March 19, 2003

Mr. Chairman, world events have once again focused attention on our energy needs. Indeed, gasoline at $2 per gallon has already focused our attention. Let us not fool ourselves into believing our actions today will have any immediate impact, but we have the ability to accomplish considerable good or considerable harm.

As I indicated at last week’s hearing, I am disappointed that we have departed from the process that served members of the Committee so well when we considered H.R. 4 during the last Congress. That legislation drew strong support in our Committee from both sides of the aisle, and as a result the Committee’s product was largely intact when passed by the full House. Indeed, much of the Chairman’s Mark could have been enacted last year, such as the titles concerning conservation and energy efficiency and DOE programs.

However, while there is much to like in this bill, that virtue is largely overshadowed by two fundamental concerns I raised in recent hearings. The inclusion of controversial provisions on hydroelectricity and electric deregulation jeopardize Democratic support for the bill. I would much prefer to work on a consensus, bipartisan basis, as we did in 1992 when the committee reported the Energy Policy Act on a solid bipartisan vote of 42-1.

Again, I note my personal disappointment over the language contained in the hydroelectric title of this legislation. In the last Congress, we advanced compromise language that was developed and supported by all the relevant parties. This language hardly enjoys that level of support. It tips the balance in favor of the industry, and undercuts the resource agencies’ ability to impose necessary conditions to ensure hydropower projects protect our river systems. Indeed, this language ignores the fact that our nation’s waterways are public resources in which many parties – resource agencies, states, tribes, farmers, sportsmen and everyday citizens – have interests that are just as important as those of the hydropower industry.

It also is highly regrettable that the bill includes a controversial electricity title, the underlying theme of which is to undercut or outright repeal a number of existing consumer protections under the Federal Power Act, the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, and the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935. This seems particularly startling in light of the chaos that took place in West Coast markets only two years ago, on which FERC’s staff investigation has not even been completed. The committee print includes novel siting procedures, inadequate market reforms, and does not even address concerns about the FERC’s proposed "Standard Market Design" rule – the proverbial "elephant in the room."

Mr. Chairman, it would be far better to take up Mr. Boucher’s suggestion of last week – to put electricity on a separate track – than to polarize consideration of the entire bill through its inclusion. Since the die is cast, however, I will be offering a substitute amendment for the electricity title that sets aside these controversial issues in favor of modest, common-sense changes to give FERC better tools to ensure rates are just and reasonable.