U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

43-121 PDF 2008

HYDROPOWER: PROVIDING 75% OF 

AMERICA’S CURRENT RENEWABLE 

ENERGY. EXPLORING ITS ROLE AS 

A CONTINUED SOURCE OF CLEAN, 

RENEWABLE ENERGY FOR THE 

FUTURE. 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

Thursday, June 12, 2008 

Serial No. 110-76 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

or 

Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Ranking Republican Member 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Grace F. Napolitano, California 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

Jim Costa, California 

Dan Boren, Oklahoma 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

George Miller, California 

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts 

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon 

Maurice D. Hinchey, New York 

Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Lois Capps, California 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Mark Udall, Colorado 

Joe Baca, California 

Hilda L. Solis, California 

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South Dakota 

Heath Shuler, North Carolina 

Jim Saxton, New Jersey 

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland 

Chris Cannon, Utah 

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico 

Henry E. Brown, Jr., South Carolina 

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Louie Gohmert, Texas 

Tom Cole, Oklahoma 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania 

Bill Sali, Idaho 

Doug Lamborn, Colorado 

Mary Fallin, Oklahoma 

Adrian Smith, Nebraska 

Robert J. Wittman, Virginia 

Steve Scalise, Louisiana 

James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff 

Rick Healy, Chief Counsel 

Christopher N. Fluhr, Republican Staff Director 

Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California, Chairwoman 

CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington, Ranking Republican Member 

Jim Costa, California 

George Miller, California 

Mark Udall, Colorado 

Joe Baca, California 

Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia, ex officio 

Vacancy 

Ken Calvert, California 

Doug Lamborn, Colorado 

Mary Fallin, Oklahoma 

Adrian Smith, Nebraska 

Don Young, Alaska, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Thursday, June 12, 2008 ............................................................ 1 

Statement of Members: 

Baca, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 5 

Costa, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 9 

Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Washington .................................................................................................... 7 

Herger, Hon. Wally, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 8 

Lamborn, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Colorado, Prepared statement of ................................................................. 59 

McMorris Rodgers, Hon. Cathy, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Washington ..................................................................................... 2 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Napolitano, Hon. Grace F., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4 

Sali, Hon. Bill, a Representative in Congress from the State of Idaho ....... 6 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 6 

Smith, Adrian, a Representative in Congress from the State of Nebraska . 5 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Corwin, R. Scott, Executive Director, Public Power Council, Portland, 

Oregon ............................................................................................................ 38 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 39 

Culbertson, Tim, General Manager, Grant County Public Utility District, 

Ephrata, Washington .................................................................................... 51 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 53 

Eden, Melinda, Oregon Council Member, Northwest Power and 

Conservation Council, Milton-Freewater, Oregon ...................................... 20 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 22 

English, Hon. Glenn, Chief Executive Officer, National Rural Electric 

Cooperative Association, Arlington, Virginia .............................................. 26 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 27 

Gruenspecht, Dr. Howard, Deputy Administrator, Energy Information 

Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. .............. 17 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 18 

Howard, Bruce, Director, Environmental Affairs, Avista Corporation, 

Spokane, Washington ................................................................................... 47 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 49 

Johnson, Robert W., Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. ........................................... 13 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 14 

Morton, Hon. Bob, Senator, State of Washington, Kettle Falls, 

Washington .................................................................................................... 10 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 12 

Roos-Collins, Richard, Director of Legal Services, Natural Heritage 

Institute, San Francisco, California ............................................................ 43 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 45 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ‘‘HYDROPOWER: 

PROVIDING 75% OF AMERICA’S CURRENT 

RENEWABLE ENERGY. EXPLORING ITS 

ROLE AS A CONTINUED SOURCE OF CLEAN, 

RENEWABLE ENERGY FOR THE FUTURE.’’ 

Thursday, June 12, 2008 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Water and Power 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:51 p.m., in Room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Grace Napolitano 

[Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Napolitano, Costa, Baca, McMorris 

Rodgers, and Smith. 

Also Present: Representatives Sali, Hastings, Herger, and 

Shadegg. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Good afternoon, and welcome to the meeting 

of the Subcommittee on Water and Power, which will now come to 

order. 

The purpose of today’s meeting is to hold an oversight hearing 

at the request of Ranking Member Cathy McMorris Rodgers on 

‘‘Hydropower: Providing 75 Percent of America’s Current Renewable Energy. Exploring its Role as a Continued Source of Clean, 

Renewable Energy for the Future.’’ 

Welcome to all Congress Members and my friend and colleague, 

the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Cathy McMorris 

Rodgers, and to our guests. 

And we are expecting some of our colleagues to join us, Congressman Bill Sali of Kuna, Idaho; and Congressman Doc Hastings of 

Pasco, Washington. 

Welcome, Doc and Mr. Sali. 

Congressman Wally Herger of Chico and Congressman John 

Shadegg of Arizona may also be joining us. And welcome. 

And I will turn it over to my colleague for her to continue the 

hearing. 

2 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

WASHINGTON 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. I ask unanimous consent that Congressman Sali, Congressman Hastings, Congressman Herger and 

Congressman Shadegg be allowed to sit on the dais and participate 

in the Subcommittee proceedings today. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

After my opening statement, I will recognize all the members of 

the Subcommittee for any statement they may have. Any member 

who desires to be heard will be heard. 

Additional material may be submitted for the record by members, by witnesses or by any interested party. The record will be 

kept open for 10 business days following the hearing. 

The 5-minute rule with our timer will be enforced. Green means 

go. Yellow is just like the stop light; it means hurry up and end. 

Red means stop. 

I sincerely want to thank the Chairwoman of this Subcommittee, 

Grace Napolitano, for the opportunity to hold this hearing. It is 

quite unusual for a Chairwoman to recognize the request of a 

Ranking Member. And I like this, and I want to just applaud your 

willingness to listen and learn from some differing perspectives. 

As you know, I requested this hearing because, as Congress examines the facts surrounding global warming, I believe we owe it 

to the American people to be honest and realistic about how we are 

going to meet our energy needs. Today’s hearing is the first step 

toward giving the American people and those inside the Beltway 

much-needed information about hydropower, which, in many ways, 

is an environmental success story. 

Hydroelectric dams across the West and especially in Washington State provide us with clean, affordable and renewable energy. In fact, dams provide nearly two-thirds of Washington State’s 

electricity at a time when more than 50 percent of the country is 

dependent upon coal. According to the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, these dams have kept the Pacific Northwest carbon footprint at half that of the rest of the Nation. 

I and many of my colleagues here today are here to showcase the 

low-cost energy promises that FDR, JFK and LBJ made to the 

West. The river systems throughout the Pacific Northwest are a 

critical part of our region’s economy and should be used for transportation, irrigation and recreation. These dams built our economy 

and continue to contribute to our way of life. 

According to NOAA Fisheries, salmon survival in the Columbia/ 

Snake River is higher today than before the dams were built. It is 

estimated that 98 percent of adult fish and 90 percent of juvenile 

fish navigate the dams successfully. 

Despite the success, there continues to be some that wage war 

on the dams, namely the removal of the four lower Snake River 

dams, which happen to be in my district and Doc’s. We heard about 

this at a recent Fisheries Subcommittee hearing from our Seattle 

colleague, Jim McDermott. 

Yet what was missing from that debate was the fact that the removal of the Snake River dams would add 5.4 million tons of CO2 

to the atmosphere each year, and it would take three nuclear, six 

3 

coal-fired, or 14 gas-fired power plants to replace their electricity 

generation. These dams also serve as the base resource for integrating wind energy into the Northwest grid. 

At a time of growing energy demand, it makes no sense to throw 

this clean energy source away. I am committed, as we move forward with the debate on global climate change, that hydropower be 

recognized for the important role it plays in our markets. If the 

Chicago Climate Exchange can accept hydro from Chelan County 

PUD as a carbon offset, Congress should be able to do the same. 

I hope today’s discussion is the start to a better understanding 

of the value hydropower has, and look forward to forming a bipartisan congressional caucus to protect and promote hydropower. 

We are privileged to have before us today some of the best and 

brightest energy experts. I welcome our distinguished witnesses. 

And thank you, once again, Madam Chairwoman, for having this 

hearing. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. McMorris Rodgers follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Cathy McMorris Rodgers 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water and Power 

I sincerely thank you for extending this opportunity for holding this much-needed 

hearing, Madam Chairwoman. It’s a real pleasure to work with you on this and 

other important matters. 

As you know, I requested this hearing because as Congress examines the facts 

surrounding global warming we owe it to the American people to be honest and realistic about how we are going to meet our energy needs. Today’s hearing is our first 

step towards giving the American people and those inside-the Beltway much-needed 

information about hydropower, which in many ways is an environmental success 

story. 

Hydroelectric dams across the West and especially in Washington state provide 

us with clean, affordable, and renewable energy. In fact, dams provide nearly twothirds of Washington state’s electricity, at a time when more than 50% of the country is dependent upon coal. According to the Northwest Power and Conservation 

Council, these dams have kept the Pacific Northwest’s ‘‘carbon footprint’’ at half 

that of the rest of the Nation. 

According to The Wenatchee World, carbon-free hydropower is the ‘‘power source 

that much of the regional environmental community consistently maligns, or attacks 

by devious, litigious means.’’ The editorial goes on to say that ‘‘we should learn to 

appreciate the fact that our regional impact on the atmosphere, and potentially on 

climate change, is significantly reduced because our economy is powered by falling 

water.’’ I couldn’t agree more. 

I—and many of my colleagues here today—are here to showcase the low-cost 

energy promises that FDR, JFK and LBJ made to the West. The river systems 

throughout the Pacific Northwest are a critical part of our region’s economy and 

should be used for transportation, irrigation and recreation. These dams built our 

economy and continue to contribute to our way of life. 

According to NOAA Fisheries, salmon survival in the Columbia and Snake rivers 

is higher today than it was before the dams were built. It’s estimated that 98% of 

adult fish and 90% of juvenile fish navigate the dams successfully. 

Despite this success, there are still some that continue to wage war on dams, 

namely the removal of four lower Snake River dams. We heard about this at a recent Fisheries Subcommittee hearing from our Seattle colleague, Jim McDermott. 

Yet, what was missing from that debate was the fact that removal of the Snake 

River dams would add 5.4 million tons of C02 to the atmosphere each year and it 

would take three nuclear, six coal-fired, or 14 gas fired power plants to replace their 

electricity generation. The dams also serve as the base resource for integrating wind 

energy into the Northwest grid. 

At a time of growing energy demand, it makes no sense to throw this clean energy 

source away. I am committed, as we move forward with the debate on global climate 

change, that hydropower be recognized for the important role it plays in our markets. If the Chicago Climate Exchange can accept hydro from Chelan County PUD 

as a carbon offset, Congress should be able to do the same. 

4 

I hope today’s discussion is the start to better understanding the value of hydropower here in Congress and look forward to forming a bi-partisan Congressional 

Caucus to protect and promote hydropower. 

We are privileged to have before us today some of the best and brightest energy 

experts before us today. I welcome our distinguished witnesses and thank you once 

again, Madame Chairwoman, for having this hearing. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. GRACE NAPOLITANO, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. You are very welcome, Mrs. McMorris 

Rodgers. 

And I, too, have a great interest in hydropower. I am glad that 

my colleague had asked that we look at it. 

We need to look at every single source of assistance to developing 

hydropower and how well some of the grids are doing and how we 

can connect newly developed power and how can we begin to look 

at how everybody is deeming whether hydropower is taxable or 

nontaxable—all the little intricacies that everybody is now facing— 

how do we help be able to make it more feasible to add to that, 

to serve the growing constituency of ours throughout the United 

States. It isn’t just in Cathy’s area or in mine, but throughout 

many areas of our country. 

It is a very important issue, and I am glad that she raised it. I 

am happy to join forces to have a look-see and get more input, information so that possible legislation that will help address what 

is being faced currently and being able to ask the bureau and possibly the Army Corps to be partners along with us in addressing 

these issues. 

And, with that, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Napolitano follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Grace F. Napolitano, Chairwoman, 

Subcommittee on Water and Power 

Good morning. This meeting of the Subcommittee on Water and Power will come 

to order. 

The purpose of today’s meeting is to hold an Oversight Hearing on ‘‘Hydropower: 

Providing 75% of America’s Current Renewable Energy. Exploring its role as a continued source of Clean, Renewable Energy for the Future.’’ 

We welcome all Congress Members, especially my friend and colleague Ranking 

Member of this Subcommittee, Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers. Welcome 

to guests to the Subcommittee today, we are expecting our colleagues Congressman 

Bill Sali of Kuna, ID, Congressman Doc Hastings of Pasco, WA, and Congressman 

Wally Herger of Chico, CA. Congressman John Shadegg of Arizona also might be 

able to join us. Welcome. 

After my opening statement, I will recognize all other Members of the Subcommittee for any statement they may have. Any Member who desires to be heard 

will be heard. Additional material may be submitted for the record by Members, by 

witnesses, or by any interested party. The record will be kept open for 10 business 

days following the hearing. The five-minute rule with our timer will be enforced, 

green means go, yellow near end, and red means stop. 

Today’s hearing is at the request of Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers. This is 

a very important issue to her and her constituents. I am eager to learn more about 

the connection between water availability and hydropower capacity. 

We look forward to hearing from all witnesses. Thank you all for being here 

today. I am pleased to now yield to my friend and colleague, Ranking Member Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers, for her statement. 

5 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. We will start by recognizing Subcommittee members, and I will ask everyone to keep their statements as short as possible. They can be submitted for the record. 

Mr. Smith from Nebraska? 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ADRIAN SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Well, just very briefly, I would like to point out that this hearing 

is very important. And certainly I am energized to—no pun intended—hear more about the potential for hydropower. I know that 

in Nebraska we have some smaller projects, but they are vital in 

their functioning, and certainly it is relevant to our issues today. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Adrian Smith, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Nebraska 

Good afternoon and thank you, Chairwoman, for agreeing to hold this hearing 

today entitled, ‘‘Hydropower: Providing 75% of America’s Current Renewable Energy. Exploring its role as a continued source of Clean, Renewable Energy for the 

Future.’’ 

I long have been an advocate of energy policy designed to boost domestic supplies 

of all sources of energy in an environmentally-safe, affordable, and reliable way. 

While energy is a topic on everyone’s mind, I want to be sure hydropower is included and promoted as an energy source. 

My home state of Nebraska has benefited from clean, inexpensive, renewable hydropower, and we have the potential to produce more. Demand for electricity continues to grow, giving all sources of energy, including hydropower, an increasingly 

important role for the future. 

As we encourage more renewable energy production, hydropower offers a viable 

option for consumers. Not only is hydropower emissions-free, but it also serves as 

a more consistent means of regulating the flow of electricity for the power grid. 

Furthermore, hydropower projects in my district also serve irrigation, flood control, and recreation activities. Agriculture is at the center of Nebraska’s economy 

and many of my constituents rely on irrigating farmland. In addition, hydropower’s 

reservoir system provides optimal habitat for many species of fish and wildlife. Because of our multi-purpose dams and reservoirs, more fishing, hunting, boating and 

other recreational opportunities are available for all Nebraskans to enjoy. 

I appreciate the Subcommittee for holding this hearing on the importance of hydropower. As a Nebraskan and a member of this Subcommittee, I want to ensure 

our energy policy is properly prioritized. I look forward to learning more from all 

of our witnesses. 

Chairwoman, I look forward to working with you on increasing the use of clean, 

renewable, affordable hydropower. 

Thank you. 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. Thank you. 

Mr. Baca? 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOE BACA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. BACA. Well, thank you very much. 

First of all, I want to thank the Chair, Grace Napolitano, and 

you, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, for holding this hearing. 

When we look not only at hydropower, but when you look at 

water and power and what it means to our country right now, it 

is an area that we need to address because not only how it impacts 

us now, but how our country will be faced in terms of the future. 

6 

So I am glad that we are going to be addressing a lot of these 

issues as we begin to look at how our cities will operate within 

each of our areas and how we can turn around and use not only 

water and power to meet our energy needs. 

So, with that, thank you very much for having this hearing. 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. Thank you. 

Mr. Sali? 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. BILL SALI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO 

Mr. SALI. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

A couple of things. 

First of all, Idaho ranks number nine in the Nation for installed 

hydropower generation capacity, but it is first in net generation capacity. Eighty-four percent of the net generation in Idaho is provided by hydropower. 

There are great benefits, including cost, at 4.92 cents per kilowatt hour compared to the national average of 8.9 cents per kilowatt hour. Everybody knows hydropower is clean, it is renewable, 

it is reliable, it is pollution-free. 

Today the Brookings Institute has released an economic vitality 

report, and it ranks Boise, Idaho, better overall than any other 

metro area in the United States. The study was based on three key 

measures of economic vitality, which are productivity, social inclusion and environmental sustainability. The study found that the 

Boise-Nampa metro area ranked fifth nationally for the lowest per 

capita carbon footprint in the Nation. And it was reported that, in 

general, Western states fared better in the rankings—and I am 

quoting from the study—‘‘primarily because the region relies on 

clean hydropower for most of its electricity.’’ 

The conclusion of this study is that other metro areas in the 

United States ought to try and emulate places like Boise, Idaho, 

and our reliance on hydropower and the electricity that comes from 

it, which keeps our carbon footprint very low. 

You know, we will have a lot of discussion today about the millions of tons of carbon emissions that are saved by using hydropower in the United States. With that, Madam Chair, I will cut off 

my opening statement and submit it for the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sali follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Bill Sali, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Idaho 

Madam Chairwoman, 

At a time of increasing discussion about energy resources that are efficient as well 

as friendly to the environment, hydropower fits the bill to a ‘‘tee.’’ Hydropower is 

clean, renewable, reliable, and pollution free, generating electricity using the pull 

of gravity on water as it flows down river. 

The advantages of hydropower are numerous. For example, the cost of producing 

power is extremely low. Its power generation is flexible enough to respond quickly 

to energy demands. It’s two times more efficient to produce than any other source. 

And it produces no greenhouse gasses. 

I’m from the Northwest where hydropower accounts for more than 60 percent of 

the power generated there. The great State of Idaho ranks ninth in the nation for 

installed hydropower generation capacity, and first for net generation from hydropower. A full 84 percent of the net generation in Idaho is provided by hydropower. 

7 

The benefits of hydropower are directly reflected in the price of electricity. Idaho 

has the lowest average retail cost of power in the country, at 4.92 cents per kilowatt 

hour, compared to the national average of 8.90 cents. 

Together with the overall reduction in carbon emissions, hydropower plays a key 

role in the quality of life we enjoy in Idaho. The Brookings Institution’s economic 

vitality report being released today ranks Boise, Idaho better overall than any other 

metro area in the United States. The study was based on three key measure of economic vitality productivity, ‘‘social inclusion’’ and ‘‘environmental sustainability.’’ 

The study found that the Boise-Nampa metro area ranked fifth nationally for the 

lowest per-capita ‘‘carbon footprint’’ in the nation. It was reported that in general, 

western states fared better in the rankings, ‘‘primarily because the region relies on 

clean hydropower for most of its electricity.’’ 

Last year alone, we avoided some 160 million tons of carbon emissions by the use 

of hydropower here in the United States. Without hydropower this electricity would 

be replaced by other energy sources, exponentially increasing carbon emissions, particularly in the Northwest. 

And yet, there are those who want to remove some of the largest hydroelectric 

generators in the Northwest. Less than a month ago, we held a hearing that focused 

on breaching hydropower dams. That proposition has been studied over and over 

again at taxpayer expense, both under Democrat and Republican administrations, 

and the result has always been the same-it has never been recommended that the 

dams be removed. 

The fact remains: there are significant environmental consequences if the dams 

are breached. And these are consequences of which my constituents will bear the 

brunt. 

I am pleased to be sitting here today discussing the benefits of hydropower, and 

consider both our current capacity and the future of hydropower in this country. 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. Thank you. 

Mr. Hastings? 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and 

thank the Ranking Member for allowing me to sit on the dais with 

you. I had the opportunity to serve on this committee my first term 

in Congress, and things haven’t changed much. I think the pictures 

have been moved around a little bit. But I do want to thank you 

very much for the opportunity to be here today. 

And I would ask unanimous consent that my full statement appear in the record. 

I would like to just acknowledge two people that are going to be 

on these panels from eastern Washington. 

The first is Bob Morton, over on our far left. Bob is a leader in 

the Washington legislature. He is a State Senator on natural resource issues. And a lot of the things that he does and his staff do 

are looked at and consumed by a lot of people in the Northwest. 

So I want to acknowledge Bob Morton here. 

And then on the second panel is Tim Culbertson. And Tim is the 

general manager of the Grant County Public Utility District. And 

they just recently—they have two non-Federal dams on the Columbia River, and they just recently got FERC relicensing on both of 

those dams. And Tim has been a leader in power issues within the 

Northwest. 

I should also recognize Glenn English, who was a former—I 

wasn’t here when Glenn was in the Congress, but he represented 

Oklahoma’s 6th District for many years before becoming CEO of 

National Rural Electric Coop. 

8 

There has been a lot of discussion about hydropower. I just want 

to make a couple of facts, because those of us in the Northwest recognize how important hydropower is. But just a couple of facts. 

Annual hydropower output is equivalent to energy produced by 

200 million barrels of oil. Hydropower is clearly the most efficient 

form of electrical generation. 

Hydro backs up other renewable energy sources, such as wind 

and solar. Just keep in mind, wind power doesn’t work unless the 

wind is blowing, and solar power doesn’t work unless the sun is 

shining. Hydro, of course, works because it is water going downhill, 

and it is a good back-up for these other energy sources. 

And hydro offsets more carbon emissions than all other—all 

other—renewable energy sources combined. And we are a leader in 

the Northwest, as far as carbon emissions in the Northwest, and 

it is principally because of hydropower. 

So as we are going to have this discussion about global warming 

and carbon offsets and all these sort of things, I think what we 

need to do is continually push hydropower, because it is very, very 

clean. 

And I thank both of you for holding this hearing. I think it is 

a very, very important hearing that we can get from people that 

are in the field the benefits of hydropower. 

So, with that, Madam Chairman, I yield back my time. 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Herger? 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. WALLY HERGER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. HERGER. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman and 

Ranking Member. I thank you for holding today’s oversight hearing 

and for allowing me to participate. 

There has been a tremendous amount of interest in the development of new technologies to help guide a clean energy future for 

our Nation. But as we develop the next generation of energy 

sources, we cannot overlook the importance of hydroelectricity, a 

time-tested, proven, renewable energy technology that is widely 

available today. 

No other clean, renewable energy source provides the same combination of cost effectiveness, efficiency and dependability as our 

Nation’s hydropower facilities. The premier hydroelectric facility in 

my home State of California, Shasta Dam, currently provides 

enough emissions-free electricity to serve up to 700,000 households. 

Clean energy from Shasta Dam has helped the city of Redding, the 

largest city in my northern California congressional district, develop an impressive renewable energy portfolio. Indeed, 25 percent 

of Redding’s electricity comes from hydropower, making it one of 

the most renewable-friendly cities in our Nation. 

Madam Chairwoman, the mayor of Redding has sent me this letter on the benefits of hydroelectricity. And, with your permission, 

I would like this letter to be made a part of today’s hearing record. 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. So ordered. 

Mr. HERGER. Thank you. 

[NOTE: The letter submitted for the record by Mr. Herger 

has been retained in the Committee’s official files.] 

9 

Shasta Dam is also incredibly efficient. Recent upgrades allow 

the turbines at Shasta to utilize up to 98 percent of the energy 

stored in each acre-foot of water that passes through the dam. Fossil fuels are critically important to our energy security, but no fossil 

energy plant can match that high level of efficiency. 

Like other hydro facilities, Shasta Dam can also respond to the 

changing energy needs of its customers literally in a matter of seconds, something that simply can’t be done at a thermal energy 

plant. In addition to its virtues as an energy source, Shasta Dam 

delivers other critically important benefits, such as water storage, 

flood control and recreation. 

Madam Chairwoman, as Congress continues to look for ways to 

encourage clean and reliable energy to power our Nation, 

hydroelectricity must remain at the forefront of this discussion. In 

my view, rather than tearing down dams, we should be looking for 

opportunities to build more. 

Thank you again for holding this hearing. I look forward to listening to today’s witnesses. 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. Thank you. 

Next, Mr. Costa? 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JIM COSTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, for both 

of your efforts in holding this afternoon’s hearing. It is important. 

Hydroelectric power does provide the majority of America’s renewable energy supply. And, in California, it has been doing that for 

over 100 years. 

We have one project called the Big Creek Project that provides 

water to southern California, and it used to be dubbed the ‘‘hardest 

working water in the world’’ and, in the 1930s, provided half the 

electrical supply for the city of Los Angeles. Now, Los Angeles has 

grown since the 1930s, so it doesn’t provide quite as much of their 

total source of power, but nonetheless it is still an important increment of southern California’s power, along with Shasta, as my colleague, Mr. Herger, noted, and other very important hydroelectric 

projects throughout the State as well as throughout the Nation. 

In addition, we have also implemented, where the economics 

have worked, small hydro, where we have used just our canals to 

put small hydro systems on that maybe only can operate for an irrigation season of 2 months or 3 months based upon water availability. And they play a role, as well. 

I guess what I am going to be looking for, in terms of the expert 

testimony this afternoon, is, with the changes occurring in climate—and it doesn’t matter whether or not you subscribe to man’s 

impact on the climate, I can tell you it is changing. It has been 

changing ever since the planet has been here. We have had ice 

ages. It is changing. Now, how much we are contributing is another 

debate, but it is changing. 

And with the changes, with late winters, early springs, how do 

we operate these projects? In every hydroelectric project we have 

a certain capacity that is built in—whether it is Shasta or whether 

it is the Big Creek Project, or any others—for water supply, for municipal and irrigation use, for farms. We have a certain amount 

10 

that is for flood control, and we have a certain amount that is for 

electrical generation. And sometimes when it is optimum to generate power, we may need to keep that water there for our farms, 

or we may need to maintain the adequate reservoir supply for our 

city’s use, not to mention being prepared every wintertime for a big 

flood that may occur based upon the amount of snowpack that you 

get. 

So I am wondering what kind of work is being done to determine 

how we operate these projects in light of changing weather conditions. 

So, with that said, I want to thank you all, and I look forward 

to the testimony. 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. Thank you. 

Madam Chairwoman? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I would like to ask this committee for a moment of silence for 

former Commissioner Keys who perished in an airplane accident. 

He was a good public servant that we had the greatest respect for. 

So if I may, Madam Chair, I would like to ask for one moment of 

silence. 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. Yes. 

Thank you. I might also mention to the committee members 

someone, I think it might have been the Chairwoman, made some 

cupcakes that you can find in the back when you need a little nourishment. And I can testify she is a good cook. 

OK. Let’s get to those that have traveled, some a long distance, 

to be here today. Our first panel, we have The Honorable Bob Morton, Washington State Senator from Kettle Falls, Washington. 

Next, Bob Johnson, Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation 

here in Washington, DC; Dr. Howard Gruenspecht, Deputy Administrator of the Energy Information Administration here in Washington, DC; Melinda Eden, Oregon Council Member from the 

Northwest Power and Conservation Council. She is from MiltonFreewater, Oregon. And, finally, The Honorable Glenn English, 

chief executive officer of the National Rural Electric Cooperative 

Association in Arlington, Virginia. Mr. English also served as a 

Member of Congress from Oklahoma’s 6th Congressional District 

for 10 successive terms. 

So welcome, everyone. 

We will start with Senator Morton. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. BOB MORTON, SENATOR, 

STATE OF WASHINGTON, KETTLE FALLS, WASHINGTON 

Mr. MORTON. Thank you, Acting Chairwoman McMorris Rodgers, 

and thank you, Madam Chairwoman of the committee, Chairwoman Napolitano. 

Yes, I am Robert Morton. I serve in the legislature in the State 

of Washington in the Senate and on most of the natural resources, 

energy, environment and water committees. And I understand one 

of my tasks today is to bring a little background of the history of 

our area. 

I share my district in bordering with both the acting Chairwoman and with Congressman Hastings. And together I have, with 

them on the one shoreline and me on the other, all of the waters 

11 

behind Grand Coulee, but many of the dams, both in the Snake 

River and the Pend Oreille River. 

I might mention that the Pend Oreille supplies one-third of the 

water volume into the Columbia where they merge, and most people don’t realize that. The heaviest flows come out of, of course, 

British Columbia, Alberta, and down into Idaho, Montana and then 

into Washington. 

We have 55 major dams; 29 of those are projects of the Federal 

Government. And it is important to point out that the remaining 

non-Federal dams primarily come from the local PUDs, the public 

utility districts. The Bonneville Power Administration, the BPA, 

administers and distributes the power supply from these dams, a 

unique arrangement based in Portland, Oregon. 

If you ever have the opportunity to be there, it is very educational. No Federal tax dollars are involved in this. It is paid for 

by the recipients, the ratepayers. And it provides us, as many of 

you had mentioned, with some of the cleanest power that we have. 

Yes, the hydropower is sold in the summertime to those who 

need it. In the wintertime, we have to buy much of the water and/ 

or the electricity that is supplied by the water. However, because 

of the statistics that are used, there has been some assumption 

that the hydropower in the Northwest is all tapped out. This simply is not true. The many undeveloped sites still remain where we 

can place dams, create the pools for the flow for generation of the 

power. 

We also must recognize that many of the dams that are there are 

not storage dams. They are run of the river. And that makes a big 

difference in examining them—and one of the points I would make 

later—examining the potential of increasing the height of these 

dams and therefore capturing much of the snowpack that comes 

out of Canada for us. 

Seventy-five percent of Northwest’s energy transmission is also 

under the jurisdiction of BPA. So we must look not only at the 

dams and the storage and the generation; now we have the power 

generator, how do we transmit it? And we are in great need of improved enlarging of our transmission. 

It is interesting to note, to give you a little comparison, the Columbia basin area alone, which is primarily what we refer to as the 

Columbia basin of the Columbia River, is 260,000 square miles. 

And that is an area that is equal to the Nation of France, just to 

put it in perspective. 

In distributing this power, it is also the responsibility, then, of 

BPA. The Bonneville Power Administration then offers it first, by 

Federal law, offers it first to the local areas, regions. And if they 

do not need it, then they can go ahead and sell it. 

As I mentioned, we have, however, the ability to both sell or export and import—export during the summer months, and then we 

need to import during the winter months. It is a reliable, affordable 

and renewable, with no greenhouse gases emitted. 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. Senator Morton, I am going to—— 

Mr. MORTON. I see the red light. 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. Yeah, it is already the red light. And 

what I would just ask is—I think we will have some more time toVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:55 Dec 16, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\43121.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
12 

ward the end in Q&A for you to make some more of your points. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. MORTON. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Morton follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Bob Morton, Washington State Senator 

Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers, and Members of 

the Subcommittee, thank you for holding this important hearing regarding the benefits and future uses of hydropower. 

My name is Bob Morton and it has been my pleasure and privilege to serve the 

7th Legislative District since 1990 and the state Senate since 1994. I am currently 

the Ranking Member of the Natural Resources, Ocean and Recreation Committee 

and sit on the Water, Energy and Telecommunications as well as the Agriculture 

and Rural Economic Development committees. 

For the past 70 years, since the construction of Bonneville Dam, the states of 

Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana have relied heavily on hydroelectric 

power. There are 55 major and several minor hydroelectric projects on the Columbia, Snake, and Pend Oreille rivers and their tributaries. Twenty-nine of these 

projects are federal. The remaining are non-federal and include numerous Public 

Utility District (PUD) projects. 

The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) markets and distributes the power 

generation from the federal dams at cost-based-rates and receives no federal tax dollars for its operation. The Northwest ratepayers pay the costs of the BPA system. 

BPA supplies up to 45 percent of the electricity used in the Northwest, of which 

more than 80 percent is generated by clean, emissions-free hydropower. The Northwest exports hydroelectric power in the summer months derived from the melting 

snows of the north and imports electricity in the winter. The regions power supply 

totals 32,000 megawatts. 

There are assumptions in some quarters that hydropower in the Northwest is 

tapped out. However, this is false. There are many undeveloped sites for hydropower 

generation where capacity can be tapped, for example, utilizing smaller turbine 

technology in tributary streams and by increasing the height of some of the present 

dams. Most of the hydroelectric dams of the Columbia Basin are non-storage dams 

that utilize the run of the river to generate electricity. 

To transmit the electricity from its source to its user is a major part of the process. BPA owns, operates and maintains about 75 percent of the Northwest’s high 

voltage transmission system. This includes interconnections and interregional transmission throughout the western grid system. The Columbia River Basin alone covers 

260,000 square miles, an area roughly the size of France. 

To ensure that benefits from the Columbia River hydropower system flow to the 

Northwest under federal law, BPA gives preference to Pacific Northwest utilities in 

power sales. BPA sells power outside the region, but only after the power has been 

offered within the region first and is surplus to regional needs. 

In addition to being a reliable, affordable renewable energy source, a benefit of 

our hydro system is that it emits no greenhouse gases when it generates electricity. 

According to the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, the average annual 

hydropower production in the Northwest is about 16,400 average megawatts, or almost 144,000,000 megawatt hours. If those same megawatt hours would have been 

generated by conventional coal plants, more than 153,000,000 tons per year of additional greenhouse gases would have been emitted. Hydro power is emissions free. 

Another way of looking at this benefit is to consider what happens with carbon 

emissions when we have a low water year. For instance, in 2005, those emissions 

from the electric sector in the Northwest increased by 10,000,000 tons over average 

due to a below average water year. Because of that low water year, the region had 

to call on more thermal generators fired by fossil fuels to meet our needs. We need 

more water storage for future energy needs. 

As you, the Members of Congress, engage in the dialogue about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, please remember that my state, indeed the country, is starting 

at a lower greenhouse gas emissions level than would have been without the Northwest’s foresight to develop the hydroelectric generating system. We ask that you recognize this and other benefits of the hydro system and act to preserve, protect and 

enhance this very beneficial clean, renewable, domestic energy resource as you move 

forward with legislation to produce renewable energy, and energy security. 

Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today. I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

[NOTE: Attachments have been retained in the Committee’s official files.] 

13 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. Next we will move on to Robert Johnson. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT W. JOHNSON, COMMISSIONER, 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. It is a pleasure to be here today and 

to provide the Department of the Interior’s views on Reclamation’s 

hydropower resources and the public benefits they provide. 

While Reclamation is best known as the supplier of water, generating electricity is also a very important part of our mission. We 

characterize Reclamation as a water and power organization, and 

we are extremely proud of our role. 

Hydropower is the most efficient way to produce energy. Each 

kilowatt hour of hydroelectricity is produced in an efficiency of 

more than twice that of thermal energy sources. Hydropower is extremely flexible, can rapidly change its output to match needs, 

going from no generation to maximum generation in a very short 

period of time. 

Reclamation is not new to the power generation business. Since 

1909, power revenues have contributed over $10 billion in project 

repayment for the Reclamation program. We operate 58 hydropower plants, which produce 44 million megawatt hours of electricity per year, enough to supply over 6 million households. The 

energy produced by Reclamation facilities replaces about 48.4 billion pounds of coal and avoids production of roughly 51 million 

pounds of carbon dioxide that would have been produced by fossil 

fuel power plants. 

Our hydro plants also play an important role in reliability of the 

electric grid. Most traditional power plants cannot restart themselves in the event of a total loss of power. But hydroelectric generators, since they can be started without external power, could be 

used to restart the system in the event of a blackout. Reclamation 

has 18 of its hydroelectric power plants identified as part of these 

blackstart restoration plans. 

Another benefit of hydropower is the revenue it creates for endangered species recovery. For Fiscal Years 2002 through 2006, 

Bonneville Power Administration hydropower revenues provided a 

rough average of $260 million for salmon recovery per year. This 

money has funded state-of-the-art programs to re-establish self-sustaining populations of endangered fish. Other hydropower facilities 

also provide funding for environmental programs throughout Reclamation. 

Hydropower also enables other renewable power like wind generation to be more usable. Wind generation is intermittent, and it 

needs ancillary support services to be integrated into an electric 

grid. Hydropower provides this quick response necessary to enable 

getting wind-generated power to the load. 

Having said all this, Reclamation faces many challenges in operation of its power plants. Traditionally, operation of power plants 

allowed for water releases to be timed so that generation coincided 

with the higher daytime electricity demand. This is referred to as 

‘‘load following’’ and is one of the most significant benefits of hydro 

generation. 

14 

However, this traditional operation is no longer routine because 

of new endangered species and environmental requirements. For 

example, endangered fish and Grand Canyon National Park values 

below Glen Canyon Dam have modified that facility’s operations, 

significantly reducing the capability for meeting daily energy demand. Reclamation has necessarily incorporated these types of environmental demands at a number of our other facilities, as well. 

Through the cooperative efforts within the Department of the Interior and our customers and other stakeholders, it is possible to 

meet the various project purposes amidst these new demands. Reclamation has developed many innovative means of stretching existing resources to meet increasing demands or improve efficiency. 

An example: Since 2005, five turbines at Hoover Dam have received new wicket gates, which allows increased gate openings so 

that more water can flow through the turbines. These actions have 

increased generating capacity by 70 megawatts. An additional 29 

megawatts is projected to be installed within the next 3 years. We 

estimate that a conservative value of this new energy is $3 million 

per year. 

The Bureau of Reclamation also has implemented benchmarking 

programs to compare its hydropower operations to the industry. We 

have found that our operations are competitive with other hydropower facilities, and we have also improved significantly our operations. An example would be at Hoover Dam we have improved our 

operations from being about average to actually resulting in a bestin-class determination for how we operate that plant and its efficiency. 

In closing, hydropower is an important part of our mission, and 

we will continue to work with our customers to provide this invaluable natural resource. 

This concludes my oral testimony. I am glad to respond to questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:] 

Statement of Robert W. Johnson, Commissioner, 

Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior 

Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Robert Johnson, 

Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to provide the Department of the Interior’s views on Reclamation’s hydropower resources and the public 

benefits they provide. 

Hydropower is a very efficient way to produce energy. Each kilowatt-hour of 

hydroelectricity is produced at an efficiency of more than twice that of any other 

energy source. Further, hydropower is extremely flexible and reliable. Hydropower 

can rapidly change its output to match needs—going from no power generation to 

maximum power generation in a short period of time. 

While the Bureau of Reclamation is best known as a supplier of water for customers in the 17 western states, an equally important part of Reclamation’s mission 

is the creation of electricity. In fact, we characterize Reclamation as a water and 

power organization. We are extremely proud of our hydropower program. Reclamation provides a clean, renewable source of power that has become an integral part 

of the electric system in the west. 

Reclamation is not new to the power generation business. Since 1909, power 

revenues have contributed over $10 billion in project repayment to the Federal 

Treasury. 

In an effort to provide an effective overview of Reclamation’s hydropower program, 

I would like to divide my testimony into three parts: 

1. Reclamation’s Existing Hydropower Resources 

2 RThe Current Challenges Facing Reclamation 

3 RThe Opportunities Reclamation Sees in the Future 

15 

Reclamation’s Existing Hydropower Resources 

The Bureau of Reclamation manages water resources in the West. In the course 

of developing and managing these water resources, Reclamation built numerous 

projects with facilities that impound water to provide flood control and water supply 

for irrigation and municipal use. Along with those facilities, Reclamation constructed power plants to take advantage of the impounded water to generate clean, 

emission-free electricity that could also be used to finance the undertaking of the 

various projects. 

Reclamation has 58 hydropower plants which, on an annual basis, produce over 

44 million megawatt hours of electricity, enough to meet the needs of over 6 million 

households. Reclamation is the second largest producer of hydroelectric power in the 

western United States. It is worth noting that the energy produced by Reclamation 

facilities is the energy equivalent of replacing more than 80 million barrels of crude 

oil or about 48.4 billion pounds of coal. Further, Reclamation’s facilities help to 

avoid the production of approximately 51 million pounds of carbon dioxide that 

would have been produced by fossil fuel power plants. 

Reclamation produces power that has an annual value to its customers of slightly less than $1 billion. This offsets power that would otherwise cost over $3 billion as 

estimated by the Energy Information Administration. This is a significant benefit 

to the Nation’s economy. After the hydropower is produced, Reclamation provides 

it to the Western Power Marketing Administration, which owns and operates the 

transmission lines and is responsible for marketing the power to its customers. The 

revenue collected from the sale of power to its customers is then deposited into the 

Treasury. The hydropower Reclamation produces is used for project purposes and 

then is provided to the Western Power Marketing Administration for sale to its customers. 

Reclamation’s hydropower plants also play an important role in the reliability of 

the electrical power grid. Most fossil and nuclear-fueled generating plants cannot restart themselves in the event of a total loss of power. Hydroelectric generators, since 

they can be started without an external power source, have traditionally been relied 

upon to restart the electric power system in the event of a blackout. As one of the 

largest owners and operators of hydroelectric resources, Reclamation has a key capability in restoration of the system, a function known as ‘‘blackstart.’’ Reclamation 

has 18 of its hydroelectric power plants identified in blackstart restoration plans in 

the Western United States. 

One other benefit of hydropower generation is the revenue that is collected and 

used to mitigate the impact of dam operations on fish and wildlife, including those 

listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). A good example of 

this is the Bonneville Power Administration’s (BPA’s) use of hydropower revenues 

in the Columbia River Basin to avoid jeopardizing ESA-listed salmon stocks and to 

generally mitigate fish and wildlife affected by the Federal Columbia River Power 

System as required under the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act. For Fiscal Years 2002 through 2006, BPA used hydropower revenues 

and borrowing authority repaid by revenues to provide an annual average of about 

$260 million for salmon recovery and mitigation efforts. This is nearly fifty percent 

of the average annual federal funding for Columbia River basin ESA implementation during the same time period. This money results from BPA’s sale of hydropower 

produced at Reclamation and other facilities. This money has funded state of the 

art programs that are making a real difference in efforts to reestablish and maintain self-sustaining populations of endangered fish. 

The Current Challenges Facing Reclamation 

Reclamation faces many challenges in the operation of its power plants, which are 

operated to provide a variety of benefits. These benefits are derived not just from 

the actual quantity of water released and the power generated, but also from the 

timing of the release of water. 

While the volume of water stored is a function of the weather, the timing of the 

releases for electrical generation usually is not. Traditionally, operation of the power 

plants allowed for water releases to be timed such that generation coincided with 

the higher daytime electricity demand. This is referred to as ‘‘load following’’ and 

is one of the most significant benefits of hydrogeneration. However, this traditional 

operation is no longer accepted as routine. The decisions on when to release the 

water are becoming more contentious as existing electric resources are unable to 

meet the electric demand and as environmental requirements increase. 

For example, in accordance with the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992, the 

Glen Canyon Dam is now required to be operated to protect and improve the values 

for which Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area 

were established, in addition to the Dam’s traditional authorized purposes. This has 

16 

resulted in modification of the facility’s operations and has had an impact on meeting daily load following demand. Reclamation has experienced these and other types 

of environmental demands at a number of our hydroelectric generation dams. In addition, future conflicts between competing resource needs may be more pronounced 

in the face of still unknown, basin-level impacts from environmental factors such as 

global climate change. 

Reclamation is one of many agencies and organizations that have been called 

upon to meet new challenges with existing resources, in ways that were never contemplated when our facilities were authorized, planned, and constructed. It is 

through cooperation and extensive dialogue within the Department of the Interior 

and among our stakeholders that the needs of the various project purposes are able 

to be met amidst these new demands. Through close interaction with the Fish and 

Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, the environmental community and our power customers, Reclamation develops operational regimes to meet a variety of goals across the West. 

To do this we work closely with public entities that purchase power generated at 

Reclamation facilities to improve the quantity and quality of power. Reclamation 

has developed many innovative means of stretching existing resources to meet the 

increasing demands or improve efficiency. As an example, since 2005, five of the 17 

turbines at Hoover Dam have received new wicket gates and equipment modifications have been made to increase the gate opening so more water is allowed to flow 

through the turbines. These actions have increased the generating capacity at Hoover by 70 megawatts (MW). An additional 29 MW capacity gain is projected within 

the next three years, when work on three more units will be completed. Using a 

conservative market price for capacity ($2,660 per MW-month), the value of 99 

megawatts of new capacity at Hoover Dam is $3.16 million per year. The Bonneville 

Power Administration had directly funded 10 runner replacements at Grand Coulee 

Dam, creating 22.7 MW of additional energy per year. 

Also, pressures to improve the quality and safety of the existing electric resources 

have added a new dimension to Reclamation’s decisions. The electric reliability 

standards necessary to ensure delivery of power and provide for competition among 

electricity market participants don’t always recognize the variable and sometimes 

conflicting nature of decisions concerning hydroelectric supply. Reclamation is working closely with other federal entities involved in hydroelectric power to identify 

ways to reduce costs and improve reliability. 

This point also ties in with the challenges Reclamation faces from our aging infrastructure. We are working with our water and power customers on our infrastructure needs. As noted above, we are making improvements and upgrades where possible. With most of our power customers, we do not face the same financial challenges as with some of our water customers. Most of our power plants are directly 

funded by our power customers. 

The Opportunities Reclamation Sees in the Future 

The future will present many opportunities for Reclamation to continue its successful hydropower program. The most obvious opportunity is to enhance or expand 

our power production capabilities to meet the increasing demands of our power customers. 

One of the most effective ways to improve efficiency is ‘‘benchmarking.’’ In basic 

terms, benchmarking is a process by which an organization compares its systems 

against the best practices within an industry and then implements changes to improve system efficiency. 

Reclamation uses benchmarking as a tool to ensure decisions on operation and 

maintenance are cost effective. Reclamation’s cost to produce electricity is just over 

half of what the industry average is for hydropower plants. As a result of 

benchmarking, our operations at Hoover Dam went from average to best in its class. 

We are also centralizing operations at Reclamation’s Pick-Sloan Project and 

achieving efficiencies which benefit our power customers. 

In closing, hydropower is an important part of our core competency. Our power 

customers are a highly valued part of Reclamation’s overall program, and we will 

continue to work with them to continue to provide this important resource while at 

the same time balancing the many competing interests. 

This concludes my written statement; I am pleased to answer any questions the 

Subcommittee may have. 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. Thank you very much. 

Next, Dr. Gruenspecht? 

17 

STATEMENT OF HOWARD GRUENSPECHT, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION, 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. GRUENSPECHT. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking 

Member McMorris Rodgers, members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the invitation to testify today on the current and future 

role of hydropower. 

The Energy Information Administration is the independent statistical and analytical agency within the Department of Energy. We 

don’t promote, formulate or take positions on policy issues, unlike 

almost everyone else in Washington, and our views should not be 

construed as representing those of the Department of Energy or the 

administration. 

In 2007, conventional hydroelectric power production accounted 

for 248 billion kilowatt hours of electricity, or 71 percent of total 

renewable generation in the United States. Most of the hydropower 

in the United States is located near the West Coast. In 2007, 

Washington, California and Oregon together accounted for 140 billion kilowatt hours, or 56 percent of total U.S. hydropower generation. 

While hydro capacity has been relatively constant in recent 

years, annual generation has varied quite significantly, primarily 

due to changes in precipitation. 

In its annual energy outlook, the Energy Information Administration publishes projections of supply and consumption to 2030 

under the assumption that current laws and regulations remain in 

effect unless they are already scheduled to expire. In the projections issued earlier this year, less than one gigawatt of new conventional hydropower capacity is added by 2030 and generation 

holds steady at approximately 300 billion kilowatt hours. 

It is important to note, however, that EIA does not yet include 

unconventional hydroelectric power technologies, such as wave, 

tidal or instream turbines, in its analysis since it is difficult to obtain reliable cost and performance estimates of technologies that 

are in their early phases of development. 

Generation using other renewable energy technologies is projected to grow quite rapidly over the same period, reflecting the effects of high fossil fuel prices, the availability of production tax 

credits under existing law, and mandatory renewable energy portfolio standards in over half the States. And, again, as mentioned 

by the two previous witnesses, hydropower has an important role 

in complementing intermittent renewables. 

The rules of State programs differ widely across the States. However, as a broad generalization, many State programs favor non-hydropower renewable energy sources over conventional hydropower. 

Policy proposals to limit emissions of greenhouse gases that were 

touched on in the opening statements could have a significant impact on the mix of fuels used to generate electricity, in particular 

by reducing the use of conventional coal-fired generation, which 

currently provides about half the Nation’s electric generation and 

roughly one-third of total U.S. energy-related emissions of carbon 

dioxide. 

EIA has done analysis of many pieces of climate legislation, including the one that was considered in the Senate last week. And 

18 

in those analyses, we projected an increase of 1.5 to over 6 kilowatts of hydro capacity in 2030 relative to what we have in our reference case under current laws and regulations. And that range depends on the assumptions made regarding the cost and availability 

of low-emitting technologies, including nuclear fossil plants with 

carbon capture and storage and biomass. Many other renewables 

are affected to a much larger extent. 

The relatively limited growth for hydroelectricity is largely due 

to the limited supply of sites on which hydropower can be expanded 

or created. Most existing sites have some potential for incremental 

capacity, but the list of new sites in which new dams can be constructed is short. 

That said, there are some opportunities for conventional capacity 

improvements at exiting dams, as well as placing electricity turbines at sites that may be dammed but currently lack generators. 

As previously noted, our analysis did not consider wave, tidal or 

instream turbines, and that is another opportunity. 

Finally, while policies to limit greenhouse gas emissions would 

likely create new market opportunities for hydro, it is important to 

recognize that climate change itself could have major implications 

for generation at existing hydropower facilities. Because hydro generation is so sensitive to climate variability and weather patterns, 

even small changes in temperature and/or precipitation patterns 

could have significant impacts. Hydro plants could also be impacted 

if there were a change in the number or intensity of extreme 

weather events, but it is really very difficult to know whether that 

would be the case or not. 

This concludes my testimony, Madam Chairwoman. I would be 

happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gruenspecht follows:] 

Statement of Dr. Howard Gruenspecht, Deputy Administrator, 

Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy 

Madam Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to testify today on the current and future role of hydropower. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) is the independent statistical agency within the U.S. 

Department of Energy. We are charged with providing objective, timely, and relevant data, analyses, and projections for the use of the Congress, the Administration, and the public. Although we do not take positions on policy issues, we do 

produce data and analyses to help inform energy policy deliberation. Because we 

have an element of statutory independence with respect to this work, our views are 

strictly those of EIA and should not be construed as representing those of the Department of Energy, the Administration, or any other entity. 

In 2007, domestic conventional hydroelectric power production accounted for 71 

percent of renewable generation, which, in turn, accounted for 8 percent of all power 

generated in the United States. This translates into 248 billion kilowatt hours of 

electricity, although the amount has varied quite significantly in recent years without dramatic changes in hydroelectric capacity. For example, 356 billion kilowatt 

hours were generated from conventional hydroelectric facilities in 1997, but these 

same plants produced only 217 billion kilowatt hours 4 years later. The wide variation in generation over this period is mainly a function of varying weather conditions, particularly changes in precipitation, since there was only a small change in 

installed capacity. 

Most of the hydropower in the United States is located near the West Coast. In 

2007, Washington, California, and Oregon together accounted for 140 billion kilowatt hours, or fifty-six percent of total U.S. hydropower generation. Lesser amounts 

were generated in New York, Montana, Idaho, Arizona, Tennessee and Alabama, 

which were the other leading hydroelectricity producers in 2007. The geographic 

concentration of hydropower production in the West explains why years with scare 

19 

precipitation and snowpack in that region can result in a dramatic reduction in total 

lower hydroelectric generation in the United States. 

In its Annual Energy Outlook (AEO), EIA publishes projections of energy supply 

and consumption to 2030, under the assumption that current laws and regulations 

remain in effect unless they are already scheduled to expire. In the AEO2008 projections, issued earlier this year, hydroelectricity continues to play an important role 

in the electric power sector, but its share in overall generation falls. Less than 1 

gigawatt of new capacity is projected to be added by 2030, and generation holds 

steady at approximately 300 billion kilowatt hours. This contrasts with the growth 

of other renewable energy technologies over the same period. By 2030, the 71-percent share of renewable power that hydropower currently holds falls to just below 

50 percent of total renewable generation. Hydroelectricity’s share of total renewable 

generation is projected to decline because of the rapid rise in generation by other 

renewable technologies. It is important to note that EIA does not yet include unconventional hydroelectric power technologies, such as wave, tidal, or in-stream turbines in its model. Although these technologies may play a significant role at some 

point in the future, it is difficult to obtain reliable cost and performance estimates 

of technologies that are in their early, experimental phase of development. 

As noted, other renewable energy technologies are projected to grow at a much 

faster rate than hydropower. In the AEO2008 reference case, their growth is largely 

spurred by State renewable portfolio standards, and, in the very near-term, by the 

extension of the renewable energy production tax credit. Both of these are modeled 

in the EIA reference projection. The renewable energy tax credit is set to expire at 

the end of this year but will produce another year of strong wind power development. Currently, over half of the States have mandatory renewable energy standards. The rules of these programs differ widely among the States. Some States allow 

existing hydropower to be eligible in the State total, while others do not. Some have 

special mandates for non-hydropower renewable generation levels, meaning certain 

portions of renewable generation cannot be met through hydropower, even with incremental capacity. It is difficult to generalize from these vastly different programs, 

but generally they stress non-hydropower renewable energy sources over conventional hydropower. 

Policy proposals to limit emissions of greenhouse gas emissions, which are not reflected in the AEO2008 reference case projections, could have a significant impact 

on the mix of fuels used to generate electricity. Coal-fired generation currently provides about half of the nation’s electric generation, producing roughly one-third of 

total U.S. energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide. Conventional coal-fired power 

would remain a very attractive option to meet growing baseload capacity needs absent any concern over the future level of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. However, 

a stringent policy to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions would likely engender 

an implicit or explicit value for carbon dioxide emissions that is high enough to significantly affect the cost of generating electricity using coal. This would create a 

need for additional supply of electricity from low- and no-carbon generation sources. 

In its recent analysis of S.2191, America’s Climate Security Act of 2007, EIA 

projects an increase of 1.5 to 6.1 gigawatts of hydropower capacity in 2030—depending on the alternative case assumptions used—over the Annual Energy Outlook 

2008 reference case in that same year. By comparison, there are between 40 and 

275 gigawatts of new wind power capacity in the S.2191 cases than in the reference 

case in 2030. As is the case with hydropower, the wide range in wind power additions is driven by cost and availability assumptions for key low-emitting technologies, including nuclear, fossil plants with carbon capture and storage, and biomass facilities. When these technologies are assumed to be expensive or the ability 

to deploy them is limited, there is a much larger penetration of new wind and natural gas facilities. The relatively limited growth in the S. 2191 cases for 

hydroelectricity is largely due to the limited supply of sites on which hydropower 

can be expanded or created. Most existing sites do not have large potentials for incremental capacity, and the list of new sites in which new dams can be constructed 

is short. That said, there are some opportunities for conventional capacity improvements at existing dams, as well as placing electricity turbines at sites which may 

be dammed but currently lack generators. However, environmental concerns may 

limit such development and could lead to the retirement of some facilities when they 

come up for license renewal. As previously noted, our modeling did not consider 

wave, tidal, or in-stream turbines. 

Finally, while policies to limit greenhouse gas emissions would likely create new 

market opportunities for hydropower and other low- and no-carbon generation technologies, it is also important to recognize that climate change itself could have 

major implications for generation levels at existing hydropower facilities. In a recent 

report, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global 

20 

1 U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, 

Effects of Climate Change on Energy Production and Use in the United States, U.S. Climate 

Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.5, October 2007. 

Change Research 1 pointed out that because hydroelectric generation is so sensitive 

to climate variability and weather patterns, even small changes could have significant impacts. Changes in temperature and/or precipitation patterns could both impact hydroelectric generation. Hydroelectric plants also could be impacted if there 

was a change in the number and/or intensity of extreme weather events. At this 

time, it is very difficult to quantify the potential impacts of such factors, and they 

are not reflected in our projections. 

This concludes my prepared testimony, Madam Chairwoman. I will be happy to 

answer any questions you may have. 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Ms. Eden? 

STATEMENT OF MELINDA EDEN, OREGON COUNCIL MEMBER, 

NORTHWEST POWER AND CONSERVATION COUNCIL, 

MILTON-FREEWATER, OREGON 

Ms. EDEN. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mesdames Chair and 

members of the Subcommittee. On behalf of the Council, thank you 

for the invitation to appear here today. 

The Council is a compact of the States of Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington created under the authority of the Northwest 

Power Act of 1980. Through its planning, the Council assures the 

Northwest region an adequate, efficient, economical and reliable 

power supply while also protecting, mitigating and enhancing fish 

and wildlife affected by hydropower dams in the Columbia River 

Basin. 

I have basically four points. 

First, the role of hydropower in the Northwest. With normal precipitation, hydropower dams in the Northwest provide about 15,500 

average megawatts or about 75 percent of all the electricity used 

in the Northwest. Most of the remainder is provided by power 

plants that burn natural gas or coal. 

The amount of electricity provided by other non-hydropower 

forms of renewables, particularly wind, is small but growing. Biomass plants provide less than 2 percent of the region’s generating 

capacity. Geothermal and solar together provide less than 1 percent 

at this point. Wind power provides 4.7 percent, and that proportion 

is increasing. 

Second, as a result of renewable resource requirements in three 

of the Northwest States, development of wind and other renewable 

power sources will continue to grow. In fact, development of renewables, particularly wind, has been growing steadily for nearly a 

decade. Since 2000, our region has gained nearly 3,500 megawatts 

of wind power. 

That has important implications for hydropower, as others have 

mentioned, which provides back-up generation for times when the 

wind does not blow. One challenge we face is to integrate intermittent wind power into the power supply where it is critical that electricity flow at a steady, constant rate with no interruptions, even 

small ones. 

21 

As the title of this hearing indicated, hydropower is clean and renewable. Hydropower in the mix reduces the output from power 

plants that burn fossil fuels. 

Last November, the Council reported the results of its year-long 

study of carbon dioxide emissions from Northwest power plants. 

The study demonstrates the moderating effect of the region’s large 

hydropower base on carbon dioxide emissions otherwise produced 

by the power system, especially compared with other areas of the 

West with less hydropower and more thermal generation. For example, under normal water conditions, in 2005 the Northwest 

would have produced about 520 pounds of carbon dioxide for each 

megawatt hour of electricity generated compared to 900 pounds per 

megawatt hour for the rest of the West. 

However, like other areas of the country, the Northwest faces the 

likelihood of rising greenhouse gas emissions, albeit at a slower 

rate than elsewhere. Moderating, slowing and eventually reversing 

this growth is a challenge for the Nation as well as for our region. 

It will be difficult, according to our study, to achieve carbon-reduction goals with policies that focus only on new power plants. To 

achieve those limits, some exiting coal-fired plants in our region 

will have to be replaced with energy conservation and generators 

that produce little or no carbon dioxide. 

Finally, Madam Chair, I want to highlight our energy conservation story. In the wisdom of Congress, the Northwest Power Act of 

1980 treats cost-effective energy conservation as the highest-priority resource to meet future regional demand for power. Today, 28 

years later, the importance of energy conservation is greater than 

ever before. 

Energy conservation is unlike any other electricity resource. Conservation requires no fuel, requires no back-up resource, produces 

no emissions and requires no ongoing expense. Important in the 

Northwest, conservation also reduces pressure on the hydropower 

system and therefore increases its potential to serve as a backup 

for renewables, particularly wind. 

Since 1980, the Northwest has achieved 3,700 megawatts of 

energy conservation. The accomplishment last year alone was 200 

megawatts, an annual record for our region. Forty percent of the 

growth in electricity demand over the last 28 years has been met 

through conservation. 

That amount, 3,700 megawatts, is equal to the electricity demand of Seattle, Portland and Boise combined. It is equal to seven 

large coal-fired plants that did not have to be built, 13.5 million 

tons of carbon dioxide that were not emitted into the atmosphere, 

and a savings to consumers of nearly $2 billion in 2007 compared 

to the cost of electricity from the wholesale market. The average 

cost of this conservation was less than $0.03 per kilowatt hour. The 

current cost of wind power is more than $0.08 per kilowatt hour. 

Looking to the future, the Council will continue to rely on conservation. We have identified more than 3,000 megawatts of additional conservation that is also available at a cost of less than 

$0.03 per kilowatt hour. 

That concludes our testimony. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Eden follows:] 

22 

Statement of Melinda Eden, Oregon Member, 

Northwest Power and Conservation Council 

My name is Melinda Eden, and I am one of two Oregon members of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council. I serve as Chair of the Council’s Power Committee, which includes one member from each of the four Northwest states represented on the Council. On behalf of the Council, thank you for the invitation to 

present information at this hearing on hydropower. 

The Northwest Power and Conservation Council is a regional planning agency. It 

is an interstate compact of the states of Idaho, Oregon, Montana, and Washington 

and was created by the state legislatures in 1981 under the authority of the Northwest Power Act of 1980. In the Power Act, Congress directed the Council to assure 

the Pacific Northwest region an adequate, efficient, economical, and reliable power 

supply while also protecting, mitigating, and enhancing fish and wildlife affected by 

the construction and operation of hydropower dams in the Columbia River Basin. 

As required by the Power Act, the Council produces a regional, 20-year Power Plan 

that guides the future resource acquisitions of the Bonneville Power Administration. 

The Power Plan also provides guidance to electric utilities in the region as they conduct their own resource planning. By law, the Council revises the Power Plan at 

least every five years. The Council’s fish and wildlife mitigation is accomplished 

through the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, which by law is part 

of the Power Plan. 

Through its planning, the Council works to ensure that the regional electricity 

supply remains low-cost and low-risk. It is important to protect and enhance the 

role of hydropower in the power supply by improving the efficiency of the region’s 

electricity use, increasing the hydropower generation output of existing dams where 

feasible, continuing to mitigate effectively the environmental impacts of hydropower, 

and providing flexibility to support the development of renewable resources in the 

region. 

In my testimony I will briefly discuss the Northwest power system; the recordsetting gains in energy conservation in the Northwest in 2007; the future of hydropower in the Northwest; the Council’s role in mitigating the impacts of hydropower 

on fish and wildlife of the Columbia River Basin; the rapid growth of wind power 

in our region and its impact on hydropower; and the important role hydropower 

plays—and will continue to play—in moderating greenhouse gas emissions from 

power plants that burn fossil fuels. 

Pacific Northwest Electricity 

Twenty-eight years of investment in conservation, along with a rapidly growing 

supply of wind power and our continuing reliance on hydropower, make the Pacific 

Northwest electricity supply among the cleanest and most efficient in the nation. 

The cornerstone of the Pacific Northwest electricity system is energy created by falling water—hydropower. Hydropower provides 61 percent of the region’s electricity 

generating capacity. Most of the remainder is provided by power plants that burn 

natural gas or coal. Natural gas provides about 16 percent, and coal about 13 percent of the total capacity. There is one nuclear power plant in the region; it provides 

about 2 percent of the region’s electricity. With normal precipitation, hydroelectric 

dams in the Pacific Northwest provide about 15,500 average megawatts of electricity, or about 75 percent of all the electricity used in the Northwest. 

The amount of power provided by non-hydropower forms of renewable energy, particularly wind power, is small but growing. Biomass power plants provide less than 

2 percent, geothermal and solar together provide less than 1 percent, but wind 

power provides 4.7 percent. As the result of renewable resource requirements in 

three of the Northwest states, development of wind and other renewable power will 

increase. In fact, it is increasing rapidly already. Since 2000, wind power development has increased by 3,463 megawatts in the region. In contrast, non-renewable 

natural gas-fired capacity has increased even more, however: by 5,403 megawatts 

during the same time period. 

In the Northwest, hydropower is generated at both federal and non-federal dams. 

Most of the region’s hydropower is generated at dams on the Columbia River and 

its tributaries. While there are both federal and non-federal dams in the Columbia 

River Basin, by far the largest portion of the hydropower supply is generated at federal dams. The Federal Columbia River Power System comprises 31 dams and one 

non-federal nuclear power plant. With normal precipitation, the energy produced by 

dams of the Federal Columbia River Power System is 9,098 average megawatts. Columbia River dams in the United States are operated in coordination with dams on 

the Columbia River and its tributaries in British Columbia under the Columbia 

River Treaty of 1964. This coordinated, international power supply is a model of biVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:55 Dec 16, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\43121.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
23 

national cooperation that other countries with transboundary rivers have sought to 

emulate. 

In short, the Pacific Northwest is hydropower country. The region has a long history of hydropower development. The first dams generated electricity on Columbia 

River tributaries in the late 1880s, just a decade after Thomas Edison invented the 

light bulb. The first dam across the mainstem of the Columbia River was completed 

in 1933. This dam, Rock Island, was built by a privately owned utility. Federal construction projects began that year at Bonneville and Grand Coulee dams. Bonneville 

was completed in 1938 and Grand Coulee in 1941. The last of the federal dams were 

completed in the 1970s. 

Electricity generated at the federal dams in the Columbia River Basin is sold by 

the Bonneville Power Administration, a federal power-marketing agency. The electricity is sold for the cost of its generation. Over time, that cost has increased as 

additional components have been added—for example, costs associated with Bonneville’s share of the region’s debt for financing nuclear power and the cost of mitigating the impacts of hydropower on fish and wildlife. 

Importantly, the Federal Columbia River Power System is almost entirely self-financing. Costs associated with the dams are paid by those who use them. For example, customers of hydropower pay for the hydropower facilities through the rates 

charged for the electricity. 

Energy Conservation: The Highest-Priority Resource in the Northwest 

While hydropower is the most important generating resource in the Northwest, 

the Northwest Power Act of 1980 treats cost-effective energy conservation as a resource equivalent to power generation and the highest-priority resource to meet future regional demand for power. Energy conservation means reducing demand for 

electricity by improving the efficiency of electricity use. Conservation is not only the 

most important future electricity resource for the Northwest, it is the most cost-effective as well. 

In focusing on energy conservation 28 years ago, Congress was quite far-sighted. 

Today, with gasoline prices hovering around $4 per gallon and with increasing public concern about greenhouse-gas emissions, global climate change, and the monetary and environmental cost of energy, the importance of energy-use efficiency is 

greater than ever before. Energy conservation is unlike any other electricity resource. There is no fuel, and therefore no ongoing fuel costs or associated risk of 

volatile prices. Conservation requires no backup resource to shape its output to meet 

demand. Conservation is not a fuel we import from a foreign country so there is no 

risk of supply shortages or curtailments. There are no emissions, and therefore no 

risks to the climate. There is no ongoing cost after the resource is installed—except, 

for example, when a compact fluorescent light bulb burns out and needs to be replaced. Importantly in the Northwest, by reducing demand for power, conservation 

reduces pressure on the hydropower supply and therefore increases its potential to 

serve as a backup for renewable energy, particularly wind power. 

Western states are national leaders in energy conservation as the result of impressive efficiency improvements in California and the Northwest states. In the 

Northwest since 1980, demand for electricity has been reduced by 3,700 megawatts. 

Fifty-one percent of that amount—1,913 megawatts—has been achieved since 2000. 

These efficiencies resulted from multiple sources including new building codes, the 

effects of national energy efficiency standards, and programs and incentives offered 

by states, the Bonneville Power Administration and the region’s public and investorowned utilities. The average cost of this conservation was less than 3 cents per kilowatt-hour. The current cost of wind power, by comparison, is more than 8 cents per 

kilowatt-hour. 

Expressed as electricity generation, 3,700 megawatts is enough power to supply 

the entire state of Idaho and all of western Montana, with 400 megawatts left over. 

Put another way, 3,700 megawatts is the equivalent of seven, 500-megawatt coalfired power plants that did not have to be built; 13.5 million tons of carbon dioxide 

that were not emitted into the atmosphere; and a savings to consumers, compared 

to the cost of electricity from the wholesale market, of nearly $2 billion per year 

in 2007. 

The Council is pleased to report that in 2007 the Northwest set a one-year record 

for energy conservation, an achievement of 200 megawatts. The largest share of this 

savings was in the residential sector, and the largest contribution to that savings— 

60 percent of the residential savings—was compact fluorescent light bulbs. Between 

18.5 million and 19 million bulbs were sold in the Northwest last year—more than 

any other region of the United States in terms of bulbs per person. Looking to the 

future, the Council has identified more than 3,000 additional megawatts of conservation that is available, also at a cost of less than 3 cents per kilowatt-hour. 

24 

Future Hydropower Development in the Pacific Northwest 

With more than 360 hydroelectric dams in the Pacific Northwest, hydropower is 

by far the most important generating resource in the region. However, hydropower 

is not the most important source of meeting future demand for power. That is because most of the economically and environmentally feasible sites for hydropower 

generation have been developed. The remaining opportunities, though numerous, 

are for the most part small-scale and relatively expensive. 

Hydropower and Fish and Wildlife in the Columbia River Basin 

Upgrades at existing dams could improve survival of migrating fish. Examples are 

installation of fish-friendly turbines and screens to guide fish away from the turbine 

entrances. This is not to suggest that such upgrades would render hydropower dams 

completely benign in terms of environmental impacts. Spill reduces power generation at dams on the Columbia and Snake rivers by about 1,200 megawatts to help 

juvenile salmon and steelhead migrate to the Pacific Ocean. Water is directed over 

spillways instead of through turbines. In the Power Act, Congress recognized that 

hydropower dams have impacts on fish and wildlife. One of the Council’s three principal responsibilities, in addition to power planning and public information, is to 

protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife, and related spawning grounds and 

habitat, that have been affected by the construction and operation of hydropower 

dams in the Columbia River Basin. We fulfill this mandate through the development 

and implementation of the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. 

The program provides protection for fish and wildlife from the effects of future 

hydropower development as well as from existing projects. Beginning in 1989, the 

Council included in the fish and wildlife program a set of standards for the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and others to apply to the development and 

licensing of hydroelectric facilities in the Columbia River Basin. FERC is one of the 

federal agencies that is required to take the Council’s fish and wildlife program into 

account in its decision-making. The standards include designating certain river 

reaches in the basin as ‘‘protected areas,’’ where the Council believes that hydroelectric development would create unacceptable risks of loss to fish and wildlife species of concern, their productive capacity, or their habitat. 

New Renewable Resources in the Northwest 

Wind power is proliferating rapidly in the Northwest. This has important implications for hydropower. One challenge we face is to integrate wind power, which is 

intermittent depending on the strength of the wind, into the power supply where 

stability is critical. To address this issue and others related to wind power, the 

Council and the Bonneville Power Administration convened a task force to study 

wind integration. An important conclusion of this wind-integration analysis has implications for the region’s hydropower supply. According to the analysis, there are 

no technical barriers to integrating up to 6,000 megawatts of new wind-power capacity into the regional power supply (new transmission lines would be required after 

the first 3,000 megawatts). Six thousand megawatts is the amount of new wind 

power development envisioned for the 2004-2024 period in the Council’s Fifth Power 

Plan. However, the cost of this wind power will depend on the flexibility of the hydropower system to provide backup generation at times when wind-power output declines. 

When wind energy is added to a utility system, its natural variability and uncertainty is combined with the natural variability and uncertainty of loads. During 

times of very hot or very cold temperatures, the wind often does not blow. As a result, there is an increase in the need for hydropower flexibility required to maintain 

utility-system balance and reliability. According to the analysis, the cost of wind integration starts low, particularly when integrating with a hydropower system that 

has substantial flexibility, and then rises as increasing amounts of wind are added. 

Siting wind turbines in geographically diverse areas can help reduce costs. Ultimately, costs plateau at the cost of integrating wind with natural gas-fired power 

plants. 

With increasing amounts of wind power in the regional power supply, there likely 

will be times when large, unexpected increases in wind output coincide with periods 

of limited hydropower flexibility. If other sources of flexibility are not available at 

the same time, system operators may need to limit wind output for brief periods in 

order to maintain reliability. 

Moderating the Carbon Dioxide ‘‘Footprint’’ of the Northwest Power Supply 

As the title of this hearing asserts, hydropower is clean and renewable. Hydropower in the mix of electricity-generating resources reduces the amount of electricity 

produced by power plants that burn fossil fuels, and therefore the amount of carbon 

25 

dioxide and other greenhouse gasses released into the atmosphere from those 

plants. In November 2007, the Council reported the results of a year-long study of 

carbon dioxide emissions from the Northwest power plants. 

The results demonstrated the moderating effect of the region’s large hydropower 

base on carbon dioxide emissions from the power supply, compared to other areas 

of the West with less hydropower and more thermal generation. For example, under 

normal water conditions, in 2005 the Pacific Northwest would have produced about 

520 pounds of carbon dioxide for each megawatt-hour of electricity generated, compared to 900 pounds for the entire western interconnected power system. 

However, like other areas of the country, the Northwest faces the likelihood of increasing greenhouse gas emissions—albeit at a slower rate than elsewhere. Moderating, slowing, and eventually reversing this growth is a challenge for our nation 

as well as for our region. Carbon dioxide emissions in the Northwest, thanks to hydropower, are already comparatively low. Forcing them to go lower will be a challenge for the Northwest. We face this challenge because the Northwest has essentially the same set of future electricity-generating options as the rest of the country. 

Unlike other regions of the country, however, the Northwest has the Council’s 

Northwest Power Plan to guide future resource development. The plan follows the 

resource priorities in the Power Act. The priorities are: first, cost-effective energy 

efficiency (conservation); second, cost-effective renewable energy; third, high-efficiency thermal generation; and fourth, traditional thermal generation. 

The base case of our analysis of carbon dioxide emissions from the Northwest 

power supply assumed implementation of the resource recommendations in the Fifth 

Power Plan, which includes aggressive development of energy conservation and renewable resources, particularly wind power (the Fifth Power Plan was completed in 

2004; the Council is working on the Sixth Power Plan now and plans to finish it 

in mid-2009). According to the study, carbon dioxide emissions in the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) area increase about 3 percent to about 920 

pounds per megawatt-hour by 2024, whereas the Northwest rate, with aggressive 

development of energy efficiency and renewable energy, also increases 3 percent to 

about 530 pounds. The future growth rate of annual regional carbon dioxide production would be even higher if the conservation, wind power, and other renewable resource development called for in the Council’s Fifth Power Plan were not accomplished. With implementation of the Council’s plan in the base case, the annual carbon-dioxide production of the regional power system in 2024 under normal conditions would be about 67 million tons, an 18-percent increase over normal 2005 

levels. 

Carbon-Reduction Policy Focus 

An important finding of the carbon dioxide analysis is that it will be difficult to 

achieve goals for carbon-dioxide emissions with policies that focus only on new 

power plants. If the energy efficiency targets of the Council’s Fifth Power Plan were 

achieved and renewable energy portfolio standards were successfully implemented 

by all Northwest states, projected power-system carbon-dioxide emissions in 2024 

would exceed normalized 2005 levels by more than 10 percent, and actual 1990 levels by more than 40 percent. Put another way, meeting the aggressive energy efficiency and renewable portfolio standards would slow, but not eliminate, growth of 

carbon-dioxide emissions. Even worse, if the region fails to meet the conservation 

targets in the Council’s Fifth Power Plan, or if hydropower generation is reduced 

from current levels and the power replaced with new thermal generation, the effect 

would be a net gain in carbon-dioxide emissions over time. 

Overall, the effects of the various scenarios addressed in the analysis, all of which 

are consistent with current policies that address future, and not existing, thermal 

power plants, yield a reduction of carbon-dioxide emissions equal to the output of 

one or two coal-fired power plants. In the Fifth Power Plan, the Council’s forecast 

for regional carbon-dioxide production by the power system in 2024 exceeds 1990 

levels by an amount equivalent to eight coal-fired plants. These results illustrate the 

difficulty of reducing carbon dioxide production with policies that affect only new 

sources of electricity generation. Existing coal-fired power plants dominate carbondioxide production from electricity generation. These plants provide about 23 percent of the region’s electricity but 85 percent of the carbon-dioxide emissions from 

the regional power system. To stabilize carbon-dioxide emissions at 2005 levels or 

to reduce emissions to 1990 levels would require replacing the output of some of 

these existing coal-fired plants with additional energy conservation and other resources that produce little or no carbon dioxide. In addition, the analysis shows that 

policy choices made for purposes other than carbon-dioxide reduction, such reducing 

hydropower generation to improve environmental conditions for migratory fish, also 

can have significant adverse effects on carbon-dioxide production. In fact, the effect 

26 

could be great enough to negate the carbon-reduction goals of state renewable portfolio standards. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify at this hearing. Through the Council’s planning processes for future power supplies and fish and wildlife protection, 

we are working to ensure that our region’s hydropower-dominated electricity supply 

remains clean, reliable, and affordable. 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. Very good. Everyone is being quite 

timely here. Thank you. 

Let’s see. Next is Mr. English. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. GLENN ENGLISH, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE 

ASSOCIATION, ARLINGTON, VA 

Mr. ENGLISH. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate 

that. Let me just say I am delighted to be here. Thank you for the 

opportunity of testifying on behalf of the electric cooperatives 

across this country. 

I will bring you a little different perspective and perhaps an appreciation of just how important hydro is going to be for the future. 

I think we all recognize and understand that we are likely to see 

climate change legislation pass in the not-too-distant future. Given 

the position of the two political nominees of major parties, it is very 

likely we are going to see climate change law in the not-too-distant 

future. 

What is not recognized, I don’t think, and received nearly as 

much attention is the fact that the generation capacity in this 

country is pretty much exhausted. We built excess capacity back in 

the late 1970s, early 1980s. That is pretty much gone. And given 

what the Energy Information Agency has projected for the year 

2030, we are told we are going to have about a 30 percent increase 

in demand over and above what we have today, some 264 

gigawatts of power. 

And the real question that we have facing us is obviously a time 

in which additional generation needs to be built, and that has to 

be balanced with what climate change legislation may pass the 

Congress. 

And, in the next decade, that could be a very serious pinch. The 

reason that I say that is due to the fact that already we are seeing 

a chilling effect of the use of the primary fuel that we have, as far 

as generation in this country, and that is coal-fired generation. Nationwide, it is roughly half of all the generation is coal-fired. And 

we are seeing those plants that were on the drawing boards are 

now being shifted into primarily natural gas. 

That is obviously going to have a serious impact as to the ability 

of the country to be able to meet the demand needs. That means 

we have to have a lot of production out of efficiency and a lot out 

of renewables. 

I am very proud to say that I am one of the steering committee 

members for the national organization of ‘‘25 x ’25,’’ which has as 

its national objective 25 percent of our energy produced by the year 

2025. I am also very pleased to say that that organization fully recognizes that hydro is a renewable and must play a very important 

role as far as the mix for the future. 

27 

The fact of the matter is, Madam Chair, up to this point, whether you talk about Democratic or Republican administrations, I am 

not sure that we have seen the proper respect and appreciation for 

the contribution that is made by hydro in this country, and certainly what is going to be necessary for the future. 

The bottom line is, if, in fact, we are going to keep the lights on 

in this country, we are going to need the full productive capacity 

of hydro in this Nation. And that means that we have to have upgrades and improvements in the existing facilities and any additional contributions that can be made. And that, I think, is a very 

important role indeed. 

As we look at the fact that both the Corps of Engineers and the 

Bureau of Reclamation today practice a breakdown maintenance 

approach, which seriously impairs the capacity to generate the full 

capacity of our hydro plants, that is obviously a policy that needs 

to be changed and changed very rapidly. 

I would suggest that any time we have a breakdown, any time 

we have a generator shutdown, what it means is that particular 

entity, in order to acquire power, must in fact buy on the open 

market. And, most likely, the power that must be purchased is 

going to be power that is adding to the climate challenge, making 

it more difficult for us to obtain any gains that the Congress and 

the new President may lay down to us. 

So I think it is extremely important for us to look ahead. It is 

my understanding that we have a Government report now underscoring the fact that 2,500 megawatts, or approximately the output 

of four coal-based power plants, could be displaced through the rehabilitation and additional development of the hydroelectric resources. That is something that the country desperately needs, and 

we need that contribution. 

So, at the present time, I know many of our members, who are 

a part of the Federal preference customer group, are providing 

funding and rehabilitation on their own. They are taking money 

out of their own pocket and making the contribution to make these 

rehabilitations. The Western States, in WAPA, their footprint, they 

funded almost $50 million in rehabilitation needs, but they can’t do 

it all alone. 

So what we need is, obviously, for the Congress and the new administration to recognize the importance of hydro, the importance 

it has to play in meeting any climate change goals, the importance 

that it is going to play in the future in meeting this additional demand need, and certainly the importance in trying to keep electric 

bills down in this Nation. 

So, Madam Chair, I want to applaud the fact that you are having 

this hearing, applaud the fact that you recognize the importance of 

hydro. And I hope that you are able to spread to your colleagues 

the very important role that hydro will have to play if this country 

indeed is going to keep the lights on and meet its needs. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. English follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Glenn English, C.E.O., 

National Rural Electric Cooperative Association 

Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers, and Members of 

the Subcommittee: 

28 

1Sec. 806 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. 25 x 25 Action Plan. http:// 

www.25x25.org/storage/25x25/documents/IP%20Documents/ActionlPlan/actionplanl64pgl11- 

11-07.pdf 

My name is Glenn English, and I am the Chief Executive Officer of the National 

Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA). I appreciate the invitation to appear before you today to discuss hydropower issues. NRECA is a trade association 

consisting of nearly 1,000 cooperatives providing electricity to 41 million consumers 

in 47 states. As member-owned, not-for-profit organizations, cooperatives have an 

obligation to provide a reliable supply of electricity to all consumers in our service 

areas at the lowest possible price. We take our obligation to serve very seriously— 

the personal and economic health of our members, our communities, and our nation 

depends on it. Cooperatives serve primarily the more sparsely populated parts of 

our nation but cover roughly 75 percent of the nation’s land mass. 

In the early stages of this nation’s hydropower program, electric cooperatives 

agreed to a partnership with the federal government. Electric cooperatives agreed 

to pay what were then significantly higher costs for power in exchange for a guarantee of a secure, reliable cost-based power resource. This partnership provided the 

basic structure for real competition between consumer-owned and large investorowned utilities. Today the federal hydropower program remains a very important 

source of power for more than 600 electric cooperatives. In total, 50 million people 

nationwide share the benefits of the federal hydropower program. The Energy Information Agency (EIA) reports that hydropower accounts for nearly 75 percent of the 

country’s renewable energy supply, while meeting seven percent of consumers’ total 

energy needs. 

To fully appreciate the future role of hydropower—and its importance—I believe 

the Subcommittee should know the energy challenge facing this nation and how 

electric cooperatives are reacting to this challenge. Frankly, I believe that Congress 

is focused on one half of the looming challenge—but the other half is critical though 

it has not received the same spotlight as global climate change. This is the fundamental question of whether the nation will have enough electricity capacity to meet 

consumer energy needs. 

EIA has projected that electricity demand will grow 30 percent by 2030, requiring 

264 gigawatts of electricity. To better understand the magnitude of this challenge, 

consider that 264 gigawatts is 2.5 times the power now generated in the state of 

Texas. The more critical and immediate problem will come in the next ten years. 

Members of the Subcommittee are well aware of the opposition to building new coalfired generation, as well as the massive undertaking needed to enlarge our fleet of 

nuclear power plants. Even taking increased energy efficiency into account, the nation will still need 118 gigawatts of new generating capacity by 2020. Natural gas 

will clearly play a crucial role, but we will need every source of electric power generation at our disposal. We simply cannot wait. In some regions, demand will soon 

outstrip capacity unless generation and transmission are added, leading Richard 

Sergel, CEO of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, to state: ‘‘We’re 

close to the edge...We need action in the next year or two to start on the path to 

having enough electricity 10 years from now.’’ I have attached a map to my testimony showing the near-term dates when many regions will face an electricity capacity shortfall. 

Among electric cooperative consumers, demand growth is projected at about double the national average. Electric cooperatives take seriously our responsibility to 

meet our consumers’ electricity needs, while also taking a leadership role in the development of renewable energy. More than ever before, renewable hydropower must 

be part of the diverse mix of fuels to meet our consumers’ needs. 

As a member of the steering committee of the 25x25 Ag Energy Working Group, 

NRECA worked with Congress to include the goals of the 25x25 action plan in the 

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. 1 The action plan calls for the 

United States to produce 25 percent of its electricity from renewable energy sources 

by 2025. During the Working Group process, I argued that hydropower must be included in the definition of a renewable. I was pleased that language in the 25x25 

action plan recommended that ‘‘America must rapidly increase centralized and decentralized renewable electricity generation, taking advantage of biomass, geothermal, hydropower, landfill gas, biogas from animal operations and other organic 

waste, solar, and wind, as well as thermal uses.’’ This type of recognition of hydropower as a renewable is long overdue. 

It’s important to note that electric cooperatives continue to develop their own 

sources of renewable energy through aggressive use of the Clean Renewable Energy 

Bond (CREBS) program included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. So far, 40 electric 

cooperatives have developed or are developing $430 million worth of renewable 

29 

2Testimony of Jon Worthington, Administrator Southwestern Power Administration, before 

the House Subcommittee on Water and Power, February 26, 2008 3Testimony of Leon Jourolmon, Acting Administrator Southeastern Power Administration, before the House Subcommittee on Water and Power, February 26, 2008. 4 House Energy and Water Appropriations Committee Report FY 2008. 

energy projects using this program. This project portfolio includes $60 million for 

new incremental hydropower projects. 

In addition, cooperatives across the country recently formed the National Renewables Cooperative Organization (NRCO) to accelerate the development and deployment of renewable energy resources. Since it has become increasingly difficult to 

build new baseload generation, electric cooperatives recognized we must produce as 

much power as is technologically and economically possible from renewable sources. 

Formed in March of 2008, NRCO already has 24 member co-ops who collectively 

serve 23 million Americans in 36 states. NRCO reflects the commitment of cooperatives around the country to the responsible development of cost effective renewable 

resources in a manner that benefits their consumers, their communities, and the nation as a whole. The NRCO will allow cooperatives to pool expertise in developing 

renewable energy, share access to sites that are conducive to renewable production, 

and potentially lower the high capital costs of these projects. 

The NRCO and CREBS will help stimulate development of renewable resources 

in the future. In the meantime, the federal government is overlooking its largest 

and most long-standing renewable resource: hydropower. 

For more than 100 years, the federal government has developed hydropower capabilities at the multi-purpose projects of the Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau) and 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) across the country. These projects serve a variety of needs (flood control, irrigation, municipal and industrial water, and recreation) and play an important role in local, regional and national economic development. Preference customers purchasing this power are repaying the federal government’s hydropower investment. There is no subsidy. 

The multi-purpose projects of the Corps and Bureau generate enough emissionfree hydropower each year to displace 85.5 million metric tons of CO2. The Subcommittee may be interested in the positive environmental role each of the four 

Power Marketing Administrations play in the displacement of CO2. 

The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) generates 72,307 gigawatt-hours of 

hydropower, annually displacing 56.2 million metric tons of CO2. One of the federal 

dams in BPA’s footprint, the Grand Coulee Dam, with which the Ranking Member 

is very familiar, has the potential to produce almost 7 gigawatts of electricity. That’s 

enough power to displace the emissions of more than 10 coal-fired power plants. 

The federal hydropower marketed by the Southwestern Power Administration produces an average of 5,570 gigawatt-hours of clean renewable hydropower annually. 

This energy production reduces emissions of carbon dioxide by 4.6 million tons per 

year. 2 Projects in the Southeastern Power Administration (Southeastern) play a 

similar role in mitigating carbon emissions. Southeastern’s generation of 5,232 

gigawatt-hours in Fiscal Year 2007 offset carbon dioxide emissions by 4.4 million 

metric tons. 3 In the Western Area Power Administration, 26,159 gigawatt-hours in 

Fiscal Year 2007 offset the equivalent of 20.3 million metric tons of CO2. 

Unfortunately, the hydropower capabilities at federal dams have been compromised by years of insufficient funding, even though federal hydropower investment is repaid with interest to the U.S. Treasury. 

Starting in the late 1970s and continuing to present day, the hydropower facilities 

at these multi-purpose projects have not been adequately maintained or kept upto-date. By abandoning its stewardship of this important national resource, the federal government has compromised the reliability of federal hydropower generation 

at a time when renewable energy resources are increasingly important in the effort 

to reduce carbon emissions as well as meet growing electricity demand. 

Let us heed the words of Chairman Peter Visclosky in the FY 2008 House Energy 

and Water Appropriations Committee report: 

‘‘Energy security and issues of global climate change are increasingly important to the decisions made regarding infrastructure investment. Hydropower improvements at existing facilities provide a reliable, efficient, domestic, emission-free resource that is renewable.’’ 4

Unfortunately, the Corps and Bureau have practiced ‘‘break-down’’ maintenance— 

only fixing or replacing units when they break instead of performing routine maintenance to keep federal hydropower projects running at their most efficient capacity. 

Fortunately, a blueprint now exists to address this problem. 

A little-known section included at the end of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 mandated that the Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers inventory the 

30 

5Potential Hydroelectric Development at Existing Federal Facilities, U.S. Departments of the 

Interior, Army and Energy, May 2007. 

amount of additional hydropower possible through the rehabilitation of existing federal dams and additional development at these facilities. 

The report found 64 sites warranting ‘‘...further exploration for additional hydropower development,’’ 5potentially resulting in the addition of 1,230 MW. By rehabilitating existing hydroelectric facilities, an additional 1,283 MW of emission-free hydropower could be produced. In total, 2,500 MW or the approximate output of four 

sizable coal-based power plants could be displaced through the addition and rehabilitation of these hydroelectric resources. 

Let me be clear. This is not a Republican or Democratic issue. Successive administrations—under the direction of the Office of Management and Budget—have failed 

to put sufficient resources into the power function of these facilities, allowing many 

parts of the federal power system to fall into disrepair. When hydropower units are 

down, preference customers are forced to buy power from the open market, which 

is frequently fossil-based and more costly. 

Wolf Creek Dam in Kentucky epitomizes this problem. In 2006, the Corps of Engineers implemented emergency measures to prevent a catastrophic failure of this 

dam. Due to the lowering of the reservoir behind the dam, approximately 312 

megawatts of hydropower generation has been lost. 

Wolf Creek is but one example of a system that is failing to operate efficiently. 

The problem runs rife through the Federal Power System. In the Southwestern 

Power Administration service territory, ten percent of the units generating hydropower are out of service because they need to be fixed or outright replaced. This 

total outage amounts to 132 Megawatts. 

The problem was compounded this spring when several dams could not take advantage of above average rainfalls in Missouri and Arkansas. In one instance, the 

Truman Dam in Missouri was unable to realize its true hydropower potential due 

to a transformer failure. This failure precluded three of its six generators from operating during this unique opportunity to generate excess hydropower. 

In many cases, preference customers have stepped in to provide funding for the 

rehabilitation of these facilities. A group of Western Area Power Administration customers known as the Western States Power Corporation has funded projects rehabilitating hydroelectric facilities of the Corps and Bureau to the sum of $45.8 million. Unfortunately, Western States members simply cannot advance fund all of the 

federal hydropower program’s repair needs while at the same time maintaining 

their own generation infrastructure and developing new sources of renewable and 

conventional generation. It must be a federal priority and a continuation of the federal hydropower commitment to consumers. 

Some have called for the breaching of our federal dams. This would be completely 

counter to the long-standing federal hydropower commitment and policy. This is not 

the time to create additional energy challenges for this country. Nor is it time to 

adopt misguided proposals initiated by OMB that seek to change the repayment 

terms of the PMAs. We must invest in our federal hydropower infrastructure and 

reverse the ‘‘break-down’’ maintenance practice that has put the federal hydroelectric infrastructure in such a dire state of disrepair. 

NRECA urges Congress and future Administrations—Republican or Democrat— 

to take all steps necessary to maximize the reliability and efficiency of the existing 

federal hydropower assets and to identify and pursue all opportunities to expand 

these facilities. These assets are an essential part of the national strategy for addressing global climate change and ensuring that consumers have enough electricity. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I will be happy to answer any questions 

you might have. 

31 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. Thank you. 

And excellent testimony by everyone. Again, appreciate you being 

here. 

I would like to just ask a question that each panelist can answer, 

and it does relate to electricity demand. And as we think about the 

next 20 years, there is a lot of differing opinions as to how we are 

going to meet electricity demand in this country. And some think 

that new generation isn’t necessary, that we can meet the demand 

through conservation, efficiency. 

I would just like to hear from you your perspective on the need 

for new generation and if you believe there is an opportunity for 

expanded hydropower generation. 

Mr. MORTON. I take it you are looking at me to start off with 

that. 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. Well, if you would like. 

Mr. MORTON. Again, thank you for allowing us to also share in 

the questions and answers. 

The most exciting thing I see for the future—and I don’t think 

there is any argument but that we need more power when we increase our industrial output, we increase our population. 

The most exciting thing that we have seen so far is the, I am 

going to call it, RITE Project in the East River of New York City. 

So here we are way out in the other corner of the United States 

looking at it. The Public Utility District of Okanogan has looked seriously at this as a project that may be able to be included in the 

Columbia River itself. 

The RITE Project in New York—and I have addendums on it 

somewhere in your literature there—is placing turbines beneath 

the surface of a flowing stream of water. In our case, we are lookVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:55 Dec 16, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\43121.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY

43121.001.eps
32 

ing seriously at the Columbia River as a possibility for putting 

these many fixtures in that would generate power. 

So we see that as a strong possibility the committee might want 

to consider and get more information on. 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. Anyone else? 

Mr. GRUENSPECHT. In our outlook to 2030, we do see growth in 

electricity demand, certainly much less than in the past. When I 

was a kid, electricity demand was increasing 6, 7, 8 percent a year, 

so electricity demand would double every 10 years. Now we are 

looking at growth, much lower rate, maybe 1.1 percent in our base 

case. But over time, as has been discussed, that does add up. After 

2030, you are looking at something like close to 30 percent. 

As was discussed earlier, we have been relying on existing capacity, for base load in particular, that was built. We haven’t built 

much new coal, much new nuclear. We have built a lot of gas recently, although running those gas plants is very expensive. So, 

over time, the capacity factors on our existing nuclear and our existing coal plants have gone up. And it is not very attractive because of climate change to build more coal plants, if we are really 

going to be serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

So there is need for base load generation of some sort. Conventional hydro, you know, we think there are opportunities for improvements in addition to the existing sites. History suggests that 

new sites may be quite difficult. 

But, as discussed by several of the witnesses, some of these new 

technologies, frankly, like the hydro kinetic technologies, could 

matter. That includes both instream power; it could also include 

the wave power, which is grouped into that. But it is early days 

for those, and we don’t really include those in our base yet. But 

there may be an opportunity there. 

Thank you. 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. Thank you. 

Mr. ENGLISH. Madam Chair, I would suggest this. Common sense 

tells you that we are going to have to have more generation if you 

are going to eliminate the primary fuel that we have had in this 

country for most of the last century, namely coal. And that is basically what we are going to do with climate change legislation until 

we have the technology for carbon capture and storage. And it is 

anticipated that that technology will not be available until well 

after 2020. So for the next decade or so, we are going to primarily 

be shifting to natural gas. 

And, obviously, we are going to need all the help that we can get 

out of efficiency, we are going to need everything we can get out 

of renewables, and we are going to have to have a real stretch here 

to be able to meet the power needs of this country and take care 

of the demand that EIA has forecasted. That is 118 gigawatts here 

in the next 10 years of demand that has to be consumed in some 

way, dealt with in some way. 

To give you some idea of the magnitude of what we are talking 

about, in the next 20 years, we are talking about roughly two and 

a half times the amount of power that is produced in the State of 

Texas, about four times what is produced in California. So it is a 

tremendous amount of power that has to be acquired in some fashion, either reducing the demand, increasing existing capacity capaVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:55 Dec 16, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\43121.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
33 

bilities, and certainly renewables. And hydro can play a major role 

in that. 

But I think it underscores once again that if we are going to do 

this and do it with an ambitious schedule on meeting climate 

change objectives, then obviously we have to maximize what we 

can get out of hydro. And I think that is the lesson and certainly 

the message that needs to be taken to colleagues in the Congress, 

as well as to the new President and new administration. 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. OK. 

Go ahead, Ms. Eden. 

Ms. EDEN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I agree with the numbers for load growth that are predicted by 

the gentlemen on either side of me. 

The Power Council does a power plan every 5 years, and a new 

one is due out next year. The statute requires us to use cost-effective conservation first in the Northwest and then renewables, and 

then, as every other part of the country, we have built quite a bit 

of gas in the meantime. 

We will be looking at all of the possibilities, including demand 

response and possibly hydro projects that have not yet been built. 

Our fifth power plan, which came out in 2004, encouraged the 

upgrading of existing hydro projects, because there is a good deal 

of electricity that can be generated by investing the money necessary to upgrade those projects. Our last plan did not encourage 

the development of new hydro, at least in the Northwest, because 

it was determined that all of the sites were small, the potentials 

were small, and the cost was tremendous. 

Ms. EDEN. So they weren’t deemed to be economically feasible. 

As we do every 5 years, we will be looking at that question again. 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. Very good. Thank you. Madam Chairwoman. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, ma’am. I would like to ask to all 

panelists that some of the testimony focuses on the potential for 

new hydropower. And I know we have discussed it. And you have 

mentioned it may not be feasible in some areas. Developing a 

new—from different sources, do you think the House passed measure H.R. 6049 that includes a provision making some hydropower 

projects eligible for the production, tax credit and clean and renewable energy bond will incentivize new hydropower production if enacted? And is it enough to be able to entice or be able to enthuse 

people to get into the business of production? Yes, Mr. English. 

Mr. ENGLISH. Clean renewable energy bonds is certainly a part 

of the renewable effort electrical operatives have underway. And 

we have some $60 million that we are applying along those lines 

with regard to the incremental hydro. So yes, the more we can get, 

the more we can engage and produce. And we think that that is 

very necessary. Could I add one additional point, Madam Chair, 

that there is something that I—also that I think people need to understand. Hydro is obviously the cheapest power we have in this 

country, and it makes more of a contribution to help keep electric 

bills down than anything else. 

And these days, it is extremely important given energy prices. 

The point that I would make is that we are anticipating, because 

of the shortage and because of having a shift in natural gas, that 

34 

we are likely to see electric bills within this decade triple and 

maybe even more. And so hydro can play a major role in dampening that and helping to hold that down. So you know, even these 

small projects, they may not be cost effective now, but as those 

electric bills go up, they are going to become more cost effective 

and become more important as we try to hold down electric bills. 

We project—and I will lay this out—we project that we will have 

a major shift as far as the realities of this country is facing. Up 

to this point it has been a national policy since the 1930s and the 

creation of the REA that electric power is affordable. We do not 

think that all of our citizens are going to be able to afford electric 

power in the not too distant future. It will be a shift that has been 

a result of national policy. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you for your comments. That is something to look at. And back in the 1980s, when I was on city council, 

there was some discussion with our city manager in relation to utilizing the mains of the water—the water mains going through the 

cities that were, say, 8 to 12 inches, to be able to put some kind 

of a device to be able to create the energy. Has anybody even 

looked at an alternative way of developing that energy that may 

then not create the demand on the hydro—the grids, but be able 

to survive at least—not survive—promote and help the local residents be able to at least not have rolling blackouts? Anybody. Yes, 

ma’am. 

Ms. EDEN. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will give you an example 

of the project, such as the one you might be referring to. In the 

Deschutes River Basin, which is just over the Cascades in Oregon, 

the irrigation districts and the Indian tribes and the irrigators 

have all gotten together and they are trying to do their best to save 

water and enhance everyone’s business and everyone’s way of life. 

One of the things they have done is to pipe irrigation canals so 

they are saving that water from evaporation. And they have put on 

at least one of those canals, on the new pressurized pipe, a hydro 

project. And I don’t know exactly what the megawattage is of production. 

But I was surprised to hear that they were doing that on pressurized pipe. I just heard about that this week and it is something 

that they are looking at there, so it must be something that irrigation districts and others are looking at, especially all over the west. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. May I ask on behalf of this Subcommittee that 

any information that you have be forwarded? Because that is important for us to begin looking at other alternative methods. And 

I can tell you at the time that we were looking at in the City of 

Norwalk they projected they would be able to provide electricity to 

the whole of the city hall complex, which included about 8 or 10 

buildings, including sheriffs and libraries and other buildings. So 

it could be something that might be locally available and assist in 

being able to provide that new energy. 

Ms. EDEN. Madam Chair, I would be happy to provide that information. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I would appreciate that. Anybody else? 

Mr. MORTON. Madam Chairwoman, in giving thought to your 

comments, we have always thought big, big, big in construction of 

our dams and our hydropower. I think there is a great value in 

35 

keeping in the picture a part of the whole puzzle, a part of the picture is the smaller operations. We have one on Sheep Creek. It is 

literally a creek. A family developed the power. This was 20 years 

ago. And have been very successful in selling it now to Avista. 

However, the regulations and the rules and the restrictions today 

would not permit them to be able to do that. They would not be 

permitted mainly because of the legal work involved and the many 

rules and regulations that really, as we see it, have not adversely 

impacted that stream of water. I think that is one thing we need 

to look at, too. Look at the turbines that can be used as the Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands, have done and we can benefit 

from their experiences. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Anybody else? Yes, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Madam Chair. And very briefly I guess, 

Commissioner Johnson, in speaking to the reliability of the grid 

and in referencing the blackout, the western electricity blackout in 

the 1990s and the chaos that it brought about, can you speak to 

how dams and hydropower could rise to the occasion for that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Because they have an ability to start up immediately, hydropower facilities do have an ability to get the grid back 

up when you have a blackout. Now, that ability has not historically 

been used. It hasn’t had to be used. But it is there, and it is a very 

valuable resource to provide that startup when and if the need occurs. But in the blackout that we had back in the 1990s, actually 

the hydro facilities were not used in starting that backup and I 

don’t think that there was a need. They were able to do it without 

it. But certainly it is a valuable resource from that perspective. 

Mr. SMITH. OK. An the grid is capable of transmitting that power 

in a sufficient manner? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I think in most cases, yes. But I am not—you 

know, I think that is probably a regional question that I don’t have 

enough specific information to respond completely to. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. On another topic I guess, Commissioner 

Johnson, you know, the current debate over climate change or, you 

know, that the weather is changing. Certainly, I think the evidence 

is in on that. As Mr. Costa suggested earlier, the debate is now 

how and why or what can we do to address that. But I think it is 

a good business decision affected by any entity affected by energy 

or—especially hydropower and global—and the climate change and 

the impact. How do you guys measure that at the agency? What 

do you do to kind of keep tabs on the effects of climate change? 

Mr. JOHNSON. We have been paying a lot of attention to climate 

change. One of the problems that we have is there is not a lot of 

basin-specific data that really allows you to do a good analysis of 

how we ought to be looking at operating our facilities in the future, 

the very question that Congressman Costa was raising earlier. We 

know that it is getting warmer. We know we are going to have earlier run-off. How should that change our operations of our systems? 

But we don’t have the specific data in terms of, what is the stream 

flow going to be, what is going to be the microclimate on a basinby-basin basis. We have an initiative in our 2009 budget called 

Water For America. 

Part of that initiative includes studies to try to get a better handle on that on a basin-by-basin basis. So we are hoping to get some 

36 

more resources into that area to try to get a better handle on how 

we should be operating our facilities in light of climate change. 

Mr. SMITH. I appreciate that. And let me just say that as one 

who represents a great number of irrigators in the greater reclamation system, I mean, certainly the drought of the west has impacted things drastically, and I think it is just a good business decision to keep tabs on that. Thank you. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Costa. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman—both 

Madam Chairwomen. To follow up on Mr. Smith’s line of questioning and my statement that I made earlier, we do know something though, Commissioner. I mean, we had droughts in California, the late 1980s and early 1990 until 1992 a 6-year drought. 

We have been in extended drought on the Colorado River, so based 

upon those dry conditions, we know how the systems have been operated during that time period. I am wondering if you can give us 

some more information based on that modeling. And one other factor, I don’t know that you have been involved, but I know others 

have with the study of tree rings in the microbasins on the Sierra 

Nevada and with trees that go back 2,000 years old, they are still 

alive and we have been able to determine that based on the proximity of those tree rings to one another, dry periods versus extended wet periods of time over hundreds and—actually up to almost 2,000 years—which gives us some good record of precipitation. 

And one of the things that I have been told is that what it really 

clearly indicates is that the last 90 years in California on the 

microbasins of the Sierra Nevada have been unusually wet compared to other periods of time during the hundreds of years cycles 

going back 1,000, 1,500 years. If that is the case, we have 38 million people in California. We are projected to have 50 million in the 

not too distant future, 2030, how are we going to make this water 

system work with the power? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, we have done the kind of analysis that you 

are talking about from a tree ring perspective. We have done quite 

a bit of study, particularly on the Colorado River Basin, to correlate 

tree rings with stream flow. And we have re-created a 500-year 

record on the Colorado River system that does give you the chance 

to look at extended periods of drought and how that would affect 

our operations on that system. And in fact, that information was 

included in the recent development of our shortage guidelines that 

we put in place on the Colorado River system just this last year. 

Mr. COSTA. So we can, based upon that, determine how much reduced power that we will lose as a result of drought conditions? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, we can look at periods of the record that occurred in the past that were significantly dry. And we can say if 

that kind of drought condition might occur again—— 

Mr. COSTA. We will lose so much power? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Absolutely. We can look and see. We are going to 

lose a lot of power. 

Mr. COSTA. Before my time expires though, some of the things 

we have done—and I wonder how well you have inventoried it that 

maybe raises less political opposition, i.e., raising spillway gates on 

reservoirs that add the capacity, you add the capacity that provides 

more water, whether it be for generation of electricity or for other 

37 

purposes. Have you inventoried all those significant reservoirs, 

whether they be Bureau or in partnership with the Army Corps or 

projects that are owned by other entities that have hydro facilities 

on them that had the potential to raise gates? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yeah. There was an Energy Policy Act that was 

passed about 2 years ago that required all Federal agencies to review power resources, hydroelectric facilities. And, in fact, I think 

there was a report that was provided to Congress that identified 

areas where—opportunities for more hydro development. Yes, sir. 

Mr. COSTA. And how much additional power does it say we could 

realize? 

Mr. JOHNSON. We identified some in Bureau of Reclamation facilities. And I couldn’t tell you off the top of my head but it is not 

a lot. To be real honest with you, there was not a lot. 

Mr. COSTA. The Kiowa Reservoir in the late 1990s, the legislation 

I carried on the State level, and Caldula carried at the Federal 

level, added 48,000 acre feet of storage capacity to that reservoir. 

Small hydro, quickly, any of you have any idea of what small 

hydro can add to our renewable hydro source? No estimates? 

Mr. GRUENSPECHT. I know there are some projects—some of 

them are very preliminary—before the FERC. There is more of this 

hydro kinetic, which is the tidal, the instream, and the wave as 

well. And they are looking at about—I think now—some of this is 

prefiling but there is about six gigawatts, I would say. 

Mr. COSTA. Didn’t you say in your testimony about tidal—you 

mentioned the tidal potential? 

Mr. GRUENSPECHT. No, I did not. I said we don’t include it in our 

model to be clear because in our reference, we have a modest, very 

modest amount of additional conventional hydro added, and I think 

that was consistent with much of the others in the panel. But I 

wanted to make it clear that that was the conventional hydro, and 

this unconventional hydro, again, has some potential, but it is very 

early days and it is very hard to define exactly what that is. 

Mr. COSTA. My time has expired. I thank both of you. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, everyone. That will conclude the 

first panel. We may submit some questions to you in writing and 

we would just ask that you respond as promptly as possible. Before 

the next panel is recognized, I wanted to ask unanimous consent 

that statements from the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority and the 

American Public Power Association be included in the record. 

[NOTE: The statements submitted for the record have 

been retained in the Committee’s official files.] 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And I think before the next panel comes up— 

those of you on panel 2, maybe you can start making your way to 

the table. I wanted to show the committee a 2-minute clip of a 

Today Show piece on hydropower that I thought you would enjoy. 

[Video is played.] 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Madam Ranking Member. It is 

very good to see something that we don’t normally all get to visit. 

For our second panel, we have Mr. Scott Corwin, Executive Director of the Public Power Council from Portland, Oregon. Mr. Richard 

Roos-Collins, Director of Legal Service for the National Heritage 

Institute of San Francisco. He also serves as Chairman of the 

Board for the Low Impact Hydropower Institute and General CounVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:55 Dec 16, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\43121.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
38 

sel for the Hydropower Reform Coalition. Also we have with us Mr. 

Bruce Howard, Director for Environmental Affairs for Avista Utilities from Spokane, Washington. And finally, Mr. Tim Culbertson, 

General Manager of the Grant County Public Utility District from 

Ephrata, Washington. Did I pronounce that right? 

Mr. CULBERTSON. That is good. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Welcome to the witnesses. And we will start 

off with Mr. Corwin. Your testimony, sir. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT CORWIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

PUBLIC POWER COUNCIL, PORTLAND, OREGON 

Mr. CORWIN. Great. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Napolitano, 

Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers, members of the committee. I 

am Scott Corwin, Executive Director of the Public Power Council, 

representing the consumer-owned utilities of the northwest who 

purchase power from the Federal Columbia River power system. 

They serve parts of seven States and serve 41 percent of the consumers in the region. I appreciate you holding this hearing today. 

Thank you very much for having this hearing and also for showing 

that media clip. That was well done and right on point. It actually 

displayed a lot of the points I am going to make. 

You have my written testimony for the record. So I am just going 

to quickly point on three points here, and I will focus on the Federal side. But I would agree with much of the testimony that I 

know both Tim Culbertson and Bruce Howard are going to present 

on the non-Federal side as well. Excuse me. I have a cough that 

is a constant condition of having three children under 7. So I apologize for that. 

But my first point is, it really is, as you saw partly in that video, 

it is really difficult to overstate how critical this issue is. Not just 

to the northwest but nationally. I know Ranking Member McMorris 

Rodgers understands this very well and represents us in the northwest very well in this respect. But the benefits of this hydropower 

system and the Columbia Snake River system are extensive because it is the fabric of our economy there in the region. And it is 

not a partisan matter. It is just a fact. It is renewable low-cost very 

reliable, very flexible power, and it is able to facilitate the newer 

renewables very well, as others have mentioned. But it is integrated also with much of the rest of the economy, including certainly on the irrigation side, the farming side, food processing, 

barge transportation, 40 million tons worth moving down this system. A friend reminded me as we were talking about this hearing 

to mention how this does function as a system. So we have especially, on the Federal side, but actually the whole system we have 

agreements to coordinate the hydropower and the transmission system, including with Canada. And this creates quite an amazing engine for the region. 

Northwesterners realize the value of this renewable power. In 

fact, we did some polling with a group called Northwest River Partners that showed very clearly that most citizens in the northwest 

view hydropower as renewable similar to solar and wind. This 

brings me to my second point about this system. It is a flexible system with storage capability. But it is not just a system for the 

northwest. In the 1960s and 1970s, and the video showed this very 

39 

well, we had the foresight to build large transmission lines, 500 

kilovolt lines south to California in the desert southwest. 

So we are connected in a real sense. In the summer, power 

moves south for cooling. In the winter power moves north for heating. And that works very well and that is a key to the western 

economy. It also works well in times of crisis. And I guess I would 

have an answer that differs slightly from Mr. Johnson’s question 

on the first panel. I think the hydropower system has been critical 

in times of energy crisis to avoid even worse crises because in part 

of the storage capability there, not to mention the fact that the 

generators themselves are very reliable. And in fact, on the Federal 

system, they have a forced outage rate of about 3 percent. So it is 

a very reliable system and very useful in many respects to avoid 

problems with generation. 

And that brings me to my third point on emissions, just to finish 

up. I think the benefits to hydro are worldwide, but they are definitely west wide. And I would just point to you a couple of charts 

that I have on page 4 of my testimony that show that when you 

have better hydro years, in figure A, you have lower emissions and 

vice versa. You also, as Representative McMorris pointed out very 

well, would have much increased CO2 production if you take out 

generation, such as some had proposed on the Snake River. 

So this is a safe, reliable, low-cost resource. It is a proven technology and it is too valuable to neglect or degrade in light of the 

great challenges facing us moving for. Again, thank you very much 

for your leadership and holding this hearing today. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir. I couldn’t agree with you 

more. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Corwin follows:] 

Statement of R. Scott Corwin, Executive Director, 

Public Power Council 

Greetings Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers, and 

Members of the Sub-Committee. I thank you for the opportunity to testify today on 

this important topic. 

The Public Power Council (PPC) is a trade association representing the consumerowned utilities of the Pacific Northwest with statutory rights to purchase power 

from the Federal Columbia River Power System. Member utilities have service territories in portions of seven western states and serve over 41% of the electricity consumers in the region. We are committed not only to preserving the value of the Columbia River system in terms of its clean and reliable electricity for consumers, but 

also to furthering the trust responsibilities and stewardship goals we all share within the region. 

Hydropower and Energy Policy 

We appreciate your initiative in raising the issue before us. Hydropower has 

played, and will continue to play, an incredibly important role in our nation’s energy 

policy. As I will describe, hydropower is a renewable resource with numerous beneficial aspects including its lack of emission of gases and its status as being uniquely 

well-suited to facilitating other renewable resources. The irony is that many current 

policy proposals disadvantage hydropower or would penalize regions like the Northwest where we already have made enormous investments not only in hydropower 

and other renewable generation, but also in energy conservation. In fact, since we 

started keeping track with the Northwest Power Act in 1980, the Northwest has 

achieved 3,700 average megawatts of energy-efficiency, enough electricity to serve 

the entire state of Idaho and portions of Montana. 

Despite these good efforts, increasing demand for electricity in the Northwest will 

continue to outpace the addition of new conservation or other renewable resources. 

Therefore, it is very possible that constraints on hydropower could have the effect 

of pushing the region more quickly toward higher-cost, higher-emitting sources of 

40 

generation. The economic impacts of this direction are of great concern in light of 

the possibility of new policies regarding carbon emissions. 

The Role of Hydropower in the West 

Hydropower is the original renewable source of power beginning with the waterwheel used to grind corn in ancient times. In many areas of the country, hydropower 

is a major driver of economic vitality. In the Northwest, it has been nothing less 

than the lifeblood of the region throughout modern history. The dams lend not only 

a clean, continuing supply of power, they are critical to transportation, irrigation, 

flood control, and recreation as well. Barging on the Columbia River moves 40 million tons of goods each year and keeps hundreds of thousands of trucks and their 

associated emissions off of the road. According to the Pacific Northwest Waterways 

Association, the Columbia and Snake River Basin is the number one transportation 

gateway nationally for wheat, barley and several other commodities. 

To an area that was still largely without electricity in the early 20th century, the 

dams brought light and then hope of economic vitalization coming out of the great 

depression. Construction on the larger projects, such as Bonneville and Grand Coulee Dam began in 1933. But, long before that hydropower was beginning to make 

its mark in the Northwest, including the first ‘‘long distance’’ transmission of electricity 14 miles from Willamette Falls to the streetlights of Portland in 1889. 

In the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) there are now 31 dams 

ranging from a three megawatt diversion dam in Boise, Idaho, to the 6795 megawatt Grand Coulee Dam in Washington (See Appendix 1). Total peak capacity of the 

resources marketed by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) totals 13,934 

megawatts, and almost 90% of that is hydropower. In the entire Northwest region, 

there is about 41,500 megawatts of capacity with close to 60% of it in hydropower. 

The Benefits of Hydropower as a Renewable Resource 

Even though hydropower may fluctuate year to year, month to month, or week 

to week, it is stable and flexible within short periods of time. It has very important 

positive characteristics in addition to deriving its source of energy from continuously 

renewable water: (1) It is efficient in its conversion of energy; (2) It is clean in that 

it does not have waste heat or external emissions; (3) It is reliable since it makes 

use of basic and time-tested technology; (4) It is domestic to the United States; (5) 

It is generally low-cost; and, (6) it is flexible in that it can adjust quickly to changes 

in demand. 

Ratepayers of the Northwest receive the benefit of this resource and they pay for 

all of the costs of this system. Electricity ratepayers pay for all of the operations, 

maintenance, and capital of the system. And, they are cognizant of the great benefit 

hydropower lends from an environmental perspective. In fact, polling conducted last 

year on behalf of Northwest RiverPartners (www.nwriverpartners.org) showed that 

86% of respondents view hydro as a renewable resource similar to wind or solar. 

And, hydro far out-ranked other sources when respondents were asked which of the 

various sources of energy within the region is the most practical to rely upon. 

In the context of the current search for new non-emitting energy sources, the reliability and flexibility of hydropower make it particularly well-suited to integrating 

other renewable sources of energy, such as wind, that are much more intermittent. 

The system operated by BPA currently is integrating a total of over 1400 megawatts 

of wind generation. This 1400 megawatts is expected to double in the next few 

years, and could double again after that to approach 6000 megawatts according to 

current projections. Because of the variable nature of wind production, pairing it 

with hydropower is an effective method of creating a more reliable power supply. 

Hydropower and Emissions 

Because of the 31 dams and the nuclear plant in Washington that is also part 

of the federal system, customers of BPA have some of the cleanest power anywhere 

from an emissions perspective. With hydropower as 80.7% of the firm energy used 

by most customers of BPA, and nuclear adding another 12%, the portfolios of many 

of our member utilities are over 92% emissions free. 

On the next page are two charts demonstrating a key aspect of hydropower with 

respect to emissions—it has none. I would like to commend those on the Northwest 

Power and Conservation Council (NWPCC) for taking on the task of studying the 

impacts of this dynamic last year. The NWPCC is an unbiased interstate compact 

created by the Northwest Power Act in 1980 to advise the region on power, conservation, and fish and wildlife issues. They found that, while the Northwest has 

much smaller CO2 output than other regions, its CO2 production from electricity 

will grow 20% over the next 20 years to over 70 million tons annually, even if we 

meet fairly aggressive targets for conservation and new renewable generation. This 

is because most of the resources realistically available for the current planning 

41 

horizon are coal and natural gas fired generation. Figure A on the next page shows 

how CO2 emissions are inversely proportional to hydropower production in the 

Northwest: the better the water year, the lower the emissions. 

In addition, the NWPCC found that breaching the four lower snake dams, as some 

have proposed for salmon, would significantly exacerbate the issue by adding 4.6 

million tons of CO2 annually within the Northwest, and 5.2 million tons annually 

across the entire West-wide system (See Figure B, next page). Also, in light of success with other passage methods, we have questioned the efficacy and efficiency of 

some of the extremely expensive spill operations on the federal system where water 

that could produce power is flushed downstream in an attempt to pass juvenile fish 

over the spillways. The choices and opportunity costs are even more poignant when 

one recognizes, as the NWPCC showed, that current spills send five million tons of 

CO2 into the air as replacement power is generated for what would otherwise be 

electricity from hydropower. The entire report can be viewed online at http:// 

www.nwcouncil.org/library/2007/2007-15.htm 


43121.002.eps 43121.003.eps
42 

Hydropower in the Future 

Last summer the Electric Power Research Institute estimated that the potential 

increase in hydropower generation nationally could be 23,000 MW by 2025, and as 

much as four times that remains undeveloped. In the Northwest, we will be looking 

for opportunities wherever possible. Some of those efforts may involve projects on 

a very small scale such as irrigation drops. Some are needed enhancements at the 

larger projects. 

Part of the challenge is maintaining the system we have. Over the next two decades, total annual operations and maintenance costs to ratepayers for the FCRPS 

hydro program are expected to increase from just under $250 million annually, to 

over $350 million per year. Adding annual capital costs doubles this amount. Grand 

Coulee was mentioned earlier in this hearing. Operations and maintenance at that 

single project cost over $60 million per year. Because hydropower projects experience these costs regardless of how much output they provide, we have a serious interest in ensuring that their operations are not constrained for non-power reasons 

unless absolutely necessary. 

Challenges for Hydropower 

A challenge for hydropower in the near future comes from the increasing demand 

for electricity combined with the natural and regulatory limitations on generation. 

In other words, there is a limit to the available capacity of the system, and therefore 

a limit to the demands that can be placed on the system regardless of whether those 

demands are for fish and wildlife, integrating wind or other intermittent resources, 

or following customers’ loads placed on the system. Work is underway in the region 

to better identify the available capacity on an hour by hour basis throughout the 

year. 

So far, I have focused mostly on the positive aspects of hydropower because they 

are numerous. But, in the Northwest, we are also very aware of its impacts to the 

environment because we have made enormous commitments of time and money to 

address these issues. 

Treaties with tribal governments and statutes such as the Northwest Power Act 

and the Endangered Species Act play major roles in how we manage the hydropower 

system for salmon and steelhead in the Northwest. In fact, the federal agencies 

overseeing the FCRPS just signed memoranda of agreement with several tribes and 

states in the Northwest assuring over $900 million in funding for projects in order 

to address fish and wildlife needs over the next 10 years. At the same time, these 

agencies released a new biological opinion under the Endangered Species Act that 

represents an enormous collaborative scientific effort. This biological opinion came 

with another set of costs and operational constraints on the system. 

Operational constraints on federal Columbia River hydropower, such as spilling 

water over the dams or adjusting the timing of flows in the river, have reduced the 

average generation of the system by about 1000 average megawatts of energy, or 

about 13%, since 1995. According to BPA, the fish and wildlife cost category will 

account for about 30 percent of the rates charged to customers for the upcoming rate 

period, or about $800 million per year. The ratepayer cost for fish and wildlife mitigation, just in the federal hydropower system, totaled $9.3 billion from 1978-2007. 

At the same time, fish passage through the projects has been good and is improving all the time. Adult passage using ladders has been excellent for many years. 

And, new technology is seeing juvenile fish passage downstream at very high rates. 

In fact, the new biological opinion sets a very high, but achievable, targets for juvenile passage at each dam of 96% in the spring and 93% in the summer. 

It is useful to remember that hydropower is only one of many factors impacting 

species. Historically, the impacts of over-fishing, poor hatchery practices, habitat 

degradation, and naturally occurring ocean conditions have been major contributors 

to the status of salmon and steelhead stocks. Any approach to salmon recovery that 

will be successful long-term must take into account all aspects of the salmon 

lifecycle including impacts from hydro, hatcheries, harvest, and habitat. 

Conclusion 

In light of its significant benefits to customers and to the environment as a clean, 

renewable, and flexible form of generation, hydropower should be preserved, encouraged, and enhanced where possible. Over the last 70 years of major hydropower production in the Pacific Northwest, citizens of our region and neighboring regions have 

benefited from this resource and its clean energy, low impact transportation, irrigation, flood control, and recreation. 

At a critical time in our nation’s history with respect to energy policy, hydropower 

is positioned to take a lead role if our state and federal policies allow it to do so. 

As a safe, reliable, and low-cost resource that has the means to enable other renewVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:55 Dec 16, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\43121.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
43 

able generation, this proven technology is too valuable to ignore in light of the challenges facing us in the days and years to come. Again, thank you for your leadership 

in holding this oversight hearing today. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Roos-Collins. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD ROOS-COLLINS, DIRECTOR, LEGAL 

SERVICES, NATIONAL HERITAGE INSTITUTE, SAN FRANCISCO 

Mr. ROOS-COLLINS. Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member 

McMorris Rodgers, other Members, thank you so much for holding 

this hearing and also for this opportunity to testify. I have four 

points. The first is that non-Federal hydropower provides multiple 

benefits: Power generation, water supply, flood control, water quality protection, fish and wildlife enhancement. Indeed your predecessors and FDR 73 years ago enacted the Federal Power Act, 

which requires that each project must be best adapted to a comprehensive plan of development of the affected waters for all of 

these beneficial uses. 

Now since 1986, many of the projects that were built way back 

when have been relicensed. In the course of those decisions, the 

power generation has—98 percent of the power generation has 

been preserved. The generation capacity has actually increased by 

4 percent. And in addition, the projects now provide substantially 

greater benefits for fish and wildlife and recreation and water supply and flood control for the benefit of all of the affected communities. Indeed, most of these new licenses are based on settlements. 

In part, because the Hydropower Reform Coalition, whose ExecuVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:55 Dec 16, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\43121.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY

43121.004.eps
44 

tive Director is here and the National Hydropower Association, 

whose Executive Director is also here, have advocated to our respective members that settlements are preferable to litigation as 

the basis for these relicensing decisions. 

Now, a few of these projects have been decommissioned, but they 

have been decommissioned only where the utilities or the merchant 

generators who own them concluded that it is in their interest as 

well as the public interest to decommission them. My second point 

goes to Federal projects. Congress, of course, authorizes Federal 

projects directly. They have what amount to perpetual licenses. 

Nonetheless, every Federal operator has authority to re-examine its 

plan of operation, or the rules which guide its operations at each 

project. 

Unfortunately due to budget and staff constraints, the plans for 

many of these projects are literally decades old. This Subcommittee 

should encourage all Federal operators to look at their plans of operation, and I mean, every one of them, in order to optimize the 

power generation and other benefits which these projects could provide. And indeed that would be an excellent opportunity to look at 

climate change. Now, to answer Congressman Costa’s question, in 

California, the Department of Water Resources has now looked at 

climate change sufficiently to predict the range of impacts on water 

supply operations. The best case involves substantially greater risk 

of spills from our storage dams. And the worse case is much worse. 

We now have the knowledge in California—and I believe in other 

States—to begin integrating climate change, whatever causes it, 

into the operational decisions for Federal and non-Federal hydropower alike. 

My third point goes to retrofitting of existing projects, whether 

Federal or non-Federal. In answer to another question, I believe 

that existing projects are existing capital stock, should be retrofitted where that can be done in a manner that provides enhanced 

benefits, power generation, water supply, recreation, fish and wildlife protection. Indeed the Low Impact Hydropower Institute, which 

is a voluntary enterprise established by the conservation community, has now certified more than 2,000 megawatts of capacity in 

this country, some of it incremental hydropower redevelopment 

precisely for that reason so as to provide market benefits for retrofits. 

And in turn, we helped sponsor the legislation, Madam Chairwoman, that you referenced, H.R. 6049 and support production tax 

credits for retrofits. And as for opportunities at the Federal 

projects, again, I believe that if the Federal operators examine 

their plans of operation, they could find opportunities for retrofits 

and bring those back to this Congress for funding. 

My last point goes to new development. Hydrokinetic or damless 

technology has substantial promise, whether in the East River, the 

Wright project that was mentioned earlier, or in estuaries or even 

in the ocean. At this point we don’t know how real that promise 

is. What we need to do is test it by actually having pilots built and 

then monitoring them carefully and adapting to see how well they 

perform to providing the benefit of power generation while also protecting the local ecosystem. And yes, Madam Chairwoman, I agree 

that canals and other pressurized facilities should be examined for 

45 

retrofits as well to install these turbines so as to extract the maximum value from the water that is delivered for other purposes. 

In sum, I believe that time is of the essence for us to improve 

our hydropower policy so that hydropower continues to provide the 

multiple benefits it does today. Thank you. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you for your testimony. And it is really 

very much in tune with what we are hoping to find as different assistance to be able to address global warming, climate change, 

whatever you want to call it. And the increasing demands. And 

also help the power groups be able to do their job. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Roos-Collins follows:] 

Statement of Richard Roos-Collins, Director of Legal Services, 

Natural Heritage Institute 

Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers, and Members of 

the Subcommittee, thank you for this the opportunity to testify on the present and 

future of hydropower. 

I am Richard Roos-Collins. I am the Director of Legal Services for the Natural 

Heritage Institute (San Francisco), a public interest law firm which represents conservation groups and public agencies in efforts to resolve complex energy and water 

disputes for public benefit. I am Chairman of the Board of the Low Impact Hydropower Institute (Portland, ME), which certifies non-federal hydropower projects so 

as to provide market rewards for their exceeding regulatory requirements for 

environmental protection. And I am General Counsel to the Hydropower Reform 

Coalition (Washington, D.C.), a nationwide association of 140 groups (representing 

more than 1 million members) interested in the relicensing of non-federal hydropower projects to restore environmental quality consistent with reliable electricity 

generation. 

Hydropower today provides an average of 96,000 megawatts of generation capacity. This consists of 42,000 megawatts at federal projects, and 54,000 megawatts 

owned and operated by non-federal licensees regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). All told, hydropower is roughly 75% of all generation capacity which the DOE Energy Information Administration categorizes as renewable. 

Hydropower capacity has not changed significantly in the past two decades. This 

oversight hearing allows us to focus on the future. Should hydropower capacity be 

increased as a deliberate strategy to meet growth in electricity demand and mitigate 

the climate change impacts of non-renewable generation? 

My answer is: yes, done in a manner which will protect and enhance other beneficial uses of the affected waters. Rivers, estuaries and the oceans are public commons which have many beneficial uses. These include water supply, flood control, 

recreation, and fish and wildlife in addition to electricity generation. In the Federal 

Power Act of 1935, Congress required that each non-federal project must be best 

adapted to a comprehensive plan of development for all such beneficial uses. That 

bedrock principle is as vital today as 73 years ago. The laws authorizing federal hydropower projects contain similar requirements. I will discuss the future of federal 

hydropower by first reporting lessons recently learned in non-federal hydropower. 

Since the enactment of the Electric Consumers Protection Act (ECPA) in 1986, 

FERC has relicensed more than three hundred non-federal hydropower projects. As 

required by the 1935 Federal Power Act and ECPA, each new license must comply 

with current laws, including the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act. 

According to FERC’s Comprehensive Review and Recommendations Pursuant to 

Section 603 of the Energy Policy Act of 2000 (2001), the new licenses reduced the 

historical generation at these projects by 1.6% while increasing capacity by 4.1%. 

These changes resulted from new flow regulation conditions to enhance fisheries, 

recreation, and other non-developmental uses. These enhancements provide substantial economic benefits for local communities. FERC concluded that these new licenses are better adapted than the original licenses to comprehensive plans of development of the affected waters. 

Most new licenses for non-federal hydropower are now based on settlements. In 

such a settlement, the licensee, regulatory agencies and conservation groups, and 

other local stakeholders resolve their disputes about the project and commit to cooperate in the implementation of environmental conditions over the term of the new 

license. FERC will approve such a settlement upon concluding that it meets the 

legal requirements for a new license. As recently as a decade ago, relicensing deciVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:55 Dec 16, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\43121.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
46 

sions were almost always contested and litigated. This sea change occurred because 

the non-federal hydropower industry (represented by National Hydropower Association), the conservation community (represented by the Hydropower Reform Coalition 

(www.hydroreform.org)), and other stakeholders agreed to support and implement 

policy reforms under existing laws to encourage such settlements. To its credit, 

FERC adopted the Alternative Licensing Process (1997) and the Integrated Licensing Process (2003), which do just that. This policy change is driven by the recognition that a settlement establishes a joint commitment to the future of the project— 

not only compliance with license conditions, but also adaptation to changed circumstances over the 30-50 year term of the license. 

Recent market reforms promise to improve the future of non-federal hydropower. 

Since 2001, the Low Impact Hydropower Institute (LIHI) (www.lowimpacthydro.org) 

has offered certification to any project owner who voluntarily applies and demonstrates compliance with performance standards which exceed minimum regulatory requirements for environmental protection. The certification may then be 

used to secure premium rates in retail markets which permit such consumer choice. 

LIHI has now certified 2,043 megawatts of non-federal hydropower. This is the only 

such program in the nation. Its future is bright. LIHI has more pending applications 

than at any time in its history. Project owners increasingly recognize that this certification program provides retail market rewards for their efforts to reduce their 

environmental impacts consistent with reliable electricity generation. 

As another important example of market reform, the National Hydropower Association, the Hydropower Reform Coalition, and the Union of Concerned Scientists 

recently proposed legislative language, included in the energy bill (H.R. 6049) 

passed by the House last month, to provide production tax credits to retrofit existing 

dams to expand or add generation capacity. While a technical reform in tax law, 

this demonstrates how the industry and conservation community may effectively 

collaborate in legislation, when needed to enhance the public benefits of hydropower. 

So what do these developments in non-federal hydropower suggest for the federal 

hydropower which is under this Subcommittee’s direct jurisdiction? 

Federal operators should examine possible modifications to their plans of operation and even the design of their hydropower projects. Each project has such a 

plan, initially adopted during or just after construction to state the rules of operation. A typical plan is many decades old. Federal projects are not subject to a fixed 

term as with non-federal hydropower, and budget constraints have limited the willingness of federal operators to reopen their plans. Nonetheless, existing laws permit 

and even require the Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and other 

federal operators to periodically examine possible modifications to the plans of operation for all projects they administer. Such review will improve electricity generation—operationally or by justifying physical retrofit of the generation capacity. It 

will enhance other public benefits, including water supply, navigation, and environmental protection. A federal operator often has authority to implement such modifications in operations or even physical design, subject to reporting to Congress. 

Such review includes public participation and may also result in better understanding and even support by local stakeholders for the future operations of a federal project. In 2002, the Army Corps entered into a Memorandum of Understanding 

with The Nature Conservancy (www.nature.org/initiatives/freshwater/partnership/) 

to examine plans of operation at several pilot projects. This Subcommittee should 

encourage federal operators to systematically use existing authorities to optimize 

their project operations for all public benefits. 

Federal operators should consider how to adapt to climate change when they review their plans. Climate change will significantly affect local hydrology—the timing, volume, and temperature of flows—in all regions of our nation. This will alter 

electricity generation, water supply, and other purposes of federal projects. It will 

cause significant stress to anadromous fisheries and other aquatic species. Federal 

operators should systematically examine alternatives to optimize future performance of their projects in the face of such change. An example which Natural Heritage Institute (www.n-h-i.org) is pursuing in California and elsewhere in the West 

is diversion into storage of the increased flood flows likely to result from climate 

change, where the storage will not be behind the federal project but instead in a 

downstream groundwater aquifer or floodplain. 

This hearing topic also asks the question: leaving aside existing projects, what is 

the prospect for new hydropower development? Over the course of many decades, 

general surveys have shown undeveloped physical potential for such development. 

However, those surveys are predictions. They do not give due weight to other variables for a given site, including the likely return on investment, the capacity of the 

local transmission system, foreseeable impacts on other beneficial uses of the afVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:55 Dec 16, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\43121.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
47 

fected waters, legal requirements, or the views of local stakeholders. Actual development of new hydropower will turn on the ability of a sponsor to manage all of these 

variables and produce net public benefits including but not limited to the new generation capacity. 

For example, non-federal developers are exploring the potential for hydrokinetic 

(or damless) development in our estuaries and oceans. Although no commercial 

project exists in those waters today, more than a hundred sites are under active investigation. The National Hydropower Association and Hydropower Reform Coalition are again exploring possible policy reforms under existing laws to permit new 

development consistent with protection of the marine environment. I offer my 

thanks to the Natural Resources Committee for your substantial attention to ocean 

energy in the reauthorization bill for the Coastal Zone Management Act. In my 

view, this hydrokinetic technology will mature rapidly as we find the right pilot 

sites, learn how to efficiently apply and complete the regulatory process in this 

largely unknown marine environment, and then adapt both operations and design 

following construction. 

In sum, the future of hydropower depends fundamentally on the continued willingness of the non-federal licensees and federal operators to generate electricity in 

a manner which protects and enhances other beneficial uses of the affected waters. 

In political terms, I mean simply that the industry, conservation community, and 

other stakeholders should work together, and systematically, to create that common 

future. 

Thank you for considering this testimony. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Howard. 

STATEMENT OF BRUCE HOWARD, DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS, AVISTA UTILITIES, SPOKANE, 

WASHINGTON 

Mr. HOWARD. Thank you. Chairwoman Napolitano and Ranking 

Member McMorris Rodgers, I am Bruce Howard, Director of Environmental affairs for Avista Corporation. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Avista is an investor-owned utility headquartered 

in Spokane, Washington, that provides electric and natural gas 

service to approximately 480,000 customers in eastern Washington, 

northern Idaho and Oregon. Our service territory includes much of 

Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers’s district. 

We are greatly appreciative of her champion work on behalf of 

hydropower and the communities we serve. Hydropower is Avista’s 

largest electric resource, comprising over half our generating capacity. Our hydropower resources are licensed by the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission and include the 788 megawatt Clark Fork 

Project in Montana and Idaho, as well as the 154 megawatt Spokane River Project in Washington and Idaho. We also own the 50 

megawatt Kettle Falls biomass generation station in Kettle Falls 

Washington, which is fueled by wood waste. 

We recently announced the planned development of a wind generation facility also in Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers’ district. 

Our investments in renewable energy, along with our leading demand side management programs, make Avista’s carbon footprint 

very low in comparison to other electric utilities throughout the 

United States. 

Hydropower provides extensive economic environmental and reliability benefits. It is the largest single renewable electric resource 

in the United States, providing approximately 9 percent of total 

U.S. summer capacity. Hydropower is emission free, especially significant at a time in which we are seeking to reduce greenhouse 

gas emissions. In addition, the hydropower industry has actively 

48 

addressed environmental concerns, as we have just heard, through 

their licensing process and other regulatory processes and by employing innovative technologies. Hydropower also enhances the reliability of electric system. In addition to being a highly reliable 

power source in its own right, hydropower firms other intermittent 

renewable resources such as wind and solar power. And we know 

that hydropower will be called upon more and more in the future 

to enable these alternative resources. 

The conventional wisdom is that hydropower has little growth 

potential in the future. This isn’t the case. While the opportunities 

for building large new conventional hydropower projects are limited, there is significant potential to add capacity at existing facilities through upgrades as well as through the addition of pump 

storage facilities. Pump storage facilities take advantage of demand 

and cost differentials to, in effect, store energy. There are also opportunities to incorporate electrical generation at nonpower dams 

as well as for entirely new small hydropower facilities. Moreover, 

substantial new hydropower resources are available through innovative hydrokinetic technologies that will tap the energy of river 

tidal and ocean currents. FERC statistics indicate active license applications for over 1,300 megawatts of new conventional and pump 

storage hydropower and over 3,200 megawatts of additional capacity are in the prefiling stage at FERC. 

More than 6,000 additional megawatts of hydrokinetic capacity 

are also in the prefiling stage. While not all projects in the prefiling 

stage at the FERC will mature into applications, these figures demonstrate the tremendous interest in new hydropower development. 

For Avista, the most important thing Congress can do at this time 

is to secure long-term extension and expansion of the production 

tax credit for incremental hydropower that was enacted by Congress as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Based in part on 

obtaining PTC half credits of .9 cents per kilowatt hour, Avista embarked on a series of upgrades to its existing hydropower dams, 

adding 7 megawatts of capacity to date with approximately 36 

more megawatts available for further upgrades. Because of the long 

lead time associated with replacing turbines, it is essential that 

Congress renew the PTC for an extended period along with the 

counterpart CREB program that supports renewable investments 

by municipal and cooperative utilities. Avista also strongly supports the agreement recently reached by the NHA and environmental groups to support the expansion and application of the PTC 

and CREB program to the development of power at dams that currently do not generate electricity. Climate change legislation may 

well become the biggest policy driver impacting future energy investments including investment decisions regarding hydropower. It 

is important that these investments made be rewarded rather than 

penalized in any cap and trade legislation adopted by Congress. 

Therefore, Avista urges Congress to allocate any admission 

standard allowances to utilities based on their electricity output or 

load served not based on historic greenhouse gas emissions. Finally, Federal support for hydropower research and development 

has been relatively minimal for many years. Robust R&D developments and hydropower are essential if we are to tap the full potenVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:55 Dec 16, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\43121.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
49 

tial of innovative hydropower solutions. Avista strongly supports 

NHA’s efforts to expand this funding. 

In closing, Avista deeply appreciates this opportunity to testify 

and commends the Subcommittee for its leadership on the important issue of the contribution of hydropower to our Nation’s energy 

future. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you Mr. Howard. And I am hoping the 

Senate does keep that provision, does not delete it so that you do 

have some support on that bill. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Howard follows:] 

Statement of Bruce Howard, Director, 

Environmental Affairs, Avista Corporation 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member McMorris-Rodgers and members of the 

Subcommittee, I am Bruce Howard, the Director of Environmental Affairs for Avista 

Corporation. Avista appreciates the opportunity to testify, and commends the Subcommittee for holding this hearing on the critical role of hydropower as a renewable 

resource. Avista is an investor-owned utility headquartered in Spokane, Washington, that 

provides electric and/or natural gas service to approximately 480,000 customers in 

eastern Washington, Northern Idaho, and Oregon. Hydropower is Avista’s largest 

power resource, comprising approximately 52% of our electric generating capacity. 

Our hydropower resources are licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and include the 788 megawatt (MW) Cabinet Gorge-Noxon Rapids 

Project in Montana and Idaho (also known as the Clark Fork Project), and the 154 

MW Spokane River Project in Washington and Idaho. We also own the 50 MW Kettle Falls biomass generation station in Kettle Falls, Washington, which is fueled by 

wood waste. Our investments in renewable hydropower and biomass, along with our 

highly efficient natural gas generation and energy efficiency, conservation, and 

other demand side management programs, make Avista’s ‘‘carbon footprint’’ very 

low in comparison to most electric utilities in the United States. 

II. THE MANY BENEFITS OF THE RENEWABLE HYDROPOWER 

RESOURCE 

Hydropower provides extensive economic, environmental and reliability benefits. 

It is the largest renewable electric resource in the U.S., providing approximately 

nine percent of U.S. total summer capacity. Hydropower is emission-free, a very significant environmental benefit in an era in which we are seeking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to slow global climate change. In addition, any adverse environmental impacts of hydropower on aquatic resources have been substantially reduced 

or eliminated through the relicensing process, new and innovative technology, and 

the application of key environmental laws. 

To give just one example, the collaborative alternative licensing process used by 

Avista for the relicensing of the Clark Fork Project in Montana and Idaho resulted 

in a ‘‘win-win’’ settlement with all key agencies and stakeholders. For example, to 

implement the project’s new license, over 2,600 acres of key bull trout habitat have 

been acquired, protected, and restored, and six miles of stream habitat have been 

recreated or restored. The settlement and new license, which was approved by the 

FERC in 2000, provide major environmental enhancements and, at the same time, 

preserve the economic benefits of the Project. In addition, this Project, like many 

others, provides unique recreational and other community benefits. 

Hydropower also enhances the reliability of the electric system. As a highly flexible firm power resource, hydropower provides load following, spinning reserve, and 

other ‘‘ancillary’’ services that are critical for keeping the lights on. In addition, 

emission-free hydropower is ideally suited to firming intermittent renewable resources such as wind and solar power. Therefore, hydropower is not only a renewable resource in its own right, but it also enables additional wind and solar power 

resources. 

III. HYDROPOWER CAN PROVIDE EVEN MORE BENEFITS IN THE 

FUTURE 

In some circles, the conventional wisdom is that while hydropower is a fine resource, it has little growth potential in the future. This is not the case. Instead, 

given the challenges associated with climate change, we must make a concerted 

50 

effort to maximize the use of all emission-free renewable resources, including hydropower. 

While the opportunities for building large, new conventional hydropower projects 

are limited, significant potential exists to add generation capacity at existing hydropower dams and new electrical generation to existing non-hydropower dams. There 

are also opportunities for entirely new small hydropower facilities. Moreover, substantial new hydropower resources are available from new and innovative 

hydrokinetic technologies that tap the energy of river, tidal, and ocean currents, 

without the installation of any dam or impoundment. 

Further, considerable potential exists for new ‘‘pumped storage’’ hydropower facilities that pump water into an off-river upper reservoir during off-peak hours when 

power demand and prices are low (typically at night and on the weekends) and then 

release the stored water to generate power on-peak during weekdays when demand 

and power costs are high. 

FERC statistics indicate that there are pending license applications for 430 MW 

of conventional hydropower capacity and 900 MW of pumped storage capacity. Also, 

there are 448 MW of conventional hydropower capacity, 2,783 MW of pumped storage capacity, and 6,000 MW of hydrokinetic capacity in the pre-filing stage at 

FERC, before a license application is filed. While not all projects in the pre-filing 

stage at FERC will mature into applications, these figures demonstrates tremendous interest in new hydropower technologies and pumped storage. 

V. WHAT CONGRESS CAN DO TO HELP TAP HYDROPOWER’S NEW 

POTENTIAL 

A. Extend and Expand the Application of the Renewable Production Tax Credit/ 

Clean Renewable Energy Bonds to Hydropower 

For Avista, the most important thing Congress can do at this time to spur additional hydropower development at its existing hydropower facilities is to secure a 

long-term extension and expansion of the production tax credit (PTC) for incremental hydropower that was enacted by Congress as part of the Energy Policy Act 

of 2005. 

Based in part on obtaining the PTC half credit of 0.9 cents per kwh, Avista has 

embarked on a series of upgrades to its existing hydropower dams, adding at total 

of 7 MW of capacity to date, with approximately 36 more MW available from further 

upgrades. Because of the long lead times associated with replacing turbines, it is 

essential that Congress renew the PTC for an extended period, as well as the counterpart ‘‘Clean Renewable Energy Bond’’ (CREB) program that supports renewable 

investments by municipal and cooperative utilities. 

Avista also strongly supports the landmark agreement recently reached between 

the National Hydropower Association (NHA), American Rivers (AR), the Union of 

Concerned Scientists (UCS), Trout Unlimited (TU), and the Natural Heritage Institute (NHI) to support the expansion and application of the PTC and the CREB program to the development of hydropower at non-hydropower dams. Avista commends 

these parties for working together constructively to develop compromise legislative 

language to provide PTC and CREB support for hydropower at non-hydropower 

dams, and greatly appreciates the inclusion of this language in the energy tax bill 

recently passed by the House. This is an excellent example of how policies regarding 

hydropower deserve reconsideration in light of the emission-free electricity hydropower provides. Avista also supports the language in the House-passed bill making 

new hydrokinetic technologies eligible for the PTC and CREB program. 

B. Appropriate Treatment of Hydropower in Climate Change ‘‘Cap and Trade’’ 

Legislation 

Climate change legislation is likely to become the biggest policy driver impacting 

future energy investments, including investment decisions regarding hydropower. 

Avista believes it is very important that investments made in emission-free resources such as hydropower be rewarded, rather than penalized, in any cap and 

trade legislation, or other climate change legislation, adopted by Congress. Therefore, Avista urges Congress to allocate the valuable ‘‘emission allowances’’ that are 

at the center of any cap and trade system to electric utilities based on their electricity output or load served, not based on historic greenhouse gas emissions. Avista 

also supports work being done by NHA regarding the provision of ‘‘bonus allowances’’ to renewable power resources such as hydropower. Allowance allocation and 

the many other highly technical provisions of the complex climate change legislation 

that Congress is considering will have a major impact on hydropower’s future. Any 

climate change legislation should appropriately acknowledge and encourage this important resource. 

51 

C. Removal of Regulatory Barriers to Hydropower Development 

The regulatory process for the approval of new hydropower resources is often costly, complex, and time consuming, and does not always produce reasonable outcomes. 

In response, Congress made significant improvements to the licensing process 

through the adoption of licensing reforms in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Avista 

strongly supported these reforms. 

Avista appreciates that because hydropower relies on a public resource, the regulatory process must be comprehensive and inclusive so that all impacts and interests are fully considered. However, Congress should carefully monitor how the regulatory process treats the many conventional hydropower, pumped storage, and new 

hydrokinetic technology projects that are currently in the licensing pipeline at the 

FERC, the Departments of Interior and Commerce, and at state resource and water 

quality agencies. If the regulatory process does not result in the timely and reasonable approval of hydropower projects that are in the public interest, Congress should 

address this matter through oversight, or even legislation, if necessary. 

D. Support for Hydropower Research and Development 

Federal support for hydropower research and development (R&D) has been minimal to non-existent for many years. This needs to change if we are to tap the full 

potential for the use of new technology at conventional hydropower facilities, as well 

as the many benefits that can be obtained from the new hydrokinetic technologies. 

New R&D investments in hydropower are essential. Congress took an important 

first step in support of hydropower R&D by appropriating $10 million in FY 2008. 

Avista strongly supports NHA’s efforts to expand this funding to $54 million in FY 

2009. Hydropower needs a vigorous and well-funded federal energy R&D program 

in order to achieve its full potential. 

V. CONCLUSION 

Avista deeply appreciates the opportunity to testify and commends the Subcommittee for its leadership on the important issue of the contribution of hydropower to our nation’s energy future. I am happy to answer any questions that you 

may have. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Culbertson. 

STATEMENT OF TIM CULBERTSON, GENERAL MANAGER, 

GRANT COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT, EPHRATA, 

WASHINGTON 

Mr. CULBERTSON. Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking 

Member McMorris Rodgers and members of the Subcommittee. 

My name is Tim Culbertson, general manager of Public Utility 

District Number 2 in Grant County. I appreciate the opportunity 

to testify about this very important subject, and would like especially to recognize Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers for inviting 

me to participate today. I would also like to take a minute and 

thank the previous panelists for their comments and the statements they have made regarding hydro energy. Grant PUD is a 

consumer-owned utility that serves a rural predominantly agricultural population in central Washington State. Hydropower, irrigation canal hydropower and wind power compromise our total electric generation capacity of over 2,000 megawatts. 

My message today is simple: There is tremendous untapped 

emission-free hydroelectric generation potential in the United 

States. Too often hydropower is overlooked or taken for granted. 

This is an unfortunate oversight because hydropower, which does 

not generate any greenhouse gas emissions, is a domestic resource 

that deserves more attention as part of the Nation’s renewable 

energy future. In 1901, Congress passed the first Water Power Act, 

enabling hydropower to make extraordinary contributions to our 

Nation’s economy and security. With congressional assistance, hyVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:55 Dec 16, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\43121.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
52 

dropower capacity in the United States tripled between 1920 and 

1940. 

Today, existing hydropower generation totals 289 million 

megawatts hours which represents 7 percent of the net energy generation in the United States. This equates to over 190 million tons 

of avoided greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. per year, yet there 

is more hydropower that can be readily developed. According to the 

Electric Power and Research Institute, the United States has the 

potential to develop an additional 10,000 megawatts from new 

small hydro capacity gains at existing hydro sites and new generation facilities at existing dams by 2025. Let me repeat. 10,000 

megawatts of clean, renewable hydropower without building a single large new dam. This is enough renewable energy to serve 

Washington, D.C., Baltimore, Maryland, and Richmond, Virginia, 

combined and represents over 29 million tons of potential avoided 

greenhouse gas emissions per year. 

Keeping our Nation’s hydropower resources operating while also 

meeting today’s important environmental standards represents a 

significant investment by utilities and consumers. For example, the 

Northwest Power and Conservation Council estimates that consumers in the Pacific northwest have invested approximately $9 

billion through 2006 on fish and wildlife recovery efforts since the 

passage of the Northwest Power Act in 1980. For our part, Grant 

County PUD in collaboration with tribes, Federal and State fish 

agencies and environmental interests have exceeded the 93 percent 

fish survival standard for spring chinook salmon at our two hydro 

projects on the Columbia River. 

In April of 2008, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

unanimously approved the new 44-year license to Grant PUD. Our 

new license is living proof of the potential energy gains available 

at existing dams across the country. Our capacity is increasing by 

138 megawatts from 1,755 to 893 megawatts as a result of new turbine replacements at Wanapum Dam. These hydro capacity and efficiency improvements ensure that more than 1,000 average 

megawatts of clean, renewable hydropower along with substantial 

new natural resource protection measures continues for many 

years into the future. 

I encourage Congress to support and expand policies to increase 

domestic hydropower capacity, including research and development 

dollars. I strongly support the $54 million funding request for the 

Department of Energy’s hydropower research and development program. This request is based on the research, development and deployment needs and opportunities identified by the Electric Power 

and Research Institute. For our part, Grant County PUD has already begun to optimize our hydropower resources with more efficient generating equipment. At Wanapum Dam we are installing 

new advanced hydro turbines which show a 3 percent efficiency increase in improved fish protection. All 10 turbines at Wanapum 

Dam will be replaced by the year 2014 at a cost of $150 million. 

DOE’s hydropower R&D program contributed to the development of 

this new technology. 

By the way of new technologies also include new environmental 

technologies which can translate into more energy output from the 

same amount of water flow. For example, Grant PUD just comVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:55 Dec 16, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\43121.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
53 

1 U.S. Energy Information Administration 

2 Based on the U.S. average emissions of 1,366 lbs/MWh 

3 Based on 50 percent electric generating facility capacity factor 

pleted the installation of a $35 million fish bypass system at 

Wanapum Dam to improve fish survival while reducing spill. Better fish passage technologies allow dam operators to potentially reduce nongenerating spills through a dam. The bottom line there is 

significant untapped emissions-free hydroelectric generation potential in the United States. 

Working together, we can increase our Nation’s domestic clean 

energy portfolio and reduce our electric sector emissions by nearly 

10 percent. Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member McMorris 

Rodgers and members of this Subcommittee, I thank you for your 

leadership and holding this important hearing on hydropower’s significant role as a continued source of clean renewable energy. 

Thank you. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Culbertson. And I am very 

pleased for the testimony given here in the Subcommittee today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Culbertson follows:] 

Statement of Tim Culbertson, General Manager, 

Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County (Grant PUD) 

INTRODUCTION 

Good Afternoon. 

Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Cathy McMorris Rodgers and members of 

the Subcommittee, my name is Tim Culbertson, General Manager of Public Utility 

District No. 2 of Grant County (Grant PUD). I sincerely appreciate the opportunity 

to testify about this very important subject, and would like to especially recognize 

Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers for inviting me to participate today. 

Grant PUD is a consumer-owned utility that serves a rural, predominantly agricultural population in central Washington State. Hydropower, irrigation-canal hydropower and wind power comprise our total electric generation capacity of over 

2,000 megawatts, which provides clean, emissions-free and renewable electricity for 

our state’s families and businesses, including 43,000 customers in Grant County, as 

well as millions of consumers throughout the Pacific Northwest. 

My message today is simple—there is tremendous untapped, emissions-free hydro 

electric generation potential in the U.S. 

Too often, hydropower is overlooked or taken for granted. This is an unfortunate 

oversight because hydropower—which does not generate any greenhouse gas emissions—is a domestic resource that deserves more attention as part of the nations 

renewable energy supply. 

HYDROPOWER IS PART OF THE SOLUTION 

In 1901, Congress passed the first Water Power Act, enabling hydropower to 

make extraordinary contributions to our nation’s economy and security. With congressional assistance, hydropower capacity in the United Stated tripled between 

1920 and 1940. 

Today, hydropower is the largest renewable resource in the United States—and 

there is more hydropower that can be readily obtained. Existing hydropower generation in the U.S. totals 289 million megawatt hours 1, which represents approximately seven percent of the net energy generation in the U.S. Domestic hydropower 

equates to over 190 million tons of avoided greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. 

per year. 2

According to a March 2007 report released by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), there are 90,000 megawatts of untapped water power generation potential in the U.S. This could produce enough energy to serve the needs of 22 cities 

the size of Washington, DC and equates to over 250 million tons of potential reductions in greenhouse gas emissions per year that is unrealized in the U.S. 3

By the year 2025, EPRI reports that the U.S. has the potential to develop 10,000 

megawatts (or 11 percent of the total above) from new small hydro, capacity gains 

at existing hydro sites and new generating facilities at existing dams. Let me repeat: 10,000 megawatts of clean, renewable hydropower without building a single 

54 

4 Based on 50 percent electric generating facility capacity factor 

large new dam. This is enough renewable energy to serve Washington, DC, Baltimore, MD and Richmond, VA, and represents over 29 million tons of potential 

avoided greenhouse gas emissions per year. 4

HYDROPOWER’S ‘‘FIRMING’’ BENEFITS 

Building a sustainable U.S. energy future will require the use of all climatefriendly technologies currently available, as well as new and advanced hydropower 

technologies. Adding hydropower capacity has the duel benefit of providing significant and much needed ‘‘firming’’ support for other clean, renewable resources. 

For example, as the U.S. increases the amount of renewable resources in its overall portfolio, hydropower is one of the few base-load, climate-friendly generating resources well suited to ‘‘firming’’ intermittent or non-dispatchable resources such as 

wind. Firm power is energy that is guaranteed to be there when you need it. As 

the development of wind, solar and other intermittent resources grows, hydropower 

is the perfect partner to ‘‘firm’’ and ‘‘shape’’ those resources because it can respond 

immediately to fluctuating electricity demand. In addition, today’s hydro turbines 

convert over 90 percent of available energy into electricity, making it one of the 

most efficient forms of power generation. Without reliable, efficient and climatefriendly base-load ‘‘firming’’ resources such as hydropower, the value of intermittent 

or non-dispatchable resources is greatly reduced. 

ADDITIONAL BENEFITS 

Another important attribute of hydropower is that is provides significant peaking 

capacity and ancillary services to bolster the reliability, stability and resilience of 

the Nation’s transmission system. These ancillary benefits include frequency control, 

load following, spinning reserve, supplemental reserve and black-start capability. 

The August 2003 blackout in the East Coast was a testament to these benefits, 

where hydropower projects in New York and elsewhere remained online and were 

valuable in restoring power to the region. 

COMMITMENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

Keeping our Nation’s hydropower resources operating while also meeting today’s 

important environmental standards represents a significant investment by utilities 

and consumers. For example, according to the ‘‘Sixth Annual Report to the Northwest Governors on Expenditures of the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)’’ by 

the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, consumers in the Pacific Northwest 

have invested approximately $9 billion through 2006 on fish and wildlife recovery 

efforts since the passage of the Northwest Power Act in 1980. 

For our part, Grant PUD—in collaboration with tribes, federal and state fish 

agencies and environmental interests—has met or exceeded the 93 percent fish passage survival standard for spring Chinook salmon at our two-dam Priest Rapids 

Project on the mid-Columbia river. In April 2008, the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (FERC) unanimously approved a new 44-year license to Grant PUD to 

operate the Priest Rapids Project. Grant PUD’s new license for the Priest Rapids 

Project is living proof of the potential gains available at existing dams across the 

country. Our capacity is increasing from 1,755 megawatts under the old license to 

1,893 megawatts with turbine replacements at Wanapum Dam—an increase of 138 

megawatts. These capacity and efficiency improvements ensure that more than 

1,000 average megawatts of clean, renewable hydropower—along with substantial 

new natural resource protection measures—continues for many years into the future. 

OPTIMIZING HYDROPOWER 

As described in the EPRI report, 10,000 megawatts of untapped small hydro, capacity gains from existing facilities and new generation facilities at existing dams 

can be achieved by the year 2025. However, that will require aggressive congressional support and expansion of economic incentives, such as the Production Tax 

Credit and Clean Renewable Energy Bonds program, to include all hydropower resources and new, advanced technologies. 

In addition, federal funding is almost non-existent for the Department of Energy’s 

(DOE) Hydropower & Waterpower R&D Program. This program received a mere $10 

million in 2008. At a minimum, $54 million is needed in FY 2009. This amount corresponds to the research, development and deployment needs and opportunities 

identified in the EPRI report. 

For our part, Grant PUD has already begun to optimize existing water resources 

with more efficient hydro generating equipment. At Wanapum Dam, we are installVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:55 Dec 16, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\43121.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
55 

5 Based on 250 million tons of potential emission reductions per year that is unrealized in the 

U.S. 

ing new advanced hydropower turbines—which show a three percent efficiency increase and improved fish protection. All ten turbines at Wanapum Dam will be replaced with new, advanced hydro turbines by the year 2014, and at a cost of $150 

million. DOE’s hydropower R&D program contributed to the development of this 

new technology. Continued and additional federal support, in partnership with industry, is critical to expand the development of untapped, renewable hydropower resources and technologies. 

By the way, new technologies also include new environmental technologies, which 

can translate into more energy output from the same amount of water flow. For example, Grant PUD just completed installation of a $35 million fish bypass system 

at Wanapum Dam to improve survival for downstream migrating salmon. Better 

fish passage technologies allow dam operators to potentially reduce non-generating 

‘‘spill’’ through a project. As a result, more renewable energy can be generated using 

the same amount of water. We can increase both fish protection and renewable hydropower generation. 

HYDROPOWER WORKS 

The bottom line ‘‘reducing emissions will require federal partnership and support 

for the rapid deployment of this substantial untapped, renewable, emissions-free resource. Hydropower can be part of the domestic energy solution and is one of the 

few base-load, renewable energy sources in the U.S. that is both emissions-free and 

can ‘‘firm’’ intermittent or non-dispatchable energy, such as wind. Working together, 

we can realize hydropower’s potential, increase our Nation’s domestic clean energy 

portfolio and reduce our electric sector emissions by nearly 10 percent. 5

Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers, and members of the 

Subcommittee, I thank you for your leadership in holding this important hearing 

on hydropower’s significant role as a source of clean, renewable energy for the future. 

Thank you. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Unfortunately our colleagues are off on a 

flight somewhere, where we probably will be soon. 

This is a critical issue for a lot of us, including my Ranking 

Member, for number of reasons. We need to try to begin assisting— 

we can’t do it unless we have information and being able to see 

what is out there and how we can be of service to promote our policy that will make that available to the users. 

To all of you, I would like to hear from you in regard to the role 

that State renewable portfolio standard played in promoting new 

hydropower generation. And I am most interested in how Oregon, 

Washington and California all treat conventional and new hydropower differently. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CULBERTSON. Well, the State of Washington is interesting 

because it doesn’t include traditional hydro as a renewable resource 

which we think is fundamentally wrong and flawed. Grant was 

able to actually craft an agreement with the sponsors of that initiative to include incremental hydro. But the interesting part is Grant 

and other non-Federal projects and their efficiency improvements 

are considered renewable, whereas the Federal projects are not 

considered renewable in their efficiency improvements. So we think 

there are some flaws in the State of Washington and it is only new 

low-impact hydro that is given credit as a renewable resource in 

the State of Washington. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. I think there is something this 

Subcommittee can take up. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROOS-COLLINS. In California, the renewable portfolio standard recognizes hydropower less than 30 megawatts of capacity as 

56 

renewable. But let me approach your question from a different 

angle. The renewable portfolio standard as well as the related climate change legislation which Governor Schwarzenegger signed 

into law in 2006 have motivated our utilities as well as merchant 

generators to look for new renewables with a vigor that has never 

occurred before. 

And so as of this month, just to give one example, Pacific Gas 

and Electric Company has signed procurement contracts for 1,000 

or more megawatts of solar thermal capacity. That is approximately 1/5 of its entire hydropower system. It is proposing to have 

those contracts deliver power within 2 years, 2 to 5 years. 

And that is just one example of how the RPS and California is 

motivating our utilities to look at hydropower as well as other 

forms of renewable to pick up the pace a bit. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Anybody else? Mr. Howard. 

Mr. HOWARD. I would echo what Mr. Culbertson said, and I 

would say that we are hoping that maybe some of the shortcomings 

of the RPS system, as established in Washington, can be improved 

over time. Having said that, the standards have—every 2 years we 

do an integrated resource plan where we re-evaluate future demands and how we are going to meet those. And certainly in part 

response to the RPS standards, we have indicated a higher degree 

of renewable development. And evaluating the possibility for incremental improvements in hydro is something we have been doing 

anyway. It may end up accelerating the rate of some projects as 

would obviously the extension of the production tax credit. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Corwin. 

Mr. CORWIN. Yeah. As far as Oregon goes, renewable portfolio 

standard, similar to Washington in respect they don’t recognize 

large hydro, small, low—some small-low impact and qualify. But 

actually on Richard’s point, I thought teed up a good side to this. 

What we are seeing out of all of the renewable portfolio standards 

is a whole lot of wind being developed in the northwest. And the 

impacts to that on the hydro system are still becoming known but 

what we do know is, for example, on the Federal system there is 

already about 1,400 megawatts of wind that they are integrating 

into that Federal transmission system. 

And part of this—you know, like we said, hydro matches up nicely to firm the wind. But the capacity of the hydro system is getting 

more and more constrained. And on the Federal hydro system, we 

lost about 1/8 of it on an average basis over 1,000 average 

megawatts took constraints on the system for salmon and steelhead 

under the biological opinions which creates an even tighter system. 

So it is going to be a challenge moving forward because we are 

looking at the wind potentially doubling and then doubling again 

over the next 10 to 20 years here as far as the amounts coming 

online. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. Ms. McMorris Rodgers. 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. Thank you, Madam Chairman, several of you have talked about the potential for new hydropower and 

both through increased efficiency at existing facilities as well as the 

low head hydro and pump storage. I just wanted to ask each one 

of you if you might comment on your perspective as to what is 

57 

available, what kind of research is out there and the potential results of this research that is taking place. 

Mr. CORWIN. As far as available low head, I haven’t studied the 

studies. I have seen some on the big head hydro, you know, they 

have had a program in the Federal system—Columbia system over 

time to rehabilitate several of the projects. And the biggest one 

there is at Grant Coulee, which does create a little more generation 

with the new runners coming in. So even without additional head 

you know you can get a little more generation out of these older 

facilities. 

Mr. CULBERTSON. And I would go back to my testimony at Grant. 

We are getting 138 megawatts of increased capacity just out of the 

Wanapum project by doing turbine upgrades alone. We are about 

to go to bid for generators, which will probably give us another 

about 50 to 70 megawatts of increased capacity with the generator 

upgrade. So figure about 200 megawatts of increased efficiency out 

of that project. As soon as we are done there, the plan is to go 

downstream to do Priest Rapids and get the same kind of efficiency 

gains out of the Priest Rapids project. And if in the northwest you 

look at most hydro projects, they are of the same vintage and we 

believe that there are the same kind of efficiency gains that can be 

gained at most of the hydroelectric projects, not only in the northwest but basically the entire west coast which are of the same basic 

vintage. 

Mr. HOWARD. I would just say that we focus our evaluations of 

research of course on our eight hydro developments and prioritize 

those on where we can make gains in efficiency and upgrades. And 

we are engaged in those actively right now on both the Clark Fork 

River and Spokane River. I would also add that you know I think 

one potential benefit of R&D dollars is maybe to help identify opportunities that may not be on our radar screens, but there may 

be a nexus with broader concerns about public safety and infrastructure. 

Many privately owned dams all across the country and some 

publicly owned that could potentially have power benefits and may 

be achieve both power and safety benefits simultaneously. And 

then finally, we certainly engage with folks in our service territory 

who we have other smaller dam owners, as Senator Morton referenced the Sheep Creek projects and others, and we encourage 

those kind of opportunities that may occur in private lands if they 

are available as they may also enhance system reliability. 

Mr. ROOS-COLLINS. Since the prior answers have focused on inland, I will answer it with regard to ocean. The Minerals Management Service under the U.S. Department of the Interior recently 

published a programmatic environmental impact statement which 

looked at the potential capacity as well as the potential impacts of 

ocean energy development. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has begun to look at capacity and impacts in the context 

of individual proceedings. And other Federal agencies have other 

information they have developed over time with respect to other 

ocean uses, such as navigation buoys that may be applicable to 

hydrokinetic development on the ocean side. 

I would recommend to this Subcommittee that you consider two 

things to help make this information useable. First it would be 

58 

helpful for the Federal agencies to consolidate the information they 

already have in one place so that the information is indeed available to guide the siting decisions. And second, since the marine environment is far less well understood than inland waters, we do 

need to increase the R&D budget specifically for monitoring so that 

we can understand impacts of any projects that we would build. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Very good. Madam Chairman, I would like to 

ask unanimous consent to submit the Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s 2007 report on carbon dioxide footprint of the 

northwest power system and the Electric Power Research Institute’s assessment of water power potential and development needs 

into the hearing record. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Without objection, so ordered. And I would 

like to see a copy of it so I can get briefed on some of these issues. 

I don’t need it now. I would like to have it. I am on my way to a 

flight. So thank you. 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. Plane reading. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Reading material to put me to sleep. Thank 

you very much. 

This has been a very interesting hearing. I would have been out 

of here about 2:00, right after the last votes. But it is critical. And 

I am hoping that—thank you all of you for your testimony and to 

the prior panel. I think we have a lot of work ahead of us and I 

thank my Ranking Member for bringing it to our attention because 

sometimes party politics gets in the way. We are hoping that does 

not happen here. And we will continue to work on issues that are 

beneficial to our country rather than to our parties. And I say that 

wholeheartedly because I think that we need to have not only us 

working together with your help, but also the administration and 

the agencies that are charged with being able to help us see what 

is in the future. And updating, upgrading and looking at new technologies is an excellent idea. I think it is long overdue. 

It is always a matter of money. However, given the fact that we 

are looking at drought, at climate change, at rolling blackouts and 

many other things that are going to be upon us if we are not too— 

if we are not careful, I think we need to begin to be cognizant of 

the need to invest in some of the R&D so that we can move forward 

for our constituency. 

And Mr. Corwin, the consolidation is something that I have always believed is necessary and inherent in being able to do a good 

job but heaven forbid we would ask our agencies to do that. However we will try to be—and I do that tongue-in-cheek because they 

have worked with us. But the only problem is, sometimes we don’t 

talk to each other. And even on Water 2025 and now it is Water 

For America, I continually ask for them to let us know what is 

going on so that we are apprised and we don’t spin our wheels asking agencies for things they are already doing in another area. 

And with that, I thank everybody. You have been great. I appreciate it. And that concludes the Subcommittee’s oversight hearing 

on hydropower providing 75 percent of America’s renewable energy, 

exploring its role as a continued source of clean renewable water 

for the future. And I mean our future. 

Our thanks to all of our witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee today. Your testimonies and expertise have indeed been 

59 

extremely enlightening and very helpful. And under committee rule 

4(h) additional material for the record should be submitted within 

10 business days after the hearing. That means anybody in the audience or any of the panelists who want to submit additional paper 

for the record, information, please do so. You have 10 business 

days. Your cooperation as witnesses in replying promptly to any 

questions submitted to you in writing will be very greatly appreciated. And with that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 

[A statement submitted for the record by Mr. Lamborn follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Doug Lamborn, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Colorado 

As a Coloradan and Member of Congress concerned about energy and our natural 

resources, it is vital that we make a commitment to clean, renewable energy sources 

such as hydropower. Hydropower generation is critical not only to the Pacific Northwest but the entire country. My own district benefits from no less than three such 

facilities. It is important that we preserve and increase efficiency in production of 

hydropower in the United States. 

Hydropower composes 7% of the nation’s electrical generation. Current U.S. hydropower capacity is about 80,000 megawatts and, according to the Department of 

Energy, can produce enough electricity for approximately 28 million households. 

Hydropower provides a clean, relatively low-cost option for future renewable 

energy production. Because hydroelectric power is produced domestically, it also reduces U.S. dependency on foreign energy sources. 

I applaud the Chairwoman and the Ranking Member for holding this important 

hearing. 

Æ