March 5, 2003

Last Congress, Chairman Tauzin asked me to work together on a bipartisan energy bill. Members from both sides of the aisle worked together to determine which topics should be addressed in the Committee on Energy and Commerce’s bill and how. As a result, the bill was reported by a wide bipartisan margin and, with few exceptions, was left intact when merged with legislation from other committees to be taken up on the House floor as H.R. 4.

Regrettably, we find ourselves in markedly different circumstances today. The bill circulated on Friday is not a bipartisan bill, and the very tight Committee schedule, with only two hearings, will make it particularly difficult for new members of the Committee to have an opportunity to fully participate in this bill’s consideration. Indeed, witnesses at today’s hearing have had little time to review legislative language circulated last Friday that concerns significant areas of energy policy – conservation and nuclear matters and the controversial topics of electricity and hydropower. While I appreciate the Chairman’s cooperation with the minority in inviting witnesses, I am concerned that this schedule is so compressed as to preclude meaningful testimony on the draft bill.

Unlike the bill we reported in the last Congress, this bill would repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA) and major portions of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA). It also contains a controversial proposal to allow states to override federal agencies’ rulings concerning potential siting of new transmission lines on federal lands. This is an altogether new proposal, not contained in either the House or Senate bill last year, which is likely to prove very troublesome since it could compromise the authority of several federal agencies.

I am perplexed at your decision to further deregulate our Nation’s electricity markets, at a time of turmoil in the industry when, if anything, consumers need more protection from market forces. It seems to me if we must act now, that a far better approach would be for us to reach agreement on a narrow range of reforms that address specific problems in wholesale markets, and leave controversial "restructuring" initiatives such as PUHCA repeal, PURPA repeal, and diminishing FERC’s merger authority to another day.

The Subcommittee held its last electricity hearing in December 2001, and much has occurred since then. We have learned enough about market manipulation by Enron and other high-flying marketers with no sense of responsibility to the interests of consumers or investors to know there probably are other "shoes" yet to drop. FERC’s own internal investigation into the turmoil in west coast markets during 2000-2001 is still underway, and criminal investigations into Enron and others’ behavior is still pending.

In light of what we have learned since our last hearing, and what we are likely to learn when FERC releases its internal investigation, it seems irresponsible for the Committee to act to further deregulate the electric utility industry. It is far more important to learn exactly what happened and take the time to formulate a thoughtful response than to move legislation on a preordained schedule.

Furthermore, as the Chairman knows, I have a special interest in hydropower reform, and was disheartened to learn that our carefully crafted bipartisan House compromise has been jettisoned in favor of objectionable language developed by the Senate. This does not bode well for building support for the overall bill.

Finally, I would be remiss in not mentioning the one consumer concern that consistently arises among my constituents – the continuing volatility in gasoline prices, with many areas paying more the $2.00 per gallon. While it is important for Congress to keep a forward eye on the big picture in energy, I know my district would appreciate more attention to this far less theoretical problem, and I believe the Committee should be making oversight of the recent rise in gasoline prices a priority.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.