H. Rept. 115-643 - TO PROVIDE FOR OPERATIONS OF THE FEDERAL COLUMBIA RIVER POWER SYSTEM PURSUANT TO A CERTAIN OPERATION PLAN FOR A SPECIFIED PERIOD OF TIME, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES115th Congress (2017-2018)
Committee Report
Hide Overview| Report Type: | House Report |
|---|---|
| Accompanies: | H.R.3144 |
| Committees: |
Report text available as:
- TXT
- PDF (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
115th Congress } { Rept. 115-643
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { Part 1
======================================================================
TO PROVIDE FOR OPERATIONS OF THE FEDERAL COLUMBIA RIVER POWER SYSTEM
PURSUANT TO A CERTAIN OPERATION PLAN FOR A SPECIFIED PERIOD OF TIME,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
_______
April 18, 2018.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Bishop of Utah, from the Committee on Natural Resources, submitted
the following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 3144]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 3144) to provide for operations of the Federal
Columbia River Power System pursuant to a certain operation
plan for a specified period of time, and for other purposes,
having considered the same, report favorably thereon without
amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of H.R. 3144 is to provide for operations of
the Federal Columbia River Power System pursuant to a certain
operation plan for a specified period of time.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
To provide certainty over the reliable management of the
Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS or System), H.R.
3144 requires federal agencies to operate the System in a
manner that is consistent with the current operations plan,
while also protecting existing hydropower resources in the
Pacific Northwest.
Hydropower accounts for seven percent of all domestic
(overall renewable and non-renewable) electricity generation,
divided equally between federal and non-federal output, and
about 48 percent of all renewable generation.\1\ For
generations, it has provided millions of Americans with clean
and low-cost energy and has formed the backbone of regional
economies. In Washington State, hydropower accounts for almost
70 percent of electricity generation, almost 60 percent each
for Oregon and Idaho, and more than one-third for Montana.\2\
The Columbia Basin in the Pacific Northwest encompasses an area
approximately the size of France, with 31 multi-purpose
federally-owned dams along the Columbia and Snake Rivers, many
of which are Bureau of Reclamation dams.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\https://www.ferc.gov/legal/staff-reports/2017/hydropower-
primer.pdf.
\2\http://www.hydro.org/why-hydro/available/hydro-in-the-states/
west/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the Bureau of Reclamation's policy, hydropower
generated from its dams is first used to provide electricity to
operate irrigation pumps. Any remaining Reclamation hydropower
is then primarily sold by either of two federal agencies, the
Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville) or the Western
Area Power Administration, to wholesale customers. The
wholesale electricity rates are designed to repay the federal
capital investment--plus interest--in federal electricity
generation and transmission facilities, annual operation and
maintenance costs of such facilities, and federal staffing.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Id at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance with environmental mandates and replacement
power services resulting from environmental regulation and
litigation are also reflected in federal power rates. Federal
court-mandated ``spills''--an operation when water is diverted
around a hydropower-producing turbine to aid fish passage--have
led to significant lost hydropower generation and associated
replacement power purchases of mainly fossil-based, higher cost
energy. At a Water, Power and Oceans Subcommittee hearing in
2016, Mr. Christopher Downen, Senior Policy Analyst at the
Public Power Council, which represents consumer-owned utilities
in the Pacific Northwest, testified ``[a]t $757 million last
year alone, this single category of costs accounted for about
30 percent of Bonneville's costs charged in rates.''\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Testimony of Mr. Christopher Downen, Senior Policy Analyst,
Public Power Council, before the House Water, Power and Oceans
Subcommittee, April 20, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1945, Congress authorized the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to construct four large dams along the lower Snake
River--Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose and Lower
Granite--as part of the FCRPS to provide a number of benefits,
including hydropower.\5\ Built in the 1960s and 1970s, the four
dams on average produce enough energy to power a city the size
of Seattle every year, with a total output capable of producing
over 3,000 MW, enough energy to power 1.8 million homes.\6\ It
would take two nuclear, three coal-fired, or six gas-fired
power plants to replace the average annual power produced by
the four lower Snake River dams.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Flood Control Act of 1945, P.L. 79-14.
\6\http://nwriverpartners.org/value-of-snake-river-dams.
\7\Id at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hydropower not only provides power for baseload (full-time)
needs and peak times, but also serves as a backup generation
source for intermittent wind and solar power.\8\ It is
generally low-cost compared to other generation sources.\9\
While some believe hydropower projects can have negative
impacts on migratory fish, wildlife and their habitats as well
as water quality,\10\ others point out that the survival rate
of species that migrate through the four Snake River dams is
99.5 percent for certain species, with an average of 97
percent.\11\ In addition, the Snake River dams make possible an
efficient transportation link that is one of the leading trade
gateways in the United States, moving more than 50 tons of
cargo in 2016 alone.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\https://www.vox.com/2015/6/19/8808545/wind-solar-grid-
integration.
\9\http://www.hydro.org/why-hydro/affordable/.
\10\https://www.nwcouncil.org/history/DamsImpacts.
\11\http://nwriverpartners.org/value-of-snake-river-dams.
\12\http://www.pnwa.net/factsheets/Corps-ELC-Accomplishments.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite these benefits, some litigious groups have focused
on removing these four dams. According to Bonneville, replacing
the dams would increase power costs by $274 million to $372
million per year.\13\ In addition, replacing this power with
natural gas generation would still increase the region's carbon
dioxide emissions by 2 to 2.6 million metric tons annually and
force transportation of agriculture and other commodities
through much less environmentally-friendly modes, such as
diesel trucks.\14\ Conservatively, this would be the equivalent
of adding 421,000 passenger cars to the region's roads each
year.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\https://www.bpa.gov/news/pubs/FactSheets/fs-201603-A-Northwest-
energy-solution-Regional-power-benefits-of-the-lower-Snake-River-
dams.pdf.
\14\Id at 12.
\15\Id at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For decades, there has been uncertainty over the operations
of existing hydropower in the Pacific Northwest due to federal
regulations, court orders and other administrative decisions.
Long-standing litigation surrounding the FCRPS has caused major
uncertainty concerning future power generation, rates, and
reliability in the region. The litigation alone has cost
taxpayers and Northwest ratepayers millions of dollars.
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.) requires the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of
Reclamation, and Bonneville--the federal operators of the FCRPS
(Action Agencies)--to consult with the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
on how project operations may impact ESA-protected species.
Following this consultation, NMFS issues a biological opinion
(BiOp) specifying with either a jeopardy or no-jeopardy finding
for the 13 separate species of salmon and steelhead that NMFS
listed for protection under the ESA beginning in 1991.\16\ A
finding of jeopardy requires NMFS to develop Reasonable and
Prudent Alternatives (RPAs) to the proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected_species/
salmon_steelhead/recovery_planning_and_implementation/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMFS issued the first of three ``no jeopardy'' BiOps for
FCRPS beginning in April 1992. The District Court of Oregon in
Idaho Department of Fish and Game v. National Marine Fisheries
Service\17\ found the 1993 and 1994 BiOps to be flawed, and
ordered NMFS and the Action Agencies to revise the 1994 BiOp.
In 1995, NMFS issued the first BiOp that concluded that FCRPS
operations jeopardized the continued existence of ESA-listed
species, and proposed RPAs to avoid this finding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\850 F. Supp. 886 (D. OR. 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMFS issued a new BiOp in December 2000, which again found
that the operations of the FCRPS dams were likely to jeopardize
the existence of certain ESA-listed species, and proposed RPAs
to mitigate these impacts. It was determined that jeopardy
would not be avoided even after implementing the RPAs.
Eventually, the cumulative effect of the RPA, coupled with off-
site measures including hatchery and habitat initiatives, was
determined to be sufficient to warrant a ``no-jeopardy''
opinion.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\National Wildlife Federation v. NMFS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2001, the National Wildlife Federation and others sued
the federal government, challenging whether the 2000 BiOp
complied with the ESA.\19\ In 2003, then-Judge James A. Redden
ruled that the 2000 BiOp failed to provide reasonable certainty
that the off-site mitigation measures were reasonably certain
to occur, and ordered NMFS to issue a new BiOp by 2004.\20\ In
addition, the district court required the modification of the
FCRPS dam operations during the spring and summer of 2006,
requiring certain dams to bypass hydroelectric turbines and
spill water during this period. Environmental organizations and
others believe that spills aid in fish passage, while others
(including water and power users) counter that spills, costing
tens of millions of dollars, decrease hydropower production and
provide little benefit to the few salmon that may be in the
Columbia River system during the hottest months of the year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\National Wildlife Federation v. NMFS, 254 F. Supp. 2d 1196.
\20\National Wildlife Federation v. NMFS, 254 F. Supp. 2d at 1216.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Redden would eventually go on to reject the 2004,
2008 and the 2010 Supplemental BiOps issued by NMFS.\21\ In a
2011 decision, Judge Redden wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\https://www.salmonrecovery.gov/BiologicalOpinions/
FCRPSBiOp.aspx.
No later than January 1, 2014, [NMFS] shall produce a
new biological opinion that reevaluates the efficacy of
the RPAs in avoiding jeopardy . . . and considers
whether more aggressive actions, such as dam removal
and/or additional flow augmentation and reservoir
modifications are necessary to avoid jeopardy.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\National Wildlife Federation v. NMFS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 1117,
1131.
In addition, Judge Redden ordered the spills at the dams to
continue during the spring and summer months, consistent with
the court's annual spill orders. After Judge Redden retired in
late 2011, the case was assigned to Judge Michael Simon who
found the 2014 Supplemental BiOp flawed, but allowed it to stay
in place until a new BiOp can be completed. The 2014
Supplemental BiOp supplements, without replacing, the 2008 and
2010 BiOps.
In addition, the court found that the Action Agencies had
relied on an environmental impact statement (EIS) required
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.) that was ``too stale'' or too ``narrowly
focused,'' and the Action Agencies were granted an extension to
complete a new EIS by March 26, 2021.\23\ As part of this
order, though not specifically mandating dam breaching, the
judge charged that the federal government had avoided taking a
``hard look'' at breaching, bypassing and removal of the
dams.\24\ This is contrary to the more than $22 million spent
for extensive studies by the Army Corps in 1999 and again in
2010 on the impacts of removing dams in the Snake River.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv., No. 3:01-
cv-00640, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59195, at *24-25, *235-36.
\24\http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/
1404%202065%20Opinion%20and%20Order.pdf.
\25\http://www.nww.usace.army.mil/portals/28/docs/environmental/
drew/social.pdf. From 1999 to 2002, the Army Corps spent $20.69 million
on the impacts of alternatives relating to breaching the Snake River
dams. In 2010, the Army Corps spent $274,254 on a study regarding lower
Snake River dam breaching.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following arguments on environmental plaintiffs' motions to
block capital and maintenance expenditures at the dams and
force substantially more spills, Judge Simon on March 27, 2017,
ordered ``tailored injunctive relief'' including additional
spills, but ordered the federal agencies to test the impacts of
these spills before deciding how much would be mandated at each
dam in 2018. In addition, the judge ordered the federal
agencies to disclose planned projects at the Snake River dams
to the environmental plaintiffs in a ``reasonable process and
schedule.''
In response to the court's order, four Members of Congress
sent a bipartisan letter (See Appendix I) to Secretary of the
Interior Ryan Zinke raising concerns over the impacts that
additional spill requirements in the spring 2018 would cause,
including increased power costs and actual harm to endangered
fish species. Under the Obama administration, the Action
Agencies concluded, ``the 2008 BiOp [is] biologically and
legally sound, is based on the best scientific information, and
satisfies the ESA jeopardy standard.''\26\ Furthermore, the
letter states that the 2008 BiOp ``achieved consensus on a plan
that has demonstrated for several years that it is working to
improve salmon recovery while still allowing operation of the
federal dams.''\27\ The current BiOp was defended in court, not
just by the federal agencies, but also the States of Idaho,
Montana, and Washington, several major utility customers of
Bonneville, inland port associations, irrigation districts, and
several Northwest tribes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\Obama Administration Review and Guidance for the FCRPS BiOp,
September 11, 2009. Link: https://www.salmonrecovery.gov/Files/
BiologicalOpinions/Appendix%201_09_10_09%20.pdf.
\27\Letter from Rep. McMorris Rodgers to Interior Secretary Ryan
Zinke, May 2, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite this, a court-ordered spill in the FCRPS began on
April 3, 2018, after the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
rejected an appeal by the defendants to halt the order.\28\
This action will continue to drastically increase power rates
for ratepayers across the Pacific Northwest, while failing to
provide the additional benefits of safe fish passage argued by
the plaintiffs. Federal agencies estimate the spill will cost
ratepayers in the Northwest $40 million in higher rates in 2018
alone.\29\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\http://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/local/article207769934.html.
\29\https://newhouse.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/
newhouse-secures-support-energy-secretary-perry-work-together-
safeguard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To that end, H.R. 3144 brings certainty to the operations
of the FCRPS by requiring the System to be operated according
to the 2014 Supplemental BiOp issued by NMFS until 2022, or
until certain conditions are met. In addition, the bill
prohibits any structural modification or removal of the FCRPS
hydropower dams, unless specifically and expressly authorized
by an Act of Congress.
H.R. 3144 is supported by: The Washington Farm Bureau,
United Power Trades Organization, PNGC Power, Public Power
Council, National Rural Electric Co-Op Association, Northwest
RiverPartners, Inland Ports and Navigation Group, Cowlitz Power
Utility District, Association of Washington Businesses, Tri-
City Development Council, Port of Clarkston, Washington,
Washington Power Utility Districts Association, Port of Morrow,
Clatskanie People's Utility District, Port of Whitman County,
Port of Pasco, Clearwater Power Company, Tidewater
Transportation and Terminals, Washington State Potato
Commission, Idaho Water Users and Blachly-Lane Electric Co-Op.
COMMITTEE ACTION
H.R. 3144 was introduced on June 29, 2017, by Congresswoman
Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA). The bill was referred primarily
to the Committee on Natural Resources, and additionally to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Within the
Natural Resources Committee, the bill was referred to the
Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans. On October 12, 2017,
the Subcommittee held a hearing on the legislation. On April
11, 2018, the Natural Resources Committee met to consider the
bill. The Subcommittee was discharged by unanimous consent.
Congressman Raul M. Grijalva (D-AZ) offered an amendment
designated 003. It was not adopted by a bipartisan roll call
vote of 17 ayes to 23 noes, as follows:
No additional amendments were offered, and the bill was
ordered favorably reported to the House of Representatives by a
bipartisan roll call vote of 23 ayes to 17 noes, as follows:
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Natural Resources' oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.
COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII AND CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT
1. Cost of Legislation and the Congressional Budget Act.
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) and (3) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
sections 308(a) and 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, the Committee has received the following estimate for the
bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, April 18, 2018.
Hon. Rob Bishop,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3144, a bill to
provide for the operations of the Federal Columbia River Power
System pursuant to a certain operation plan for a specified
period of time, and for other purposes.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Aurora
Swanson.
Sincerely,
Keith Hall,
Director.
Enclosure.
H.R. 3144--A bill to provide for operations of the Federal Columbia
River Power System pursuant to a certain operation plan for a
specified period of time, and for other purposes
Summary: H.R. 3144 would require certain federally owned
hydropower facilities within the Federal Columbia River Power
System (FCRPS) in the Pacific Northwest to be operated
according to the salmon management plan adopted by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in 2014. The operations
of those facilities are financed by the Bonneville Power
Administration (BPA), which is required by law to set
electricity prices sufficient to cover nearly all costs.
CBO estimates that enacting the legislation would reduce
net direct spending by $16 million over the 2019-2028 period;
therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. Enacting the
legislation would not affect revenues. Implementing the bill
would have no significant effect on spending subject to
appropriation.
CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3144 would not increase
net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2029.
H.R. 3144 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary effect of H.R. 3144 is shown in the following table.
The costs of the legislation fall within budget functions 270
(energy) and 300 (natural resources).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2019-2023 2019-2028
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DECREASES IN DIRECT SPENDING
Estimated Budget Authority....................... 0 -4 -4 -4 -4 0 0 0 0 0 0 -16 -16
Estimated Outlays................................ 0 -4 -4 -4 -4 0 0 0 0 0 0 -16 -16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basis of estimate: In response to recent judicial actions,
the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers will
release additional water over the spillways of certain FCRPS
dams to allow for safe passage of fish during the migration
season. Under current law, those prescribed spills will
continue until federal agencies can implement alternative
methods for reducing harm to endangered salmon. Releasing the
additional water reduces the amount of hydroelectricity
available for sale, resulting in lower receipts and higher
costs for the BPA system. On the basis of information from BPA,
CBO estimates that BPA's net costs will increase by about 1
percent, or by about $35 million a year, as a result of those
releases.
H.R. 3144 would reverse that requirement by directing the
agencies to operate dams in the FCRPS under the terms of the
2014 salmon management plan. The result would be a decline in
the amount of water in the spillways, an increase in
electricity generated and sold, and a reduction in BPA's costs,
which are classified as fisheries-related expenses. Under the
bill, the 2014 plan would remain in effect through the later of
2022 or until alternative measures are in place with no pending
judicial review.
CBO estimates that enacting the bill would reduce BPA's net
direct spending by $4 million a year through 2022, or by a
total of $16 million over the 2019-2028 period. By law, BPA's
expenses for fisheries are allocated between its customers and
the federal government. CBO estimates that reducing costs
otherwise payable by customers would have no significant net
effect on direct spending because those savings would be passed
on to customers to the form of lower electricity prices. Based
on historical trends, CB0 estimates that customers' share of
the estimated $35 million annual cost to BPA for the additional
spills will total $31 million, or about 88 percent. For this
estimate, CBO assumes that alternative mitigation measures for
the fisheries will be adopted by the end of 2022.
Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go
Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement
procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or
revenues. The net changes in outlays that are subject to those
pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in the following table.
CBO ESTIMATE OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR H.R. 3144 AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2018-2023 2018-2028
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NET DECREASE IN THE DEFICIT
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Impact.................... 0 -4 -4 -4 -4 0 0 0 0 0 0 -16 -16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase in long-term direct spending and deficits: CBO
estimates that enacting H.R. 3144 would not increase net direct
spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive
10-year periods beginning in 2029.
Mandates: H.R. 3144 contains no intergovernmental or
private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Kathleen Gramp
(Bonneville Power Administration) and Aurora Swanson (Bureau of
Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers); Mandates: Zach
Byrum.
Estimate reviewed by: Kim P. Cawley, Chief, Natural and
Physical Resources Cost Estimates Unit; H. Samuel Papenfuss,
Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
2. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or
objective of this bill is to provide for operations of the
Federal Columbia River Power System pursuant to a certain
operation plan for a specified period of time.
EARMARK STATEMENT
This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined
under clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives.
COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104-4
This bill contains no unfunded mandates.
COMPLIANCE WITH H. RES. 5
Directed Rule Making. This bill does not contain any
directed rule makings.
Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not
establish or reauthorize a program of the federal government
known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was
not included in any report from the Government Accountability
Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139
or identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program
Information Act (Public Law 95-220, as amended by Public Law
98-169) as relating to other programs.
PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW
This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or
tribal law.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
This bill makes no changes to existing law.
APPENDIX I
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, May 2, 2017.
Secretary Ryan Zinke,
Department of the Interior,
Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Zinke, We are writing to express our deep
concern regarding the management of the Federal Columbia River
Power System (FCRPS) following Judge Michael Simon's March 27,
2017 court order on motions for injunctive relief in the FCRPS
biological opinion. As you know, Judge Simon is ordering a
significant increase in mandatory spill in the spring of 2018.
Not only is additional spill a new policy affecting many
congressionally-authorized projects in the Pacific Northwest,
there will likely be unintended consequences that will hurt
fish recovery while also greatly increasing power costs.
The three FCRPS Action Agencies are the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), and the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation, which have the knowledge and expertise
to manage FCRPS. According to the Adaptive Management
Implementation Plan, ``the Obama Administration undertook an
extensive effort to review the 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion
(BiOp)'' and found ``the 2008 BiOp is biologically and legally
sound, is based on the best available scientific information,
and satisfies the ESA jeopardy standard.'' This BiOp has been
supported by states, tribal entities, utilities, ports,
irrigation districts, and other Pacific Northwest water users.
As such, the 9th Circuit Court continues to disagree with the
best available science and continues to mandate new policies
along the river system. Our constituents deserve to understand
the proposed measures, as well as the expected impacts they
will have on the region.
To provide more clarity regarding the current and ongoing
efforts BPA has taken to mitigate damage to fish and wildlife
and the cost to the ratepayers in the Pacific Northwest, we
would like the following information from the BPA by June 2,
2017:
1. How much does BPA annually spend on fish and wildlife
mitigation?
2. If these payments were reflective in a ratepayer's
monthly bill, can you estimate this percentage in the
statement?
3. Between the three Action Agencies referenced above, how
much has the federal government spent on fish recovery and
mitigation in the FCRPS?
4. What are fish survival percentages through each of the
four lower Snake River Dams (Ice Harbor Dam, Lower Monumental
Dam, Little Goose Dam, and Lower Granite Dam) and how do those
compare to estimated survival of the fish before these dams
were constructed?
5. What is the percentage of juvenile and adult fish lost
to pinniped, predator fish, and bird predation?
6. What are the adverse consequences to increased spill?
7. By increasing spill, what would be the quantifiable
benefit for fish recovery given the cost of increasing spill
and all of the other current actions to increase fry passage?
8. How much are BPA, the Army Corps, and the Bureau of
Reclamation budgeting for the National Environmental Policy Act
review for the FCRPS in relation to the Court's 2016 order?
The Court ordered the plaintiffs and federal defendants
``to consider an appropriate protocol and methodology for spill
at each dam, incorporating the most beneficial spill
patterns,'' and the Court ``expects the parties, amici, and
other regional experts to work together to reach consensus.''
We believe that the 2008 BiOp achieved consensus on a plan that
has demonstrated for several years that it is working to
improve salmon recovery while still allowing operation of the
federal dams. We are concerned that plaintiffs' continued
advocacy for additional spill or preventing needed maintenance
of the dams (as requested in the injunctions) is not only
unscientifically based, but is also likely to be
counterproductive. Prior to any future status conferences or
filings with the Court, we respectfully request that you inform
us in advance of your discussions and any decisions regarding
the appropriate protocol and methodology for spill at each dam.
Thank you for your attention to this request and please do not
hesitate to contact our congressional offices with any
questions.
Sincerely,
Cathy McMorris Rodgers,
Member of Congress.
Dan Newhouse,
Member of Congress.
Peter DeFazio,
Member of Congress.
Kurt Schrader,
Member of Congress.
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC, April 12, 2018.
Hon. Bill Shuster,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I write regarding H.R. 3144, to provide
for operations of the Federal Columbia River Power System
pursuant to a certain operation plan for a specified period of
time, and for other purposes. The bill was referred primarily
to the Committee on Natural Resources, with an additional
referral to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
I ask that you allow the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure to be discharged from further consideration of
the bill so that it may be scheduled by the Majority Leader.
This discharge in no way affects your jurisdiction over the
subject matter of the bill, and it will not serve as precedent
for future referrals. In addition, should a conference on the
bill be necessary, I would support your request to have the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure represented on
the conference committee. Finally, I would be pleased to
include this letter and any response in the bill report filed
by the Committee on Natural Resources to memorialize our
understanding.
Thank you for your consideration of my request and for the
extraordinary cooperation shown by you and your staff over
matters of shared jurisdiction. I look forward to further
opportunities to work with you this Congress.
Sincerely,
Rob Bishop,
Chairman.
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC, April 16, 2018.
Hon. Rob Bishop,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bishop: Thank you for your letter concerning
H.R. 3144, to provide for operations of the Federal Columbia
River Power System pursuant to a certain operation plan for a
specified period of time, and for other purposes. As noted, the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure received an
additional referral on this legislation.
In order to expedite floor consideration of H.R. 3144, the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure agrees to forgo
action on this bill. However, as you noted, this is conditional
on our mutual understanding that forgoing consideration of the
bill would not prejudice the Committee with respect to the
appointment of conferees or to any future jurisdictional claim
over the subject matters contained in the bill or similar
legislation that fall within the Committee's Rule X
jurisdiction. Further, it is our understanding that mutually
agreed upon changes to the legislation will be incorporated
into the bill via an amendment. Should a conference on the bill
be necessary, I appreciate your agreement to support my request
to have the Committee represented on the conference committee.
Thank you for your cooperation on this matter and for
agreeing to place a copy of this letter and your response
acknowledging our jurisdictional interest into the bill report
and the Congressional Record during consideration of the
measure on the House floor.
Sincerely,
Bill Shuster,
Chairman.
DISSENTING VIEWS
H.R. 3144 would mandate the use of an illegal operation
plan for the Federal Columbia River Power System. The operation
plan in question violates our nation's bedrock environmental
laws, threatens the existence of several endangered salmon and
steelhead populations, jeopardizes thousands of jobs in the
commercial and recreational fishing industries and the outdoor
recreation economy, contradicts judicial rulings, and harms
tribal fishing interests throughout the Pacific Northwest. For
these reasons, we oppose H.R. 3144.
H.R. 3144 fundamentally violates our nation's bedrock
environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act.
Federal agencies and courts have concluded that the Federal
Columbia River Power System causes significant harm to the
Columbia River's native fisheries. The National Marine
Fisheries Service of the U.S. Department of Commerce has found
that the estimated ``current annual salmon and steelhead
production in the Columbia River Basin is more than 10 million
fish below historical levels, with 8 million of this annual
loss attributable to hydropower development and operation.''\1\
As a result, there are thirteen species or populations of
Columbia or Snake River salmon and steelhead that are listed as
either endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species
Act. Instead of allowing responsive, science-based fisheries
management that will recover these listed species, H.R. 3144
locks in a failing status quo operation plan that
unquestionably harms some of our nation's most iconic
fisheries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\U.S. Congressional Research Service. Endangered Species Act
Litigation Regarding Columbia Basin Salmon and Steelhead (R40169;
August 8, 2016), by Stephen P. Mulligan and Harold F. Upton.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The status quo operation plan for the Federal Columbia
River Power System--which H.R. 3144 mandates the use of until
2022--also does not work for hydropower consumers. The status
quo operation plan is enormously expensive and has cost
taxpayers and regional energy consumers billions over the past
two decades. For two decades, federal agencies have focused on
essentially the same approach to saving listed species-- modest
hydro-mitigation efforts with a predominant focus on habitat
restoration. These efforts have cost billions of dollars, yet
they are failing.
If enacted, H.R. 3144 will also cause untold harm to
Pacific Northwest tribes and tribal trust resources. Native
peoples of the Pacific Northwest ceded most of their ancestral
homeland to the United States in exchange for the right to
catch salmon and steelhead at their accustomed places. The
federal government has a long history of failing to protect
these fishing rights. If enacted, H.R. 3144 would extend this
failure and further harm tribal fisheries, which are a
critically important source of food and are of great cultural
and religious significance. During the Committee markup of H.R.
3144, Ranking Member Grijalva offered a modest amendment
requiring the protection of tribal trust resources and
meaningful tribal consultation. The amendment was voted down by
Committee Republicans.
Furthermore, H.R. 3144 will harm numerous ecosystem-based
businesses by blocking court-ordered water releases from
federal dams, which have been shown by several scientific
studies to significantly increase salmon survival. The
Committee has received numerous letters from businesses and
trade groups opposed to H.R. 3144 due to the harm it will cause
to businesses dependent on Columbia Basin salmon and steelhead,
including the commercial and recreational fishing industry,
guiding and outdoor retail businesses, and restaurants and food
industries based in the Pacific Northwest.
H.R. 3144 also represents a troubling attack on the legal
process. If enacted, the bill would overturn lawfully-rendered
court decisions--by both the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and
Oregon U.S. District Court--simply because the bill's sponsors
don't like them.
Given the significant harm that H.R. 3144 will cause, the
bill is also opposed by the Governors of both Washington and
Oregon who have indicated that the bill will thwart ongoing
efforts to improve future salmon and dam management.
Additionally, numerous conservation, business, and tribal
interests oppose this bill, including the Northwest
Sportfishing Industry Association, the Pacific Coast Federation
of Fishermen's Associations, Northwest Guides and Anglers
Association, American Whitewater, NW Energy Coalition, Trout
Unlimited, American Rivers, the Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition,
the Natural Resources Defense Council, Defenders of Wildlife,
Oceana, the Coastal Trollers Association, the National Wildlife
Federation, and the Nez Perce Tribe.
If enacted, H.R. 3144 will cause unacceptable harm to the
tribes, environment, legal process, and Pacific Northwest
businesses that support thousands of jobs. For these reasons,
we oppose H.R. 3144 as written.
Raul M. Grijalva,
Ranking Member, Committee on
Natural Resources.
Jared Huffman.
Darren Soto.
Grace F. Napolitano.
Donald S. Beyer, Jr.
A. Donald McEachin.
[all]