>> thank you for the question. there is a wide array of stakeholder interest in this issue. we are working together. we are educating ourselves and learning about the importance of being innovative and allowing the customer choice, but at the same time it is important to particularly from the economic regulator perspective to balance the interest to avoid cost shifting, to ensure that reliability is maintained in the first instance. certainly it is an important innovation quite frankly that is happening all across the world. but also from an economic regulator perspective, it is something that we continue to be challenged with making sure that all interests are balanced that does have to be able to receive back the industry at any time.

.. >> thank you, madam chair. and thank you for holding this hearing. i appreciated. i know this is a focus, this panel on cybersecurity but we've also talked about reliability and a new the next panel can focus on the. i appreciate your willingness to move forward on figuring so quickly after your taking the chairmanship. i like to ask a couple of questions because we have great experts here who may be can give

us a preview of what we're going to next also for us to be able to compare and contrast with her from some of the industry folks. first i guess, chairman lafleur i'd like to hear from you a little bit about what you think we ought to be doing in terms of reliability. you were quoted as having said am also very concerned about the price both the applet magnitude of price spikes and increase we saw this when it when we see the ice spikes it's a symptom protecting reliability is causing this issue. can you elaborate on that? is that an accurate quote? >> yes, but always in the context. we had somebody said we're mainly here to work about reliability, not price. i made the comment they are closely related. when you see the extraordinary price spikes as a science and regions of the country in january and february, that means the grid operator is doing very unusual things to keep the lights on.

that ultimate goes into customers can't -- customers pocketbooks, so what can we learn from it. we are in the middle of probably one of biggest power supply changes we've ever seen, particularly to increase reliance on natural gas to generate electricity. what we looked at very much in the tech conference last week was how we can get the rules right to make sure that, number one, we have the grass -- infrastructure place of the pipelines are there so that the constraints to cause the gas price is back. but secondly that the market rules and sometimes very geeky specific rules are written in a way to allow people to buy the gas at a more economic time of the day to avoid some of the spikes we saw this winter. ferc has never come we're trying to change the timing of the markets to make that happen. but more fundamentally one of the things i've been leading is a look at the capacity markets.

these are the forward markets we look three years or five is out to see what capacity is needed on the system, and we have to make sure that the rules are written so that we are probably rewarding the baseload facilities that are very stressed by the short-term gas prices. we are seeing a lot of retirement of baseload that could ultimately be detrimental to reliability. so we're taking a very focused look at our baseload and what it needs to survive in the market to make sure the market price is right both for new resources and old. a very geeky and to but that is very much what the tech conference was about. what can we learn and get the rules right next year. >> i don't think it's a geeky. i think it's an answer that goes to lots of the important issues we'll discuss further on the next panel. one thing you didn't discuss is the impact of federal regulations on the system and i think that's also not geeky but it's important.

in your testimony you said ferc should help epa better understand the obligations of individual regulations. what the impact might be on electricity, particularly and reliability. you mentioned you had worked with epa on the finalize mercury and air toxics standards and that ferc should follow the development of the epa greenhouse gas emissions rules. let me ask you this. as unit bp is going to work on a lot of rule-making and that would include, it affects utility sector, certainly 316 be cooling water intake rule, the ozone rules, the particulate matter 2.5 rules, coal ash. to let me ask you this with regard to those regulations what is ferc doing to a pbs individuals collectively might impact grade reliability? >> we've tried to be a source of reliability, expertise to epa. a lot of work has been focused

because that is a short timeline. but my colleague, commissioner moeller believe is right behind me and on the next day off, and i co-chaired a forum that met with naruc coming and we've had meetings on 315 p., coal ash and right now a lot of the focus is on greenhouse gas. i think as rules are developed we need to the commenters in the draft stage such as in the greenhouse gas ash -- casuals the dimension second i believe, to make sure that those rules are achievable while reliability can be preserved and then look at our meeting, if you look at the greenhouse gas rules that could potentially make changes to the markets and the infrastructure, make sure we're doing what we need to do to support reliability as those goals coming. so common to the epa and looking to make sure the infrastructure is keeping up. >> i hope on the front and you

will do not just commenting but analysis for them as to what the impact is but it's kind of like the cost-benefit analysis. we talked about a lot, this is certainly a cost. reliability is a cost to consumers. talked about the price spikes. you didn't talk about the potential for brownouts, blackouts, and we've gone through a tough winter, admittedly, but we really stress the system. now we're looking at a potentially hot summer, too. so we are at a point where we need your input on the front and to get them comments, but also to be sure these regulations are not going to make it even more difficult for us to have reliability with all the issues. in the historic regulator model, states in conjunction with utilities were responsible for ensuring the construction and maintenance of adequate generation, adequate reserves. who is in charge now? who do you think is responsible for ensuring adequate generation

to maintain the so-called organize competitive market? >> the states still play the critical role in the citing whether generation goes, and a lot of the generation permitting and siting. but in the two-thirds of the country, including ohio, veteran competitive markets, and we are relying on the competitive markets to send investment signal to make sure the generation gets paid so generation gets paid to will stay online if needed or to build which means ferc has a big role to play. that's why the competitive markets have been a very good job over the last 12 to 15 years in deploying assets that were already built before we went into the system. but now we're in a major investment cycle and we need to make sure that they draw the investment we need to keep the resources online or bring resources online for reliability. i think ferc is a big role to play.

>> i know my time is up but we need to get into this issue further for the next panel. i saw it didn't get to ask ms. kelley and others about this because i do think there's liability issues, critical and look forward to following up with you personally but also the panel on this issue. >> thank you, senator. senator manchin. >> thank you, madam chair. and to ranking member murkowski, i think she'll be back, she is voting now, but as you know my colleague, senator portman, who just spoke and wrote the book last month last month urging having a hearing on the grade reliability and stability. and i want to know help is them you do this in such an experimental -- manner. there are two fuels to keep the lights off. dispute right now. they keep the lights on 24/7/365 and that's new and cool. gas will get to the position. they're not there yet but they will get there.

these to baseload feels provide on the 60% of the power this country demands. and without these baseload fuels our great can function. we know that. you all have said that we cannot keep the lights on. i'm having a difficult situation, you can imagine in my side of the aisle with the administration's attitude towards what we're dealing with. i just want a facts to, and that's what i asked for this today. i want you all on the front line, people are relying, life is depending on, the we have electricity keep the lights on when they need it for air-conditioning, heat or the ventilator or for their oxygen, whatever it may be. with what we've come through right now, coal still is 30% of our power. 30 plus. as you are going, you think about the fact that no 20% of the coal fleet is being retired. 20% of the coal fleet is being retired. at the fact that epa has proposed new source performance standards what it would is

effectively ban the construction of any new coal plants. menus to look at the reliability, how do we maintain the system, how do you keep it running. that's what i'm asking this of administration to look at, how do we keep the lights on for people's lives are not in danger? and we not lose people. cold isn't the only baseload fuel. as you know, nukes, too. it's unlikely we're going to build any nukes. and yet we may need to replace as many as 100 nuclear units by 2050 if the licenses are not extended again as you know. how can the system continue to work for a long while under this sort of strain? everything a fast any expert, they say it can't. we are setting us up for a major reliability crisis. during the polar more tax this winter, a whopping 89% -- to providers in my state, adp said 89% of the code units are slated to be closed, running 100%.

just to keep up with the demand. pjm handles our area as you know. we spoke to them. they're being represented. they came and spoke to me. they were saying that this is a critical time. chairman, they were taking emergency action to keep the system. they done a great job. they are johnny on the spot. i appreciate all that but even they can be string. they were down 500 to 750 megawatts out of 140 plus thousand megawatts their responsible. the system could of gone down. with that being said, they had another tool in the toolbox reducing the voltage on the vines to keep 2000 more megawatts. with that system, you've got 10,000 megawatts of coal power fired off line. what happens with you going to be short next year. i'd like to know and i'll start with you, chairman lafleur. your view of this, should ferc

be pushing certain kinds of fuel or should be looking at basically the portfolio and the mix that our utilities have? you've touched on it. ferc's proper role. >> well, thank you for that question. i do not think it's ferc's job to pick certain kinds of fuels. the whole concept of the market is that it uses up generalized product that allows different fuels to compete fairly. and so if there are preferences for certain kinds of fuels, that would not be a fair market by definition. i think ferc should try to keep, be guided by reliability and what the customers need, not by preference of a particular field. >> let me ask you because our the time, we will go through a second round the right now just explain as simple as possible,

any of you all want to jump in the system the way it works now. you have producers such as the aep and ferc energy and money. their responsible for producing the indie that's needed that goes into the transmission which is what we're calling the grid. thethen you have anarchy of sucs pjm whose responsibility is to make sure it's reliable and affordable and dependable. who makes the decision what goes on and with the reimbursement rate would be? if you were saying we think your portfolio is out of balance and we don't think you can continue to give us what we need, who makes that decision to say i want another coal-fired plant, or i want to get rid of the coal-fired plant about what more gas generation, or we need more renewables? i believe, in west virginia we have been blessed. we've got it all. we've got coal, gas, wind, solar. we've got it all. we are using it all. they just don't like it. >> pjm does an analysis three

years out and says how many megawatts are we going to need to keep the system on, and then they run an auction where resources did in. they say i have so much cool, i of this, i have nuclear. some of the existing plants said i'll run at any cost. others put -- >> who makes the decision on price? i'm only going to reimburse you what a gas turbine or gas plant would cost even though i know you need cool, i can today. i'm only going to do this. who makes that decision? >> what you referring to is embedded in the auction rules. so i was a pjm, but those rules have been approved by ferc which is why we are looking at our capacity and -- >> can you overrule pjm if you think they're not, their they're portfolio does not have a good next? >> if they say we want to do this and someone else has know, if you do that in this will happen to my plant come we try to bounce all that and make the fairest decision based on -- >> so they can come here and say listen, we're shutting down. we shut our coal plants down.

they couldn't get reversed. that's what they told me. >> the prices aren't working. and yes, they can come to us. >> they need the power. madam chairman, can i ask just -- can anybody explain to me the price spike and accounting that went on during the polar vortex and what the people in west virginia are going to get hit with bills? i'm hearing it's unbelievable. they're getting almost double bills. double the cost of their utilities. can you give me a reason why that happened? >> the simplest way to explain it is during periods where power was really short because there were successive days up, night and day unusual cold. generators rely on gas had to spend money to get emergency gas -- >> did the gas company state advantage of them? is the pricing structure so that we can't a just quick enough? >> to the best of our knowledge of our analysis so far there was

no market manipulation. it was out of supply and demand forces of the demand for gas versus how much there was, not -- >> nobody has long terms -- long-term contracts for gas? they don't do that with cold war nukes speak some people of long-term contracts. the price spikes, if more people did than it is gas, and then that's what made the price go up. >> gas is not -- >> it's more variable than a product like with coal. >> yet we put our eggs in that basket. so that means consumers in west virginia and run the country are going to be held hostage. is that a fair, mr. cauley? >> well, in 2010 we predicted doing independent study that 76 gigawatts of coal would be retired. we updated that could be -- >> at the time epa said only four gigawatts, great? >> something like that. >> so they were off by -- >> a lot.

they have been cooperative with us but were still funny get the message out that over dependence on one fuel, on gas is very volatile, pricing and is not as reliable. the other concern is that there's not any discussion in the value proposition of the reliability services provided by baseload you know, coal and nuclear units such as inertia, housing frequency, voltage control, the more we move this out into distributed and i'm dispatched, not essentially controlled resources, the harder and harder it's going to be managed reliability on the grid. that's worth seeing in these recent events is units are allowed to operate whenever they would like to operate, greeting the price issues and not adding to reliability. so our role is to get that message out there and make sure -- >> the difference is what you're saying is basically can bring can you can turn off as far as renewables but you can't turn off nukes and you can't turn off goal.

once it goes it's got to go. that's where your base comes. >> senator manchin. >> i am sorry. >> that's okay. it's been really. [inaudible] [laughter] >> we have a second panel that will focus on this as well. we really -- yes, this is a warm-up. we really, really appreciate that line of questioning. i just want to come as the closest town, and again thank you. it's obvious there are many more questions, many more subjects to talk about. we've had a second panel that will add some light and eliminate the subject even more but i do want to put into the record, senator manchin, that coal is a very significant baseload. gas is now almost 30% and nuclear as well. it shifted quite a bit over the last 15 years. some of it regulation, some of the market-driven but we're going to look forward to

drilling down more. >> madam chairman and if i could add one quick thing on this. you know, i come from west virginia and we've been at large hole producing state the we've been blessed with natural gas, fracking. we been blessed with everything. if someone came to me in west virginia and the citizens of our state and said listen, we've got a new super fuel out and its commercial hydrogen and we will be ready in three, four, five years ago. you know what? it would be tough but we would adjust. we would adjust their conduct are trying to push a product. but when you hear from people like you, the professionals who say we've got to have it and i've got administration fighting every way they can to get rid of it, you've got to have it but you don't want it but, you know, you needed. somebody has got to put the facts of. that's what we're doing today. thank you. >> thank you very much. we appreciate your leadership. at me as we enter this panel though, chairman lafleur, express to you in the strongest possible terms of my opposition to the application filed at ferc

four, by an american mainstream to abandon the pipeline. i know you cannot discuss this publicly but i want to just call this to your attention. the letter is in your file. it needs to be responded to. and again, it gets back to the whole issue of getting fuel to people when they need it to keep lights on. this about pipelines. we talked about electricity generation at its extreme important issue for both generators, middlemen and middle women, and consumers. so thank you and i'm looking forward to following up again thank you all. if the second panel will come forward we will start momentarily. [inaudible conversations] >> ladies and gentlemen, if i could reconvene the meeting. thank you.

we have a large crowd and thank you or quickly adjusting panels. we have six experts on this panel and we only have about 30 or 35 minutes left to go so i want to do this quickly and going to ask each of you telemetry marks to four minutes if you can do it in less, i would really appreciate it because we do want to leave time for least one round of questions. first, philip moeller, also the representing ferc traps from a different perspective. we are looking for doing that. michael kormos, executive director of president operations at pjm, senator manchin who will also give us some additional insight into the line of questioning that you have raised. mr. nicholas atkins, chairman and president and ceo of them are of electric power. we thank you for being you. we also have mr. james hunter representing ibew. i'm proud to have the unions here and the work that you'll

do. and the perspective you bring to this issue i think is very valuable. mr. thad hill, president and chief operating officer of calpine corporation. thank you for being you. and, finally, ms. cheryl roberto, again thank you for your views from the clean energy environmental defense fund for your perspective that you bring to this issue as well. so if we can start with you, commissioner moeller, and really we will hold you all to four minutes a we can have a very robust line of questioning spent thank you, chairman landrieu, ranking member murkowski, members of the committee. i'm philip moeller, a member of ferc since 2006. thank you for holding a hearing on this important topic. we've got through quite a winter, particularly and eastern interconnect of the to reference on page three of the staff and out with particularly starting january 5, the polar vortex events. we need to send appreciation to the thousands of people who kept the system running, the control room, mr. hunter's members, people who may decisions,

dispatch. they came to remarkably well in a system that was very stressed. i consistently said that we will let the market decide which fuels are the winners based on economics and affordability, but i can't be reliability neutral. on this subject it's just important to we have to maintain reliability of the nation's great. i went back and looked at the letter that senator murkowski wrote me in 2011 and my response, and my house testimony that year in which i called for a more formal process to analyze potential reliability implications, particularly environmental rules, to my knowledge that process has not yet is goodbye so continued to advocate for it. for reasons are as follows but with a couple of unusually warm winters before this one, and the system was buried stressed it in 53 weeks will lose all those map plants that are slated for closure. plans to retrofit generally have a -- sometimes a fifth year, 50

is full of uncertainty. some the other panelist will relate to that. as referenced earlier our region is very different fuel mixes depend on where you come from. some areas more dependent on natural gas to my home in the northwest hydropower. but we sing about the stress, particularly with prices down not only with the coal plants that are going to be sure but also with the nuclear fleet that's been referenced that should be kept in mind. specifically the midwest is looking at some challenges in the summer of 2016 with a project a reserve margin that will be a deficit. although the reserve margin has been moved upwards to only two gigawatts, it also depends on the fact that consumption is -- assumption is consumers will be using less electricity per year and that's a pretty big assumption to make. we also have individualized situations. i reference one in my written testimony, where the local area will be in a conundrum as to how

they go forward without a coal plant. on the issue, we have a variety of opinions. we hav have executives who willy we can get through this period without any problem. we have others that are very concerned. my focus has been to try to get the data, which plans retire when, where they are in the system, but they provide in terms of not just power but perhaps voltage support is very, very important. as i've called for data, frankly we've had some that's been contradictory and some that hasn't been particularly effective in its -- were not exactly confident in a lot of the numbers. that has me very concerned going into the next two to three years. i again would call for the fact that we need to do a better job in government working with the private sector. some kind of a formalized process to analyze this. a lot of it is just going to depend on the weather. if we have mild weather for the next couple of years we might negative.

if we have extreme weather in the summer or as we saw in the winter, the system will be extremely stressed and as for reliability is paramount and people, frankly, their safety and their lives are at stake, if we have extended extreme weather and the system isn't able to produce power. thank you again for the chance to testify. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you so much for adhering to the time. mr. kormos. >> good morning. of have a pjm i want to thank chairman landrieu, ranking member murkowski, neighbors of the committee and the staff. michael kormos, executive vice president for pjm. and again as or even discuss pjm is going through a major transition as we shift from coal to gas and we see significant coal resources retire on our system. as part of our responsibility to maintain bloodily and that is our primary responsibility. as been mentioned we run a three-year forward capacity auction would look to burger adequate commitment from resources to cover the expected

load plus an adequate reserve. throughout the next three years we have, in fact, richard not only the minimum amount we needed, but, in fact, excess. with that we believe we will be able to maintain reliability. having said that i will not tell you it is not going to be without a challenge. our fuel mix is changing fairly radically with the retirement of coal, with a low of the ability of natural gas and with our increased use of demand response to meet our needs. coal will continue to play a big role in pjm. it was to be one-third of our capacity going forward. however the cushion we've enjoyed that goal has provided us as the other units have is, in fact, diminishing. coal in many parts is being replaced by demand response. those who may not be similar, demand response is a contractual obligation for customer we needed to the issue is it's typically not available until we are at or very near an emergency

and it is typically extremely high price. one of the most highest priced resources on our system. having replaced our goal resources with demand resources i would expect to see much more volatility in the energy market as we will have to rely on it more as being part of our capacity mix. also as we mentioned before, we are moving much more into natural gas. in many ways we are becoming more balance. we will be about a third natural gas. natural gas also has its challenges as well, particularly in the winter. typically it has been a very good resource for us. prices have been very affordable. during the winter when it competes with residential heating for natural gas, we do see some difficulties in managing it. the prices can become quite volatile. those prices will be reflected into the energy prices, and quite frankly the contractual terms of an onerous that we've had to be able to secure it.

while the ultimate secure enough gas this winter, under some of the contractual terms lead to some of those increased costs that were mentioned previously. talking about the polar vortex, i will take it was probably one of the most difficult winters i've been involved in in the last 26 years, probably having to go back literally 20 years to 1994 to see a winter like that. we so extended periods of cold. we saw demand response, demand being 20-40,000 megawatts over what are typical winter load would be. we saw 22% forced outages on our system. i would agree while we were close, we were able to maintain reliability even though it was a fairly difficult time period. just in summary i would mention, i would not be realistic for me to stay up here an and tell you there will never be an interruption in service. but having said that, i do believe that we have met our reliability objectives. we have perjured the capacity we

need and we will be able to serve the load in all but the most extreme circumstances. i do caution, however, we will have to continue to work with our regulators as walter members as make this transition, particularly in the energy pricing side as we've seen that volatility. >> thank you very much. mr. atkins. >> thank you chair landrieu. i want to thank you and certainly ranking member murkowski for putting a mission. it's very important to it's been two years in the making. there's been a lot of activity associated with our industry. we're american electric power. we serve 11 states. it's been certainly an area where we are very focused on the activities associated with the grid. we have the largest transmission system in the country. we are one of the largest generated in the country as well. when you look at some of the issues that have occurred over the winter, it makes us think about all the above strategy,

this actually includes voltage reduction and perhaps load shedding. that's not a good place to be, particularly in the extreme. when people are living through extreme cold or extreme heat, people die in their homes as a result. that's something i think we are very concerned about. so a month ago i made headlines when they said that 89% of the generation that aep will retire in the 2015 was called upon to meet electricity demand in january. that's a fact. we needed. it's also a concern. those power plants will no longer be available after next year to help meet demand peaks and the capacity markets are to supporting the development of diversified generations to replace them. i'm not saying we should abandon any of those types of activities but what we've been concerned about all along has been that timing associated with the transition that needs to occur so we can make thoughtful decisions about what happens to the grid in the future and how we accommodate the multiple set

of diverse resources attached to it. even pjm's market which is probably the most developed in the country, and uncertainty thank michael kormos and his team for their efforts during the wintertime, operations, they are trying to support several fixes that would be put in place, there is to change to be made in the capacity markets so that we can adequately have a view of what new generation should look like in the pjm marcus. we support those changes and when it goes to the notion of not having long-term price signals to support new investment in generation. you are seeing over and over again with the generation. we are retiring substantial amount of our fleet during the period, 25% of the coal fleet will retire by mid-2015, and certainly you've heard nuclear operators saying that they're also challenged i believe chris green today said five units, five nuclear units may come off like if there's not changes to

the capacity market. so there's clear concerned when it's reflected through baseload capacity that we ensure that we are able to maintain that type of capacity going forward. so aep is retiring more than 6500 megawatts in the next 14 months. there's no turning back on those units. we anticipate closing units. we are obviously harvesting those assets to continue towards closure. making human resources decision to move people from those facilities to other facilities and it's a difficult proposition to go through to close down a plant. we are in the process. they will close down in mid-15. what we are concerned that is the additional closures that may occur as a result of not only pending rate for environmental impositions that may occur such as the greenhouse gas rules and others that could have a more dramatic effect. the issue you are really having with baseload generation is you are seeing the cost go up as a result of regulations and other

activities. at the same time t the capacity markets aren't supporting these long-term assets that support the grid. that's a key concern because you are getting hit from both directions and that's why we're seeing these multiple announcements of retirement. so going forward when you think about the grid itself, there's many aspects. we talk about physical security. we talk about security associate with the grid from a cyber standpoint. every bit that should be placed upon, not on the capacity and the market threats but also the combined impact of environmental regulations and what impact the ultimate have on the blood of the grid going forward. thank you. >> thank you so much, excellent. mr. hunter. >> i think nix it everything i need to say, thanks. i appreciate the invite to come here, chairman landrieu and members. my name is jim on to become director of utility department for the i epw. we have about seven and 25,000 members nationally, 220,000 of

those are directly working in the utility industry in the u.s. and canada. but the situation plainly, u.s. is facing a crisis we believe and power generation. it's caused by conflict between environmental regulations, demand for power, and flaws in the structure system. i've worked in the industry now for over 40 years. and i've never seen our generation to assist in a worse position than it is today. many of our veteran members are telling me the same thing. we just had a conference with over 500 delegates from all over the u.s. and canada. our leaders in our industry. everybody is in total agreement that we're in deep trouble. we are not seeing, not only coal retirement but we are also announcing nuclear retirements. we submitted for the record back in 2011 our estimate of 56 gigawatts of coal closing do to the maps will. at the time epa was saint 4.7.

all of this -- 4.7. not extensive modeling but came from us from commonsense looking at 40 euros plants under 400 megawatts that were not scrubbed, something would not be capable of staying in service. that number turned out to be pretty much right on the nose. that translates into over 50,000 direct jobs. those come from rail workers, plant workers and workers in the end she. you take a bls number, uses about four to one for any electrical generation employees so we got about 250,000 people losing their jobs over the next two years. the impact of the lost generation will be severe. already talked to him and of those plans were running during this older vortex. we believe -- polar vortex. we could make sure we will be in deep trouble. we been told that ferc can

address the issue but we are also told that you can't be alleviated a civil lawsuit under the clean air act. so where are the utilities going to be ?-que?-que x i totally agree with mr. akins that we know from the inside as you start closing a plant, it's an irreversible thing. we have people moving to other plants. we've got people moving other parts of the industry and people getting out of the industry as a whole. we firmly believe that ferc, you know, needs to address some of the issues but we also believe that congress needs to address the double jeopardy issue. base load power plants are the heart of the industry. nuclear and coal-fired closing to do market conditions, even the cleanest and most efficient, for example, we know clinton nuclear facilities, i bw facility, ran at 100% efficiency last year and lost $30 million.

that doesn't common sense to people that there's something wrong, market, i don't know what does. we have a situation right now we are the only plants -- the only place can be built our gas. i agree with senator manchin, putting all our eggs in one basket, a volatile basket, and i've been told there are no long-term contracts for gas. we saw many situations where we are doing less maintenance, we have less people. we weren't able to bring some of the core units online because of that. and not getting gas, there was one plant that starts the unit with gas, a coal plant and they weren't able to get asked even put a core unit on. with that, thank you. >> they give her much. mr. hill. >> thank you. good morning, chairman landrieu and ranking member murkowski and to the rest of the committee. my name is that he'll, on the president and ceo of calpine

corporation and next month i will also become the ceo. we are an independent power producer with 29,000 megawatts of generation with 94 plants in 20 states. we produce enough energy for about 30 million homes. we are the largest gas generate in the united states and 95% of capacity is natural gas. pjm with 5000 megawatts of generation capacity and it's worth to note that 90% of those have backups so we've dual-fuel capability at our units. the key message is we believe competitive electric sector in particular in pjm is in solid shape for transition. make this transition from one of predominantly coal last gas to more of an equal mix between coal and gas for the next several years. pjm market is not perfect to the arson changes needed and i will come in and talk about it at the end but it is working. we strongly believe that competition, free markets are in

a much better way to solve problems that have government pick winners and losers were some kind of central planning. the market is encouraging new investment, including we have a power plant under construction right now in dover, delaware, and we're considering other investment in pjm. to talk about the polar vortex. we all know the facts. very, very strong winter weather on the grid came close to some kind of noticeable disruption. a lot has been talked about but i think the facts are really important around this. the real issue is there were 40,000 megawatts, were as 22% of the system forced out. of those 40,000, 30,000, 75% for because of mechanical operational failures because of the winter weather. of those 30,000 megawatts, about 9000 were natural gas. only about 1500 megawatts combined natural gas to almost 15,000 megawatts of core units that were forced out during the

winter weather. the point being is that this is about overreliance to it was not operational readiness this would i want to make sure we understand that. the solution is a lot different. we should have a much higher standard route operates. coming out of the polar vortex on a go forward basis, mr. kormos said this but for about 15,000 megawatts of coal plants that will be retiring over the next three years that will be replaced with 19,000 megawatts of new resources. we will have more resources than that we do not even after accounting for the retirements. some reserve margin will be 30% above what it's supposed to be an winter will even be in better shape. the gas supply, almost $3 billion of investment in the northeast and gas supply going forward. will create about five and half bcfd of new capacity, 60,000 megawatts. so with all that said, we think othinkthe free markets are worky

the arson changes. i will mention for. the renewable production tax credit which is under consideration for an extension is really distorting the market and potentially leading to premature retirements. you've got billions of dollars of taxpayer money actually subsidizing wind resources to the point they actually run at negative prices. they are paying somebody to take the power so they get the production tax credit. we don't know these resources will be on when we need them and the tax subsidy threatens including the nuclear and coal plants we talked about through reliability of the grid. secondly, demand response has become a significant part of the resource next to we are okay with competing just like we did with the need to have the same rules. they need to be available all year round and any be available when it's not just an emergency. other than that it's okay. third is better coordination of power and gas. and given time i want to go deeper. for is making sure that the capacity markets actually are appropriate. if you take a capacity payment, you need to be there

operationally, you need to be there with your fuel it if you say you'll be there if you need to be there. the first one of these is fairly congress is, the second through the fourth are being handled already in a lot of ways by pjm ferc. so with that thank you for your time. >> thank you very much. ms. roberto spent good morning, madame chairman, distinguished members of the committee. i am delighted to be with you this morning. my name is cheryl roberto. i served as the associate vice president of environmental defense fund clean energy program. edf is like a typical environmental organization, and as a former state regulator i served as the commission in ohio and as electric assistant executive, i likely don't fit your stereotype of an environmental activist. at edf we work to solve the most critical and if i'm of the problems using market space solutions. we uniquely affected in that

approach, drawdown on science, economics, partnerships and ardent bipartisanship. the clear message that of want to share with you today is that with or without new environmental regulations, market-based changes are transforming our electric city system. but our electricity system can summit our reliability needs. as former regulator and a system operator, no one puts a higher premium on safety and reliability on our electric system than i do. while the fundamental nature of our electric it is transforming irreversibly, i have confidence this transition can be accomplished without sacrificing safety and reliability, or even cost-effectiveness. our national commitment to reliability is nonnegotiable. but we need to recognize that the electricity system we built in the last century, and the regulations that govern them, are no longer adequate either to

ensure reliability or to accommodate the rapid changes in technology, consumer needs, environmental standards or the changing marketplace. you've heard from other panelists, and i agree, that we are seeing a market-based change in fuel choice for centralized generation. it's markedly shifted our energy landscape, a change in fuel for large and utility-scale electricity generation units, however, is not even the most significant part of the transformation. the very model of centralized utility-scale generation itself is no longer sacrosanct. the cost of distributed generation technologies are falling and energy productivity is rising. in our digital world, consumers have increased demands for power quality and reliability, but needs for power quantity are falling, i predicted to fall. as a result our system is transforming from a one way power delivery network in which

customers passively receive electricity to a two-way flow of both power and information in which customers both receive and produce electricity. for anyone who is concerned about reliability as i am, it is difficult not to notice that the power outages we suffer do not arise from the lack of generation. they are rooted in our transmission and our distribution system. in fact, power outages due to severe weather in passing our -- cost between 18 billion 18 billion-$33 billion per year. this great transformation can enhance our reliability. with every reason to believe that are in g. system that seamlessly knits together centralized and distributed generation possible and will meet our energy needs more reliably and cost-effectively. in order to realize the benefits of this transformation we need to unleash the innovation that we see in our states from a perspective of a former regular any system operate in the state

of ohio actually support active state engagement. our history and experience is demonstrated that we can weather this transition without threatening our uniform and non-negotiable commitment to reliability. but to do that we need to have all the tools at our disposal to ensure that robust, reliable and integrated energy system that is no longer dependent exclusively upon centralized generation managed properly they can deliver benefits to electricity consumers, the economy, environment generators, innovators and workers alike. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. that was excellent the we're under a little bit of a tank and since i'm going to ask one question to mr. hill. turn it over to senator murkowski for hers, and then senator baldwin. i recognize you because you have to preside at 12 and then we will follow-up with portman and mention and close out this hearing. let me just submit for the record though the price of electricity, currently, today.

from a high of, well, the high is new york, 16 cents per kilowatt hour. new jersey, 14, to the lowest in the country which are in louisiana, arkansas, wyoming, all states here it i would like to submit that for the record. i'd also like to submit the epa proposed utility air toxic rule managing compliance and reliability, eia. this graph is a little frightening to me because it doesn't show a mix of rules which i think we need although it does show the potential of natural gas which i'm excited about. i'd like to submit that for the record. mr. hill, let me ask you, senator manchin and i have had many discussions about the role of nuclear, coal and gas. could you just reiterate what your thoughts are about gas as a base load? you know, fuel for electricity production. and what is making that

possible? is a government rule and regulation or is it just technology, the market, or a combination? >> thank you, madam chairman. gas is perfectly capable of being a base load of fuel. in fact, it is a base load fill in many markets around the world, an increase in some of the markets here in the united states. what has changed is shale gas revolution. we a as a country have been blessed with natural gas which is very affordable, and this is not about government. this is about technology innovation, having a resource which is much cheaper to extract than anybody ever thought possible, and it's cheaper all in to deploy natural gas plants than it is other technologies. so it is what the market is working. >> i'm going to come back to a question about how exports potentially could or don't -- i think they do -- that open to hear, the supply issue of natural gas in the united states. but because of time where going

to senator murkowski. thank you so much. >> thank you, madam chair. thanks to each of you for i think very, very important testimony following on our first panel here. commissioner moeller, i want to recognize your leadership in this issue. you mentioned the letter back in 2011. as you know i've spent a lot of time on these issues, on the issue of reliability of electric grid before it was kind of fun and popular and generated the full committee room of interest here. when i post a series of questions back a couple years ago, that really started i think to prompt a more robust dialogue on the important issue from the impact of federal policy on reliability. i think we are finally starting to get some traction. it's taken longer than i had hoped, but i believe you think that what we've heard today just

goes so much to the heart of this. i think if there is one point of agreement amongst everybody at the witness table this morning, madam chairman comment is that we cannot be reliability neutral. that we've got to ensure that the lights go on and that our electric sources, whatever they may be, where ever they may be coming from, that they are there. they are robust. they're reliable and, of course, they are affordable. i want to ask a question, and this is probably directed to you, mr. akins, and you, mr. hill. we are talking about what is happening with the move from coal-fired plants to gas-fired plants. i think he spoke, mr. hill, to really what is online in terms of investment out there. but how confident are we that we are going to have a gas pipeline infrastructure that can be

placed in service in time to allow these new gas facilities to enter when we need them for reliability? i'm concerned about how this all mixed together, and i'm not convinced that we've got a real good handle on what the investors are doing with great opportunities to move to gas, but how do we get from here to there? >> we've been retiring generation can we put in 5000 megawatts of natural gas facilities, and it's very clear that when you go through that process it has been done in a very measured way because you're not only look at the resource itself, you're looking at the deliverability shortly from a natural gas perspective if we're going to depend more on natural gas as even a base load type of fuel, we need to make sure that

underlying grid of the natural gas infrastructure is just as reliable as the electric infrastructure. he will be only as good as delivering electricity as that lowest common denominator. >> do you think you're talking enough about the reliability of the systems of? >> i don't think so. i think there's a lot of work being done, not only in terms of the nomination cycles and things like that relative to natural gas for the pipeline activities are also being looked at from a reliability perspective. we need to continue that process. the issue is the timing of that transition. because naturally there are parts of the country in our midwestern part of the country, natural gas was in very prevalent until recently. so there's a lot of activity there. and our south-central part of the u.s. with louisiana, texas, oklahoma, and arkansas. it's been prevalent for years but it takes time to get that infrastructure in place. >> mr. hill, your comments?

>> as i mentioned in my prepared remarks, that are billions of dollars of capital being spent on this problem right now and i mentioned $3 billion in the northeast alone. what's driving that is produces want to get their fuel out again. is the market working? during the polar vortex you have gas at a very low single-digit price trapped behind a constraint in pennsylvania and judge aspen price as we know at $100 premium btu miles down the road. there are a lot of gas producers that care a lot about that and they will spend heavily and encourage investment as contractors on the pipeline expansion. so i think the time period where tight about the next two or three years investment will follow on certain longer-term we need to pay very close attention to this. >> thank you. i'll defer, madam chairman. >> senator baldwin, thank you so much for your presence this morning. >> thank you and thank you for thinking this and currently important a. also want to thank my colleagues are let me jump in line for head

over to decide. madam chair, i was not able to be present for the questioning of panel one and i just want to let you know that i'd intended to asking questions about large power transformers and will be sitting those for the record that hope to begin you back from panel one. jumping to panel number two and thank you all for being here and your testimony. commissioner moeller, i wanted to talk, i think i walked in just as you are concluding your comments about capacity markets, and i know that ferc has undertaken some time to look a little bit more deeply at capacity markets. given that examination and the performance of those markets during this past winter, i'd like to hear whether you believe that capacity markets are performing as they should. are you considering any changes to current capacity market construct? and also are you planning, is ferc going to receive any additional stakeholder comments

on capacity markets following the challenges that were witnessed this past winter? >> so thank you, senator baldwin. that question also could be relevant to our acting chairman lafleur. we did have a technical conference in september on capacity markets, and extended the comment deadline at least once. we, i think, have the staff analyzing that. it's an ongoing proceeding. it's one that has a lot of interest. can't tell you where we were going because i'm not even sure what the options are right now. but at least some of the discussion has been, should we assign a higher value to those generating resources that have on site fuel, whether that be oil, fuel rods, or goal. is there greater value their that's not being recognized now. that's one of the concepts that's out there. did they work as intended?

the system worked but the prices were very, very high to a lot of that though was, as referenced before, the pipeline capacity constraints. you would have gas a hundred miles away trading at the national levels but then 20 times that where there's constraint. so that goes through a little bit different subject to be happy talk in more detail so i don't take up all your time. >> a quick comment before i have to leave, but as many of you know, wisconsin is no stranger to extreme weather and extreme cold. and, in fact, this past winter we had pretty fierce conditions. a community had negative dirty degrees, and i wanted to say things actually worked pretty well in the state during this extreme weather with regard to electricity. the chair and i've talked a lot about our challenges with

propane. but american transmission company operate in wisconsin and their transmission lines and other facilities i think fared quite well. so i'm wondering if wisconsin success and experience during this really extreme weather and serve as lessons for other regions. and i certainly would suggest you reach out to hear about our best practices. >> thank you, senator. and in future hearings, which senator murkowski and i are talking here about doing, we wanted from different parts of the country. because we do think that we can pick up best practices, and i know there's a lot of that conversation going on, but i think anymore that on the record here in washington would be a very hopeful. senator manchin, we will give you the last word. ..

is that basically how energy will be produced or delivered? >> we do not pick -- we do not have a role in the generation outside of our role as a regulator of hydropower production and that is primarily a safety environmental role.

>> the question i asked earlier if they are not able to an and u see they are not able to produce because they don't have that power, the reliability of the power are you able to step in and give them the ability to keep running something clicks >> typically recalled those reliable must run contracts and we have several that we have improved in the last few years and we anticipate some more. i was kind of the essence of my testimony we need a deeper dive into what was going on. >> it wouldn't be accurate for us to believe that you have any input whatsoever in the policy or directly of generation? if i can, could you reverse the closures if ferc determined kind this is what we talked about now the system couldn't be

maintained or relied upon to give us the power as needed could you reverse the closures that you have underway packs >> there may be areas where it's a possibility, but we would have to look at each individual circumstance because we have known these were shut down for years so interesting in the boilers you have to pay substantial amounts back into the units which would take time itself and then you would have to staff up again. we are running at this point in time -- spinet are all of the units those that were not described or haven't met the clean air act? and >> they were critical to the units but -- have you taken anything off-line that doesn't meet the standard as we have had in the past?

>> all of the units that we are taking off-line and do not have scrubbers. i think one of them has selected devices, so it's a matter of making investment decisions based upon the rules and what is required versus the other options available, but that takes time. >> were you concerned when the energy took off quick >> we were concerned when anybody retires in a unit. >> that this unit met the clean air standards. as mcveigh fel >> they felt economically it was viable going forward. >> is that because of your pricing? spigots that prediction wit they thought the future market revenues would be and that was a business choice made by them. >> and you didn't get involved?

>> from that reliability analysis we got involved to make sure that it would be reliable should they choose to retire from a business perspective. >> what was the average increase of the bills in the system this year? this past winter for tax debate have any idea how much? >> that is very dependent on what they have settled with. >> what kind of prices were you paying? you're going to be passing on that. i mean you have to. >> the average was well over $100 per megawatt. >> and that could double a person still very easily write? >> if you were on the great contract, yes. >> should we open the gates? right now we have an awful lot of people wanting to export and we thought we were going to import. should we open the gates on the

exports? >> our view is that most things that are free market should be allowed to work. there are questions if you were to export lng or anything for that matter whether the prices go up. >> knowing the pricing volatility of gas right now do you think that would be a good policy decision for us to vote to open the market when we are going to be needing so much more of this product at a competitive price? >> i will say this about natural gas, there is lots of it. there is what economists call a supply curve. >> they told me that before but it didn't turn out to be what he thought it woulwethought it wou. west virginia has been blessed i just hope there is as much as you tell me. i can't see it. i'm just taking your word for it. you want us to open the market -- i am a marketeer and i think that's the concern we have right

now that we could get ourselves in one heck of a mind putting your eggs in one basket we have made everybody shift because of the policies. that was the question i was asking. >> if i could ask anybody that wants to chime in on this to you the leave this government or this administration's energy policy and regulatory agenda is in sync with the reality or ahead of the curve? >> i should have cut him off before this last question. you have one minute. we do have two other senators. >> what can be done. are you being put in a bind right now? >> i will take a crack at that. [laughter] here's the issue. there needs to be a more thorough and thoughtful analysis if i were to encourage anything

for the administration it's for the epa, the federal register a commission and the department of energy to get together and have substantial discussions about not only the environmental policy that the framework of the other activities occurring around the reliability and the great resiliency. that is what needs to be done. i think it is because of the aggressive timelines that were put in place. we are adjusting to that. he's doing everything he can from that perspective created the markets are trying to respond. they will be vulnerable for a paragon of time because it is a substantial transition that is occurring and that takes time. >> does anybody else want to jump in? are the rule that we have talked so much about there are lots of other debates including climate change but there is no debate about the fact that mercury is bad for human health, that it

causes smog and respiratory issues. that is what that bill is about and the technology for controlling these units is 40-years-old. of the 89% of the units that we are talking about are on average over 50-years-old. so there is a question about how you implement it but there is no doubt about the rules. >> thank you, senator portman, and then we are going to have to bring this interesting hearing to a close. >> i appreciate being here earlier to hear the testimony from both panels and the questions i was asking earlier about the greater reliability i wanted to kind of tea up for you all do if yo if you have a commn those please jump in bed with me go to this issue of how do you have an epa coordination with ferc and the doe to that mix the

private sector, too with the utilities in particular to figure out how are we going to have this reliability that we want to see? we came so close people found themselves in a situation where their lives were going to be at stake when the electricity is going down in the cold winter because people are relying on it for heat and because of other reasons you've got to have electricity. we are in a situation you are in a box and we have a huge problem with consumers wanting to pay more and not having the reliability we should have yet the epa seems to be continuing on without any concern about that. i understand we need to have regulations in some of these plans are true specifically on

dealing with some of the environmental concerns. it seems to me isn't being analyzed there is no cost-benefit analysis. there is not this coordination with the utilities and the new regulatory model such as we talked about earlier is no longer with a regulated model with the states in conjunction with the utilities responsible and in our area who wants to jump in on that about the better coordination and how do we ensure we are not going to run into the same problem this summer should we have a heat wave and another polar vortex. >> i think it is a great question and a great point. these hearings are very much unlike. as we are bringing down more of

these plans we depend upon the transmission grid. when we talk about the cyber security and physical security looking at the grid i came from a substation here. we have a very vulnerable grid and we are making it more vulnerable to the generation of the close down. of these rules, 316 will affect nuclear as well as coal. we are beyond talking about 60,000, 60, however it is going to be we are talking about closing down nuclear and supercritical hole. i had my comments i didn't get to that the coordination and the cost of these rules need to come into the picture. we've got regulatory rules that have significant cost impact and we are not looking at those.

>> do you have a comment? >> we asked for and got to reliability safety valve and i think it's important going forward on the future rules that alloweallow that analysis to han and allow people to look at it and if we do see the reliability problems we will be the first to speak out and again i think he's right a lot of this is about the time. we need to make the time to make the transition and if you give us that kind industry is very robust and resilient and we will make the transition. >> the problem with that is we have these plants shutting down. 89% of the power that would have been needed. so as he said earlier when we shut these things down people leave and they are dismantled and you cannot bring it right back up and i understand and i appreciate what was said about the fact that there is more

distributed power and i understand there is a fuel exchanging but in the meantime 2015 is right around the corner; that is what can we do right now. commissioner, you talked about that earlier but if you could comment on that as well. >> i think certainly we should take the time to get this right. i don't know what that means in terms of legislation or other activities that can ensure the right parties are coming together but certainly this notion in this capacity markets environmental regulation grid security around physical and cyber security all of those come together in the same framework and it is a national security issue and one that we need to be very thoughtful about and when you think about some of the issues that can occur, certainly we talk about first contingency outages in our business a lot.

when the system is stressed we plan around those events come first and second contingency outages. when we are taking away resources that not only provide power but this is sort of a larger focus beyond reactive power many of the facilities provided that maintain the voltage on the system those are key components that maintain the integrity of the grid people don't talk about in those kind of renewable supplies do not provide that kind of resource is its incredibly important to not only think about the power to serve customers but also the ancillary services that are used to really facilitate the grid operating properly.

they've underestimated the power of production that would be retired due to its rules in august of 2011 you've been calling for a formal analysis to the cumulative impact of the regulations on the reliability of the electric grid is proposed others to participate in this analysis and explaining as far as you know in the formal analysis it's never comments. >> thank you senator. i've wondered about many times myself because i think what's the downside. they are not our rules that are driving this. they are epa rules so we have been in an awkward situation. there are informal communications that have gone on and they call the rto were they called the epa every month if

they have something to talk about but we just need more transparency and accountability in this because as you mentioned it's not just the rule coming into effect in april of 2015 that it is an accumulation of the rules and a reliability consequence. >> my question is the administration is in the sand or are they actively opposed to conducting the analysis because they don't want to see what the results are? >> i don't know their medication. >> in 2011 the unions testified about the cumulative impact of the agencies that proposed regulations. i understand they predicted that the regulations would result in the retirement of 56 gigawatts of electric generation and use of the 56 gigawatts of closing represents over 50,000 direct

jobs in the next couple of years and the job losses come from mining workers, railroad workers, power plants and you stated that these job losses would fall heavily on the rural communities where most of the plants are located. why do you think they have ignored the concerns of your union and several others when issuing the new regulations? >> we have asked that question numerous times. we've met with the director and staff. originally they sat with their 4.7 number and said we were going to be fine. it's not that big of a deal. now it's come true that it is a big deal and there's still furthering regulations every one of those heavy cost and every time there is more cost we see more plants closing. >> do you think they take this issue that we are concerned about seriously when they issue

regulations? >> i don't think they've taken into consideration the cost of the rules, no. >> you said that steps can be taken to ensure the reliability of the electric grid. can you explain the power plants to operate under the must run orders to ensure the electric grid needs to demand that you also noted that the order does not exempt the power plant from civil lawsuits or federal penalties under the clean air act. for that reason you stated that congress must address the double jeoparddoublejeopardy clause are must run order and the fact the plan owners can be sued under the clean air act so generally speaking what your union support legislation exempting the power plants subject to the must run order from the lawsuits and penalties under the activex >> absolutely. >> it's been an extraordinary hearing. thank you all for your

participation. the record will stay open for another week. i encourage anyone to submit additional information and thank you for your patience. i know you have additional things to add to the curb. the meeting is adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

earlier today president obama introduced sylvia at his nominee as the secretary of health and human services replacing kathleen sebelius. we are asking for your comments on our social media on her five and a half year tenure as the head of the agency. you can leave comments on our facebook page. and political writing the reaction of gop lawmakers to the news of hhs secretary kathleen sebelius resignation played on a very narrow band thursday evening muted thanks to the outright. capitol hill republicans have long bludgeoned its affiliates for her role overseeing the rollout of obamacare's

enrollment website. the response to the exit started coming in immediately. house majority leader erik cantor said she had an impossible job defending obamacare. i think secretary sebelius for her service she had an impossible task. nobody can make obamacare work. that's from politico. in the senate yesterday to majority leader harry reid tried to secure agreement to have the votes on the nominations later in the day. republicans sought to delay the vote until april 28 after members returned from a two-week break. it widened into the back and forth about the new senate rules on the nominees and the pace of the senate work with minority leader mitch mcconnell and others taking part. >> we are here this afternoon because republicans have

confirmation of two important nominations. earlier today the senate voted cloture on the show ninth circuit court of appeals. so the question is when would she be made a judge in the ninth circuit. there are some who say so we can speak for themselves if they insist on doing so. there is no question that isn't to d-da depict the nomination is just to stand around here and do nothing. the senators have come to the fore to explain any reason to oppose this. she was nominated nine months ago by president obama so it's time to confirm the nominee. enough stalling has taken place three to she graduated secon thd in her class at stanford university law school. she clerked for sandra day

o'connor in the supreme court. she's been it partner in a prominent california law firm. the ninth circuit is the busiest circuit and the entire country. the senate confirmed 18 of president bush's circuit court nominees within a week of being reported out of committee. now she's already indicated that 13 months ago. we have 30 other nominees pending on the calendar. we have 85 vacancies on the federal courts. there is no reason to delay the nomination. there is no reason to delay the nomination that would allow the division into the department of labor. the ambassador university professor, researcher so madam president, it's i'm sure a little difficult for people watching this to understand why republicans are demanding that we waste time because that's all it is but i guess the american people have become accustomed to

wasting time. that's what they tried to do for five years. we have wasted because of stuff like this. the staff has to be here. we have wasted so much time we could be working on important issues. when republicans come to the floor we want amendments. we spend so much time on this we have wasted thousands of hours during the five years and that is unfortunate when they've been close to establishing so much. so i would ask unanimous consent but at a time until 4:00 today be controlled and at 4:00 all the time be yielded back on the senate and i'm sorry, on the senate proceeded to vote with no intervening action or debate. he proceeded to vote on the closure of the executive calendar 613 but if the cloture is invoked all will be yielded

back into the senate proceeded to vote on the confirmation nomination. that is confirmed the notion to be considered be made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or the date and if there is no further notion than any statements related with the printed on the rack or into the inner you are immediately notified of the session remains. >> is there objection? >> the senator from iowa. >> reserving the right to object and i would offer an alternative, but before i do that i would like to say to my colleagues in the senate to that first of all, there is controversy about this nominee. let's make that clear and second, the majority leader said maybe the people of this country don't really understand what's going on, they understand what's going on. we are working under the rules that the majority changed by ignoring the rules of the united states senate in november.

so as a majority leader knows we haven't yielded back post-cloture time on the judicial nominations since the so-called nuclear option was triggered last november. we have followed the rules of the senate to order all judges before the senate in the last five months, just exactly the way the rules were changed in november. so there are 30 hours of debate on this nomination, therefore i would ask if they consent to be modified so that the vote on the confirmation would occur at 5:30 p.m. monday april 28 when we return from the recess. this would allow the senate to process the pending nomination on the wage for our nominee this afternoon and said that confirmation vote also for monday when we return on apri

april 28. that's the alternative that i offered to the majority. >> madam president? 's pinnacle opinnacle of the mar modify his request fax can i reserve my right to object. madam president, this is not a dissertation on logic because if it were, why in the world would we want to waste three hours doing nothing? that is what we are doing, 30 hours, and i know that my friend from iowa has been on the judiciary community for a long time and i appreciate all he has done but it's apparent that the only reason he expresses the delay is further delay. no other reason. i may have missed it but could someone come down and talk about i must have missed that.

i heard a little if any opposition in fact i have heard none to this nominee. i've heard only a distraction for obstructions sake and delay as it has been going on for five years. it appears that the senators wishes to make a wish is to just say no and that's what they do so i would object to the modification. >> is there objection to the original request? >> reserving the right to object, and i will, just to remind everybody that when the majority leader says nothing is being done on judges have confirmed 233 judges and only disapproved to, so don't ever try to sell the american people on the idea that the senate is not doing its work on getting the judges approved. >> objection is heard. majority leader? spin it aspinning as i indicates

much in the way of logic. we have had a lot of judges approved after wasting hundreds of hours of time doing nothing. we have judges that have reported in the judiciary committee unanimously led by our good friend the senior senator from vermont at the chairman of the committee. we put out unanimously and they stalled, republicans stalled the delay and then we have a vote here and it passes very easily. so the only purpose for the delay is for delay is purposes and sake and obstructing this as they have obstructed everything in the last five years. i know people complain about the rule change that was made. where would we be in this country without having changed

that rule? i got a letter today from the secretary of defense mr. hagel outlining nine important people in the department of defense that need to be confirmed. most of them haven't had anybody there for up to a year. we have numerous ambassadors in importing countries around the world and they are not being confirmed because they are being stalled. why couldn't we have these people go d to do their work and be nominated? countries all over the world are without ambassadors for the united states. where would we be had we not changed that rule? now we are going through these nominations and it's kind of slow because in the inordinate amount of time that along with it, my friend and i talked that maybe we should have changed the

rules more than what we did so unless something changes we are going to vote tomorrow at 5:00 on friday. >> i think it's important to put all of this in context. my good friend of the majority leader broke his word last year and he said we had settled the issue of what the rules were going to be for the senate for this congress. he then broke the rules to change the senate rules setting a very unfortunate precedent and continues to abuse the rules by using a device called filling up the tree to prevent members of the senate from his party and our party from even offering alternatives. despite this heavy handed behavior, he expects the minority to simply expedite consideration in the case of the matter that we are discussing of lifetime appointment as the

senator has pointed out we are simply exercising our rights under the rules of the senate. i might say many of these nominees would have been confirmed last december had we not experienced this event has perpetrated by the majority in a heavy-handed attempt to alter the balance to change the nature of the senate with a simple majority. it was an unfortunate decision, but those kind of decisions have consequences and all that we have done here is exercise what senator grassley pointed out the right senators have under the rules of the senate. if the majority leader doesn't like the way the senate is working i would recommend he change his behavior. we don't have a rules problem we

have a behavior problem. we have had a couple examples trying to edge back to normal where we brought up a bill that was open for amendment and they were processed for the members of both sides but it seems of late we are sort of back into the old senate. we are just about scoring partisan planes, denying members the opportunity to offer amendments. i think most of the members on both sides of the aisle came here to the senators which involves having your committee were taken seriously, having the opportunity to offer amendments taken seriously. this body when it was at its peak operating the way that it should with the majorities of both parties has been a more civil place in which the rights were respected. so the ranking member of the judiciary committee is pointing out we are simply exercising our rights under the rules of the

senate. the majority leader? >> i am a patient man. for my friend to come here and have the audacity to talk about me breaking my word for trouble in that statement is we had the whole senate to see what happened. he said something and i said something and what he said is we are not going to have all of these filibusters on the motion to proceed. now for the viewing on the ends, we wasted so much time just trying to get on a bill. it's not that easy. you have to file something in the senate and wait a day to get on the bill if they object and they do hundreds of times it

takes two days to get on the bill, vote, 30 hours and then we are on the on the go. to get off the bill we have to get me to do that all over again and we have done that hundreds of times. there were more filibusters and nominations than far more than the entire history of the country's other presidents. we have been a country for a long time and that entire period of time there were more filibusters in five years for president, then the entire history of the country. i went to new york and had the good fortune of watching a wonderful play and during the time he was majority leader for six years he had overcome a filibuster. as liberty leader in the senate because of this performance that we have over here i have had to

overcome over 500 filibusters. this is for the country, it's not for me. we have been striving at it everything we have tried to do, everything. now, we know it's all public record now three days after obama was elected the first time a meeting was held here in washington and return up all over. carl rove called a meeting along with others and a decision was made that our goal is to make sure that this man never gets reelected. so to the credit of the republican leader, he said the goal is to make sure he is never reelected. while that surprised everybody except us. he was overwhelmingly supported by the american people.

they also said the way that we are going to stop them is to object to everything. that is what they have done unprecedented in the history of our great republic. now i've been here a while and i know how people used to work together. but you can't work together if one side says no to everything. we have been able because of the good fortune that we have in the lobby and we pieced together some work with th republicans bt it's getting harder and harder to do. we have been able to get it done a few times. so madam president, to waste the time of the american people come and that's what it's done, to say there is objection to this, come to the floor and talk about what's wrong with it. in the finest law schools in america there is a battle that goes on every year whether it is harvard yale or stanford is a

step back and forth. it doesn't matter if she is a fine academic and she clerked for one of the finest that we had in the country and by the way a republican so what's wrong with her, what did we gain by holding this up? the country gains nothing. so as indicated we had about 140 nominations being held up and for my friend they say we would have approved her in december anyway. please come have met him to be 56 please madam -- everybody, i'm sorry. in 25 hours i guess it will be weekend come here. that's the way it is. i'm so sorry for the

inconvenience of everyone, but republicans know that for them it's pretty easy. they can just walk out of here. they don't have to be here. but we do because it is our burden to run the country. they can continue trips and we have to approve these two people. we have a good judge we need to improve. we have somebody from the department of labor has been a job center vacant for a long time. we have an obligation we have been elected to the senators. hispanic madam president? >> senator from kentucky. >> number one, we have more judges at this point for president obama then president bush had approved at the same time in his presidency.

the bill is because as soon as we get on the bills there are no amendments allowed. people that maybe listening who are not deeply on the senate rules. the majority leader has made it impossible for members of his party for hours to offer amendments more often than the last 6 liters combined. in other words he gets to decide whether he's on our side. that is what has degraded to the senate looking more like the

house and i'm told they are more amendments in the senate than the assistant majority leader used to say, and he was quite right at the time. if you want to have a chance to vote come to the senate. that's what the senate is about. all it really requires is to get the senate back to normal for the one member of the senate that has a prior recognition that has the right to set the agenda to open up the senate and let the parties offer amendmen amendments. but when we used to be in the majority, we would tell our members the price of being in the majority is to give the minority the votes. that is the bill for the

completion. it looked like we were going to get back to normal and i still hope it isn't too late for that. it would be in the best interest of the institution and both the majority and the minority to begin to restore the institution to the way that it use is to operate. hispanic madam president? if you would yield for a question. >> you have said that there is urgent work that the senate needs to turn to which is why we ought to amend the rules of the senate that call for a post-cloture period and i would ask them to be aware of any of

them didn't go work for the majority leader has planned and has returned to that was the a reason to expedite the particular nomination. >> if the senator would yield for another question i would ask the republican leader is he aware, and i'm confident that he is coming to the majorit, the md other leaders of his party had a press conference last week i believe it was announcing their agenda from this point through which involved things like the boat we had yesterday, the vote on extending long-term unemployment and the like and i believe there was a quote in the article if the senator remembers like i do that basically said we are not interested in legislating. we are just interested basically in fostering and politics to

help distract the american people from the unpopularity of the policies and this party's policies. >> the senator from texas has been entirely corrected with a candid admission in a press conference that the whole agenda was basically crafted in democratic senatorial campaign committee. and getting the outcome was a st of aero vent. it was mainly about scoring political points for the fall election on the floor of the senate. so if that is the urgent item, the majority leader has in mind that it would somehow be prevented, if we had a vote on this judge on the monday after the recess is perplexing to reach the conclusion that this is a matter of great urgency for the people that there is no infrastructure whatsoever in getting the outcome. >> majority leader? >> i have hurt my republican

friends come to the floor and so why don't we work on finding? madam president, most people work on fridays. i want to make sure that i was right, that there hasn't been a single republican conference or a single word about the nominees of the ninth circuit positive or negative. not a single word. so, a lot of words are being thrown about here. somebody that was long-term unemployed to work a long time and there was a profile somebody that's 55-years-old was laid off because of the recession and can't find a job. overqualifieoverqualified, over, lots of different issues that they cannot find to work. we decided that it is important that they get on the appointed benefit of extension.

about 2 million people agree with that because they are the ones that lost their benefits. i don't think that is posturing. we voted on that in the past. i think we have to have five cloture votes to get there but because of some very strong willed republicans we were able to do that and i admire them. they said something that we did yesterday. that's something we did yesterday. so if a woman works the same job a man works, she should be paid the same. is that fostering? i don't think so, my daughter doesn't think so and my granddaughters don't think so. they think it's pretty fair because we have more than half the people going to college now are women and over half the people in medical school and law school are women shouldn't they be paid the same? is that fostering? i don't think so. but again, diversion and

distraction is at hand. they wanted to offer amendments on 350 page amendments that covered everything in fact i said even the kitchen sink. they are not serious about this. they wanted to work from what we were trying to do. we have anything urgent to-do? if we didn't have to go through all this nonsense command that's what it is we would be voting today on the minimum wage to bring more than 20 million people out of poverty, giving -- i'm sorry connelley and people out of poverty and 26 would get a raise. now why did we pick the number of $10.10 per hour? that gets people out of poverty. it's really important madam president, we understand that

this is part of the mantra of the program that others decided they would do. you cannot talk about what went on before because never in the history of the great republic have we had a party that is determined to do nothing hoping that it will give them the majority in november. we will find out if the experiment works. that is oppose everything and people will like us a lot. i don't think that is going to work. i would also say this madam president. we are here to do the work of the american people. is it right that we have more than 100 people that are being held up for no reason other than they want to make sure that if we have somebody that's going to

be a circuit court judge and we have to file cloture that's two hours, i mean today is coming and we have 30 hours and then simply moving to the piece of legislation we waste a week getting on that because of their obstruction and delay. so madam president, it is unfortunate that my friends talk about all of the great things they have done. i could give you lots of examples. we try to do a highway bill, important for this country. we have a deficit in the infrastructure of $3 trillion. it wasn't much better a couple years ago. so we brought it up to th her tr and the great amendment process they wanted to stop women from getting contraceptives.

to oppose everything president obama wanted him to try to do and they stuck with that. if the senator would yield for a question. the majority leader says there is important work for the senate to do. if the majority leader would consent the house has passed reauthorization of the day debate coul could be smith act h to remind colleagues, this is money that the congress has appropriated to the department of justice for the grants to local law enforcement agencies and forensic labs to test unprocessed rape kit.

the house has passed reauthorization of that bill. and all that it takes is for the majority leader and the senate to consent to take this bill up to date and delay could get into the president's desk. that will pass. >> the committee of which i'm almost certain that my friend is a member of the judiciary committee. part of that reporting situati situation. part of it has that language in

it but it has more stuff in it and just about. you talked to the chair of the committee, the ranking member on the floor here today. they were willing to separate this stuff and haven't reported out of the committee to take a look at this. the senator was here on the floor. floor. he'he is not here now but i woud be happy to take a look at that. >> one final question of the majority leader, a follow-up question. >> i would ask whether he would yield for one last question. this bill that was reported out of the committee which my friend from texas we have declared it on their side. all they have to do is put it on there and say we declare it.

>> if i can ask the majority leader through the chair there is the justice act whic justiceu have pointed out that includes things other than that debbie smith act which hasn't cleared the senate switch if it did it would include debbie smith act which would be a positive development. if the justice for all act isn't clear there's a separate bill that would reauthorize the debbie smith act which has passed the house so we could takpick up just to the debbie sh act the authorization of the house has passed and we get that done what i would urge the majority leader to consider. if we cannot clear up the larger bill, the justice for all act but frankly i would be happy with either one but if we could just do the debbie smith act today i think we could call that great progress for justice and some of these other people that have been waiting for too long for the law-enforcement community to be about to identify the perpetrators and get these folks off the street.

>> senators over here have declared it is a bill to protect crime victims rights and to eliminate the substantial backlog collected from the crime scenes and convicted offenders to improve and expand the capacity of the federal, state and local crime of othe of the o the research and development testing technologies and develop training programs regarding the use to provide postconviction testing exonerated innocent and improve the applications and for other purposes. we've passed that right now and we are happy to do it. >> if i may respond to the majority leader of the bill that he is referring to is the justice for all act which is something that i support, that there has been some reason why that bill hasn't come to the floor and received floor time. i'm worried that if we wast waio pass that, it will delay the passage of the debbie smith act,

which is a component of that act which we could take up having passed the house, and we could take that up to date and then deal with the justice for all act. >> majority leader? >> this is what we deal with here. we have a piece of legislation in the committee that has been cleared up by the democrats here in the senate and the republicans are saying we like that but we don't want you to do it that way. the committee met and decided that they wanted to do more than what the house did. we should go on with the committee system. let's have the committees do

their work. we are ready to pass this right now. we have a member on our side oft is unfortunately here today because of medical concerns. we cannot pass unanimous consent over that senator's objection. so what we can pass his smith act of which there is no objection to that i know of and then we can get this issue addressed today while we take up the concerns of the absentee senator who is necessarily not feared because of medical issu

issues. the senate to take up and passed by unanimous consent the house passed debbie smith act. even though the judiciary committee did it, let the committees do the work. we don't like what they did. we want to do something else. the legislation is important, but the justice act is a lot better than that. >> mr. president -- >> i object. >> republican? to make the majority leader thinks this is a zero-sum game. this could be a win-win. debbie smith, who i've met and i does state virtually every member of the body knows.

hence the naming of the statute in the law on her behalf because she recognized the unprocessed rape kit was a national scandal and the people like her but have been victims of the sexual assault needed help from the federal government to help provide funds to local law enforcement agencies to process the kids and serves to identify the perpetrator and get them off the street. so what debbie smith has asked me and i daresay the majority leader and all of us to do is to take up this piece of the bill. we can do that and i think that we will have done a good thing today. if we can't pick up the justice for all act because of other concerns. we can pass the debbie smith act today and then we can take up the justice for all act when we return following the recess. it doesn't have to be a zero-sum game. >> the majority leader backs syndicate has been cleared up

for more than two weeks. more than two weeks. this is what is going on in the senate. the republicans basically oppose everything. that's what they decided they were going to do. and they come back and say well, when we've reported this out of the committee i can tell it is a good piece of legislation and they said we don't like that lets forget about the committee process. we have a committee structure here that i try to follow. i admire the work done by senator leahy and the piece of legislation on the committee i accept and approve it as do the other democratic senators. after that deviate from yesterday we just showed you senators reached an agreement for the president's nominee to serve on the federal appeals court based in san francisco and the nominee to head of the wage and hour division. we are expecting the majority leader to ask for unanimous

consent to vote on the nominations when the senate reconvenes from its recess later this month. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. our father, be with us not only in great moments of experience but also during mundane and common tasks of life. through th