Ratepayer Protection Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chairman, first, I want to commend my colleague from Kentucky on his efforts to protect consumers and ratepayers. I share that goal. However, we also need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and we can protect customers, consumers, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions simultaneously.

My amendment is intended as a compromise that is practical and would both protect consumers and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

I worked in the energy industry for two decades before coming to Congress. I worked with the utilities sector, with the national laboratories, and with other stakeholders. I know these issues. I have been on the ground. So I can appreciate the need for a secure, reliable electric grid. I clearly understand the need for certainty and flexibility.

That is one of the reasons I cofounded the bipartisan Grid Innovation Caucus, to help address the pressing issues affecting our Nation's electric grid. We are focusing on hardening the grid, protecting against cyber threats, responsiveness to extreme weather events, and ensuring grid reliability and resiliency.

H.R. 2042 will stop the EPA's proposed clean power plan and proposed ozone standard from taking effect. This would sharply limit our Nation's ability to address climate change and the growing negative consequences it has on public health and our economy.

To address this, my amendment will make two changes:

First, it strikes section 2 of the bill, which prevents any rule from taking place until all litigation is complete. That provision would add considerable uncertainty to the entire process and introduce a significant precedent into the Federal rulemaking process. If a delay is appropriate, let's introduce a simple delay.

Second, my amendment replaces the ability of States to opt out of the plan with the requirement that the State public utility commissions or public service commissions, as well as the appropriate electric reliability organization, issue reliability analyses on any State or Federal plan. In this bill's current form, allowing States to opt out of the Federal law would create a significant barrier to Federal authority.

The analysis that my amendment calls for must include effects on regional electric reliability and resource adequacy, operation of wholesale electric markets, transmission and distribution infrastructure, and projected electricity demands.

Federal agencies have varied expertise and missions and not all are equipped to properly assess potential impacts that a rule may have on a particular industry. Consequently, we need collaboration at all levels.

In a letter to the EPA earlier this year, FERC stated that working together with the EPA, ISOs, RTOs, and the States will be essential as plans are developed. FERC wrote that, ``its rate jurisdiction, at times, has effects on reliability issues. But, reliability also depends on factors beyond the Commission's jurisdiction, such as State authority over local distribution and integrated resource planning.''

So I think it is an overstatement to claim that the clean power plan or the ozone standard would be the sole cause of impacts on rates or reliability.

My amendment mirrors FERC's comments and ensures that an independent analysis is conducted by experts who deal with the grid on a daily basis because the EPA is not an expert on grid reliability.

If we want to add safeguards to add transparency and accountability, we need to ensure that States and regions have their voices heard. A practical way to accomplish that is by having the PUC and ISO submit a reliability report to the EPA.

Grid reliability is a bipartisan issue. If my amendment is adopted, it will help move the ball forward on this important issue. If not, H.R. 2042 will just be another messaging bill that the President will almost certainly veto. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the chairman's thoughtful remarks and his concern about the effects of the clean power plan.

My recommendation is that, if a delay is required, let's just introduce a specific delay, 1 year or 2 years. Introducing a bill that requires all the judicial matters to be settled before a plan can come into effect is just too vague. It doesn't make sense. I think it will do a lot more damage.

What we are asking for is that the States and the local authorities produce a reliability plan so that they will understand the effects of the clean power plan. It is really a compromise position. If we want to move forward, then, let's adopt a compromise. If we want to make a message bill, let's move forward with the existing plan.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source