[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 134 (Wednesday, September 30, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11182-S11183]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. GRAMS:
  S. 2532. A bill for the relief of D.W. Jacobson, Ronald Karkala, and 
Paul Bjorgen of Grand Rapids, Minnesota, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


                       private relief legislation

 Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, today I am introducing a private 
bill addressing an inequity faced by a now dissolved Minnesota company, 
Norwood Manufacturing, Incorporated.
  Norwood entered into contract with the United States Post Office to 
produce mail pallets according to Postal Service specifications. After 
producing the pallets, the Post Office canceled the contract, 
indicating the pallets did not meet the intended use, even though 
Norwood met the specifications requirement in the contract.
  Genuine issues of material fact surround the question of whether the 
Post Office canceled the contract for cause, convenience, or possibly 
in bad faith. Surprisingly, Norwood was denied its plea to be heard in 
court. Summary judgment was awarded to the Post Office, and an appeal 
of this decision was denied.
  At this point, all avenues of relief have been exhausted, including 
my efforts in 1995 to request a Congressional Reference from the 
Judiciary Committee, back to the Claims Court for review.
  In my view, an injustice has occurred since usual legal relief has 
been precluded in the history of this case. I believe compensation by 
the United States is owed to Norwood. There is precedent for 
reimbursing companies which abide by contracts which either include 
errors, or when specifications change after a contract is signed and 
the company is not made aware of these changes. The Postal Service made 
an error, and it should have reimbursed this company, as is normal 
practice.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAIG:
  S. 2533. A bill to amend the Federal Power Act to improve the 
hydroelectric licensing process by granting the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission statutory authority to better coordinate 
participation by other agencies and entities, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


        hydroelectric licensing process improvement act of 1998

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill, and I send it 
to the desk.
  Mr. President, the bill I introduce is the Hydroelectric Licensing 
Process Improvement Act of 1998. As its title suggests, the purpose of 
the bill is to improve the process by which hydroelectric projects are 
licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Under the 
existing law, non-federal dams that are constructed across navigable 
streams in the United States must be licensed by the FERC. In addition, 
under the present law, certain federal agencies, such as the United 
States Forest Service and the Departments of Commerce and Interior, 
have authority to mandate that FERC accept certain conditions in the 
license FERC ultimately issues. The Departments, for example, can 
impose conditions that address fish passage. The federal land agencies 
can impose conditions to protect federal land impacted by the project. 
FERC licenses, then, often contain conditions imposed by federal 
resource agencies.
  These agencies, however, through no fault of their own, are single 
issue agencies. The law limits their considerations to a narrow 
spectrum of concerns as they decide mandatory conditions. Experience 
shows by the use of this licensing process that these decisions that 
are made by these agencies are very narrow. You could say narrow 
minded. Why? Because they are single-issue agencies. And the law now 
dictates that they operate only in that realm in their decisionmaking. 
We do not have to settle for bad decisionmaking simply because 
oftentimes the information that the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission gets, or the information they are dictated to by these 
single-purpose agencies, would result in bad decisionmaking. By 
adjusting this law, we can, I believe, have a better decisionmaking 
process. I will say that this is clearly the intent of the legislation 
that I am introducing today.
  Now, Mr. President, these licenses for the dams can be for as little 
as 30 years

[[Page S11183]]

and as much as 50 years. Decades ago, developers, both private ones 
such as investor owned utilities, and public ones such as municipal 
electric utilities or public utility districts, built hydroelectric 
projects and received original licenses for them from the FERC. Soon, 
many of those licenses will expire and the public and private license 
holders will seek new licenses from the FERC. Indeed, Mr. President, 
according to recent testimony of the National Hydropower Association 
before the House Energy and Power Subcommittee, over the next fifteen 
years, the FERC will consider for relicense, about two-thirds of 
existing non-federal hydroelectric projects. Nearly 300 projects, 
representing about 28,917 megawatts of power, will have their present, 
original licenses expire before the year 2012.
  Mr. President, many of those projects will involve the federal 
resource agencies. The FERC will consider major projects in western 
states like California, and eastern states like New York. It will 
consider significant projects in northern states like Michigan and 
southern states like Alabama. We all are, and we all will be affected 
by the process by which the FERC relicenses these dams. Mr. President, 
this bill is extremely important in light of the foregoing.
  Hydroelectric power is essential to the welfare of our country. It is 
clean, renewable and cheap. And, most importantly, it is very 
inexpensive compared with the other forms of energy. We need to take 
any steps necessary to ensure that this invaluable source of power 
remains available to the many consumers that depend upon it for their 
quality of life. Such steps include the process reforms contained in 
this bill.
  Such reform is necessary because the unfortunate point is, in the 
last decade the licensing process was created that we now have. What 
did it do? The process didn't help the energy peaking capability of 
many of these projects.
  According to a September 1997 study of the U.S. Department of Energy, 
since 1987, of 52 peaking projects relicensing by FERC, 4 projects 
increased capability, and 48 decreased capacity. In other words, they 
were less productive as a result of the licensing than they were prior 
to that relicensing. Ninety-two percent of the peaking projects since 
1987 lost capacity. Hydropower is at risk, and it is important that our 
country understand that.
  This is not only unfortunate, but it is bizarre. It is bizarre, Mr. 
President, because we live in a time when we are rightly sensitive to 
the environment in which we live. It is difficult to find a source of 
electric power more benign to the atmosphere than falling water. Yet, 
this benign power source is at risk. The process reforms I propose will 
help reverse this trend.
  It is critical, Mr. President, that I note what the bill does not do. 
The bill does not--repeat, does not--eliminate the authority of federal 
resource agencies to mandate fish passages as conditions of a FERC 
license. Also, it does not--repeat, does not--eliminate the authority 
of federal land agencies to mandate FERC license conditions to protect 
federal lands impact by the hydroelectric project. That is what the 
bill will not do. It is important to understand that, because there are 
many groups that would think I would restrict the ability of some of 
these single-purpose agencies to participate in the relicensing 
process. Quite the opposite: I want to spread their authority in a way 
that makes it more responsible.
  This is what the bill will do. The bill will reform the licensing 
process and improve the decisionmaking in that process in several ways.
  1. It requires the federal resource agencies to consider a wider 
range of factors than they presently consider, as they decide what 
mandatory conditions to impose in a FERC license. It would require the 
agencies to examine factors such as: (a) economics; (b) air quality; 
(c) irrigation; (d) navigation; (e) flood control; (f) recreation; (g) 
generation capacity; and (h) drinking water supply. The present law 
does not obligate federal resource agencies to consider such factors. 
But, better decisions will result if they do.
  2. The bill requires those agencies to document their consideration 
of these factors. Agencies make better decisions in the light and not 
in the dark, Mr. President.
  3. The bill allows the license applicant to obtain expedited 
administrative review of the conditions proposed by the federal 
resource agencies for reasonableness. Some check, no matter how 
minuscule, on the agencies' decisions to impose mandatory conditions is 
needed.
  4. It requires the federal resource agencies to base their conditions 
on appropriate scientific review, which means a review based on 
empirical or field tested data, and subject to peer review. Good data 
helps lead to good decisions.
  Mr. President, who can quarrel with federal resource agencies basing 
their decisions on sound science? Who can quarrel with federal resource 
agencies broadening the factors they consider as they decide mandatory 
conditions? Who can quarrel with giving the license applicant, who must 
bear the burden of mandatory conditions a right to appeal 
administratively, on an expedited basis, proposed mandatory conditions 
of the federal resource agencies? Mr. President, these reforms will 
make for better decisionmaking by the federal resource agencies.
  The bill has another significant facet, Mr. President. It gives the 
FERC authority, after a license application is filed, and after, 
therefore, the federal resource agencies have documented their expanded 
and scientific review of conditions for the license, to require that 
the federal resource agencies submit those conditions to the FERC by a 
certain deadline. Simple, but it makes sense, because today those 
agencies don't have to comply with a deadline, but yet they have almost 
veto power by their absence from the process if they simply say they 
are considering a mandatory condition and are not yet willing to submit 
it to FERC for its inclusion in a license.
  In this way, FERC will have before it at one time these various 
conditions of resource agencies, and, therefore, FERC should be able to 
efficiently and expeditiously bring about a license. This gives the 
licensee the opportunity of a quickee appeal. This is what the 
legislation does. It does not take away the authority of the agencies, 
it expands it. But it shapes it. It brings about a process that is 
definable and predictable. And that is exactly what does not occur 
today. Licensing today can take 8, 15, or 20 years when it ought take 
no more than 3 or 4 or 5 years. It is not reasonable or right that it 
should take that long.
  Simply what we are doing is reshaping what was a very important piece 
of legislation now that we have some field experience with it. We 
cannot afford to lose clean, renewable, abundant resources like 
hydroelectricity.
  In my State of Idaho, we are proud of our hydro base. It brings about 
inexpensive energy to my State, and to the State of the Presiding 
Officer. The whole Pacific Northwest is proud that it based its future 
on the past insight of developing its hydroelectricity. We shouldn't be 
required to lose it because of misguided law.
  That is what I hope my legislation will do, if it becomes law. In the 
ensuing year, and in the new Congress, we will hold hearing across the 
West, and certainly here in Washington, on the validity of this 
approach, to shape the process that is currently underway into a time-
predicatble process that all can understand and that all can deal with.

                          ____________________