THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display    

he PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[Page: S2058]  GPO's PDF

   Mr. WELLSTONE. And then I would be followed by Senator Cantwell as in the original agreement.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   The Senator from Arizona.

   TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS NEGOTIATIONS

   Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will take less than 1 minute. We have been working with the Senator from Kentucky, the Senator from Wisconsin and I have, and our staffs. We have come up with a package of technical amendments with which we are in agreement. We are ready to move that package. There seems to be a problem with another Member, a very senior Member. I hope we can get that worked out.

   I do have it worked out. I think we should be ready to move forward tomorrow. I think we have had good-faith negotiations.

   I yield to either one of my colleagues.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.

   Mr. McCONNELL. I said before the Senator from Arizona had arrived that I was totally frustrated. I recounted all the meetings he and I and our staffs had had, and I was exasperated that we seemed to have gotten so close and not been able to complete it. I confirm what the Senator from Arizona said, that we have reached an agreement among the three of us on this technical package. We would like to be able to move it, and we would plead with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to give us a chance. I don't think there are three Members of the Senate who know any more about the subject than we do. Our positions are pretty well established. We have actually reached agreement, and we would hope that the Senate would let us act on it in some kind of consent arrangement sometime tomorrow.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.

   Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, there have been good-faith negotiations. I agree with the Senators from Arizona and Kentucky that we have finally reached agreement on the technical amendments package. There is a different Member of the Senate who has a concern about it. Because we are operating on the basis of a unanimous consent, we have to deal with that. But we have finally reached the point where the actual provisions are something we can agree on, and we are hoping we can work this out.

   I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.

   Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I assume we will have time to talk about campaign finance reform.

   AMENDMENT NO. 3038

   As a matter of fact, I think I can do it in just a couple of minutes. Last week when we had the debate on the Jeffords amendment, to increase the renewable portfolio to 20-percent electricity, I spoke at some length. I just want to pick up on a couple of points that Senator Bingaman made, and probably my colleague from Washington can speak about this with more eloquence. Nobody, to respond to the Senator from Ohio, is making the argument that, by 2020, we will be totally independent from fossil fuels. No one is making that argument. It's really a ``straw man'' argument.

   I think the question is whether or not we will, no pun intended, continue to barrel down the fossil fuel energy path. Will we continue to rely primarily on oil, coal, or on other fossil fuel? Or do we want to take a new direction. I, frankly, think this is going to be a test vote for a new direction in energy policy. I think the Senator from New Mexico agrees that this is going to be a test vote on this bill. This 10-percent renewable energy portfolio, which is from my point of view too little, makes this legislation a reform bill--it makes this an energy bill that is sensitive to how we produce energy in connection with the environment. It takes us down a different energy path.

   The different path is significant for many States. For example, in Minnesota, we produce enough wind to produce all of our electricity through wind, when the technology is there. In fact, Minnesota, South Dakota, and North Dakota, Nebraska and Kansas could produce enough energy through wind generation to produce electricity for the whole country.

   So there is enormous potential here. In addition to wind, we have biomass to electricity, solar, and geothermal. When my colleague from Ohio was giving some projections, I think he missed the point about the potential of efficient energy use and where that figures in. Again, one more time, it is a marriage ready to be made between being much more respectful of the environment, clean technology, many more small business opportunities, keeping dollars and capital in our States and our communities, national security, and less dependent on Middle Eastern oil.

   Look at what happened last year with natural gas prices. We would be much less dependent on a few giant energy conglomerates for energy.

   This is pro-environment, pro-consumer, pro-small business, pro-clean technology, and is going to be a huge growth industry in our country. Frankly, the only folks who are really opposed to this renewable portfolio standard are some Senators are opposed because they think it is a mistake to have a mandate or a subsidy. Although I have to tell you, the oil and gas industry have gotten huge subsidies over the years. Last year the House passed a bill with over $30 billion in tax breaks, most of them going to oil, coal, and the nuclear industry. Now that is a government subsidy. If I were to look back over the last 50 years of energy policy, it would be a massive amount of money we have given to the fossil fuel energy industry. We don't want to stack the deck against renewables. We want to nurture and promote energy policy for all of the good reasons I have tried to outline.

   Frankly, if we can't hold on to this 10 percent renewable energy portfolio, then I don't think we have much of a form bill here at all.

   This is a key vote. That is why I wanted to speak briefly about it. I hope we will get a strong vote against the Kyl

   amendment, and I think we will. I think it should be defeated.

   I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.

   Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the Kyl amendment. We are debating this energy bill against the backdrop of one of the country's most severe energy crises, which has definitely impacted ratepayers in my State and in many parts of the West.

   After September 11, the war against terrorism even more underscores the need for us to develop a national energy policy that helps create more independence. It is clear that the time has come for us to enact a 21st century energy policy. But we will fail if this bill is simply about the extent to which we should increase oil production or determine the best route for pipelines. We will fail if we do not learn from the lessons of the past and recognize that we are on the cusp of a revolution of energy technology that could be as significant as the revolution in computing technology.

   We are faced with a clear choice: We can go down the path of debating false choices of conservation versus production, regulation versus deregulation, nuclear versus fossil. But I think it is time that we recognize what is at the core of the debate is this 21st century energy policy; about developing a new policy that will lead us to a system of cleaner, more efficient, distributed power, located closer to the homes and businesses that it is built to serve.

   Mr. President, the renewable portfolio standard we are debating today is the centerpiece of our effort of a 21st century energy policy marked by environmentally responsible sources of energy. An aggressive renewables portfolio standard will help this Nation diversify its energy, level the playing field for renewable resources, and encourage investment in clean energy technology. A transition to clean, renewable sources of energy will help stabilize increasing and volatile fossil fuel prices, ease energy supply shortages and disruptions, clean up dangerous air pollution, and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

   Again, arguments in favor of a strong Federal renewables portfolio standard are straightforward. An RPS will spur more environmentally responsible generation, diversify electricity sources, and that is enhancing and helping to protect our economy from price spikes; and, three, create a national market

[Page: S2059]  GPO's PDF

   Today, less than 2 percent of the Nation's electricity is generated by nontraditional sources of power such as wind, solar, and geothermal energy. This has to change. By putting a renewables portfolio standard in place, we will set the Nation down a path toward a more independent, sustainable, and stable power supply.

   I want to emphasize just how important it is to diversify our generating resources. As many of my colleagues are aware, last year the Pacific Northwest suffered the second worst drought in the history of our State. In Washington State, about 80 percent of our generation comes from hydroelectric sources. So because of this drought, consumers in my State were exposed far more directly to the pervasive

   market dysfunction activity that happened in the West. As a result, many of our utilities have had to raise their retail rates by as much as 50 percent.

   So I believe we must diversify our resource portfolio, but to accomplish this goal, many of our utilities are making a tremendous investment in new generation. Much of it is from ample renewable resources. We realize the investment in renewables is affordable and a perfect complement to our hydroelectric base. For example, I visited, in our State, the Stateline Wind Project last August, which is located in Walla Walla, WA. The wind farm, which went into operation December 13, consists of 399 turbines and has a capacity to produce 263 megawatts of electricity. That is enough energy to serve almost 70,000 homes. So this is working.

   The Bonneville Power Administration, which supplies about 70 percent of the power consumed in Washington State, has set a goal of obtaining a total of a thousand megawatts of energy.

   Many of our small and rural utilities are banding together to invest in wind projects, and the Yakima Tribe is also exploring similar options.

   As we consider the renewables portfolio standards provisions of this bill, I think it is important to recognize the tremendous untapped potential that these renewables represent. Washington State and the Pacific Northwest have begun to make this investment. With the construction now underway, our regional renewable resources, excluding most hydropower, will soon approach 4 percent--far surpassing the national average. But I believe we can still do better.

   A strong renewables portfolio standard will create the market certainty that companies and utilities need to continue down the path toward resource diversification and technological innovation. Specifically, increasing our supply of renewable resources makes not just environmental sense but also economic sense. A study released last November, sponsored by a group of Northwest utilities and interest groups, estimated that the international market for clean energy technologies will grow to $180 billion a year over the next 20 years--that's right, $180 billion a year over the next 20 years.

   It is in our national economic interest to set policy that will ensure the United States captures a major part of this market.

   Already the Northwest has a $1.4 billion clean energy industry that is on track to grow to $2.5 billion over the next several years, creating 12,000 new jobs in our region. That is right, 12,000 new jobs in our region.

   With the right public policies in place, we can attain 3.5 percent of the worldwide market for clean energy technologies, including not just generation but smart-grid transmission technologies needed to bring power to market more efficiently and create as many as 35,000 new jobs in the Northwest.

   Developing the clean energy technology industry on a national level means job creation. We need a Federal renewable portfolio standard both to break our century-old reliance on traditional fossil fuels and to create predictable markets for renewable technologies and lay the groundwork for even greater innovations.

   Last week, the Senate was unable to make meaningful progress on the important issue of corporate average fuel economy standards for our Nation's vehicles. We had an opportunity before us to alleviate threats to our national energy and economic security posed by our dependence on imported oil. Nonetheless, it is important that we make progress today in this particular area and make sure that we make a renewable standard an important part of this legislation.

   The renewable portfolio standard is one of the thresholds that will determine whether the Senate really does create an energy policy that sets itself apart from the 19th century focus of digging, burning, and drilling and focuses more importantly on these 21st century technologies.

   Now is the time to enact an energy policy that will help us meet these goals. A strong renewable portfolio standard will encourage use of renewable sources and reduce harmful air and water pollution from coal and fossil fuels. It will help ensure a sustainable, secure energy supply and protect our environment for future generations. It will create the investment, income, and jobs in our communities, especially our rural areas.

   These are the characteristics that I think should be part of our 21st century energy policy. I ask my colleagues to support a strong renewable portfolio standard and, most importantly, oppose any efforts to strip from this bill or in any way undermine this measure which I believe is critical. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Kyl amendment and to vote instead for a strong renewable portfolio standard.

   I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DAYTON). The Senator from Arizona.

   Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wish to respond to some of the comments made relative to my amendment by various Senators who have spoken since I laid that amendment down earlier this afternoon.

   First, I ask unanimous consent to print in the RECORD two letters from the Public Service Commission of the State of Florida, both dated March 18, 2002, one to the Honorable BILL NELSON and the other to the Honorable BOB GRAHAM, the two Senators from the State of Florida.

   There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

   STATE OF FLORIDA,

   PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,

   Tallahassee, FL, March 18, 2002.
Re: Energy Legislation (Substitute Amendment 2917 to S. 517).

Hon. BILL NELSON,
U.S. Senator, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

   DEAR SENATOR: The purpose of this letter is to let you know that the Florida Public Service Commission has major concerns with the 400-page Substitute Amendment currently being addressed by the Senate. It is extremely preemptive of State Commission authority. If legislation moves forward, we ask that it provide a continuing role for States in ensuring reliability of all aspects of electrical service-including generation, transmission, and power delivery services and should not authorize the FERC to preempt State authority to ensure safe and reliable service to retail customers. Also, we support the Kyl amendment on the renewable portfolio standard.

   In particular, our concerns are:

   (1) Electric Reliability Standards.

   The substitute amendment would limit the States' authority and discretion to set more rigorous reliability standards than the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) over transmission and distribution. In fact, the Substitute Amendment appears to provide no role for States at all on transmission reliability. Yet, the Florida Legislature has carefully set cut statutory authority for the PPSC over transmission.

   If legislation moves forward, Congress should expressly include in the bill a provision to protect the existing State authority to ensure reliability transmission service. We note that the Thomas amendment passed. The amendment appears to strengthen state authority. In that regard, the amendment is better than the overall bill under consideration. Our interpretation is that the amendment will not restrict state commission authority to adopt more stringent standards, if necessary.

   (2) Market Transparency Rules.

   The section is silent on State authority to protect against market abuses, although it does require FERC to issue rules to provide information to the States. State regulators must be able to review the data necessary to ensure that abuses are not occurring in the market.

   (3) Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA ).

   The FPSC supports lifting PURPA's mandatory purchase requirement, but States should be allowed to determine appropriate measures to protect the public interest by

[Page: S2060]  GPO's PDF

   (4) Federal Renewable Portfolio Standards.

   This requires that beginning with 2003, each retail electric supplier shall submit to the Secretary of Energy renewable energy credits in an amount equal to the required annual percentage to be determined by the Secretary. For the year 2005, it will be less than 2.5 percent of the total electric energy sold by the retail electric supplier to the electric consumer in the calendar year. For each calendar year from 2006 through 2020, it shall increase by approximately .5 percent.

   The Secretary will also determine the type of renewable energy resource used to produce the electricity. A credit trading system will be established. While a provision is established to allow states to adopt additional renewable programs, we continue to have concerns. Thus, we strongly support the Kyl amendment which provides some flexibility to the States.

   The FPSC believes that States are in the best position to determine the amount, the time lines, and the types of renewable energy that would most benefit their retail ratepayers. This is particularly true in the case of States without cost-effective renewable resources. A one-size-fits-all standard will likely raise rates for most consumers.

<<<

>>>

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display