Promoting Closed-Loop Pumped Storage Hydropower Act

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3043, the Hydropower Policy Modernization Act of 2017.

Mr. Chairman, while Members on both sides of the aisle support hydropower, unfortunately, the bill before us today is deeply flawed and will not modernize or improve the hydropower licensing process. Instead, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3043 would place private profits above the public interest by giving priority of our public waterways to industry in order to generate power and profits over and above the rights and the interests of Native Tribes or farmers or fishermen, boaters, and other stakeholders who also rely on these public rivers and streams.

Mr. Chairman, it is very important for us to remember that hydroelectric licenses can span between 30 and 50 years, and, under existing law, a license holder can be granted automatic yearly extensions in perpetuity without even having to reapply.

Mr. Chairman, this issue is far too important for us not to get it right this time. And what does H.R. 3043 actually do?

This bill will make the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, the lead agency over the licensing process and will require Native Tribes, the States, and other Federal resource agencies to pay deference to the Commission, even in areas where FERC has absolutely no expertise or statutory authority, including on issues regarding agricultural water use, drinking water protection, fisheries management, and recreational river use. How absurd, Mr. Chairman.

Additionally, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3043 would expand and alter the trial-type hearing provisions on the Federal Power Act, essentially rigging the process in favor of industry by providing multiple new entry points to challenge conditions designed by Federal resource agencies.

Mr. Chairman, the threat of these timely and costly hearings may be used to coerce agencies to propose weaker conditions, and, at the same time, this bill also shifts the venue for these hearings to FERC, which is another very obvious handout and handover to industry.

Mr. Chairman, in testimony before the Energy and Commerce Committee, we heard, repeatedly, that a major

cause for licensing delays was due to incomplete applications that do not include all the pertinent information that is necessary to issue a decision.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3043 does nothing, absolutely nothing, to address this very, very serious issue. In fact, this bill will implement strict timelines on Federal resource agencies, States, and Tribes, but does not require applicants to submit all of their information to these agencies before the clock actually starts ticking.

Mr. Chairman, FERC, itself, the very agency that will be charged with implementing this grossly bad bill, FERC, itself, disputed claims that this bill would streamline the licensing process, noting that the legislation ``could increase the complexity and the length of the licensing process.'' These are FERC's words, FERC's words before the committee.

Mr. Chairman, we cannot allow hydropower facilities to claim a monopoly over our public waterways without mitigating the negative impacts of these facilities on others who rely on these resources and without, at the same time, without complying with modern environmental laws.

H.R. 3043, Mr. Chairman, is opposed by States, opposed by the Native Tribes, opposed by the outdoor recreation industry and by more than 150 national and local environmental organizations.

Mr. Chairman, it is for all of these reasons that I, too, stand in concert and side by side with Native Tribes, the outdoor recreation industry, and the other 150 national and local environmental organizations. It is for these reasons that I, too, must oppose this bill, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), from the State that made such a significant and giant step last night to making our Nation a better nation, the ranking member of the full committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), a very important member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on both sides.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record letters from Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Puyallup Tribe of Indians, Snoqualmie Tribe, Skokomish Indian Tribe, and a copy of the resolution passed in October 2017 by The National Congress of American Indians opposing the proposed amendments to the Federal Power Act.

Confederated Tribes and

Bands of the Yakama Nation,

Toppenish, WA, November 7, 2017.

Re Hydro legislation still bad for Indian Tribes, States and

Users of Public Waterways.

Hon. Paul Ryan, Speaker,

Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader,

Honorable Members of the House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Ryan, Minority Leader Pelosi and Honorable

Members of Congress: Yesterday, when the Rules Committee

discussed HR 3043, the Hydropower Policy Modernization Act of

2017, a number of members of the committee including Chairman

Sessions, Congressman Cole, Congressman Newhouse, Congressman

McGovern, Congresswoman Cheney as well as the Chairman Walden

and Ranking Subcommittee Member Rush (who were testifying),

all stressed the importance of ensuring that Indian tribes

have their treaty rights and natural resources protected by

any actions of the Congress relative to hydropower reform. We

greatly appreciate the concerns of these members and the

amount of time they spent discussing tribes and dam

relicensing. I think many of them were aware of the degree to

which the placement of dams has negatively affected a number

of reservations, flooding some and damaging salmon runs at

others. While there was universal agreement that the rights

of tribes and states must be protected, there was not

agreement on whether HR 3043 accomplishes that laudable

intent. I must tell you that the bill does not do so.

First understand what the Federal Power Act (FPA) now says.

Under provisions that have been in effect for decades,

state governments, pursuant to the Clean Water Act, are able

to set water quality standards at hydro dams. Such conditions

are mandatory. Allowing states to establish water quality

standards, a key aspect of Federalism that many in Congress

have always fought for, was a lynchpin of the grand bargain

reached when the Clean Water Act became law. While Federalism

has not really benefitted Indian tribes, we are surprised

that the Congress would weaken the ability of states to

protect the public in this fashion. We hope you will read

what many states have said in letters to the Committee, i.e.,

HR 3043 weakens their ability to ensure their standards are

met during the licensing process. Letters of this nature have

come from entities as varied as the Western Governors

Association and the Southern States Energy Board.

Also under the longstanding language of Section 4(e) of the

FPA, Cabinet Secretaries with authority over ``federal

reservations'' are directed to ensure that a proposed hydro

project doesn't negatively affect a reservation or interfere

with its congressionally designated use. These include all

lands and marine reserves in the Federal estate from Indian

reservations, to National Forests to Wildlife Refuges.

Section 18 of the FPA deals with the establishment or

modification of fishways to ensure fish can pass over these

dams. The Secretaries of Commerce (for NMFS) and Interior

(for USFWS) deal with fish passage and the Secretaries of

Interior (for BIA, BLM, USFWS and NPS) and Agriculture (for

USFS) deal with protecting federal reservations. They have

the authority to propose mandatory conditions on hydro dams

to ensure their operation protects these federal resources

that belong to all Americans.

The legislation weakens the conditioning authority for

protecting state water quality, for fishways and for federal

reservations by transferring significant decision-making

authority to FERC. Under the bill, FERC and the license

applicant can challenge the necessity of a condition and have

that challenge heard via a trial-type hearing only at FERC

before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) at that agency.

Under present law, decisions such as these are heard by ALJs

in the agency making the recommendation, where the expertise

resides. This provision in the bill is legislating forum

shopping and directing that the decision be made before an

entity whose expertise is in areas such as energy markets and

safety at power plants. FERC and its ALJs have no expertise

relative to Indian treaty rights or the Federal Land Policy

and Management Act among many bedrock laws and FERC testified

before the Committee that they do not want to be given this

newfound authority. While having trial-type hearings at FERC

and authorizing FERC to set all manner of schedules in the

permitting process will certainly create countless billable

hours for attorneys representing license applicants, it will

do nothing to protect the interest of Indian tribes or the

public at large, and as stated above, is directly contrary to

state authority under the Clean Water Act and Secretarial

authority now found in the Federal Power Act.

Yesterday we heard that this process will expedite

licensing but if that is the goal then wouldn't it make sense

to determine when an application for a license is complete?

Tribes repeatedly asked the hydropower industry to clarify

that matter in the bill but they refused. Why? Existing

hydropower dam licenses were issued decades ago before any

environmental statutes were on the books and many of those

dams are fish killers. Under the present law, when a license

expires the operator can automatically get annual extensions

allowing it to operate under 30-50 year old standards. These

extensions can go on for year after year with the operator

not having to spend any money to mitigate the damage to fish

or other resources. This is more than ironic considering that

the hydropower industry is telling Congress that they need

the legislation to ensure certainty and time frames in the

relicensing process. Additionally, the bill is drafted in

such a fashion that FERC can set schedules that are so

abbreviated that Tribes, Cabinet Secretaries or States who

wish to comment and perhaps undertake a fishery study when

necessary may not have the time to properly prepare suggested

or mandatory operating conditions. It is noteworthy that FERC

told the Committee that they don't see the legislation

actually streamlining the application process. Also, we

checked today and could find no tribes in support of this

bill.

We believe the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute

(AINS) incorporates much of what the majority proposed in HR

3043 while incorporating many changes that are reflective of

the input that the Committee received from states and tribes

who took the time to relay views and concerns to the

Committee. A key part is the requirement for a negotiated

rule-making to improve and expedite the hydro licensing

process by bringing in states, local governments,

stakeholders and tribes to FERC to develop a process that

will enable FERC to make decisions on license applications

within a maximum of three years. We urge you to vote for the

AINS. Without such changes it is highly unlikely that the

bill will make it through the Senate. Thank you for

considering our views.

Sincerely,

Jode L. Goudy,

Tribal Council Chairman.

Mr. Chair, the substitute amendment that we will consider shortly provides Indian Tribes with authority to speak for themselves with respect to the hydropower licensing process.

Currently, Mr. Chair, the agencies of the Departments of the Interior and Commerce proposed conditions to protect Tribal reservations. If the substitute is enacted, Tribes that have sufficient capacity can assume responsibility for protecting their own reservations.

The Tribal authority provision is absolutely very important and long overdue. As sovereign entities, Tribes have a status different from that of States and Federal agencies. They should be negotiating on their own behalf to protect their own interests.

Mr. Chair, hydropower projects, a number of which were designed and built over the objections of Tribes, resulted in devastating losses of Tribal lands and fisheries.

We can and must do better. Hydropower projects can be designed, upgraded, and operated in ways that lower the environmental costs and preserve other important uses of the river.

Current law and current regulations already provide for consultation with Tribes. In fact, under the integrated license process, applicants are required to consult with Tribes 5 years before the current license expires if they plan to seek a renewed license.

The integrated license process was designed specifically for the more complex, controversial hydropower projects, either new projects or relicensing of existing projects.

Mr. Chair, many applicants, however, request and are allowed to pursue their license under the traditional license process that includes less opportunity for consultation. FERC should be denying some of these requests, but each and every one of them are granted by FERC.

When this happens, controversial projects run into predictable problems that bog down the license process. This is an administrative change that FERC could make that would require no new legislation and would improve the license process.

Mr. Chair, this bill does nothing--absolutely nothing--to speed up this problem or fix the process that we have been discussing.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record letters from: Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, California State Water Resources Control Board, Western Governors' Association, State of Washington Department of Ecology, Environmental Council of the States, and Association of State Wetland Managers.

State of Vermont,

Agency of Natural Resources,

Montpelier, VT, September 12, 2017.

Re Comments in Opposition to Hydropower Policy Modernization

Act of 2017, H.R. 3043.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi: The Vermont

Agency of Natural Resources (VTANR) would like to express

strong concerns over the proposed Hydropower Policy

Modernization Act of 2017, H.R. 3043. While VTANR supports

efforts to improve and streamline current hydroelectric

licensing processes, the Agency strongly opposes legislative

efforts to diminish States' ability to protect water quality.

Several provisions of H.R. 3043 would essential curtail the

State authority under Section 401 of the

federal Clean Water Act, effectively constraining State

agencies' ability to use their independent authority to set

license conditions, making it more difficult to protect

natural resources.

VTANR strenuously opposes provisions of H.R. 3043 that

eliminate or reduce States' delegated authority under Section

401 of the federal Clean Water Act to develop mandatory

licensing conditions protective of natural resources. State

agencies serve an essential role in the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensing process for

hydroelectric facilities. H.R. 3043 would designate FERC as

the lead agency over federal authorizations related to

applications of hydroelectric projects for a license, license

amendment, or exemptions. As the lead agency, FERC would

establish and control the timeline for licensing review and

process for hydroelectric projects. H.R. 3043 appears to give

FERC the authority to create a schedule reducing the time a

State would have to get necessary scientific studies

completed and reviewed to determine specific conditions

needed to protect water quality, as required under Section

401 of the federal Clean Water Act. This would effectively

permit FERC to license a facility before a thorough review of

the environmental impacts could be completed. Vermont uses

its Section 401 authority to issue water quality

certifications with conditions to ensure projects are built

and operated in a manner consistent with State environmental

laws and protective of the environment and public health.

In addition, a provision of H.R. 3043 provides applicants

with an opportunity to a trial-type hearing before a FERC

Administrative Law Judge whenever there is a dispute of

material fact. Under the provisions of H.R. 3043, the

decision of the FERC Administrative Law Judge would be final

and not subject to further administrative review. Currently,

conditions included in a Section 401 water quality

certification become mandatory license conditions and cannot

be altered or modified by FERC. Further matters of material

facts related to Section 401 water quality certifications for

hydroelectric facilities are heard at the State level by

courts or boards that are familiar with a State's water

quality standards and other environmental laws. The allowance

for the trial-type hearing before FERC could undermine the

States' authority granted under Section 401, making it more

challenging to protect water quality and natural resources.

Through decades of decisions, federal courts have affirmed

the authority of States to impose conditions in federal

licenses issued to hydroelectric projects under Section 401

of the Clean Water Act. These decisions recognize that States

have the primary responsibility to ensure State water quality

standards and other environmental laws are met. H.R. 3043

would undermine this authority by including a provision that

would allow FERC to seek resolution between it and States at

the federal level, elevating the dispute to the secretary

overseeing the federal statute. In the case of the federal

Clean Water Act, H.R. 3043 appears to allow FERC to negotiate

with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency

or Secretary of Army, who are responsible for Clean Water Act

on the federal level, to settle a dispute with between it and

a state, effectively cutting States out of the process.

Vermont's interest in protecting natural resources is as

important and relevant today as ever, particularly because a

large number of hydroelectric facilities in Vermont are

slated to begin the federal relicensing process over the next

five years. FERC issues licenses to hydroelectric projects

for a term of 30 to 50 years. As such, many of the projects

scheduled for relicensing will likely need significant

changes in operations to meet modern water quality standards

and to restore State water resources from impacts of project

operations. As drafted, H.R. 3043 would reduce VTANR

delegated authority under Section 401 of the federal Clean

Water Act, creating ways for project operators to circumvent

state regulations during the licensing process to allow them

to operate in a manner that would continue to degrade the

environment and resources of the State.

VTANR recognizes the importance of hydroelectric generation

in meeting renewable energy goals. We urge you to consider

how the federal process can be improved without undermining

the very checks and balances that have helped hydroelectric

generation be viewed as a sustainable and renewable energy

source.

We appreciate your consideration of these comments on H.R.

3043 and look forward to solutions that improve our energy

security and infrastructure while protecting the environment.

Sincerely,

Julia S. Moore, P.E.,

Secretary.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record letters in opposition to H.R. 3043 from environmental, recreation, fisheries, and conservation groups from across the country along with the list of groups that have signed these letters.

Environmental, Fisheries, Recreation, and Conservation Organizations in

Opposition to H.R. 3043

Alabama Rivers Alliance; Alaska Survival; All Outdoors;

Alliance for the Great Lakes; Alpine Lakes Protection

Society; Altamaha Riverkeeper; American Packrafting

Association; American Rivers; American Whitewater; Anacostia

Watershed Society; Anglers of the Au Sable; Animal Welfare

Institute; Apalachicola Riverkeeper; Appalachian Mountain

Club; Association of Northwest Steelheaders; Atlantic Salmon

Federation; Black Warrior Riverkeeper; California Hydropower

Reform Coalition; California Outdoors; California River

Watch; California Sportfishing Protection Alliance;

California Trout; Cascadia Wildlands; Catawba Riverkeeper;

Center for Biological Diversity.

Center for Environmental Law and Policy; Central Sierra

Environmental Resource Center; Clean Water Action; Coastal

Conservation League; Colorado River Water keeper Network;

Columbiana; Congaree Riverkeeper; Connecticut River

Conservancy; Conservation Law Foundation; Conservation

Northwest; Conservatives for Responsible Stewardship; Coosa

Riverkeeper; Crab Apple Whitewater Defenders of Wildlife;

Deschutes River Alliance; Downeast Salmon Federation;

Earth Design; Earthjustice; Earthworks; Endangered

Habitats League; Endangered Species Coalition;

Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC);

Foothill Conservancy; Foothills Paddling Club; Foothills

Water Network; Friends of Butte Creek.

Friends of Cooper Landing; Friends of Grays Harbor; Friends

of Kenai National Wildlife Refuge; Friends of the Kinni;

Friends of Merrymeeting Bay; Friends of the Crooked River;

Friends of the Eel River; Friends of the River; Friends of

the White Salmon River; Golden West Women Flyfishers; Grand

Canyon Trust; Grand Riverkeeper Labrador; Great Lakes Council

Fly Fishers; Green Latinos; Hells Canyon Preservation

Council; High Country Conservation Advocates; Holy Spirit

Missionary Sisters; Huron River Watershed Council; Hydropower

Reform Coalition; Idaho Rivers United; Illinois Council of

Trout Unlimited; Institute for Fisheries Resources; James

River Association; Kalmiopsis Audubon Society; Kenai River

Watershed Foundation.

Klamath Forest Alliance; Klamath Riverkeeper; Klamath-

Siskiyou Wildlands Center; Kootenai Environmental Alliance;

League of Conservation Voters; Lower Columbia Canoe Club;

Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper Association; Maine Rivers;

Michigan Environmental Council; Michigan Hydro Relicensing

Coalition; Middle Susquehanna Riverkeeper; Milwaukee

Riverkeeper; Mono Lake Committee; Mousam and Kennebunk Rivers

Alliance; National Heritage Institute; National Park

Conservation Association; National Wildlife Federation;

Native Fish Society; Natural Heritage Institute; Natural

Resources Defense Council; Natural Resources Council of

Maine; Naturaland Trust; Nature Abounds; Naugatuck River

Revivial Group.

New England FLOW; New Hampshire Rivers Council; North

Cascades Conservation Council; Northwest Environmental

Advocates; Northwest Guides and Anglers Association;

Northwest Resources Information Center; Olympic Forest

Coalition; Oregon Kayak and Canoe Club; Outdoor Alliance;

Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations; Pacific

Rivers; Penobscot Paddle and Chowder Society; Planning and

Conservation League; Potomac Riverkeeper; Prairie Rivers

Network; Prince William Soundkeeper; Quartz Creek Homeowners'

Association; Religious Coalition for the Great Lakes; River

Alliance of Wisconsin; River Guardian Foundation; River

Network; Riverkeeper Network.

Rogue Riverkeeper; San Juan Citizens Alliance; Save Our

Saluda; Save Our Wild Salmon; Save the Colorado; Selkirk

Conservation Alliance; Smith River Alliance; Snake River

Waterkeeper; South Carolina Native Plant Society; Southern

Environmental Law Center; South Yuba River Citizens League;

Spartanburg Area Conservancy; Spearfish Canyon Society;

Spokane Riverkeeper; St. Mary's River Watershed Association;

Tennessee Clean Water Network; The Lands Council; The

Mountaineers.

The Roanoke River Basin Association; The Sierra Club;

Tributary Whitewater Tours, LLC; Trout Unlimited; Tuolumne

River Trust; Upstate Forever; Washington Environmental Law

Center (see Western Environmental Law Center); Washington

Wild; Waterkeeper Alliance; Waterkeepers Chesapeake;

WaterWatch of Oregon; WESPAC Foundation; West Michigan

Hacklers; Western Environmental Law Center; Wild Earth

Guardians; Wild Washington Rivers; Yadkin Riverkeeper; Zoar

Valley Paddling Club.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chair, the minority side is prepared to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the minority is prepared to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the minority is prepared to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record letters of opposition to H.R. 3043.

Kalispel Tribe of Indians,

Usk, WA, November 8, 2017.

Re Opposition to H.R. 3043, the Hydropower Policy

Modernization Acts.

Hon. Greg Walden,

Chairman, House Energy and Commerce Committee, Washington,

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Rush amendment in the nature of a substitute, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it as well.

Mr. Chairman, hydropower is backed by Members on both sides of the aisle. We all support hydropower, but the process for how we license these projects is far too important for us to get it wrong.

While many Members on the minority side have objections to the underlying bill, H.R. 3043, due to its negative impact on States' rights and States' prerogatives under the Clean Water Act, my substitute amendment addresses these issues in a more responsible way.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3043 will not modernize or improve the hydropower licensing process, but, rather, it simply places private profits for industry over the public interest.

Mr. Chairman, we certainly need a more balanced approach, such as the one provided in my substitute amendment, which contains bipartisan provisions that were included in the hydropower package that both sides agreed to in a fit of bipartisanship last December in committee.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment contains several provisions to improve the licensing process while also offering incentives to the hydropower industry.

This substitute contains a requirement to set up a new licensing process, but, unlike H.R. 3043, it protects the rights of Federal resource agencies, States, and Indian Tribes to impose conditions in accordance with modern environmental laws.

My substitute also amends the definition of renewable energy to include all hydropower, just as H.R. 3043 does; however, it expands the goals for Federal purchasing of renewable power beyond the 15 percent included in H.R. 3043 as an objective, not a mandate.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment also contains a ``reward for early action'' provision that authorizes FERC to take into account a licensee's investments made over the course of their license in order to improve the efficiency or environmental performance of their hydropower facility when setting the term of their new license.

Mr. Chairman, in testimony before the Energy and Commerce Committee, we heard, repeatedly, that a major cause for licensing delays was due to incomplete applications that do not include all the pertinent information necessary to issue a decision.

While H.R. 3043 does nothing to address this issue, my substitute does so by directing FERC and other Federal resource agencies to convene a negotiating rulemaking with all the stakeholders to develop a process in which a completed license application will be evaluated and issued or denied within a period of not more than 3 years.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment preserves States' and Tribal authorities by directing FERC and the Secretary of the Interior to issue guidance on best practices for engagement with Indian Tribes in the hydropower licensing process.

Mr. Chairman, we cannot allow industry profits to supersede the interests of Native Tribes, States, and other important stakeholders.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include in the Record extraneous material on H.R. 3043.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3043, the Hydropower

Policy Modernization Act of 2017. This legislation, introduced by my friend and colleague from the Energy and Commerce Committee, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, is an important step toward modernizing our energy infrastructure, creating jobs, and, yes, strengthening our economy. I want to thank her for her commitment to this issue.

The committee went through regular order with the bill. We held two hearings on background issues, one legislative hearing, and both subcommittee and full committee markups, where the bill was agreed to by a voice vote. Following the markups, bipartisan committee staff held more meetings to hear from over a dozen Tribal governments to gather additional views.

I think that the resulting bill strikes a careful balance. Changes were made to increase State and Tribal consultation requirements, and a very strong savings clause was added to protect States' authorities under the Clean Water Act.

Hydropower is an essential component of an all-of-the-above energy strategy for this country. Hydropower is clean; it is renewable and affordable base load power. It is good for consumers' electricity bills, and it is also good for jobs, which is why labor is strongly supportive of this legislation.

There is a tremendous opportunity to expand hydropower production on existing nonpowered dams. Less than 3 percent of the dams in the U.S., approximately 2,200 dams, produce electricity. There are also opportunities to improve the process for the projects that are due for relicensing. By 2030, over 400 existing projects, with almost 19,000 megawatts of capacity, will begin the relicensing process, and these projects, in fact, may be at risk.

Fixing the licensing process would also improve safety. Upgrading the performance of existing dams and utilizing existing nonpowered dams, canals, and conduits would enable investments, which would address aging dams and, yes, improve overall safety.

The duration, complexity, and uncertainty of the hydropower licensing process creates significant challenges that prevent investments that would create jobs and benefit consumers. The licensing process for a new hydropower development project can last over a decade and costs tens of millions of dollars--significantly longer than the time that it takes to construct a natural gas-fired power plant of the same size.

This legislation, H.R. 3043, would level the playing field by modernizing the permitting process without compromising environmental protections. The bill improves administrative efficiency, accountability, and transparency. It requires balanced, timely decisionmaking and reduces duplicative oversight from the multiple Federal agencies that review hydropower applications.

This bill brings certainty and timeliness to the licensing process by enhancing consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies and Indian Tribes, and it requires FERC to establish a process for setting the schedule for review. H.R. 3043 streamlines and improves procedures to identify scheduling issues, propose licensing conditions, and resolve disputes.

This bill also contains provisions to expedite the approval process for an amendment to a license for a qualifying hydro project upgrade. Without the hydropower licensing improvements in this bill--without them--we risk losing investment opportunities in new hydropower infrastructure which would benefit consumers with affordable electricity and expand the use of clean, renewable energy.

Again, I thank my colleagues for their work, and the great staff, on this important piece of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and

Government Reform,

Washington, DC, October 31, 2017.

Hon. Greg Walden,

Chairman, Committee on Energy & Commerce, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I write concerning H.R. 3043, the

``Hydropower Policy Modernization Act of 2017.'' This bill

contains provisions within the jurisdiction of the Committee

on Oversight and Government Reform. As a result of your

having consulted with me concerning the provisions of the

bill that fall within our Rule X jurisdiction, I agree to

forgo consideration of the bill so the bill may proceed

expeditiously to the House floor.

The Committee takes this action with our mutual

understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 3043 at

this time we do not waive any jurisdiction over the subject

matter contained in this or similar legislation, and we will

be appropriately consulted and involved as the bill or

similar legislation moves forward so that we may address any

remaining issues that fall within our Rule X jurisdiction.

Further, I request your support for the appointment of

conferees from the Committee on Oversight and Government

Reform during any House-Senate conference convened on this or

related legislation.

Finally, I would appreciate your response to this letter

confirming this understanding and ask that a copy of our

exchange of letters on this matter be included in the

Congressional Record during floor consideration thereof.

Sincerely,

Trey Gowdy.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Washington State (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers), the author of this legislation.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chair, can I inquire as to how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), who is the chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), who is a member of the Natural Resources and Armed Services Committees, to speak in support of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham).

Mr. Chair, I yield the gentleman from California an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Gianforte).

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I don't intend to use all the time that is remaining. I just want to make a couple of points to my colleagues as we close debate on the general debate on this bill.

This isn't a new bill. A lot of us in this body on both sides support an all-of-the-above strategy. It includes safe nuclear. It includes clean coal. It supports energy efficiencies, renewables, wind, solar, and hydro.

This bill, H.R. 3043, is not a new bill. In fact, the provisions, almost to a tee, in both the House and the Senate version last year in a bill that ultimately didn't get conferenced to President Obama, we didn't really have any disagreements on the hydro section. We came to an agreement and the House passed the bill as it relates to the hydro bill. And the Senate bill passed, as I recall it, 92-8, pretty overwhelming, pretty bipartisan. In essence, the same provisions that we have here.

I got to say that, throughout the process, we listened to the concern raised by some of the stakeholders, including States and Tribes. We made a number of significant changes to the version of the bill as compared to the version again last year that added more strength, more hurdles to go through.

The biggest change, frankly, that we made was taking the hammer away from FERC to compel agencies to stick to a deadline. Consequently, no permits are going to be granted by default because of a missed deadline. But we also inserted new State and Tribal consultation requirements with a very strong savings clause that clarifies that nothing shall affect the Clean Water Act and other environmental laws. That wasn't in the bill last year. That is new this year.

So I think that we have accommodated the concerns, particularly when many of the Members that are here in this Congress that were there last Congress actually voted for the provisions we had, certainly in committee as well as on the Senate floor.

Again, I just want to read into the Record page 17, line 23: ``No Effect on Other Laws. Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect any requirement of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, section 14 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (commonly known as the Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of 1899), and those provisions of subtitle III of title 54, United States Code, commonly known as the National Historic Preservation Act, with respect to an application for a license under this part.''

This bill is stronger than the one that most of us supported last year, particularly as it pertains to hydroelectric licensing by FERC.

So I commend the action of Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, who, again, carried the water on this in this Congress. I would like to think that we will have a positive vote with Republicans and Democrats supporting the bill. We are prepared to now discuss and debate the amendments.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chair, I just want to say that this is a very good amendment. It is bipartisan. It is critical that--I know our Great Lakes Caucus, on a bipartisan basis, in both bodies, the House and Senate, have taken strong actions against the Asian carp.

This is a good amendment. We are certainly prepared to accept it, and I commend you for taking the time on the floor.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And, yes, I do have, now, extended family in Texas.

Mr. Chairman, this is another tool in the toolbox for FERC. We want to make sure that areas are protected that have survived, somehow, these terrible hurricanes.

Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to support this good amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from West Virginia for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that allows for a study of the potential to expand non-Federal hydropower projects in Federal dams. It is a good amendment. I support it, and I urge my colleagues to support it on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I do so with some hesitancy against my good friend, but I would say that this amendment would strike and replace the base tax with language that would add additional layers of red tape and bureaucracy already to the permitting process.

The bill itself, H.R. 3043, contains essential permitting and licensing reforms to ensure that renewable hydropower remains an important part of our all-of-the-above approach to energy, something that many of us on both sides of the aisle support.

We know that the permitting process has been broken. We have heard from FERC over the years and project developers who have been stuck for more than a decade because of bureaucratic delays.

We also know that we need to improve coordination. There are lots of moving parts with multiple permits required and sometimes dozens of agencies that are involved, but this bill, H.R. 3043, brings transparency and predictability to the process by empowering the State and Federal agencies to actually sit at the table with FERC to identify issues of concern and resolve them before they result in unnecessary delay.

The bill, H.R. 3043, as we have said a number of times over the last hour, ensures that States and Tribes are an integral part of that process. The word ``consult'' appears no less than a dozen times in the 30 pages.

Without these important changes to the law, States and Tribes may continue to be left out of the important decisions relating to hydropower licensing.

Again, I remind my colleagues that this is a new provision that we added. This wasn't in the bill last year as we debated this title and approved it in committee and saw it move again on the Senate floor with a vote that, as I recall, was 92-8.

The bill, H.R. 3043, strikes a careful balance, which is why it has broad support from the American Council on Renewable Energy, the American Public Power Association, the Business Council for Sustainable Energy, Edison Electric Institute, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, International

Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Large Public Power Council, Laborers' International Union of North America, National Electrical Contractors Association, the National Hydropower Association, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the North American Building Trades Council, and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment, we view over here on this side as a poison pill. It would kill jobs and discourage the development of clean, affordable, and reliable hydropower.

Mr. Chair, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment and vote ``yes'' on the bill.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, I want to draw attention, first of all, to page 17, line 23, of the bill because we have heard from those who oppose it that somehow this could adversely undermine the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, et cetera.

Line 23 makes it very clear, ``No effect on other laws. Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect any requirement of'' these underlying and very important laws that protect our environment.

So I just want to make sure that is in the Record. This is the current text of the bill we are voting on today.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3043, the Hydropower Policy Modernization Act.

Hydropower plays an enormously important role in electricity generation across the country, and especially in my home State of Oregon. Hydropower generates 43 percent of electricity in my State. It is dependable base load, it is carbon-free, it is renewable, and it is very important to our region.

Nationally, hydropower is one of the largest sources of renewable electricity generation. A recent Department of Energy report said that U.S. hydropower could grow by almost 50 percent by the year 2050.

Thankfully, my good friend from Washington, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, introduced this legislation because, as these entities go to relicense, sometimes it costs tens of millions of dollars just to get a renewal of a government permit to continue to do what you have been doing, and it can take 7 to 10 years to work through the process. By the way, all those costs generally--guess who pays for them? The ratepayers. People paying their electricity bill end up paying for all this incredible, out-of-control review and regulation.

As the committee worked on this legislation under the able hand of the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy, Mr. Upton, we solicited feedback from all stakeholders as we crafted this. We made a number of changes to address the concerns. We had hearings, and we had lots of other individual discussions and roundtables. We added new provisions to ensure that States and Tribes are consulted early in the licensing process to identify and resolve issues of concern.

We also made sure that State and local governments could recoup the cost of reviewing applications and conducting studies. We even added a strong savings clause that clarifies our intent that nothing in the bill shall be construed to effect any requirement of the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and other environment laws.

As a result, we find ourselves here today with bipartisan support for this legislation and the support of the American Council on Renewable Energy, the American Public Power Association, the Business Council for Sustainable Energy, Edison Electric Institute, the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers and Electrical Workers, the International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, the Large Public Power Council, Laborers' International Union of North America, the National Electrical Contractors Association, the National Hydropower Association, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, North America Building Trades Council, and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America--those most intricately involved in making sure we have reliable and clean base load hydropower.

Support this modernization legislation. Mr. Chairman, it is bipartisan, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 3043, the Hydropower Policy Modernization Act, sponsored by fellow Energy and Commerce committee member and our Conference Chair, Cathy McMorris Rodgers.

Hydropower plays an integral role in generating electricity across the nation, especially back in my home state of Oregon. Hydropower generates nearly 43 percent of electricity in Oregon and this dependable baseload power has helped drive the development of everything from value-added agriculture processing to data centers, creating jobs along the Columbia River and throughout Oregon.

Nationally, hydropower is the largest source of renewable electricity generation and a recent Department of Energy report found that

U.S. hydropower could grow by almost 50 percent by the year 2050. However, as my colleagues from the Pacific Northwest and across the country know, we are not taking full advantage of this valuable resource. Unfortunately, the duration, complexity, and uncertainty of the licensing process has raised significant challenges, preventing investments that would create jobs and benefit consumers.

Thankfully, my good friend from Washington introduced this legislation to alleviate these problems and streamline the federal hydropower licensing process. The bill before us today didn't just emerge from thin air. It is the culmination of five committee hearings and markups, along with several bipartisan staff meetings with the hydropower industry and tribes that have a stake in the licensing proceedings.

We solicited feedback from all stakeholders as we crafted this legislation and made a number of changes to address the concerns raised. We added new provisions to ensure that states and tribes are consulted early in the licensing process to identify and resolve issues of concern. We also made sure that state and local governments could recoup the costs of reviewing applications and conducting studies. We even added a strong savings clause that clarifies our intent that nothing in this bill shall be construed to affect any requirement of the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and other environmental laws.

In recognition of the regular order committee process, H.R. 3043 sailed out of committee unanimously by voice vote. The supporters of this bill, especially labor and industry organizations, recognize the vital role it will play in supporting job growth, local economic development, and providing much-needed reforms to the licensing process.

H.R. 3043 seeks to modernize the permitting process by improving administrative efficiency, accountability, and transparency; requiring timely decision making; and by designating Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as the lead agency is approving permits. You may be asking yourself, `why is this process in need of reform?' The answer is simple. As my colleague from Washington likes to point out, it can take up to 10 years or longer to license a new hydropower project of relicense an existing facility. Further underscoring the need for this legislation is the fact that by 2030, over 400 existing projects with over 18,700 megawatts of capacity will begin the relicensing process.

Mr. Chair, this emissions-free energy resource should not be bogged down in bureaucratic red tape any longer. It's past time we modernize this grossly outdated licensing process, so we can get projects to market faster and streamline those projects in need of relicensing. At the end of the day, this important legislation promotes hydropower development, creates jobs, and provides consumers across the country with continued access to clean, affordable, and reliable baseload power generation.

I include in the Record the Supporters of H.R. 3043:

The American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE); (American

Public Power Association (APPA); Business Council for

Sustainable Energy (BCSE); Edison Electric Institute (EEI),

International Brotherhood of Boilermakers (Boilermakers);

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW);

International Federation of Professional and Technical

Engineers (IFPTE); Large Public Power Council (LPPC);

Laborers' International Union of North America (LiUNA);

National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA); National

Hydropower Association (NHA); National Rural Electric

Cooperative Association (NRECA); North America Building

Trades Council (NABTU); United Brotherhood of Carpenters and

Joiners of America (Carpenters).

Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. Rush, our ranking member of the subcommittee, for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3043.

I support hydropower. It can deliver low-carbon, affordable power if it is well-sited and managed. But these facilities, which are licensed for 30 to 50 years, can do enormous harm to fisheries, agriculture, and recreational cultural resources if not properly overseen. The hydropower licensing process can be more efficient, but electric utilities should not be permitted to operate without license conditions that ensure other public interests are met.

As I look at H.R. 3043 and weigh it against the list of stakeholders with interests in the rivers and watersheds

that provide hydroelectric facilities their fuel, I see a bill that is unbalanced, regressive, and dangerous; that will harm farmers, fishermen, boaters, Tribes, and drinking water.

H.R. 3043 will allow private hydropower companies to use public water resources to generate power and profit, but without mitigating the negative impacts of their facilities on others who rely on our rivers, and without complying with modern environmental laws.

H.R. 3043, is a direct assault on States' rights, Tribal rights, and it undercuts major environmental laws, including the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Endangered Species Act. It prioritizes the use of rivers for power generation above the needs of all other water uses, and it inserts the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission into decisions that it has no authority, experience, or expertise to make.

So what this bill will not do is speed up the licensing process. FERC testified before our committee that one of the causes of delay in the licensing process was the failure of the applicant to provide a complete application, yet this bill does nothing to ensure that an applicant provides one. It makes no sense to impose a deadline if there is no clearly defined starting point in the form of a completed application.

How can a State make a decision on a water quality certificate if the applicant hasn't submitted the information that State needs to make that decision?

While FERC requires applicants to submit a complete application on the matters over which it has direct responsibility, the Commission has many times denied a similar opportunity to State and Federal agencies with regard to matters where they have primacy. In fact, FERC has a history of merely consulting with other stakeholders while dismissing their concerns and failing to incorporate minimal resource protections into hydropower licenses.

As an example, FERC recently failed to impose a number of conditions the State of West Virginia included in its water quality certificate for a project on the Monongahela River. FERC did this in spite of the fact that West Virginia acted in a timely manner. West Virginia acted in accordance with its law and delegated responsibility under the Clean Water Act.

Yesterday, I sent a letter with several of my colleagues to FERC expressing concern over the process it used on this project.

This bill virtually ensures that type of situation will be repeated. Now, a project that is noncontroversial, supported by the State, is likely to be stalled by hearings and other possible litigation that could have been avoided.

Mr. Chair, the truth is that H.R. 3043 treats Federal agencies, State governments, and Indian Tribes as second class citizens in this process. FERC is required to consult with them, but consultation does not ensure they will get FERC's support to fulfill their missions.

In this bill, all of the discipline is applied to government agencies, but none to the applicant. This is especially true in the case of license renewals. Any license that wants to avoid new investments or operating conditions can certainly do so because FERC will grant them automatic annual license renewal for as many years as they need.

Another reason why this bill will not expedite hydroelectric licenses is because, rather than streamlining the process, H.R. 3043 greatly expands litigation opportunities, something that will increase the expense and time required to award a license. It does this by providing for a biased, costly trial-type hearing process to secure decisions in the utility's favor.

Current law allows a single opportunity to challenge an agency condition to avoid undue expense and delay in the licensing process. H.R. 3043 expands the opportunities to challenge agency decisions, allows multiple challenges, and moves the venue for these hearings.

Not even FERC thinks that this is a good idea. In fact, at our hearing on this bill, the Deputy Associate General Counsel of FERC advised the committee to either retain the existing trial-type hearing process or eliminate it altogether.

Well, that advice obviously fell on deaf ears because the bill puts the trial-type hearing process on steroids. In essence, the private hydro companies pick the venue, set the rules, and secure additional points in the license process to challenge conditions that Federal resource agencies or FERC seeks to impose on a license to protect public interests. FERC warned that this change would increase the expense, complexity, and the length of licensing process--hardly the traits you would associate with streamlining.

Ultimately, the bill is a bad bill because it is bad for Native Americans; it is bad for the environment; it is bad for recreation; it is bad for farmers and agriculture; and H.R. 3043 is bad for States, that will now find it much harder to protect water quality and manage the waters within their boundaries.

Maybe that is why the bill is opposed by States, Tribes, the outdoor recreation industry, and more than 150 national and local environmental organizations.

Opponents of the bill include the Western Governors' Association, the Southern States Energy Board, the National Congress of American Indians, the Environmental Council of the States, the Outdoor Alliance, the National Wildlife Federation, the American Rivers, Trout Unlimited, and the League of Conservation Voters, among many others.

Perhaps the ultimate condemnation comes from FERC, which, in testimony before our committee, disputed claims that the bill would streamline the licensing process, noting that the legislation ``could increase the complexity and length of the licensing process.''

Hydropower facilities are using our most precious resource: water.

I don't think it is too much to ask that facilities awarded long-term licenses and free fuel share the rivers with others.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.

Mr. Chairman, hydropower is an essential component of an all-of-the-above energy strategy.

We have a tremendous opportunity to expand renewable hydropower production. However, without some much-needed licensing improvements, we risk losing investment opportunities in new hydropower infrastructure. In particular, closed-loop pumped storage hydro projects offer the opportunity to store energy for use when it is needed.

I have introduced separate legislation, H.R. 2880, with the goal of making the review process of these projects as efficient as possible. Both H.R. 3043 and H.R. 2880 will allow the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to impose licensing conditions only as necessary to protect public safety, or that are reasonable, economically feasible, and essential to protect fish and wildlife resources.

I am excited about the possibility some are exploring to build these facilities in abandoned mine lands. This renewable energy solution for power could be a real benefit to our coal field regions in central Appalachia in the form of jobs, economic development, and energy security. I am proud of what we are doing here in an effort to make this happen.

Industry and labor groups alike support H.R. 3043 because a modern regulatory framework for hydro is good for jobs and good for consumers. The following groups have written in support of the bill:

The American Council on Renewable Energy, the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, and many others.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record the letter containing the names of supporters.

November 6, 2017.

The undersigned groups are writing to express strong

support for H.R. 3043, the Hydropower Policy Modernization

Act of 2017, and to request your vote as it is considered on

the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives this week.

Hydropower is America's single largest provider of

renewable electricity, making up almost one-half of all

generation from renewable resources. Given that hydropower is

an important source of domestic, emissions-free, flexible

power needed to ensure consistent and reliable electric

service, we must

look to preserve and protect our existing hydropower system

and promote new expansion opportunities.

H.R. 3043 provides a framework that adds accountability and

transparency, eliminates inefficiencies and redundancies, and

unlocks innovation and advancements in technology and

operations, while protecting environmental values, public

participation, and all existing authorities of federal and

state decision-makers in the licensing process

The current regulatory environment is placing hydropower at

risk. The licensing process can result in both new and

existing projects taking up to ten years or longer to receive

their approvals. This not only creates uncertainty for

project owners and developers alike, but burdens electricity

customers with additional unnecessary costs and only delays

important environmental measures that the industry, resource

agencies, and the environmental community agreed upon during

the licensing process and want to see deployed.

Additionally, the fleet of almost 2,200 hydropower projects

across the country supports approximately 118,000 ongoing

full-time equivalent jobs in operations and maintenance and

25,000 jobs in construction and upgrades. By maintaining our

existing fleet and supporting growth in the sector, the

hydropower industry could support close to 200,000 jobs.

Further local economic development in other industries is

also spurred due to access to affordable electricity from

hydropower projects. However, we will not realize the full

measure of these jobs and economic opportunities without

improvements to the licensing process.

We believe H.R. 3043 is a moderate proposal developed with

bipartisan input and, as such, deserves strong support by

both Republicans and Democrats. Please contact any of our

organizations for additional information or assistance on

this bill.

Sincerely,

The American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE),

American Public Power Association (APPA), Business

Council for Sustainable Energy (BCSE), Edison Electric

Institute (EEI), International Brotherhood of

Boilermakers (Boilermakers), International Brotherhood

of Electrical Workers (IBEW), International Federation

of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE), Large

Public Power Council (LPPC), Laborers' International

Union of North America (LiUNA), National Electrical

Contractors Association (NECA), National Hydropower

Association (NHA), National Rural Electric Cooperative

Association (NRECA), North America Building Trades

Council (NABTU), United Brotherhood of Carpenters and

Joiners of America (Carpenters).