On the recordMarch 13, 2001
first of all, let me share with you my own observation, with respect to the amendment and the underlying amendment by the two Senators from Oregon, that it is understandable their wanting to protect their public power entity, and to ensure that it receives just payment for power provided, to which they are entitled. What concerns the Senator from Alaska, as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, are the questions of whether this establishes a precedent, whether this addresses the issue the Senator from Oregon has assured us would not be a factor, and whether this might force the two utilities in question into bankruptcy, with the resulting chaos that is pretty hard to predict. What effect would it have on the California teachers' retirement fund which is invested in these utilities in the State of California? What effect might it have on the State employees' retirement? We don't know the answers to these questions. But there is a reasonable suggestion by knowledgeable people that this amendment may force a chapter 7 bankruptcy by these utilities. We all know what a chapter 7 is. It requires the utility to liquidate its assets and then the creditors stand wherever they stand. Now to determine the intent of the amendment by the Senator from Oregon it is necessary to consider what the amendment says--it says the confirmation of a plan does not discharge a debtor.…
Source
govinfo.gov




