David Thomas: “I think the Senator raises an issue that we should discuss, but I have to tell you, it has been discussed, and there is…”

“I think the Senator raises an issue that we should discuss, but I have to tell you, it has been discussed, and there is a certain amount of balance that goes into this entire project. In other words, there are other parts of the bill which indicate that FERC should work with RTOs, for example, or should do some of the other things. Market design is a rather broad concept, and I think this amendment is not necessary. It is illogical to read this SMD delay to tell FERC it cannot do its duty. So when you broaden the whole thing to say you can't do anything, as this amendment implies in establishing a general market design, I suppose you might pick up some things that might be a market design and say you can't do that, when in the bill that is what we are seeking to cause them to do. I do agree perhaps there ought to be an effort made to clarify this language, as I think the Senator wants to do. And perhaps there is a way where we could do a colloquy, or do something to make it certain that it is not there to interfere with the other things we would want FERC to be doing; for instance, to issue rulemaking on market transparency or participant funding. We have a balance. And it is a little difficult to achieve that balance if we go with this very broad change. So I think, as it stands, we would have to oppose the amendment.”