[House Report 115-954]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


115th Congress }                                          { REPORT
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
  2d Session   }                                          { 115-954

======================================================================
 
         ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE COST TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2018

                                _______
                                

 September 20, 2018.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Bishop of Utah, from the Committee on Natural Resources, submitted 
                             the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 5556]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred 
the bill (H.R. 5556) to provide for transparency and reporting 
related to direct and indirect costs incurred by the Bonneville 
Power Administration, the Western Area Power Administration, 
the Southwestern Power Administration, and the Southeastern 
Power Administration related to compliance with any Federal 
environmental laws impacting the conservation of fish and 
wildlife, and for other purposes, having considered the same, 
report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that 
the bill as amended do pass.
    The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Environmental Compliance Cost 
Transparency Act of 2018''.

SEC. 2. TRANSPARENCY AND REPORTING.

  (a) Information Included in Monthly Billing to Power Customers.--The 
Administrators of each of the Bonneville Power Administration, the 
Western Area Power Administration, the Southwestern Power 
Administration, and the Southeastern Power Administration shall include 
in monthly billings sent to each of their power customers information 
estimating and reporting all costs and factors affecting total power 
costs, including the costs of the customer's share of the direct and 
indirect costs that are incurred by the administration related to 
compliance with any Federal environmental laws impacting the 
conservation of fish and wildlife considered by the Administrator 
concerned, at that Administrator's sole discretion after consultation 
with consumers, to be relevant.
  (b) Direct Costs.--Direct costs reported under this section shall 
include Federal agency obligations related to costs of studies; 
capital, operation, maintenance, and replacement costs; and staffing 
costs.
  (c) Indirect Costs.--Indirect costs reported under this section shall 
include foregone generation (including as a result of water lost to 
comply with any Federal environmental laws impacting the conservation 
of fish and wildlife), and replacement power costs, including the net 
costs of any transmission.
  (d) Coordination.--The Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation and 
the head of any other affected Federal agency shall assist the 
Administrators with the identification of the costs.
  (e) Report.--No later than January 30 of each year, each of the 
Administrators referred to in subsection (a), in coordination with the 
Bureau of Reclamation and other affected Federal agencies, shall 
provide an annual report to the appropriate committees of the House of 
Representatives and the Senate that includes--
          (1) all estimated costs and factors affecting total power 
        costs, including estimates of the total direct and indirect 
        costs that are incurred by the administration related to 
        compliance with any Federal environmental laws impacting the 
        conservation of fish and wildlife considered by the 
        Administrator concerned, at that Administrator's sole 
        discretion after consultation with consumers, to be relevant; 
        and
          (2) the sources of replacement power.

                          PURPOSE OF THE BILL

    The purpose of H.R. 5556 is to provide for transparency and 
reporting related to direct and indirect costs incurred by the 
Bonneville Power Administration, the Western Area Power 
Administration, the Southwestern Power Administration, and the 
Southeastern Power Administration related to compliance with 
any federal environmental laws impacting the conservation of 
fish and wildlife.

                  BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA, 16 U.S.C. 
1531 et seq.), the Secretary of the Interior has responsibility 
for plants, wildlife and inland fish. The Secretary of Commerce 
is responsible for implementing the ESA with respect to mostly 
marine and anadromous species. Each agency follows a regulatory 
process to list a species as ``endangered'' or ``threatened'' 
based on best available scientific and commercial data.\1\ If 
federal actions--including permit approval or funding actions--
may affect a listed species, Section 7 of the ESA requires 
federal agencies to consult with the Secretaries to ``insure 
that any action authorized, funded or carried out by such 
agency . . . is not likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence'' of a species.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Id., at p. 4.
    \2\16 U.S.C. 1536.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The ESA significantly impacts the four Power Market 
Administrations (PMAs), their wholesale electricity customers, 
and ultimately, the end-use retail customer. The PMAs market 
and deliver (via transmission lines) electricity generated at 
federal dams and reservoirs operated by the Bureau of 
Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.\3\ Hydropower 
generated at these facilities, particularly in the western 
United States, is first used to provide electricity to operate 
irrigation pumps.\4\ Any excess power is then primarily sold by 
the PMAs to preference customers, which, by federal statute, 
largely consist of publicly-owned and cooperative-owned 
utilities, Indian tribes, federal entities, investor-owned 
utilities, and some industrial customers.\5\ Under numerous 
authorizing statutes, the power is sold at rates designed to 
repay the federal capital investment in federal electricity 
generation and transmission facilities, annual operation and 
maintenance of such facilities and federal staffing. These 
rates also include the costs of environmental regulations and 
replacement power services resulting from these mandates.\6\ In 
certain regions of the country, such as the Pacific Northwest, 
the Intermountain West and the Upper Midwest, federal power 
generation and transmission services play a very significant 
regional role in their respective electricity markets, as 
discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\Bracmort, Kelsi. ``Hydropower: Federal and Nonfederal 
Investment.'' 22 January 2013. R42579. Pg. 9.
    \4\Id. at 1.
    \5\https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=11651.
    \6\https://www.bpa.gov/news/pubs/FactSheets/fs-201305-BPAs-Fish-
and-Wildlife-Program-the-Northwest-working-together.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PMA Service Areas

    There are numerous federal environmental statutes impacting 
the PMAs, including the ESA, the Central Valley Project 
Improvement Act (Public Law 102-575)\7\ and the Grand Canyon 
Protection Act (Public Law 102-575)\8\ which have ultimately 
altered and decreased some federal power generation due to 
modification of water releases from dams. Since the PMAs are 
typically under contract with their customers to provide a set 
amount of power, the PMAs must purchase replacement power on 
the open market to make up for lost federal generation to meet 
these contractual needs. Additionally, the PMAs experience 
costs for habitat restoration and protection, structural 
modifications to facilities, fish hatcheries, and other on-the-
ground work. Much of these costs are built into the rate base 
and have been factors in recent rate hikes, as discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\http://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvpia/title_34/public_law_complete.html.
    \8\http://www.usbr.gov/uc/legal/gcpa1992.html .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)

    BPA, created in 1937, markets and delivers wholesale 
electrical hydropower generated at 31 federal facilities (known 
as the Federal Columbia River Power System or FCRPS) to 
wholesale customers in Oregon, Washington and parts of Idaho, 
Montana, Wyoming and Nevada.\9\ BPA has a large impact on the 
region's electricity market, providing nearly a third of the 
region's electricity sales and almost three-fourths of its 
transmission capacity.\10\ BPA also sells a significant amount 
of ``surplus'' energy to California utilities in some years. 
Like the other PMAs, BPA is required to set power rates 
sufficient to repay the federal investment and recover costs 
associated with the operation and maintenance of the federal 
facilities. Costs associated with fish and wildlife enhancement 
and protection attributable to power production in the 
Columbia/Snake River system are imposed on wholesale customers 
who then pass it on to their customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\https://www.bpa.gov/Finance/FinancialInformation/AnnualReports/
Documents/AR2017.pdf, at 2.
    \10\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since the passage of the Northwest Power Act (Public Law 
96-501)\11\ in 1980, BPA ratepayers have financed the agency's 
Fish and Wildlife Program.\12\ This program was created to 
``protect, mitigate and enhance'' fish and wildlife populations 
and their habitat in the Columbia Basin.\13\ The costs of this 
program include lost power generation caused by water spillage 
used for environmental purposes, power purchases to replace 
lost generation, and on-the-ground work including structural 
modifications at dams, habitat protection, predator mitigation, 
research and fish hatcheries.\14\ The vast majority of these 
costs are dedicated to ESA compliance. At a June 2013 Water and 
Power Subcommittee hearing, Mr. Scott Corwin, Executive 
Director of the Public Power Council, which represents 
consumer-owned utilities in the Pacific Northwest, testified, 
``These efforts cost around $700 million per year (about 25 to 
30 percent of the wholesale power cost), and some of the 
measures impose large constraints on the production of clean 
hydropower.''\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-94/pdf/STATUTE-94-
Pg2697.pdf.
    \12\https://www.bpa.gov/efw/FishWildlife/Pages/default.aspx.
    \13\https://www.bpa.gov/news/pubs/FactSheets/fs-201305-BPAs-Fish-
and-Wildlife-Program-the-Northwest-working-together.pdf.
    \14\https://www.bpa.gov/news/pubs/FactSheets/fs-201601-BPA-invests-
in-fish-and-wildlife.pdf.
    \15\Testimony of Mr. Scott Corwin before the House Water and Power 
Subcommittee, June 26, 2013, p. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In fiscal year 2017, the total fish and wildlife costs 
including forgone revenue and power purchases for BPA was 
reported to be $450.4 million. Much of that cost involves ESA-
listed salmon.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\https://www.nwcouncil.org/sites/default/files/2018-4.pdf, p. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Western Area Power Administration (WAPA)

    WAPA, created in 1977, markets and delivers an average of 
10,000 megawatts of hydro-electricity produced at Bureau of 
Reclamation and Army Corps of Engineers dams.\17\ WAPA serves 
about 700 wholesale customers over 1.3 million square miles in 
Arizona, California, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, 
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South 
Dakota, Texas, Utah and Wyoming through a 17,000-mile federal 
transmission system.\18\ These wholesale customers, in turn, 
supply 40 million retail customers.\19\ WAPA is financed by 
annual customer funding and advance payments and 
appropriations, which are then reimbursed with interest through 
customer contractual repayment obligations. Since the Bureau of 
Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers are required to 
modify their hydropower generation services and flow 
requirements to account for ESA and other federal mandates, 
WAPA has lost base hydropower and must purchase replacement 
power, as discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\https://www.wapa.gov/newsroom/Publications/Documents/How-WAPA-
Does-Business.pdf p. 1, p. 3.
    \18\https://www.wapa.gov/newsroom/FactSheets/Pages/About.aspx.
    \19\https://www.wapa.gov/newsroom/FactSheets/Documents/WAPA-at-a-
glance.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    WAPA's customers are impacted by many ESA requirements, 
including but not limited to constraints on releases of water 
from dams. In one dramatic case, ESA-impacted flows have 
contributed to the loss of over a third--or about 400-500 
megawatts--of the average annual production of Glen Canyon Dam 
at a cost of $50 million.\20\ At a 2011 Water and Power 
Subcommittee legislative hearing on a similar bill, Ms. Leslie 
James, Executive Director of the Colorado River Energy 
Distributors Association (CREDA), testified:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\Testimony of Mr. Timothy Meeks before the House Water and Power 
Subcommittee, March 15, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Specific examples of the environment-related costs 
        assessed to the [Colorado River Storage Project] are 
        the programmatic (i.e., ``direct'') costs of the Glen 
        Canyon Adaptive Management Program (AMP) and the Upper 
        Basin Endangered Fish Recovery Implementation Program 
        (RIP). Since approximately $743 million in purchased 
        power costs have been incurred by WAPA since 2000, 
        CREDA believes it is important that the customers have 
        visibility of those costs, which are included in their 
        firm power rates.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\Testimony of Ms. Leslie James before the House Water and Power 
Subcommittee, September 22, 2011, p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These costs, as well as drought, play a significant role in 
WAPA's wholesale electricity rates.

H.R. 5556, Environmental Compliance Cost Transparency Act of 2018

    In light of rising and uncertain federal environmental 
compliance costs and questions over their effectiveness--
particularly in the Pacific Northwest--some PMA customers have 
called for greater transparency in the way such costs are 
reported. For example, the Northwest RiverPartners, a 
consortium of water and power users, found in a 2005 poll that 
``more than 70% either don't know how much they pay for salmon 
recovery or believe less than 5% of their monthly bills go to 
salmon recovery'' in the Northwest.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\http://mcmorris.house.gov/
mcmorris_rodgers_introduces_legislation_to_shed_light_on_esa_
compliance_costs-3/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As a result, H.R. 5556, as reported, requires the PMAs to 
estimate and report all costs and factors affecting total power 
costs, including the direct and indirect costs associated with 
any federal environmental laws impacting the conservation of 
fish and wildlife to each wholesale firm power customer on a 
monthly billing basis. Direct costs are defined as ``Federal 
agency obligations related to costs of studies; capital, 
operation, maintenance, and replacement costs; and staffing 
costs.''\23\ Indirect costs are defined as ``foregone 
generation and replacement power costs, including the net costs 
of any transmission.''\24\ Under the bill, the PMAs provide the 
information to their wholesale customers, who can then decide 
how or whether to report this information to their retail 
consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\H.R. 5556, Section 2(b).
    \24\H.R. 5556, Section 2(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During Committee consideration of the bill, Ranking Member 
Raul M. Grijalva offered a successful amendment that expanded 
the information to be reported to include all costs and factors 
affecting total power costs.

                            COMMITTEE ACTION

    H.R. 5556 was introduced on April 18, 2018, by Congressman 
Paul A. Gosar (R-AZ). The bill was referred to the Committee on 
Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee 
on Water, Power and Oceans. On July 11, 2018, the Subcommittee 
held a hearing on the legislation. On July 18, 2018, the 
Natural Resources Committee met to consider the bill. The 
Subcommittee was discharged by unanimous consent. Congressman 
Raul M. Grijalva (D-AZ) offered an amendment designated 180; it 
was adopted by unanimous consent. Congressman Jim Costa (D-CA) 
offered an amendment designated #1; it was adopted by unanimous 
consent. No further amendments were offered, and the bill, as 
amended, was ordered favorably reported to the House of 
Representatives by unanimous consent.

            COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

    Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee on Natural Resources' oversight findings and 
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.

      COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII AND CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT

    1. Cost of Legislation and the Congressional Budget Act. 
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) and (3) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
sections 308(a) and 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974, the Committee has received the following estimate for the 
bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                Washington, DC, September 13, 2018.
Hon. Rob Bishop,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 5556, the 
Environmental Compliance Cost Transparency Act of 2018.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Kathleen 
Gramp.
            Sincerely,
                                                Keith Hall,
                                                          Director.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 5556--Environmental Compliance Cost Transparency Act of 2018

    Summary: Four federal power marketing administrations 
(PMAs) within the Department of Energy (DOE)--the Bonneville 
Power Administration (BPA), Southeastern Power Administration 
(SEPA), Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA), and Western 
Area Power Administration (WAPA)--sell electricity produced at 
federal hydroelectric and other power facilities to wholesale 
customers in western and southeastern states. H.R. 5556 would 
direct those PMAs to provide customers with certain information 
each month.
    CBO estimates that implementing the bill would cost $10 
million over the 2019-2023 bill period, assuming appropriation 
of the necessary amounts.
    Enacting H.R. 5556 would increase direct spending by BPA; 
therefore, pay-as-you go procedures apply. However, CBO 
estimates that the net effect on direct spending would be 
negligible. The bill would not affect revenues.
    CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 5556 would not 
significantly increase net direct spending or on-budget 
deficits in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods 
beginning in 2029.
    H.R. 5556 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary effect of H.R. 5556 is shown in the following table. 
The costs of the legislation fall within budget function 270 
(energy).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             2018      2019      2020      2021      2022      2023    2019-2023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 INCREASES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
 
Estimated Authorization Level............         0         4         3         1         1         1         10
Estimated Outlays........................         0         2         5         1         1         1         10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Basis of estimate: H.R. 5556 would direct four PMAs to 
revise their monthly billing statements to include estimates of 
each customer's share of the direct and indirect costs of 
complying with federal laws regarding fish and wildlife 
conservation, as well as information about other factors that 
affect power costs. Other federal agencies would be directed to 
assist those PMAs in developing those estimates and in 
preparing annual reports to the Congress.
    The operations of three PMAs--WAPA, SWPA, and SEPA--are 
financed by annual appropriation acts. By contrast, BPA's 
expenditures affect direct spending because they are not 
subject to appropriation.\1\ All four agencies are required by 
law to set electricity prices sufficient to recover most costs 
over the useful life of their assets or activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\BPA is authorized to finance its costs by directly spending 
income received from the sale of electricity and by borrowing finds 
from the Treasury, subject to statutory limits on the amount of debt 
that can be outstanding at any time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Using information from the affected agencies, CBO estimates 
that implementing the bill would cost about $10 million over 
the 2019-2023 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary 
amounts. Including costs for the Bureau of Reclamation and 
Corps of Engineers, CBO estimates that the workload in the 
first two years of the program would be equivalent to about 22 
full-time employees, at an average cost of about $160,000 per 
person. Most of those costs would be incurred by WAPA, which 
would need to conduct various studies and develop software to 
provide its customers with data specific to each of the 13 
separate regions it uses for setting rates. The costs of 
implementing the bill are projected to be lower for SWPA and 
SEPA because their hydropower systems and conservation programs 
are smaller and less geographically diverse than those at WAPA.
    Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go 
Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement 
procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or 
revenues. Enacting the bill would increase direct spending by 
BPA. However, that increase would not be significant because 
BPA provides similar information to its customers under current 
law. Furthermore, CBO expects that any increase in operating 
costs would be recovered quickly because BPA would subsequently 
increase the rates it charges customers. Thus, CBO estimates 
that the net effect on direct spending by BPA would be 
negligible. H.R. 5556 would not affect revenues.
    Increase in long-term direct spending and deficits: CBO 
estimates that enacting H.R. 5556 would not significantly 
increase net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of 
the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2029.
    Mandates: H.R. 5556 contains no intergovernmental or 
private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Kathleen Gramp and 
Aurora Swanson; Mandates: Zachary Byrum.
    Estimate reviewed by: Kim P. Cawley, Chief, Natural and 
Physical Resources Cost Estimates Unit; H. Samuel Papenfuss, 
Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
    2. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or 
objective of this bill is to provide for transparency and 
reporting related to direct and indirect costs incurred by the 
Bonneville Power Administration, the Western Area Power 
Administration, the Southwestern Power Administration, and the 
Southeastern Power Administration related to compliance with 
any federal environmental laws impacting the conservation of 
fish and wildlife.

                           EARMARK STATEMENT

    This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks, 
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined 
under clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives.

                    COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104-4

    This bill contains no unfunded mandates.

                       COMPLIANCE WITH H. RES. 5

    Directed Rule Making. This bill does not contain any 
directed rule makings.
    Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not 
establish or reauthorize a program of the federal government 
known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was 
not included in any report from the Government Accountability 
Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139 
or identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program 
Information Act (Public Law 95-220, as amended by Public Law 
98-169) as relating to other programs.

                PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

    This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or 
tribal law.

                        CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

    If enacted, this bill would make no changes to existing 
law.

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

    H.R. 5556, as introduced, required the Department of 
Energy's four Power Marketing Administrations to make a special 
note on customer bills highlighting only the costs of fish and 
wildlife mitigation measures. The four Power Marketing 
Administrations (PMAs) market wholesale power generated by 
federally-owned hydroelectric dams. These federal dams can 
negatively impact the survival of our nation's fish and 
wildlife. Fish and wildlife mitigation measures can reduce the 
negative environmental impacts of federal dams at a relatively 
small cost. These mitigation measures also promote functioning 
ecosystems that are a significant net benefit to the American 
economy and pay for themselves many times over.
    At markup, Ranking Member Raul M. Grijalva successfully 
included an amendment to H.R. 5556 that would require the PMAs 
to publish all costs that affect power rates. Requiring only 
the publication of costs associated with fish and wildlife 
mitigation would have excluded several other factors affecting 
a customer's monthly power bill and provided a misleading, 
wholly incomplete picture.
    For example, the Bonneville Power Administration's failed 
investment in a nuclear power plant cost rate-payers as much as 
$200 million in Fiscal Year 2013\1\ and likely billions in 
total. That information should be provided to the customers 
paying those costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\McCullough, R., Vatter, M., Anderson, R., Heimensen, J., Long, 
S., May, C.,...Oursland, G. (December 11, 2013). Economic Analysis of 
the Columbia Generating Station. Portland, Oregon: McCullough Research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Power customers also must pay billions to subsidize 
irrigation contractors. Irrigation contractors are not required 
to repay taxpayers for the costs of building federal dams 
beyond what's deemed their ``ability to pay.'' The amount that 
irrigators do not pay is then transferred to power customers. 
The Western Area Power Administration recently estimated that 
power customers are responsible for more than $1.7 billion in 
irrigation assistance payments.\2\ These costs should be 
disclosed on power bills as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Western Area Power Administration. 2017 Annual Report. U.S. 
Department of Energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Should H.R. 5556 continue to advance through the 
legislative process, the bill text may need to be further 
refined before enactment to ensure that all relevant 
information is provided to power customers. Full transparency 
means that customers are provided a full accounting of all 
major factors impacting their power bills, not just the costs 
of fish and wildlife mitigation.

                                   Raul M. Grijalva,
                                           Ranking Member Committee on 
                                               Natural Resources.
                                   Nanette Diaz Barragan.
                                   Alan Lowenthal.

                                  [all]