[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.
____________________