[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MODERNIZING HYDROPOWER: LICENSING AND
REFORMS FOR A CLEAN ENERGY FUTURE
=======================================================================
HYBRID HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 12, 2022
__________
Serial No. 117-83
Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
energycommerce.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
61-453 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
ANNA G. ESHOO, California Ranking Member
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado FRED UPTON, Michigan
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
KATHY CASTOR, Florida DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
JERRY McNERNEY, California H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
PAUL TONKO, New York BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York BILLY LONG, Missouri
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
TONY CARDENAS, California MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RAUL RUIZ, California RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
SCOTT H. PETERS, California TIM WALBERG, Michigan
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois, Vice NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
Chair JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia GREG PENCE, Indiana
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware DAN CRENSHAW, Texas
DARREN SOTO, Florida JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
KIM SCHRIER, Washington
LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
------
Professional Staff
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Staff Director
WAVERLY GORDON, Deputy Staff Director
NATE HODSON, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Energy
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
Chairman
SCOTT H. PETERS, California FRED UPTON, Michigan
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania Ranking Member
JERRY McNERNEY, California, Vice MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
Chair ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
PAUL TONKO, New York DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
KIM SCHRIER, Washington H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
DORIS O. MATSUI, California TIM WALBERG, Michigan
KATHY CASTOR, Florida JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
PETER WELCH, Vermont GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire GREG PENCE, Indiana
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware (ex officio)
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, opening statement................................. 2
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Michigan, opening statement.................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Washington, opening statement..................... 16
Prepared statement........................................... 18
Witnesses
Malcolm Woolf, President and Chief Executive Officer, National
Hydropower Association......................................... 22
Prepared statement........................................... 25
Tom Kiernan, Chief Executive Officer, American Rivers............ 38
Prepared statement........................................... 40
Mary Pavel, Partner, Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Perry
LLC............................................................ 47
Prepared statement........................................... 48
Richard Wallen, General Manager and Chief Executive Officer,
Grant County Public Utility District........................... 57
Prepared statement........................................... 59
Chris Wood, President and Chief Executive Officer, Trout
Unlimited...................................................... 63
Prepared statement........................................... 65
Submitted Material
Letter of May 12, 2022, from Desmarie Waterhouse, Vice President,
Government Relations and Counsel, American Public Power
Assocation, to Mr. Rush and Mr. Upton, submitted by Mr. Rush... 111
Letter of May 4, 2022, from Delano Saluskin, Chairman, Yakama
Nation Tribal Council, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the
Yakama Nation, to Congressional Representatives, submitted by
Mr. Rush....................................................... 121
Letter of May 12, 2022, from Jim Price, President, NOAH Corp., to
Mr. Pallone, et al., submitted by Mr. Rush..................... 123
Letter of May 12, 2022, from Rep. Grotham and Rep. Pocan Member
of Congress, to Mr. Rush and Mr. Upton, submitted by Mr. Rush.. 126
MODERNIZING HYDROPOWER: LICENSING AND REFORMS FOR A CLEAN ENERGY FUTURE
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 12, 2022
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:33 a.m.,in
the John D. Dingell Room, 2123 Rayburn House Office Building,
and remotely via Cisco Webex online video conferencing, Hon.
Bobby Rush (chairman of the subcommittee), presiding.
Members present: Representatives Rush, Peters, McNerney,
Tonko, Schrier, DeGette, Butterfield, Matsui, Castor, Schrader,
Kuster, Pallone (ex officio); Upton (subcommittee ranking
member), Burgess, Latta, Griffith, Johnson, Bucshon, Walberg,
Duncan, Palmer, Lesko, Pence, Armstrong, and Rodgers (ex
officio).
Staff present: Waverly Gordon, Deputy Staff Director and
General Counsel; Tiffany Guarascio, Staff Director; Perry
Hamilton, Clerk; Zach Kahan, Deputy Director Outreach and
Member Service; Rick Kessler, Senior Advisor and Staff
Director, Energy and Environment; Mackenzie Kuhl, Press
Assistant; Elysa Montfort, Press Secretary; Tyler O'Connor,
Energy Counsel; Lino Pena-Martinez, Policy Analyst; Kaitlyn
Peel, Digital Director; Kris Pittard, Policy Coordinator; Kylea
Rogers, Staff Assistant; Medha Surampudy, Professional Staff
Member; Caroline Wood, Staff Assistant; Tuley Wright, Senior
Energy and Environment Policy Advisor; Kate Arey, Minority
Content Manager and Digital Assistant; Sarah Burke, Minority
Deputy Staff Director; Brandon Mooney, Minority Deputy Chief
Counsel, Energy; William Clutterbuck, Minority Staff Assistant/
Policy Analyst; Theresa Gambo, Minority Financial and Office
Administrator; Jack Heretick, Minority Press Secretary; Nate
Hodson, Minority Staff Director; Sean Kelly, Minority Press
Secretary; Peter Kielty, Minority General Counsel; Emily King,
Minority Member Services Director; Bijan Koohmaraie, Minority
Chief Counsel, Oversight and Investigation Chief Counsel; Jerry
Couri, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel, Environment; Clare
Paoletta, Minority Policy Analyst, Health; Olivia Shields,
Minority Communications Director; Michael Taggart, Minority
Policy Director; Everett Winnick, Minority Director of
Information Technology; Peter Spencer, Minority Senior
Professional Staff Member, Energy; Mary Martin, Minority Chief
Counsel, Energy and Environment; and Michael Cameron, Minority
Policy Analyst, Consumer Protection and Commerce, Energy,
Environment.
Mr. Rush. The hearing is now called to order. The
Subcommittee on Energy will now come to order. Today the
subcommittee is holding a hearing entitled ``Modernizing
Hydropower: Licensing and Reforms for a Clean Energy Future.''
Due to the COVID-19 public health emergency, members can
participate in today's hearing either in person or remotely via
online video conferencing.
In accordance with the updating guidance that has been
issued by the attending physician, members, staff, and members
of the press present in the hearing room are not required to
wear a mask. For members participating remotely, your
microphones will be turned--will be set on mute for the purpose
of eliminating inadvertent background noise. Members
participating remotely will need to unmute your microphone each
time you wish to speak.
Please note that once you unmute your microphone, anything
that is said in Webex will be heard over the loudspeakers in
the committee room and subject to be heard by the livestream
and also by C-SPAN. Given that members are participating from
different locations at today's hearing, all recognition of
members such as for questions will be in order of subcommittee
seniority. Documents for the record can be sent to Lino Pena-
Martinez at the email address that we provided to all the
staff. All documents will be entered into the record at the
conclusion of--of the hearing. That said, the Chair will now
recognize himself for 5 minutes for the purposes of an opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Rush. Again, good morning to each and all, everyone,
all and all. Today's subcommittee hearing is on modernizing our
hydropower regulatory landscape. Historically, this has been an
issue where members on both sides of the subcommittee and of
our full committee that we found ways to work in unison. Four
years ago, we all worked together on a package of bipartisan
ideas to reform hydropower licensing.
And today, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on
how those proposals have turned out and what additional
improvements might be necessary. Hydropower is a double-edged
sword. It represents a wonderful source of zero-carbon
electricity and pumped storage can be--can enable the
employment of even more renewable resources on our grid. At the
same time, we must seriously reckon with the impacts of
hydropower generation on the rivers and the ecosystem that dams
are built within and the fish and the plant life that depend
upon those rivers.
In short, this is, indeed, a complicated issue, one
deserving of this subcommittee's attention. I do not want to
recognize--I do want to recognize the extraordinary background
for today's hearing. For nearly four years, the hydropower
industry has met together with the Indian tribes along with
environmental communities in what is called the Uncommon
Dialogue process to work in order to create a legal framework
that is acceptable to all parties.
This is, indeed, unprecedented in the history of the
hydroelectricity industry in this country. And I want to thank
all the stakeholders for their hard work over the years and for
their unyielding commitment to the integrity of this process.
Part of today's hearing is to examine this very network, this
framework, taking seriously both its strength and where it
needs improvements. Particularly of interest to me is the fact
that this framework will finally recognize the sovereignty and
the agency of the Native American tribes and allow these very
tribes to advance and to advocate for themselves rather than
operate under the outdated, antiquated colonial assumptions
that the Department of the Interior sufficiently knows what is
best for the tribal community when FERC-licensed projects
coincide with tribal trust land.
It seems to me that any serious attempt to reform our hydro
laws must codify the right of tribes to have a seat at the
table when projects impact their lands. To do otherwise will--
is unconscionable and absolutely not according to our noblest
and highest standards. With that said, I'm looking forward to
today's hearing and to a thoughtful discussion around needed
reform to hydroelectric section and the pros and cons of the
Uncommon Dialogue proposal.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rush follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bobby Rush
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. I now yield for 5 minutes to my good friend and
colleague, the ranking member from the great State of Michigan,
Mr. Upton, for 5 minutes to make an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Upton. Well, thank you, my friend, Mr. Chairman, and
thanks to our witness as well. Some came all across the country
for appearing before us today, so thanks for that. I do look
forward to today's hearing to explore opportunities to improve
the permitting process for hydropower. So important. It has
been almost four years since this subcommittee held a hearing
on FERC licensing reform, and a lot has happened since then.
Leader Rodgers' bill, the Hydropower Modernization Act of
2017, passed the House with strong bipartisan support. A number
of Energy and Commerce hydro bills became law as part of the
America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018, including Dr.
Bucshon and Mr. Griffith's bill to establish a two year
licensing process, a shot clock for nonpowered dams and closed-
loop pumped storage projects, Mr. Hudson's bill to expedite the
approval for conduit hydropower.
These recent accomplishments are a testament to the
importance of hydropower as part of our all-of-the-above
approach to energy policy. I will remind everyone that
Republicans are eager to get to work to conduct oversight of
the laws that we passed in 2018, four years ago, and pick up
where we left off, particularly with Leader Rodger's
comprehensive hydropower reform legislation that passed the
House.
The regulatory environment for hydro has become
increasingly challenging. Licensing new hydropower facilities
and relicensing existing facilities requires extensive
consultation with multiple Federal, State, and local government
entities. Sometimes, the process takes years, costs tens of
millions of dollars.
While project developers can typically site and construct
wind, solar, and natural gas generation in maybe two or three
years or less, it sometimes might take a decade to relicense
existing dams and more complex hydro projects. In many ways,
licensing challenges are limiting hydropower's potential for
sure. Hydro is among the cleanest, most reliable, most
affordable energy sources in America, and we need to build on
that. Hydro is a baseload power available anytime you need it,
even when the sun isn't shining or the wind stops blowing.
Not many folks think of hydro as an emerging technology,
but hydro is going to play an even bigger role in the next-
generation grid. Conventional hydro and pumped storage hydro
can help stabilize the grid to integrate weather-dependent and
solar and, yes, batteries. Hydro can also provide that black
start capability so that we can restart the grid in the event
of a large-scale emergency power outage. According to DOE,
hydro generation could expand by perhaps as much as 50 percent
by 2050. But Congress has got to act.
Both the existing hydro fleet and the new hydro generation
projects are at risk due to inefficient relicensing process and
because some of the more radical environmental groups have
become--to advocate for the removal of dams. Hydro is also
disadvantaged by State laws that fail to recognize the clean
and renewable attributes of hydro and by the Federal tax code
that favors wind, solar, and batteries.
If one thing is clear, antiquated FERC licensing process
for hydro is a significant barrier to expanding hydro
production. Congress has got to strengthen the lead agency role
of FERC and hold coordinating agencies to strict timelines.
Disputes need to be resolved quickly and decisively so that
permits don't get held up in the courts for years.
This committee should start by conducting oversight of the
2-year licensing programs for pumped storage and nonpowered
dams that we passed into law. Our understanding is that these
programs have failed to meet the objectives that Congress laid
out. And if it is true, we should think about ways to amend the
programs to make them work. So I am pleased to see that there
is broad interest in an expediting licensing program for hydro.
I look forward to hearing from the supporters of the Uncommon
Dialogue to understand how the reforms will, in fact, improve
the process. But I would note that I have some concerns that
the Uncommon Dialogue proposal might expand the environmental
review with an oversight--oversized focus on climate change and
mitigating past effects that could, in fact, occur decades ago
when the original dam was constructed.
I also have some concerns with the Uncommon Dialogue's
embracing of offsite environmental mitigation and dam removal,
which can be a slippery slope. You know that. There are also
questions about whether the expanded interagency and tribal
consultation will, in fact, expedite the process or would it
perhaps lead to additional litigation and delay. So Mr.
Chairman, thanks for the hearing. I look forward to what could
be a very strong bipartisan track on hydro. And with that, I
yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Fred Upton
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Pallone, the chairman of the
full committee, for 5 minutes for his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. Today, the
committee continues its work to move toward a clean energy
future. Hydroelectric generation is one of the oldest sources
of renewable energy, and it remains a reliable source of
carbon-free power and grid stability. Those important benefits,
however, can also come with a very high cost. Hydroelectric
works and dams can cause significant environmental impacts,
interfere with the use of tribal lands, and decimate fish and
wildlife.
So we must find a balanced approach to hydropower
development and modernization while still protecting fish and
wildlife populations, water quality, recreational activities,
and the role of tribal nations. So last year, hydropower
produced more than six percent of the Nation's electricity.
Several states, including Washington, Oregon, New York, and
California, particularly rely on hydropower both to keep the
lights on and to maintain grid reliability.
And as a carbon-free resource, hydropower also plays an
instrumental role in combating the climate crisis. Despite its
current role in our energy mix, many hydropower projects are
nearing the end of their 50-year licenses. The industry has
claimed that the ability to license new hydropower projects or
to relicense existing projects has become too onerous.
According to hydropower development proponents, hydroelectric
generation has the potential to provide an additional 50
gigawatts of carbon-free power, including through the
establishment of facilities on nonpowered dams.
But the proponents say this is only possible if Congress
reforms the Federal Power Act's licensing framework. On the
other hand, environmental groups, recreation enthusiasts and
tribal nations have long maintained that the Federal Power
Act's protection for fish and wildlife, recreational
opportunities, and tribal interests are essential to ensuring
the thoughtful licensing and relicensing of hydropower
projects.
And weakening those protections could put fish, wildlife,
and the $375 billion outdoor recreation economy at risk. So
given these competing interests, I commend the Uncommon
Dialogue stakeholders comprised of participants from the
hydropower industry, environmental groups, and tribes for their
truly unprecedented and historic effort to bridge long-standing
divides and reach an agreement on reforms to the Federal Power
Act's hydropower licensing process.
I am particularly pleased by the provisions that remove
outdated paternalistic barriers to tribal nations, acting
directly as the conditioning authority for hydropower projects
located on tribal lands. This is a much-needed acknowledgment
of tribal sovereignty that I hope we can all support.
Yet while I applaud these efforts, I am concerned that the
Uncommon Dialogue agreement proposes to significantly rewrite
several seminal resource protection provisions within the
Federal Power Act and the decades of case law associated with
them. Specifically, I am concerned about the proposal for
Sections 4(e) and 18. Those two provisions, along with other
long-standing pieces of law the proposal seeks to change, have
successfully mitigated damage to and enhanced the value of
fish, wildlife habitat, recreation, cultural resources, and
flood control for decades.
And so we should only alter them with the greatest of care
and caution. That said, we can't ignore the important role
hydropower needs to play in a net zero carbon future. And so we
must find a way forward together, something that I think
members on both sides of the aisle have a strong interest in
doing. So with that in mind, I welcome the signatories to the
Uncommon Dialogue proposal who are testifying, as well as the
other witnesses here today. I look forward to hearing all of
your thoughts on the State of the hydropower industry, the
current licensing regime, and the Uncommon Dialogue's proposed
reforms. I hope this stream will help us determine whether the
Uncommon Dialogue's approach achieves the right balance between
development and conservation is necessary to serve as a basis
for eventual bipartisan consensus legislation to modernize the
licensing process.
And with that, I yield back the balance of my time, Mr.
Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone Jr.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, the ranking
member of the full committee, for 5 minutes for the purposes of
her opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the Pacific
Northwest, we are blessed with abundant, affordable, and clean
hydropower--hydroelectric power. Hydropower has served our
industrial backbone in Washington State for over 80 years and
now promises to serve an innovative future, ensuring a
reliable, secure energy system for many decades to come.
I have heard from companies like Diamond Foundry and Zilla,
who are locating their facilities in Washington State. And a
big reason why is our affordable, reliable hydropower. This is
all possible because, unlike weather-dependent wind and solar
sources, hydropower provides the firm and dispatchable energy
that is vital for reliable and resilient electric supply.
At present, hydropower generation accounts for over six
percent of U.S. electricity, almost 40 percent of our Nation's
reliable renewable generation. A Department of Energy report
found that U.S. hydropower production could increase 50 percent
above current levels by 2050 from upgrading existing hydropower
facilities and adding generation capacity to nonpowered dams.
Only three percent of the 90,000 dams in the United States
produce electricity. There is great potential for new
hydropower generation. Yet we must confront challenges. For
example, many Federal dams in my State and around the country
have been in service for decades, and while they can operate
safely for many years to come, some are calling for dam
removal. Communities with critical energy resources like the
Lower Snake River Dams operated by the Army Corps of Engineers
face calls to dismantle these clean energy sources for the sake
of agendas that fail to prioritize reliable delivery of power
for people.
When these agendas undermine affordable, reliable delivery
of energy and power, serious harms to public health and safety
can follow. The first step involves continued committee
oversight and work to update the licensing and relicensing
process overseen by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
under the Federal Power Act. FERC regulates nonFederal
hydropower projects, which include about 2500 dams and account
for one half of hydropower generation in the Nation.
Previous work by Energy and Commerce led to the enactment
of some bipartisan reforms into law in 2018. These included
provisions to modernize hydropower development and existing
nonpowered dams and to expedite licensing for pumped storage
and other innovative technologies. More work is needed.
The licensing process for traditional hydropower continues
to take considerable time and expense. A recent DOE report
found it takes, on average, five years to obtain an original
license, 7.6 years for relicensing. And some complex projects
can take more than a decade. At the same time, the number of
existing hydropower projects that will require Federal
relicensing is set to double in the next decade.
In 2017, the House came together, and we passed legislation
that I led to improve the process with strong bipartisan
support. And while we made good progress in the Senate, we
didn't get across the finish line. We should conduct oversight
of recent reforms and continue to work to strengthen licensing
and remove unnecessary barriers to hydropower technologies.
My updated Hydropower Clean Energy Future Act, H.R. 1588,
provides the path to continued reforms, and I look forward to
working with my colleagues to advance this through committee.
In the meantime, any discussion of licensing reform is a step
in the right direction. So I welcome today's hearing to review
the Uncommon Dialogue proposal and applaud the participants'
desire to work on hydropower relicensing reforms. I do believe
it's important that we take a deliberate approach. The Uncommon
Dialogue proposal includes new requirements for climate
modeling, expanded environmental reviews, embracing offsite
environmental mitigation and dam removal. It includes changes
in the statutory relationship with far-reaching implications
between the Department of the Interior and the tribes
concerning mandatory conditions for licensing. It includes new
licensing terms, which have broad--may have broad, unintended
impacts across all types of infrastructure, permitting and
spurn more litigation.
We need to hear from FERC and the resource agencies to
understand the impact of these proposals. We, in Congress, must
be careful not to attempt to fix problems by layering more
bureaucracy or encouraging more lawsuits. I welcome all of the
witnesses here today. I'm especially happy that Rich Wallen
from Washington State is here testifying on behalf of Grant
County Public Utility District. Thank you. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The chair would now
like to remind all the members of the subcommittee that
pursuant to committee rules, all members' written opening
statement shall be made part of the record. Now it is time for
me to welcome, officially, our witnesses for today's hearing.
They are, from my left, Mr. Malcolm Woolf, who is the president
and chief executive officer of the National Hydropower
Association.
Next is Mr. Tom Kiernan--I think that's right--the chief
executive officer of the American Rivers. Next is Ms. Mary
Pavel. She is a partner in--at Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse,
Endreson & Perry, LLC. Welcome. Next with me, Mr. Richard
Wallen. He's a general manager and chief executive officer of
the Grant County Public Utility Commission.
And finally, there is Mr. Chris Wood, who is the president
and the CEO of the Trout Unlimited. I want to thank each and
every one of you for joining us today. And we certainly look
forward to your expert testimony. At this time, I would like to
recognize each witness for 5 minutes to provide your opening
statement.
But before we begin, I would like to explain the lighting
system. In front of each of you is a series of lights. And the
light will initially be green. Then the lights will turn yellow
when you have one minute remaining for your testimony. And if
you would, at that time, begin to wrap up your testimony, that
would be important. The light will turn red when your time
expires. And we ask you to bring your comments to a halt.
So that said, Mr. Woolf, welcome again, and you are
recognized for 5 minutes for the purposes of an opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF MALCOLM WOOLF, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, NATIONAL HYDROPOWER ASSOCIATION; TOM KIERNAN, CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AMERICAN RIVERS; MARY PAVEL, PARTNER,
SONOSKY, CHAMBERS, SACHSE, ENDRESON & PERRY LLC; RICHARD
WALLEN, GENERAL MANAGER AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, GRANT
COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT; AND CHRIS WOOD, PRESIDENT AND
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TROUT UNLIMITED
STATEMENT OF MALCOLM WOOLF
Mr. Woolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of the
National Hydropower Association, I am pleased to be here today
in support of an unprecedented joint hydropower license reform
package. This is a unique moment for at least two reasons.
First, never before has a representative of the hydropower
industry testified in support of the same hydropower license
package with representatives of American Rivers and the
Skokomish Nation.
Second, our Nation is at the crest of a new wave of
hydropower licensing and license surrenders. Roughly 30 percent
of the nonFederal fleet is up for relicensing by 2030. That
number soars to 45 percent by 2035. With relicensing taking 7.6
years on average and often lasting more than a decade, the need
for hydropower license reform has never been more urgent.
There are lots of issues on which me and my colleagues
disagree. Yet on this issue, our respective caucuses have been
able to build a holistic integrated license reform package that
has broad stakeholder support. Our hope is that Congress can
take action on such a package this year. This committee has a
great track record of working on hydropower license reform in a
bipartisan way, most recently, the Hydropower Regulatory
Efficiency Act championed by Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers
and Representative DeGette and the provisions in the 2018
American Water Infrastructure Act championed by Representative
Griffith and Bucshon.
Our joint legislative proposal builds on these efforts
while accomplishing many of the items set forth in H.R. 1588,
the Hydropower Clean Energy Future Act introduced by Ranking
Member McMorris Rodgers, which NHA continues to support. Our
joint license reform proposal is the result of several years of
discussion through Stanford's Uncommon Dialogue process. NHA
believes that this historic proposal will meaningfully improve
the hydropower licensing and relicensing process while
preserving important environmental safeguards and respecting
the rights of tribal nations.
Let me share three takeaways. First, hydropower is an
essential part of a reliable clean energy grid. Hydropower
currently provides over six percent of U.S. electricity
generation, providing reliable baseload renewable power to an
estimated 30 million Americans. In addition, pumped storage
hydropower provides dispatchable long-duration energy storage,
representing 94 percent of all energy storage in the Nation.
Together, the waterpower industry provides 68,000 good-paying
jobs around the country.
As a flexible renewable energy resource, hydropower serves
as a force multiplier, balancing variable wind and solar so the
lights stay on when the sun goes down and the wind is still. In
addition, hydropower plays an often-overlooked role in
enhancing system reliability and resilience, providing, for
example, 40 percent of the Nation's black start capability,
which is vital in enabling the grid to restart in the event of
a blackout.
Second, new and existing hydropower is at risk due, in
part, to the Byzantine licensing and relicensing system. As
noted earlier, we are at the crest of a wave of hydropower
licensing. At the same time, relicensing takes 7.6 years to
complete on average and often takes much longer than a decade.
The paperwork costs associated with relicensing typically
exceed $10 million with facility upgrades requiring many
millions more.
Relicensing an existing facility takes longer than
relicensing a nuclear power plant. As a result, a recent
industry survey found that more than 40 percent of hydro owners
were actively considering decommissioning a facility.
Alarmingly, 58 percent of facilities have submitted license
surrender applications to FERC since 2010, including 17 in just
the last two years, which brings me to my final takeaway.
Reform of the licensing process is urgently needed. The
joint license reform package offers many benefits to the hydro
industry, including clarifying mandatory conditioning
authority, expedited licensing for nonpowered dams in closed-
loop or off stream pumped storage and improved coordination
between the various agencies. NHA supports the joint license
reform package to advance the renewable energy benefits and
storage benefits of hydro power, the environmental and economic
benefits of healthy rivers, and the sovereignty of tribal
nations. We look forward to collaborating with the committee to
enact this proposal this Congress and appreciate your convening
today's hearing.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Woolf follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. I want to thank the witness.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Kiernan for 5 minutes. Mr.
Kiernan, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF TOM KIERNAN
Mr. Kiernan. Thank you, Chairman Rush. Thanks to you and
Ranking Member Upton and members of the subcommittee. It is a
real pleasure to be with you to testify and to share the
perspective of American Rivers on the topic of modernizing
hydropower. I am Tom Kiernan, president of American Rivers. And
our staff have been participants in, and we have been some of
the leaders of the Uncommon Dialogue. We have also participated
in hundreds, literally hundreds, of hydropower licensing
proceedings.
And we have experienced both the best of that process and
the worst of that process. The hydropower licensing reform
package that we are bringing to you today as a collaboration
was born from the encouragement of this committee to seek
common ground and to find solutions. Our proposal is an
extension of our shared goals of protecting rivers,
strengthening tribal sovereignty, and generating renewable
electricity that contributes to achieving a 21st Century clean
energy grid.
This package is an integrated, holistic proposal that
successfully creates common ground by bringing together the
different perspectives of conservation, tribal and industry
constituencies. It has been carefully balanced to ensure that
we do no harm to any interest while creating a win-win-win for
conservation, tribes, and industry. I will focus my testimony
today on how our hydropower licensing reform package improves
river health in the context of the three crises that we see
rivers facing today: biodiversity loss, climate change, and
racial and cultural inequities.
On biodiversity loss, since 1970, the world has lost 83
percent of all freshwater species and nearly a third of all
freshwater ecosystems. Freshwater species are declining twice
as fast as their terrestrial and ocean counterparts. One
significant factor driving the loss of biodiversity is the loss
of river connectivity. Dams do have significant effects on
river ecosystems.
And when they are improperly sited or lack functional fish
passage, they can contribute to biodiversity loss. Our
licensing reform package addresses this growing issue by
requiring FERC to open a rulemaking to add greater specificity
and timelines to the license/surrender process for nonFederal
dams and with owners that want to remove their dam. Even when
all parties agree that a dam needs to be removed, it can take
decades to do so.
These proposed changes will help licenses better protect--
predict the time and cost associated with license surrender and
make the process more predictable and easier to remove unwanted
dams. Removing dams from rivers when they have outlived their
useful life opens habitats and makes it easier for freshwater
species to rebound. Second major challenge for rivers is
climate change. Extreme weather events are becoming more
frequent. And disruptions like the crippling drought in the
West make it critically important that we consider climate
change when crafting license conditions.
Many licensees already analyze hydrology and how it is
changing because of changing climate. But this type of analysis
has not yet incorporated into the licensing processes.
Accordingly, this package would require FERC, agencies, and
federally recognized tribes to consider how project effects may
change under a changing climate when developing their license
conditions. It also requires FERC to stay abreast of and
incorporate the latest science on climate change and analytic
tools through periodic technical conferences convened in
consultation with Department of Energy. These are commonsense
requirements that will promote better decisionmaking to ensure
healthy and climate-resilient rivers into the future.
And the third main challenge is racial and cultural
inequity. Reform is needed to achieve the promise of self-
determination for tribes. In 1975, Congress recognized tribes
as sovereign governments. But the administration of Section
4(e) of the Federal Power Act remains a relic of the pre-self-
determination era. More than 45 years after Congress recognized
tribes as sovereign governments, tribal governments must still
rely upon their trustee, the Department of the Interior, to
intervene on their behalf to protect their resources.
The continued need for an intermediary adds complexity and
inefficiency to the licensing process and is an affront to the
sovereignty of tribal governments. Our proposal remedies this.
In closing, this package is an integrated and holistic proposal
that successfully creates common ground among the various
interests of conservation, tribes, and industry, and I thank
you for the opportunity to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kiernan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. The chair thanks Mr. Kiernan.
And now, Ms. Pavel, you are recognized for 5 minutes for
the purposes of an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF MARY PAVEL
Ms. Pavel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
committee. My name is Mary Pavel. I am a partner at the law
firm of Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Perry, and I am
attorney for the Skokomish Indian Tribe and a member of the
tribe. I am honored to be here with my colleagues to support
the Uncommon Dialogue and the work that we have all done the
last few years to reform and improve the licensing process.
In my written testimony, I told the story of the Skokomish
Tribe to illustrate why the Uncommon Dialogue licensing reform
proposal regarding 4(e) of the Federal Power Act, which would
secure tribes a full place at the table and setting these
conditions is not only the right thing to do but also
consistent with the Federal policy of self-determination and
with the Federal Power Act itself.
The Skokomish Tribe's experience with the Federal Power Act
and the licensing of the Cushman Hydroelectric Project
demonstrates what can happen if tribes are forced to rely on
distant bureaucrats in Washington, DC. In the case of the
Skokomish Tribe, the bureaucrats failed to do anything to
protect the tribe's reservation. And the Skokomish Tribe bore
the cost of that failure for 86 years. With the Uncommon
Dialogue proposals in recognizing tribal authority to impose
conditions on federally licensed projects that are located on
tribal trust--will finally animate what the original drafters
of the Federal Power Act intended, that while developing
hydropower is important for America, it was not to be done at
the expense of the trust responsibility to tribes or tribal
homelands. I want to thank you for the opportunity to present
this testimony and look forward to answering any questions that
you may have today. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Pavel follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. The chair wants to thank the witness.
And now, Mr. Wallen, you are recognized for 5 minutes for
the purposes of an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD WALLEN
Mr. Wallen. Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Upton, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify on the importance of hydropower. I am privileged to
serve our citizen owners as a CEO and general manager of Grant
County Public Utility District. Grant is a not-for-profit
public utility providing electric power and wholesale fiber
service in Central Washington.
Since our founding in 1938, we have been determined to
provide our customers with affordable and reliable energy. Our
county's need for electricity is growing, and we have a diverse
customer base of farmers, irrigators, data centers, and other
large industry. We own and operate two Columbia River dams with
a combined generating capacity of 2100 megawatts of clean,
renewable energy.
Our project is licensed by FERC. While projects of the
Federal Columbia River Power System are not FERC-licensed,
policies that impact one set of hydropower tend to impact the
other. Under the State of Washington's Clean Energy
Transformation Act, utilities must provide and make public a
clean energy implementation plan with its own targets for
energy efficiency and renewable energy.
In April 2008, Grant received a 44-year license extension
for our project. Grant was required to use the traditional
licensing process during this time, which we believe created
additional bureaucratic burdens, delays, and created
uncertainty among stakeholders prior to issuance.
We could have benefited during our licensing process. And
as a supporter of H.R. 1588, the Hydropower Clean Energy Future
Act, and commends Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers for her
consistent leadership on hydropower issues. As a member of the
National Hydropower Association, Grant is closely following the
development of the hydropower license reform as well. There are
components of this effort we see as beneficial as reasonable
relicensing timelines and the show-your-work provisions.
The recently completed Columbia River system operational
environmental impact statement studied the environmental,
biological, power supply, and socioeconomic impacts of the
entire Federal Columbia River system operations. One of the
proposed alternatives was breaching the Lower Snake River Dams.
While we recognize some of the removal efforts contemplated
under the Uncommon Dialogue are for nonpowered dams, the
predominance of dam removal in the dialog at all is concerning.
The Lower Snake River Dams are built to facilitate fish
passage and actually achieve spring juvenile survival rates of
96 percent and summer migrating fish survival at 93 percent.
Both meet or exceed performance standards. Nonetheless, some
stakeholders push for removal of the Lower Snake River Dams
even though the fish in the neighboring undammed rivers are
experiencing similar stresses and the fact that only three of
the listed species even migrate up the Snake. The four Lower
Snake River Dams are a critically vital component of BPA's low-
cost carbon power--carbon-free power supply.
To remove the dams would result in massive rate increases
to regional supply cost, increases in carbon emissions and
increased risk of blackouts. Replacement carbon-free resources
are not available and cannot be easily or cheaply secured and
require overbuild to counteract their intermittency.
Under this future, the Lower Snake River Dams would grow in
importance because they can act as giant clean energy
batteries, helping fill in these gaps for wind and solar.
Hydropower provides dependable and carbon-free generation when
we need it and how we need it. While Grant owned and operates
its own hydro dams, we are concerned about the impact losing
the Lower Snake would have for the entire region.
The Western Electric Coordinating Council, in its 2021
Western assessment of resource adequacy, issued a warning that
every region in the Western grid is facing an abnormal risk of
blackouts. We are also concerned about the price impacts, as
the BPA has forecasted wholesale price impacts of 50 percent if
the dams are removed and replaced with wind or solar plus
batteries.
This price hike could impact Grant PUD customers, as we, a
public power utility, have rights to BPA-provided generation.
In a carbon-constrained world, hydropower is increasingly vital
for its emission-free generation, load-following capabilities,
grid stability, and integrating--resources that keep the lights
on.
Grant PUD is proud of its role in promoting the
modernization of hydropower and thankful for the pioneering
spirit exhibited by our founding fathers almost 85 years ago as
well as our long-standing relationship with the Wanapum Band of
Native Americans as we continue to protect, preserve, and
perpetuate their cultural traditions and way of life. I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wallen follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. The Chair wants to thank all of our witnesses.
And Mr. Wood, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for
purposes of an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS WOOD
Mr. Wood. Thank you, Chairman Rush. Chairman Rush, Ranking
Member Upton, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to testify today on the issue of hydropower and
licensing reforms for a clean energy future. Trout Unlimited is
the Nation's largest--excuse me--trout and salmon conservation
organization. We are a nonpartisan organization with more than
350,000 members and supporters, many of whom are from your
districts, spread around the country. We have a deep and
abiding interest in the relationship among dams, hydropower
projects, and trout and salmon fisheries.
Trout and salmon are migratory creatures. When their
migratory paths are blocked and the cold water they need warmed
too much, they become imperiled. Science and research show how
dam construction has caused or contributed to the harm and
extinction of many species of trout and salmon in the U.S.
Thus, we have a huge stake in ensuring that hydropower is done
right and balanced properly with the needs of people and
communities who depend on the fish and wildlife resources of
our waterways.
While we are passionate advocates for fish, we also see
ourselves as problem solvers. We have a long history of
engagement in project-specific licensing and in regulatory and
legislative processes, partnering with the tribes, State and
resource agencies and, of course, utilities and project
developers.
In fact, in 2002, we testified in this same room and worked
very hard with the man for whom this room is named, the great
John Dingell, prior to passage of the Federal Power Act
amendments in 2005. On the ground, we have had many successes
and learned some hard lessons. In the late 1990's and early
2000's, we worked cooperatively with the Avista Corporation to
restore bull trout and cutthroat trout in Northwest Montana.
We worked with Portland General Electric in the middle of
their license to help them voluntarily. They, in fact, came to
us, install fish passage to restore salmon and steelhead on the
Deschutes River in Oregon. More recently, we worked with
Pennsylvania Power and Light to remove two dams and bypass a
third on the Penobscot River in Maine. This is a particularly
interesting story, as part of our agreement was that all of the
lost power would be and it has been replaced. And the fish
response has been amazing since those dams came out.
We have seen the process work well. We have seen it work
poorly, and we have seen the way in which improvements could be
valuable. With this history in mind, TU participated in the
Uncommon Dialogue, and we absolutely applaud the effort and its
participants and salute all who are participating in the
conversation, especially my friends here from American Rivers,
the tribes, and the hydropower industry.
We support many of the concepts included in the package. We
support the group's stated goal of advancing mutual interests
in a way that does no harm. We support the proposed new tribal
authority. We also support providing more resources to State,
Federal, and tribal agencies participating in listing--
licensing proceedings.
But there are some key aspects of the package that we think
are underdeveloped or that may need to be sharpened. For
example, we think the modification of mandatory conditioning
authorities under Section 4(e) and 18 of the Federal Power Act
would benefit from additional review and scrutiny. We urge the
subcommittee to continue its engagement with Uncommon Dialogue
participants and seek input from additional stakeholders,
especially the State and Federal resource agencies who will be
discharged to implement the changes and to continue to make
further improvements to this package through the legislative
process. And when those improvements are made, we fully look
forward--or we look forward to fully supporting the
legislation. While we have some concerns about some of the
details, we intend to continue to work alongside our colleagues
here today as well as with Members of Congress to ensure that a
final legislative product is successful and allows all
stakeholders to move forward together. Thank you for holding
this hearing today, and thank you for inviting me to
participate.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wood follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. Again, the Chair want to thank all the witnesses
and want to thank Mr. Wood for your testimony. And all the
witnesses, we want to thank you for your testimoneys. We will
now move to the members' questioning. And each member will have
5 minutes to ask questions of our witnesses. And I will start
by recognizing myself.
Ms. Pavel, I want to start by learning about some of the
benefits of the Uncommon Dialogue proposal for Native American
tribes. In your testimony, you talked about how, even within
the last 20 years, the Department of the Interior abdicated its
responsibility and acted as a Skokomish Tribe trustee in the
relicensing process. Can you talk a little bit about how things
would have been different and better and what additional
conditions your tribe may have imposed if the Uncommon Dialogue
proposal had been logged when the Cushman project was being
relicensed?
Ms. Pavel. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the
question. How would have it been different--it would have
been--the tribe would have been at the table early on. They
would have been at the table with the licensee early on
because, as my brother, who is my tribe's chairman at the time,
will tell the story, he spent a decade knocking on the doors of
our trustee, begging our trustee to get engaged to do
something. The first person to open the door for my brother was
the State of Washington DEQ, said, OK, let's talk. Let's have a
conversation. And then it was through allies like Trout
Unlimited and American Rivers where we were able to bring other
political forces to bear because my tribe is just a little
tribe, and so we had to bring other forces to bear on our
trustee.
But I think that Tacoma would have--if Tacoma had known
they would have had to sit down with us and we were the entity
they had to deal with the government, they would have come and
sat down with us and worked it out. So we would have--we
would--that early convening of key stakeholders would have
happened if that would have happened. And the kind of
conditions that would have gotten imposed, had the tribe had
the mandatory conditions, I don't think they are that different
than, ultimately, what got imposed as a result of the global
settlement that happened after Tacoma--after the tribe won the
lawsuit with Tacoma v. FERC where we sat down and said, ``OK.
Let's talk about the resource.''
This is resource management opportunity. Let's talk about--
let's build spillways. We've got to restore our sockeye
fishery. Let's build a hatchery. Can we build a hatchery? Let's
talk about where the tribe can--can benefit because we don't
benefit from any of that power. That power gets shipped to the
residents of Tacoma. As my brother says, when people like to
say they create power from dam, they are not creating power.
You are taking power. You are taking energy from our River. But
the global settlement that happened with the relicensing
allowed the tribe to share in the generation of revenues like
if--because it's on tribal lands, so we get the 4(e) payments.
We became a full partner with the city of Tacoma in the
management of this facility and restoring habitat. And if you
look at Tacoma's website, they are excited. They love being
part of it. We own part of the campgrounds now, so we're
present in the recreational ownership of this facility. We talk
about these critical cultural sites. And that would have--
what--the global settlement that ultimately achieved after my
tribe basically invested everything we had is probably what
would have happened if we had been at the table early. But it
would have happened earlier. It wouldn't have taken an
additional 30 years. We would have been there earlier, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Rush. So you would agree or you--do you agree that the
Federal Power Act, as currently written, is outdated and out of
step--is outdated and out of step with other laws on tribal
sovereignty?
Ms. Pavel. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. It is out of step. And
tribes are some of--and as you know, Congresswoman McMorris
Rodgers knows. Chairman Pallone knows. Many members knows.
Tribes have some of the best resource management data science
in the world, especially in the Northwest. And there is no one
better to examine the impact of hydroelectric projects on
tribal trust lands and how best those resources can be
protected than tribal governments. And in this area of self-
determination where tribes are managing multimillion dollar
Federal programs, we are managing and serving in treatment of
states under the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. It is time
to fully, as I said before, animate the provisions of the
Federal Power Act with the tribal governments' voice
themselves.
Mr. Rush. Want to thank--my 5 minutes have concluded.
The Chair now recognizes the ranking member, Mr. Upton, for
5 minutes.
Mr. Upton. Well, thanks again, Mr. Chairman. And thanks for
the testimony as well. This is an issue that I would like to
think that we can expand hydro, and we can work--I would like
to think we can work in a bipartisan basis to do that. And of
course, as I indicated in my opening statement, the concern
that many of us have is how did it take so long to get
something done.
I would like to think again that we are all on the same
page, that we know the importance of hydro. We know the
importance not only to the environment but to the communities
that have it and the end users that, frankly, need it in a--in
a big way. So Mr. Woolf, I guess, you know, on your testimony,
you indicated that hydro is disadvantaged to other forms of
energy, particularly wind and solar. We are all supporters of
renewable energy. We want it to work.
But some of us are a little afraid of a system that is
being overbuilt for wind and solar. I had one of my Michigan
utilities just this week indicated that they would--to do wind
and solar for renewable, it would require, in Michigan, tens of
thousands of new acreage that they would have to set aside to
do that to be able to hit the targets that they want to and to
be able to eliminate some of the coal plants that are currently
in use that are scheduled to be phased out over the next number
of years.
How long does it normally take FERC from start to finish to
issue an original license for a hydro project? You need to turn
on your mic. It's the 25 million people that are watching us
that want to hear your answer. We can hear you but it's----
Mr. Woolf. Thank you for your question. It takes way too
long to license a hydropower facility. On average, it takes 7.6
years from start to finish. And that is on average. There are
many facilities where it takes over a decade, some facilities
where it has taken over two decades to get a hydropower
license.
Mr. Upton. So have you seen any impact, any change, since
we passed the bill back in--what?--2018? Have you seen any
positive movement on that, anyone saying, hey, ``Let's get this
shot clock started?''
Mr. Woolf. I wish I could say that those provisions have
proven effective. In fact, they have not. Unfortunately, only
one facility has come in to seek to use those provisions and
was found by FERC to be ineligible.
So----
Mr. Upton. And where was that project? Do you know what
State, where it is?
Mr. Woolf. I am sorry. I do not.
Mr. Upton. Maybe if you could----
Mr. Woolf. I can get that for committee.
Mr. Upton. That would be helpful.
Mr. Woolf. Yes.
Mr. Upton. So one new project in the last four years?
Mr. Woolf. One project that sought to use it and was----
Mr. Upton. That sought to use it.
Mr. Woolf [continuing]. Found ineligible by FERC. So not a
single facility has been able to use those provisions.
Mr. Upton. And one of the things, I think, you know, as we
thought about this hearing, where is FERC on this? I would like
to have FERC come testify and tell us what they have been doing
or not doing. I know they have now got a full commission that's
there. But obviously this ought to be a priority as we look at
something that doesn't emit or has zero emissions.
I think there is pretty much--I think there is a hydro
facility virtually in every State in the union, every----
Mr. Woolf. Forty-eight states.
Mr. Upton. Every State. So there is no reason why we can't
expand that. And FERC ought to make this a priority to try and
get it done, especially since we are trying to help them do
their job with the legislation that we passed in 2018. How long
does it normally take--and again, I--wind, solar or battery
installations. And again, for me in Southwest Michigan, I have
seen our utilities come to the plate. I was in Boston over the
weekend with my daughter and her--my grandkids--I would say--my
wife would say our grandkids. A lot of houses there have the
solar panels on. But how long does it usually take to get a
permit for one of those alternative forms of renewable energy?
Mr. Woolf. For a commercial scale renewable system, it is
state-regulated. So it varies State by State. In California,
for wind, it can take up to three years. If you are in Texas,
it could be done in less than a year. It is less than half the
time, far, far less than half the time than a hydropower
facility. And one of the reasons why the AWEA law that this
committee passed a few years ago has not proven effective is
that it starts once--it excludes from that two year shot clock
any of the pre-application work that needs to be done. And
there is usually years of pre-application work, studies and
community outreach. None of that is included in that shot
clock, unfortunately, as FERC has interpreted it. And that is
why the provisions have not proven effective.
Mr. Upton. So I will just make a little comparison my last
12 seconds. It almost--so we have a number of dams in Michigan
that are a hundred years old. They are not really produce--it
almost seems like it is easier and it takes years to close some
of those down than it does to actually create a new one that is
even more efficient.
So Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Pallone, for
5 minutes.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Rush. I want to ask three
questions of three people about the Uncommon Dialogue. So just
keep that in mind because I want to get to Ms. Pavel. She is
the last one.
So Mr. Wood, can you describe why Trout Unlimited elected
not to support the Uncommon Dialogue? And in so doing, can you
address whether your organization believes that proposed
reforms to Section 4(e) and 18 will weaken environmental
protections, including for fish populations?
Mr. Wood. Thank you, Chairman Pallone. To be clear, we do
support the Uncommon Dialogue. We are not in support of the
final proposal now. We just think it needs to--it needs to take
a little more time. It needs to see a little more sunshine and
get a little more review and scrutiny, particularly from the
action agencies, who will be saddled with implementing it.
So again, we are very supportive of the process. We think
it is exemplary, frankly, for dealing with a lot of these
issues. We just think that 4(e) and Section 18, in particular,
if we are not intending to make changes to what those sections
do, then we probably shouldn't change the words.
Mr. Pallone. OK.
Mr. Wood. If the intent is to keep those sections intact
and to keep the same authorities intact, our belief is we
should take a conservative approach and not try to use new
language.
Mr. Pallone. OK. And then Mr. Kiernan, your organization,
American Rivers, supports the Uncommon Dialogue despite
concerns by some, including Trout Unlimited, that the proposal
is not--or I am guess--I am putting words in Mr. Wood's mouth,
though I shouldn't because I--I thought he thought it may not
be sufficiently protective of the environment. But that is not
exactly what he said.
But Mr. Kiernan, can you elaborate on your organization's
basis for supporting the Uncommon Dialogue and, in particular,
address whether the proposed reforms weaken the protections for
fish and wildlife set forth in Sections 4(e) and 18, basically
the same question?
Mr. Kiernan. Yes. Thank you very much, Chairman Pallone.
Yes. We do support this package. We do not think the changes to
Section 4(e) and 18 weaken the protections for rivers and fish
and wildlife. We believe that the language that we crafted is
codifying existing judicial interpretation of the current law.
So it is not changing policy. It is merely codifying what the
courts have done.
We also do see some benefit, we think, for all parties in
having that codified because it just makes it absolutely clear
in statute what the intent of Congress is so that there is no
accidental or what have you courts moving off of that. To have
the clarity from Congress, we think, gives the clarity we need
long-term in these proceedings.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Thank you.
So we got two minutes for Ms. Pavel, who I have known for a
long time. I won't say how long. Let me ask you. In addition to
protections for fish, wildlife, and recreation, I believe we
have to ensure that any reforms to the Federal Power Act
empower tribal nations to make decisions about the use of their
own lands and the current regulatory regime vests the
Department of the Interior rather than the tribal nations
themselves with the authority to impose mandatory conditions on
the use of tribal lands.
And I don't agree with that. That has to change. So my
question is do you think the Uncommon Dialogue's proposal
sufficiently empowers tribal nations to make decisions about
the use of tribal lands? And how do we ensure that all tribal
nations, including those without significant financial
resources or hydropower expertise, are able to participate in
the hydropower licensing process?
Ms. Pavel. The short answer is yes. I think it goes far
enough. I think one of the components of the proposal would be
to create and to provide resources for all land management
agencies to do the work that they need to relative to Federal
relicensing and licensing projects, including tribal
governments. So that is important so that tribes like mine who
don't have to lose their blood and treasure and invest
everything they have in participating in developing the
capacity to do--do the work necessary here.
One of the things, does it go far enough? Does it do
enough? Well, no. My brother, my tribe's natural resources
manager, would say the 4(e) condition attaches to the fish. It
doesn't attach just to trust land. We--you know, the tribal
caucus certainly advocated for that. But we collectively
couldn't get that far. But we could attach to where it is on
tribal trust lands, which is what the--how the law is, how it
has been interpreted, again, as Mr. Kiernan said, a
codification of what the law is.
If a project is on tribal trust lands within the boundaries
of a reservation, these--the new 4(e) tribal authority would
attach. And that is really historic. It is really--and what is
really historic, in my experience, is that the stakeholders,
the industry stakeholders, were--really embraced this idea and
this principle.
And I think it is because of what Mr. Wallen said. They
have been partners. They are partners. Tribes and industry and
operators and PUDs have been partners in land management
agencies. And so it shouldn't have been surprising. But it
really was exciting and heartwarming to have industry embrace
that aspect of this proposal early on.
It was really one of the first points of common ground that
we reached in the Uncommon Dialogue. My friend, Chuck Sensiba,
or Malcolm or somebody, one of them likes to often say, ``We
were engaged in an uncomfortable dialog.'' But vis-a-vis the
tribal issues, that wasn't the case. It was really an early
agreement, and that is exciting.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you so much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the ranking member from the full
committee, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The role of hydropower is vital to our Nation's
electricity, especially reliable, affordable electricity. And
the fact is hydropower has demonstrated an outsized role when
it comes to baseload and meeting that important need. As Mr.
Woolf notes in his testimony, hydropower provides seven percent
of our Nation's generating capacity but nearly half of our
Nation's black start capability.
And as some states like Washington State are rushing to
install weather-dependent generation and we--and we are
concerned about increased blackouts, brownouts, hydropower is
more important than ever. Hydropower's future is more than just
support of solar and wind buildout, though. We know from our
experience in Washington State that it is central for
affordable energy.
And I might just note when it comes to a double-edged
sword, every source of electricity has a double-edged sword.
Wind and solar--I think we should seriously recognize the
impact on birds, land, environmental, and materials needed, the
huge disposal issues, supply chain concerns. And the power is
not reliable. Grant County PUD was built by the community to
bring electricity to the county in the 1920's and 1950's. And
they encouraged the construction of two dams on the Columbia
River collectively known as the Priest Rapids Project.
Mr. Wallen, would you talk briefly about that experience
navigating FERC relicensing and what recommendations you have
to improve the process?
Mr. Wallen. Yes. Thank you, Ranking Member McMorris
Rodgers. Grant values regulatory certainty and external
stakeholders coming to the table early and often. We want to
promote, ensure success through a transparent approach that is
based in sound science. With certainty, we can strive toward
achieving regulatory requirements in a biologically sound and
cost-effective manner.
Fish, all stakeholders and reliable carbon-free generation
all lose with an overly long process. We have heard 7.6 years,
ten years. Waiting this long to implement innovative and
enhancement measures is bad for both our natural and cultural
resources and bad for domestic carbon-free power supply. These
long licensing process and lessons learned, we should all take
heed and learn from as we move forward.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. As a followup, your project took
about ten years. Your colleagues at Northwest Public Power
Association note that the Energy Northwest in Richland,
Washington was able to relicense a 1200-megawatt nuclear power
plant faster than a 27-megawatt hydro project.
One difference was, unlike NERC licensing, FERC is not the
clearly designated lead agency in the process. Do you think it
would be helpful for Congress to designate FERC as the lead
agency?
Mr. Wallen. Yes. I think designation as FERC as the lead
agency could help in coordinating schedules, working on
timelines, working on studies required and really could just
help promote process discipline, which seems to be lacking.
Mrs. Rodgers. You note in your testimony that projects on
the Federal Columbia River Power System are not FERC-licensed
because they are owned by the Federal Government. Yet you also
note that--and I'll quote--policies that impact one set of
hydropower generation tend to impact the other. First, I'd like
to ask how would removing the Lower Snake River Dams negatively
impact consumers and the economy?
Mr. Wallen. Yes. As you know, the Pacific Northwest has
passed some of the most aggressive decarbonization laws in the
United States. This has happened at the same time Washington
and other states are electrifying. I mean, we are electrifying
through the transportation. We are electrifying through
building heating. This unprecedented challenge really has put
tremendous strain and will continue to do so on both the
reliability and the affordability of the electric grid given
the existing technologies.
In short, we have got a math problem. We are looking for
24/7 generation to meet these growing demands. And losing the
Lower Snake takes this from a complex math problem to an almost
impossible one to solve. We are also greatly concerned that
people are considering--not considering the difficulty
associated with some of the things that you talked about with
supply chain and other logistical challenges and inflationary
pressures as we look at this. In short, really, as utility
leader, we are----
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. I have one last question I want to
get to. Because the Uncommon--this draft seems to embrace
environmental mitigation, even dam removal. There is a whole
section that provides sweeping liability waivers for any harm
or damages caused by dam removal. Does that give you pause?
Mr. Wallen. Grant PUD is committed to fulfilling our
responsibilities and be good stewards in the environment we are
entrusted to manage. And we have always done that and will
continue doing that.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. Thanks for being--everyone. I
yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
McNerney, for 5 minutes.
Mr. McNerney. I thank the chair.
I thank the witnesses. There is almost too much agreement
for comfort here. So I appreciate, Mr. Wood, at least--at any
rate, most of my questions are going to be addressed to you,
Mr. Wood, and one to Mr. Kiernan. The western United States is
in a severe megadrought. And some reservoirs have already
reached critically low levels, even though it is not even
summer.
We are confronting a new reality. So for example, during
the record wet year in 2017, the Oroville Dam nearly failed,
and they had to evacuate 180,000 people from down--downstream.
Just four years later, where water levels are so low that
hydroelectric generation was curtailed for five months. So Mr.
Wood, please describe the risks that periods of extreme drought
and extreme precipitation pose to the reliability of
hydroelectric generation and dam safety. Mr. Wood?
Mr. Wood. Sorry about that. Did you want me to answer that?
Mr. McNerney. I mean Mr. Woolf.
Mr. Wood. That's what I thought.
Mr. McNerney. Too many W's and too many O's here. Sorry.
Mr. Woolf. Thank you for the question. Climate change is
water change. So you are absolutely right. And that makes
hydropower's flexibility more critical than ever. Hydropower is
the resource that is able to fill in those gaps and respond as
the grid is forced to change because of climate change.
In your own State of California, obviously having historic
droughts--but even last year with, you know, record low water,
hydropower was out--was able to outperform. There was a recent
study showing that in that--basically, the hydropower
facilities save their water to the afternoon ramp when solar is
coming off the grid. Hydropower doubled from five to ten
percent of the grid because it saved its water, saved its power
for when they knew the grid was going to need it. And that is
part of the flexibility and why hydropower is so important. We
can respond to what--the grid's evolving needs.
Mr. McNerney. But when we have these extreme droughts, the
hydropower loses its reliability.
Mr. Woolf. I mean, it certainly depends in different parts
of the country. At the same time, while the West is having
droughts, there is record rainfall in other parts of the
country. But you are right. Certainly these are having a huge
impact. And the hydropower operators are using a variety of
tools, forecasting other things to adapt to what is a change in
climate.
Mr. McNerney. Well, how does this proposal address the
tradeoffs between freshwater delivery and hydropower generation
in an increasingly arid West?
Mr. Woolf. These are really complicated challenges, and it
is part of one--part of what I hope this committee recognizes,
is that most hydropower facilities were not built for power
generation. They were built for other purposes. They are
multipurpose facilities. This is water storage. This is
irrigation. Part of how the West has done so well despite these
droughts is that hydropower--those facilities have been there
to provide that water storage so we can get through these
periods of drought. But these are unprecedented times, so these
are real challenges.
Mr. McNerney. Certainly.
Mr. Kiernan, what needs to be done to ensure that
hydropower in the West remains a reliable source of power?
Mr. Kiernan. I think one of the key solutions is what our
proposal suggests or includes, and that is requiring FERC and
other mandatory conditioning agencies and the tribes to include
climate change in their analysis when they are thinking through
project conditions so that they consider what are the potential
extremes and what might be the impact on the dam, the
surrounding communities, the lands, the reservation and take
that into account with the conditions so that, like you
mentioned at Oroville with the huge flood and the drought,
those extremes, we think, need to be considered as part of the
whole licensing process. And that is why the Uncommon Dialogue
did include climate change as a requirement for FERC and the
other agencies to include in their process.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. I want to switch to biodiversity.
According to your testimony, Mr. Kiernan, the world has lost 83
percent of freshwater species since 1970. And freshwater
populations continue to decline, much faster than the ocean
counterparts. We have experienced this in my district with
Chinook--spring-run Chinook salmon.
Mr. Wood, then, this question is for you. To what extent is
the decline in freshwater species attributable to dams, and how
successful are fishways at facilitating fish passage?
Mr. Wood. You know, trout and salmon are the ultimate
indicators of the health of the land. And it would be wrong of
me to suggest that hydropower is the only problem for the
reason that we have lost 106 stocks of salmon in the Pacific
Northwest and another couple hundred are imperiled. But it is a
contributing factor. And the problem often isn't the fish
passage itself. As was cited by my colleague earlier, those
numbers are relatively high. It is often the delayed mortality
associated with the big reservoirs. So in the Snake River
Basin, for example, you are talking about--it used to take a
day or two for a smolt to flush down to the ocean, you know,
100 years ago before the dams were built.
Today, it can take up to three weeks, and they have to
traverse 140 miles of, you know, bathwater-warm reservoirs to
get there, and those are full of predators and, you know,
disease and that--there is this really dramatic delayed
mortality that is tied with that.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Latta for 5 minutes.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to
thank our witnesses for your testimony today; great to have you
all before us.
Mr. Wallen, in your testimony, you go into detail about
Grant's PDU's experience with permitting process, which
included bureaucratic delays and roadblocks, the final license
and renewal. I would like to kind of followup where the
gentleman from Michigan and our subcommittee ranking member was
talking with Mr. Woolf. But as Americans continue to consume
more energy and not less energy in the coming years, we are
going to need to address why it takes, on average, seven to ten
years to permit an energy project. And I know we heard some
explanations from Mr. Woolf. But I would also like to hear from
you, from especially reading your testimony. Is there any
explanation as to why it takes so long from permit to be
approved for a hydropower project?
Mr. Wallen. None that I can readily give. You know, I
think, again, it is early and often engagement at the table
focused on certainty and taking the external stakeholders
coming in to that conversation will lead to success. It has got
to be transparent. It needs to be based on sound science to get
the right biological outcomes that we are looking for. Again, I
think we cannot continue down this path because we are
impacting the fish. We are impacting the ability to leverage
this domestically available carbon-free generation resource
that we have.
Mr. Latta. Let me go further in your testimony because you
are talking about, you know, you need effective and efficient
permitting. And also--it is also--you say that in your
process--in your renewal process for your license, the process
was frustrating, bureaucratic with time and expense delays and
a question about certainty. And one of the things I think that
also comes up when you talk about how long a project takes, how
often does something change within that process that you have
to go back and fix in your renewal process that you are doing
because, all of a sudden, there is something that has been
changed and circumstances.
Mr. Wallen. Yes. When you start to talk about a decade of a
process to start to finish, there is a lot that can change
during that time period. I think even for us, we started down
the traditional license process initially. Or, actually, let me
correct that. We wanted to go to the ultimate licensing
process, and it was denied by FERC.
We felt like that could have led to a much better outcome
for us even back in the--you know, 1999. So there are
opportunities. And we were looking to go through this early and
often engagement. I mean, our team of technical professionals
were chomping at the bit to make this happen. And it seemed
like they would encounter roadblock after roadblock even then
to move through that process.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you. You know, and also this is a
question that Mr. Woolf was asked by our ranking member on the
subcommittee. But how does the permitting process compare to
projects that we utilize other energy sources that you have
seen in the past?
Mr. Wallen. Yes. I think we heard the delta even between
commercial nuclear power and us. I think we often hear on the
permitting side for solar or wind and how much shorter that
time--those time periods are. So, yes, there is opportunities,
in our opinion, to streamline the process, make our process
effective and efficient under those type of constraints as
well.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you.
Mr. Woolf, I am one of the cochairs of the Grid Innovation
Caucus. And my good friend from California, one of the many
issues that I care about is how new technologies and practices
can be used to improve grid reliability. And I have 86,000
manufacturing jobs in my district. And, I mean, we make
everything from steel to float glass to having the largest food
processing plant in the world, having General Motors in my
district. So we do all kinds of things. And we have to have
power. And I mean, we have got to turn the power on every day.
And it is running 24 hours a day. Would you speak to the
reliability, the benefits of hydropower and its ability to
provide that baseload power?
Mr. Woolf. Thank you for your question. That is one of the
wonderful things about hydropower. We were America's first
renewable resource, and we are a huge solution for what the
21st-century grid needs. As we are putting more wind and solar,
there are variable resources. We have them--a greater need for
flexible resources. That is exactly what hydropower can
provide.
One example, a few years ago in New England, a nuclear
power plant tripped off 1700 megawatts. Instantly, two pumped
storage facilities were able to come online, provide that
power. The lights in Boston didn't even flicker. That kind of
flexibility is huge. It is what we are going to need more of as
the grid evolves. And that is what hydropower can provide. But
we are not going to be able to do that if the fleet goes away.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My time
has expired, and I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the chairman of the Subcommittee
on Environment, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair.
And I do want to commend the Uncommon Dialogue participants
for finding agreement on this proposal. The last time this
committee considered hydropower licensing reform, it did not
start from a place of broad stakeholder consensus. And I truly
believe that ultimately hurt the legislative process as well as
the final product. But these organizations have given us a
strong foundation. And I hope they will continue to stand
together and even expand the coalition as policymakers
inevitably consider changes to the original proposal because
hydropower is an incredibly important clean energy solution,
one that has had strong bipartisan support on this committee.
But like all energy infrastructure, it needs to be
developed and operated responsibly. An improved licensing
process can, indeed, help ensure that. Mr. Woolf--get this
right--Congress has previously legislated reforms to the--to
the licensing process. If I remember from the last time this
committee examined licensing, the integrated licensing process
had not been utilized as often as we had hoped for. And the
2018 expedited processes for low-impact projects also have not
been taken advantage of. So why do you believe these provisions
or these previous efforts have not fulfilled their
expectations?
Mr. Woolf. Thank you for the question, Congressman Tonko.
We are incredibly disappointed by the track record of the AWEA
laws from four years ago. Not a single company has been able to
use those provisions, principally because they--the two year
time clock starts--kind of excludes all of the pre-application
work that is required to take place. So there is years of work
that takes place before they will even start that time clock,
which means it is not actually expediting anything. So it has
not been able to be used.
Mr. Tonko. And why is this proposal that you are bringing
to the committee different?
Mr. Woolf. This is--this is very different in a number of
different ways. For the expedited treatment, it starts that
time clock at the very beginning when you file your intent to
file an application or, actually, when FERC says that that's--
they have 60 days to say, ``Hey, do you qualify or not?'' So it
starts from start to finish.
So that 2-year start to finish is appropriate for--for
qualifying nonpowered dams. FERC has done pilot projects. They
have been able to get that done. We think that is appropriate
for nonpowered dams. The dam is already there. So the level of
complexity of the issues--for pumped storage, it is the same
process, 3threeyears from start to finish.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And because projects operate on 30-to
50-year licenses, they often have not gone through
environmental reviews in decades. Mr. Kiernan, over the course
of several decades, how can the environment change around one
of these projects?
Mr. Kiernan. Well, I think the environment can change for a
couple of factors, one, obviously, climate change. That is
changing. And so the hydrology in and around the river likely
has changed. The dam itself may have also caused unintended
consequences. And in that time period, Congress has moved
forward with new and important laws, as we as a country have
learned what needs to be done to protect the fish, the river,
the wildlife surrounding it. So all of those factors, I think,
indicate appropriately the relicensing process and the
importance of doing it and doing it thoughtfully and doing it
as we are proposing where FERC coordinates early on in the
process with other agencies, and they get a joint study plan
together.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And so is it fair to say that
relicensing should not just be seen as an opportunity for
industry. How can relicensing enhance fish, wildlife, and other
aspects of environmental quality, including changing conditions
that are, indeed, related to climate change?
Mr. Kiernan. I think by having a licensing process where
all stakeholders are involved and we do have--for example, in
the trial-type hearing, some changes to that process where more
stakeholders are at the table. All of this does create more
transparency, getting all of the data on the table. One of the
phrases we have used in our discussions is a philosophy of show
your work where FERC now is required to--everything from
citing--telling us where they are getting the data, what is the
citation, where is it in the 200-page document to--what models,
nonproprietary--what public models are they using? So all of
that is just making the data more available so that FERC and
other agencies have the data to do the right thing for the fish
and for the wildlife. And that is the reason that this proposal
improves health for the river and the fish.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, and I am running--I ran out of time.
But Ms. Pavel, I will have a question sent your way dealing
with Section 4(e) in terms of relationship to the tribe. So we
will get that to you.
With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Griffith of West--of Virginia
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me first echo what Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers
said, that all energy sources have some negative impacts. And I
think we need to do research on all of them. For example,
wind--she mentioned birds. She left out bats. But what the
Europeans have found is that if you paint one blade black, you
reduce significantly bird mortality on offshore windmills.
So I think we need to do more research on that. I also
believe that we need to do more research on how we can make
fossil fuels more effective as well. That being said, Mr.
Kiernan and Mr. Wood have both talked about different things
that are happening to the rivers and biodiversity. And I am
interested. I know it is not today's hearing. So I am not going
to ask for a response. But I am just interested in you all's
concerns as time goes by--we can do this in writing--about the
effect of pesticides, particularly for the Trout Unlimited on
the species that are not targeted by agriculture but that are
affected by pesticides used in agriculture affecting the amount
of food that is available and, perhaps, the ingestion of
pesticides that the insects have acquired by the fish that eat
them. But those are just a few of the things that I found
interesting in the comments up to this point. But those weren't
any of my questions that I was supposed to ask, so let me get
to that.
In the 115th Congress, my bill, the Promoting Closed-Loop
Pumped Storage Hydropower Act, became law as part of the
American Water Infrastructure Act. This created, at FERC, an
expedited licensing process for closed-loop projects, which are
essentially giant batteries. FERC was directed to ensure that
this expedited licensing process resulted in a final decision
on the application in less than two years.
Mr. Woolf has just told us, in response to Mr. Tonko, part
of the problem with that. And I am disappointed that FERC isn't
here to testify on the proposal before us and to see whether
they agree with you, Mr. Woolf, because we thought we were
taking care of this back in 2018. And now we hear that that has
not occurred.
But, you know, we would like to see that occur. And Dr.
Bucshon's bill has been mentioned several times for nonpowered
dams. And that hasn't seen results either. Mr. Woolf, since
FERC is not here, I am going to ask you the questions. It is my
understanding that only one facility has applied to use the
expedited licensing process for closed-loop hydro, and the
application was either withdrawn or rejected. Are there efforts
by FERC to promote this program that encourage hydropower
companies to apply for this expedited prices? Are you aware of
any of those? All right. He is not aware.
And it seems that some of the environmental laws and
requirements imposed by other agencies outside of FERC are the
holdup and are the--and are resulting in more complicated
application processes. Would you agree with that?
Mr. Woolf. Absolutely.
Mr. Griffith. And he agrees with that. The proposal under
review today includes much of the same interagency task force
language that we included in 2018. You have mentioned, in your
answers to Congressman Tonko, that this new language will do
better. What is the language in there that is going to make it
so that we don't get hung up with other agencies trying to
implement their laws? I mean, well, go ahead and answer that
one. I will get to the next one later.
Mr. Woolf. By starting the pre-application process,
starting the shot clock, that is going to help. The entire
process, we are also trying to coordinate by requiring FERC to
do up-front coordination with those other agencies, come up
with a combined schedule. And if there is conflicting
conditions, work that out before the process is over.
Mr. Griffith. So in other words, for the folks watching
back home, they would already have a system set up before
Company X would ever bring in their proposal. The agencies
would already have it worked out. You have got this much time
to respond, and the other agency has so much time to respond.
And then FERC gets those informations and moves forward; is
that correct?
Mr. Woolf. That is right. And it would only apply for
closed-loop or off-stream pumped storage. Those don't typically
have the environmental concerns.
Mr. Griffith. And they don't have the environmental
concerns because there isn't wildlife that is going to be
impacted because it is a closed loop. That is the whole point
of the bill. Somehow, the agencies of the Federal Government
have missed that. Would you agree with me on that?
Mr. Woolf. I would.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you. The law also requires FERC to
conduct a workshop to explore potential--the potential
developing these projects in abandoned mine lands. FERC issued
guidance in October 2019. Are you aware of any companies
exploring this option?
Mr. Woolf. There is increased need in pumped storage around
the country, and folks are looking at abandoned mines.
Mr. Griffith. And I got a bunch of them.
Mr. Woolf. Yes. I mean, it is a huge opportunity, but the
licensing process is--we have got 90 facilities in the
pipeline, and nothing has been built for decades.
Mr. Griffith. All right. Do you think FERC could do more to
advertise this opportunity?
Mr. Woolf. We would love it. Yes.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much. My time is up. I yield
back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina,
Mr. Butterfield, for 5 minutes. Mr. Butterfield, are you
unmuted? You are muted, Mr. Butterfield. Mr. Butterfield, are
you all right? Are you OK?
Ms. Kuster, we will go to you, and then we will come back
to Mr. Butterfield after we work out his technical
difficulties.
Ms. Kuster. Thank you so much, Chairman Rush, and I am
grateful to you and to Chairman Pallone for holding this
hearing today. I am particularly grateful that the committee
agreed to examine this landmark proposal to improve the
hydropower licensing, relicensing, and surrender process.
Before diving into licensing, I want to thank Mr. Wood for
highlighting the 21st Century Dams Act during his testimony
today.
I am proud to have introduced this legislation on a
bipartisan basis with our colleague, the late Representative
Don Young and with Senator Diane Feinstein. This bill will make
huge investments to rehabilitate dams, retrofit them with
hydropower turbines, and remove dams that have outlived their
usefulness. This is an opportunity to boost our Nation's clean
energy production. And I welcome my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle here today to join me in passing the 21st Century
Dams Act.
Now on to licensing reforms. To everyone sitting here
today, it is clear from your testimony that we can all agree on
one thing. The hydropower licensing process needs to be
reformed. The current process is inefficient and drawn over
far--drawn out over far too many years, lacks transparency for
stakeholder engagement and fails to give tribal nations an
equal seat at the table.
The proposal before us today would address these long-
standing issues and, in my view, would be a win-win-win for our
Nation's river ecosystems, tribal nations and, most
importantly, clear--clean energy production to address climate
change. I want to commend the participants of the Uncommon
Dialogue, including my friend, Dan Reicher, from Stanford for
forming this coalition and putting together this thoughtful and
holistic approach. In my district, there are 27 hydropower
facilities that have licenses set to expire in the next decade.
Many of these are small hydro facilities.
According to the Department of Energy, of the 41 dams that
surrendered their licenses in the last decade, 36 were small
hydro facilities. Mr. Woolf, can you speak to how this
licensing reform proposal might help small hydropower
facilities and potentially reverse this alarming trend?
Mr. Woolf. Thank you for your question and again for your
leadership of the 21st Century Dam Act. It has been tremendous.
That really is hugely important to the industry and to this
broader--this broader effort. Your question is spot-on. The
small hydropower operators--and there are many--the process is
so long, so expensive, so uncertain that it is easier simply to
turn off the powerhouse than to go through the licensing
process at the end of a life.
We think that this license reform package will help that by
clarifying the conditioning authority. It is going to reduce
delays, reduce litigation by having increased coordination
between the various parties. We think it is going to create a
lot more clarity and help keep the existing small hydro fleet
operating.
Ms. Kuster. Thank you. That is my goal.
Mr. Kiernan, in your testimony, you spoke on how this
proposal creates common ground. And it is clear that it
carefully balanced the interests of environmental, tribal, and
industry stakeholders. What are the challenges of making
further changes to this licensing reform agreement?
Mr. Kiernan. This group has worked--I think it is a good
three, three-and-a-half years. And a lot of difficult or, as
Malcolm said, uncomfortable discussions. So we have been
slogging away, building an understanding. And as I think you
mentioned and I know as I said, we have created a holistic
proposal that is knit together where we think there is some
synergy in this language.
So our hope, as we have said--a package is a package. It
holds together. It is, we think, a win-win-win. And if there
are significant changes to it, suddenly that balance is lost,
or the interwoven benefits that create the win-win-win would be
lost. We look forward to the committee's serious consideration
of the package.
Ms. Kuster. Well, and I think, as my colleague pointed out,
it is rare to have all of you parties coming together. That
doesn't happen often in this committee room. And so I think it
is good cautionary tale for us as we consider it, this
combination.
Mr. Kiernan. And if I may, also thank you as well for your
leadership on the 21st Century Dams Act. Has been
extraordinary.
Ms. Kuster. Thank you.
Ms. Pavel, do you share this perspective?
Ms. Pavel. Absolutely. And want to echo my colleague's
thanks for your work, the committee's work on the 21st Century
Dams Act. But absolutely. I share their perspective. This is
really, you know, a unique opportunity of the stakeholders. And
I think, you know, I give a lot of credit to this committee for
encouraging the stakeholders sit down and have that dialog,
both--with bipartisan encouragement to have this dialog because
what we learned was that we can--we can stop one another from
achieving our greatest progress.
Ms. Kuster. Well, thank you so much to all of you. I think
it is still a damn good idea, and I hope that we can get it
done in this committee. And with that, I will yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr.
Johnson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and a special
thanks to all of our witnesses for being with us here today.
You know, I am really glad that we are revisiting this issue,
an issue that this committee did some good work on a few years
back, but it is clearly an area where more needs to be done.
And I also applaud Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers for her work
on this and for her legislation, H.R. 1588, which I am proud to
support as part of the Energy and Commerce Republicans securing
cleaner American energy agenda.
My district in Eastern and Southeastern Ohio is long. It is
the longest district east of the Mississippi. It is bordered on
one side by the Ohio River for 300 miles. So I got a lot of
river. It is a daily reality for my constituents to see
firsthand the power and the economic benefits the river gives
our communities, including several hydropower projects.
So it surprises me that--and maybe it shouldn't but it
does. But it surprises me that some of the biggest advocates
for green energy argue that hydropower is somehow not renewable
in the same way as, say, wind and--wind and solar even though
the river flows day or night, whether the sun shines or not.
And it flows whether the wind is blowing or not. It is there.
So to my colleagues, we should remember the goal is to
ensure affordable, reliable energy. And if we want to be
greener and secure our grid, then we need to make innovating in
this space easier. So Mr. Woolf, one of the concerns we have
right now is that, in this push to rush our economy's
transition to green energy, we may inadvertently make ourselves
even more dependent on massive amounts of batteries and magnets
that are made with materials sourced almost exclusively from
communist China. Would you agree that baseload hydropower and
new technologies such as pumped storage could protect our
renewable portfolio and energy security with less exposure to
those dangerous supply chain bottlenecks that we would get from
China?
Mr. Woolf. The fuel source for hydropower and pumped
storage is domestically sourced water.
Mr. Johnson. OK.
Mr. Woolf. Absolutely agree.
Mr. Johnson. All right. That is a pretty direct answer. I
appreciate that. Mr. Wallen, you mentioned in your testimony
that your region's baseload electric--electricity demand is
only growing and that it is nearly impossible to comply with
State laws mandating carbon reductions without the carbon-free
power you provide with hydropower. Can you expand on this and
explain why it is so important to treat hydropower equally as a
renewable energy source?
Mr. Wallen. Yes, Congressman Johnson. Yes. As you indicate,
our load is growing. And we are approaching, in 2026, with
planning margins, outgrowing the physical output that we are
entitled to of our project. So it is top of mind. We go through
integrated resource planning, as required by Washington State
statute, every two years. We are in the midst of that process
again today, likely the same outcome that we had in 2020, is
that we need new generation, or we need to figure out a new way
to get it. And so the existing hydro resources we have,
continuing to leverage them, as I talked about from a grid
stability, load-following capabilities. Just as we look at
renewables, yes, I think there is a difference. I think hydro
is a lot better in a lot of different ways when we look at all
those additional characteristics that we do gain from that
clean, renewable, domestically sourced resource.
Mr. Johnson. Yes. You know, I am really not sure how anyone
that watches a hydropower facility produce electricity and the
flow of a river like the Ohio River--I don't know how anyone
could argue that that is not renewable energy. In fact, I am
not even sure that it doesn't rank above renewable energy
because it is always there. Day or night, wind or rain, sun or
moon, it doesn't matter. It is there.
Mr. Wallen. And if I may add, that is what I talked about
earlier. It is when we need it and how we need it. And that is
a distinct clarifier, in my opinion, of this renewable energy
resource unlike the others.
Mr. Johnson. Well, you know that when we need it is, like,
right now. You know, we need the power when we need it. And
that is normally right now. How we get it, hydropower, is
certainly an alternative. And I think we need to be innovating
that way.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. And the Chair now
recognizes the gentlelady from Washington, Ms. Schrier, for 5
minutes.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to our witnesses. I really appreciate your being
here today to talk about this very worthwhile proposal. I am so
pleased to see the hydropower industry, tribes, and the
environmental community all come together to improve the
licensing and relicensing process. Our State has really been a
model for bringing diverse opinions together to move the ball
forward.
NonFederal hydropower operators in my district need a
streamlined relicensing process. And I am really encouraged by
the effort and the collaboration that produced the proposal
that you are here to testify about today. I believe the
Uncommon Dialogue approach is beneficial because it ensures
more timely and efficient decisionmaking by having parties
jointly develop a schedule with FERC. And as we know,
uncertainty and delay are not good for making investment
decisions.
We also know, as some of my colleagues pointed out, that
many of these hydropower facilities are coming up for
relicensing all at the same time. This proposal also encourages
coordination on steady plans and sets up processes to resolve
conflicting license conditions and ensure that proposed
requirements are tied to actual project benefits.
So additionally, this project takes additional, important
steps to enhance the health of our Nation's rivers and improve
tribal sovereignty. In Washington State, hydropower generates
nearly two-thirds of our energy each year and the majority of
our carbon-free energy. And we are the Nation's largest
hydropower producer. And much of that is generated by publicly
owned utilities in my district.
In particular, I want to talk about how this proposal might
improve the licensing process for the Rock Island hydropower
facility. This dam produces over 600 megawatts of power for my
constituents. It is up for relicensing in the next five years.
And I believe these reforms could improve and shorten that
process for all parties involved.
Large hydropower projects, like Chelan PUD's Rock Island
facility, can have really lengthening processes. They are
costly, and many of those expenses are really passed on to
ratepayers. So Mr. Woolf, can you speak about how this
licensing reform proposal will help reduce the length and
litigation associated with hydropower relicensing?
Mr. Woolf. Thanks for your question, and you are exactly
right. I think this reform package, if enacted, would be a huge
benefit, not only to those folks doing expedited licensing for
new nonpowered dams and pumped storage but to preserve the
existing fleet.
It does a number of things to make that happen, first, by
clarifying the mandatory conditioning authority. In these
permitting processes, we often get bogged down in what's the
scope, what can--what's in, what's not that often leads to
litigation, usually leads to delay. By clarifying that, I think
it is going to expedite the process. Requires interagency
coordination at the front end. What is the schedule? Who is
doing what? What studies do you need so you don't spend seasons
doing studies only for a State agency to say, hey, we want to
study a different fish, a different species after we are
already, you know, two or three years into the process. Also
has coordination at the end of the process. So I think there is
a lot of things here to speed up this process, create greater
certainty, and reduce litigation delays.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you for that perspective. So now we know
how it makes it better for hydropower facilities.
Mr. Kiernan, I wonder if you could comment on why you think
this proposal is a win for the environmental community.
Mr. Kiernan. Thank you for the question. There are a number
of benefits. Let me first speak to license surrendering. There
are many owners of dams that want to relinquish, surrender
their license. But the process right now is unclear and very
time-consuming. So being able to have a more streamlined,
scheduled license surrender allows us, frankly, to return the
health of the river by removing the dam. So that is one
example.
Second is the inclusion of climate change as one of the
factors that FERC considers. And the third that I mentioned
earlier is the transparency, the show our work, the having a
process that is more open to the public is helpful for fish,
wildlife, river health, as well, I believe, for the industry.
So it is, again, a win-win-win from all sides.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you. In the 30--25 seconds remaining, I
just want to emphasize that as we become more and more reliant
on electricity and we want more of that electricity to be
clean, hydropower plays a critical role. And I want to just
extend my agreement with my colleague from Washington that
adding power generation to already existing dams would be a
smart way to get more clean energy as we expand everything else
to electricity. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
Walberg, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the
panel for being here. Michigan has long been a historic State
with hydropower. Got a lot of water surrounding Michigan on
three sides and running through it.
In the late 1800's, in fact, the first hydro turbines were
invented to provide lighting for a theater in our State, and
that is cool. But there is little that I enjoy more than
standing in a clear freestone river with fly rod in hand going
against wily trout, whether brown, rainbow, brook, or whatever.
And whether it is in the holy waters of Michigan or whether it
is on the White River in Arkansas that is dam-fed and is
amazing stream or in the Firehole or Madison, it is something I
love.
But I also--I am a strong supporter of hydropower because
it is clean, reliable, and affordable. I know the best energy
policy is an all-of-the-above strategy that includes fossil,
nuclear, renewables like hydro. But as policymakers, we have to
be careful not to pick winners and losers. That is my concern
among competing fuels. We should allow consumers in the market
to choose the best technologies rather than bureaucrats.
As we look at modernizing the hydropower licensing process,
we should be removing unnecessary and redundant permitting
steps rather than adding new ones. In preparation for this
hearing, FERC staff raised concerns that Uncommon Dialogue
draft could lead to more uncertainty and litigation. This won't
make the process any faster. For example, I am concerned the
Uncommon Dialogue draft undercuts the relationship and trust
responsibility between the Federal Government and the tribes.
I am also concerned that the draft would establish a
precedent that could be weaponized against other types of
energy infrastructure like pipelines, which is a big issue in
Michigan now. Line 5, which is a critically important pipeline
in Michigan and the entire Midwest, is in Federal court right
now defending a lawsuit brought by a tribe that wants to shut
the pipeline down because the tribe wants to impose its own
standards and conditions. That is not how it works.
Congress passed the Natural Gas Act and the related
statute, the Federal Power Act, to establish uniform Federal
standards to prevent various State, local, and tribal
requirements. I am concerned that taking mandatory conditioning
authority away from the Department of the Interior and
transferring it to the tribes will result in a patchwork of
inconsistent requirements that will not serve the public
interest.
So Mr. Wallen, the Uncommon Dialogue draft depends or
upends the existing process for the Department of the Interior
to submit conditions on a hydropower license. Do you think
Congress should take the conditioning authority away from the
Department of the Interior?
Mr. Wallen. Congressman Walberg, I think, you know, having
an identified lead agency to help facilitate the discussions
could be helpful. As far as we talked early and often at the
table, I think those conversations are going to be the
framework for a successful outcome. And we need to continue to
focus on those. So I guess I--you know, given our licensing
experience and, you know, we are good at Grant until 2052 at
this point. So I am not sure that I--you know, I am the best to
answer that question but----
Mr. Walberg. Thanks for attempting. Let me ask you, then.
You mentioned in your testimony that policies that impact one
set of hydropower generation tend to impact others, meaning
Federal dams. Do you agree that Congress should also pause and
consider the potential impacts to other types of infrastructure
like pipelines and electric transmission?
Mr. Wallen. I think when we talk energy, Congressman, you
know, policy established could have unintended consequences if
we are not careful. And we need to be cognizant of those.
Mr. Walberg. Turning now to licensing, Mr. Woolf, there are
reports that FERC DHAC is looking to bring an increasing number
of routine dam safety projects under the umbrella of formal
licensing amendments and corresponding environmental reviews. I
am concerned this increased administrative oversight could
interfere with the ability of hydro owners and operators to
make efficient and timely investments in dam safety.
I am also concerned about the clarity of FERC guidelines
regarding when it may or may not require a licensed amendment.
How can we work with FERC to get more certainty for hydro
owners and operators regarding what divisions must review
proposed dam safety investments and when formal license
amendments will be required?
Mr. Woolf. Thank you for your question. That is an
increasing concern among my members, that routine operation and
maintenance events that used to be routine, now we're being
told we have got to go through a license amendment process
that, as we have been talking about today, can be incredibly
cumbersome, expensive, time-consuming. It is creating
uncertainty. It is not clear to me whether this is a shift in
FERC policy or if these are just kind of some rogue folks. So
we are working with FERC to try to investigate that because if
this is a new policy, that would be deeply concerning.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you. My time has expired. I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman does yield back, and the Chair now
recognizes the gentleman, once again, from North Carolina, Mr.
Butterfield, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
convening this very important hearing today. And let me just
take a moment to apologize for not being in place a few moments
ago. And when I ran back to my computer, I forgot to unmute it.
But thank you so much for your patience. Mr. Chairman, several
cities in my congressional district are powered by hydropower,
including the city of Roanoke Rapids, the Town of Gaston, and
city of Rocky Mount.
In fact, hydropower is the second largest source of
renewable electricity in the whole State of North Carolina. And
I continue to strongly promote hydropower as a source of
sustainable energy production. My district also includes many
rural areas, including the Haliwa-Saponi and the Meherrin
tribal lands, which is why I find it promising that the
Uncommon Dialogue proposal would promote tribal interests.
And so let me just start with you, Mr. Wood, and thank you
for your testimony and to the other witnesses as well. Question
No. 1, although your organization has not endorsed the Uncommon
Dialogue proposal, you praise the agreement's proposal to
increase funding for resource agencies like the Department of
the Interior that play an active role in the hydropower
licensing process. Do you think the resource agencies are
currently under-resourced? And if so, how does that lack of
resources affect agencies' ability to protect Federal and
tribal lands?
Mr. Wood. Thank you, Congressman. I do think they are
under-resourced. And I think with the--as has been talked about
with the slug of relicensings that are coming, Congress would
do well to make sure that the resource agencies have the
capacity to engage in the relicensing in a timely manner to
avoid some of the delays that our friends from the Hydropower
Association have been talking about.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you for that.
And now to Mr. Woolf. Thank you, sir, for your testimony.
The Uncommon Dialogue proposal directs the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission--we call it FERC--to undertake a
rulemaking to facilitate surrender of hydropower licenses. My
question to you is what is the current process for surrendering
a license, a hydroelectric license, and how should Congress
ensure that licensees who surrender their licenses mitigate any
environmental damage caused by the project?
Mr. Woolf. Thanks for your question. And if I can quickly
just add on to the answer to the prior question, in the joint
legislative----
Mr. Butterfield. Sure.
Mr. Woolf [continuing]. Proposal, we are actually
redirecting some of the money that the hydropower industry
currently pays. We are proposing that some of that money go
directly to those State and other resource agencies to pay for
their direct costs. So we have created a funding mechanism to
address that exact concern. With respect to your--now I am
blanking on surrendering.
Mr. Butterfield. Surrendering.
Mr. Woolf. License surrender. Sorry.
Mr. Butterfield. Surrendering the license.
Mr. Woolf. License surrender----
Mr. Butterfield. Yes.
Mr. Woolf [continuing]. Is becoming increasingly common.
Seventeen facilities have submitted license surrenders in just
the last two years. FERC has historically done it on a case-by-
case basis. And that is part of this package, is to say, hey,
let's have a little more clarity, a little more certainty, do a
rulemaking process so that we can have greater clarity for all
concerned about what the license surrender process involves.
Mr. Butterfield. But shouldn't there be some type of
accountability when the license is surrendered with respect to
any damage that may have been done to the environment?
Mr. Woolf. We think that that is actually covered in the
license itself, that we go to great lengths to mitigate any
concerns during license operation. But when the license is
surrendered, certainly they have got some continued
responsibilities. Often, folks want that dam to continue.
Almost all dams were built for multipurpose, for flood control,
for irrigation. So when you do license surrender, you are not
getting rid of the dam in many circumstances.
Mr. Butterfield. So you say when they surrender the
license, they continue to have some responsibility. Is that
responsibility enforceable?
Mr. Woolf. They have responsibility during that license
surrender process. Once they have formally surrendered the
license, that is when their responsibility ends.
Mr. Butterfield. And FERC no longer has jurisdiction over
the project?
Mr. Woolf. Correct.
Mr. Butterfield. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You
have been very patient. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. Now the Chair
recognizes the gentlelady from--the gentleman--Mr. Palmer.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rush. Five minutes.
Mr. Palmer. I want to follow on the licensing thing, Mr.
Woolf. In your testimony, you State that relicensing an
existing hydropower facility takes longer than relicensing a
nuclear power plant. Despite all the rhetoric around the need
for carbon-free energy from my Democrat colleagues, nuclear and
hydropower always seem to be excluded or just talked over. Why
do you think that both industries are uniquely attacked by
Democrats to give a free pass to technologies like wind
turbines that have a huge environmental footprint and that kill
countless amounts of wildlife and also make us dependent on
foreign sources for the--for the critical earth materials?
Mr. Woolf. As several of your colleagues have pointed out
today, every resource has pros and cons. There is downsides to
everything. And I think wind and solar have been--have been--
and batteries have been shiny for the last decade or two. And I
think folks are ignoring the value that hydropower provides. An
international report recently called hydropower the forgotten
giant. And it is the Nation's largest or globe's largest source
of renewable energy. And it has got the flexibility in baseload
power that we need.
Mr. Palmer. Mr. Woolf, in your testimony, you State, unlike
other forms of energy storage, pumped storage does not require
mining large amounts of minerals in countries with poor
environmental track records. Can you talk more about the
economics of pumped storage and how it can be a useful tool to
reduce reliance on the supply chain of countries like China.
Mr. Woolf. Thank you for the question. As this country does
evolve to a grid that has got more wind and solar, it is a more
variable grid. There is more flexibility on the grid. Some
resource has to be able to fill in those gaps. When the sun
goes down, when the wind isn't blowing, pumped storage is
uniquely able to do that in--almost instantaneously and do it
for long duration.
It can do it for four, six, eight hours, which is something
that batteries cannot. So there is an increased need for long-
duration energy storage. And we think pumped storage is an
ideal solution, but only if we can get the permitting faster.
Mr. Palmer. And it is a resource sustainer, I guess. It can
be recirculated. Mr. Wallen, when it comes to building
infrastructure, we continually hear how the National
Environmental Policy Act and Endangered Species Act can add
unnecessary delays and costs to projects. Do you think that we
should be undertaking serious NEPA or environmental--Endangered
Species Act reform and that that could lead to a quicker
deployment of hydropower resources?
Mr. Wallen. I really think this question would be best
answered by Mr. Woolf.
Mr. Palmer. Well, I will direct that to Mr. Woolf then.
That is called deflection.
Mr. Woolf. And I am sorry. I was looking at my notes.
Mr. Palmer. That is all right. I think we should have some
serious reevaluation of NEPA and the Endangered Species Act
because it is adding unnecessary delays and costs to projects.
And this is not to say that we want to eliminate these things.
But what I found in looking at some of our regulatory issues is
we have obsolete regulations. We have duplicative regulations.
We have contradictory regulations.
And I think that is true in NEPA and Endangered Species
Act. And I just--I want to know your perspective. If we could
undertake that serious reevaluation, would it help us in terms
of getting these hydro projects re-permitted or even in the
hopeful possibility that we could build new facilities?
Mr. Woolf. Absolutely agree. NHA is on record as wanting to
streamline NEPA and the Endangered Species Act and the current
pattern we are in of one administration issuing one law, the
next administration coming in and reversing it. That doesn't
allow for project certainty.
The key thing for our purposes today, however, is that,
while we may disagree on that issue, we have come together on
reform of the Federal Power Act. So we are trying to--politics
is the art of the possible. We have got a solution for the
Federal Power Act even if we can't solve everything.
Mr. Palmer. I think the key for this--and this would be
true for everybody when it comes to regulations, is to improve
agency transparency in the permitting licensing process. And
again, to get rid of the obsolete, the duplicative,
contradictory and to support reforms that move us in that
direction so that we make the best and wisest use of
hydrological resources that are available to us for generating
power.
Last thing I want to say, Mr. Wood, in regard--are you
located in Bozeman? I have been to Bozeman Senior----
Mr. Wood. No. Unfortunately, I live in Washington, DC.
Mr. Palmer. That is tragic for a guy who likes to trout
fish.
Mr. Wood. There is a terrific shad run in the Potomac,
though, that is on right now.
Mr. Palmer. Well, we have a trout stream that is the
tailwaters of Lewis Smith Lake in Alabama that does--produces
hydroelectric power. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman does yield back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California,
Ms. Matsui, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I want
to thank the witnesses for being with us today. As a co-chair
of the--Energy and Environment Coalition, I recently launched
the Nature and Oceans Task Force with Congressman Neguse to
explore policies that harness the power of public lands and
waters in the fight against climate crisis.
To make meaningful and lasting progress, I believe we need
to take a full systems approach to critical climate and clean
energy policies and appreciate the opportunity to discuss the
role hydropower can play in our clean energy future. The
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law makes vital investments that will
help us achieve crucial climate goals, including $3 billion for
modernization and removal, dam safety, as well as hydropower
projects.
For this funding to be as effective as possible, I believe
it must be distributed in a way that incorporates local
feedback and community input. In my district, the Sacramento
Municipal Utility District or lovingly called SMUD has been a
strong partner in realizing our region's clean energy and
emissions targets, including a goal to reach zero carbon
emissions in its power supply by 2030, the most ambitious goal
of any large utility in United States.
Build Back Better included new financial tools to support
public power upgrades and existing hydropower dams for dam
safety, environmental improvements, and grid resilience
enhancements. And I believe we should continue to pursue these
important policies. Now, in my home State of--well, actually, I
want to ask you a question about that.
Mr. Woolf, what role can public power play in increasing
America's hydropower capacity? Mr. Woolf?
Mr. Woolf. Public power is a huge part of this solution.
Half of the hydropower in this country is Federal. Of the
nonFederal, another half is public power. So fully 75 percent
of the hydropower in this country is either Federal or public
power in some way, which makes sense in a lot of ways because
water is a shared resource. It flows through the hydropower
facility, makes power, and then can go on and be used for
recreation, irrigation, and everything else.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Absolutely. Now, in my home State of
California, the climate crisis is changing the way we approach
our energy portfolio. Droughts are quickly becoming more
regular and severe, and wildfire season has grown from a few
months of the year to a truly year-round threat. As we look to
the future, I believe considering climate change when crafting
license conditions will be equally important, really critically
important.
Mr. Wood, during licensing, when developing conditions, how
can considerations of how projects may be affected by our
changing climate help encourage more resilient infrastructure?
Mr. Wood. I do--thank you for the question. I do think that
one of the good things to come out of the Uncommon Dialogue
process was the recognition that climate change needs to be a
factor that is considered when you are relicensing a project
for 30 to 50 years for some of the reasons that were described
earlier. So I think that is a really important consideration as
we deal with the prolonged drought and extreme flooding and
wildfires in states like California in particular.
All of our Federal processes, whether they are those
delivered by FERC or by the Federal agencies like the Forest
Service and the BLM through laws like the National
Environmental Policy Act, increasingly, they should be looking
at their analyses through a climate lens.
Ms. Matsui. Great. The Federal Power Act or I guess we call
it the FPA includes several protections that are fundamental in
our approach to stabilizing the environment and promoting
healthy waterways and recreation. They represent bedrock
achievements in environmental sustainability and need to be
preserved. It is also important to ensure that the FPA keeps
pace with the renewable demands our energy portfolio must
include. Mr. Wood, do you think we can reduce the timeline for
the licensing process without weakening the key environmental
protections in Section 4(e) and 18?
Mr. Wood. I think that was probably directed toward--toward
me, so let me quickly answer. I think the compromise package
that we have put forward does exactly that. We clarify existing
case law to make it clear that when imposing mandatory
conditions, you have to be reasonably related to project
effects. Reasonably related to project effects, in my mind, is
a very reasonable standard. It is what the case law and the
courts that have looked at this have required.
But unfortunately, often, agency staff are not familiar
with that case law. So we get bogged down in fights about that.
But I think it is quite reasonable and very protective of the
environment to say that agencies can impose mandatory
conditions as long as they are reasonably related to project
effects.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Well, thank you very much. Our time has run
out. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina,
Mr. Duncan, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, now, more
than ever, Americans are realizing the importance of access to
reliable and affordable and secure energy. FERC plays a
critical role in our energy supply, particularly as it relates
to electricity generation. Unfortunately, bureaucrats and
independent agencies across the board have infused political
and policy motivations in their regulatory licensing decision.
The Uncommon Dialogue proposal being touted today increases
FERC's climate change obligations by requiring FERC to give an
equal consideration to addressing the effects of climate change
and licensing decision. Let's be clear. They don't like fossil
fuels. They are going to do anything they can to stop fossil
fuel generation and push this country toward their utopian idea
of green power. This is an example, the Uncommon Dialogue. It
is a prime example.
Also requires FERC to consider the reasonable and
foreseeable effects of climate change--whatever the intent of
these proposed new provisions, adding new terms unto the
statute can have unintended consequences. We have already seen
FERC use climate change motives slow down the licensing of
critical energy infrastructure, and this would make the problem
even worse. It concerns me, when thinking of our energy future
as a country, and specifically for South Carolina--South
Carolina is going to require an all-of-the-above approach. I
support an all-of-the-above approach but also know what works
to provide 24/7/365 baseload power supply for our manufacturing
and our residential requirements. I am hopeful we can expand
our hydro footprint, but we need to implement licensing reforms
to do so. We can start with H.R. 1588, a bill I cosponsored led
by Leader Rodgers.
Currently, Duke Energy in my district in the Carolinas
operates two pumped storage hydro plants, the Jocassee Pumped
Storage Hydro Station and Bad Creek Pumped Storage Hydro
Station. It is a great example of battery storage if you are
going to use wind and solar, by the way. Today, I want to talk
about Bad Creek. This facility has been in operation since
1991. I visited up there when they were building it. It
generates $10.5 million in tax revenue for Oconee County every
year.
Currently, Duke is in the process of adding an additional
280 megawatts of capacity to the facility, which will bring the
total output of the facility to 1640 megawatts. And that is
equivalent to two large nuclear reactors. What is even more
exciting is Duke recently filed a pre-application document with
FERC to, one, renew the licensing, existing license for Bad
Creek for 40 to 50 year--additional years and to possibly add a
second powerhouse which would double Bad Creek's capacity
without adding any new dams or any new reservoirs using the
existing infrastructure so big deal. Pumped storage hydro is
really a great integrator of technologies that allows clean
energy technologies like nuclear power and solar and wind all
to work together, store that energy, use it when it is needed.
Mr. Woolf, I know some people may not be familiar with
pumped storage hydro and all of its capabilities. I wanted to
see if you could elaborate a little bit on my comments and give
your perspective on pumped storage hydro.
Mr. Woolf. Sure. Thank you very much. You raised a number
of really important points. Like you, I also support 1588, that
license reform package. In fact, the joint legislative package
includes most of those provisions. It really builds on that
framework. And I think this is a good bipartisan progress. You
talked a little bit about the climate change provision in this.
Industry supports that provision for two reasons.
First of all, water is our--is our fuel source. So we need
looking at that water resource is critically important. And
then second, this kind of clarifies FERC's authority to take--
to take into account the positive role that hydropower plays as
an emission-free resource. So those climate change provisions
are something that industry is comfortable with. And I love
your question about pumped storage. It is critically important
as we do go to a more variable grid. You need to have the
flexibility that pumped storage can provide. A lot of those
pumped storage facilities--I am not sure about Bad Creek. But a
lot of them were built to balance out nuclear power where the
nuclear power at night needed someplace to generate. Now we are
using the pumped storage to balance out the excess solar that--
--
Mr. Duncan. Peak demands. Yes.
Mr. Woolf. So I would love to take a tour of Bad Creek with
you one of these days. Actually, just coming back from a pumped
storage facility earlier in the week. They are fascinating,
beautiful facilities. You would never know it is there, but
they are keeping the lights on around the country.
Mr. Duncan. Yes. I appreciate that.
The remaining time, let me just say this. We need a loser
pay system in this country because we have seen too many times
environmentalist groups stop projects, even stop bidding on oil
and gas leasing and proven reservoirs because there was going
to be an environmental case filed, litigation, litigation,
litigation, litigation. Finally, the company says, ``I can't do
anymore.''
I am not going to mention one company. We worked on a
pipeline. That was the case. If it is a loser pay, we wouldn't
see all that and could actually have commonsense energy
production and exploration in this country.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman does yield back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Florida, Ms.
Castor, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Castor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to our
witnesses. It is more clear than ever that we need a secure
domestic clean energy power sector. And thank goodness we have
hydropower that is helping with that. In 2021, hydropower was
about six percent of our overall electricity sector and one-
third of renewables. So we see hydropower as a very important
part of growing the--the clean energy economy in America.
And it is so--as that happens, we are going to need more
collaborative efforts, industry, the environmental advocates,
tribal nations sitting down and working on those solutions. So
kudos to all of you for doing that. So let's talk a little bit
about how we can--how hydropower can accelerate the transition
to a resilient clean energy economy.
We are really in a bind, though, aren't we? What I have
listened to today is that we want to do more on hydropower, but
the climate-fueled droughts and the greater volatility,
unpredictability is a great cause for concern. So I appreciate,
Mr. Woolf, you saying it is very important for FERC to be
considering the impacts of climate as we go forward.
Mr. Wood, would you go into a little more detail?
Congresswoman Matsui asked you about how that is going to work.
And could you give us a more practical step-by-step on how
you--how these are going to go hand-in-hand increasing
hydropower but also taking into account the impacts of climate?
Mr. Wood. Thank you for your question. I just--I think I
just want to make one point off of that, that it is important
to remember, in spite of the trying bureaucracy, how important
the Federal Power Act and, in particular, how important
Sections 4(e) and Section 18 have been to recovering rivers
that were impacted by dams that were built before the
environmental era. And I think our position, basically, is that
you can improve the regulatory process without touching
Sections 4(e) or 18.
When it comes to climate change, we have seen it playing
out across the country. It is no different in Florida. But
prolonged drought, decreased snowpack, earlier melting of the
snowpack, which has impacts on river flows and late-season
flows for irrigators--so I just--I don't think there is a way
around analyzing the effects of climate change on every Federal
activity as we move forward.
Ms. Castor. And we are so conscious of the cost right now,
the cost on consumers, the fact that, last year, we paid out
over $148 billion due to climate-fueled catastrophes and
droughts. But I am also quite conscious of what is happening on
equity. And thank you, Mr. Kiernan, for pointing out the
challenges for biodiversity and climate and equity.
And Ms. Pavel, tribal nations are using long-standing
tenants of environmental stewardship--thank goodness--to help
fight the climate crisis. Tribal sovereignty and economic
development must be a part of our national efforts as we
transition to a clean energy economy. How does the proposal we
are discussing today enhance tribal sovereignty and economic
prospects?
Ms. Pavel. Well, it allows the tribes to step into the
shoes of the secretary when a project is on tribal lands and
imposing conditions that are necessary to protect the purposes
for which the tribal reservation was established, which was, in
most instance, to be a permanent homeland for that tribe and
allows imposed conditions that will address the, you know,
reasonable conditions that address the project impacts on that
reservation.
Also, one of the other areas we haven't talked about today
is where a project impacts treaty-protected resources so
fisheries, resources. And there--that--under the authority of
the discretionary, it gives a broader voice to tribal concern.
And the secretary has to, as they are putting forward these
discretionary conditions necessary to protect these treaty-
protected resources, cultural and fisheries and natural
resources, it gives tribes a greater voice in that aspect of
it. And what we have talked about collectively is it brings all
the stakeholders together early in a transparent process.
People have to sit at that table early and say, ``What is your
issue? What problem are you seeing? What impact? How do we
solve that problem?'' And it forces the stakeholders to sit
down and work it out.
Ms. Castor. It is a great example for how change can be
made, so thank you again to all of you for this collaborative
effort. And I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady does yield back.
The Chair now recognizes Mrs. Lesko, the gentlelady from
Arizona, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all
of you for being here today and spending hours with us. The
other day in the Wall Street Journal, there was an article,
which I will show right here. It is entitled, ``Electricity
Shortage Warnings Grow Across U.S. Power Grid Operators Caution
That Electricity Supplies Aren't Keeping up with Demand Amid
Transition to Cleaner Forms of Energy.''
And I think all of us, both Republicans and Democrats and
all of you, agree that hydroelectric power is part of the
solution. I have several questions. All of them are for Mr.
Woolf. The first question is can you confirm that the
nonFederal hydropower development considered and proposed under
the Uncommon Dialogue is not intended nor will impact Federal
hydropower projects or water or power rights, contracts, or
obligations and that any such development would be pursuant to
the Bureau of Reclamation's lease of power privilege process,
not FERC licensing?
Mr. Woolf. Yes.
Mrs. Lesko. OK.
Mr. Woolf. This proposal is just the Federal Power Act.
Mrs. Lesko. Fantastic. All right. Then my next question to
Mr. Woolf, I understand that the National Hydropower
Association has been active in talks with groups, including
American Rivers and tribal nations in what has been referred to
as the Uncommon Dialogue. Does your organization support the
removal of Federal dams?
Mr. Woolf. No.
Mrs. Lesko. OK. And does the National Hydropower
Association support legislation that would raise the cost for
customers of existing Federal hydropower projects?
Mr. Woolf. No.
Mrs. Lesko. Good. Mr. Woolf, the Uncommon Dialogue meeting
between your organization, American Rivers, and tribal nations
has yielded several proposed amendments to the Federal Power
Act, which you say is intended to enhance the economic value
and environmental benefits of hydropower projects and healthy
rivers. In these meetings and discussions, were customers of
Federal hydropower generation projects or the national
organizations representing them, such as the American Power--
Public Power Association, the National Rural Electric
Cooperative Association, and the National Water Resources
Association, included?
Mr. Woolf. I think we have invited them to participate, but
I don't think they have been directly involved.
Mrs. Lesko. OK. Mr. Woolf, many Arizonans, particularly
those in rural areas, rely on power from Federal dams such as
Glen Canyon and Hoover Dams. Why weren't the customers included
in these discussions?
Mr. Woolf. This has been a--as has been mentioned, an
uncomfortable dialog. This is really unprecedented to come
together with these groups. This is a continuing process. So we
are continuing to bring in more and more people as we can, but
we have got to--we have got to start somewhere.
Mrs. Lesko. OK. Good. Mr. Woolf, an October 2021 report
released by the Department of Energy's Waterpower Technologies
Office titled ``An Examination of Hydropower Licensing and
Federal Authorization Process'' examined which factors have the
greatest impact on the hydropower licensing process.
One of the key findings in the report dealt with the sheer
amount of bureaucracy involved in the permitting process. For
example, hydropower licensing in the United States requires the
participation of up to 11 Federal and State agencies depending
on the plant's location. This is compared to five to six
agencies involved in other countries for their hydropower
licensing process. Can you speak more--and I know you have
already--but more to how this affects the timeline of
hydropower projects?
Mr. Woolf. As has been touched on earlier, one of the
biggest challenges is the lack of process discipline. There is
lots of different organizations, different Federal agencies,
different State and local agencies. And there is not--there is
no discipline if they miss those timelines. So that is one of
the innovations in this joint proposal, is to get everyone
together up front, establish a joint schedule, a joint
timetable, figure out the scope of studies. And then at the
back end, if there are inconsistent provisions, figure that out
as well so making FERC the lead agency for that kind of
coordination, we think, is going to speed things up. It doesn't
take away the role of the other agencies. They still have a
voice. So we think that is also environmentally protective.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Woolf, and thank you to the
others, and have a great afternoon. And I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
Peters, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Peters. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks to the witnesses for being here this long time. Our
energy challenges from grid reliability to volatile oil markets
demand a technology-neutral approach to achieving climate
stability and energy security. And hydropower is a clean
baseload source of energy that can help us meet our clean
energy goals. However, as we have discussed, new projects are
being stalled by an inefficient regulatory process, and these
regulatory barriers don't just exist, by the way, in this
particular area. We see it from constructing interState
transmission lines, which this committee has dealt with, to
restoring our forests and fighting wildfires.
So we need to come together and streamline these processes
so that projects can be approved more quickly while still
meeting high environmental standards. We made progress a few
years back in 2017. I introduced the Hydropower Permit
Extension or HYPE Act to cut red tape in the construction
permitting process for hydropower projects. Ironically, that
was allowing more time for things to be approved, which is kind
of what we are not talking about here. But we want hydropower
to be approved.
In my district, the city of San Diego is undertaking a
project jointly with the San Diego County Water Authority to
develop 4,000 megawatt hours per day pumped hydrostorage
hydropower facility at the San Vicente Reservoir. And once
completed, that facility will provide renewable energy that
could power 135,000 households in the greater San Diego area.
And I hope the committee and our witnesses will join me in
supporting this project and others like it across the United
States.
A lot of these questions have been answered, but Mr. Woolf,
I am going to give you one more shot at something you have
touched around for a while. You discussed the, quote, Byzantine
licensing and relicensing system for hydropower projects. And
as a result of this system, you said that more than 40 percent
of hydropower industry asset owners are actively considering
decommissioning a facility. You said that in your oral
statement as well. Just elaborate for us briefly on how the
regulatory system is preventing more clean energy deployment in
this----
Mr. Woolf. Thank you for your question, and thank you for
recognizing the urgency of this issue. We are facing a wave of
relicensing, with 45 percent up by 2035. And at the same time,
we are facing an increasing trend of license surrenders. I did
not even realize until preparing my testimony that 17 new
projects had filed for license surrenders in the last two
years. It really is an alarming trend. I am coming back earlier
in this week from a conference where should you invest or
should you leave it was one of the topics that the conference
was talking about. And it is because of the licensing process.
It takes so long. There is so many agencies involved. It is so
uncoordinated. We certainly respect the rights for all of these
laws to be implemented. But the lack of clarity on when will
this effort end is leading to investment decisions, hey, let's
just build a different technology that will only be there for a
few years, but at least we know when that will end.
Mr. Peters. Right. And do you feel like the project that
you participated in, the Uncommon Dialogue, that the
recommendations address that issue sufficiently?
Mr. Woolf. We do. I mean, this is a remarkable situation to
have the river community, tribal representatives and industry
agreeing on a package together. And we urge Congress not to--
not to miss this opportunity.
Mr. Peters. Mr. Kiernan, I know how much--how devoted you
are to the health of our rivers. And I share that concern about
environmental quality. I am of the opinion that there is so
many instances where we can achieve high environmental
standards with less drag on the economy, less time, and less
risk to investors. Can you elaborate on how we can expedite
this licensing process for hydro projects while we maintain
high environmental integrity?
Mr. Kiernan. First let me just concur with kind of your
assumption. We believe as well that we can improve the
processes and improve the health of our rivers and have
significant, if not, increasing amounts of hydroelectric
generation for our clean energy grid of the 21st century. So
agree with that. I think this proposal that we are jointly
putting forward does that with greater transparency that we are
suggesting, does that with the license surrender clarity and
process.
By including climate change, that also helps getting all
the information on the table. I will also just say that, over
the last many decades, we, as a country, have learned what
works well for fish passages, how to better manage our rivers.
So I think, with improved processing that we are suggesting for
FERC and with the improved knowledge that we have gained, we
can do a lot better job improving the health of our rivers
going forward. So we are optimistic we can make progress.
Mr. Peters. I recall in our last conversation about this
that the permit process is so unwieldy and unbounded. And I
hope that we can--we can do something that provides more
certainty and better timelines and better results and actually,
frankly, clean energy with environmental protection. I think
that is our goal.
Mr. Kiernan. If I can just echo as well Mr. Woolf's
comments on the coordination up front by the different agencies
we think is key to be able to speed up the process and have it
more predictable because get the agencies up front, have a
joint study plan. Here is what we need and get that all clear
up front is better for the entire process and all constituents.
Mr. Peters. Thanks again to you all.
And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Dakota,
Mr. Armstrong, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Uncommon Dialogue proposal that has been presented to
this committee seems to have potentially conflicting goals when
it comes to the deployment of hydropower capacity. Goal 1 is
purported to be a streamlined licensing process that improves
coordination, and Goal 2 seems to be an increased regulatory
requirements and expand the scope of the environmental review.
And really, I do appreciate the intention of streamlining
licenses and the recognition of--particularly of tribal
governments and tribal stakeholders in this process. It seems
that several of the advocated reforms will only serve to make
the process more--potentially make it more cumbersome. Mr.
Wallen, the Uncommon Dialogue endorses the concept of offsite
mitigation and dam removal. Do you have any concerns with these
provisions?
Mr. Wallen. You know, we have talked earlier. And as I
said, Grant PUD is fully committed to our environmental
responsibilities and being good stewards of the resource that
we get the opportunity to manage. We have a long and proven
track history of doing so, everything from the fish bypassed
installation that we performed at both Wanapum and Priest
Rapids. I mean, we are talking capital investments in, you
know, excess of $100 million.
Our fish habitat and acclamation facility is another
capital infrastructure investment, $65 million. But we are
seeing the rewards of those. If you look through our fish
bypass survival, between Wanapum and Priest Rapids, one area is
96 to 98-and-a-half percent. The other is 96 to 100. This is
survival studies over the course of several years.
So the proof is in the pudding, in our opinion.
I think that we are all in agreement here today that
licensing reform is critically important. We also agree that
dams which don't provide values to society can be candidates
for removal if dam owners agree. I think where we have
discomfort is where we hear arguments for dams that do provide
tremendous societal value, and we do not want to conflate our
support for licensing reform with support for removal of
productive federally owned dams. And I just wanted to make that
clarification to my testimony.
Mr. Armstrong. Thank you. I appreciate that. And this part
of it--and it appears that the draft also expands the scope of
environmental remove and moves, in some cases, potentially the
goalpost by making relicensing of existing dams more
burdensome. The draft requires evaluation and potential
mitigation of past effects caused by the construction of the
original dam like in North Dakota.
I mean, we have the dam which potentially close to 100
years ago--this provision--and this is where I think I have--I
appreciate everything. But it seems likely to lead to lawsuits
and other efforts to remove dams that are deemed to have an
environmental impact. Beyond that, what would be considered
acceptable? Given your experience in the Columbian Basin, do
you have any recommendations about balancing those effects?
Mr. Wallen. Can you repeat the last part of your question
there?
Mr. Armstrong. Well, it seems like this could lead--well, I
will back up. When we do this, not only is the increased
permitting--and we are talking about--you were mentioning
investment before. But there is--and maybe I will move on
because I am going to run out of time. But the other problem
here is--one is the increased permitting process, part of the
problem that puts constraints associated with the time--the
time it actually takes to do the permitting process. But the
second problem is every single piece of paper and duplicative
thing that you have to answer leads to the second part of this
problem.
And what that problem is, is we have to get the power from
where it is being produced to where it goes. And you don't have
to go very far. You can go into New England and watch what has
happened over the last seven years. I mean, you had the
Northern Pass project in New Hampshire that went away.
Massachusetts passed a law.
And just recently, the New England Clean Energy Connect was
stopped in Maine. And the reason I bring this up is, you know,
as somebody who has dealt with lots of pipeline litigation and
all of those different issues, the people who--it turns out
nobody likes utilitarian infrastructure. They really don't like
it to go through a forest. And the people who are sometimes on
sides or sometimes not--I mean, you are dealing with indigenous
groups in Canada that were a problem to that. You are dealing
with the Sierra Club that was a problem to that.
You are dealing with the Maine voters who just roundly
rejected that. So I appreciate everything that is going on
here, but the--every single time in an effort to streamline
something, if you add duplicative paperwork or ask for things
in a different way, you can deal with the permitting side from
the regulatory side. But the litigation side that is coming
down the pipe--and I say this a lot, and I have said it on
infrastructure.
They don't have to stop it everywhere. They only have to
stop it one place. And bottlenecks are the enemy to these types
of projects. So all of the work you are doing, I think, is
fantastic. But without litigation reform and without
streamlining the permitting process, I wonder, very quickly, if
we are going to--if we are going to see the results of
whether--Mr. Woolf, you have something you want to say? You
have four seconds, but I am last, so they will let you go a
little bit.
Mr. Woolf. Greatly appreciate your comments about
regulatory--increasing regulatory requirements. We don't see
that in this proposal. We see the offsite mitigation as a tool
that only licensees can request. And the rest of these are
factors that the industry already deals with. So we do see this
as a--as a regulatory streamlining effort.
Mr. Armstrong. I hope you are right.
Mr. Wallen. And if I----
Mr. Armstrong. Yes.
Mr. Wallen [continuing]. Might also just add, it is our
sense and hope that the recommendations we are making in the
proposal will reduce litigation long-term by having clarity in
what the process is and isn't so the long-term litigation will
be reduced.
Mr. Armstrong. And I am 33 seconds over, but I think one
thing Ms. Pavel would appreciate is that if we do this and
allow the tribal governments autonomy, let them make the
decision and take some of the other agencies out of the
equation because that will help both speed it up and decrease
litigation. So with that, I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr.
Schrader, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Schrader. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of you
for all the work you have done and sitting through this long
hearing as we pop in and out. Mr. Woolf, I guess basic question
is how much time are we going to save, you know, with the
Uncommon Dialogue process? If it is seven to ten years, now
what is the anticipation of your----
Mr. Woolf. Yes. It is certainly going to save a lot of time
for the expedited nonpowered dams and for the closed-loop and
the pumped storage facilities, which is huge. That is growth.
That is flexible new generation the country needs. For
relicensing, it is a little clearer. We are not on a shot
clock, but we think by doing these reforms, we are going to
reduce--we are not going to get bogged down, and it is going to
save years off the process.
Mr. Schrader. So couple years saving?
Mr. Woolf. I think so. It is going to vary facility by
facility, though.
Mr. Schrader. Everyone generally agree with that
assessment?
Ms. Pavel. Yes. I agree with that. I mean, again, one of
the current barriers is tribes have to knock on the agency's
doors as opposed to sitting right down with the operators.
Absolutely.
Mr. Schrader. OK. OK. Again, Mr. Woolf and maybe the others
for that matter, unclear from my brief reading of what you all
have done. Is there an expectation of a parallel process by the
different Federal agencies so you are not just going from one
to the other, but it is being done in parallel, so it can be
done in a shorter period of time? Is that the anticipation?
Mr. Woolf. That is exactly the--one of the solutions here.
There has not been process discipline between the various
agencies. And this would require FERC to be the lead agency to
set up that coordinated schedule upfront of studies of who is
going to do what, coordinated upfront. We think that will
create a lot of greater clarity.
Mr. Schrader. Excellent. OK.
I guess, Mr. Wallen, just--I come from Oregon. You are from
Washington. Transitioning to clean energy is a big deal for our
states. We spend a lot of time doing that, trying to arrest the
harmful effects of climate change. Hydro is a big piece of
that. Our home states have made notable strides, I think, in,
you know, addressing that through setting some pretty bold
clean energy goals. And want the Federal process, I think, to
complement what the states are doing. How do you see the role
of hydropower changing as--in response to what the states are
doing and what we may--what is our role here at the Federal
level?
Mr. Wallen. I think, as we have talked about before, as
some states take different postures and accelerated timelines
on clean energy transformation and goals, hydropower becomes
much more important in the short-term as well. Just being able
to have the ancillary services, the load following, the grid
reliability characteristics, the dependable, dispatchable
technology that just doesn't exist current--in any other
current form that is licensed or approved on widescale use.
So I believe we will continue to see that into the future.
But as we look at it today, I don't think that it could be any
more important than it is right now for us to continue to
leverage those resources in cost-effective manners for the
benefit of society, for the benefit of our customers.
Mr. Schrader. OK. OK. Big part of the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law was $52 million to help build out electrical
vehicle charging stations in my home State. As we work to
electrify our transportation systems and cleanup our energy,
what is the best way we can leverage constant reliable
hydropower to support the intermittent wind and solar? I guess,
Mr. Woolf, with you----
Mr. Woolf. Thanks for the question. As we are electrifying
and cleaning up the grid, I think hydropower is that flexible,
dispatchable resource. So one of the most important things we
can do is the license reform package. We are also, all of us, I
believe, strongly supportive of Representative Kuster's
bipartisan Twenty-First Century Dam Bill. There are also
provisions in the--in the--in the various tax packages. And we
are concerned that there be tax parity and that hydropower not
be left behind in whatever tax package may go through Congress
so----
Mr. Schrader. Very good.
Mr. Wood, I guess last question for you. How is the power
restored--use that term in Penobscot. You know, when you
removed those dams, how did full restoration occur? What did
you do? What did they do?
Mr. Wood. Interestingly, sir, we actually owned the dams
for a while. We were part of a collective that bought the dams.
The other dams that were on the river just ran their turbines
harder.
Mr. Schrader. OK. Very good.
With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Indiana, Mr.
Bucshon, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I support the development and expansion of hydropower in
the United States as part of an all-of-the-above energy
strategy. In fact, I authored the Promoting Hydropower
Development at Existing Nonpowered Dams Act that has been
mentioned in the hearing already, which President Trump signed
into law, and a bipartisan Water Resources Development Act of
2018.
The Promoting Hydropower Development at Existing Nonpowered
Dams Act cut through the red tape and instructed the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission to create in an expedited
permitting process for modernizing existing dams to provide
hydropower that will result in a final decision from FERC in
two years or less, which went from ten years to two years, we
hope. My bill addressed the key--a key opportunity to increase
a hydropower generation in the United States. This bill came
about as the result of a 2012 U.S. Department of Energy report
which estimated that nonpowered dams have 12,000 megawatts of
potential capacity that could be used to increase U.S.
hydroelectric generation. Additionally, a year after Congress
passed the bill, the U.S. Energy Information Administration
reported that 32 nonpowered dams were planned to be converted
to hydroelectric dams, which EIA estimated would add about 330
megawatts of clean, renewable electrical generating capacity to
the grid.
And last summer, I had a chance to ask FERC Chairman
Richard Glick before this committee about the progress being
made under my bill. Chairman Glick told this committee that
FERC had implemented the regulations and that FERC had received
a few applications that are making their way through the
process. He also mentioned that FERC is working with industry
to expedite the completed applications--completed application
required by FERC's rulemaking.
So Mr. Woolf, has FERC interacted with any of your members
regarding this process for retrofitting nonpowered dams?
Mr. Woolf. My understanding is that not a single facility
has been able to use those provisions.
Mr. Bucshon. Yes. You know, so has FERC done anything to
help expedite your members--to help them expedite their
applications?
Mr. Woolf. The way that provision is being interpreted such
that it does not include the prelicensing activities makes that
provision--it doesn't actually expedite anything if it only
starts once all the prelicensing activities have ended. FERC's
process at that point is about two years anyway. So it hasn't
actually had the effect that all of us wanted.
Mr. Bucshon. OK. So once again, a Federal agency is not
following the intent of Congress, it seems to me, which is not
unusual. We have this happen across agencies when they don't
want to do something. And I am not sure that is what they want.
But, you know, it is too bad because it was bipartisan. We
spent a couple years putting that together. And when I asked
Chairman Glick last year about what more could be done to
improve the process outlined in the bill, he told us--he told
this committee that it was, quote, too soon to really tell
whether additional changes need to be made and that we should
let the existing process work out for a few years.
Mr. Woolf, I see that the legislative proposal before us
today includes provisions concerning the licensing process for
modernizing existing nonpowered dams. What changes does the
legislative proposal make relative to existing statute
governing the issue? That would be the Uncommon Dialogue.
Mr. Woolf. This should be low-hanging fruit. You have
already got the dams there. They are providing a purpose. Let's
add power, get the clean, flexible, reliable generation. But it
goes through this--this Byzantine process that is just way too
long. What the legislative proposal would do is start that shot
clock when the applicant files its application--its notice of
application and FERC says that it is--that it qualifies. So
that would start that two year shot clock in a way that,
apparently, we weren't clear enough four years ago.
Mr. Bucshon. OK. Well, that is great. I would be for that.
So the Uncommon Dialogue proposal must--took into account the
previous legislation when crafting that section of the
proposal, I am assuming.
Mr. Woolf. That is right. It would be tailored changes
specifically to the existing law from four years ago.
Mr. Bucshon. And FERC obviously sought some feedback on
that section or just----
Mr. Woolf. We have had several conversations with FERC, but
we have not heard specific feedback on that provision yet.
Mr. Bucshon. OK. Great.
Ms. Pavel, do you have something you want to add to that?
Your----
Ms. Pavel. Well, I think the--the discussion you are having
vis-a-vis the expedited process was really--you know, one of
the guiding principles we had in the Uncommon Dialogue process
was what problem are we trying to solve.
Mr. Bucshon. Yes.
Ms. Pavel. And that was a problem that was identified by
all of the stakeholders. How do we solve that now? How do we
make this process work better so----
Mr. Bucshon. That is great because the intent was, of
course, is to streamline the process and where applicable and
where people want it, to convert a nonpowered dam to a
hydroelectric dam. Because of the advantages of doing that
versus creating an entire new hydroelectric--you know, de novo
in a place where there is not a pre-existing dam. So I
appreciate that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Rush. Does yield back.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Pence for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pence. Thank you, Chairman Rush, and Ranking Member
Upton.
And thank the witnesses for being here today. I know it has
probably been a long morning. I am going to try to avoid
repeating questions or points if I may. My district is Southern
Indiana. We have the Ohio River runs from my hometown to
Congressman Bucshon's, so we are--I guess we are tag-teaming
today. So, again, thanks.
So sitting on the Ohio River in my district is the Markland
Hydroelectric Station, which produces 65 megawatts of
electricity for Switzerland County. It is about 52,000 homes in
that very remote county. This station has been providing
affordable, reliable, and carbon-free electricity to
communities like Florence, Indiana since 1967.
The Ohio River, again, which runs on the southern part of
the Hoosier State, is a perfect example of an abundant source
that holds enormous potential for surrounding communities,
particularly when we are talking about the electrification of
the transportation industry or even those that talk about
getting rid of coal, which I have got two coal plants in my
district on the river.
But the onerous process to permit, license, or relicense
hydroelectric plants makes new projects uneconomical, let alone
the delays to interconnect new transmission lines. And how
would you do that; right? Do it after the fact. Just this year,
Markland completed a ten year relicensing process--and I know
you have been hearing some of those stories all morning--for a
ten percent increase in power output.
Mr. Wallen, would hydro reform legislation like what has
been proposed by Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers make it easier
to expedite these types of relicensing and upgrades for new
technology on my Ohio River?
Mr. Wallen. Yes. I believe so.
Mr. Pence. And that is the simplest answer. And so I would
say to my peers across the aisle, come on. Let's figure out how
to get this done and work this out. And I know you are all
doing a great job and working together, as Ms. Pavel said, and
I appreciate that. But I think we ought to move on with this.
And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman very kindly yields back. And the
Chair certainly want to commend the gentleman for his
outstanding compassion on our witnesses. This concludes the
witness questions, and I would like to thank each and every one
of you for your participation and your expert testimony in this
committee hearing, subcommittee hearing. And that said, I want
to remind Members that, pursuant to committee rules, that they
have ten business days to submit additional questions for the
record to be answered by the witnesses who have appeared today.
And I ask the witnesses to respond promptly to any such
questions that you may receive.
Before we adjourn, I really do want to request unanimous
consent to enter into the record the following documents, a
letter dated May 12th, 2022, from the American Public Power
Association; a letter dated May 4th, 2022, from the
Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation on the
Uncommon Dialogue Hydropower River Restoration and Public
Safety Amendment on Tribal Authority; and last, a May 12th
letter dated--a May 12th letter from NOAA--from the NOAA
Corporation to the Committee on Energy and Commerce on the
Uncommon Dialogue; and also, last, a letter from Mr. Grothman,
a Member of Congress and also from Mr. Pocan, a Member of
Congress. It has been agreed to by both sides. This letter is a
support letter for the bipartisan bill.
Without any objection, the documents will be entered into
the record.
Mr. Rush. At this time, the subcommittee stands adjourned,
and the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:28 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]