Bill Overview
Title: Pacific Northwest Pumped Storage Hydropower Development Act of 2021
Description: This bill provides the Department of the Interior exclusive authority to develop hydropower facilities in certain instances and contains other related provisions. Specifically, Interior shall have exclusive authority to develop small conduit hydropower using Bureau of Reclamation facilities and pumped storage hydropower that exclusively use bureau reservoirs. Currently, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) also has regulatory authority over some of the bureau infrastructure involved in such projects, so some projects require approval from both Interior and FERC. The bill also imposes various requirements related to certain proposed projects involving specified tribes in Washington State. Before Interior may issue a lease to use power generated from such a project, the parties involved must agree to a study plan that lays out certain information, time lines, and procedures for addressing issues. Such a lease must also meet certain requirements, such as conditions to ensure that the project will not interfere with the tribes' hunting and fishing rights.
Sponsors: Rep. Newhouse, Dan [R-WA-4]
Target Audience
Population: People in the Pacific Northwest region potentially impacted by hydropower development
Estimated Size: 12000000
- The Pacific Northwest Pumped Storage Hydropower Development Act of 2021 focuses on hydropower development in the Pacific Northwest, specifically using Bureau of Reclamation facilities and reservoirs.
- Hydropower development projects can impact environmental conditions, water use, and energy supply in the regions where they occur.
- The act involves specific tribes in Washington State, which implies that it affects their traditional lands and rights, especially regarding hunting and fishing.
- Since the Pacific Northwest is part of the United States, the primary population affected will be within this region, although energy produced may serve broader areas.
- Hydropower projects can also influence regional economic development, job creation, and could potentially lead to displacement of communities in affected areas.
Reasoning
- The policy directly impacts people living in the Pacific Northwest, especially those related to or affected by hydropower projects, such as local residents near development sites and tribal communities.
- Hydropower development can lead to changes in local ecosystems, energy availability, and economic opportunities, which might influence wellbeing.
- Tribal communities are specifically mentioned in the policy, requiring protection of their rights and involvement, suggesting a significant cultural and economic impact.
- Budget constraints imply that the number and scale of projects are controlled, limiting how widely effects are felt immediately.
- Individuals not directly involved or in proximity may perceive benefits or detriments through broader effects like energy pricing changes or employment shifts.
Simulated Interviews
Environmental Scientist (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm cautiously optimistic about this policy. It promises to bring better oversight to projects that could have significant environmental impacts.
- Ensuring the cooperation with tribal communities is a critical step; it's essential their rights and histories are respected.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Tribal Leader (Olympia, Washington)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy offers a framework for more inclusive dialogue involving tribes, which is a step in the right direction.
- We need to closely monitor its implementation to ensure it truly respects our rights.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Engineer (Portland, Oregon)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm excited about the potential for more jobs and energy stability in the region.
- We need to balance development with comprehensive environmental and social impact assessments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Construction Worker (Spokane, Washington)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could mean more work and job security for me and my colleagues.
- I'm slightly worried about the environmental footprint and how it might affect local recreation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired Farmer (Boise, Idaho)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hydropower projects can majorly impact water availability and fish populations, which concern me.
- It's important that these developments don't favor energy over agriculture and fishing rights.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Renewable Energy Consultant (Vancouver, Washington)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The focus on pumped storage solutions could help bridge energy supply gaps.
- I’m hopeful that sustainable practices will be a priority throughout these projects.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
School Teacher (Salem, Oregon)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Long-term environmental impacts and educational opportunities could arise from these projects.
- I hope the policy incorporates educational aspects and benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Fisher (Bellingham, Washington)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My livelihood depends on healthy water ecosystems. This policy gives me mixed feelings about job security versus environmental upheaval.
- It's reassuring to see tribal considerations; hopefully similar support extends to us fishers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Software Engineer (Redmond, Washington)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm not directly affected but supportive of any steps towards cleaner energy solutions.
- Good policies should manage to protect local communities while advancing technological capabilities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Urban Planner (Eugene, Oregon)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Pumped storage hydropower could mean real benefits if properly integrated into urban planning.
- I’d like to see local authorities engage more with these projects.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $45000000, High: $60000000)
Year 2: $70000000 (Low: $63000000, High: $84000000)
Year 3: $90000000 (Low: $81000000, High: $108000000)
Year 5: $90000000 (Low: $81000000, High: $108000000)
Year 10: $60000000 (Low: $54000000, High: $72000000)
Year 100: $20000000 (Low: $18000000, High: $24000000)
Key Considerations
- Regulatory transition issues from FERC to Interior, including potential delays and legal challenges.
- Environmental impacts on local ecosystems and potential opposition from environmental groups.
- Negotiating rights and protections for tribes, potentially leading to extended timelines for approval.
- Adherence to federal and state environmental protection laws can complicate implementation and budgeting.