| |
Mr.
Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Alan Richardson
and I
am the President and Chief Executive Officer of the American Public Power
Association (APPA). Thank you for
the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss APPA’s views on H.R.
3406, the Electricity Supply and Transmission Act.
APPA represents the interests of more than 2000 publicly owned electric
utility systems across the country, serving approximately 40 million citizens.
APPA member utilities include state public power agencies and municipal
electric utilities that serve some of the nation’s largest cities.
However, the vast majority of these publicly owned electric utilities
serve small and medium-sized communities in 49 states, all but Hawaii.
In fact, 75 percent of our members are located in cities with populations
of 10,000 people or less. Further,
most publicly owned utilities are not generation self-sufficient but depend on
wholesale power purchases to meet the retail loads of the communities they
serve. Competitive wholesale markets are in our interest and we have
a very long record in support of legislative and regulatory initiatives that
promote greater real competition in these markets. Finally, almost without exception, publicly owned utilities
depend on others for transmission. Fair
terms for transmission access at just, reasonable and non-discriminatory rates
have always been critically important for public power
Public
power systems’ first and only purpose is to provide reliable, efficient-
service to their local customers at the lowest possible cost.
Publicly owned utilities also have an obligation to serve the electricity
needs of their customers and they have maintained that obligation, even in
states that have introduced retail competition.
And, because they are governed democratically through their state and
local government structures, public power systems operate in the sunshine,
subject to open meeting laws, public record laws and conflict of interest rules.
For
decades, APPA has supported legislative efforts to make the wholesale electric
market more competitive. APPA was
one of the major supporters of the transmission access provisions of the Energy
Policy Act of 1992. On numerous
occasions over the past few years, we have testified in support of the enactment
of federal legislation that promotes competition, increases reliability, expands
the transmission system, addresses market power in generation and transmission,
and eliminates tax-related impediments to competition for municipal utilities.
These
past few years, and especially the past two years, have been a period of rapid
and dramatic change in our industry. This
change has occurred in federal and state policies on electricity competition and
regulation; in the wholesale and retail markets for electricity; and in the
minds and attitudes of consumers. The
lessons learned from these experiences should serve to guide this subcommittee
and other policy makers on any additional changes to the industry that may be
necessary.
The
goal of Federal restructuring legislation should be to promote competition in
the wholesale electric market for the benefit of consumers.
There are several fundamental elements necessary for real competition to
exist and be sustained over time. These
include: ease of entry to and exit
from the market; availability and transparency of market data; a sufficient
number of buyers and sellers; and effective controls to prevent the abuse of
market power where possible and remedy abuses when discovered.
H.R.
3406 is, presumably, a bill “to benefit consumers and enhance the Nation’s
energy security by removing barriers to the development of competitive markets
for electric power….” H.R. 3406 falls far short of these lofty goals because
it fails to encourage the creation of an environment that is consistent with the
fundamental elements that are prerequisites for competition.
Indeed, H.R. 3406 represents a significant step in the opposite
direction. In its present form,
this bill will neither benefit consumers nor remove barriers to competition.
It does just the opposite.
Briefly
stated, we oppose H.R. 3406 in its present form because:
-
It
eliminates FERC merger review authority.
This review is not redundant with existing authority under the
antitrust laws exercised by the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade
Commission. Unrestrained and
unexamined mergers can clearly be a barrier to the development of
competitive markets. Every
merger eliminates at least one competitor from the market and many mergers
are pursued precisely for this reason.
FERC’s authority to review proposed mergers should be expanded to
include mergers of holding companies, transfers of generation facilities,
and consolidation of electric and natural gas companies.
FERC should also retain present authority to be used as necessary to
promote competition, including the authority to condition mergers and grant
permission to sell power at market based rates on membership in FERC
approved regional transmission organizations.
-
It
repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act, an important consumer
protection statute, without enhancing FERC’s authority to deal with market
power problems. All agree that
PUHCA repeal will result in new mergers and further consolidation within the
electric utility industry. …
Prescriptive that they severely limit FERC’s discretion with respect to
such critical issues as appropriate size, scope and function.
Further, H.R. 3406 would prohibit FERC from conditioning approval of
such things as sales of power at market based rates on RTO membership.
-
It
imposes almost insurmountable financial obstacles on communities that want
to create their own locally owned and publicly controlled electric utility
by dictating the formula that must be used to calculate “stranded costs”
incurred by the incumbent utility. In
calculating stranded costs, FERC must use as a benchmark factors that
existed in 1996, factors that are not likely to bear any relationship to
conditions that exist today or in the future, not the least of which is the
underlying historically installed generation capacity situation.
The intent of this section is clear – to prevent the creation of
new public power systems whether or not they advance competition, or promote
lower rates and better service for America’s electric consumers.
-
It
promotes incentive rates for transmission service that are unnecessary,
inconsistent with the Commission’s responsibilities to ensure only just
and reasonable rates for transmission, and will certainly lead to higher
costs for consumers.
-
It
subjects wholesale power sales and rates charged for transmission access by
publicly owned utilities to private power companies to after-the-fact
regulatory proceedings by FERC for no legitimate public purpose.
Due
to a number of recent developments, we recommend that the subcommittee defer
action on comprehensive restructuring legislation at this time.
The number of issues that now require congressional action has greatly
decreased. This is due in large
part to the willingness of the current members of FERC to exercise authorities
already available to them under the Federal Power Act.
We believe the current members of FERC have a very clear vision as to
what is necessary to promote real competition and they recognize that
competition is a means to promote the interests of consumers and not an end in
itself. FERC has set out, and begun
to act on, an impressive set of initiatives to establish effective wholesale
competition. And while public power
systems have concerns about aspects of some of those initiatives, on the whole,
we applaud the FERC for taking action to deal with serious problems in the
wholesale markets.
Much
of what APPA and others have advocated in federal legislation debates prior to
these actions by the FERC was mainly necessary in order to direct an unwilling
FERC to use its existing authority appropriately.
APPA has consistently supported pro-competitive legislative proposals
that would both direct the Commission to act, and provide it with the political
support to do so. Thus, in light of
FERC’s new direction, it seems prudent to allow FERC to develop and implement
these stated initiatives without overly prescriptive statutory changes imposed
by Congress.
Any
legislation that may ultimately be approved by Congress must first do no harm to
consumers and should, as mentioned above, build on the valuable lessons learned
in the recent past. For
example, we learned from the Western electricity crisis that premature decisions
to allow market-based rates, based on outdated and inadequate analytical tools
and faulty assumptions, will have significant negative consequences for
consumers. FERC
is undertaking such a review at the present time.
An important tool at its disposal is to condition market based rate
approval on participation in an approved RTO.
Provisions of H.R. 3406 would eliminate this authority.
If Congress is serious about promoting competition, it should applaud
FERC’s recent initiatives, not advance proposals that undermine them. The
collapse of Enron teaches us that market transparency and full access to all
books, records, and other pertinent information by regulators is essential,
although there may be many other lessons yet to be learned as the Enron story
unfolds.
We
also learned that local control of public power systems continues to work
extremely well. Publicly owned
utilities in California and throughout the nation have retained their obligation
to serve all their customers and continue to meet that obligation with quality,
reliable service at cost-based rates. About the only thing California did right was preserve
local control of public power. Public
power systems have retained their generation assets and are actively planning
and building to bring additional resources on line, including significant
investments in renewable and distributed generation projects.
Public power is also working to add additional transmission capacity to
the grid, particularly in key constrained areas.
For example, a public power entity, the Transmission Agency of Northern
California, is a major participant in the project to upgrade California’s
infamous Path 15. Despite these proven benefits of public power, and its role
in promoting both infrastructure development and greater competition, H.R. 3406
would create a nearly insurmountable financial barrier to the creation of new
publicly owned electric utilities.
Following,
then, are comments on certain specific provisions of H.R. 3406, based on the
foregoing discussion. As delineated
below, APPA has significant concerns about major elements of the bill and some
additional concerns regarding several other provisions.
There are also several provisions in the bill that APPA supports and
those are discussed below as well. The
positive provisions of the bill, however, do not offset its significant negative
impacts.
Major
Concerns
Section
141 – Repeal of certain provisions of the Federal Power Act regarding
disposition of property, consolidation, and purchase of securities
This
section repeals Section 203 of the Federal Power Act, thereby completely
eliminating FERC’s authority to review, approve and condition utility mergers
and asset disposition. Accelerating
consolidation in the electricity industry already threatens competition and
consumers’ interests. Not only
does H.R. 3406 fail to include any provisions to address generation market
power, as discussed below, but inclusion of this provision actually makes it
more likely that large generation companies will get larger and be able to
exercise market power. Thus, APPA
strongly opposes this section and urges its deletion.
Instead,
APPA has consistently urged adoption of a
higher standard that would condition merger approval on an affirmative
finding that the proposed merger will promote
the public interest, as opposed to the current standard that only
requires the merger to be consistent with the public interest.
In addition, FERC’s merger authority needs to be clarified and expanded
to cover mergers of utility holding companies as well as the disposition of
generation assets by jurisdictional utilities and the acquisition of natural gas
companies. FERC lacks the clear
authority to review the former. While
APPA believes FERC has the authority and responsibility to review the latter, it
has recently declined to do so. Removal
of FERC’s merger authority will lead to an increasing amount of mergers
resulting in greater consolidation of market power that will ultimately
undermine competition.
Title
I-Subtitle B Provisions Regarding PUHCA
APPA
continues to oppose repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA)
unless FERC is provided clear authority and support to protect consumers against
the abuse of generation market power. PUHCA
has been, and continues to be, an important part of the structure of the
electric utility industry by defining the permissible structures of holding
company formation and ensuring effective state and federal regulation of these
companies in order to protect consumers, investors and the public interest.
PUHCA is also the only federal statute that protects against the abuse of
cross-subsidization of affiliated ventures by regulated utility operations. Cross-subsidization destroys true competition in unregulated
markets and overcharges ratepayers. The
repeal of PUHCA should be considered with great caution.
Unfortunately,
H. R. 3406 simply repeals PUHCA without any offsetting provisions to protect
consumers against generation market power or cross-subsidization in company
affiliate transactions. At a
minimum, Section 113 should be amended to allow federal and state regulators
access to a broader range of pertinent information, rather than the proposed
limitation of records relating to “costs”.
In addition, APPA suggests that FERC, perhaps in consultation with the
Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice, should retain the
authority to require the restructuring of utility holding companies where its is
demonstrated that the holding company operated in a manner inconsistent with the
interests of electric consumers.
Members
of the subcommittee may have heard arguments from those in favor of repealing
PUHCA asserting that the Act has inhibited investment in new generation. PUHCA does not, in fact, inhibit investment in either
generation or transmission. Under
1992 amendments to PUHCA, investments in generation plants can be made by any
party in any location throughout the United States.
In addition, if regulation under PUHCA is such a detriment to the ability
of a private company to grow then why has the number of holding companies
regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) increased.
In fact, in the past eight years both the number of registered holding
companies and the number of electric customers served by registered holding
company subsidiaries has more than doubled.
Title
VII- Investigation and Correction of Anti Competitive Conduct
APPA
is also strongly opposed to this title’s extension of FERC jurisdiction over
public power systems. This
encroachment on local authority is neither prudent nor warranted.
Public power systems have been regulated differently under federal law
for more than 66 years. This is
neither an accident nor an oversight, but rather good public policy that
recognizes that public power systems operate in the public interest and are
regulated at the local level. Local
elected officials oversee public power systems across the country to ensure
consumers continue to receive low-cost, reliable electricity from their local
providers.
Except
for a few isolated examples, public power systems do not have surplus
electricity to sell. These systems
do not represent a significant presence by sellers in the wholesale markets, and
public power is, and will continue to be, net purchasers of electricity.
The limited volume of surplus energy from public power systems precludes
their ability to set a market-clearing price – public power systems are price
makers, not price takers. There is
no policy justification for reversing decades of effective, local authority.
In
addition, Section 702 undermines the compromise reached in portions of Section
201, commonly referred to as “FERC-lite”, for regulation of public power
transmission facilities. Contrary
to the intent of FERC-lite, Section 702 allows FERC to retroactively set rates
for transmission service.
Section
202 – Regional Transmission Organizations
APPA
believes that Section 202 is unnecessary and in fact counter-productive.
It should be deleted from the bill.
This section proposes modification of FERC’s RTO authority as set forth
in Order 2000. It would require all
transmission owners, including public power systems, to form or participate in
an RTO within 12 months, and make certain other changes to characteristics of
RTOs as set out in the Order. APPA
agrees that the single most important step that can be taken to achieve the goal
of a robust transmission system is the establishment of properly configured,
truly independent RTOs that have primary planning responsibility for the
regional grids under their control. APPA
continues to support FERC’s existing authority to establish and require public
utility participation in strong, truly independent RTOs in order to facilitate
the development of vigorously competitive retail markets.
FERC
has maintained in Order 2000 and subsequent orders and proceedings, that it has
the authority to order RTO participation by jurisdictional utilities to remedy
undue discrimination or facilitate competition. Congress should do nothing to statutorily interfere with
FERC’s development of RTOs or attempt to prescribe specific elements and
deadlines.
Section
202 represents a significant and inappropriate contraction of FERC’s existing
authority and creates opportunities that will permit potential RTO participants
to delay RTO formation (evidentiary hearings before FERC, FERC decisions to be
approved on appeal to the courts only if supported by a “preponderance of the
evidence” as opposed to the customary standard of “substantial evidence”).
The section fails to guarantee that RTOs created under this new authority
will in fact promote effective competition, and because it is so prescriptive,
it will virtually eliminate the opportunity for FERC to make mid-course
corrections as experience is gained regarding the creation, operation and
appropriate functions of RTOs. FERC
has substantial authority under the Federal Power Act to promote the creation of
RTOs and to determine the appropriate size, scope and functions to be performed,
including the authority to condition approval of proposed mergers or market
based rate sales on membership in a FERC-approved RTO.
Section 202 expressly eliminates this authority.
FERC
must be allowed to proceed so that industry will have the stability that
regulatory certainty in this area will provide and regulators will have the
flexibility they need to make adaptations as necessary.
In addition, it is not necessary for Congress to expand FERC’s
authority to order participation by public power systems, public power will
voluntarily join RTOs that are properly configured and provide benefits for
public power customers.
Section
401 – Sustainable Transmission Networks Rulemaking
Section
401
directs FERC to conduct a rulemaking on incentive and performance-based
transmission rates. APPA is
strongly opposed to this section because it is unnecessary and would lead to
higher transmission rates. We
therefore urge its’ deletion. FERC,
under the Federal Power Act and Order 888, already has sufficient authority and
flexibility to design transmission rates to “promote economically efficient
transmission and generation of electricity.”
These rates remain subject to the “just, reasonable, and not unduly
discriminatory or preferential” standard that has been the hallmark of FERC
ratemaking authority for decades. (This
standard was recently affirmed by FERC in Order 2000 on RTOs). The language in this
section would have the effect of requiring FERC to undermine that standard.
Proponents
of this language have asserted that incentive pricing is necessary in order to
raise the capital needed for investments in new transmission facilities.
They argue that incentives are justified because transmission
investment is risky. This is
clearly not the case. Developing
new transmission facilities is clearly a difficult task.
There are substantial obstacles in the siting and permitting process.
Rights of way may be denied for parochial reasons with no consideration
given to broader public interest considerations.
Current transmission owners may have incentives to delay grid expansion
in order to protect sales of their own generation. These are not problems that
can be overcome simply by throwing money at them.
The fact is, transmission construction and operation is not inherently
risky. Transmission is the
prototypical low risk, traditional, regulated utility investment that has been
very successful in attracting capital at reasonable, regulated rates of return.
A good example of this is the recent Fitch Report on the new American
Transmission Company in Wisconsin, a transco that began operations on January 1,
2001. As the report points out,
over 95% of this transmission-only company’s revenue requirement is guaranteed
by recovery from its firm, network customers regardless of changes in load,
weather, etc.
The
obstacle to new transmission is, in fact, the lack of siting approvals, not the
lack of available capital. Thus,
this provision will do nothing to cause the construction of additional
transmission facilities or add capacity to existing lines.
Moreover, APPA believes that incentive
rates will undoubtedly lead to increases in overall transmission costs, which
are decidedly not in the public interest.
Other
Concerns with H.R. 3406
In
addition to the major issues of concern identified above, APPA also has serious
concerns with several other provisions in the bill as discussed below.
Section
201(a)(3) – Certain Wholesale Stranded Costs
This
section would require FERC to impose wholesale stranded costs on cities and
towns that municipalize their electric service, using a prescribed formula.
That formula requires the calculation of wholesale stranded cost based on
“a reasonable expectation period that is based on the weighted average
remaining useful life of generation assets owned or power purchased under
contract by the public utility and included in wholesale or retail rates in
effect on July 9, 1996.” The fact
that these generation assets may have been sold, or the contracts may have been
modified in the intervening years is irrelevant.
Clearly, the only purpose of this language is to render municipalization
cost prohibitive and thus deny cities and towns across the nation the
fundamental right to determine whether they will offer electricity service
themselves, or franchise that service to a private company.
This is the antithesis of the "choice and competition"
philosophy the U.S. Congress has espoused as justification for restructuring of
the electric utility industry. Moreover,
FERC currently has the authority to fairly decide wholesale stranded cost
disputes on a case-by-case basis. Thus,
this provision is unnecessary and APPA strongly urges that it be deleted.
Section
525
– Direct
Service Industries
These
provisions direct the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) to negotiate
power sales contracts with all willing Northwest aluminum direct service
industrial customers beyond the term of the currently effective BPA power supply
contracts. This section would
authorize the Department of Energy and not BPA to determine what constitutes a
“reasonable level of federal firm power.”
The determination regarding reasonableness is to be based on an
allocation of power “that will enable such customers to operate their
facilities in the Pacific Northwest in an economic manner for the long term.”
It would appear that the interests of a few aluminum companies are to
take precedence over all other consumers in the Pacific Northwest.
It is inappropriate for Congress to legislatively interfere with the
renewal of these contracts or to re-establish the situation where, due to
wholesale price volatility, these companies could, as they did in the recent
past, make more money re-selling their BPA power than by producing aluminum.
Section
532 – Wholesale Sales by Federal Power Marketing Administrations
This
section states that all rates and charges for
the sale of electric energy and capacity by Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs)
shall be the lowest possible rates. Furthermore,
the section asserts that charges to consumers will allow the recovery over a
reasonable period of years, in accordance with sound business principles, of all
costs incurred by the United States for the production of electric energy sold
by a PMA, including repayment of the capital investment allocated to power and
costs assigned by the Acts of Congress to power for repayment.
Section
532 is unnecessary and should be deleted.
Existing criteria in federal law, going back to the Reclamation
Project Act of 1939 and the Flood Control Act of 1944, for establishing PMA wholesale power rates is sufficient and
appropriately balances the requirements to recover federal investments and
maintain low electricity rates.
Section
533 – Regulation of Federal Power Marketing Administration Transmission
Systems
APPA
is opposed to this section which would subject PMA transmission rates to full
FERC jurisdiction, identical to that applied to “public utilities”.
APPA believes that the current system of regulating these rates, which
recognizes the inherent differences between investor-owned utilities and federal
entities, is sufficient to recover the federal government’s costs and to
protect consumers’ interests.
Section
534
- Accounting
Section
534 directs FERC to issue rules to ensure that
PMAs utilize the same accounting principles and requirements that are applicable
to public utilities, procedures for the filing of complaints with FERC to
parties seeking to ensure compliance, and procedures to ensure the power
generating agencies and PMAs maintain a consistent set of books and records for
purpose of debt repayment.
This
section is also unnecessary and should be deleted.
Federal entities are different
than “public utilities” in many ways, including their basic purposes and
obligations as prescribed in federal law. This
section would set up conflicts between those legally prescribed obligations that
could increase electricity costs for consumers while providing no long-term
benefit to the federal government.
Section
102 – Federal Standards for State Net Metering Programs
These
provisions require states, non-regulated electric utilities, and federal power
marketing agencies to implement net metering programs that meet minimum federal
standards -- for renewable resources (up to 250 kilowatts).
If a utility fails to implement a program within one year, then FERC
establishes a program that the utility must implement.
While there can be positive benefits to net metering, such as its
potential to increase the use of renewable resources and provide generation
alternatives, net metering is essentially a “retail” program and should be
left to states and localities. Approximately
half of the states already have some type of net metering program in the works.
If net metering is to be included in a federal bill it should, at the
minimum, grandfather existing state programs.
Section
103 – Price-responsive Demand Programs
All
utilities have demand reduction, load curtailment, and energy efficiency
programs available now to their customers and public power systems in particular
have been very responsive to customers in this regard.
APPA believes such programs are best left to state and local entities,
and this language is unnecessary. Moreover,
this provision raises a question about whether it is appropriate for the agency
that regulates wholesale power markets to be, in effect, a participant in those
same markets.
Provisions
of H.R. 3406 that APPA Supports
While
APPA is opposed to the overall bill in its current form, there are several
sections of the bill where APPA either supports the language as introduced, or
supports the concept embodied in the provision and would seek certain
modifications. These are discussed below:
Section
201(a)(2) – Open Access Transmission (FERC-Lite)
While
public power systems with transmission facilities are not anxious to be
subjected to FERC jurisdiction, the limited jurisdiction contained in this
section of H. R 3406, known as FERC-lite, is an acceptable compromise and is
consistent with APPA policy. In
essence, FERC-lite would extend FERC jurisdiction to public, cooperative, and
federal utilities with transmission facilities interconnected to the national
grid. The FERC-lite language makes
the important exception, however, that FERC would not be given the authority to
set transmission rates for these non-jurisdictional transmitting utilities.
Instead, FERC would determine whether the rates they charge to others are
comparable to those they charge themselves.
If there were discrepancies, FERC would remand the issue to the publicly
owned utility. It is important to note that these provisions do not
work unless accompanied by changes in the federal tax code that resolve the
barriers posed by the private use limitations on tax-exempt bonds used to
finance public power transmission facilities.
Title
III – Transmission Reliability
APPA
supports this title that represents one of the few matters relating to
restructuring on which Congress could have the confidence to legislate.
We appreciate the inclusion in H. R. 3406 of additional language
suggested by the North American Electric Reliability Council and Chairman
Barton’s efforts towards creating a
national electric reliability organization to set and enforce reliability
standards, subject to FERC oversight.
Section
402 – Transmission Siting
APPA
also supports, in principle, the bill’s approach to federal siting authority
as outlined in section 402. APPA
recognizes that backstop siting authority is a necessary tool to facilitate the
siting of new transmission lines that are stymied by the current balkanized,
state-by-state siting approval process. Transmission
lines are necessary to support interstate commerce, as well as security
interests, and thus a federal role in the siting of these lines is appropriate.
APPA would strongly urge that every reasonable effort be made first at
the local and state levels to resolve siting issues and that federal siting
authority should only be used as a last resort.
Section
101 – Interconnection
APPA
generally supports the provisions in the draft given the preservation of
appropriate local authority. We
agree with calls for a more streamlined, uniform approach to distributed
generation and the use of a standardized technical interconnection, but not at
the expense of public health and safety, cost-shifting, and potential
reliability problems. This is one
of a number of issues, however, where legislation may not be necessary.
FERC already has jurisdiction under Section 210 of the Federal Power Act
(FPA) to order interconnection to any transmission facility.
In addition, the IEEE may soon adopt an industry-wide interconnection
standard that adequately preserves local (distribution) control, and FERC may
soon adopt some standardized interconnection agreements that resolve most of the
issues that have concerned the generator manufacturers and owners.
The successful convergence of these events may obviate the need for
Congress to act on this issue.
Title
V, Subtitle A – Tennessee Valley Authority
This
subtitle represents a previously developed consensus on the relevant issues
among the various stakeholders, including in particular TVA’s municipal
utility distributors, TVA, and the congressional delegation representing TVA’s
service territory. APPA supports the efforts of its members in this region to
modify provisions of existing law to promote overall goals of increased
competition, better service and lower rates for customers served by TVA.
Title
VI – Consumer Protections
Should
restructuring legislation move forward, APPA supports the inclusion of the
provisions in this title to further protect consumers.
However, other provisions previously addressed, including the elimination
of FERC merger review, incentive pricing for transmission, PUHCA repeal, and
overly prescriptive provisions regarding RTO formation create significant risks
for consumers that are not offset or overcome by these modest consumer
protection provisions.
Conclusion
APPA opposes H. R. 3406 in its current form because so much of the
bill is either unnecessary or contrary to the interests of consumers and the
promotion of effective wholesale competition.
Congress should either defer legislation and allow the FERC to continue
to implement its stated objectives, or address a much narrower range of subjects
necessary to fill in the gaps in federal oversight.
In any event, it would be wise to heed the lessons learned over the
recent past and avoid overly prescriptive changes in federal law.
|
|
