[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 110 (Tuesday, June 27, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H5210-H5211]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    BUREAU OF RECLAMATION PUMPED STORAGE HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT ACT

  Mr. COOK. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 1967) to amend the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 to authorize 
pumped storage hydropower development utilizing multiple Bureau of 
Reclamation reservoirs, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 1967

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Bureau of Reclamation Pumped 
     Storage Hydropower Development Act''.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORITY FOR PUMPED STORAGE HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT 
                   UTILIZING MULTIPLE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 
                   RESERVOIRS.

       Section 9(c)(1) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (43 
     U.S.C. 485h(c)(1)) is amended by inserting ``and pumped 
     storage hydropower development exclusively utilizing Bureau 
     of Reclamation reservoirs'' after ``including small conduit 
     hydropower development''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cook) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.


                             General Leave

  Mr. COOK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include 
extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cook), a valuable member of the Committee on Natural Resources, for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, today, we are here to consider a bill that aims to 
remove barriers to improve our Nation's water and power infrastructure.
  Just last Thursday, the House passed a bill designating the Bureau of 
Reclamation as the lead agency when it comes to permitting new and 
expanded water storage projects. Today, the bill before us seeks to 
clear up regulatory confusion over the development of new pumped 
storage hydropower.
  Hydropower can and should be part of an all-of-the-above energy 
strategy now and well into the future. It is a reliable and emissions-
free source of electricity that accounts for a majority of the Nation's 
total renewable electricity generation.
  In my home State of Colorado, we have over 60 operating hydropower 
facilities that generate more than 1,100 megawatts, including new 
projects such as Carter Lake, South Canal, and Ridgway Reservoir. 
However, as is the case nationwide, there is potential for new 
hydropower generation in Colorado.
  My bill, the Bureau of Reclamation Pumped Storage Hydropower 
Development Act, H.R. 1967, looks to pave the way for additional clean 
hydropower generation by clearing up regulatory permitting confusion at 
existing Bureau of Reclamation facilities.
  We worked with our colleague from central Washington State, Mr. 
Newhouse, on this bill. His interest stems from a real-life example of 
where it is unclear whether the Bureau of Reclamation or the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission have permitting jurisdiction on pumped 
storage hydropower projects at the Columbia Basin Project.
  The project's proponents want to build a project that pumps water to 
and from two of the project's reservoirs for hydroelectric generation. 
But because of potential dual permitting requirements, there have been 
serious delays in bringing this potential 500 megawatt project online.
  Similar to a public law authored in 2013 by our committee colleague 
and fellow Coloradan, Scott Tipton, that cleared up confusion on the 
Bureau of Reclamation's pipes and canals, my bill makes it clear that 
the Bureau of Reclamation is the lead agency that will oversee pumped 
storage development for projects exclusively utilizing the agency's 
facilities.
  The regulatory clarification in my bill will help pave the way for 
more pumped storage by incentivizing developers who will, in turn, pay 
the American taxpayers for the use of Federal facilities.
  In a hearing earlier this spring of the Water, Power, and Oceans 
Subcommittee, which I chair, even our friends on the other side of the 
aisle agreed that we should be doing all we can to incentivize clean, 
renewable hydropower generation at existing Federal facilities. That is 
why this bill was passed by the House Natural Resources Committee by 
unanimous consent in April.
  I urge my House colleagues to join me in promoting clean, renewable 
hydropower generation as part of our Nation's all-of-the-above energy 
strategy by supporting this bill, the Bureau of Reclamation Pumped 
Storage Hydropower Development Act.
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1967 would amend the permitting process for pumped 
storage hydropower projects utilizing multiple Bureau of Reclamation 
reservoirs.
  Currently, hydropower projects involving Reclamation facilities are 
subject to either the FERC permitting process or the Reclamation 
permitting process, based on whether a Reclamation facility was 
originally authorized for hydropower development.
  The unique nature of pumped storage projects, which require the use 
of multiple separate reservoirs, can mean that a single proposed 
project can be subject to both Reclamation and FERC's permitting 
processes, since different reservoirs are under different agency 
jurisdiction.
  If enacted, H.R. 1967 would subject pumped storage projects using 
multiple Reclamation reservoirs to just the Reclamation permitting 
process instead of the process for both Reclamation and FERC.
  Like FERC, Reclamation's permitting project requires authorized 
pumped storage projects to comply with the National Environmental 
Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Historic 
Preservation Act, and other statutory requirements.
  While I believe that H.R. 1967 is a commonsense bill and I support 
its passage, I also support ongoing efforts to incorporate feedback 
from the Colville Tribe in Washington State as this bill advances to 
the Senate and proceeds through the legislative process.
  Mr. Speaker, I had the remarkable opportunity to live in Switzerland 
for 4 years, and hiked and climbed many of the Alps. It was fascinating 
to see the high-altitude dams that made hydropower the dominant form of 
power in the country. Eighty percent of all electricity was hydropower 
or nuclear.
  I thank my good friend, Congressman Lamborn from Colorado Springs, 
for his leadership on this issue. I encourage unanimous passage of this 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, as this Chamber considers H.R. 1967, the 
``Bureau of Reclamation Pumped Storage Hydropower Development Act,'' I 
would like to provide some brief remarks regarding issues raised by the 
Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation.
  The Colville Tribe has been participating in a Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission proceeding related a proposed pumped storage 
project on Lake Roosevelt and Banks Lake in north central Washington. A 
portion of Lake Roosevelt is within the boundaries of the Colville 
Reservation.
  The Colville Tribe has raised several questions about the project's 
potential impacts to culturally and economically important fisheries in 
Lake Roosevelt, water quality, and to revenues the Tribe receives from 
the Bonneville Power Administration from the operation of the Grand 
Coulee Dam.

[[Page H5211]]

  Because of these questions, the Colville Tribe and the project 
proponents have been involved in ongoing discussions in hopes of 
reaching an agreement on how to proceed with the project review 
process. As those discussions proceed, I would like to provide my 
commitment to work with the Colville Tribe and the project proponents 
as the legislative process moves forward.
  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Speaker, as this chamber considers H.R. 
1967, the ``Bureau of Reclamation Pumped Storage Hydropower Development 
Act,'' I would like to provide some brief remarks regarding issues 
raised by the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation.
  The Colville Tribe has been participating in a Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission proceeding related to a proposed pumped storage 
project on Lake Roosevelt and Banks Lake in north central Washington. A 
portion of Lake Roosevelt is within the boundaries of the Colville 
Reservation.
  The Colville Tribe has raised several questions about the project's 
potential impacts to culturally and economically important fisheries in 
Lake Roosevelt, water quality, and to revenues the Tribe receives from 
the Bonneville Power Administration from the operation of the Grand 
Coulee Dam.
  Because of these questions, the Colville Tribe and the project 
proponents have been involved in ongoing discussions in hopes of 
reaching an agreement on how to proceed with the project review 
process. As those discussions proceed, I would like to provide my 
commitment to work with the Colville Tribe and the project proponents 
as the legislative process moves forward.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cook) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 1967, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________