H5602 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE August 1, 2012 

an international body like the International Telecommunication Union or 

from international trade agreements 

and treaties—and there have been 

many threats to the Internet that have 

been included in our international 

treaties or even sometimes from our 

own government—we need to stand up 

and protect the Internet and the freedom that it embodies. 

We know that the multistakeholder 

approach is critical to the continued 

robust growth of the Internet. We also 

know that the transparent, multistakeholder model has made the Internet such a hugely successful global 

platform for economic growth, human 

rights, and the free flow of information. 

b 1900 

I’m proud to stand with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to say 

that America is going to stand up for 

freedom, we’re going to stand up for 

technology, and we’re not going to 

allow anyone, whatever their intentions may be, to threaten the freedom 

of the Internet to succeed. 

I appreciate Mrs. BONO MACK’s efforts 

in this regard, along with Ms. ESHOO’s, 

and the entire committee. I’m proud to 

be a cosponsor of the measure. I look 

forward to its resounding success in a 

vote tomorrow. 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 

time. 

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, how much 

time do I have? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California has 8 minutes remaining. 

Ms. ESHOO. I’ll just make some closing comments because I don’t have 

anyone else who is here to speak to 

this. 

Mr. Speaker, I think that everyone 

who has spoken has really spoken 

beautifully about this issue, about 

what the Internet represents not only 

to individuals, businesses, students, 

how it has changed how we live, how 

we work, how we learn, and the jobs 

that it has produced, what it has done 

for our national economy, but also 

what it has done relative to exporting 

democracy. Of course, the United 

States is front and center in this. 

It’s a very interesting thing to me to 

examine those countries that are 

thinking another way and want to impose that thinking on the Internet. 

There are far more closed societies 

where freedom of thought, freedom of 

expression is not valued the way we do 

and other democracies do. So we need 

to form partnerships with other countries around the world to make sure 

that the democratizing effect that the 

Internet actually holds will continue. 

I’m proud to join again with my colleagues, with Mr. WALDEN, the distinguished chairman of our subcommittee, 

and Representative BONO MACK, who 

led the effort with this resolution. I’m 

proud that we’re all together. And I always want to thank our staff, both on 

the majority and the minority side of 

the aisle, for the work that they do on 

the committee. I thank you all, and I 

salute you. I look forward to a unanimous vote of the United States House 

of Representatives in support of a free 

and open Internet. 

With that, I yield back the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 

myself as much time as I may consume. 

Tonight, the U.S. House of Representatives will send a clear and distinct message not only to our negotiators but to the world that we stand 

for liberty and we stand for freedom. 

When it comes to the Internet, both of 

those are incredibly important. 

The Internet has brought us economic prosperity not here alone but all 

over the globe. The Internet has allowed for political discourse as never 

imagined by the great scholars of 

Greece and Rome. It’s brought us intellectual capabilities. If you think about 

what you can do on the Internet today 

to research something, to evaluate 

something, there are an unlimited 

number of sources of data. It’s improved our lives. It’s improved our 

lives through our political systems. It’s 

allowed people who thought they had 

no opportunity to effect change to have 

an overwhelming effect by communicating together. This really is a vote 

for liberty. It’s a vote for freedom. It’s 

a vote for free speech. It’s a vote for 

the things that our Founders believed 

in when they gave us the Constitution 

and the Bill of Rights. It’s our version 

of that. 

We know that there are forces out 

there in the world that are opposed to 

all of those things, because they want 

command and control of their people, 

and that’s not right. We have an opportunity tonight to send a clear and convincing message that we stand in 

America for freedom of the Internet, 

for no government anywhere in the 

globe taking charge of it and shutting 

it down and denying that great human 

spirit that we believe in so much here 

in America. 

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to 

join us in a unanimous show of support. 

I thank my staff and the staff of Representative ESHOO and Ranking Member WAXMAN for their good work on 

this, and especially to my colleague 

from California, MARY BONO MACK, who 

raised this with us early on and worked 

closely to write a piece of legislation, 

that, as you can see in a sometimes 

otherwise controversial House, has 

brought us all together. That’s a real 

tribute to Congresswoman BONO

MACK’s work. 

With that, Mr. Speaker, I call on my 

colleagues to support this resolution, 

and I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion offered by 

the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. WALDEN) that the House suspend the rules 

and agree to the concurrent resolution, 

H. Con. Res. 127. 

The question was taken. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the 

opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being 

in the affirmative, the ayes have it. 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, on that I 

demand the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. 

f 

RESOLVING ENVIRONMENTAL AND 

GRID RELIABILITY CONFLICTS 

ACT OF 2012 

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I move to 

suspend the rules and pass the bill 

(H.R. 4273) to clarify that compliance 

with an emergency order under section 

202(c) of the Federal Power Act may 

not be considered a violation of any 

Federal, State, or local environmental 

law or regulation, and for other purposes, as amended. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The text of the bill is as follows: 

H.R. 4273 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Resolving Environmental and Grid Reliability Conflicts Act of 

2012’’. 

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL POWER 

ACT. 

(a) COMPLIANCE WITH OR VIOLATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS WHILE UNDER EMERGENCY

ORDER.—Section 202(c) of the Federal Power 

Act (16 U.S.C. 824a(c)) is amended— 

(1) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ after ‘‘(c)’’; and 

(2) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(2) With respect to an order issued under this 

subsection that may result in a conflict with a 

requirement of any Federal, State, or local environmental law or regulation, the Commission 

shall ensure that such order requires generation, delivery, interchange, or transmission of 

electric energy only during hours necessary to 

meet the emergency and serve the public interest, and, to the maximum extent practicable, is 

consistent with any applicable Federal, State, or 

local environmental law or regulation and minimizes any adverse environmental impacts. 

‘‘(3) To the extent any omission or action 

taken by a party, that is necessary to comply 

with an order issued under this subsection, including any omission or action taken to voluntarily comply with such order, results in noncompliance with, or causes such party to not 

comply with, any Federal, State, or local environmental law or regulation, such omission or 

action shall not be considered a violation of 

such environmental law or regulation, or subject 

such party to any requirement, civil or criminal 

liability, or a citizen suit under such environmental law or regulation. 

‘‘(4)(A) An order issued under this subsection 

that may result in a conflict with a requirement 

of any Federal, State, or local environmental 

law or regulation shall expire not later than 90 

days after it is issued. The Commission may 

renew or reissue such order pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) for subsequent periods, not to 

exceed 90 days for each period, as the Commission determines necessary to meet the emergency 

and serve the public interest. 

‘‘(B) In renewing or reissuing an order under 

subparagraph (A), the Commission shall consult 

with the primary Federal agency with expertise 

in the environmental interest protected by such 

law or regulation, and shall include in any such 


smartinez on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
August 1, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5603 

renewed or reissued order such conditions as 

such Federal agency determines necessary to 

minimize any adverse environmental impacts to 

the maximum extent practicable. The conditions, 

if any, submitted by such Federal agency shall 

be made available to the public. The Commission 

may exclude such a condition from the renewed 

or reissued order if it determines that such condition would prevent the order from adequately 

addressing the emergency necessitating such 

order and provides in the order, or otherwise 

makes publicly available, an explanation of 

such determination.’’. 

(b) TEMPORARY CONNECTION OR CONSTRUCTION BY MUNICIPALITIES.—Section 202(d) of the 

Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824a(d)) is amended by inserting ‘‘or municipality’’ before ‘‘engaged in the transmission or sale of electric energy’’. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 

Texas (Mr. OLSON) and the gentleman 

from Pennsylvania (Mr. DOYLE) each 

will control 20 minutes. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Texas. 

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 

have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials in the 

RECORD on H.R. 4273. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? 

There was no objection. 

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support 

of H.R. 4273, Resolving Environmental 

and Grid Reliability Conflicts Act of 

2012. 

My colleagues and I carefully drafted 

this bill to resolve a conflict between 

the Federal Power Act and environmental laws and regulations that, if 

left unresolved, could create serious 

problems for the reliability of our Nation’s electric grid. 

Every year, as the heat of summer 

settles in across our country and demand surges for electricity, the potential for dangerous power outages 

grows. Some States, such as California, 

and my home State of Texas, are being 

warned by electricity regulators that 

reserve margins could dip dangerously 

low. 

Texas is expected to have a 2,500 

megawatt shortfall in generating capacity—equivalent to five large power 

plants—as early as 2014. This shortfall 

could cause rolling blackouts across 

Texas that have the potential to impact more than 25 million people. 

b 1910 

As we’ve seen happen before in our 

country, and as we are watching it unfold in India this week, an unexpected 

loss of power can result in significant 

harm to human health and the environment. 

Prior experience shows that in rare 

and limited circumstances, emergency 

actions are needed to ensure the reliable delivery of electricity. In these 

circumstances, the Department of Energy has a tool of last resort to address 

the emergency. That tool is an emergency order issued under section 202(c) 

of the Federal Power Act. DOE can 

order a power plant to generate electricity when outages occur due to 

weather events, equipment failures, or 

when the electricity supply is too low 

and could cause a blackout. As they 

should, DOE can force a company to 

comply with a 202(c) order even if it 

means a technical violation of environmental law. Unfortunately, under current law, a company or individual can 

be held liable for this technical violation even when they are acting under a 

Federal order to avoid a blackout. 

In recent years, these conflicting 

Federal laws have resulted in lawsuits 

and heavy fines for electricity providers who were complying with DOE 

orders. A power generator in San Francisco had to pay a significant sum as a 

settlement after they were ordered by 

DOE to exceed their emissions limits 

to avoid a blackout. Unless Congress 

passes legislation to resolve the potential conflict of laws, the effectiveness 

of this tool is in jeopardy. 

As testimony this year before the 

House Energy and Commerce Committee confirms, the next time DOE invokes 202(c), the power generator may 

choose to fight the order in court if it 

conflicts with an environmental law. 

Conflicting Federal laws put a power 

generator in a no-win situation—either 

sue DOE to comply with environmental 

laws or be sued by third parties for 

compliance with DOE orders. 

H.R. 4273 eliminates the legal conflict 

facing power generators and their customers by providing a needed safety 

valve, which clarifies that compliance 

with an emergency order under section 

202(c) of the Federal Power Act may 

not be considered a violation of any 

Federal, State, or local environmental 

law or regulation. 

Emergency orders are not issued 

lightly and only under extreme power 

reliability scenarios. In the last 30 

years, this authority has only been 

used six times. But when the need 

arises, my legislation will ensure that 

DOE works to minimize any adverse 

environmental impacts, meaning they 

must balance environmental interests 

with reliability needs. 

While I believe DOE may need to use 

its emergency authority more often in 

the future given the strain EPA’s new 

power sector rules will put on the electric grid, I still expect DOE emergency 

authority orders to be the exception, 

not the rule. 

In those rare instances when the authority is invoked, we should not punish generators that are simply following orders from the Federal Government. That’s why we must amend the 

Federal Power Act so that generators 

are not forced to choose between compliance with an emergency order and 

environmental regulations. 

This conflict is why I introduced this 

bipartisan legislation to allow America’s power companies to comply with 

Federal orders to maintain grid reliability during a power emergency without facing lawsuits or penalties. 

I am extremely pleased with the bipartisan support this bill has received. 

This is proof that we can find common 

ground when working to address a critical glitch in Federal law and provide 

reliable energy supply to all Americans. 

I want to thank committee Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Ranking Member HENRY

WAXMAN, and Subcommittee Chairman 

ED WHITFIELD and Ranking Member 

BOBBY RUSH for their support and assistance in moving this bill forward. I 

also want to thank my colleagues on 

the committee, GENE GREEN and MIKE

DOYLE, for working with me to fix this 

problem and to keep power running for 

all Americans in an emergency. 

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to 

support this commonsense, bipartisan 

legislation that protects energy consumers, the environment, and those 

who provide the power. 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. 

The bill before us today is the result 

of efforts from both sides of the aisle to 

find a solution that really works for industry, government, and our environment. 

Currently, the Department of Energy 

has the authority to issue a ‘‘mustrun’’ order to a power provider in emergency cases to protect grid reliability. 

At the same time, environmental laws 

and regulations could prohibit a company from complying with a DOE 

must-run order. So a company is left in 

the position of choosing which law it 

violates—environmental rules or an 

emergency order from the Department 

of Energy. 

In fact, Mr. Speaker, this has happened in the past. During the California energy crisis, and as recently as 

2005 in Virginia, a company was issued 

emergency orders by the Department 

of Energy. To comply with those orders, the company was temporarily in 

noncompliance with environmental 

law. Therefore, after complying with 

an emergency must-run order, the company was both fined and forced to settle a citizen lawsuit. If it happens once, 

twice, or 50 times, it will never be proper for the Federal Government to put a 

company in the position of choosing 

which law to violate. 

Reliability concerns for our electric 

grid are real, and power plant retirements are being announced nearly 

every week. In June, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation 

issued their summer reliability assessment. They told us that reserves in 

Texas are coming up short to meet 

peak demand and that the California 

reserve margin will be extremely tight. 

So this bill will fix a clear conflict in 

Federal laws with a narrow, targeted 

approach. This bill will ensure that the 

Department of Energy will have the 

ability to keep the lights on while still 

protecting the environment. 


smartinez on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5604 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE August 1, 2012 

The bill before us simply clarifies 

that if an emergency order issued pursuant to section 202(c) of the Federal 

Power Act may result in such a conflict with an environmental law or regulation, it shall expire not later than 

90 days after issuance. This is to ensure 

that DOE continues to have the necessary authority to ‘‘keep the lights 

on’’ in true emergencies. 

It then gives DOE the opportunity to 

renew or reissue such an order for an 

additional 90-day period after consulting with the appropriate Federal 

agencies and including conditions submitted by such agencies to mitigate 

adverse environmental impacts. DOE 

may exclude a recommended condition 

from the order if it determines the condition would prevent the order from 

adequately addressing the emergency. 

Mr. Speaker, this bill is the result of 

many months of work with members 

on both sides of the Energy and Commerce Committee. It is supported by 

both the chairman and the ranking 

member of the committee. And I ask 

my colleagues to support it also. 

I want to thank the gentleman from 

Texas (Mr. OLSON). It has been a pleasure to work with him on this piece of 

legislation. It is my hope that all our 

colleagues also support this legislation. 

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. OLSON. I thank my colleague 

from Pennsylvania for his kind words. 

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I see no 

colleagues on my side of the aisle looking to speak, so I will reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, it is a 

pleasure for me to now yield such time 

as he may consume to the gentleman 

from Texas (Mr. GENE GREEN), a valuable member of our Energy and Commerce Committee. 

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. 

Speaker, I would like to thank both my 

colleague from Pennsylvania and also 

my neighbor in Texas, Congressman 

OLSON, for making sure we get this bill 

to the floor today. 

I rise in strong support of H.R. 4273, 

the Resolving Environmental and Grid 

Reliability Conflicts Act of 2012. This 

bipartisan legislation addresses a longstanding conflict in Federal law where 

a company or individual can be held 

liable for violating environmental laws 

when complying with a Federal order 

to generate power to avoid blackouts. 

Section 202(c) of the Federal Power 

Act gives the Department of Energy 

the authority to order an electric-generating facility to operate to avoid a 

reliability emergency. At the same 

time, environmental laws and regulations may restrict the operation of 

power plants or transmission lines. 

So if a company or publicly owned 

utility is ordered by the DOE to operate under section 202(c) and at the 

same time is prohibited from operating 

in accordance with the DOE order due 

to environmental limitations, the operator must choose which legal mandate 

to follow. These conflicting legal mandates should not complicate an electric 

reliability crisis. 

As a long-time member of the Energy 

and Commerce Committee and someone who has worked on both reliability 

and environmental legislation during 

that time, I can honestly say it was 

never our intention to put electric-generating facilities in the position of having to choose between compliance with 

one law over another. 

And while there have only been a 

couple of instances to date where a 

generator has been in this situation, 

the potential for conflict will only 

grow as several coal-fired plants are 

scheduled to be taken offline in the 

coming years. 

And as my Pennsylvania colleague 

noted, we have potential reliability 

issues in my and Mr. OLSON’s home 

State of Texas. Even though we are 

under a separate grid—ERCOT—it’s important that we have this distinction 

corrected. 

b 1920 

That’s why Congress needs to address 

this issue, right here, right now or else 

we risk threatening our electrical reliability. H.R. 4273 clarifies that if an 

emergency order issued pursuant to 

section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act 

may result in a conflict with an environmental law or regulation, the order 

shall expire no later than 90 days after 

issuance. This is to ensure that DOE 

continues to have the necessary authority to ‘‘keep the lights on’’ in true 

emergencies. 

However, it then gives DOE the opportunity to renew or reissue the order 

for an additional 90-day period only 

after consulting with the appropriate 

Federal agencies and including conditions submitted by these agencies to 

mitigate the adverse environmental 

impacts. 

This is not a messaging bill. This is 

not an anti-EPA bill or an anti air 

toxic standards bill. Instead, it’s a 

commonsense bill that would address a 

very worrisome deficiency in current 

law that is only going to become more 

prominent in the coming years. 

This is one of a handful of bills that 

actually was supported by both Democrats and Republicans in the Energy 

and Commerce Committee. It also has 

support from the utility industry. 

That’s why I encourage my colleagues 

on both sides of the aisle to support the 

bill. 

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve 

the balance of my time to close. 

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, we have no 

further speakers, and at this time I 

yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, in closing, 

H.R. 4273 is a bipartisan, commonsense 

piece of legislation that ensures that 

during a power crisis, the lights will 

come on when it’s dark, the heat will 

come on when it’s cold, and the air 

conditioning will come on when it’s 

hot. And lives will be saved. 

I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 

4273, and I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. WAXMAN. I would like to make a few 

comments on the committee process for H.R. 

4273. 

As introduced, I had substantial concerns 

about H.R. 4273. The introduced bill gave the 

Department of Energy unprecedented and unchecked new authority to waive any federal, 

state or local environmental law if DOE determines there is an emergency with respect to 

electric power, and the only references to environmental safeguards in the bill were hortatory. This approach was unacceptable. I also 

believed that the bill was unnecessary, as federal agencies already have the tools necessary to resolve any conflicts between environmental requirements and emergency orders. 

However, the bill’s sponsors, the committee 

Chairman, and the affected industry were willing to engage in serious, substantive negotiations to improve the bill, which produced significant improvements. The version of the bill 

reported from Committee is narrower in scope 

and effect, and provides some environmental 

safeguards. 

I would like to extend my thanks to all of the 

participants in the negotiations for a good-faith 

and productive process. In particular, I would 

like to thank Mr. DOYLE and Mr. GREEN for 

their leadership and hard work on making improvements and producing a bill that can be 

supported on a broad bipartisan basis. I also 

want to thank Chairman UPTON and Subcommittee Chairman WHITFIELD and Representative OLSON for working with us. The 

language of this bill represents a delicate compromise that was very carefully negotiated, 

and changes to the bill before us could well 

jeopardize that broad support. 

H.R. 4273, as it is before us today, requires 

any emergency order that may result in a conflict with environmental requirements to require 

generation only during the hours necessary to 

meet the emergency and to minimize any adverse environmental impacts to the maximum 

extent practicable. The reported bill also limits 

the length of such an order to 90 days, and 

requires any renewed order to include any 

conditions identified by the relevant federal environmental agency as necessary to minimize 

any environmental impacts. 

In discussions and testimony on the bill, 

DOE officials informed the Committee that in 

any situation where time permits, they always 

consult with and rely on the relevant expert 

environmental agency with respect to minimizing environmental impacts of an emergency order, and they assured the Committee 

that they would continue this practice. This assurance is important to my support for the bill. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion offered by 

the gentleman from Texas (Mr. OLSON) 

that the House suspend the rules and 

pass the bill, H.R. 4273, as amended. 

The question was taken; and (twothirds being in the affirmative) the 

rules were suspended and the bill, as 

amended, was passed. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 

f 

RESIDENTIAL AND COMMUTER 

TOLL FAIRNESS ACT OF 2011 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Speaker, I 

move to suspend the rules and pass the 

bill (H.R. 897) to provide authority and 


smartinez on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE