U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

51–336 PDF 2009

HEARING TO REVIEW ELECTRICITY 

RELIABILITY IN RURAL AMERICA

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION, CREDIT, 

ENERGY, AND RESEARCH

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

WEDNESDAY, JULY 30, 2008

Serial No. 110–46

(

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture 

agriculture.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Chairman 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania, 

Vice Chairman 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

JOE BACA, California 

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South 

Dakota 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

JIM COSTA, California 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

NANCY E. BOYDA, Kansas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

TIM MAHONEY, Florida 

TRAVIS W. CHILDERS, Mississippi 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Ranking 

Minority Member 

TERRY EVERETT, Alabama 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

MARILYN N. MUSGRAVE, Colorado 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JOHN R. ‘‘RANDY’’ KUHL, JR., New York 

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

BOB LATTA, Ohio 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

ROBERT L. LAREW, Chief of Staff 

ANDREW W. BAKER, Chief Counsel 

APRIL SLAYTON, Communications Director 

WILLIAM E. O’CONNER, JR., Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION, CREDIT, ENERGY, AND RESEARCH

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania, Chairman

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South 

Dakota 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

JIM COSTA, California 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

NANCY E. BOYDA, Kansas 

KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York 

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma, Ranking 

Minority Member 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

TERRY EVERETT, Alabama 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

MARILYN N. MUSGRAVE, Colorado 

NONA DARRELL, Subcommittee Staff Director

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Goodlatte, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from Virginia, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 4

Holden, Hon. Tim, a Representative in Congress from Pennsylvania, opening 

statement .............................................................................................................. 1

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 2

Lucas, Hon. Frank D., a Representative in Congress from Oklahoma, opening 

statement .............................................................................................................. 3

Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from Minnesota, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 4

Salazar, Hon. John T., a Representative in Congress from Colorado, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 5

WITNESSES

Andrew, Hon. James M. ‘‘Jim’’, Administrator, Rural Development Electric 

Programs, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. ........................ 5

Prepared stamen ............................................................................................... 7

Marlette, Cynthia A., General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. ........................................................................................ 13

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 15

English, Hon. Glenn, CEO, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, 

Arlington, VA ........................................................................................................ 32

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 34

Champagne, Paul T., President, PPL Development Company, Allentown, PA .. 41

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 42

James, Revis W., Director, Energy Technology Assessment Center, Electric 

Power Research Institute, Washington, D.C. .................................................... 46

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47

Nichols, Hon. Jim, Former Secretary of Agriculture, State of Minnesota; 

Former Senator, State of Minnesota, Lake Benton, MN .................................. 51

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 54

SUBMITTED QUESTIONS

Response to submitted questions ........................................................................... 77

(1)

HEARING TO REVIEW ELECTRICITY 

RELIABILITY IN RURAL AMERICA 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 30, 2008

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION, CREDIT, ENERGY, AND

RESEARCH, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:35 a.m., in Room 

1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tim Holden 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Holden, Herseth Sandlin, 

Cuellar, Costa, Space, Scott, Salazar, Boyda, Gillibrand, Donnelly, 

Lucas, Schmidt, and Moran. 

Staff present: Claiborn Crain, Nona Darrell, Adam Durand, 

Alejandra Gonzalez-Arias, Scott Kuschmider, Patricia Barr, Josh 

Maxwell, and Jamie Weyer. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM HOLDEN, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA 

The CHAIRMAN. The Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research 

Subcommittee hearing to review electricity reliability in rural 

America will come to order. I would like to thank the witnesses for 

being here, and I look forward to their testimony. Today we are 

going to look at issues surrounding electricity in rural America. 

In the 1930s, 90 percent of Americans living in urban areas had 

electricity, while only 10 percent of rural citizens had the same. 

The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 changed this by allowing the 

Federal Government to make low-cost loans in order to bring electricity to rural America for the first time. 

Luckily, we are no longer in the 1930s, but our nation’s energy 

demands are at a critical point, and we must explore every opportunity to invest in rural communities and meet our growing power 

needs. 

During the consideration of the farm bill, several questions arose 

regarding the future of electric power in rural America. The ability 

of rural areas to develop economically depends on a strong, reliable 

infrastructure including electric power generation, transmission, 

and distribution. With the growing demand for power, it is time to 

find the solutions that will best serve our national needs and make 

economic sense. 

Now is not the time to pick a generation feedstock over another 

while some technologies, such as carbon capture and sequestration, 

are still being developed. We all know finding a way to limit emisVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:47 Jul 31, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\DOCS\110-46\51336.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
2

sions is the key to any new generation project, but we must also 

address the issue of financing generation and transmission needs 

before we automatically exclude low-cost options. 

Renewable production can play a role in our energy future, but 

it will take a balance of all resources to meet our electricity demands. We must design policies that work together and modernize 

systems to reach our goals. Agriculture and energy are logical partners, and much of all renewable energy generation can and should 

occur in rural America. 

A major barrier to making the best use of renewable energy is 

transmission capacity to get that energy to the markets where 

there is the most demand. The development of wind and solar generation farms opens the opportunity of power farming as a part of 

our rural solution to economic prosperity. To be part of the opportunities and growth that will occur in the 21st Century, rural 

America must have access to the technological and information developments that are coming each year. 

Electric reliability at an affordable cost is a major aspect of these 

new opportunities. Today’s hearing will hopefully teach us about 

our power generation needs, production technology development, 

infrastructure, and associated costs. And I look forward to hearing 

from our panel in testimony today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Holden follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TIM HOLDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

PENNSYLVANIA

I would like to thank the witnesses for being here and I look forward to their testimony. Today we are going to look at issues surrounding electricity in rural areas. 

In the 1930s, 90 percent of Americans living in urban areas had electricity while 

only 10 percent of rural citizens did. The Rural Electrification Act (49 Stat. 1363) 

of 1936 changed this by allowing the Federal Government to make low-cost loans 

in order to bring electricity to rural America for the first time. 

Luckily, we are no longer in the 1930’s, but our nation’s energy demands are at 

a critical point, and we must explore every opportunity to invest in rural communities and meet our growing power needs. 

During consideration of the farm bill, several questions arose regarding the future 

of electric power in rural America. The ability of rural areas to develop economically 

depends on a strong, reliable infrastructure, including electric power generation, 

transmission and distribution. With the growing demand for power, it is time to find 

the solutions that will best serve our national needs and make economic sense. Now 

is not the time to pick a generation feedstock over another while some technologies, 

such as carbon capture and sequestration, are still being developed. We all know 

finding a way to limit emissions and providing for a capture and trade process is 

the key to any new generation project, but we must also address the issue of financing generation and transmission needs before we automatically exclude low cost options such as coal. 

Renewable production can play a role in our energy future, but it will take a balance of all resources to meet our electricity demands. We must design policies that 

work together and modernize systems to reach our goals. Agriculture and energy are 

logical partners, and much of our renewable energy generation can and should occur 

in rural America. A major barrier to making the best use of renewable energy is 

the transmission capacity to get that energy to the markets where there is the most 

demand. The development of wind and solar generation farms opens the opportunity 

of ‘‘power farming’’ as a part of our rural solution to economic prosperity. 

To be a part of the opportunities and growth that will occur in the 21st Century, 

rural America must have access to the technological and information developments 

that are coming each year. Electric reliability at an affordable cost is a major aspect 

of these new opportunities. 

Today’s hearing will hopefully teach us about our power generation needs, production technology development, infrastructure, and associated costs. I look forward to 

hearing from our panelists.

3

The CHAIRMAN. And I recognize my friend, the Ranking Member 

from Oklahoma, Mr. Lucas. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK D. LUCAS, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM OKLAHOMA 

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling today’s hearing 

so we can discuss the reliability of electricity in rural America. I 

look forward to hearing from witnesses about the challenges we 

face in keeping up with electricity demand. 

The source of our energy troubles comes down to basic supply 

and demand. Demand for electricity usage is at record levels, pushing our nation’s current energy providers to their limits. Addressing this energy crisis is a top priority of mine, and I believe should 

be a priority of this Congress. 

I have constantly supported expansions to our nation’s energy 

supplies in clean, efficient ways. We not only need to help expand 

and enhance the existing methods of electricity production, such as 

expanding clean coal harvesting, but we also need to develop new 

and alternative energy sources such as wind power and nuclear 

power. 

I am a proponent of wind power and have supported the wind 

power industry in establishing wind farms in Oklahoma. Wind 

power is one of the most efficient forms of energy, and Oklahoma’s 

wind industry is currently the ninth producer in the nation. 

American’s wind production potential is far from fulfilled in 

many states but unfortunately been opposed by some who oppose 

those wind turbines being built within their borders. In addition to 

supporting wind industry in becoming established, more research 

and development is needed on how to transport the energy produced from wind turbines. If we are going to utilize renewable energy, then we must have a way in which to get it to the most populated areas of this country. 

I am interested in learning more today about what our greatest 

challenges are in ensuring that we continue to have reliable, affordable electricity in this country and in rural America. 

In the 1930s, Congress addressed the needs of rural America by 

providing Federal assistance for electric generation. When this program began, only 10 percent of rural residents had electricity. By 

1950s, nearly 90 percent of U.S. farms had electricity. The Rural 

Electrification Act is a shining example of how a government program can truly make a difference. 

Now we must focus on how to maintain the reliable and affordable electricity that we have all come to know. We can do this by 

exploring and developing all of our renewable resources, expanding 

our transmission capacity, becoming more energy efficient, and 

committing more funding to research and development of new technologies. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, it is always a pleasure to serve with you 

on a hearing, and I look forward to the important information that 

we will glean today. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The chair thanks the Ranking Member and 

would ask all other Members of the Subcommittee to submit their 

opening statements for the record. 

4

[The prepared statements of Messers. Peterson, Goodlatte, and 

Salazar follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA

Thank you, Chairman Holden, for calling this hearing and for the work you and 

Ranking Member Lucas are doing to ensure proper oversight of the issues vital to 

farm country and rural America. 

Today’s hearing is a great opportunity for Members of this Committee to get up 

to speed on the major issues surrounding electricity generation and delivery in rural 

areas. All of us on this Committee spend a lot of time working to improve the economic 

conditions of rural America. And the health of rural America is only as good as the 

infrastructure that supports it. Reliable electricity was at one time unheard of in 

rural America. It’s hard to imagine that kind of situation existing today, but this 

Committee should be no less interested in this issue, because although times have 

changed, many rural electricity systems are in need of constant upgrading, extending, and replacing. 

Many concerns about the reliability of rural electrification were raised as this 

Committee worked on the farm bill. While some of those were addressed in the legislation, there are a lot of unresolved issues that will have to be dealt with over 

the long term. 

The consensus coming out of the farm bill was that we really need to get Members 

educated on all aspects of rural electrification and the power market, and that’s 

what today’s hearing is all about. We will examine baseload generation, capacity, 

transmission, distribution, and the regulatory structure that oversees it all. 

One area of great interest to this Committee is the capability of renewable energy 

producers to access the grid. Rural areas are a great source of clean, renewable energy technologies, like wind, hydropower and solar, that can contribute to our nation’s energy security for future generations. The ability of rural producers to access 

capital and navigate the patchwork of Federal, state, and local oversight can allow 

farmers and ranchers to power themselves and their neighbors. 

This has great economic development potential for rural communities in the long run. I know with the leadership of Chairman Holden and Ranking Member Lucas, this 

Subcommittee will be doing a lot more oversight on reliable electricity and other infrastructure issues that are vital to rural America, because they are simply too important to ignore until after the fact. 

I welcome today’s witnesses and I look forward to their testimony. I yield back 

my time. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BOB GOODLATTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM VIRGINIA

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today’s hearing to review electricity reliability in rural America. 

The United States is facing an energy supply crisis. Reliable and affordable electricity is expected in every home in the United States. However, the policies of Congress over the past 30 years have compromised the future availability of powering 

our homes and workplaces. 

I was very disappointed that a provision in the Senate-passed farm bill that would 

once again allow Rural Electric Co-ops to access RUS financing for any type of baseload electric generation did not make it into the conference report. Unfortunately, 

as a result, baseload generation from Nuclear, Gas, Coal with Carbon Capture 

sources will continue to be difficult, if not impossible to finance. 

This lack of financing for baseload generation forces Co-ops to buy electric power 

on the open market. Since the cheapest power on the market is generated from coal, 

Co-ops would be buying coal generated electricity from other sources; this will not 

lead to reduced CO2 emissions. 

The rest of the world is far outpacing the U.S. in its commitment to clean nuclear 

energy. We have not built any new nuclear facilities in over 25 years and generate 

only 20 percent of our electricity from this clean energy, when other countries can 

generate about 80 percent of their electricity needs through nuclear power. Nuclear 

energy is the most reliable and advanced of any renewable energy technology, and 

if we are serious about encouraging CO2-free energy use, we must support nuclear 

energy. 

5

Abundant and affordable energy and energy conservation are the keys to a strong 

economy. Until alternative fuel technology becomes more affordable and convenient, 

our cars, our jobs, and our economic growth will run on traditional energy sources. 

Coal is one of our nation’s most abundant resources. We should do more to encourage clean coal technology such as Coal-to-Liquid and Carbon Capture and Sequestration. 

We must continue to encourage the development of renewable energy, such as 

wind, biomass, and hydropower. But relying heavily on these technologies is not the 

answer. By shifting to renewable energy sources that are not as available or as cost 

effective as traditional sources, we will see a rise in energy prices across the board. 

We must diversify our energy supply with new and traditional, environmentally 

friendly energy resources. 

I look forward to hearing today’s testimony. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN T. SALAZAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM COLORADO

Good morning, I would like to thank Chairman Holden and Ranking Member 

Lucas for holding this important hearing. 

I also want to thank the witnesses of the two panels for coming to testify and 

provide background information on electricity in rural America. 

As you know, the 3rd District of Colorado is largely rural. While this quality helps 

preserve our land and maintain its beauty, it hinders our ability to take advantage 

of some technology and energy supplies. 

All communities deserve access to broadband and affordable electricity. 

We need to encourage companies to send broadband to our rural communities. We 

also need to incentivize groups to carry renewable energy from districts similar to 

my own to more urban areas. 

My district is among those with the greatest potential to produce renewable energy, such as wind, solar, and clean coal. 

We need to find a way to produce these renewables and then transmit this energy 

nationwide. 

Over the next 20 years, the U.S. will need to create four times the amount of 

power currently produced in California. 

We can only do this by being smart about energy legislation today. 

We need to maintain T. Boone Pickens’ mantra that we cannot simply drill our 

way out. 

We need a comprehensive solution that includes fossil fuels and renewable energy 

if we ever want to reach energy independence. 

Our districts can be the heart of the growth of renewable energy, but we need 

to allocate funds and review the REA to see how we can best help this surge. 

With that said, I am anxious to hear the thoughts of our panelists as they discuss 

rural electricity. 

Again, thank you Chairman and Ranking Member.

The CHAIRMAN. And I would like to welcome our first panel. Administrator Jim Andrew, Rural Development Utilities Programs for 

the United States Department of Agriculture. Ms. Cynthia 

Marlette, General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Administrator Andrew, you may begin when you are ready. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. ‘‘JIM’’ ANDREW,

ADMINISTRATOR, RURAL DEVELOPMENT UTILITIES

PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. ANDREW. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for the invitation to share our views on the reliability 

of the nation’s electric system. My written statement reflects our 

comments on capacity and the need for additional capacity with 

some extensive documentation. 

Because I believe other panelists will go further into capacity for 

reliability, I want to address another facet of reliability: the physical condition of the system as we know it. Mr. Chairman, as noted, 

6

we are U.S. Rural Development Utilities Program. We are the 

REA, blending with the other rural agencies to make up USDA 

Rural Development. 

Our constituencies are the rural electric, rural water and waste, 

rural telephone, and broadband systems of America. But for purposes of this hearing, my statement will deal with rural electric 

systems. 

I am sure you know that this program is generally considered a bank, and we do make loans. Today we have just over $35 billion 

in outstanding loans on the books. Before a loan is approved and 

the money is obligated, there are many things that are considered 

by the professionals in the agency. We feel the government has no 

money. The funds we commit are taxpayers’ money. It is our responsibility to invest them for the good of the borrowers who are 

member/owners of the electric cooperative. 

It is also our responsibility to see to it that the money is paid 

back. On that point, the program has less than 0.02 percent past 

due 30 days and practically nothing past 60 days. In addition to 

financial concerns, the system must stand up to the rigors of 

weather and time placed on it so those taxpayers get their money’s 

worth. 

From the beginning, the Rural Electrification Administration, the 

REA, has been innovative. The completely new distribution systems designed by the engineers back then still stand as a model. 

Furthermore, those systems still stand. It was just after the Depression; money was very tight, and the system needed to be built 

as inexpensively as possible and still have structural integrity. 

Those poles and wires had to cross some of the most rugged terrain 

in America, swamps, deserts, mountains, and so forth for anyone 

around; therefore rigid standards were established. Products were 

tested and specified. Construction was tightly monitored. Policies 

and procedures were developed. Field personnel continues to observe the system. 

Mr. Chairman, those rigid standards are still a part of the process and requirements today. A track was laid for a strong system, 

and the agency has stayed on track. An example of how that has 

worked so very well is the disaster of Hurricane Katrina. Many 

electrical systems were down on the ground. A large percentage 

were electric co-ops. When crews from co-ops from many parts of 

the USA came to help, they needed only to be shown where to 

begin work. 

They knew the system. They came with trucks loaded with materials from their own warehouses that met the established standards, and they went to work. The systems were put up very quickly. Being strong systems that have a consistent standard means 

that even in disaster, system reliability exists. 

Mr. Chairman, lest I over-speak, there is still work to be done. 

The expected growth in kilowatt hours means more capacity is 

needed. More capacity means more poles and wire for growth. Upgrades on existing systems will be necessary. Some upgrades because of the age, and some because of the desire to avoid being 

down, and some just to increase capacity on what is already there. 

We can get these things done. In fact, we are getting these things 

done. We will make over $6 billion in loans this year to these sysVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:47 Jul 31, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\110-46\51336.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
7

tems for growth and improvement. With this work being done, 

there is however another big hurdle: transmission. We believe that 

transmission is the biggest challenge to the growth and reliability 

we have. The same quality rules that apply to distribution and generation systems also apply to transmission. That is not a concern. 

The concern is that transmission affects every aspect we can discuss here at the hearing. 

We can build distribution systems. We can build generation systems. We can build massive renewable systems, but if we can’t 

transmit the power to the place where it is needed, we really 

haven’t accomplished much. The transmission challenges are extensive. Who owns it? Who finances it? How does the investment get 

repaid? Who controls the on and off ramps? Each state’s regulations are different, and the list goes on. 

My new friend, Ms. Cynthia Marlette from the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission—we discussed this earlier—will have more 

to say about this and from a better perspective that I ever could. 

Mr. Chairman, no one wants these transmission systems and 

long spans of wire on their property. I don’t, and you don’t. The 

Rural Electric Cooperative serves 75 percent of the land mass in 

the U.S. which means much, if not most, of this transmission will 

be built in rural service areas. We finance, provide the regulations, 

and provide environmental studies but not the direction nor the location of these wires and poles. 

The systems are in good shape and are reliable physically. The 

standards are in place to guide the future as they have in the past. 

The challenges are to keep doing what we have been doing, and to 

find a way to expand the transmission grid to support our growth 

and with the agreement of the landowners. 

Generation from renewable sources will be necessary to supplement other forms of generation. These renewable sources will most 

probably be located in more remote places, and transmissions must 

get these resources to market. 

Mr. Chairman, please accept this oral statement and my more 

detailed written statement as my background for any questions the 

Committee may have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Andrew follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. ‘‘JIM’’ ANDREW, ADMINISTRATOR, RURAL

DEVELOPMENT UTILITIES PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to discuss 

electric power generation and reliability issues in rural America. 

The demand for new generation capacity in rural areas is increasing just as it is 

in the urban centers. The last significant industry wide build-out of baseload electric 

generation plants occurred during the 1970–1985 timeframe. Since that time, the 

industry has moved from a situation of surplus capacity to the current period in 

which most utilities are forecasting the need to build new baseload capacity to meet 

the requirements of their customers; in the case of rural electric cooperatives that 

means the member/owners of the system. Because of the significant lead time necessary for the addition of new baseload capacity, many utilities, including cooperatives, are not expanding at a rate necessary to meet the anticipated demand for 

electricity. 

Baseload generation means those plants that are designed to be operated 24 hours 

per day, 7 days per week. They are shut down only for required maintenance. Most 

baseload plants are generally fueled by either coal, nuclear power, or natural gas. 

When baseload plants cannot meet demand, intermediate facilities are started. 

8

These are typically fueled by natural gas and can be started as quickly as needed. 

The last in line are peaking plants that are also fueled by natural gas and also can 

be started quickly. 

According to a recent survey of Electric Cooperative Generation and Transmission 

borrowers conducted by the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association projects 

that due to electric load growth, many electric cooperatives will need to double generation capacity by 2020. Virtually no additional capacity was added during the 

1990s and early in this century due to surplus capacity and the efforts to deregulate 

the electric power industry during the mid to late 1990s. Deregulation attempts created an atmosphere of uncertainty that the existing customer base would be there 

to ensure repayment of the investments. 

During this period, the electric cooperative side of the industry attempted to keep 

pace with demand by investing in smaller natural gas peaking and intermediate facilities which are less costly to build, but can be very expensive to operate at times 

when the price of natural gas spikes. Cooperatives also met customer demand by 

entering into power purchase contracts with other suppliers. Many of these contracts will expire in the near future; some as soon as 2011. 

Since 2000, the uncertainty associated with deregulation of the industry has 

waned. This combined with favorable interest rates encouraged Electric Program 

generation and transmission borrowers to begin developing plans for investments in 

new generation capacity. However, new uncertainties and challenges have since 

been introduced:

• There is much discussion that some form of carbon dioxide emission limits will 

be imposed.

• Legal challenges to environmental permits can be expected on any new baseload 

generation plant that has emissions.

• Costs of new plant construction are increasing substantially each year due to 

a variety of factors. 

Current Generation Capacity and Peak Demand 

Electric Program Generation and Transmission borrowers own 160 generating 

units totaling 38,604 megawatts of generation capacity of which roughly 59 percent 

is from coal fired steam plants and about six percent is represented by partial ownership in nuclear plants and approximately 32 percent is from primarily gas fired 

peaking or intermediate units. 

Owned capacity represents 57 percent of the energy supplied to member distribution cooperatives. Purchases from other sources represent the other 43 percent. Generation and Transmission cooperatives attempt to maintain this balance between 

self-generation and purchased power to minimize risk and optimize their costs. If 

purchases can be secured at less marginal cost than that of operating a peaking or 

intermediate unit, the cooperative will opt for purchases to meet the requirements 

of its members. 

One reason that 59 percent of the capacity owned by these cooperatives is coal 

fired is that following the OPEC oil embargo of 1973 Congress enacted the Power 

Plant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 which strictly limited the use of oil or 

natural gas to generate electricity. This encouraged investment to coal and nuclear 

energy during the last baseload construction cycle in the late 1970s and early 1980s. 

Another reason that coal is the preferred fuel is cost. Currently, energy generated 

from coal is available at a median total cost of $34.02 per megawatt hour. Gas fired 

combined cycle plants produce energy at an average cost of $96.60 per megawatt 

hour while nuclear energy costs a little over $40 per megawatt hour. 

U.S. Capacity Margins 

The mission of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) is to 

ensure that the bulk power system in North America is reliable. Under the oversight of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), NERC develops and 

enforces reliability standards; monitors the system; assesses and reports on future 

adequacy; and evaluates owners, operators, and users for reliability preparedness. 

In October of 2007, NERC released a report on Long Term Reliability Assessment 

which contained the following key findings:

• Long term capacity margins are still inadequate;

• Integration of wind, solar, and nuclear resources require special consideration 

in planning, design, and operation;

• High reliance on natural gas in some areas of the country must be properly 

managed to reduce supply risk and delivery interruption;

• The transmission situation has improved, but more is still required; and

9

• The aging workforce is still a growing challenge.

According to the report, peak demand for electricity in the U.S. is forecast to increase by over 135,000 MW or 17.7 percent in the next ten years. Capacity is projected to increase by only 77,000 MW. Capacity margins will begin dropping below 

the recommended 15% above peak demand by 2009 and continue to decline to under 

10% by 2016. The decline below 15% will occur first in the western third of the U.S. 

and Canada and in New England. A reserve of 15% is necessary to prevent brownouts or blackouts in case of unplanned outages of generation facilities, unusual 

weather events, or other unpredictable events occur. 

The map below identifies the years when a region or sub-region drops below target capacity margin levels required to meet summer peak (unless noted as winter) 

including both committed and uncommitted resources. Those regions or sub-regions 

not identified are not projected in the next ten years to drop below their target margin levels. Source: NERC.

U.S. and Rural Electric Generation and Transmission Forecasted Generation Capacity Additions 

The U.S. Department of Energy’s Annual Energy Outlook for 2008 forecasts electricity consumption to grow from 3.8 billion kilowatt hours (KWh) in 2006 to almost 

5 billion KWh in 2030, an annual rate of increase of 1.1 percent. The 2008 forecast 

is lower than the 2007 forecast of 1.5 percent annual increase due to slower economic growth, higher electricity prices and the enactment of new efficiency standards in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. 

The Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a private research firm, estimates 

the U.S. electric power industry will invest $900 billion in new utility plants over 

the next 15 years. This level of investment surpasses the total net plant in service 

today. This total includes $350 billion for new generation, $300 billion for distribution, $150 billion for transmission, $50 billion for conservation and efficiency and 

$50 billion for environmental retrofits (not including CO2 abatement). 

Rural Areas 

Presently, rural electric Generation and Transmission cooperatives generate about 

5% of the energy produced in the U.S. Every year the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) surveys its cooperative members regarding their 

planned capacity additions. The most current survey indicates a 10 year capital requirement of $65.5 billion, $49.9 billion of which is specifically for new generation 

projects. Ten billion dollars is needed for new transmission and almost $3 billion 

is needed for environmental retrofits. 


11046001
10

Total Projected Investment By NERC Region

The NRECA 2008 survey also projects significantly higher capacity needs 8,000 

additional megawatts over last year’s projection due primarily to the timing of larger investments in baseload generation that have been shifted to later years. The 

survey results suggest that the needs in the shorter term will be filled with natural 

gas fired peaking and intermediate units. The delay in the construction of baseload 

coal and nuclear facilities is a reaction to the uncertainties of increasing construction costs, legal challenges, financial risks for first-movers, and proposals to regulate 

carbon dioxide emissions. 

While adding natural gas fired units in the short term is not seen as an optimal 

solution, this capacity will aid in meeting the energy requirements of cooperative 

consumers. The price of natural gas has been volatile and steadily increasing since 

2000 and additional demand will add to the price volatility. 

Construction Cost 

According to the Cambridge Energy Research Associates Power Capital Cost 

Index, the cost of new power plant construction has increased 130% during the past 

8 years with almost 70% of the increase occurring since 2005. The demand for construction material in China and India is a huge factor, but other supply constraints 

and increasing labor cost are also key factors. Earlier this year, one of the Generation and Transmission Cooperative borrowers shelved a coal-fired project that had 

been in the planning stage for 3 years because the projected cost had risen from 

$1.4 billion to over $1.8 billion. 

The time horizon for large baseload generation plants can easily be ten years from 

the beginning of planning to commercial operation; construction time alone can be 

4 years. Making investment decisions with these time horizons is very difficult given 

the uncertainties discussed above. Adding to these uncertainties are the current disruptions in the commercial financial markets. 

Financing Options and Costs for Generation and Transmission Cooperatives 

Sixty-eight percent of long-term debt held by Generation and Transmission cooperatives has been provided by Rural Development Electric Program loans and 

guarantees. For most of these entities, this source of financing is the preferred option due to the lower interest rates and term length differences between government 

financing and commercial capital. 

On average, the cost of energy represents 65% of the electric bills at the rural 

retail level. Primarily residential, rural electric distribution cooperatives serve an 

average of 7.0 consumers per mile of distribution line compared to 35.1 for investor 

owned utilities and 46.6 for municipally owned systems. Translated into revenue per 

mile of line distribution, cooperatives average $10,565 compared to $62,665 for investor owned utilities and $86,302 for municipally owned systems. Due to the low 

density of the customer base, the cost of energy, and the fact that most of the energy 

used is for residential needs (translates to less than a 50% load factor), the rates 


11046002
11

paid by rural distribution cooperative consumers average about 10% higher than 

neighboring investor owned and municipally owned systems. For these reasons, it 

is imperative that the Generation and Transmission cooperatives seek the least costly source of capital for their members. 

We are currently financing intermediate and peaking generators, improvements 

and pollution control improvements to existing generation plants, transmission, and 

renewable energy projects, as well as distribution system improvements. In Fiscal 

Year 2008, the electric program will provide a total of $6.6 billion for these needs. 

These types of improvements involve minimal risk to the government so there are 

virtually no subsidy costs associated with these investments. Another factor contributing to low subsidy rates is the fact that there is less than 1⁄10 of one percent delinquency rate on the Rural Development Electric Loan Program’s portfolio exceeding 

$36 billion. 

Renewable Energy 

Renewable energy, including hydropower, accounts for approximately eight percent of the nation’s electricity production while coal and nuclear combine to total 

68 percent and natural gas 22 percent. For electric cooperatives, renewable energy, 

primarily large hydroelectric facilities, accounts for 11 percent, coal accounts for 62 

percent, nuclear 15 percent, natural gas 10 percent and diesel fuel two percent. Renewable energy is becoming a larger portion of the cooperative’s energy portfolio. 

Presently 80 percent of the 900 rural electric cooperatives supply some of their 

electricity needs from renewable sources, owning or purchasing 1,415 megawatts, 

primarily wind. A little over 1,000 additional megawatts, composed of wind and 

woody biomass, is being planned. Close to 150 cooperatives either own wind turbines or purchase output from wind farms. Basin Electric based in North Dakota 

purchases 136 megawatts from three commercial wind farms and is planning to 

build and own another 200 megawatts of wind energy. 

Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) adopted by several states have had a significant impact on the deployment of renewable generation. Twenty-six states and the 

District of Columbia have passed RPS requiring utilities to add increasing amounts 

of renewable energy ranging from 10 to 25 percent of their energy mix. Other states 

have adopted renewable goals rather than mandates. 

To a large extent, renewable energy resources are found in remote rural areas. 

Fully developing those resources and delivering the energy to market centers will 

require substantial investments in transmission capacity, both in terms of delivering 

renewable energy to the transmission grid and increasing the capacity of the grid 

to handle increasing loads. 

We are currently working with Generation and Transmission cooperatives as well 

as private developers of wind and biomass projects on additional projects that will 

total well over $1 billion in financing. The success of these projects will drive additional investments in the future. The availability of the production tax credit, favorable depreciation rates, and Clean Renewable Energy Bonds are making renewable 

energy more price-competitive. This is in-turn stimulating increasing interest in developing renewable energy projects with the assistance of the Rural Development 

Electric Program. 

Additionally, several rural electric generation and transmission CEOs recently announced the formation of a national cooperative dedicated to the development of renewable energy sources. A national effort was deemed necessary because some areas 

of the country do not have sufficient renewable resources for generation of electricity. For example, generation cooperatives in the South and Southeast that have 

limited wind resources can participate in wind projects developed in the Great 

Plains through equity contributions. 

Wind and solar energy will continue to increase as important components of the 

energy mix, however, they should not be considered as baseload capacity resources 

because they can not generate electricity 24/7. This has been best stated by the 

American Wind Energy Association; ‘‘It is an energy resource. You take the wind 

when nature delivers it and rely on other system resources when it is not available.’’ 

Biomass renewable sources such as waste wood can be operated as baseload resources. 

Energy Efficiency 

The cooperative segment of the electric industry has been recognized nationally 

a leader in energy efficiency and demand side management practices. These practices reduce demand and help mitigate the need for new electric generation capacity. 

Most distribution cooperatives offer incentives, rebates and other assistance such as 

free energy audits for residential, commercial and industrial consumers. Many distribution cooperatives also participate in the Electric Programs Energy Conservation 

12

Program (ERC) which offers deferral of principal payments on debt for this purpose. 

This enables the cooperative to use those funds to assist consumers seeking to install energy efficient appliances or other energy saving measures. A very popular 

and successful effort is the installation of geothermal ground loop systems replacing 

inefficient heating and air conditioning systems. The upfront cost of these systems 

can be prohibitively expensive for many homeowners, but with the assistance of the 

ERC program, the cost to the home owner can be reduced to affordable levels. 

Recently, two cooperatives in Alabama and Kentucky and the Hawaii Habitat for 

Humanity Office were awarded High Energy Cost Grants, administered by the Electric Program, to assist low income homeowners to install energy efficiency measures 

to reduce their energy bills. A previous grant to the Alabama cooperative proposes 

to assist 100 very low income home owners repair or replace duct work, install energy efficient appliances, replace inefficient furnaces and central air conditioners 

with highly efficient heat pumps, install insulation, and install energy efficient 

doors and windows. These efforts not only reduce the energy bills of the home 

owner, but also reduce the amount of energy the cooperative has to purchase to 

serve those homes. One example shows the home owner monthly electric bill decreasing from 3,979 kwh per month to 2,080 kwh per month, a 48 percent reduction. 

Carbon Emissions 

As legislation designed to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions is being 

considered, we must keep in mind that the intermittency of wind and solar energy 

means that we cannot depend on those resources for capacity reliance. There must 

be other energy sources available for those times that wind and solar sources are 

not available. 

This was demonstrated rather dramatically earlier this year in Texas when wind 

production of electricity in west Texas unexpectedly dropped by 75% while simultaneously late afternoon peak demand rose by over 2,000 megawatts as people returned home from work. In order to avoid brownouts, the Electric Reliability Council 

of Texas (ERCOT), the entity that manages the transmission grid in Texas, called 

interruptible customers, typically large commercial or industrial customers, and 

asked them to reduce their demand and simultaneously started up natural gas fired 

peaking facilities to generate additional power to balance supply and demand. 

Compounding the problem was that some baseload units were not generating power 

due to planned outages for maintenance or other reasons. All of this occurred in a 

matter of minutes. 

Occurrences such as this one lead us to believe that any approach to limiting carbon emissions should be balanced in order to maintain system reliability, sustain 

economic growth and provide time for the appropriate technologies to be developed. 

This includes a balanced mix beginning with energy efficiency and renewable resources, additional nuclear capacity, advanced clean coal generation, carbon capture 

and storage, plug-in-hybrid vehicles, and distributed energy resources. 

The Rural Development Electric Program intends to assist Basin Electric Cooperative in North Dakota install carbon capture technology at an existing coal fired 

generation plant. This technology will remove a portion of the carbon dioxide and 

feed it into an existing CO2 compression and pipeline system owned by Basin from 

which it will be sold for enhanced oil recovery in North Dakota and Canada. Smaller 

portions of CO2 will be taken out of the pipeline and injected into a non-recoverable 

coal seam and a saline formation to test sequestration capability of those geologic 

formations. Our goal is to help further the advancement of these technologies. 

Conclusions 

The system reliability concerns identified in the NERC report, as well as other 

reports, point out that brownouts are probable unless we begin now to increase investment in transmission. Simultaneously, we must intensify energy efficiency efforts and add new generation sources beginning with additional renewable resources. But we also need to add baseload plants. The lead time associated with 

planning and constructing new baseload plants can easily consume 8 to 10 years 

and the country is already behind the demand curve. 

Ensuring reliability of the system and adequate supply is going to be costly and 

consequently consumer rates may increase. However, the economic cost of brownouts could be higher due to interruptions of commerce. Our economy is highly dependent on reliable electricity and that dependence is growing as more of the economy shifts to the service sector and as we move to energy independence. The development of alternative transportation fuels, regardless of the feedstock, will also require significant sources of new electric generation. 

13

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present our views on rural electric generation needs and the reliability of the electric system. I would be pleased 

to answer any questions the Members of the Subcommittee have.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Andrew. Ms. Marlette. 

STATEMENT OF CYNTHIA A. MARLETTE, GENERAL COUNSEL, 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION,

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Ms. MARLETTE. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you very much for the opportunity to be here 

today. I appear before you today as a staff witness of the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, and I don’t speak for the members 

of the Commission. 

My testimony today focuses on the Commission’s limited jurisdiction over rural electric cooperatives and also discusses Commission 

policies that may affect the provision of service by electric cooperatives. 

As a general matter, the Commission has relatively little authority over the majority of electric cooperatives. We generally have no 

authority to regulate the rates and services of distribution-only 

utilities of any kind, including distribution cooperatives. To the extent the cooperatives engage in wholesale sales or transmission in 

interstate commerce, the Commission has authority to comprehensively regulate those activities only if the utility does not receive 

funding under the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 and the cooperative sells 4 million or more megawatt hours of electricity per year. 

Of the over 900 electric cooperatives in the United States, at this 

time, the Commission regulates only 15 of those cooperatives. However, the Commission does have certain limited authorities that 

apply to REA-financed cooperatives. This includes authority to 

order them to provide interconnection and transmission access to 

their facilities, authority to enforce compliance with the mandatory 

reliability standards for the bulk power system, authority to sanction market manipulation by any entity in connection with Commission jurisdictional transactions, and certain authority to require 

any market participant to disseminate to the public information regarding the availability and pricing of wholesale electric energy 

and transmission service. 

Although the Commission’s authorities are limited over cooperatives, cooperatives have long been very active participants in Commission proceedings involving investor-owned public utilities. They 

have also been very active in our generic rule-making proceedings 

involving interconnection and transmission access as well as our 

rulemakings to implement the new reliability provisions and backstop transmission siting authority given to the Commission in the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

The Commission’s policies clearly can affect cooperatives and the 

consumers they serve, particularly as the Commission and industry 

participants address the challenges ahead in developing new electric transmission infrastructure and meeting the future power 

needs of the nation’s consumers. 

Among the policies and requirements that most affect cooperatives, there are five that I would highlight for you. First, electric 

cooperatives have the ability to use the open access transmission 

14

tariffs of Commission-regulated public utilities to obtain transmission services. Open access tariffs allow customers to obtain 

transmission service on a nondiscriminatory basis, whether to sell 

their own power or to go out in the market and shop for power to 

serve their customers. 

The Commission, last year, updated the open access service obligations including a requirement to offer new service options for 

long term firm customers. 

Second, electric cooperatives have the ability to interconnect 

their generating facilities with the interstate transmission grid 

through standardized nondiscriminatory procedures and agreements that are required to be used by Commission-regulated public 

utilities. 

These procedures and agreements vary depending on the size 

and nature of the generating facility, and they provide flexibility 

for small facilities and for non-synchronous technologies such as 

wind power. 

Third, last year the Commission directed all public utilities to develop and implement transmission planning processes that allow 

for customers, both on a local and regional level, to be involved in 

the transmission planning process. In adopting this reform, the 

Commission noted that particular emphasis was given by Congress 

in the Energy Policy Act to development of transmission infrastructure. 

By opening up the transmission planning process and granting 

customers access to planning-related studies and information, the 

Commission has tried to ensure that investments in transmission 

infrastructure are made in coordination with the customers being 

served, including electric cooperatives. 

Fourth, pursuant to the directive of Congress in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Commission has provided rate incentives to 

public utilities for new transmission infrastructure that is needed 

to ensure reliability and to reduce the cost of delivered power by 

reducing congestion on the transmission system. 

With new transmission, however, comes the very difficult issue 

of cost allocation. Who pays for the new transmission facilities that 

are needed? The Commission has encouraged regional, consensual 

solutions for addressing cost allocation issues, including the particular challenges that are associated with transmission facilities 

that are needed to reach remote location-constrained resources 

such as wind facilities. 

Fifth, the Commission has supported the continued development 

of competitive wholesale power markets including the voluntary 

formation of regional transmission organizations to operate the 

transmission system and energy spot markets on a nondiscriminatory basis. These institutions help to serve as a focal point for 

regional solutions including transmission planning and dealing 

with the cost allocation issues I mentioned. 

Finally, I would note that outside the context of the Commission’s economic regulation affecting cooperatives, the Commission 

also is responsible for licensing non-Federal hydropower projects 

that are located on navigable waters or Federal lands or connected 

with the interstate grid. 

15

This includes licenses for electric cooperatives and to date, we 

have 14 electric cooperatives who have sought and obtained hydropower licenses from the Commission for 21 hydropower projects. 

This concludes my oral statement, and I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Marlette follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CYNTHIA A. MARLETTE, GENERAL COUNSEL, FEDERAL

ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for the opportunity to be here this morning to discuss the provision 

of reliable electric service in rural America. My name is Cynthia Marlette, and I 

am General Counsel of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or 

FERC). I am appearing before you as a staff witness and do not speak for the members of the Commission. 

My comments today will focus on the Commission’s limited jurisdiction over rural 

electric cooperatives and on Commission policies that affect the provision of service 

by electric cooperatives. 

As a general matter, the Commission has relatively little authority over the majority of rural electric cooperatives. It generally has no authority to regulate the 

rates and services of distribution-only utilities of any kind, including distribution cooperatives. To the extent a cooperative engages in wholesale sales of electric energy 

or transmission in interstate commerce, the Commission has authority to comprehensively regulate those activities only if the cooperative does not receive funding under the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (REA) and the cooperative sells 4 

million or more megawatt hours of electricity per year. Of the more than 900 electric cooperatives in the United States, at this time only 15 are subject to such regulation by the Commission. 

However, the Commission does have certain limited authorities that apply to 

REA-financed electric cooperatives and other ‘‘non-jurisdictional’’ entities. This includes authority to order them to provide interconnection and transmission access, 

authority to enforce their compliance with mandatory reliability standards for the 

bulk power system, authority to sanction manipulation by any entity in connection 

with Commission-jurisdictional transactions, and certain authority to require any 

market participant to disseminate to the public information regarding the availability and pricing of wholesale electric energy and transmission service. Additionally, electric cooperatives have long been power customer participants in FERC proceedings involving investor-owned public utilities, and the Commission’s policies 

clearly can affect rural cooperatives and the consumers they serve. These matters 

are discussed in further detail below. 

Regulation of Public Utilities Under the Federal Power Act 

The Commission’s primary jurisdictional responsibilities involving the electric industry are found in the Federal Power Act (FPA). Under the FPA, the Commission 

regulates the rates, terms and conditions of wholesale sales of electric energy and 

transmission in interstate commerce by public utilities. It also regulates certain corporate activities of public utilities and public utility holding companies. Most public 

utilities are investor-owned companies. They do not include governmental entities 

(such as municipal utilities, state power agencies and Federal power marketing 

agencies) or REA-financed cooperatives. The FPA defines a public utility to include 

individuals and corporations that own or operate facilities used for wholesale sales 

of electric energy in interstate commerce, or for transmission of electric energy in 

interstate commerce. While some electric cooperatives meet this definition, the Commission historically interpreted the FPA to exempt from public utility regulation 

those electric cooperatives receiving REA financing. In 2005, Congress codified and 

expanded this exemption by amending the FPA to expressly exclude from the Commission’s general FPA authority electric cooperatives that either receive REA financing or sell less than 4 million megawatt hours of electricity per year. As a result, the vast majority of electric cooperatives are now expressly excluded from rate 

regulation under the FPA. 

For the handful of electric cooperatives that no longer have REA financing and 

that sell 4 million or more megawatt hours of electricity per year, the Commission 

must find the rates, terms and conditions of their wholesale power sales and transmission in interstate commerce to be just, reasonable and not unduly discriminatory 

or preferential, and their rate schedules or tariff authorizations must be on file at 

16

1These electric cooperatives are: ACES Power Marketing LLC; American Cooperative Services 

Inc.; Continental Electric Cooperative Services, Inc.; Cooperative Energy Incorporated; Energy 

Cooperative of New York, Inc.; Energy Cooperative of PA, Inc.; Georgia Energy Cooperative; 

Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc.; GS Electric Generation Cooperative; Newcorp Resources Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Old Dominion Electric Cooperative, Inc.; PNGC Power; Rainbow Energy Marketing Corp.; Wabash Valley Power Assoc.; and, Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative. 

FERC. These electric cooperatives are also subject to regulation of some of their corporate activities. As noted above, only 15 of the over 900 electric cooperatives in the 

United States are subject to regulation by the Commission as public utilities under 

the FPA.1

Other Regulation Under the Federal Power Act 

While most rural electric cooperatives are not subject to FERC regulation as public utilities, they may nonetheless be subject to certain provisions of the FPA that 

apply more broadly to the wholesale sale or transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce. Major provisions affecting electric cooperatives are discussed below. 

FPA Sections 210 and 211 Interconnections and Transmission Service 

Under FPA section 210, the Commission may order on a case-by-case basis the 

physical connection of certain generation and transmission facilities upon request 

and a determination by the Commission that, among other things, such interconnection is in the public interest. Under FPA section 211, the Commission may order 

the provision of transmission service upon request and, again, a determination that, 

among other things, the service is in the public interest. Any person that sells electric energy is subject to the possibility of a mandatory interconnection order under 

section 210. Any entity that owns, operates, or controls facilities used for the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce and for the sale for electric energy 

at wholesale is subject to the possibility of a transmission order under section 211. 

Sections 210 and 211 therefore apply not only to public utilities but also to government-owned utilities and electric cooperatives. This means that the Commission, 

upon application by an eligible wholesale power seller or power customer, may order 

cooperatives to provide access to, and transmission over, their wires. Similarly, cooperatives as customers have the ability to request such service from public utilities 

as well as otherwise non-jurisdictional entities by filing requests pursuant to sections 210 and 211. While the Commission has exercised its authority under section 

210 and 211 to require public utilities to provide service to electric cooperatives on 

several occasions, the Commission to date has not directed an electric cooperative 

to provide service to others under sections 210 or 211. 

Open Access Transmission and FPA Section 211A 

Electric cooperatives also have certain transmission-related rights and obligations 

under the Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) required to be filed by public 

utilities pursuant to the Commission’s Order No. 888, issued in April 1996. In that 

order, the Commission required all public utilities that own, control or operate facilities used for transmitting electric energy in interstate commerce to offer non-discriminatory service on their transmission facilities pursuant to an OATT on file with 

the Commission. It also obligated such public utilities to ‘‘functionally unbundle’’ 

their generation and transmission services. This meant public utilities had to take 

transmission service for their own new wholesale sales and purchases of electricity 

under the open access tariffs and to separately state their rates for wholesale generation, transmission and ancillary services. Electric cooperatives that are wholesale 

sellers or wholesale buyers of electric energy may use the OATTs filed by public 

utilities to access transmission service on a non-discriminatory basis. This means 

that they, like other market participants, can reach alternative suppliers and buyers 

using the transmission systems of public utilities regulated by the FERC. 

Last year, the Commission revisited the terms and conditions of the OATT and 

adopted several reforms to ensure that it continues to achieve its core objective of 

remedying undue discrimination in the provision of transmission service. Of particular interest to rural electric cooperatives, the Commission directed transmission 

providers to implement new service options for long-term firm point-to-point customers, increasing the ability to obtain transmission service when capacity is limited. The Commission also relaxed penalties for imbalances created by intermittent 

resources (such as wind) delivering power to the grid. The Commission directed 

transmission providers to implement open and coordinated processes for transmission planning and to develop consistent practices governing the calculation of 

available transfer capability (ATC). Taken together, these and other reforms adoptVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:47 Jul 31, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\110-46\51336.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
17

2These electric cooperatives are: Basin Electric Power Cooperative; Big Rivers Electric Corporation; East Kentucky Power Cooperative; Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative; Southern Illinois Power Cooperative; Southwest Transmission Cooperative; Sunflower Electric Power 

Corporation; Tri-State G&T Association; and, Umatilla Electric Cooperative Association. 

ed by the Commission will better enable customers, including electric cooperatives, 

to obtain nondiscriminatory transmission service from public utilities. 

It is important to note that, while the OATT obligations do not apply directly to 

most electric cooperatives, as a condition of an electric cooperative (or any other entity) taking service from a public utility under its open access tariff, the cooperative 

has an obligation to provide reciprocal transmission service to the public utility if 

the cooperative, or its affiliate, owns or controls transmission facilities. Unless the 

electric cooperative obtains a waiver of its obligation to provide reciprocal service, 

denial of service by the cooperative may result in denial of service by the public utility. Approximately 40 electric cooperatives have sought and obtained a full or partial waiver of the obligation to provide reciprocal transmission service. The Commission also established a voluntary ‘‘safe harbor’’ process whereby non-jurisdictional 

entities such as electric cooperatives could voluntarily submit their own OATTs to 

the Commission in order to meet the reciprocity condition and thus help avoid public utility complaints that they are not providing reciprocal service. Nine electric cooperatives have voluntarily submitted open access tariffs to satisfy their reciprocity 

obligations.2

To address the Commission’s lack of direct jurisdiction to order electric cooperatives and other non-jurisdictional entities to provide non-discriminatory open access 

(i.e., access to all eligible customers) transmission services, in the Energy Policy Act 

of 2005 Congress provided the Commission with authority in new section 211A of 

the FPA to direct unregulated transmitting utilities to provide transmission service 

to third parties on a basis that is comparable to the service they provide themselves, 

at rates that are comparable to those they charge themselves. This authority is in 

addition to the open access reciprocity condition contained in public utility open access tariffs and the Commission’s authority to order transmission on a case-by-case 

basis under FPA section 211, discussed above. Section 211A can be applied, however, only to those unregulated transmitting utilities that sell 4 million or more 

megawatt hours of electricity per year. To date, the Commission has found the voluntary reciprocity approach sufficient and no electric cooperative has been directed 

to provide transmission service pursuant to new section 211A. 

FPA Section 215 Mandatory Reliability Standards 

All users, owners and operators of the bulk power system, including electric cooperatives, are now subject to mandatory reliability standards approved by the Commission pursuant to section 215 of the FPA, which was enacted by Congress in the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005. There currently are 94 mandatory reliability standards 

that have been developed by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation 

(NERC) and approved by the Commission after receiving notice and comment from 

industry participants, including electric power cooperatives. Under section 215, 

NERC may impose penalties for violations of these mandatory reliability standards, 

subject to review by the Commission, or the Commission itself may impose such 

penalties directly. 

FPA Section 220 Electricity Market Transparency 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 directed the Commission to facilitate price transparency in markets for the sale and transmission of electric energy in interstate 

commerce and authorized the Commission to issue rules requiring any market participant to disseminate to the public information regarding the availability and 

prices of wholesale electric energy and transmission service. This permits the Commission to require information to be provided by otherwise non-jurisdictional entities such as electric cooperatives, unless they have a de minimis market presence. 

However, the Commission to date has not issued any rules or orders under this new 

authority. 

FPA Sections 221 and 222 Prohibitions on Filing False Information and Energy Market Manipulation 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 granted the Commission authority to prosecute the 

willful and knowing reporting to a Federal agency of false information related to the 

price of electricity sold at wholesale or the availability of transmission capacity if 

the person or any other entity knew the information to be false at the time of the 

reporting and intended to fraudulently affect the data being compiled by the Federal 

agency. It also gave the Commission authority to sanction the use of manipulative 

or deceptive devices in connection with the purchase or sale of electric energy or 

18

3 Currently there are six such entities regulated by the Commission: California Independent 

System Operator Corp. (California ISO); ISO New England Inc. (ISO New England); Midwest 

Independent System Operator, Inc. (Midwest ISO); PJM Interconnection LLC (PJM); New York 

Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO); Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP). 

transmission subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction. These provisions apply to any 

entity and, therefore, prohibit electric cooperatives from engaging in such false reporting or manipulative behavior. 

Policies for Interconnecting Generators to the Transmission Grid 

In order to facilitate the interconnection of new generation facilities to the transmission grid, the Commission has adopted standard procedures and agreements for 

the interconnection of generation facilities with the transmission facilities of jurisdictional public utilities. In the past, transmission providers with their own generating facilities had the incentive and ability to deny, delay, or make expensive the 

interconnection of rival generating facilities. The Commission eliminated that ability 

of public utilities to discriminate through a series of rulemaking proceedings to 

standardize the generator interconnection process. The resulting procedures and 

agreements vary depending on the size and nature of the generation facility, providing flexibility for small facilities and non-synchronous technologies, such as wind 

plants. Taken together, these standardized procedures and agreements offer comparable, open access to rival generators, including electric cooperatives seeking to 

interconnect with their local transmission provider. It should be noted, however, 

that the Commission’s interconnection authority extends only to transmission facilities. It does not extend to local distribution facilities that are not used for wholesale 

sales. 

Recently, the Commission has expressed concern regarding the growing backlog 

of generator interconnection requests. In some regions, many interconnection requests that are pending in study queues appear to be for speculative or unlikely 

projects. Because interconnection requests are studied on a first come, first served 

basis, the resulting backlog in study queues is causing delay for projects that wish 

to move forward. This problem seems to be particularly prevalent in markets operated by regional transmission organizations (RTOs) and independent system operators (ISOs), which have attracted significant new entry to the marketplace. RTOs 

and ISOs are nonprofit entities that, except for the ERCOT region of Texas, are regulated by the Commission as public utilities. They operate transmission facilities 

within a single state or within a region encompassing many states. They are not 

affiliated with any market participant and provide non-discriminatory access to the 

interstate transmission grid. They also operate organized real-time energy markets, 

and some also operate day-ahead markets.3 Earlier this year, the Commission provided guidance to RTOs and ISOs regarding possible reforms that could be implemented to alleviate the backlog in processing generator interconnections. In response, interconnection queue reform proposals have been filed by the California 

ISO and the Midwest ISO. The Commission acted on the California ISO proposal 

earlier this month, while the Midwest ISO proposal remains pending. 

Regional Transmission Planning 

As noted above, last year the Commission directed public utility transmission providers to update their open access tariffs to include an open, coordinated and transparent process for transmission planning. This reform bears special mention given 

that transmission planning is vital to ensuring that customers, including rural electric cooperatives, have robust and reliable access to markets. In the past, however, 

there were very few specific requirements regarding how customers should be treated in the transmission planning process. As a result, transmission providers had the 

ability to unduly discriminate when planning for system expansions, potentially favoring access to their own resources over those of their customers. 

To remedy that potential for undue discrimination, the Commission directed all 

public utility transmission providers to develop and implement planning processes 

that allow for customer involvement on a local and regional level. In adopting this 

reform, the Commission noted the particular emphasis that Congress placed on the 

development of transmission infrastructure in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. By 

opening the transmission planning process and granting customers access to planning-related studies and information, the Commission has ensured that investments 

in transmission infrastructure are made in coordination with the customers that are 

being served. 

19

Incentives for New Transmission and Allocating the Cost of Transmission 

Upgrades 

Pursuant to a directive from Congress in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Commission within 1 year of the statute’s enactment put in place rules to provide incentive-based rate treatment for new transmission facilities. In new section 219 of the 

FPA, Congress specified that these incentives must be ‘‘for the purpose of benefitting consumers by ensuring reliability and reducing the cost of delivered power by 

reducing transmission congestion.’’ A number of incentive requests have been filed 

under the new rules, some of which involved projects to allow location-constrained 

resources, such as wind power, to reach the transmission grid and other upgrades 

necessary to meet state renewable energy portfolio standards. These types of upgrades can benefit both suppliers and customers of renewable energy. 

With the nation’s need for new transmission facilities and upgrades comes the difficult task of determining who will pay for that investment. This can be a particularly difficult issue for remote facilities needing to interconnect from long distances. 

The Commission’s policy has been to encourage regional, consensual cost allocation 

solutions where possible. As part of the open and transparent planning processes 

discussed above, the Commission directed public utilities to work with their stakeholders to address the issue of cost allocation for new projects that do not fall under 

existing rate structures. The Commission has acted on a number of filings by public 

utilities seeking to comply with these provisions, while others remain pending before 

the Commission. 

Competitive Power Markets 

In addition to the Commission’s policies and requirements regarding open access, 

interconnection, transmission planning, and incentives and cost allocation for new 

transmission facilities, Commission policies supporting the development of competitive power markets also may affect rural electric cooperatives both as power buyers 

on behalf of their members and as power sellers in those markets. In recent years, 

the Commission has encouraged the creation of RTOs, discussed above, to operate 

the transmission system as well as operate real-time and day-ahead auction-based 

markets for the purchase and sale of wholesale electric power. Two-thirds of the 

United States population is supplied by wholesale markets operated by Commissionapproved RTOs. Earlier this year, the Commission instituted a rulemaking proceeding to consider reforms to RTO markets that would improve their operation, ensuring that they remain competitive and responsive to the needs of customers. 

In order for entities that are subject to the Commission’s ratemaking jurisdiction 

to sell electric energy into an RTO-operated energy market, they must obtain authorization to sell power at market-based rates. Such authorization is considered on 

a case-by-case basis and requires a showing that the requesting entity and its affiliates lack market power. The Commission has permitted market-based rates for generation sales by a variety of sellers, including traditional investor-owned utilities, 

independent generators, and independent and affiliated power marketers. Entities 

located outside of the RTO markets, or selling under bilateral contracts, may also 

seek authorization to make wholesale sales at market-based rates, again upon a 

showing that they and their affiliates lack market power. Of the 15 electric cooperatives subject to the Commission’s ratemaking jurisdiction, all but one have sought 

and obtained market-based rate authority. 

Hydropower Licensing and PURPA 

In addition to the Commission’s ratemaking jurisdiction under Part II of the FPA, 

the Commission has additional responsibilities under Part I of the FPA regarding 

the licensing of non-Federal hydropower projects located on navigable waterways or 

Federal lands, or connected to the interstate electric grid. In order to grant a license, the Commission must ensure that the project to be licensed is best adapted 

to a comprehensive plan for developing the waterway for beneficial public purposes. 

To the extent an electric cooperative owns or operates a hydropower project, the licensing requirements of Part I of the FPA may apply. To date, 14 electric cooperatives have sought and obtained licenses from the Commission for 21 hydropower 

projects. 

The Commission also has responsibilities under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) to enforce the obligations of electric utilities to purchase 

electric energy from and sell electric energy to qualifying cogeneration and small 

power production facilities (QFs). Under PURPA, electric utilities were generally required to offer to purchase available energy from QFs, and to provide electric service 

to QFs, at just, reasonable and nondiscriminatory rates. These mandatory purchase 

and sale obligations apply to all electric utilities, which PURPA defines broadly to 

20

include all entities selling electric energy. Electric cooperatives are therefore subject 

to the mandatory purchase and sell obligations imposed by PURPA. 

In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, however, Congress amended PURPA to direct 

the Commission to lift the mandatory purchase and sale obligation if it finds, in effect, that there is a sufficiently competitive market for the QF to sell its power. The 

Commission implemented this directive through a rulemaking proceeding in 2006, 

providing a process by which electric utilities may apply to be relieved of the requirement that they enter into new contracts or obligations for the purchase of electric energy from QFs. Prior to these reforms, a number of electric cooperatives had 

sought and obtained waiver from the Commission of the mandatory purchase and 

sale obligation. To date, no electric cooperative has requested termination of the 

purchase and sale obligation pursuant to the amendments adopted in the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005. 

Conclusion 

The Commission generally has no jurisdiction over distribution-only utilities, including rural distribution cooperatives. To the extent a cooperative engages in 

wholesale power sales or transmission in interstate commerce, relatively few of such 

cooperatives are subject to regulation by the Commission as public utilities. 

The Commission does have limited authority over cooperatives under certain sections of the FPA, including interconnection and wheeling authority under sections 

210 and 211, the enforcement of reliability standards under section 215, the wholesale market transparency provisions of section 220, and the prohibition of false reporting and manipulative behavior under sections 221 and 222. While the Commission has limited experience with, and jurisdiction over, cooperatives, its policies 

clearly can affect the consumers served by rural cooperatives. Cooperatives have 

nondiscriminatory access to transmission service under the Commission’s open access policies, with corresponding obligations to provide service to public utilities 

from which they receive service. Cooperatives also may use the Commission’s nondiscriminatory procedures for interconnecting generating facilities with the transmission facilities of public utilities. Further, they have access to competitive power 

markets, including the organized markets operated by RTOs, that enhance their 

ability to purchase and sell electricity generated from their resources. 

To the extent an electric cooperative owns or operates a hydropower project, it 

may be required to obtain a license for that project under Part I of the FPA. To 

the extent it has not obtained a waiver from the Commission, an electric cooperative 

also will be required to offer to purchase and sell electricity to and from QFs under 

PURPA. 

I would be happy to answer any questions that Members of the Subcommittee 

may have.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Marlette. Mr. Andrew, can you 

elaborate on USDA’s decision to suspend lending for coal-fired and 

nuclear-fired power plants? 

Mr. ANDREW. In the early days of the 1970s and 1980s, a lot of 

generation was built, and we didn’t have any subsidy rates established at that time. At this time when it became obvious that generation was going to be required to be built, we were trying to establish a subsidy rate to attempt to offset the cost of it. And we 

have a rate set, but we have not been able to get it in place. And 

the decision was made that we would not be able to make any generation, baseload generation that is, until we were able to assess 

a fee to convert the cost of the subsidy rate. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Andrew, can you possibly explain the difference between the approval process if a co-op was trying to finance a plant fired by coal for the environmental impact study 

compared to if they were seeking private financing, the difference 

in the concern for the community with environmental impact? 

Mr. ANDREW. Well, for us, a coal-fired plant requires an EIS environmental study, which is a lengthy process. And I cannot speak 

to how that works if it is privately financed, but there is certainly 

some environmental process. But with us, it is very strict and to 

that degree it is one of the reasons that sometimes we are not getVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:47 Jul 31, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\110-46\51336.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
21

ting the loan requests that we had at one time because it does take 

a long time for environmental studies. 

The CHAIRMAN. So you would have an extensive vetting process 

in an environmental impact study? 

Mr. ANDREW. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. And I know you said you couldn’t answer this 

specifically, but probably private financing would be subject to 

some state rules and regulations? 

Mr. ANDREW. Correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. And finally, Mr. Andrew, the once a borrower, always a borrower has come under some recent criticism. I was just 

wondering if you think that policy should be changed? And are you 

able to keep your hands around some of these so-called bad actors 

that might be crossing the lines so to speak? 

Mr. ANDREW. I do not think it should be changed, and the ones 

who have some notoriety, if you will notice were not borrowers of 

RUS. We have been able to monitor these things and keep a pretty 

tight rein on what goes on with our borrowers. 

The CHAIRMAN. And you said you believe it should not be 

changed? 

Mr. ANDREW. The once a borrower, always a borrower? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Mr. ANDREW. It should not be changed, no. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay, thank you. Mr. Lucas. 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Andrews, to follow up 

on the Chairman’s comments about baseload issues, I suspect that 

there are a number of Members of this Committee like myself who 

were very disappointed that in the farm bill we were not able to 

rectify those issues as they dealt with RUS. One of the main comments I get from my constituents back home in the rural community is how do we maintain enough baseload. 

And while I am a great proponent of wind energy, the wind only 

blows 40 percent of the time in Oklahoma, contrary to popular 

myth and belief back home. So you got to have baseload. Could you 

touch for a moment on what it means in rural America if we don’t 

do something about the baseload generation issue? 

Mr. ANDREW. As I understand it, generation is going to have to 

increase. Requirements in rural America are going to double by 

2020, the capacity requirements. We need to get some more baseload. You mentioned wind and we mentioned other renewables 

which we are actively involved in now, and they will be developed. 

A lot of it will be developed. We have a lot of it under development 

right now. In fact, we have $1.6 billion worth of programs in-house 

that we are looking at now. They vary from wind to woody biomass 

to manure and so forth. 

But the baseload generation, our estimation is that only 20 percent of the future requirements can be met by renewables. It has 

got to be provided by more baseload generation. During the time 

between the 1970s and early part of this century, we were able to 

get surplus power off the grid to make up what we needed to because we were short of baseload generation. We overbuilt frankly 

in the early 1970s and late 1980s. 

So we were able to get that power off the grid thanks to some 

FERC regulations that allowed us to get onto the grid and take 

22

power off. I know in my State of Georgia, we used to buy a lot of 

power out of Kentucky. But that power is gone now. It has been 

used up. We had one of our borrowers come in, and I asked him 

how much capacity was he building, was there going to be a surplus. And he said Jim, we are building for the year 1999. So it 

means that they have not built any baseload generation, and they 

need it desperately. 

So we do need the baseload generation. Right now, we are 

supplementing with some intermediate load natural gas right now 

and some peaking turbines to pick up some of the slack. But the 

baseload—it takes a long time to build these things, and we can’t 

wait a long time. 

Mr. LUCAS. For the sake of the record then what we are saying 

is if wind, for instance, blows 40 percent of the time, the other 60 

percent of the time, you got to have the power from somewhere. It 

is that other 60 percent that is the baseload, the stuff you count 

on because it will be there. 

Mr. ANDREW. It is available 24 hours. 

Mr. LUCAS. Twenty-four hours. And the issue in the farm bill, explain that again for the benefit of the record. Why it was important 

that we have legislation addressing those issues that didn’t make 

it in there so we would be able to do baseload. 

Mr. ANDREW. Well, in the farm bill, we were asking for the authority to assess a fee to cover the subsidy cost. The subsidy was 

estimated to be 1.92 percent, and 1.92 percent times $1 billion is 

quite a bit of money. The subsidy rate had to be appropriated. We 

asked all the generation transmission cooperatives if they would 

pay this as a fee up front. They agreed to. Therefore it would not 

be a cost to the government if we did baseload generation. But it 

was taken out of the farm bill so we are at that point now. 

Mr. LUCAS. So by not having that language there, in effect it ties 

your hands? 

Mr. ANDREW. Correct. 

Mr. LUCAS. You can’t be in the baseload business. It is not that 

you don’t want to help expand base generation capacity, but mechanically the way the law reads right now, you can’t do it. 

Mr. ANDREW. That is right. 

Mr. LUCAS. Is that a fair statement? 

Mr. ANDREW. If Congress appropriated the funds, we could. But 

right now, I don’t see that as a possibility. 

Mr. LUCAS. And one more time for the record, no matter how 

much wind we put on, no matter how many solar panels we put 

up, the fact of the matter is if you don’t have baseload generation, 

for instance in wind that proverbial 60 percent of the time when 

the wind is not blowing, or on a cloudy day even with solar, if you 

don’t have that baseload, we have brownouts, we have problems. 

Mr. ANDREW. Yes, sir. In my State of Georgia, for example, the 

wind only blows five percent of the time, and we are growing probably the fastest of any state in the Union at 10 percent a year. So 

we need it. 

Mr. LUCAS. So this is a problem that won’t go away? 

Mr. ANDREW. It won’t go away. 

23

Mr. LUCAS. If we don’t address the baseload issue, no matter how 

many good alternatives we use, we are fixing to slam into a wall 

somewhere in the near future. 

Mr. ANDREW. Regardless of who makes the baseload loans, we 

got to have it. 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Andrew, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The chair thanks the Ranking Member. The gentleman from Texas left. The gentleman from Colorado. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you having 

this hearing today. I guess my question, Mr. Administrator, is on 

transmission lines. In the San Luis Valley of Colorado where I live, 

we have one of the best places to produce solar energy. As a matter 

of fact, we have the largest solar farm in the country——

Mr. ANDREW. Yes. 

Mr. SALAZAR.—presently. The problem that we have is transmission lines in and out of the San Luis Valley. In order to be able 

to encourage development of solar energy within that valley, we 

need those transmission lines. Can you talk about the feasibility of 

underground transmission lines versus overhead transmission 

lines? Because that is a big controversy with the EEIS or the environmental community. 

Mr. ANDREW. Yes, I understand that, sir. And let me say that I 

am not an engineer, but I do know a little bit about that. The lines 

that you see overhead are not insulated. They are air cooled. So the 

capacity that those lines have is based on being able to be cooled 

by the air. If we have to put it underground, you have to insulate 

it, and it takes a larger wire to be insulated. Therefore, it could be 

very expensive. 

I know in Colorado, our General Field Representative there tells 

me that a lot of developers have buried some transmission into 

their subdivisions, but they pay for it themselves. But long spans 

of it, Congressman Salazar, are going to be very expensive, and it 

is a matter of who pays for it. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman 

from Kansas. 

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I appreciate 

the opportunity to hear more about impending challenges we face 

in the provisioning of power across our country. 

A couple of specifics, Mr. Andrew, in regard to Kansas. First, 

Kansas has experienced a number of natural disasters, particularly 

in regard to electrical generation, with ice storms 2 years in the 

running. And at the moment, our rural electric cooperatives are in 

a debate with FEMA in regard to the nature of the cost returning 

those power lines and poles to a correct standard. 

And it is my understanding that your agency has standards in 

regard to those transmission lines and poles, and that FEMA may 

have a separate standard. Do you know about this topic, and can 

you shed any light on that for me? 

Mr. ANDREW. I just heard about this topic, and I can’t shed a lot 

of light on it. But it is something that we need to deal with because 

we do have—as I said in my oral testimony, we do have rigid 

standards on how these things are built because we need for them 

to stand up. 

24

And I understand that FEMA is dealing with costs, and that 

probably is where they are coming from. 

Mr. MORAN. It is my understanding that FEMA determined that 

your standards were not what they call code-based, and therefore 

they did not want to use your standards in determining how to rebuild line sections. 

And my guess is that—perhaps you can shed light on this—your 

standards, I assume, would be based upon some level of expertise 

about challenges that we particularly face in rural places in the 

country, long distances, lots of wind, snow and ice storms. Can you 

provide me with some justification for where your standards come 

from, in part, so I can visit with FEMA to tell them that they ought 

to be paying attention to what you are doing? 

Mr. ANDREW. I understand, Congressman. And I was just advised that we are working with FEMA right now trying to iron 

these things out. And if you don’t mind, I will get back to you with 

an answer. 

Mr. MORAN. That would be satisfactory. Thank you very much. 

Second, a Kansas issue: We have received national attention on a 

decision by our state government to deny a couple of coal-fired 

plant permits, and again concern about baseload, in my opinion, 

concern about taking sources of energy off the table. In my opinion 

that is having significant consequences upon the price structure. 

In fact, I recall reading in one of our newspapers that when the 

permits were denied, one of the quotes by an environmental group 

was this is a great day because it means electricity prices will be 

doubling in Kansas, and that means a lot more conservation. Doubling electricity prices in rural America or across the country has 

significant consequences to consumers, to economic growth, to job 

creation. 

And I know that you are now involved in litigation in regard to 

the Sunflower permit process. My understanding of this is that 

RUS has little involvement in this project to build two new coalfired plants. And I thought it might be useful for the record if you 

would place into the record the role that RUS now plays in financing Sunflower Electric Power Corporation. 

Mr. ANDREW. We have no interest. We are not financing any of 

it. 

Mr. MORAN. So as Sunflower requests permits to expand their 

capacity, they have not requested RUS to finance that expansion, 

true? 

Mr. ANDREW. That is true. 

Mr. MORAN. And you have originally some time ago financed operations at Sunflower. Is that true? 

Mr. ANDREW. That is true. 

Mr. MORAN. And when that occurred, was there an environmental assessment completed, impact statement? 

Mr. ANDREW. Yes, it was, and that was in 1981. 

Mr. MORAN. And at the moment, all RUS’s relationship with 

Sunflower is that you are collecting payments on the debt they owe 

RUS. Is that true? 

Mr. ANDREW. That is correct, and they are current. 

Mr. MORAN. And I assume that there is a significant cost involved if RUS had to complete an environmental impact statement 

25

any time any utility that you are financing, collecting debt from, 

would be an expensive process if they asked to do something more, 

and you were required to provide an impact statement for them to 

be able to do that. 

Mr. ANDREW. Absolutely. It is very expensive, and sometimes we 

take as much as 15 or 16 months. 

Mr. MORAN. Anything you would like to add to this conversation? 

Again as the Chairman indicated, there are some limitations since 

there is litigation. But anything you would like to say to kind of 

clarify the relationship with Sunflower and this litigation? 

Mr. ANDREW. I am not sure that I can say much more than what 

you have asked me questions, because I had discussed with Counsel as to what you would like to know. And I don’t think I am able 

to discuss anything further. 

Mr. MORAN. I thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ANDREW. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman 

from Indiana, Mr. Donnelly. 

Mr. DONNELLY. I have no questions at this time, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York. 

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you 

both for coming in and testifying. This is a very important issue 

as energy issues are at the forefront of all my constituents’ minds, 

and we want to be able to assure low-cost energy is available for 

the years to come. And my district in upstate New York is a largely 

rural one as well, so your work is essential to our communities. 

What I would like to talk to you a little bit about today is oversight. You know I received a letter from my colleague Jim Cooper 

about the status of co-ops in America today, and he talks a little 

bit about how the purpose of the co-op system was to provide energy for rural areas, but that any excess revenue is supposed to return to customers in the form of capital credits and that noncompliance in this would actually lead to the co-ops—rather would threaten the co-op’s tax-exempt status. 

And Mr. Cooper highlights that co-ops nationwide have amassed 

$31 billion in excess capital credits, and 93 percent of co-ops now 

engage in business ventures beyond providing electricity. And he 

cites to three scandals throughout the country, one in Austin, 

Texas, Pedernales Electric Cooperative where executives were paid 

millions of dollars and wasted thousands and thousands of dollars 

of the public’s money on frivolous personal expenses. 

Another venture in Atlanta, Georgia where the executives subcontracted the entire operation to a for-profit entity that was secretly owned by the executives of the co-op. And a third one in Birmingham, Alabama where they had not held a Board of Directors 

election for 38 years. 

So I would like you to comment a bit about what your oversight 

role is and whether it needs to be refined or expanded or whether 

more transparency is needed in the regulation and regulatory system. 

Mr. ANDREW. First, let me say that the ones that you mentioned 

were not borrowers of RUS, and Pedernales or in Georgia are not 

borrowers of RUS. Therefore, we have no oversight of them whatsoever. And the activities——

26

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. But should you have oversight? I mean is the 

current oversight enough? Perhaps you should have oversight. 

Mr. ANDREW. Over those two? Not over those two I wouldn’t 

think. They are not borrowers of RUS, so we have no authority 

over them whatsoever. We do have authority—we have some oversight over the rest of them. 

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. So FERC has the oversight? 

Mr. ANDREW. You will have to let FERC answer that. But since 

they are not borrowers of ours, I would let FERC answer that question. We finance about 617 out of the 900 electric co-ops. Over the 

617 we do have some oversight in that we see that they are financially stable, not how they elect their Board of Directors, nor how 

their Board of Directors operates their business. It is just like 

being elected to Congress. They are elected by the members, and 

they serve the will of the members. 

So we don’t have any authority over that. We do monitor. We 

have our field accountants. They go in there on a regular basis and 

monitor the books to see that they are financially feasible, that 

they are keeping their rates right, that the system is run right and 

so forth. As far as how they operate from a Board of Directors, no, 

we don’t have any authority over that. 

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Ms. Marlette. 

Ms. MARLETTE. I am not sure if the Commission actually regulates the ones you were talking about. There are 15 that are subject to Commission regulation, two of which are in Georgia. I don’t 

know if those are the ones you are talking about, but I would make 

clear that to the extent the Commission regulates co-ops, one, we 

don’t regulate if they sell less than 4 million megawatt hours per 

year. But also even for the ones we do regulate, we would not regulate the retail, the sales to the retail customers, those rates. 

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. So are you both satisfied that you have the resources you need and the ability you need to regulate co-ops, the 

ones that you do have authority over, to make sure that these 

kinds of examples are not taking place in the ones that you do regulate? 

Mr. ANDREW. I do. I can testify to that, yes. 

Ms. MARLETTE. And again for the ones that the Commission regulates, the Commission does have sufficient authority again only 

going to the wholesale side of the transactions. 

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. In my remaining time, can you just describe 

what your actual oversight process is? How often do you look at the 

co-ops? Do you review their books yearly? What is your actual process? 

Mr. ANDREW. First of all, they have to send in statements monthly. Then they have to send annual reports to us with financial reports. We have our, what we call the field representative that goes 

in there very actively at least—I won’t say how often because some 

of them are scattered kind of thin. But they go by and check the 

technology and the applications and so forth. Then we have field 

accountants that do audits on the books on a regular basis. Sometimes it depends on what kind of condition they are in as to how 

often it has to be done. 

I will say this. Over the years, they have become a little more 

sophisticated. They have better accounting. They have computers. 

27

They have all the things in their organization that we are able to 

monitor more closely than we ever have in the past even though 

we have fewer people in the field. Because of what we are able to 

do now, I feel very comfortable with the way we are monitoring, 

ma’am. 

Now—this is an aside. Having served on the Board of Directors 

of an electric co-op, I can tell you when you go to a co-op meeting, 

it is very serious when we talk about the financial arrangements 

and how they operate their organization. We know that we have 

to respond to the membership, and the Board Members are elected 

by the membership. Therefore it has a responsibility to be—and, 

yes, we feel financially liable as well. 

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Ms. Marlette? 

Ms. MARLETTE. Depending on the type of entity it is, the Commission has two ways of regulating. One, some utilities are served 

under cost-based regulation; others have market-based rates. And 

depending on what type of regulatory authority they have, the 

Commission may be more detailed in how it regulates, and the 

Commission always has access to the books and records of companies. 

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Do you look at the books and records of companies? 

Ms. MARLETTE. Yes, but more so for the ones that are under costbased regulation. Almost all transmission rates are cost-based regulated. For the generation side, we probably have more that are 

market-based regulated. 

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. How often would you review the books and 

records? 

Ms. MARLETTE. It is going to depend. I mean the Commission has 

an audit program. And again if they are under cost-based rates, we 

periodically audit. So I couldn’t give you a specific number. It 

would depend on what the Commission is looking for and the type 

of issue. 

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. And do you feel you have sufficient resources? 

And do you feel that you think the regulatory basis that you have 

to use is sufficient? 

Ms. MARLETTE. Yes. 

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The chair thanks the gentlewoman. The gentlewoman from Kansas. 

Mrs. BOYDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the witnesses for being here. I am also from Kansas and just wanted to 

kind of follow up on what you were seeing in the rest of the country, your perspective. When the Sunflower plant was discussed, 

most people in Kansas, not everybody, but most people in Kansas, 

understood that coal was going to be part of our future in some 

way or another. 

We came in with some coal sequestration and a closed-loop system that was really quite exciting. And are you financing; are you 

involved in any programs? Is there one up in North Dakota that 

we are talking about carbon sequestration? What is happening in 

your world with those new technologies? 

Mr. ANDREW. Of course, we are not able to finance any baseload 

generation which basically would eliminate any coal. 

28

Mrs. BOYDA. Can you help me explain that? I am not sure I 

heard the entire—you are not able to fund any baseload? 

Mr. ANDREW. Well, we are able to, but we are temporarily suspended, I would guess would be a better way to say, until we arrive 

at a conclusion about fees to cover the subsidy rate. 

Mrs. BOYDA. Yes, this is why we stay right here. 

Mr. ANDREW. We need to have have this in place so we can make 

loans on baseload generators. Now, understand that baseload 

means 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. We have intermediate generation which takes up some of the slack there. As far as the one 

in North Dakota, that is Basin Electric in North Dakota. And we 

have been working with them for a long, long time, and they are 

very innovative. And they have an idea——

Mrs. BOYDA. A long time is? 

Mr. ANDREW. Pardon? 

Mrs. BOYDA. How long is a long time? 

Mr. ANDREW. Probably 40, 50 years. 

Mrs. BOYDA. Oh, my. Not on sequestration? 

Mr. ANDREW. Not on sequestration. 

Mrs. BOYDA. Okay, you had me worried there for a minute. 

Okay. 

Mr. ANDREW. They use a lot of coal in their generation. Therefore, they have been working with sequestration, figuring out the 

best way to do these things. 

Mrs. BOYDA. Right, and this is an existing plant that we are 

talking about? 

Mr. ANDREW. Yes. Well, two plants. They have one plant that is 

making gas, natural gas out of coal, and they have some byproducts from that that are selling. But the CO2 that is generated at 

that plant is put into a pipeline, transmitted 250 miles to Canada, 

pumped into oil wells which brings oil out of the ground. 

So, we are going to take one of their coal-fired generating plants 

that is nearby. They have a technology that has been tested in 

Ohio. They are going to expand it up to a big project now and put 

it at the back end, where the coal-fired generating plant will take 

the emissions out of that plant, transport it over to this other plant 

that is now taking the CO2 and putting it in a pipeline. They will 

put this CO2 in the pipeline. 

As I understand it, there is some oil in North and South Dakota. 

So, they might tap on this pipeline and do the same thing, and that 

is inject this down into the soil and force oil out. 

So yes, there is a project we are interested in. The technology 

looks good. They have researched it quite well. 

Mrs. BOYDA. And are you helping to finance some of that then? 

Is that part of your——

Mr. ANDREW. They are telling us that they want to come in, and 

we are willing to help finance it. Yes, ma’am. 

Mrs. BOYDA. And I am just again curious. Do you know if it has 

broader application, or is this pretty site specific or——

Mr. ANDREW. Well, we think it has broader application. In fact, 

generation and transmission cooperatives across the United States 

think it has broader application. We will see. We think it will. 

Mrs. BOYDA. All right, thank you. Do you, Ms. Marlette? 

Ms. MARLETTE. Pardon me? 

29

Mrs. BOYDA. Ms. Marlette, do you have anything to add? And 

just again this is so interesting to get just opinions. And I know 

you don’t have a crystal ball any more than the rest of us do. But 

with the closed-loop bio-system; the algae in there; do you see any 

interest in that with existing plants? And I know you are not working with baseload plants. Do you see people coming to talk about 

that? 

Mr. ANDREW. I have been looking at that a little bit lately, and 

especially about 3 weeks, 4 weeks ago, there was an agency in 

USDA that brought in some college projects for us to observe. And 

one had to do with algae, and I am very interested in that. It is 

not ready to go commercial yet, but the idea seems to be working. 

Put the CO2 in the water, the algae consumes it, and you burn the 

algae as diesel. I think it is going to work, but it is not ready for 

commercial application. 

Mrs. BOYDA. All right, what is so interesting—and then I will 

yield back my time. But what is so interesting are technologies 

that really weren’t even being discussed 2 and 3 years ago are absolutely moving forward in real ways. So we appreciate what you 

are doing to help finance some of that. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. The chair thanks the gentlewoman. The gentleman from Ohio. 

Mr. SPACE. I will yield my time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from South Dakota. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. I have just one question for this panel. 

Administrator Andrew, your written testimony—and I apologize if 

this has been addressed before I was able to arrive at the Subcommittee meeting. But your written testimony notes that the October 2007 report by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation finding that in 2010, the capacity margins in the region 

that include South Dakota will fall below target margin levels 

needed to meet summer peak and avoid brownouts or blackouts. 

How do you think the region should address this challenge, and 

how are USDA programs helping them meet the challenge? 

Mr. ANDREW. That margin is 15 percent, as I recall. I think that 

is correct, and what that means is it is like if you have total capacity—like at your home. If everything in your home is turned on and 

you reach capacity of your circuit breaker panel that is in there, 

you need a margin above it just in case something goes wrong. 

Well, their report says that in South Dakota that they are going 

to reach a point where that margin is going to start decreasing. 

And we think it is going to decrease all across the United States 

down to as low as 10 percent within 2 years. And it is critical that 

that margin be there just in case we have a big outage if one plant 

goes down or whatever. And if it does, then that margin will not 

be there to take up the slack. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. So if the margins are going to go down, 

what policy should we be implementing? Is it increasing the capacity, a new transmission grid upgrade? I mean what——

Mr. ANDREW. All of the above. You are going to need some more 

transmission. You are going to need more generation. Generation 

is going to be the key to all this stuff along with transmission now. 

Like I have said several times, you can build all the wind farms 

30

you want to in North Dakota and South Dakota, but if you can’t 

get it to Chicago, you have not done a good job. 

And right now, frankly, the low-hanging fruit is what we are 

gathering. We know where the wind is. And we are building the 

wind farms where there is transmission available. But when we 

run out of that and we still have places where the wind blows and 

we want to build these wind farms and other farms actually, transmission is going to be required to get it out of there. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. And then with generation, so USDA programs are helping meet the challenge on the generation front as 

well? As you know, in South Dakota, we have a project that is looking to expand in the far northeastern corner of the state that is hitting some challenges as it relates to regulatory approval in the 

neighboring State of Minnesota. 

We have a new possible plant going in through base and electric 

in north central South Dakota. Can you elaborate for the Subcommittee on how USDA programs are facilitating these efforts on 

the generation front? 

Mr. ANDREW. Well, as we said earlier, we are not able to—right 

now, baseload generation has been suspended, and that is some of 

what you are going to have in South Dakota. We can still make 

loans for intermediate power and peaking power, but baseload generation right now is on the back-burner. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Andrew, the farm bill directed a study for 

electricity generation in rural America. What is the status of the 

study? 

Mr. ANDREW. I am sorry. Say that again, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. In the farm bill, we directed a study for electric 

generation in rural America. 

Mr. ANDREW. It has been completed, and it is going through 

clearance right this minute. 

The CHAIRMAN. And how many days did we give you to present 

that to us? I forget. It was——

Mr. ANDREW. Any minute. 

The CHAIRMAN. So we will be receiving that any minute? 

Mr. ANDREW. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Andrew. Ms. Marlette, what is 

the annual percentage of growth and usage of electric power? 

Ms. MARLETTE. Well, I don’t have an answer for you on that 

right now. I could try to get one for you. I don’t know. I can say 

that just as a general matter, as was alluded to earlier, reserve 

margins are going down. Generally, the country as a whole needs 

to focus very much on increased capacity to meet growing demands. 

Demand response is another issue, but the other piece of this I 

would point out is that transmission infrastructure is key to all of 

the future. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Any Members have any additional 

questions for the panel? 

Mrs. BOYDA. Yes, I would like to, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Kansas. 

Mrs. BOYDA. And again I apologize. I think you addressed this 

earlier, but could you help me understand why baseload is on hold 

31

again? Can you explain that to me? I didn’t catch it the first time 

if you did. 

Mr. ANDREW. We have not been able to arrive at a conclusion 

about how to deal with subsidy rates. We can, then establish a subsidy rate that the appropriators will provide for us, or we can be 

allowed to charge a fee, which we would like to do, so we don’t 

have to have appropriations. Then we could make baseload generation loans. 

Mrs. BOYDA. Is it Congress that is holding that up by any 

chance? 

Mr. ANDREW. I am sorry? 

Mrs. BOYDA. Who is holding that up? Is that——

Mr. ANDREW. Well, no one is really holding it up. It was established by OMB that we needed a 1.92 subsidy rate, and we had it 

in the farm bill that we could charge a fee up-front to cover that 

cost. And it was taken out of the farm bill. I think it was taken 

out of the farm bill at the last minute. 

Mrs. BOYDA. All right. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The chair recognizes the Ranking Member. 

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, we have talked about the subsidy 

rate. If I could just touch on that for a moment. That is a very important issue. When OMB required that, in effect it stopped the 

program unless this number could be matched. The effort in the 

farm bill was to, in effect, give RUS the authority to charge almost 

two percent for a co-op wanting to come in and generate at the generating capacity. 

The language was removed at the highest level when we were in 

the farm bill conference. The highest level is not the minority side. 

It is not this Committee. It was removed at the highest level. It 

would appear, speculation, that it was removed because someone 

didn’t want baseload generation to be created from coal or from nuclear. 

So in a polite response to the lady’s question, that is where it 

went. Ask the Speaker. 

The CHAIRMAN. The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 

South Dakota. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One last 

question, Mr. Andrew. In your testimony, you mentioned that cooperatives are energy efficiency and demand side management 

leaders. I agree, and I am just wondering from your perspective 

how can Congress best support such efforts to help low-income 

homeowners in rural states like South Dakota install energy efficiency measures; which, by all accounts, are additional low-hanging 

fruit to achieve the substantial percentage of conservation on efficiency measures in the country? 

Mr. ANDREW. We have this year $6 million to be used for high 

energy cost grants, and that is what they are, grants. It is the only 

grant program we have. It is a very competitive thing, and we 

could have used more. But some of the projects that we have seen 

have been very innovative and very effective. 

So to say where it could be—that number is down right now, but 

the place that we can use—where the money is being used is in 

Alaska, Alabama, and other places. I think South Dakota got a couVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:47 Jul 31, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\110-46\51336.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
32

ple this year. So the high energy grant is an important factor about 

this. 

Now, to take that one step further, in our announcements, we 

are saying we are talking about efficiencies because efficiency is 

not only our job, but it is the job of the electric co-op to sell it to 

the members of the co-op. For example, they have been handing 

out these compact fluorescent light bulbs by the thousands. We 

have been talking about what we call phantom power. If you walk 

in your house and you see all the little lights turned out, this 

counts for about 20 to 25 percent of your electric bill. You don’t realize if you turn it off at night, turn your television off, your cell 

phone charger is using electricity even when the cell phone is not 

hooked up. Those kind of things are what we are talking about to 

the co-ops, and they are adhering to it. 

I think I read that somewhere we have about 90 percent of our 

co-ops are participating in some sort of renewable projects or in 

some kind of efficiency projects and conservation projects. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Kansas wants to ask another question if the panel would just wait a moment please. 

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, while she is doing that if, on the next 

panel, some of the comments that were made about the integrity 

of the co-ops in this country, I would hope that we will hear a response and clarification at the appropriate time. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am sure we will. I see the Ranking Member; 

are there no further questions? Well, the chair thanks the panel for 

its testimony and welcomes the second panel. We would like to call 

them to the table. The Honorable Glenn English, CEO, National 

Rural Electric Cooperative Association. Mr. Revis W. James, Director of Energy Technology Assessment Center, Electric Power Research Institute. The Honorable Jim Nichols, former Minnesota 

Secretary of Agriculture and former Minnesota State Senator from 

Lake Benton, Minnesota. Mr. Paul Champagne, President, PPL Development Company, Allentown, Pennsylvania. 

Mr. English, welcome to a room you are very familiar with. I remember when you were sitting a few seats down from me, and I 

was all the way down there. I could barely see you. So when you 

are prepared, Mr. English. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN ENGLISH, CEO, NATIONAL 

RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION,

ARLINGTON, VA 

Mr. ENGLISH. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a 

delight to be back in this Committee room, and I have a lot of fond 

memories. Not as many folks here that I served with that was just 

a few years ago, but certainly it is a pleasure to be here and certainly a pleasure to discuss with you what is a very critical issue 

not only for agriculture but for the country at large. 

The challenge that we are facing is not that different than the 

rest of the industry is facing, but only from a standpoint that electric cooperatives are growing twice as fast as the big power companies are. So with all this growth, obviously that is having an impact as far as the amount of power that is necessary. 

33

I think, Mr. Chairman, the Committee is probably well aware of 

the fact that electric cooperatives are not for profit. They are owned 

by their members, and they have local governments. And they are 

private. They are always very pleased to point out to me that they 

are independent and autonomous, and they act so. They certainly 

have a lot of different varieties in the way that they carry out their 

business and meet the needs of their community. 

The big issue I want to bring to your attention is one of the facts 

that we are running out of capacity. We simply don’t have the generation capacity, and in the country certainly electric cooperatives 

do not to meet what the Department of Energy tells us is going to 

be a great demand. 

In fact, the Department of Energy is talking about over the next 

20 years we are going to need somewhere in the neighborhood of 

264 gigawatts of power, which is about 21⁄2 times the amount of 

power that the State of Texas produces today or about four times 

what the State of California produces. And that is assuming that 

we implement all the efficiency provisions that we think can be the 

case, particularly as far as the electric utility industry is concerned. 

We think the next 10 years is going to be the most difficult simply because coal is not likely to be a part of the mix. We expect 

that there will be climate change legislation in the next year or 2 

that will take coal out of the picture until we are able to get some 

kind of carbon capture and storage in place. 

I will let EPRI talk about what their expectations are as to when 

that will likely come about, but it is my understanding it will be 

somewhere in the neighborhood of 2020, 2025, somewhere in that 

neighborhood. 

And we are really looking at 118 gigawatts of power that this 

country is going to have to have before 2020 and have to be done 

without the use of what has been our primary fuel, namely coal. 

And, of course, that is going to make our job very difficult. Our role 

is to try to keep our electric rates as low as we can, those electric 

bills as low as we possibly can while trying to keep the lights on 

and meeting the needs of our members in rural America. 

That means we have to use other elements, and we are going to 

have to be innovative. And we are going to have to be committed, 

and this is going to have to be a partnership between the Federal 

Government and the electric utility industry, and certainly a partnership between this Committee and the electric cooperatives. 

Efficiency is going to have to play a major role. That is the socalled low-hanging fruit that we can probably harvest earliest, and 

we are already doing that. The Administrator talked about compact 

fluorescent light bulbs and co-ops across the country handing those 

things out by the millions. And we are looking for other ways in 

which we can address it. 

But, the point that we are going to have to deal with is low-income folks. Those are the people that are going to get hurt the 

worst. They are the people that are least in a position to be able 

to deal with this kind of a challenge, namely because they have the 

most inefficient homes, least insulation, most inefficient windows 

and doors, most inefficient appliances. And the Congress is going 

to need to address that. 

34

Renewables, which I know is a favorite of this Committee, can 

play a major role as well. How big a role is going to be determined 

by the amount of transmission we are able to build. Wind is going 

to be the primary fuel for generating renewable energy. 

It is the most advanced, and certainly we are looking at the 

Great Plains. We have established a national renewable electric cooperative, which allows cooperatives all across the nation to invest 

in the most cost-effective renewable projects that we can find, 

which we believe will be in the Great Plains. But we can generate 

far more power out there than we have people to use that power. 

So we need that. 

We need technology to speed up carbon capture and storage, and 

we need an even greater investment than the Congress has made 

in that area. And certainly nuclear power has to play a very major 

role as well where it can be utilized. And it may call for some very 

drastic measures on the part of the Federal Government. 

We have even advanced the idea that the only way that we can 

get the amount of power we are going to need over the next decade 

may be for the Federal Government itself, using the model of the 

PMAs, to go out and build nuclear power plants so we can reprocess the fuel. So we don’t have to worry about that nuclear waste 

that so many folks in Nevada are worried about, Mr. Chairman. 

And to be able to site those plants where they need to be sited and 

also take care of the security needs that are going to accompany 

any kind of nuclear power plant. 

We are going to have to have some different kind of thinking to 

meet this challenge, Mr. Chairman. And it is always a pleasure to 

be here. Thank you very much for letting me run over about 34 seconds. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. English follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN ENGLISH, CEO, NATIONAL RURAL ELECTRIC

COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, ARLINGTON, VA 

Executive Summary 

The nation is facing an unparalleled energy crisis and lacks a national policy to 

handle the problems of electricity capacity, reliability and rising prices. While it is 

important to find solutions to global climate change, it is equally critical to establish 

policies that will ensure there is enough electricity to assure consumers have a secure and affordable energy future. 

By 2030, according to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), even with relatively 

aggressive efficiency gains, the nation will still need 264 new gigawatts of installed 

electricity capacity. To better understand the magnitude of this need, consider that 

264 gigawatts is roughly 2.5 times the power now generated in the State of Texas. 

Efficiency and conservation are necessary and must be pursued wherever such 

projects are economic, but efficiency and conservation alone cannot meet the new 

capacity needs. 

Working with the Rural Utilities Service (RUS), the nation’s electric cooperatives 

have, over the past 75 years, built incredibly reliable and efficient systems for distributing electric power to 75 percent of the nation’s land mass. Although the smallest segment of the electric utility industry, electric cooperatives are experiencing the 

highest growth percentages. Because of our historic service footprint, cooperatives 

also serve some of the nation’s poorest consumers. We are deeply concerned about 

the impact of rising electricity prices and additional charges for new environmental 

programs on these consumers. 

The obligation to serve our 41 million consumers drives us to tackle these problems head on. Across our 47 state service territory, which encompasses 75 percent 

of the nation’s land mass, cooperatives are actively engaged in discussions with our 

consumers and our elected officials, seeking balanced solutions that will protect the 

35

environment and assure consumers have a basic human right—affordable electric 

power. 

Areas of discussion, study and policy advocacy where cooperatives are engaged include:

• Renewable energy, including formation of a ‘‘National Renewable Cooperative 

Organization.’’

• Energy efficiency, with a focus on helping low-income consumers.

• Nuclear power, ensuring that cooperatives can access the latest technologies 

and partner with other utilities.

• Climate change solutions.

• Clean coal technologies such as Carbon Capture and Storage.

• Support for new transmission projects.

• The Rural Utilities Service’s role in helping electric cooperatives meet these 

new challenges.

Chairman Holden, Ranking Member Lucas and Members of the Subcommittee:

My name is Glenn English, and I am the Chief Executive Officer of the National 

Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA). I appreciate the invitation to appear before you today to discuss what our nation and electric cooperatives can do 

to help ensure a secure and affordable energy future. I had the distinct honor of 

Chairing this Subcommittee during the latter part of my service in Congress. In a 

way, I feel like I’m back home with you this morning. 

Overview of Electric Cooperatives 

NRECA is a trade association consisting of nearly 1,000 cooperatives providing 

electricity to 41 million consumers in 47 states. As member-owned, not-for-profit organizations, cooperatives have an obligation to provide a reliable supply of electricity to all consumers in our service areas at the lowest possible price. We take 

our obligation to serve very seriously—the personal and economic health of our 

members, our communities, and our nation depends on it. Cooperatives serve primarily the more sparsely populated parts of our nation but cover roughly 75 percent 

of the nation’s land mass. 

Electric cooperatives are:

• Private independent electric utility businesses,

• Owned by the consumers they serve,

• Incorporated under the laws of the states in which they operate,

• Established to provide at-cost electric service, and

• Governed by a Board of Directors elected from the membership.

Electric cooperatives were born in the 1930s, when few rural Americans could access electricity at all. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, champion of the Rural 

Electrification Administration (now the Rural Utilities Service or RUS), observed 

that ‘‘electricity is no longer a luxury, it is a definite necessity.’’ Seventy-five years 

later, RUS loan programs are still an essential ingredient in bringing affordable, reliable electricity to all parts of America. Investor-owned and municipal utilities have 

access to substantial Federal support for infrastructure development through the 

tax code. Electric cooperatives, as private not-for-profits, do not have this access to 

this level of support and instead rely on lower-cost loans that must be paid back. 

Today, electric cooperatives continue their work, based in the strong belief that 

affordable, reliable electric power is a fundamental right for all Americans. However, this right has never been more in question than it is today. 

The U.S. Faces a Daunting Energy Crisis: Reliability, Capacity and Prices 

A serious energy challenge faces this nation. Frankly, I believe that many in Congress are focused on only one half of the looming challenge—global climate change. 

But the other half is just as critical, though it has not received the same spotlight, 

and that is the fundamental question of whether the nation will have enough electricity capacity to meet consumer energy needs. 

Some background facts are essential. EIA has projected, taking reasonably expected efficiency improvements into account, that electricity demand will grow 30 

percent by 2030, requiring 264 new gigawatts of electric generating capacity. To better understand the magnitude of this need, consider that 264 gigawatts is 2.5 times 

the capacity now in the State of Texas. The more critical and immediate problem 

will come in the next ten years. The Department of Energy, again taking reasonably 

expected efficiency improvements into account, forecasts that U.S. economic and 

36

population growth will drive a 17 percent increase in demand between 2006 and 

2020, requiring a capacity increase of 118,000 MW. 

Among electric cooperative consumers, demand growth is projected at about double the national average. Additionally, cooperatives serve some of the nation’s poorest consumers, including several Native American reservations. Electric cooperatives 

take seriously our responsibility to meet our consumers’ electricity needs, while also 

taking a leadership role in the development of renewable energy, energy efficiency 

and the portfolio of new technologies and approaches needed to solve our nation’s 

energy challenges. 

Section 6103 of the Senate farm bill would have allowed cooperatives to continue, 

as they have for 75 years, accessing RUS financing to construct baseload generation. 

Unfortunately, this provision was dropped in the farm bill conference. However, 

NRECA thanks the many Members of the Agriculture Committee who supported the 

provisions. Without RUS financing for baseload generation, co-ops will have to buy 

increasing amounts of power on the open market because they cannot generate 

enough power to meet their consumers’ needs. With this significant policy shift, only 

electric cooperatives, among the three utility sectors, have been denied their primary source of Federal support for generation. Preventing cooperatives from accessing the RUS program places an additional heavy burden on their efforts to build 

generation that will reduce carbon emissions. 

Without significant changes in our national energy policy to meet capacity demands, in the next decade, U.S. consumers will be significantly exposed to rising 

and volatile electricity prices beyond anything experienced to date. In the absence 

of a true national energy policy, some advocacy groups are proposing piecemeal solutions, recommending over-reliance on their preferred technology or fuel. The reality—there is no one silver bullet and all the technologies at our disposal must be 

used to both meet our capacity needs and achieve new environmental goals. 

The reliability problems posed by a lack of adequate capacity will begin to manifest as early as 2009, according to the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the self-regulatory organization responsible for monitoring and 

strengthening the bulk power system’s reliability. In some regions, demand will 

soon outstrip capacity unless generation and transmission are added. Rapidly 

thinning capacity means that technicians and operations personnel, whose daily behind-the-scenes efforts keep the electric grid intact, are already seeing reliability 

‘‘near-misses’’ when key lines or power plants go down. These events haven’t resulted in widespread blackouts and so far, haven’t received attention in the press 

or from policymakers. But, if we fail to address our growing energy infrastructure 

and technology development needs, some regions face increasing probabilities of 

brownouts and blackouts in the near future. (See attached NERC map of U.S. regions facing near-term reliability threats.) 

The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) has researched and written extensively on the need to have a full portfolio of solutions in order to ensure adequate 

capacity and achieve carbon reduction goals. EPRI conducts research and development on technology, operations and the environment for the global electric power 

sector. EPRI, a nonprofit organization, brings together its members, the Institute’s 

scientists and engineers, along with experts from academia, industry and other research centers to meet challenges in electricity generation, delivery and use. EPRI 

supports multi-discipline research in emerging technologies, which drives long-range 

research and development planning. EPRI’s members represent more than 90 percent of the electricity generated in the United States. (See attached EPRI ‘‘prism.’’) 

This spring, NRECA brought over 3,000 co-op advocates to Washington, D.C. to 

talk with their Federal representatives about the nation’s energy challenges and the 

types of bold ideas needed to solve these problems and provide Americans with a 

secure and affordable energy future. Congress will need to make significant policy 

decisions soon to address the coming electricity crisis and provide options for shifting the nation’s generation fuels while minimizing costs. It is important that these 

issues be reconciled before a formal national policy to tax and regulate carbon is 

set in place. Working together, government and industry can make the investments 

and plans that are critical to ensuring that any carbon reduction policy is sustainable over the decades. 

Many Pieces of an Energy Policy Solution: All Require Concerted, LongTerm Efforts 

Energy Efficiency 

NRECA supports efficiency and conservation as a least-cost means of reducing 

some of the need for increased capacity over the next decade. But consumers and 

policymakers are receiving a great deal of information about efficiency and it is very 

difficult to determine precisely how much energy savings efficiency technologies and 

37

measures can yield. Some advocacy groups believe that increased energy efficiency 

can absorb up to 80 percent of the projected growth in electricity demand. Others 

see potential for a 20 percent savings in total electricity demand. 

EIA has projected a need for 347,000 new megawatts of electricity capacity by 

2030. EIA believes that allowing for the efficiency improvements we can reasonably 

expect, the new capacity demands will still equal, as I stated earlier, 264,000 

megawatts by 2030. The 2005 California residential and commercial building code 

is said to have the potential to save 180 megawatts in annual energy demand. Judging from the cited capacity needs projection (without efficiency measures ) of 

347,000 new megawatts, the nation would have to identify and develop and then 

consistently fund, operate and verify nearly 2,000 projects on the scale of California’s to meet 100 percent of the new 2030 needs with efficiency and conservation. 

Utilities with an obligation to provide electric power would still be required to own 

generation sufficient to meet consumers’ needs in case efficiency programs could not 

be consistently maintained. 

Electric cooperatives are engaged in many efforts to increase efficiency, conservation and demand response. For instance, NRECA is a member of the Energy Efficiency Codes Coalition (EECC), which is actively working to strengthen model building codes. Existing buildings are responsible for over 40 percent of the world’s total 

primary energy consumption and account for 24 percent of the world’s CO2 emissions. Energy efficiency is often the most cost-effective way to increase energy security, reduce energy costs, and cut emissions. While Congress took some steps toward 

improving standards for appliances and manufactured housing in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, even more gains are needed. 

NRECA is also working to ensure that efficiency and conservation programs reach 

the people who can least afford to pay for efficiency improvements but whose homes 

are often most in need of new appliances, insulation and other measures. Personal 

income tax credit incentives can’t help large segments of the population whose income is too low to pay significant taxes. 

Studies of successful low-income efficiency programs show that investments of 

about $2500 per household to replace or upgrade components such as windows, refrigerators, lighting and HVAC systems, can lower energy bills as much as 32 percent. Therefore, the nation should get started and provide the poorest fifth of American households even $500 dollars of direct assistance with energy efficiency—at a 

cost of over $12 billion a year. Such a program would give immediate help to reduce 

growth in national power demand and keep their electric bills affordable. 

Nuclear Power 

Nuclear power can provide significant amounts of the clean capacity we need by 

2020 and 2030. EPRI estimates four new plants will need to come online each year 

from 2015 to 2020 for nuclear power to make its contribution to meeting electricity 

needs and reducing carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2030. This projection will not 

be met. The new fleet of baseload nuclear plants is progressing slowly, with virtually none expected to come online before 2020. These new plants also face opposition and substantial financial risks. In some cases, cost estimates for proposed 

plants match or exceed the entire value of the utilities proposing to build them. A 

30 year U.S. hiatus from the business has resulted in suppliers, industry expertise 

and workforce being largely located overseas. 

Still, these plants are needed as soon as possible to achieve reliable and affordable 

power and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. In order to move past the many bottlenecks, policymakers must recognize: (a) the need for innovative funding which 

minimizes risks; and (b) that safe, on-site waste storage and reprocessing are possible for the next century until long-term storage is available. A comprehensive energy policy should also recognize the contributions cooperatives can make to nuclear 

projects and allow RUS to continue making baseload loans for generation, including 

nuclear generation. Electric cooperatives should also be able to lower their construction costs by accessing the nuclear tax incentives provided in the Energy Policy Act 

of 2005 and other bills. 

Cooperatives see these delays in increasing our nuclear capacity as a situation so 

urgent that Federal involvement is necessary in the form of incentives and new 

partnerships. For instance, the Defense Department has the capability to manage 

the construction of large projects and to protect sensitive sites. It also has priority 

access to materials, decommissioning expertise and many other skills which make 

the Defense Department a suitable partner. When the nation faced other serious 

electricity roadblocks, there was no hesitation to build these kinds of partnerships. 

We are at such a point in the nation’s history again. 

38

Renewable Energy 

The small amount of renewable generation in the current electricity fuel portfolio 

is welcome and needed. Including hydropower, renewable generation is eight percent of the overall portfolio. Non-hydro renewable generation (primarily biomass and 

wind, with smaller contributions from solar and geothermal) is only 2.5 percent of 

the overall portfolio, up from 2.2 percent in 1995. The growth percentages in nonhydro renewables are positive developments, but create misperceptions. Polls show 

that many mistakenly believe that renewable energy alone can satisfy increased demand for power and that non-hydro renewable energy is now a large percentage of 

the nation’s electricity generation. Even wind generation, the primary source of recent renewable energy additions, is a tiny fraction of overall U.S. generation—0.6 

percent in 2006 and an estimated 0.8 percent in 2007. 

Like all electricity power sources, renewable energy generation growth faces large 

hurdles in the next decade. Without large Federal subsidies, investment virtually 

stops. Construction costs, especially for wind, are rising rapidly and there are bottlenecks for equipment delivery—current wait times exceeding 2 years. Since wind and 

solar are intermittent resources, current projects are only commercially viable where 

conventional resources, usually gas, are sufficient to back them up. Finally, public 

opposition to siting projects, such as offshore wind farms and farms on public land, 

has stopped many renewable developments. 

Transmission capacity is inadequate to deliver renewable power from remote 

areas where renewable resources are located to the population centers where power 

is needed. Cooperatives are strong advocates for a strengthened and expanded 

transmission grid. For example, NRECA supports the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission’s new rules for siting transmission lines in national interest corridors. 

In addition, NRECA believes the Federal Government must be willing to develop 

policies and funding mechanisms for transmission lines that could exceed $2.5 million per mile. 

Electric cooperatives across the country recently formed the National Renewable 

Cooperative Organization (NRCO) to accelerate the development and deployment of 

renewable energy resources. Formed in March 2008, NRCO’s membership already 

represents approximately 500 distribution cooperatives, collectively serving 23 million Americans in 36 states. NRCO reflects the commitment of cooperatives around 

the country to the responsible development of cost-effective renewable resources in 

a manner that benefits their consumers, their communities, and the nation as a 

whole. NRCO will allow cooperatives to pool expertise in developing renewable energy, share access to sites that are conducive to renewable production, and potentially lower the high capital costs of these projects. National energy policy must recognize that renewable energy is more cost-effective and available in some regions 

than in others. For example, NRCO will permit southeastern cooperatives to invest 

in solar and wind where these resources are cheaper and more plentiful. 

Co-op planned and owned renewable energy projects are already underway in 

many of your states. The 2005 Energy Policy Act established, for the first time, a 

financing tool for renewable energy that gave cooperatives a level playing field with 

investor-owned renewable energy developers. The Clean Renewable Energy Bond 

(CREB) allows not-for-profit cooperatives access to low-cost financing, much as the 

production tax credit provides low-cost financing for profit-making entities. So far, 

40 electric cooperatives have developed or are developing $430 million worth of renewable energy projects using this program. I thank the many Members of the Agriculture Committee who have supported legislation to continue and expand the 

CREB program. 

As historic customers and champions of the Federal hydropower program, cooperatives are actively speaking out on the need to upgrade the dams and other key 

infrastructure under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation and Corps of Engineers. A study conducted jointly by the Departments of Interior, Defense and Energy concluded that 2,500 MW of new generation could be produced through rehabilitating and upgrading Federal facilities. 

Research, Development and Deployment of New Clean Energy Technologies 

Technology is the key to retaining our nation’s diverse menu of electric generation 

fuel options and for lowering the costs of carbon reduction. The sooner an array of 

clean energy and efficiency technologies are commercial, the sooner we will pass 

through this dangerous period. Congress can speed the arrival of that day by substantially increasing funding to $2 billion per year for the next decade for carbon 

capture and storage (CCS) technology and all other options for low- or no-carbon 

technology solutions. 

EPRI has assessed the economic impact of reducing carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2030, assuming the availability of different fuel portfolios. EPRI emphasizes 

39

that new advanced clean coal plants are a critical part of a resource mix needed 

to provide adequate electricity and achieve aggressive carbon reductions. Based 

upon the EPRI analysis, if the U.S. adopts carbon reduction goals and builds new 

nuclear power plants as well as new highly efficient coal plants equipped with CCS 

technology, utility rate increases attributable to a climate strategy would average 

about 10 percent in real dollars. Electric rates would increase drastically by 2050, 

however, if the U.S. relies solely on natural gas, renewables and energy efficiency 

to meet capacity needs, and fails to invest in new nuclear and clean coal technologies. 

Some advocates mistakenly assert that CCS is already commercial and ready to 

be deployed on a wide scale. To ensure that coal will remain part of the nation’s 

electricity fuel mix, a significant technology ‘‘push’’ is needed to make applications 

like CCS commercially feasible. Scientific experts agree that CCS will not be available until 2020 at the earliest—even with significant investments in research and 

development. Extensive testing is needed for all phases—capture, transportation 

and long-term storage. The Federal Government, along with industry, must wrestle 

with complex issues of carbon ownership and liability. 

Recently, cooperatives worked with Congress to introduce the Carbon Reduction 

Technology Bridge Act of 2008 (S. 3208), which seeks to establish much-needed tax 

incentives for an array of CCS and efficiency technologies for clean coal. I anticipate 

this bill will also soon be introduced in the House and I ask for your support. Cooperatives brought this legislation to Congress in a good-faith showing of our willingness to partner with the Federal Government to solve our nation’s energy crisis. 

We are proud, that as the smallest segment of the electric utility industry, we 

brought this forward and are actively gathering support for it. 

Conclusion 

Seventy-five years ago, the Federal Government, helped greatly by your predecessors on the Agriculture Committee, created the Rural Electrification Administration so that all Americans could one day have safe, reliable and affordable electric 

power. Today, virtually all U.S. citizens enjoy this basic right, but it may slip away 

from future generations unless we all act now to reconcile energy needs and climate 

goals. Electric cooperatives are committed to developing wise and balanced energy 

and climate plans now and in the future. We will do this by continuing to work with 

Congress, RUS and thousands of locally elected cooperative leaders. Thank you for 

the opportunity to talk with you today. I look forward to answering your questions.

40


11046003 11046004
41

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. English. Mr. Champagne. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL T. CHAMPAGNE, PRESIDENT, PPL 

DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, ALLENTOWN, PA 

Mr. CHAMPAGNE. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, 

Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Paul Champagne. I am 

President of the development subsidiary of PPL Corporation. I appreciate the opportunity to provide a broader view of the energy 

business and energy markets from PPL’s perspective. 

PPL is a Fortune 500 company located in Allentown, Pennsylvania. It ranks among the largest utility companies in the country. 

It engage in the generation, marketing and trading, transmission 

and distribution of electricity. Our competitive generation portfolio 

consists of nuclear, coal, hydro, natural gas, and we also own an 

expanding renewable generation portfolio. 

PPL’s generation is located in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the States of Maine, New York, Connecticut, Illinois, 

New Jersey, and Montana. One of our partners includes Allegheny 

Electric Cooperative, which owns 10 percent of PPL’s nuclear generating facility located in Berwick, Pennsylvania. 

In the U.S. electric markets, electric grids connect major regions 

of the country and they themselves are interconnected, making it 

possible, where economically feasible, to move power back and forth 

across long distances creating reliability and service and economies 

of scale. 

In 13 eastern and midwestern states and the District of Columbia, the electric grid is operated by the PJM Interconnection, and 

independent, nonprofit regional transmission organization, of which 

PPL is a member. PJM plays a key role in ensuring that existing 

grid is operated in a reliable, cost-effective manner and that new 

infrastructure to meet steadily increasing demand for electric is developed. 

This infrastructure includes new generation transmission lines to 

move power from where it is generated to where customers need 

it. Owners of the transmission lines, including PPL and PJM, earn 

a FERC-approved regulated rate of return on their asset. 

PJM also is responsible for running a robust and competitive energy market that provides an opportunity for generators or sellers 

of load or buyers to transact. Generators who are no longer regulated like PPL rely on the competitive marketplace to recover their 

investment and earn a rate of return over time. They also rely on 

adequate price signals from the market when making decisions on 

whether to expand or build new facilities. 

This is a major commitment involving many risks, which includes the high cost of construction, long lead time to site, permit, 

and build new generating facilities. Recently PJM has identified a 

need for additional infrastructure in the region including several 

new high-voltage transmission lines that are critical to maintaining 

reliability. 

PJM also recognized that generators were not being sufficiently 

compensated for the electricity they were generating. The result 

was some generating units were retired, and additional generation 

needed to meet growing and future demand was not being built. In 

response, PJM changed the structure of the competitive markets. 

42

These changes appear to be working by helping to provide correct 

incentives for companies in making decisions to expand or build 

new generating facilities that are needed. 

What does the future look like from our perspective? Energy 

prices are increasing everywhere, whether the state is regulated or 

non-regulated. On the supply side, the price of fuels used to generate electricity, primarily uranium, natural coal and gas, have increased dramatically. On the demand side, we see increasing demand in the near term and over the long haul. 

What can be done to address these higher energy prices? PPL is 

taking a number of steps on many fronts. We are working to increase generation, infrastructure in PJM and other regions. We are 

working to increase electricity transmission infrastructure, and we 

are working aggressively with customers to help them use energy 

more efficiently. 

Increasing generation capacity is important for our nation’s energy security and to be able to meet growing customer demand for 

electricity. At PPL, we are increasing the output of our existing nuclear facility by about 10 percent. We are expanding renewable and 

clean hydroelectric generating capacity in Pennsylvania, Montana, 

and Maine. We are investigating opportunities to build new, efficient, natural gas-fired generating plants. We have supported research in carbon capture and storage technologies through our 

membership in the Future Generation Alliance. 

We are expanding our renewable energy business in wind, solar, 

biomass, and landfill methane. We plan to invest more than $100 

million in new renewable energy projects and another $500 million 

in hydroelectric projects over the next 5 years. We are also preparing a combined operating license application for a new nuclear 

unit adjacent to our existing nuclear generation facility, and we 

plan to submit that to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission before the end of the year. 

At PPL, we are optimistic about the ability of nuclear energy to 

provide significantly increased generation capacity in the United 

States, but with the significant cost of nuclear generation, the financial backing of the Federal Government in the form of loan 

guarantees will be essential if projects are to be moved forward. 

We encourage the legislators to build a foundation based on the 

Energy Policy Act to support and expand a nuclear loan guarantee 

program. PPL already generates about 40 percent of its electricity 

from non-carbon emitting resources. And as a major generator, we 

recognize the need to address climate change in a reasoned way. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you this morning. 

I will be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Champagne follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAUL T. CHAMPAGNE, PRESIDENT, PPL DEVELOPMENT

COMPANY, ALLENTOWN, PA 

Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is 

Paul Champagne, and I am president of the development subsidiary of PPL Corporation. I appreciate the opportunity to provide a broad overview of the energy 

business and energy markets from PPL’s perspective. 

PPL is a Fortune 500 energy holding company headquartered in Allentown, Pa., 

and ranks among the 10 largest electricity companies in the country. We are engaged in the generation, marketing and trading, and distribution of electricity. All 

43

of the approximately 12,000 megawatts of generation capacity we own are in deregulated, competitive wholesale electricity markets, primarily in the mid-Atlantic 

region and secondarily in the northwestern United States. 

On the regulated transmission and distribution side of our business, we serve 

more than four million customers through subsidiaries in Pennsylvania and the 

United Kingdom, and own and operate 52,000 miles of electricity transmission lines 

in Pennsylvania. 

Our competitive generation portfolio consists mainly of nuclear, coal, hydro and 

natural gas power plants, although we also own and operate a growing portfolio of 

biogas and solar generation assets. Our energy marketing and trading arm, PPL 

EnergyPlus, buys and sells energy in key U.S. competitive wholesale and deregulated retail markets, and provides energy solutions to business, industry, government and institutions. We have a long track record of providing reliable electricity 

in regions where we do business. 

In the U.S. electric market, PPL and other companies are able to buy and sell 

electricity widely because of the infrastructure that is in place: an electricity transmission and delivery system interconnected in a grid. Electric grids connect major 

regions, and are themselves interconnected, making it possible—when economically 

feasible—to move power back and forth across long distances, creating greater reliability of service and economies of scale. 

Here’s a brief example. Say PPL generates a quantity of electricity at its Susquehanna nuclear plant near Berwick, Pa., and wants to sell that electricity to a wholesale buyer in Delaware. With price and other terms set, the plant generates the 

electricity, and the buyer in Delaware then takes an equal amount off the grid for 

use. In 13 eastern and midwestern states and the District of Columbia, the electric 

grid is operated by the PJM Interconnection, an independent, nonprofit entity whose 

main roles are to operate the grid reliably, plan for its expansion when necessary, 

help establish the correct price signals for new generation and transmission where 

needed, and oversee the electricity markets enabled by the grid. 

PJM, as an independent, regional transmission organization, can be seen as a 

very astute traffic cop who possesses an in-depth understanding of how a complex 

system of roadways, with many on and off ramps—in this case, the electric grid—

works. PJM looks at the demand requirements of customers and communicates with 

generators and transmission owners regarding the amount of power needed, and 

where and when that power is needed; and PJM plans for future needs. PJM is the 

largest and most liquid electricity market in the United States, and it is in this 

market that most of PPL’s generation assets are located. 

PJM plays a key role in enabling the new infrastructure needed for energy companies to meet steadily increasing demand for electricity. This infrastructure includes 

new generating plants and new transmission lines to move the power from where 

it is generated to where customers need it. 

If someone wants to build a generating plant in the PJM region, that plant may 

require an upgrade to the grid to handle its output and balance the overall system. 

PJM, working with the transmission owners and local electric delivery companies 

like PPL Electric Utilities, conducts interconnection studies for new sources of generation, and has a queue process through which generators get a place in line, pay 

for the costs of interconnection, and become interconnected in an orderly and controlled manner. PJM ensures that the system is not disrupted by additional generation sources and that the costs of interconnection and any required system upgrades 

are borne by the appropriate parties or customers. 

Owners of transmission lines on the grid earn a regulated rate of return on their 

assets. The return is set by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 

Generators, who are no longer regulated in deregulated markets such as Pennsylvania, rely on the competitive market to recover their investment and earn a return 

over time. And they rely on adequate signals from the market when making a decision whether to build a new plant—a major commitment because of the risks involved, including the high cost of construction and the long lead time required to 

site, permit and build a new generating facility. 

Generators make their money in three ways—by selling energy, by selling capacity (which is the right to have generating units available to operate and provide 

power, if and when needed) and by selling ancillary services (which include needed 

voltage support services that are required to balance and operate the grid reliably 

and avoid disruptions). 

Recently, PJM has identified the need for additional infrastructure in the region—

both transmission and generation, including several new transmission lines that are 

critical to maintaining reliability. Those lines are currently undergoing siting and 

related approvals. PJM conducts Regional Transmission Expansion Planning every 

44

year. Through this process, PJM can call for additional power lines to be built in 

the grid to handle increased demand for electricity or the need for more electricity 

capacity to serve markets in the grid. 

One example of this is a new 500,000 volt power line called for by PJM to run 

between Berwick, Pa., and Roseland, N.J., to prevent overloads on other power lines 

due to increasing demand for electricity. PPL Electric Utilities, in its role as an 

owner and operator of transmission, has been assigned by PJM to build the Pennsylvania portion of the line and is now in the process of choosing a preferred route 

and preparing to submit it the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission for approval. 

As you know, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 granted ‘‘backstop’’ siting authority 

to the FERC for certain transmission lines. To date, FERC has not had to exercise 

this authority. It would be needed only if the traditional state siting process breaks 

down, and it is determined that a transmission line in a designated National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor (NIETC) must be built for grid reliability purposes. In the case of the Susquehanna–Roseland transmission line, PPL does not believe the NIETC process will be required because of the success the company has 

had with the state approval process in the past. 

Also, PJM identified that generators were not being sufficiently compensated for 

the electricity they were generating. Consequently, since generators were not earning sufficient revenues, the result was that some generating units were retired or 

were not being infused with adequate capital investment. Also, additional generation needed to meet growing and future demand was not being built. 

Because there is no practical way to store electricity after it has been generated, 

power grid operators constantly must match electricity production with electricity 

use. When electricity use increases, grid operators call on power plant owners to 

generate more electricity. To maintain the highly reliable supply of electricity we 

have come to expect, grid operators always have some generating capacity in reserve 

to meet increasing use or make up for plants that unexpectedly shut down. 

That ‘‘reserve margin’’ has been declining in recent years as the growth in electricity use has outpaced the addition of new generating sources. These tighter reserve margins are affecting the balance between supply and demand, and are contributing to higher electricity costs. 

In response to these various factors, PJM changed the structure of its competitive 

markets. These changes, which instituted a reliability pricing mechanism (RPM) 

and revised the price that PJM believes is appropriate to send the right signals for 

new generation to be built called the cost of new entry (CONE), appear to be working. These mechanisms seem to be helping to provide the correct incentives companies require to make decisions to build the new power plants that are needed—and 

to build them in the right locations—to meet current and future demand. 

That is a basic overview of the energy business and energy markets in the PJM 

region. What does the future look like? 

Energy prices are increasing everywhere—in deregulated states and in states 

where the electricity business remains regulated. Prices are going up for a few main 

reasons. On the supply side, the prices of fuel used to generate electricity—primarily 

uranium, natural gas and coal—have increased dramatically. The price of coal has 

increased 56 percent and natural gas has gone up 200 percent since 2000. Uranium 

prices on the spot market have gone from about $10 a pound in 2000 to $65 a pound 

today—an increase of 550 percent. 

Costs of other key components of generation and transmission, such as steel, labor 

and other factors, have also risen significantly. On the demand side, the country 

continues to use more electricity. PJM has seen a 1.6 percent annual increase in 

electricity demand. 

In many states, including Pennsylvania, where policymakers recognized the benefits that competitive electricity markets can bring, transition periods with capped 

rates are coming to an end, and customers are seeing or will be seeing increases 

in prices of electricity. However, these price increases are not the result of competition. They are the result of significant and sustained increases in fuel prices and 

costs of materials needed to generate and distribute power. And these price increases are occurring in regulated jurisdictions as well as non-regulated jurisdictions. 

PPL firmly believes that competition will bring lower prices to consumers in the 

long run, and that competition has a number of other benefits as well. Competitive 

wholesale electricity markets have shifted the risk of building and operating generation from consumers to generators, and it is competitive wholesale electricity markets that will ensure reliable and lower cost energy supplies for consumers while 

promoting development of renewable energy and conservation. 

45

What can be done to address higher energy prices? PPL is taking steps on a number of fronts. We are working to increase generation infrastructure, we are working 

to increase electricity transmission infrastructure, and we are working aggressively 

with customers to help them use energy more efficiently. 

Increasing generation capacity is important for our nation’s energy security, and 

to be able to meet growing customer demand for electricity. There is no single solution to this issue, and the answer lies in a portfolio approach to new sources of generation coupled with demand-side management and conservation programs. 

Regarding generation sources, non-carbon sources should be promoted—including 

renewable sources, clean coal technologies and nuclear power. PPL already generates about 40 percent of its electricity using non-carbon sources, and as a major 

generator, we recognize the need to address climate change in a reasoned way. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions requires the development of new technologies and 

regulations that support capture and storage of carbon dioxide emissions so that we 

can continue to use coal—our most abundant domestic energy source—as part of our 

future energy mix. 

In the meantime, we face important decisions on how to meet increasing demand 

for electricity to power our economy and support our quality of life. Renewable energy is an important, but intermittent, source of electricity, and its cost is still high. 

It should be developed wherever possible, but renewable energy alone will not fulfill 

the country’s future energy needs. Continuing uncertainties about climate change 

legislation make coal an unlikely choice. Natural gas has significant cost concerns 

as the rate of use grows faster than increases in production. Nuclear energy does 

not emit carbon and has a strong safety record, but questions remain about the cost, 

and the political and regulatory climate. 

At PPL, we are considering whether to build a new nuclear power plant adjacent 

to our existing power plant in Berwick, Pa.; we are implementing plans to increase 

the output of our existing nuclear units by nine percent; we are expanding renewable hydroelectric generating capacity in Pennsylvania, Montana and Maine; we are 

investigating opportunities to build new, efficient natural gas-fired generating 

plants; we have supported research into carbon capture and storage technologies 

that would enable continued use of our abundant coal resources; and we are expanding our growing renewable energy business, which invests in wind, solar and landfill 

methane generation projects. 

We are preparing a Combined Operating License application for a new nuclear 

unit, which we expect to submit to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission before 

the end of this year. Expanding nuclear power is essential for the nation’s energy 

policy. With reserve margins declining, and carbon regulation on the horizon, nuclear power is an increasingly attractive option to provide the nation with reliable, 

affordable, baseload electricity. 

At PPL, we are optimistic about the ability of nuclear energy to significantly increase our generating capacity in the United States. But with the significant cost 

of nuclear generation, the financial backing of the Federal Government, in the form 

of loan guarantees, will be essential if new projects are to move forward. We encourage legislators to build on the foundation of the Energy Policy Act by supporting 

a workable, effective and stable loan guarantee program—a key element for a successful renaissance of nuclear energy in the United States. 

We also have made significant gains in improving the operating efficiency of existing power plants, largely due to incentives created by the competitive wholesale energy markets where PPL does business. Plants that in a regulated environment operated about 75 percent of the time currently operate more than 90 percent of the 

time in a competitive market. Getting the most out of existing resources has enabled 

PPL and other generators to defer new power plant construction for several years. 

PPL produces about eight percent of its energy from renewable sources, including 

hydroelectric generation. We currently own, operate or are developing about 950 

megawatts of hydroelectric generating capacity and a total of 30 megawatts of capacity of renewable energy projects, including two projects that have been honored 

by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

In addition, PPL has made a 20 year commitment to buy the electricity generated 

at two wind farms in Pennsylvania and has agreed to buy half of the renewable energy credits produced by a new wind farm in West Virginia. The three projects total 

132 megawatts of renewable energy. PPL has 10 megawatts of solar generation, either in place or under construction or contract, in New Jersey; and we continue to 

look for new opportunities to develop solar generation as part of our larger renewable energy portfolio. We plan to invest more than $100 million in new renewable 

energy projects and another $500 million in hydroelectric projects through 2011. 

Regarding helping our customers use energy more wisely, we now have in place 

a web-based tool that allows our regulated delivery customers in Pennsylvania to 

46

view their daily electricity use, and, in the very near future, their hourly electricity 

use. This tool gives customers a better understanding of how their homes use electricity and provides personalized tips to save. This fall, we distributed more than 

150,000 compact fluorescent light bulbs to customers in our service territory to help 

them reduce energy use, raise awareness about energy efficiency and encourage 

them to use the Energy Analyzer online. 

We have arranged with an independent, nonprofit company to bring our customers an online store that sells a wide variety of energy-efficient products. PPL 

Electric Utilities customers can receive a 20 percent discount on all items they buy. 

We are also supporting rebates for small businesses that upgrade their lighting 

and providing grants for companies that ‘‘go green’’ when renovating or building 

new commercial or industrial facilities. Grants are available for companies that seek 

a ‘‘green’’ certification from the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy 

and Environmental Design program. 

Last but not least, we are reaching out to customers through community presentations, home shows, energy fairs, advertisements and a newsletter inserted with 

customer bills to promote energy efficiency. 

In summary, our view is that the essential elements of a national energy policy 

include a commitment to domestic resources, a program to encourage ‘‘clean coal’’ 

technologies, nuclear power initiatives, new electricity transmission infrastructure, 

research and development of renewable power, and effective demand management 

and conservation measures.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Champagne. Mr. James. 

STATEMENT OF REVIS W. JAMES, DIRECTOR, ENERGY

TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT CENTER, ELECTRIC POWER

RESEARCH INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. JAMES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Lucas, 

and Members of the Subcommittee. I am Revis James of the Electric Power Research Institute. I direct the Energy Technology Assessment Center at EPRI. EPRI is a 30 year-old nonprofit research 

foundation that has been focused on the electric sector, and we are 

focused primarily on the U.S. but also on quite a lot of the other 

areas of the world. 

A unique convergence of major challenges is facing the electric 

sector currently; substantial long-term growth and electricity demand, decreasing margins between maximum generation capacity 

and maximum loads, and anticipated CO2 emissions constraints, 

which we expect soon. 

While significant expansions of electric generation capacity and 

transmission systems are needed to support demand growth and 

maintain system reliability, accomplishing substantial and permanent reductions in electricity-related CO2 emissions will require 

new technology capabilities. 

Our analysis has shown that a full portfolio of advanced technologies would enable substantially lower emissions from the electric sector by 2030, on the order of 45 percent less in comparison 

to business-as-usual projections by the Energy Information Administration. 

But it is clear that there is no silver bullet. Achieving such reductions relies on a portfolio consisting of advanced levels of both 

performance and increased deployment of several technologies: enduse efficiency, renewables, advanced coal with CO2 capture and 

storage, nuclear power, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and distributed energy resources. 

Furthermore, many of these technologies haven’t yet reached the 

levels of performance and deployment that would be necessary to 

enable the kinds of emissions reductions that I just discussed. SusVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:47 Jul 31, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\110-46\51336.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
47

tained, focused research development and demonstrations are going 

to be needed over the next 20 to 25 years in order to realize that 

full portfolio of advanced technologies. 

Meeting these challenges will result in increased cost of electricity. Substantial deployment costs for new power plants and 

transmission infrastructure and new costs for CO2 emissions reductions are going to be principal factors. The commercial availability 

of key technologies will take different lengths of time to develop, 

and cost of materials and labor have been rising at significant 

rates. 

EPRI’s economic analyses indicate that investments in RD&D 

can significantly reduce the costs of future climate policy through 

earlier availability of a wide array of technology options. Wholesale 

electricity production costs will increase much less with a full portfolio of advanced technologies. 

A very important part of this technology benefit is the eventual 

availability of, relatively speaking, decarbonized electricity for the 

remainder of the industry and enabling the rest of the economy to 

reduce it emissions. 

Differences in the time to full technology availability and the risk 

of unforeseen RD&D barriers reinforces the importance of concurrent aggressive RD&D, and demonstrations in particular, to minimize the time before the full portfolio will become available. 

Collaborating with its networks of technical advisors from across 

the electric sector, EPRI has identified several critical technology 

demonstration projects, which are central to the development of 

this whole portfolio. We have created a framework for each of these 

projects, and we are currently pursuing their development and implementation. 

To summarize, our research concludes that to serve increasing 

demand for electricity and at the same time substantially reduce 

CO2 emissions, first, we are going to have to substantially 

decarbonize generation itself. Second, we are going to have to develop a smart grid, which will enable much more efficient use of 

electricity. And third, we are going to have to use decarbonized 

electricity in a wide range of other sections of the economy to enable productions in those other sectors, for example in transportation. 

Sustained RD&D, starting now, can help lower the economic impact of creating this low-carbon future. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my vocal remarks, and thank you for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. James follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REVIS W. JAMES, DIRECTOR, ENERGY TECHNOLOGY

ASSESSMENT CENTER, ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Thank you, Chairman Holden, Ranking Member Lucas, and Members of the Subcommittee. I am Revis James, Director of the Energy Technology Assessment Center 

at the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). EPRI appreciates the opportunity 

to provide testimony to the Subcommittee. 

EPRI is an independent, nonprofit research organization that brings together its 

members, scientists and engineers, along with experts from academia, industry and 

other centers of research to:

• collaborate in solving challenges in electricity generation, delivery and use;

48

• provide technological, policy and economic analyses to drive long-range research 

and development planning;

• support multi-discipline research in emerging technologies and issues; and

• accelerate the commercial deployment of advanced electricity technologies.

During its 35 year history, EPRI’s mission has been to define strategic technical 

challenges in the electricity sector and to clearly identify viable technology options 

to address them. In this context, and in anticipation of a low-carbon energy future, 

EPRI is conducting ongoing research on how climate change and potential goals to 

reduce greenhouse gas emissions affect the production and delivery of electricity.

A convergence of major challenges: demand growth, decreasing capacity 

margins, CO2 emissions constraints

Meeting potential CO2 emissions constraints and the projected demand growth for 

electricity is complicated by several risks. Advanced technology provides a path to 

mitigating these risks while addressing the concurrent challenges of demand 

growth, anticipated CO2 emissions constraints, and diminishing generation reserve 

margins.

Demand growth

Meeting the expected growth in electricity demand and maintaining system reliability presents a major challenge that drives the need for substantial new generation capacity. In its most recent Annual Energy Outlook, [1] the Energy Information 

Administration (EIA) projects U.S. electricity demand will grow by 29% between 

2005 and 2030, an increase in consumption of 1046 TWh. This increase is roughly 

equivalent to the 2006 electricity consumption of the top five consuming states in 

the United States: Texas, California, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Growth at 

this scale will demand a huge increase in electricity generating capacity. The magnitude of new generation required to simultaneously meet demand growth and 

achieve major reductions in CO2 emissions will be enormous. The Energy Information Administration estimates than 200 GW of new generating capacity, [1] for example, will be required to meet U.S. electricity demand in 2030, highlighting the 

need for low-carbon generation sources to ensure this growth is accomplished with 

fewer emissions.

Decreasing capacity margins

Expansion of generation and transmission resources has not kept pace with electricity demand growth, leading to decreasing margins between peak consumption 

and generating capacity. The deployment of new capacity is also a priority to ensure 

electricity grid reliability and stability. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) estimates that these margins will decrease below acceptable levels 

between 2009–2015 in the eight U.S. reliability areas. [2]

CO2 emissions constraints

It is clear that goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the timeframe 

over which they will be targeted are likely to be large and very demanding. Significant progress on reducing emissions will have to begin very soon and continue for 

many decades if probable goals are to be met. Most of the proposals discussed to 

date require large scale emissions reductions by 2050 over most or all of the economy. The magnitude of these reductions can be appreciated by considering the difference between current annual emissions levels and projected 2050 levels based on 

the proposed legislation. This difference is over 11⁄2 times the total CO2 emissions 

from all U.S. electric utility companies [3] in 2006. In essence, expected emissions 

constraints will ultimately require almost no emissions from new generating capacity while reducing emissions from the existing fleet, either via reduced electricity 

consumption, increasing efficiencies of existing coal and gas plants, or retrofitting 

CO2 capture on existing coal and gas plants.

Additional factors complicate risk mitigation

• Timing of technology deployment: The commercial availability of key technologies will take different lengths of time to develop and deploy. Delays could 

have significant impacts on electricity costs, the generation mix, and the ability 

to meet a given emission constraint.

• Costs: The costs incurred to deploy advanced technologies will be substantial, 

but will ultimately prove to be a valuable investment in leading the electricity 

sector to decarbonization. Moreover, because many of these technologies are not 

yet commercially mature, cost uncertainties exist until they have been demonstrated at large scale.

Timing of Technology Deployment

49

Recent EPRI work [4] has illustrated the necessity and the urgency to develop a 

full portfolio of advanced electricity technologies as part of the solution to satisfying 

our future energy needs in an environmentally responsible manner. Our analyses 

suggest that with aggressive research, development, demonstration, and deployment 

of advanced electricity technologies, it is technically feasible to slow down and stop 

the increase in U.S. electric sector CO2 emissions, and then eventually reduce them 

over the next 25 years while simultaneously meeting the expected increased demand 

for electricity and minimizing the economic impact of reducing emissions. 

To develop this analysis, we compiled data on the current and likely future cost 

and performance of various electricity technologies from our own internal work, various public-private technology research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) 

roadmaps, and expert opinions from academia, industry, and the NGO community 

in the published literature. From this information, EPRI assessed the benefits of 

achieving substantial improvements in performance and aggressive deployment of 

advanced technologies in seven areas: end-use efficiency, renewables, nuclear generation, advanced coal generation, CO2 capture and storage (CCS), plug-in hybrid 

electric vehicles (PHEV) and distributed energy resources (DER). We then calculated the net change in CO2 emissions from the electric sector which would result 

from achieving each of those technology targets compared to the underlying assumptions in the reference case of the 2008 Annual Energy Outlook published by the Energy Information Administration (EIA). [1] The calculated potential for CO2 emissions reductions is based solely on the technical capabilities, assuming no economic 

or policy constraints. Called the PRISM analysis because of the spectrum-like appearance of its graphical representation (Figure 1), the study’s major finding is that 

it is technically feasible to halt and ultimately reverse the currently rising trend in 

CO2 emissions from the electricity sector. If aggressive RD&D of the full portfolio 

of advanced technologies is successful, annual emission levels could be reduced by 

roughly 45 percent relative to reference-case projections for 2030 in the U.S. Energy 

Information Administration’s 2008 Annual Energy Outlook. [1] There is no silver 

bullet technology that can provide the majority of potential emissions reductions, 

but rather a diverse combination of new and existing technologies will be required 

to meet aggressive emission targets.

Figure 1: Technical potential for CO2 emissions reductions from the U.S. 

electric power sector, assuming significant new technology RD&D investments and the aggressive deployment of the resulting technologies over the 

next 25 years.

Costs

EPRI conducted a companion economic analysis [4] showing that investments in 

RD&D which lead to the creation of a full portfolio of advanced, low-carbon elecVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:47 Jul 31, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\110-46\51336.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN

11046005
50

tricity technologies, including advanced coal-based power plants with CCS and new 

expansions in nuclear power, can significantly reduce the costs of future climate policy. For a scenario in which we aspire to reduce U.S. emissions of CO2 in 2050 to 

less than half of today’s levels, this ‘‘full portfolio’’ would result in average wholesale 

electricity prices equivalent to approximately 9¢ per kilowatt-hour, compared to 21¢ 

per kilowatt-hour—more than twice as much—in the case where a ‘‘limited portfolio’’ 

of electricity technologies (i.e., excluding CCS or expansion of nuclear power) is 

available. Carbon prices are also twice as large in the world of the ‘‘limited portfolio’’. In a world without CCS and nuclear, future CO2 constraints would be met 

by massive fuel switching to natural gas (with resulting price increases and increasing import dependence) and by increasingly expensive energy conservation as consumers respond to very large carbon and electricity prices. 

For this hypothetical CO2 constraint, the existence of the ‘‘full portfolio’’ reduces the overall cost of the climate policy to the U.S. economy by approximately $1 trillion between now and 2050. Furthermore, the low-cost, low-carbon electricity provided by the ‘‘full portfolio’’ would play an essential role in enabling CO2 reductions 

from other sectors of the economy.

Transition to a Low-Carbon Future

Since the key technology capabilities in the full portfolio will take different 

lengths of time to develop and deploy, their relative importance within the portfolio 

will shift over time. Over the decade of 2010–2020, availability of cost-effective and 

efficient CO2 capture technology or of commercial CO2 storage sites is unlikely, and 

little or no deployment of new nuclear plants will occur. During this period, natural 

gas, wind and biomass, demand reduction, and improvements to existing coal plant 

heat rates are likely to be particularly important. The lack of availability of larger 

baseload generation options will make capacity planning much more uncertain. 

Combined with CO2 emissions reduction policies, consequences of this initially more 

limited technology availability will result in higher electricity production costs and 

natural gas prices. Rising electricity and CO2 costs will drive technology development. Beyond 2030, emergence of significant deployments of nuclear, advanced coal 

with CCS, wind and biomass will expand the technology portfolio. However, delays 

in technology development will directly affect the ultimate costs of achieving CO2

emissions reductions. 

The importance of multiple technologies within an economically optimal portfolio, 

coupled with the risk of unforeseen barriers in technology development reinforces 

the importance of concurrent, aggressive RD&D actions to maximize options by 

which the full portfolio can be achieved. In addition, full scale technology demonstrations for the key technologies will determine the time that it takes to reach 

full availability of the full portfolio.

EPRI’s Response to the Challenges: Technology Demonstrations

Based on its 2007 research, [4] EPRI identified four major technology pathways 

in which substantial RD&D progress will be needed over the next 20–30 years to 

achieve the full portfolio of advanced technologies that will allow demand growth 

to be met while minimizing the cost of compliance with a CO2 emissions constraint:

• Development and demonstration of smart distribution grids and communications infrastructures to enable widespread end-use efficiency technology deployment, distributed generation, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.

• Development and demonstration of enhanced transmission grids and associated 

energy storage infrastructures with the capacity and reliability to operate with 

20–30% intermittent renewables in specific regions of the United States.

• Expanded deployment of advanced light water reactors enabled by continued 

safe and economic operation of the existing nuclear fleet.

• Development and demonstration of commercial-scale coal-based generation 

units operating with 90% CO2 capture and with the associated infrastructures 

to transport and sequester the captured CO2.

EPRI subsequently identified particularly critical technology demonstration 

projects within these technology pathways necessary to ensure long-term achievement of the full portfolio. In concert with its network of technical advisors from 

across the electric sector, EPRI technical experts evaluated several candidate 

projects before identifying the following six for immediate action:

• Post-Combustion Carbon Capture and Storage Demonstrations.

• IGCC With Carbon Capture and Storage Demonstration.

• Ion Transport Membrane for Low-Cost Oxygen Production.

• Advanced Compressed Air Energy Storage Demonstration.

51

• Energy Efficiency Demonstration.

• Smart Grid Demonstrations.

The above projects address pivotal technologies within the full portfolio which contain considerable technology uncertainty associated with performance, ease of scaleup, and cost. Through large scale demonstrations, these projects will ultimately enable commercially viable deployments of key advanced technologies. EPRI has created a collaborative framework for each of these projects and is currently pursuing 

them.

Conclusion

Decarbonization of electricity generation, development of a smart grid, and increasing use of electricity in other major economic sectors, such as transportation, 

will all occur in response to the combination of CO2 constraints and demand growth. 

Since all of the needed technology capabilities do not yet exist or are not yet economically available, the U.S. faces an unavoidable period of responding to demand 

growth and emissions reductions with a limited technology portfolio. If emissions reduction targets currently under serious discussion are to be achievable and affordable, a sustained and focused RD&D program is needed to develop, demonstrate and 

eventually deploy the full portfolio of advanced electricity technologies. A 

decarbonized electricity sector is the key to meeting economy-wide CO2 emissions 

goals. 

Timely, sustained collaborative RD&D can enable a low carbon future while lowering the cost of compliance with CO2 constraints, but concurrent actions in several 

technology areas must begin now to minimize this cost while continuing to meet demand growth. Thank you for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee. 

Endnotes 

[1] ‘‘Annual Energy Outlook 2008’’, Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, June 2008, DOE/EIA–0383(2008), www.eia.doe.gov.

[2] ‘‘2007 Long-Term Reliability Assessment: 2007–2016’’, North American Electric 

Reliability Corporation, October 2007, www.nerc.com.

[3] ‘‘Benchmarking Air Emissions’’, National Resources Defense Council, http://

www.nrdc.org/air/pollution/benchmarking/default.asp.

[4] ‘‘The Power to Reduce CO2 Emissions: the Full Portfolio’’, EPRI 1015461, August 2007, www.epri.com.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you, Mr. James. Secretary Nichols. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM NICHOLS, FORMER SECRETARY OF 

AGRICULTURE, STATE OF MINNESOTA; FORMER SENATOR, 

STATE OF MINNESOTA, LAKE BENTON, MN 

Mr. NICHOLS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the 

opportunity to come here with you and Colin Peterson. Very briefly, 

I will summarize my testimony and talk fast. Colin and I served 

together in the Senate, and we passed progressive legislation in 

Minnesota. My testimony says that. 

Over 14 years ago, Mr. Chairman, we passed our mandates for 

wind and ethanol, and it saved us actually $4 billion now. So we 

are very fortunate. 

My first handout there, if you go with me, it shows the price of 

E85 a week ago in Minnesota was $3.49. Today it is $3.29. Talked 

to the cabbie coming in here that brought me. He paid $3.99, and 

it was over $4 here in Washington. So if you have a progressive 

energy policy in the state, it saves you a lot of money. So I am 

lucky to get to live there. 

Also the thing I want to emphasize, the next thing in front of you 

I signed a power contract—I have a wind turbine on my farm—for 

3.35¢. Wind energy is the cheapest power in America. There is nobody that can generate it for 3.35¢, and I wish the REAs would 

participate a little bit more on this because we could provide a lot 

of cheap power to the REAs. 

52

The reason why Minnesota has Xcel Energy, their cost to the 

consumer is 6.6¢, Mr. Chairman, because they get 41 percent of 

their power from non-fossil fuel sources, wind, hydropower, and nuclear. 

I grow energy on my farm, and let us never forget this, I grow 

distiller’s grain. People think somehow we are causing a food shortage. Actually when we run our corn through the fermentation, as 

you well know, Mr. Chairman, we get a better food product in a 

high protein distiller’s grain. 

Now, here is the problem. We would like to build more turbines, 

and I was the first farmer owned turbine in my county. I own it 

with my brother and our families, wives and our kids. All of the 

other turbines are owned by corporations, and the reason for that, 

Mr. Chairman, is because you have a law, as you well know, the 

production tax credit, that is only for corporations. 

Worse than that, the major owners of wind turbines in America 

beyond GE and FDL, are foreign corporations. So now we have created a situation where, because of the corporate tax credit, most of 

our wind turbines are owned by foreign corporations. And that is 

what surrounds me. 

Now, we would like to build more. We could supply 10,000 homes 

with electricity on our two farms. We are not big farmers. And they 

could plug in their cars at night so 10,000 cars at well, just for two 

farms, Mr. Chairman. The problem is you got to buy them in Euro 

dollars. 

And the next document there shows what I paid for the turbine was $1.5 million to build 1.5 megawatt turbine. To build a coal 

plant now, and the document includes that, it costs $3 million per 

megawatt to build a turbine. Wind energy has historically been $1 

million a megawatt, and the wind is free. It is the cheapest power 

in America. 

But because our tax credit expires every 2 years, as you know—

and I commend the House. You passes a pretty good energy bill. 

The Senate—enough said about that. 

Well, anyhow, we keep hoping out in the countryside you guys 

actually do some things here because it is discouraging. But it increases the cost of a turbine by $600,000 just in the exchange rate. 

Most of the turbines in America are installed by three major companies, Vestas, Siemens, and Gamesa. And Gamesa is a Pennsylvania company, I think. At least they have a factory in Pennsylvania. Is that correct? 

So we are getting more here, but still on half the bids, Mr. Chairman, you have to buy them in Euro dollars. And the GE turbine 

is a German turbine that is assembled here. Now, we are getting 

better because we build a lot of blades here now and a lot of towers. But they still want to charge you in Euro dollars. And because 

there is such a demand, I am on a 2 year waiting list to get a turbine. And if you argue about price, you are off the list. 

We need American manufacturers, Mr. Chairman, and that is my 

plea here. If we had a longer term tax credit, the manufacturers—

you know you are going to make money in this business. And you 

know there is a demand. Everybody else is on a 2 year waiting list. 

If we can get American manufacturers, then we could get cheaper 

prices for our turbines. And the problem is if your turbines cost a 

53

lot of money because of the Euro dollar, that has to be reflected in 

the price to the consumer. 

So we can’t build $4 million of megawatt anymore like we used 

to. It is closer to $2 million a megawatt. It is still cheaper than coal 

and anything else, but we can get back to $1 million there. 

Now, I really want to encourage you—and that is part of the plan 

the Department of Energy has—the 20 percent energy by 2030. It 

creates 500,000 jobs. And with that, they have their transmission. 

That is the other color thing you have in front of you, Mr. Chairman. We need to build a transmission system. Now, we have done 

a lot in Minnesota. The problem is when you get outside of your 

state, it is harder. You know, we can mandate wind and ethanol 

in Minnesota, and we can build transmission. 

But the real customers are in Los Angeles and New York and the 

big cities. There are only 800 farmers in my county, and my turbine supplies 500 homes. You know, the market is not—the power 

is out in the Midwest, but the customers are in the cities. The 

beauty of it is it moves at the speed of light. 

A wind turbine is better than an oil well. I will finish up here. 

It produces more energy. I want to get into that. And it moves at 

the speed of light. This is a crop that I grow on my farm, instantly 

convert wind to energy and transport at the speed of light to my 

customers that live in Minneapolis and St. Paul, and it is there just 

like that. No pollution. 

So now just very quickly, if we could get to the plug-in hybrids, 

Mr. Chairman, and you have the handout there on the Ford Escape—we are Americans—we are not going to drive those little cars 

or anything like that. I drive a four-wheel-drive pickup, and you 

probably do too. You can’t live without it. 

But T. Boone Pickens is right. All those pickups that we drive 

should be converted to run on natural gas, compressed natural gas, 

propane. We did it in the 1970s, and we can do it again. The conversion kit is pretty cheap. So we can convert the existing vehicles 

we have to natural gas, and we can go the plug-in hybrids. 

Quickly to economics: My pickup uses—it is 15 miles to the gallon so it takes two gallons to drive 30 miles and more because I 

drove to the airport fast this morning. Usually it costs me almost 

$80 to fill the thing, but if I could plug it in, it takes 10 kilowatt 

hours to charge up the car. And I can drive 30 miles. I pay 7.2¢ 

for my REA co-op. So for 72¢, I could drive 30 miles if I could plug 

it in. But because I got to buy gas from the oil companies and the 

Arabs, it costs me $7.20. I could cut my fuel cost by 90 percent if 

we can solve this problem, Mr. Chairman. 

And finally, people don’t realize this that wind turbines, they are 

oil wells. Our wind turbine, at full production, produces as much 

as 21 barrels of oil. We have a half a million oil wells, 507,000 oil 

wells in America. Those oil wells on average produce 10.3 barrels 

but 400,000 of them are stripper wells, and they produce 21⁄2 barrels. A wind turbine will produce 10 to 12 barrels on average every 

day. A wind turbine is an oil well, Mr. Chairman, and it will never 

run dry. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nichols follows:]

54

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JIM NICHOLS, FORMER SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, STATE OF MINNESOTA; FORMER SENATOR, STATE OF MINNESOTA, LAKE BENTON, MN 

For the record my name is Jim Nichols. I have lived and farmed my entire life 

at Lake Benton, Minnesota. I had the privilege of serving four terms as a Minnesota 

State Senator and Minnesota Secretary of Agriculture. I served in the state Senate 

with my friends and colleagues that served here in Congress, Collin Peterson, Tim 

Penny, Gerry Sikorski and Bill Luther. Almost 15 years ago we passed legislation 

in Minnesota that mandated renewables, ethanol and wind. That legislation has 

saved Minnesotans more than $2 billion dollars in energy cost and I was pleased 

to have been a part of that legislation. This year Minnesota passed even more progressive legislation that requires 25% wind energy by 2025. Governor Tim Pawlenty 

has proposed to increase the required 10% ethanol blend to 20%. T Boone Pickens 

brought an excellent message to Congress last week and we have already adopted 

much of his message in Minnesota. 

My first two documents show the current price of ethanol blended gasoline in 

Minnesota at $3.49 per gallon and the Power Purchase contract that we signed with 

Xcel Energy in Minneapolis at a contract price for electricity of 3.35¢ per kilowatt 

hour and that price is locked for the next 25 years. Xcel Energy provides power to 

its consumers for 6.6¢ per kwh which is some of the cheapest power in America. 

Xcel Energy now gets 41% of its power from non-fossil fuel sources—wind, hydropower and nuclear. Consumers in Los Angeles now pay 14¢ per kwh and New Yorkers pay 12¢ per kwh. It is nice to live in a state that has an energy policy. 

I own and operate my 630 acre farm and I grow energy and a high protein feed—

distillers grain. Each year I produce 180,000 gallons of ethanol from the corn on my 

farm. Four years ago we purchased and built a 1.5 megawatt wind turbine on my 

farm and now produce the electricity for 500 homes. I own that wind turbine with 

my brother Kelly and our wives and children. Our grandchildren will be producing 

energy on that farm 100 years from now. We have plans to build 20 wind turbines 

on our farms and produce electricity for 10,000 homes. We cannot buy a wind turbine at this time because there is a 2 year waiting list. All of the wind turbines 

now standing in America are supplied by eight manufacturers. Three European 

manufacturers have most of the market. The European manufacturers are Vestas, 

Siemens and Gamesa. The GE Energy turbine is a German turbine assembled in 

America. The other manufacturers are Suzlon from India and Mitsubishi from 

Japan. Clipper and Acciona also have a small market share. We now manufacture 

many of the towers and blades in America but each turbine is sold as a package 

and the towers and blades are part of the package and usually must be purchased 

with Euro dollars. 

The next article shows wind projects stopped in South Dakota and around the nation because Congress has failed us once again. The House of Representatives did 

pass a pretty good energy bill and I commend you for that. The Senate did not pass 

a good energy bill. Wind turbine costs have moved closer to $2 million per megawatt 

in the past 3 years because the exchange rate for the Euro dollar is now $1.60. I 

have price quotes with me for turbines that I would like to purchase and you can 

see that the payment must be in Euro dollars. We have no American manufacturers 

because the tax credit for wind energy expires every 2 years. The tax credit is for 

corporations only and with six major corporations owning most of the turbines in 

America there are no buyers without the corporate tax credit. Four of the major corporate owners of wind turbines are foreign corporations with a U.S. subsidiary. I 

do not understand why Congress would give a tax credit to foreign corporations and 

not give an energy tax credit to American citizens. A longer term tax credit would 

immediately create American manufacturers. The wind industry invested $9 billion 

in America in 2007 and will create 500,000 jobs if we adopt the Dept of Energy plan 

for 20% wind energy by 2030 (document cover is attached, the full report can be 

accessed at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/41869.pdf.) I contrast 

that with the big oil companies that have not built a refinery in 30 years and as 

you can see in the next article the big oil companies are not investing their profits 

in oil exploration. More than 70% of the exploration oil wells in America are now 

being drilled by the small, independent oil producers. These independent oil producers are investing in America. 

The next document shows that the actual cost of our turbine was $1.5 million for 

a 1.5 megawatt turbine and the document shows that the construction cost of a new 

coal plant proposed on the Minnesota border is $3 million per megawatt. The constructed cost of wind turbines has historically been $1 million per megawatt and 

the wind is free. With the escalating price of coal, and the expensive construction 

costs of coal plants, the American consumers are facing very high prices for electricity if Congress does not enact an energy policy. T. Boone Pickens is absolutely 

55

right when he says that we should use compressed natural gas to power our trucks 

and buses and not to generate electricity. 

The next document shows that wind energy and electricity can solve our fuel crisis. Ford now has the Escape plug-in hybrid that will get 120 miles per gallon and 

cut fuel costs by 90%. My truck that I drove to the airport this morning gets 15 

miles per gallon. It takes two gallons and costs me $7.20 to drive 30 miles. It takes 

10 kilowatt hours to provide the charge to drive 30 miles. I pay 7.2¢ per kwh on 

my farm so a plug-in hybrid would cost 72¢ to drive 30 miles. 

The last document from the Dept. of Energy is the proposed transmission map 

for America. This transmission system will be paid for with a user fee and will give 

consumers in Los Angeles and New York access to the cheap energy that we have 

in the Midwest. That electricity will move at the speed of light from the farm fields 

to the big cities. 

We now produce five million barrels of oil per day from the 507,000 oil wells in 

production in the United States, including Alaska and offshore. The average oil well 

produces 10.3 barrels per day. At full production a 2 megawatt turbine produces as 

much energy as 28 barrels of oil per day with an average of 12 barrels per day. The 

conversion factor for wind is 3,412 BTU per kwh and for oil is 5,800,000 BTU per 

barrel. With 500,000 wind turbines we can produce as much energy as we now 

produce from oil in America. The combination of oil and wind will produce 66% of 

the power needed for our cars. Ethanol, Biodiesel and Natural Gas will provide the 

remaining 33%. We must continue to grow corn, soybeans and cellulose and we 

must continue to drill new oil wells in America. The wind turbines will never run 

dry. 

ATTACHMENT 1


11046006
56

ATTACHMENT 2


11046007
57

ATTACHMENT 3


11046008
58

ATTACHMENT 4


11046009
59

ATTACHMENT 5


11046010
60

ATTACHMENT 6


11046011
61

ATTACHMENT 7


11046012
62

ATTACHMENT 8

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Your enthusiasm for 

what has been done in Minnesota is evident, and we enjoyed very 

much visiting there and seeing what you are doing at Buffalo 

Ridge. 

Mr. NICHOLS. We were so glad when you came, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. It was a very good learning experience. Mr. 

English, I assume that you were in the room for most of panel one 

and heard the gentlewoman from New York’s question dealing with 

our colleague from Tennessee’s report as well as the statement by 

Mr. Lucas at the end of the first panel. 

I just wonder if you can elaborate on some of the accusations of 

non-paid dividends, elections not being held, shell corporations, and 

where you are on the whole process of oversight in dealing with 

that. 

Mr. ENGLISH. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. I guess my first point with regard to the capital credit’s issue and that is member equity. And basically it is invested 

mostly in infrastructure. I think Mr. Cooper points that out. There 

is about $3.8 billion in cash throughout the electric cooperative system nationwide, all 47 states. What that amounts to is about 45 

days operating expense for electric cooperatives, which I understand is very much within the realm of what most businesses 

would like to carry. Certainly one that is as resource intensive as 

electric cooperatives are. 

So most of what Mr. Cooper is talking about is tied up in wires 

and lines and poles and also infrastructure. And that is the investVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:47 Jul 31, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\110-46\51336.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN

11046013
63

ment, of course, that the membership owns. There is no question 

about that. 

As far as any kind of regulation, most of that is done, as you 

know, on the state level through public utility commissions. They 

normally handle that kind of duty with regard to utilities throughout the states. Different states have different laws as to how they 

handle that, how they deal with it. And that certainly is the case 

with regard to electric cooperatives. I believe, if I remember correctly, somewhere around 45 of the 47 states in which electric cooperative are located have some kind of regulation as far as those cooperatives are concerned. 

The not-for-profit aspect is probably the one that is the most sensitive. That gets down to salaries, and as Members of Congress 

know, those are always sensitive issues when we talk about pay. 

And that is true at the local cooperative and certainly the expenses 

of Boards of Directors and the managers. Those are issues that are 

now going to be a public record. They had been a public record. 

They are going to be even more extensively covered under the new 

form 990 in that the Internal Revenue Service requires each cooperative to file as a not-for-profit organization, including not only 

what your salary is, not only what you are paid in per diem, but 

also any conflicts of interest that you might have and goes further 

even than the SEC requires with regard to private entities that are 

filed with that organization. 

And certainly as the Administrator pointed out, any cooperative 

that borrows from the Rural Utility Service also is subject to the 

rules and regulations governing the loans made by the Rural Utility Service. That has been the case for many years, and it was 

pointed out to me that the Rural Utility Service even still today 

has authority, if they so wish and find it necessary, particularly if 

the loan is in jeopardy, to remove the manager or even to deny the 

hiring of a particular manager that a board may choose if they find 

that that person does not stand the test as far as protecting the 

government’s investment in the loans. 

And the other point that I would make, Mr. Chairman, along 

those lines is that we have to understand that while I know many 

people in this country look upon electric cooperatives—in fact, 

many of them call them the REAs. I have heard them mention the 

REAs. That is not exactly the way it happened. 

The Federal Government was a lender, made it possible and certainly supported and assisted the local people who did not have 

electric service back in 1937 to come together to, in effect, develop 

their own electric utility and to have the resources necessary to 

build the infrastructure to provide themselves with electric power. 

Franklin Roosevelt made the observation at that time that electric 

power was no longer a luxury in this country. It was a necessity. 

And we think that goes to the heart of affordability, and that is 

what electric cooperatives have been about throughout their history. And they continue to do that today. 

We do have an obligation, of course, to treat every member fairly 

and justly, and the bylaws of each electric cooperative are aimed 

at doing that; the policies of that cooperative as well. 

Are there differences? Certainly that is the case. It is much like 

voting for school boards. We have differences among individuals. 

64

Local politics and personalities come into play in electric cooperatives just like they do the local school board. And certainly there 

is a recognition and an understanding of every officer, whether 

they be a director or manager or staff of electric cooperatives, that 

it is the membership that owns that electric cooperative. And it 

really is theirs. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. English. I just wanted to give 

you a chance to respond to that and let you be aware that there 

have been some serious concerns that have been raised by our colleagues. We want you to get your hands around it and see what 

you can do to make sure that the integrity of the system is maintained. And I know my time has expired, but if the Subcommittee 

would——

Mr. ENGLISH. Could I continue just a minute on that——

The CHAIRMAN. Absolutely, Mr. English. 

Mr. ENGLISH.—Mr. Chairman? There is one other point that 

needs to be understood here, and we all see this. I know whenever 

I was taking civics in high school, I studied our form of government. When I came to Washington as a Member of Congress, I 

didn’t find that our government operated exactly the way the civics 

books laid it out. Whenever you have all these different personalities together, when you got people involved, it took some twists 

and turns, and it didn’t always operate the way it should. And it 

didn’t always operate as smoothly as it should. That is the rule 

with people. 

And I would suggest that you have to look at the governance of 

electric cooperative much in the same way. These are people who 

are elected by the same folks that elect Members of Congress and 

state legislators and those same school board members. And the 

people that they elect to those offices all have different capabilities, 

and in some cases, differing degrees of integrity. And we have certainly seen that in every elected body, all the way from the highest 

levels of our government down to the lowest. 

And you run into people from time to time that go astray, stub 

their toe, do some things that they probably shouldn’t. But the system that we have, whether it is our system of governance or whether it is the system of governance within electric cooperatives, 

works. And that is what we have seen take place, certainly in 

Texas with Perdenales. We saw it take place with regard to the coop down in Alabama, and we have seen numerous other instances 

around the country throughout the history of this program. The 

membership takes care of those kinds of problems. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay, Mr. English, getting back to the original 

purpose of the hearing. If you are restricted from borrowing from 

RUS because of the baseload generation problem that we are facing 

right now, would you be able to seek private financing? And would 

it be your intention to do that for coal-fired plants? 

Mr. ENGLISH. Well, our members are going to do whatever they 

can to try to meet the requirements of our members, to try to provide them the electric power they need and try to keep those electric bills as low as they can. They are going to look at all the options that they have before them. I think there is a real question 

as we move forward and we anticipate, as I said, some kind of climate change legislation is going to be passing in the next year or 

65

two. And obviously whatever is done is going to have to be done 

in recognition of that and dealing within those parameters. 

But we are going to be taking whichever option tries to keep 

those electric bills as low as we possibly can. It is going to be a 

heck of a challenge. 

What I have a greater fear of, Mr. Chairman, is whether we are 

going to be able to provide the amount of electric power the country 

is going to need. I think that there was a mention of NERC and 

their study that they came forward with. There is a real possibility 

and likelihood, in fact, that in the next 5 to 6 years we are going 

to see rolling blackouts in this country because of the inadequate 

amount of power. And, it very well could happen in areas served 

by electric cooperatives. 

And, that is the real challenge. The country needs to come together and certainly the Congress needs to reconcile our objectives 

with regard to climate change with this 118 gigawatts of power 

that is going to be necessary in the next 10 years before we are 

able to have carbon capture and storage and bring coal back into, 

fully into play and being a major player as far as the deal. 

The CHAIRMAN. But private financing is available for your members? 

Mr. ENGLISH. It is. It is going to cost us more. It means electric 

bills are going to be higher than they would otherwise be, and 

quite frankly, we have a little bit of difficulty understanding this. 

What started out as a fiscal problem, the Office of Management 

and Budget, said, ‘‘Hey, we are not charging enough as far as interest on baseload generation loans. Therefore you can’t do anything, 

make any more until we make this correction, this adjustment.’’

We agreed and said, ‘‘Okay, charge more on interest for baseload 

generation, and we will gladly pay it.’’ That is what was contained 

in the farm bill and unfortunately got knocked out. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Lucas. 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I certainly would be 

remiss, Mr. Chairman, if I didn’t note coming from the great State 

of Oklahoma where one million of our 31⁄2 million Oklahomans, are 

members, are family members, of co-op participants, literally 28 coops. Oklahoma is an example of the 1937 Act because, quite simply, the reason we have so many people who are co-op members 

and consumers of co-op electricity is we were a poor state, and nobody wanted to come there and invest the money. And had it not 

been for the 1937 Act, we might still be sitting in the dark, many 

of us. 

So it has served its purpose, and I offer that as a disclaimer acknowledging the nature of my state and how successful the program has been. 

These hearings, to our friends on the panel who perhaps have 

not participated before, are very educational in that we occasionally educate each other. You provide insights. We build the record. 

We move forward and make decisions based on that, and I am very 

pleased that the Chairman gave an opportunity to address some 

very interesting public comments about the nature of co-ops. 

And I would note, for the record, my observations to my friend 

from Kansas, that certain decisions were made above and beyond 

the station of this Committee that very much affected the jurisdicVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:47 Jul 31, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\110-46\51336.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
66

tion of this Committee. And when the language that would have 

basically put RUS back into base generation loaning capacity, when 

that language was stripped out, it had a very definitive effect on 

our folks back home. 

With that, addressing that if you would once again, Mr. English, 

observe if we don’t give co-ops the maximum number of opportunities in which to generate new capacity to produce that capacity, repeat one more time for the record what folks out in rural areas can 

expect in the near future. 

Mr. ENGLISH. Well, this is true, not just with regard to electric 

cooperatives, I think there is a real question whether the industry 

is going to be able to meet the demands and the need. We have 

been living with a surplus of generation for the last 25 years, and 

that has enabled us to keep electric bills low. That is not going to 

be the case in the future. 

The best case scenario may be that we are going to have very big 

increases, big spikes, in electric bills much like we have seen in 

gasoline. We are very fearful we are going to have a large number 

of our members who are not going to be able to pay their electric 

bills, not going to be able to afford that electricity that Franklin 

Roosevelt was talking about being a necessity. And we are not 

going to be able to achieve that goal. 

But certainly it is going to cost more on the electric bills in acquiring money on the open market as opposed to, obviously, money 

that is loaned to us through the Rural Utility Service. 

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. James, if we take all these other options off the 

table, and I serve with a number of people who would say that conservation is the key. Let prices go high, which will drive the market in the other direction, whether it is gasoline or electricity. Let 

us force people to make the move. Can we conserve ourselves? 

Mr. JAMES. Well, what we would say is that it is a question of 

the cost of producing energy or using energy in the economy. You 

can choose different strategies which are going to be a lot more expensive to commerce and business with a given amount of energy. 

Conservation, over-reliance on one technology, and I would include 

others including conservation in that, will generate a higher cost 

than a balanced portfolio. 

Mr. LUCAS. So does that go back to what Mr. English is talking 

about? If we push the conservation or any particular area with that 

kind of intensity and we raise cost, there is an adverse effect on 

the poorer part of our society or the less economically advantaged 

part of our society? 

Mr. JAMES. I would say electricity prices would go up. 

Mr. LUCAS. Nobody wants to sweat in the summertime in Oklahoma——

Mr. JAMES. That is right. 

Mr. LUCAS.—when it can get very hot. So there will be an adverse effect on those least able to pay those costs reflecting that 

agenda? 

Mr. JAMES. Unless we try to find an optimum portfolio, reduce 

the impact of building new generation and meeting emissions constraints. 

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Nichols, I was very impressed with the tour that 

the Agriculture Committee took to Minnesota last year or year beVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:47 Jul 31, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\110-46\51336.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
67

fore. Very impressed. But it sounds—just very impressed. That is 

the best way I should leave that description. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing. I appreciate——

Mr. NICHOLS. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, the gentleman from 

Oklahoma. I had a group from Oklahoma that came to my wind 

farm about 10 days ago. Great independent oil producers. Great 

people. And I learned so much from them. First of all, 70 percent, 

almost 80 percent of the oil exploration in America is done by the 

independents. The big companies—and I have that handout here—

they don’t spend their money. Exxon Mobile isn’t investing in exploration. They are just handing it out to their stockholders. 

And these little producers, they are our future. They would like 

to get into wind energy because you have it in Oklahoma, as you 

well know, Congressman. The problem is in the oil industry, their 

tax credit doesn’t expire every 2 years. So they are trying to figure 

out how to deal with this tax credit that expires every 2 years. 

And when I get home, Mr. Chairman, several projects came to 

see me yesterday because they heard I was going to be here. We 

have so many projects pending. What they want to know is do you 

think Congress will do anything with the PTC? So I know I will 

be faced with that tomorrow morning, those questions. And I know 

it is hard for you to answer those questions with the Senate over 

there, but we talk about the shortage, Glenn. 

It takes 1 day to build a wind turbine. You know you can build 

100 megawatts in 100 days. And if you have three cranes, you can 

build it in 30 days. 

With the REA co-ops, and I am a co-op member, when the wind 

is blowing you don’t run the water over the dam because a lot of 

our power comes from the Missouri River. So the REA co-ops—and 

we don’t ask for any loans or any of those guarantees or anything. 

The wind industry doesn’t want any of that. All they need is some 

stability so we could buy the turbines in America, Mr. Chairman. 

And tens of thousands of megawatts could go up very, very quickly. 

We need to build 500,000 wind turbines, which would be the 

same as the 500,000 oil wells we now have. And then we could get 

out of this crisis between the wind and the oil from the independent producers, biodiesel, ethanol mostly, and natural gas. We 

wouldn’t need to import from the Arabs anymore. 

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Nichols, I wholeheartedly appreciate what you 

are saying and as a proponent of all forms of American energy, stability in the tax credits so the wind people could count on it, access 

to punching holes everywhere where it is environmentally sound 

and resources may be, I am a proponent of that. I am a great proponent of all renewables. I watch the no-ethanol stickers now appearing on the gas pumps in Oklahoma. Someone is pushing back 

on us. 

But the bottom line is we need all sources of American energy 

to meet American needs. But we face challenges. Just as Ways and 

Means wants to dole out or dribble out the tax credit, just as certain people don’t want us to be able to have all of the options for 

baseload generation, we face some internal problems here. 

But as our friend, Mr. English said, it is not exactly the way the 

civics books implied the system would work, but it is the best sysVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:47 Jul 31, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\110-46\51336.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
68

tem on Earth. And all of us together will continue to work until 

we achieve what is in the best interest of our folks back home. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay, I thank the gentleman. The gentlewoman 

from South Dakota. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Nichols, 

I am a neighbor of yours if not——

Mr. NICHOLS. I know your father. I have never met you, and glad 

to now say hi to you, your father is a great guy. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you. He has shared with me some 

of what you have been doing and the potential that has for my constituents in South Dakota. And I agree with you that the Midwest, 

including South Dakota, Minnesota, other states, has an important 

role to play in developing wind energy to serve the nation’s needs. 

And I also appreciate what you have to say about how we have 

structured the production tax credit. Not just our inability for the 

multi-year extensions, but how we have structured it to benefit 

larger developers rather than the community-based energy development that you have been able to facilitate across the border in Minnesota more effectively than we have. 

You know today I am introducing legislation that you may be 

aware of with my colleague, Mr. Fortenberry, who is also a Member 

of this Committee. He is from Nebraska. That is intended to support community wind generation similar to the 11⁄2 megawatt turbine on your property, and it would target projects in the range of 

5 to 20 megawatts. The bill would prevent the so-called production 

tax credit haircut that you are probably familiar with, in which 

under current PTC rules, the value of the farm bill REAP Grant 

can be reduced by as much as 50 percent when local farmers and 

cooperate partners join together on these projects. 

And the haircut reduces the capital investment then for local 

producers and what they can bring to the project and lowers the 

value of the PTC to the corporate investor and delays the time at 

which the ownership flips back. In the case that I know that many 

folks in Minnesota have been able to flip that ownership back to 

the local owner. 

On the question of transmission, however, I mean there is a reason that Minnesota, which, in all due respect, does not have the 

same potential wind resource that we have in South Dakota. You 

have good wind. We have great wind. There is a reason——

Mr. NICHOLS. You do. That is correct. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN.—you are far ahead of us in developing 

wind, and that is the issue of transmission. So I am interested in 

hearing your thoughts on how we can enhance the transmission capacity to transport all of this clean, renewable energy resource to 

other parts of the country. 

Mr. NICHOLS. Thank you, Congresswoman, and first of all, for 

the rest of the Members, I brought this, and thank you for this. 

The projects that are stalemated in South Dakota because of the 

PTC, and I am right on the border. So some of the people who will 

come to see me tomorrow are going to be South Dakota people, and 

I appreciate what are you trying to do there. And you have worked 

hard on that. 

69

The transmission issue, we built a lot of transmission in Minnesota, but the map here, it is a color map, and you are familiar 

with that. If Congress would just move forward with the Department of Energy plan for 20 percent by 2030, that is all you have 

to do. 

Now, we can’t quite do it as a state, and the beauty of this—and 

I have spent most of my life in South Dakota. You got a great wind 

resource. You don’t have many people there. Your market is not in 

South Dakota for your wind. Your market is in Los Angeles is the 

first big market that desperately needs it. And this is crop that you 

can grow in South Dakota and deliver instantly to your customers 

in Los Angeles. 

These transmission lines are not expensive. They are, I mean relatively compared to a road, much cheaper. And they are a farmto-market road. And people say we don’t have a corridor. And what 

kind of baloney is that? Every road ditch is a corridor. We have 

hundreds and thousands of miles of road ditches, and that is where 

we build. So we have the corridors. You just need to move forward 

with this transmission plan. 

And great engineers from all the utilities put it together. This is 

designed, and it will work, and it will deliver the power from where 

the wind is, the Midwest, your state, to the customers that need 

it around the nation. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Just a quick follow-up question. In your 

opinion, do you think that to get Department of Energy’s plan with 

the transmission map that they have laid out——

Mr. NICHOLS. Yes. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Do you think that needs to be an investment of, the estimates are about $70 billion that Congress makes 

directly? Or do you think that there will be enough money in the 

private market to meet that need and to build it on the timeframe 

that we need to have it? Or do you think it needs to be a publicprivate approach? 

Mr. NICHOLS. I think it needs to be public-private in this respect, 

and you have already done that in so many ways. You have just 

bailed out the Fannie Maes and the Freddie Macs. Loan guarantees would move this thing forward just immediately. The problem 

is the utilities, we don’t reach across state lines, as you well know, 

Congresswoman. So it is very hard to do it state by state because 

how do we in Minnesota, how do you in South Dakota figure out 

a way to get your power to Los Angeles where they really need it? 

So loan guarantees would immediately solve that problem, and 

that would be my plea to you on that. It will be paid for with a 

user fee because the power is produced so cheaply on your farms 

in South Dakota. You know it is 14¢ a kilowatt hour in Los Angeles for electricity. I am producing it on my farm for 3.3¢. 

You know there is a market out there. We just got to get it there. 

Now, I am lucky in Minnesota because we have created our market 

with our own state mandate which is 25 percent. But in your state, 

even if you had a mandate, you don’t have enough people. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. That is why we have at-large members 

in South Dakota and North Dakota. Thank you, Mr. Nichols. 

Mr. NICHOLS. Thank you. 

70

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Just a quick question for Congressman 

English. You focused on the need to assist low-income individuals 

in part of your testimony with energy efficiency efforts. And my understanding of that is 90 percent of the cooperative members are 

residential accounts, and that totals nearly 60 percent of co-op electricity sales. So obviously there is a large potential here as it relates to efficiency savings to be found. 

Now, one of the leading co-op efficiency efforts has been the installation of advanced metering infrastructure to improve load 

monitoring and control. And as you know, a Congressionally-directed Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff report in 2006 

concluded that rural electric cooperatives showed the highest rate 

of market penetration of advanced metering at nearly 13 percent, 

double the overall national rate. 

Two questions: To what do you attribute the higher rate for rural 

electric co-ops? And what are the key steps to increase the installation of AMI nationwide? 

Mr. ENGLISH. The first thing would be because we are owned by 

our members, and that is where our focus is, and that is where our 

concern is. It is those electric bills that we are trying to deal with. 

The second one comes down to the issue that basically this has 

to be a national commitment. It has to be a recognition, an understanding, a determination by, quite frankly, the United States Government that we are not going to go backwards. That we are, in 

fact, going to make certain that the observation made by Franklin 

Roosevelt in 1936 continues into the future. That we are not willing to let our citizens, a large portion of our citizens, be without 

what we regard as a necessity in this country and downgrade the 

quality of life and standard of living for our citizens. I think this 

is a fundamental principle, and if we are not careful, I am afraid 

we are going to step back into that reality without really making 

any kind of decision that that is where we wanted to go. 

And if I could add very, very quickly, the one thing is not going 

to be financing in my opinion with regard to the transmission line, 

and I think that Secretary Nichols and I agree on this. We need 

it. It is going to be sited, and there is going to be a lot of political—

the political price is going to be far greater, quite frankly, than 

what it is going to take to build it. But that is what we are going 

to have to do. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. I appreciate you making that point, and 

I thank the Chairman for the additional time. As you know, that 

additional but limited authority we gave FERC in 2005 has been 

under assault repeatedly, and we need not only to retain that authority, but to enhance it, if we are going to effectively site the corridors. Yes, in certain parts of the country they may already be 

there, but we already know from certain pushback that we are getting, certain areas of what DOE has identified in that map may be 

problematic if we don’t have the authority that FERC needs to do 

so, understanding that states and local communities and tribes 

need to be consulted and have a say. But the authority needs to 

be there to move forward; otherwise, the timetable will be slowed 

down dramatically. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. The gentleman from Kansas. 

71

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I appreciate the panel’s 

testimony. It’s been an interesting morning. I am fearful that we 

are headed down the path. We are spending a lot of time here in 

Congress today and weeks to come and weeks in the past on the 

cost of energy, as our constituents visit with us, in almost every 

conversation about the price of fuel at the pump. 

And it appears to me, based upon your testimony, but what I just 

intuitively know, what common sense tells me, is that we are in 

the process of creating similar circumstances for our customers of 

electricity. My fear is that, as we have done in gasoline, in the 

price of diesel, in the fears and concerns and consequences that we 

have today in our energy costs, that we waited too long to address 

the issue. And we are playing catch up as we try to solve this problem. 

I would love to be assured by any or all of you that there is some 

effort, industry-wide, government officials, the Department of Energy, that someone has a plan. The Congressman indicates that we 

may want to involve the Federal Government in nuclear power, 

and it does appear to me that probably almost no companies are 

capable of investing the resources necessary to build a nuclear 

power plant. But is there some place within the Federal Government, within the industry, that we are actually planning to meet 

this country’s future needs for electricity? 

Mr. NICHOLS. Can I——

Mr. MORAN. Yes, sir, Mr. Nichols. 

Mr. NICHOLS. Mr. Chairman, I was in your state many times. I 

was the manager of your wind farms when I worked for Vestas, the 

largest wind company in the world. You have a great wind resource, and I know that the power purchase price from those wind 

turbines was very low. 

So when they talk about—and we all hear the same thing—the 

price of gas. When they talk about what is going to happen to energy, wind energy is cheap energy, and you have a lot of it. And 

the cost of a turbine, it is all debt service. You know, the rest of 

it is—the wind is free, and there isn’t much maintenance. 

If we could build these in Kansas so we could buy them in American dollars, and if we could get some competition into this, we get 

the price of these turbines back to where they always were, which 

was $1 a watt, $1 million a megawatt. And that is what the Garden City, Montezuma, and all those down there, I was part of that. 

That was very low-cost energy for the consumers, and we need to 

move forward with the plug-in hybrids, Mr. Chairman. 

And we need more oil exploration. We need to find more in 

America. It is in Kansas, and it is in Texas and Oklahoma. And 

the little oil producers can do that. We are going to need nuclear 

power. Let us admit that. 

We are going to need every source of power that we can get, but 

we need to get away from importing the oil from the Arabs that 

are going to jack up the price to $200 a barrel. They have told us 

what they are going to do. We know what they are going to do to 

us. And we need to produce it on our own, and so the plan again, 

the Department of Energy plan, is 20 percent by 2030. It is right 

there. 

72

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Secretary, I understand what you just said and 

believe what you just said. I recognize the importance of wind in 

Kansas and across the country. I am pleased that we have the industry that we do. It is growing. Facilities that you are talking 

about have contemplated expansion. 

Mr. NICHOLS. Yes, they are. 

Mr. MORAN. And in addition to that, we have a couple companies 

that are seriously looking at locations in Kansas to build turbines. 

That would be, based upon what you suggest, would be a wonderful 

development. 

Mr. NICHOLS. Yes. 

Mr. MORAN. My question is it just seems to me that we are—

there is no clear direction. There is no plan. There is no strategy. 

We simply respond hodge-podge. I don’t know how a utility company could make a decision about investing in wind based upon the 

inability for Congress, for example, to pass a tax credit encouraging 

that development. And if we do pass one, pass it with such short 

timeframe that no business can make an intelligent decision about 

what the future holds. 

Mr. NICHOLS. Two years is worthless. 

Mr. MORAN. And so I guess the point I would make perhaps just 

rhetorically, because my time is about to expire, is that I am fearful that the Department of Energy, Congress, the administrative 

branch, the Legislative Branch of Congress, and perhaps the industry itself needs to respond with—this is the challenge. 

And I think it is important for you all—Mr. English’s comments 

about the demands and what they mean for consumers. I think 

that is an important story to tell. There is a belief that electricity 

prices, if they go up, it is like the comment that I read in the 

paper, doubling energy prices in Kansas is a wonderful thing. Well, 

I represent lots of Kansans who struggle today certainly to pay 

their gas bill, their electric bill, their grocery bill, their doctor bill. 

Doubling energy prices is not a good thing for many people who 

struggle today and will struggle even more. 

And so the story about the demand, the growing demand for energy, is one that has to be told. But I also think that once the story 

is known, once the facts are there, I would love to see a more serious and concerted effort, a much more aggressive approach to the 

idea of filling that demand in an environmentally sound manner. 

And I would support conservation. It is a combination of things 

that we all can come together, and yet in the circumstances we find 

ourselves in, we are headed down the same path of responding too 

late to meet our country’s needs. 

The gentlewoman from South Dakota is not in the room, but I 

am interested in her legislation. I would encourage her to visit with 

me about it. Because wind energy is an opportunity not just for the 

large production facilities that you mentioned in your comments, 

Mr. Nichols, but for communities, community colleges, businesses, 

families, to decide this is an opportunity for us to help meet our 

own and therefore the country’s energy needs. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. JAMES. Mr. Chairman, may I offer a——

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Mr. JAMES.—add a comment on his question? 

73

The CHAIRMAN. Sure. 

Mr. JAMES. What I would just like to say is that the industry certainly has been trying to develop a coherent technology strategy 

based on which it can move forward and minimize electricity costs, 

the growth and costs and we go forward. And the thing I would 

just ask the Committee to consider is that one option is always 

looking for cheaper technologies, looking for a technology that exists today that can generate electricity in cheaper costs. 

The other option is improving technology so you can reduce the 

cost of promising technologies so they can produce cheaply. That 

we work together to develop a portfolio of technologies and a development plan with research and demonstration projects to develop 

those technologies. And we are working with essentially the entire 

industry on those technologies and have been now for several 

years. 

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, may I briefly respond? Just a 

thought, and I don’t know a lot about this topic, but I do know that 

the land-grant universities have had a tremendous impact upon the 

efficiencies of agriculture in this country. And what you suggest, 

Mr. James, is very appealing to me. There may be great opportunity with government-private partnerships to advance research 

that moves us in the direction of greater efficiencies, higher technology, and less consumption. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The chair thanks the gentleman. 

Mr. NICHOLS. Mr. Chairman, can I just say one thing about the 

cost, Congressman, because the great thing about electricity it is a 

regulated industry. I don’t have to worry in Minnesota if I have a 

plug-in hybrid, when I plug it in that Xcel Energy or the REAs or 

any of them are going to jack up the rates. They can’t. 

You know most of these haven’t had a rate increase in 10 and 

20 years. And the great thing about that is if the cost of the turbine is too high, Xcel Energy won’t sign a contract, and rightly so. 

They just say our consumers can’t pay this, nor should they. We 

got to drive the cost down with American manufacturing. 

So the fact that it is regulated solves a lot of those problems. You 

don’t have to worry about that price, and that is not something 

Congress has to worry about. The states have to control that. All 

you have to do is adopt the plan of the Department of Energy and 

make it the law. It is going to be 20 percent by 2030. That is the 

law, and we are going to build this transmission system, and we 

are going to have a tax credit that goes more than 2 years. And 

that is all you got to do. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. NICHOLS. It is simple. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Mr. James, what is 

the biggest impediment to carbon sequestration? 

Mr. JAMES. Well, okay, carbon sequestration is the storage of carbon. Technically I would say the biggest impediment is demonstration at large scale. We have experience in storing carbon at smaller 

scales, enhanced oil and gas recovery. Although those projects are 

not really designed to store carbon for long periods of time. We 

know what it is like to inject into the ground. 

What we haven’t done is had experience with injecting and storing and monitoring over a long period of time millions of tons of 

74

CO2, which is the scale of CO2 you would expect from an ordinary 

coal plant, for example. So demonstrations of these projects at large 

scale is what is needed. 

The CHAIRMAN. You know it is hard to imagine that we could put 

a man on the Moon 8 years after President Kennedy said we are 

going to, and then people are talking about 20 to 25 years before 

we have the ability to store carbon in large quantities. It is hard 

to understand. 

Mr. JAMES. Well, I——

Mr. CHAMPAGNE. Mr. Chairman, if I could add something to that. 

In the Future Generation Alliance, and PPL was part of that, was 

the effort that started by this Administration, supported by the 

Congress to really demonstrate on a large commercial scale. We 

were going to sequester over a million tons a year for a long period 

of time. 

And the industry was really looking at that project as kind of the 

milestone to say does this work on a commercial scale. It was going 

to integrate many technologies that are going to be necessary to 

demonstrate it. 

In addition to the technical issues that Mr. James recognized, 

there are other issues that are needing to be addressed. One of the 

biggest ones is how you deal with the liability issues of putting 

that amount of carbon dioxide underground. You know, people may 

think it is an inert gas, but it is not. And you really have to look 

at what will you do to ensure that companies will want to make 

that kind of investment to deal with the fact that that stuff is 

going to have to be there, essentially, forever. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Champagne, I did not forget about you, and 

I should know the answer to this question. But does Pennsylvania 

have a renewable portfolio standard in place? 

Mr. CHAMPAGNE. Yes, there is a standard in the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania, and we are participating in that. It has several 

tiers. It supports not only the traditional renewables like wind, 

solar, biomass, and landfill gas. But they are also looking at waste, 

coal technologies, and hydro and other demand-side response. 

The CHAIRMAN. How is the implementation of that moving? 

Mr. CHAMPAGNE. I think it is moving forward very well. I think 

you are seeing the technology starting to come. There has been a 

significant amount of wind energy in the state. There has also been 

a biomass and landfill gas push, and we are actively participating 

in it. And I think it is a good program. 

The CHAIRMAN. In your written testimony, you talk about your 

plans at Berwick for your nuclear expansion. Can you just elaborate on how that is proceeding as well? 

Mr. CHAMPAGNE. Yes, we have roughly a 2,500 megawatt two 

unit facility at the Berwick site. We are looking to put a third unit 

in the vicinity of that site. We are in the process of preparing the 

combined operating application. We have joined with the UniStar 

Nuclear Consortium, which is made up of Constellation Energy out 

of Baltimore and the big French utility, EDF. And we are very encouraged by what we have seen so far in terms of moving forward 

on that with the NRC. 

I think one of the things that we are very concerned about is the level of loan guarantees. The Congress has appropriated $18.5 bilVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:47 Jul 31, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\110-46\51336.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
75

lion worth of loan guarantees. We think that is sufficient for maybe 

one or two, maybe three at most, units to be built in the country. 

So if there is going to be a nuclear renaissance, loan guarantees 

are going to be very important in seeing that renaissance happen, 

we are going to need additional support for that loan guarantee 

program. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, the chair thanks the panel for their testimony and for the cooperation with the question-and-answer session 

that we had. I think it has been very, very productive and informing. 

Under the rules of the Committee, the record of today’s hearing 

will remain open for 10 days to receive additional material and 

supplementary written responses from witnesses to any question 

posed by a Member of the panel. This hearing of the Subcommittee 

on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]

76

77

SUBMITTED QUESTIONS

Response from Hon. James M. ‘‘Jim’’ Andrew, Administrator, Rural Development Utilities Programs, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 

Question 1. Can you explain your regulatory responsibility over rural cooperatives? What is the difference between your role and the role of FERC? 

Answer. Rural Electric Cooperatives are self-regulating and as long as they are 

borrowing from us they, with minor exceptions, are exempt from FERC regulation. 

Cooperatives are owned by their member/consumers who elect a Board of Directors 

that govern their activities. USDA is a lender and as long as the cooperatives are 

complying with their mortgage and loan contract requirements, USDA only monitors 

financial soundness, periodic reviews of operations and management and compliance 

with other Federal statutes. 

In reviewing loan applications USDA does review and approve long range financial forecasts, load forecast (demand for electricity) and the engineering plans and 

specifications, but does not serve as a regulatory body.

Question 2. Can you please describe the electric portfolio at USDA? What kind 

of loans and guarantees do you provide? Are cooperatives your only customers? 

Answer. The outstanding loan portfolio is over $35 billion, composed primarily of 

loans to distribution and generation and transmission cooperatives. We have also 

made a few loans to municipally owned utility systems, Native American Tribes, 

and U.S. territories over the years and recently have begun to finance renewable 

energy applications from private developers. Applications from private developers 

will necessitate evaluation of the subsidy rate to determine if the financial risk is 

materially different than financing similar cooperative sponsored projects.

Question 3. How many rural cooperatives currently borrow from RUS? Are you 

starting to see a trend toward rural cooperatives going to private financing instead 

of RUS? If so, why? 

Answer. We have about 617 active distribution borrowers and 57 generation and 

transmission borrowers. We are seeing some distribution borrowers that bought out 

of the program in the 1990s return to the program and more are discussing returning. Some Generation and Transmission borrowers, those with ratings, have 

accessed private capital for a number of years for a portion of their needs and more 

are considering that route due to the fact that financing of baseload generations is 

not currently available through the Electric Program. One Generation and Transmission Cooperative bought out of the program last year joining a few others that 

had previously bought out of the program. 

USDA has had periods in which there were insufficient funds to meet the demand 

for loan funds resulting in 2 years or longer before applications could be funded. 

That is one reason some borrowers left the program. Presently, the inability to finance baseload generation is the reason the generation and transmission cooperatives are looking to commercial capital to finance their needs.

Question 4. The ‘‘once a borrower, always a borrower’’ has come under fire due 

to some bad actors in the system. How does RUS follow up with a borrower to make 

sure the facility stays in compliance with regulation, and does not become a bad 

actor? 

Answer. We employ General Field Representatives that visit the borrowers frequently to assist with applications, construction work plans load forecasts, and long 

range financial forecasts, and to conduct operational and management reviews. We 

also require annual audits of financial statements and periodically conduct loan 

fund reviews to ensure the funds borrowed are used for approved purposes. Additionally, borrowers are required to submit independent annual audits of financial 

operations. Further, we conduct annual financial analyses to determine if borrowers 

may be in technical default, and if so, we work with the borrower to develop a corrective action plan. None of the recently publicized ‘‘bad actor’’ co-ops are Electric 

Program Borrowers.

Question 5. What stipulations come with being a RUS borrower? For example, 

what regulations must a customer follow? 

Answer. USDA has a very comprehensive set of regulations designed to protect 

loan security. But, the compelling piece is the mortgage which provides that the 

Agency has first lien on all of the borrower’s assets, including assets that may be 

required in the future. Additionally, borrowers cannot dispose of assets without our 

approval. USDA approves all contracts for construction and monitors the expenditure of all loan funds and to some extent the use of general funds.

Question 6. You mention renewable portfolio standards (RPS) in your testimony, 

and that 26 states including the District of Columbia have RPS standards. Are 

78

these standards fairly similar or are there big differences in state law and implementation? 

Answer. There is some commonality among the standards, but there are differences in terms of the percentage of demand requirement and the effective date.

State Renewable Portfolio Standards 

State Requirement Effective Year 

Arizona 15% 2025

California 20% 2010

Colorado 20% 2020

Connecticut 23% 2020

District of Columbia 11% 2022

Delaware 20% 2019

Hawaii 20% 2020

Iowa 105 megawatts 

Illinois 25% 2025

Massachusetts 4% 2009

Maryland 9.5% 2022

Maine 10% 2017

Minnesota 25% 2025

Missouri * 11% 2020

Montana 15% 2015

New Hampshire 16% 2025

New Jersey 22.5% 2021

New Mexico 20% 2020

Nevada 20% 2015

New York 24% 2013

North Carolina ** 12.5% 2021

Oregon 25% 2025

Pennsylvania 18% 2020

Rhode Island 15% 2020

Texas 5,580 megawatts 2015

Utah * 20% 2025

Vermont * 10% 2013

Washington 15% 2020

Wisconsin 10% 2015

* Missouri, Virginia and Vermont have set voluntary goals with binding targets. 

** North Carolina has specific targets for wind and biomass within the Standard. 

Question 7. Can you please provide a breakdown of baseload generation loans 

made over the past 10 years? When, where, and to whom were these loans made? 

Answer. See the Table below:

Borrower Approval 

Date 

Amount 

for

Generation 

Capacity 

in Mega 

Watts 

Comments 

East Kentucky Power Cooperative 09/23/2003 $413,753,000 268 Gilbert Plant 

East Texas Electric Cooperative 06/17/2004 $79,403,000 182 Ownership in three Entergy 

units 

Cornbelt Electric Cooperative 08/12/2004 $65,395,000 42 5.6% of Council Bluff Plant 

Central Iowa Power Cooperative 08/12/2004 $89,923,000 60 8.0% of Council Bluff Plant 

Dairyland Power Cooperative 09/07/2005 $280,000,000 150 30% of Westin Plant #4

East Kentucky Power Cooperative 02/23/2006 $481,388,000 278 Spurlock #4 Plant 

Question 8. On average, how long does it take to build a new generation plant? 

Answer. Assuming you are referring to baseload generation, it can take 8 to 12 

years for planning, permitting and construction. The construction phase of a new 

baseload plant can take 4 years. This is true of projects developed by Investor 

Owned Utilities (IOUs) as well.

Question 9. What do you see as the role of the RUS in the next decade and beyond? Are rural areas growing in their use of electric power? 

Answer. I see the primary role as continuing to meet the financing needs of the 

rural electric cooperatives. Rural areas, just like the rest of the country, are experiencing increasing demand for electricity and they are dependent on the financing 

available through USDA Rural Development to enable them to provide safe, reliable 

79

and affordable electricity. We will continue to provide the same services we have 

been providing for decades, plus assisting in more renewable energy projects as well 

as energy efficiency and demand side management. 

In addition, as mentioned in my written statement, we are also planning to assist 

Basin Electric Cooperative in North Dakota in adding CO2 capture technology to an 

existing coal fired plant. This particular technology has, on a small scale, demonstrated a 90% capture of CO2. Our objective is to further the implementation of 

clean coal technologies. We will also continue to examine other opportunities to further this and other clean coal technologies.

Question 10. No one disputes the role of the REA in energizing rural America. 

With some 95 percent of the nation having access to electric power, where do you 

see the need for the Agency exists? 

Answer. There are several needs: (1) financing the replacement of aging infrastructure, some of the infrastructure has been in place for over 50 years and we 

view this as a high risk; (2) financing the renewable energy resources the cooperatives and other developers are engaged in; (3) financing the transmission infrastructure needed to move renewable energy to the grid; (4) continuing to finance improvements to existing generation systems, environmental controls, and peaking and intermediate generation facilities, and financing energy efficiency and demand side 

management in efforts to reduce the need for new generation plants; and (5) resumption of financing baseload generation plants. 

Rural electric cooperatives are committed to the goal of reducing greenhouse gas 

emissions from existing and new generation facilities and Rural Development is 

equally committed to assisting generation cooperatives meet these challenges. 

Electric Cooperatives are still rural, averaging seven customers per mile of line. 

They also serve 90 percent residential member/owners with low load factors. For 

both reasons, they depend on low interest, long term financing to be financially feasible.

Question 11. In the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008, Congress directed 

USDA to do a study on rural electric power generation. What is the progress of that 

study and when do you expect to be able to deliver it to the Committee. 

Answer. The report was delivered to the House and Senate Committees on August 

25th, 2008.

Question 12. What is the breakdown of fuel feedstock for electric generation for 

electric cooperatives? Can you tell us how this compares with national figures? 

Answer. Rural Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperatives own 160 generating units totaling 38,604 MegaWatts of generation capacity of which roughly 59% 

is from coal fired steam plants. About 6% represents partial ownership in nuclear 

plants and about 32% is primarily gas fired peaking or intermediate units. In the 

rest of the industry coal provides about 49%, natural gas 20%, Nuclear about 20% 

Hydro about 7% and other renewables about 2%.

Question 13. A corresponding aspect to generation is the transmission of electric 

power. Has RUS done any analysis of the transmission demands? If this is a pending study, when can we expect for it to be finished? 

Answer. We have developed an analysis of regional transmission needs. We are 

in the process of final evaluation of the recommendations within the Department 

and will soon be discussing the findings with DOE, FERC and other Federal agencies later this Fall.

Question 14. What is RUS doing in the area of renewable electric power? Do you 

encourage ‘‘green power’’ and if so, how? What are the limitations for developing 

more renewable power? 

Answer. We have had an administrative policy since 2001 of setting aside $200 

million annually for renewable energy projects and offered priority processing of renewable applications. We have made about $140 million in loans for renewable 

projects and are now facing a potential demand of well over $1 billion. 

The most significant limitation today is the lack of transmission capacity to move 

renewable energy to the grid and the lack of capacity on the grid. Some projects 

have also been slow to materialize due to the uncertainty of the Production Tax 

Credit.

Question 15. What are the major differences between building a renewable facility 

versus one with traditional feedstocks? Are there any special considerations? If so, 

what are they? 

Answer. One major difference would be that some renewable projects are new 

technologies, which means that we must satisfy ourselves that the technology will 

perform as advertised and at the cost advertised. Wind is a proven technology and 

we have little concern with the technology, but we have to be very sure the wind 

80

regime will support the investment and transmission capacity sufficient to distribute this output. With regard to other technologies such as using waste wood as 

the fuel, we need to ascertain that there is a dependable source of the fuel to support a long term investment. Otherwise the process is essentially the same. Some 

applicants are not our traditional borrowers which require the staff to do a comprehensive analysis on the structure and content of these applications.

Question 16. What has been you program level and budget authority over the past 

several years? How can you provide the program level with low budget authority? 

Answer. The program level for the last few years has ranged between just under 

$4 billion to over $6 billion. The budget authority has been negligible due to negative subsidy rates. The subsidy rate reflects the risk of providing this type of financing, interest rate differentials and other factors. The Electric Program currently has 

a portfolio of over $35 billion with a delinquency rate of less than 1⁄10 of one percent. 

At the present time we have funding only for the hardship program and the Federal 

Financing Bank (FFB) program. The budget authority for the hardship program is 

$120,000 supporting a program level of $100 million. The FFB program, for loan 

purposes other than baseload generation, has a negative subsidy rate requiring no 

budget authority.

Electric Program Funding Levels and Subsidy Rates 

Dollars in Millions 

Fiscal Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Actual Obligations $3,831,803 $4,319,115 $5,389,764 $3,889,767 $6,600,000

Subsidy Rate by Program

Hardship ¥2.33 3.04 0.92 2.14 0.12

Municipal ¥2.42 1.35 5.05 1.51 4.20

Treasury ¥0.06 ¥0.06 0.01 0.01 1.15

FFB ¥1.99 ¥2.23 ¥0.48 ¥1.19 ¥0.70

FFB, Generation N/A N/A N/A 2.11 1.92

Question 17. What is the current delinquency rate among RUS borrowers? How 

does this compare to years past? 

Answer. The current portfolio is over $35 billion. Of that amount, the accounts 

30 days overdue are about .002 percent and the accounts 60 days overdue are negligible. This has been a very consistent pattern for the last several years.

Question 18. What is your current number of employees? How does this compare 

to levels 10 and 20 years ago? What is not getting done today that could be done 

with more employees? 

Answer. The Electric program has an authorized staffing level of 136 full time 

equivalents. Currently about 120 of those positions are filled. Twenty years ago 

there were 350 full time equivalents in the Electric Program. Much of this difference 

in employment has been offset by advances in technology. We do not anticipate a 

need for additional personnel.

Question 19. You mention the plant in North Dakota is in the process of installing 

carbon capture technology at an existing coal fired plant. Is this the first of its kind? 

Have there been any problems or issues with this plant? When do you it will be 

online. 

Answer. I should clarify that Basin is evaluating the technology for use in the 

plant in North Dakota and will be installing it later. The technology was tested 

positively at a much smaller scale at a plant in Ohio. Basin is now taking the technology to a higher level. I believe the target date for being online is 2012.

Response from Cynthia A. Marlette, General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 

Question. Do you know what the annual percentage growth is of electricity use 

in the U.S.? 

Answer. I’m not sure whether the Congressman meant ‘‘growth in electricity use’’ 

or ‘‘growth of electricity production in the U.S.’’ but here is what we put together. 

We will be happy to put our response in a formal letter to the Chairman. Please 

let me know.

Total retail sales of electricity increased 2.1% between 2006 and 2007 based on 

Energy Information Administration (EIA) data.

81

Total electric generation output increased 2.8% between 2006 and 2007 based 

on Edison Electric Institute (EEI) data.

The difference in the growth rates is due to the fact that we’re using EIA for sales 

and EEI for production. 

These numbers may be misleading since both annual sales and output depend on 

weather. To give you an idea how both use and production have grown since the 

turn of the century:

Total retail sales of electricity increased on average 1.4% per year between 2000 

and 2007 based on Energy Information Administration data.

Total electric generation output increased on average 1.8% per year between 

2000 and 2007 based on Edison Electric Institute data.

The annual sales and output statistics are provided below.

EIA Electric Power Monthly—June 2008 Edition 

(Million Kilowatthours) 

Total Retail Sales Through March Growth Rate 

2000 3,421,414

2001 3,394,458 ¥0.8%

2002 3,465,466 2.1%

2003 3,493,734 0.8%

2004 3,547,479 1.5%

2005 3,660,969 3.2%

2006 3,669,919 0.2%

2007 3,748,149 905,503 2.1%

2008 929,506 2.7%

Average annual growth rate 2000 to 2007: 1.4%

Edison Electric Institute Weekly Electric Output Report 

(Million Kilowatthours) 

Total Generation

Output Through 8/2/2008 Growth Rate 

2000 3,639,827

2001 3,620,004 ¥0.5%

2002 3,753,765 3.7%

2003 3,770,332 0.4%

2004 3,853,410 2.2%

2005 3,994,971 3.7%

2006 3,988,870 ¥0.2%

2007 4,100,610 2,411,478 2.8%

2008 2,428,993 0.7%

Average annual growth rate 2000 to 2007: 1.8%

Thanks.

CAROL E. CONNORS,

Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Æ