Energy Policy Act of 2003

July 31, 2003

ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2003

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I know my colleagues have now for the last hour discussed the fact that we need to move on an energy plan and yet allow Members to have some discussion of policy. While I think we now have a proposal to discuss, it is important to point out we were very willing to talk about an electricity title. We were very willing last night, while the Senate wanted to debate judges—and I sat here as my Republican colleagues spoke for hours—I was willing to offer an amendment on electricity.

    People are talking about moving ahead on an Energy bill because it is good for our economy, because it will help with supply. While we were sitting here wasting our time yesterday talking about judges, another company in my State with 700 workers from Bellingham, WA, temporarily shut down their facility. Why? Because of the high cost of electricity in our State.

    So this is not about a problem that might happen. It is a problem that has already happened.

    The parliamentary, procedural ruse that has been played on us to not go to the electricity title has been incredible. I was standing here, waiting to offer amendments, only to find out that we were going to go to a judge.

    Yes, the Senator from New Mexico was right; we wanted to go to the electricity title. But we didn't even have the language from his proposal when we left town last week on Friday night. It wasn't even available Friday until late Friday night. So, yes, as soon as we got that language we started poring through it.

    Now the question is whether this body wants to debate an electricity title, whether they want to consider the issues at hand.

    Last night, the amendment I wanted to offer was actually shared with the minority staff. The majority staff is now saying we don't know what amendments are going to be offered. We had seven amendments to file this morning, only to find out they are no longer in order because of the motion to commit in the document that is now available only in two copies of 800 pages, making it impossible for us to offer our second-degree amendments.

    What happened when we shared what we wanted to offer in an amendment? We ended up getting an e-mail threat back from the majority side saying, if you offer your amendment, we are going to do X to you. So much for sharing ideas about amendments. It is no secret this Senator from the State of Washington, who believes this underlying electricity title could potentially move higher cost electricity onto the transmission lines in my State and ultimately force my consumers to pay a higher rate, doesn't like the electricity title and wants to see it changed. This Senator from Washington State does not believe that my State should be forced into that kind of regional transmission organization planning or standard market design planning in which my region might get charged higher electricity rates while the State of Texas gets a sweetheart deal.

    Yes, that is right. The State of Texas gets a sweetheart deal because they are exempted from that section on regional transmission organizations and standard market design. If this electricity title is so good for all of America, why isn't it good for Texas? That is because Texas does not want to share in this plan. They don't want to share their power, and they don't want to necessarily have their transmission lines with higher cost energy on them. I don't want it in my region. But I know this: If it is good for me, it ought to be good for them.

    The bottom line is the other side of the aisle doesn't want to take the time to hear about electricity amendments and debate them. With the west coast economy getting a $6 billion black eye, that is $6 billion that the ratepayers have had to pay because of increased energy prices, when the market has been knowingly manipulated. That was admitted to by Enron, admitted to by the Department of Justice citing Enron's manipulation, it has been admitted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that such manipulation has happened. We ought to have our day here on the Senate floor.

    The distinguished majority leader said let's not talk about the politics of this. But I have to say I don't want to stand here and be part of what he is labeling as obstruction when this is the body to which my constituents look to have their issues debated. This is the place where we come to represent constituents. This is their opportunity to be heard. I am their representative. I have the right to offer amendments dealing with one of the biggest pyramid schemes, financial crises to affect the Northwest. I deserve to be heard. My constituents deserve to be heard.

    My constituents did not get invited to a meeting at the White House with Vice President DICK CHENEY to talk about the energy plan. They were not invited.

    My constituents didn't get a password code to get on the conference call with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission when they discussed with Wall Street financiers of Enron what legal standard they were going to use in reviewing the contracts of Enron, and whether ratepayers were going to get relief. My constituents didn't get that password code. We didn't get to be on that call.

    My constituents don't have high-paid lobbyists like the Weststar Company, which is under Federal investigation for their donations to various political groups that were all keyed around trying to influence the energy policy of this body.

    We may not win on our amendments about market manipulation and improving the way energy policy is regulated, but, by God, we deserve to be heard on this Senate floor and have a debate about electricity. You cannot have an amendment like that of Senator Dayton that basically is trying to stop the repeal of the consumer protection law that is currently on the books, that the Domenici underlying title erases, and not have a debate on that. How can you not have a debate on the Dayton amendment that stops the repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act?

    As the Washington Post said yesterday in a headline on the front page of the business section: "Energy Monoliths Could Return." There was more debate yesterday in the Washington Post about the Dayton amendment trying to stop the return of this monolith than there has been on the floor of the Senate.

    I think the public should get their due. They paid $6 billion. Gee, for $6 billion in increased power rates you ought to at least give them a couple of days on the Senate floor to talk about these issues. These issues are a significant change to current law. The whole notion of regional transmission organizations and standard market design is a move toward deregulation that this body ought to understand and understand well.

    Since the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission decided even though the markets had been manipulated they were not going to give relief to west coast ratepayers, we have not even had a hearing. We have not even had a hearing. That was just a few weeks ago.

    For 2½ years my colleague and staff member, Angela Becker-Dippman, and myself have probably paid more attention to the energy issue than just about anybody in this body, save maybe the California Members. Why? Because a crisis happened in our State starting in late 2000, and we lobbied for price caps. We asked, before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Give our State relief. It took them a year plus, a year and a half before they finally came in with any relief.

    Then people said it was all about supply and don't worry, it is all going to get straightened out. It is not about manipulation. Nobody manipulated anything.

    Then we find out they actually manipulated something and admitted it. They said: Don't worry, you'll have your day. It will all go before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. They will take care of it. Something will happen.

    They have done nothing to protect the consumers once that manipulation was known. They have done nothing. They have done nothing but get on a phone call with the financiers of the Enron deal and say to them, in private password conversations: Don't worry, you'll be protected.

    So, yes, my amendments deserve debate. We are not going to be an apologist for Enron, nor condone their actions. But we should have a healthy policy debate about:

    No. 1, whether this country needs more deregulation of the energy industry. Why not have that debate? Some of my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle actually believe there should be deregulation. I don't agree with them. What is wrong with having that debate?

    No. 2, we ought to debate whether we have enough consumer protection in this legislation to protect from future market manipulation that might happen as we continue to see the rise in natural gas prices. We should have that debate.

    No. 3, we could have a debate about whether we really understand what regional transmission organizations and standard market design actually do.

    I can't tell you how many people in California thought it was no big deal about how most of the legislators didn't really understand what was going on in the legislation and went ahead and passed it only to then find out that basically they had turned electricity over to the free market. Electricity isn't just a commodity; it is a necessity. People need it. They cannot be gouged by high prices. That is exactly what has happened.

    We ought to debate whether we understand what regional transmission organizations and standard market design really do.

    I am all for joining with my colleagues if they want to make this a voluntary experiment. If they want to make this section of the electricity title voluntary, I am happy to make it voluntary. But it is not voluntary now. It is a mandate. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission came up with hearings, with pricing schemes, and with a rule that would ultimately go into place after 2005. So wait 2 years to get your plans in place and then implement them.

    As the Senator from North Dakota adequately explained, this isn't about whether we are going to build a national grid system and whether cheap electricity in his region is going to get displaced by more costly electricity from somewhere else and forced on his consumers. Why should he agree to that? We need to have a debate about whether we really know and understand where this title is leading us. I am happy to do that. I am happy to do it. More importantly, I am happy to do it on Saturday.

    My constituents deserve to be heard on this issue. When they are stuck with a 56-percent rate increase for the next 5 years because they signed an Enron contract and they get no relief from the Federal Government, they deserve to be heard. When Enron can turn around and sue them to continually force my ratepayers to pay a higher rate on manipulated contracts, they deserve to be heard.

    I am not being an obstructionist. The majority leader talked about doing something in the public interest. This is about the public interest. This is about saying this body is going to protect consumers from market manipulation. We are not going to guess at it. We are not going to pretend that we know.

    We are not going to pass something the Attorney General from New York sends us a letter about basically saying, Excuse me. Thanks for your hard work, but you are not getting it done. Your language not only doesn't protect us enough but it might actually undermine the current State laws that are in place. Or a letter from the National Securities Exchange executive saying the same thing. The National Securities Exchange doesn't say they think the language in the underlying bill curtails their efforts on getting the kind of oversight that needs to happen to protect consumers from market manipulation.

    I couldn't disagree more with the majority leader. I supported the Energy bill last year. I wanted to get it out here. I didn't like everything in it. I was willing to compromise to move something ahead. But a financial disaster happened in my State and it is going to continue for years to come. This electricity title on which the majority party has filed a motion to commit prohibits us from offering those amendments. Maybe our leadership is in the back room working out some sort of agreement. Maybe they are back there saying let us start backward on the electricity title. Maybe they are bifurcating some of these issues about supply.

    But why not say to the American public we are going to make clear to you there is no doubt that this isn't a supply issue, and we have made sure manipulation has been taken care of?

    We cannot leave here giving the American people the impression that if you have enough money you can rely on the energy policy. Electricity is a necessity, and we need to fight to make it affordable. This Member will stand here for as long as it takes to make sure my constituents have their day on these amendments.

    I yield the floor.