in the bill that protects consumers. Obviously, a main theme of this bill is to empower and protect consumers. This will add to that and further strengthen the bill. We very much appreciate the cooperation of the other side in having this amendment added. I urge all colleagues to support the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, at this point I want to refer to and then have printed in the Record a few letters that support the underlying provision that we have in the bill on reliability and oppose the Thomas amendment. I have five. Let me go through each of them and indicate what they are and what they say. This first one is a letter from the Mid-Atlantic Area Council, the regional reliability council for this area of the country. It is located in Norristown, PA. It is directed to me. It is dated March 13. It says: The Mid-Atlantic Area Council-- MAAC is the acronym. We always like acronyms here in Washington-- would like to express its support for the reliability provisions in section 207 of your amendment in the nature of a substitute to S. 517. They are supporting the underlying bill, not the amendment by the Senator from Wyoming. MAAC appreciates your continued efforts to promote legislation that increases our energy supply and advances the effort to establish wholesale electricity markets in the United States. It is our understanding that the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) and the Western Governors' Association are seeking to strike your language in order to substitute an amendment they drafted. This amendment is based upon the now very stale NERC reliability proposal developed over three years ago. The subsequent convergence of reliability and market issues has rendered this language obsolete, and we urge you to oppose the amendment. MAAC recognizes the need for mandatory reliability standards that are broadly applicable to the wholesale power industry. However, the language in the amendment will limit the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's--FERC--and the industry's ability to properly restructure the wholesale transmission system which is essential for reliable, efficient and well-functioning markets. As currently drafted, the amendment removes most aspects of standards development and enforcement from FERC and grants sweeping powers to a new electric reliability organization, likely to be NERC. The amendment largely ignores the important role that regional transmission organizations--RTOs--will play in reliability and market management and appears to assume that assuring real-time reliability is purely an engineering function with no significant economic content or effect on markets, while your language would permit FERC to recognize the interplay between reliability and markets and allow RTO- administered market mechanisms to preserve and foster reliability. Furthermore, a December, 2001 FERC Order commenced a broad industry collaborative effort to arrive at a consensus on how to best merge NERC's activities into the standard setting process of the new North American Energy Standards Board-- NAESB, formerly Gas Industry Standards Board. The industry will make a filing to FERC by March 15. This amendment could derail the efforts supported by a large number to stakeholders to establish NAESB as the standards developer best able to accommodate NERC and commercial concerns. Your reliability language is compatible with recent efforts by the industry to develop a new and innovative approach to standards setting. The amendment would stifle industry efforts to forge a standards setting process that is in the best interest of America. Unlike the amendment [the Thomas amendment], your language does not set into law a complex and burdensome set of rules and processes which would institute a command and control system of enforcement ignoring was that market forces could enhance reliability. The language of the amendment, if substituted for your language, would result in a major setback of the efforts to reduce power costs through innovation and market forces. MAAC urges that you strenuously oppose the changes to your reliability provision, and offers our assistance to you as the Senate considers this important legislation. The States that are covered by MAAC are Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. That is an indication at least that some States are not totally enthusiastic about this amendment Senator Thomas is proposing. Next, I refer to a letter we have received, also directed to me, dated March 13, from the Electric Consumers Resource Council--ELCON. This is the national association representing large industrial users of electricity. They indicate in their letter they were established in 1976, their member companies have long supported policies furthering competition in wholesale and retail electric markets, and their members operate in every State in the Union. I will quote a couple of sentences out of their letter: We are obviously following the Senate debate on S. 517 very closely. One provision that might be overlooked is the issue labeled ``reliability.'' By way of background, ELCON was part of the original group working on this issue with the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) to develop then- consensus language roughly four years ago. We have continued to work with NERC and with the Gas Industry Standards Board (GISB), now the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB), to develop a structure for an organization to develop reliability standards for our interstate electricity grid and the impact of those standards on commercial activity. Since our members operate throughout the Nation, we strongly believe that rules should be as consistent as possible in every area. To do otherwise would balkanize the grid and hinder competition. For that reason we find the proposal now being promoted by NERC (and supported by several groups including the Western Governors Association) to be counterproductive. Granting deference to any region, even if that region constitutes an entire interconnection, invites conflict with other regions. By diminishing the authority of the national standard-setting organization, we are less likely, not more likely, to have an effective and fully functioning wholesale market. We hope that these views are helpful to you in your deliberations. I will go next to the PJM Interconnection. It is the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland interconnection. This, again, is a letter dated the same date, March 13, to me, by Phillip Harris. He is the president and CEO of PJM. He says: I am writing to express our support for electricity title, Title II, of Senator Bingaman's energy legislation, S. 517. We believe Title II will serve to fundamentally improve electricity markets in North America and urge your support of it. Then, going down the letter, it says: In the PJM region, we have been able to work successfully with States and local governments to ensure that electricity markets and the grid work in a way that meets the needs of wholesale and retail electric customers, while improving regional reliability. We are pleased that section 207 of Title II contains simplified reliability legislation that places reliability authority directly with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and enables it to objectively defer to regional solutions without preference. We urge you to reject any attempts by Senators from other regions to impose alternative legislation that would significantly blur or weaken the government accountability over reliability found in Section 207 or impose improper restrictions on FERC's authority over Regional Transmission Organizations. The substance of the reliability amendment runs counter to an ongoing industry effort to reconcile business and reliability concerns. As I said, that was signed by Phillip Harris, the president and chief executive officer for PJM. Next, I will refer to a letter dated March 14, 2002, from Elizabeth Moler, who is representing Exelon, Commonwealth Edison of Chicago, and PECO Energy in Pennsylvania. She says: Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to share Exelon Corporation's views on the Sen. Thomas' proposed reliability amendment to S. 517, the pending energy bill. Exelon Corporation is one of the nation's largest electric utilities. Our major subsidiaries are Commonwealth Edison, the public utility that serves Chicago; PECO Energy, the public utility that serves the Philadelphia area, and Exelon Generation. We have roughly five million retail customers in Illinois and Pennsylvania, which have both restructured their electricity markets. Exelon owns 22.5 gigawatts of generation (including nuclear, coal-fired, gas-fired, gas- oil fired, pumped storage and run-of-river hydro units) and controls an additional 15 gigawatts of capacity. We have additional capacity under development. Then the letter goes on and says: Exelon opposes the Thomas amendment, principally because we believe it would interfere with the development of competitive wholesale markets. As the United States Supreme Court recognized just last week in reviewing FERC Order No. 888, electricity markets are fundamentally interstate in nature. The Thomas amendment seeks to deny this fact, by encouraging individual states or regions to development unique reliability standards. We believe that the Nation needs uniform, national reliability standards. The rules should not vary from region to region. National reliability guidelines and standards will facilitate the development of more seamless electricity markets and encourage much-needed investment in both generation and transmission. We believe that the Thomas amendment would further balkanize electricity markets, rather than facilitating development of a national electricity marketplace. That is a quotation out of that letter from Exelon. The final letter I wish to refer to is the one from the Electric Power Supply Association. Quoting their letter: The Electric Power Supply Association would like to affirm our support for the reliability provision in Section 207 of your amendment in the nature of a substitute to S. 517. We appreciate your continued efforts to promote legislation that increases our energy supply and advances the effort to establish wholesale electricity markets in the United States. It has come to our attention that efforts are being made to strike your language in order to substitute an amendment supported by the North American Electric Reliability Council and the Western Governors' Association. This amendment is based upon the NERC reliability proposal development over three years ago. However, the subsequent convergence of reliability and market issues has rendered this language obsolete, and we urge you to oppose the amendment. The Electric Power Supply Association endorses the need for mandatory reliability standards that are broadly applicable to the wholesale power industry. However, the language in the amendment could limit the industry's ability to address the challenges presented by the ongoing development and restructuring of the wholesale transmission system which is essential for reliable, efficient and well-functioning markets. As currently drafted, the amendment shifts significant aspects of standards development and enforcement away from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to a new electric reliability organization. The text also does little to reflect the role that will need to be played by regional transmission organizations in future market management. This amendment would prevent FERC from carrying out its responsibility to ensure the reliable and efficient operation of the transmission grid and would hinder the development of effective RTOs. Energy standards have an inevitable impact on bulk power transmission systems and market operation essential for reliability. Accordingly, the standard setting process outlined in the amendment raises serious concerns that failing to centralize this activity with FERC could lead to confusion and conflicts among multiple entities. Further, the amendment fails to account for recent industry efforts to rethink the nature, scope and organizational structure for a new standard setting process that recognizes the need to integrate reliability and market practices. The industry, spurred by a December, 2001 FERC Order and encouraged by the U.S. Department of Energy, is currently engaged in a broad collaborative effort to consider how to combine NERC's activities with standard setting that will be done by the new North American Energy Standards Board, that the Gas Industry Standards Board approved in December of 2001. The industry will make a filing to FERC by March 15. This amendment [the Thomas amendment] could preempt the more extensive consolidation of NERC into NEASB that is supported by many industry stakeholders. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these letters in their entirety be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me say with the colloquy my colleague from New Mexico has entered into the Record between himself and Senator Reid, I think all concerns that have been raised on our side are resolved. There is no objection to the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, first, as I indicated, I am disappointed the Senator from Colorado felt obligated to offer this amendment. Having heard his concerns and the concerns of others, I urge all Senators to support his amendment. My view is this is not an amendment that justifies having a vote on the Senate floor, but he is insisting on one, so evidently we will go through it and have a rollcall vote and bring all Senators to the floor to vote for the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I believe this is good public policy to enact, along the lines we have talked about here. But since my colleague and others have indicated concern about including it in the energy bill, I have no problem with it being deleted. I urge all Senators to support the amendment of the Senator from Colorado. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Automotive Service Association, Bedford, TX, February 25, 2002. Hon. Tom Daschle, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Daschle: I want to thank you for your efforts on behalf of the automotive aftermarket in the development of Senate Bill 517, the Energy Policy Act of 2002. The Automotive Service Association is the largest and oldest trade association representing independent automotive repair facilities in the United States. These collision, mechanical and transmission small business members are located in all fifty states and several foreign countries. Your revised Section 832, Assistance for State Programs to Retire Fuel-Inefficient Motor Vehicles, includes both a repair and recycling option. This assists mechanical and collision repair facilities. Quite frankly, many of these older vehicles would not receive fuel-efficiency related repairs without some incentive. This legislation will provide the opportunity for these vehicles to receive the necessary maintenance. Allowing the salvage of valuable parts enhances competition in the parts marketplace as well as makes sense for the environment. We appreciate the efforts you and Chairman Jeff Bingaman have made to alleviate many of the concerns our industry has had with this legislation. We support the bill and look forward to a continued working relationship with you and your staff. ASA is contacting automotive repairers in South Dakota and New Mexico to inform them of your efforts. Sincerely, Robert L. Redding, Jr.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, before we do the voice vote, which I gather is what the Senator from Colorado would like on his amendment, let me read some provisions or sections of a letter we received from the Automotive Service Association. This is a letter to Senator Daschle, dated February 25, an organization with 15,000 members nationwide. It has 300 members in Colorado, my colleague's home State. It says: Dear Senator Daschle: I want to thank you for your efforts on behalf of the automotive aftermarket in the development of Senate Bill 517, the energy policies act of 2002. The Automotive Service Association is the largest and the oldest trade association representing independent automotive repair facilities in the United States. . . . Your revised Section 832, Assistance for State Programs to Retire Fuel-Inefficient Motor Vehicles, includes both a repair and recycling facilities. This assists mechanical and coalition repair facilities. Quite frankly, many of these older vehicles would not receive fuel-efficiency related repairs without some incentive. This legislation will provide the opportunity for these vehicles to receive the necessary maintenance. Allowing the salvage of valuable parts enhances competition in the parts marketplaces as well as makes sense for the environment. We appreciate the efforts that you and Chairman Jeff Bingaman have made to alleviate many of the concerns our industry has had with this legislation. We support the bill and look forward to a continued working relationship with you and your staff. ASA is contacting automotive repairers in South Dakota and New Mexico to inform them of your efforts. Signed by Robert Redding, Jr., on behalf of the Automotive Service Association. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent this entire letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield all time.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. How much time remains on both sides?

Mr. BINGAMAN. I compliment the Senator from Louisiana also for her amendment earlier agreed to. We worked hard with her and her staff to be sure this amendment could be included in the bill. I am glad it is in the bill. What is the regular order? Amendment No. 3007

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, just to indicate to my colleague from Alaska, my interpretation of what occurred today is perhaps somewhat different than his. My own view is we made some substantial progress in getting agreement on provisions related to electricity restructuring; that is, the package of amendments Senator Thomas proposed and that we agreed to was a very good effort on the part of our staff, the Republican staff, Senator Thomas's staff, various people who have been working very hard on that set of issues. My own view is, the bill was substantially weakened by the two votes we had related to CAFE standards in particular. Clearly, the Senate was not willing to step up and ensure any kind of significant increased efficiency in the transportation sector in the coming years. That, to me, is a disappointment, a weakening of the bill. I don't see the logic that my colleague from Alaska seems to read into everything: The lack of wisdom of the Senate in the area of CAFE standards should justify additional lack of wisdom in the area of opening ANWR to drilling. But that is a debate for another time. I do hope my colleague from Alaska will offer his ANWR amendment at the earliest possible date. Clearly, we cannot move to complete action on this bill until that much awaited event occurs. We have been hearing about his proposal on ANWR for many months. We have had the opportunity now to have it offered for the last week and a half. We hope very much soon that will happen. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, my understanding is that we will spend several hours tomorrow, at least, dealing with a couple of issues related to electricity restructuring. One is a reliability amendment that we expect to have offered. I believe Senator Thomas is planning to offer that amendment. We will have debate and a vote. Then I intend to offer an amendment on a renewable portfolio standard, which will then be followed by a proposal by Senator Jeffords. And then probably also there will be a proposal by Senator Kyl. We will deal with, hopefully, those three proposals, including the issue of a renewable portfolio standard. After that, I don't know what the business will be.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send two amendments to the desk and ask that they be considered en bloc and adopted en bloc. I believe they have been cleared on both sides.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for his leadership on this issue. He has been very focused on trying to get these provisions right. We have worked hard with him and his staff to be sure that that is what has happened. This package of amendments we have now adopted moves us substantially toward a consensus on what ought to be included in this bill in the way of electricity restructuring. There are going to be a couple of issues that probably will require individual votes. We are still in the process of defining the areas of disagreement that exist there. I see this as a substantial step forward. I thank the Senator from Wyoming. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I do support the amendments. We have worked jointly with Senator Thomas and his staff to perfect these amendments. I think they are acceptable on this side. As far as I know, there is no objection to their adoption.