Bill Overview
Title: Federal Columbia River Power System Certainty Act
Description: This bill requires Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) operations to be consistent with a specified decision. The system includes dams in the Columbia and Snake rivers in the Pacific Northwest. Specifically, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Bonneville Power Administration, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers must operate the FCRPS consistent with the Columbia River System Operations Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision dated September 2020. The preferred alternative outlined in that decision would allow specified dams in the lower Snake River to remain in place. The decision may be amended if each agency determines that (1) changes are necessary for public safety or electrical grid reliability, or (2) certain requirements in the decision are no longer necessary. Further, the bill requires statutory authorization for any structural modification, action, study, or engineering plan that (1) restricts FCRPS hydroelectric dam generation; or (2) limits navigation on the Snake River in Washington, Oregon, or Idaho.
Sponsors: Rep. Newhouse, Dan [R-WA-4]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals in the Pacific Northwest relying on the Columbia and Snake rivers
Estimated Size: 12000000
- The FCRPS impacts electricity generation in the Pacific Northwest, so energy consumers in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho will be affected.
- Hydroelectric dams influence regional power prices and grid reliability, impacting the economic aspect of consumers' lives.
- Stakeholders in fishing, agriculture, and shipping industries reliant on these river systems would be impacted as the operations of the dams can affect water levels and environmental conditions.
- The specific provisions about structural modifications or actions that limit navigation suggest impacts on the transportation and logistics sectors in these states.
- Given that the bill affects federal agencies, employees and contractors working with Bureau of Reclamation, Bonneville Power Administration, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will be impacted.
Reasoning
- The FCRPS Certainty Act relates strongly to energy production and grid reliability in the Pacific Northwest, directly impacting residents who rely on hydroelectric power supplied by this system.
- Because the act specifically mentions maintaining dam infrastructure, industries dependent on stable river systems, such as agriculture and fisheries, will be concerned with ecological impacts. Thus, individuals in these sectors will experience changes in their economic circumstances, which may indirectly affect their wellbeing.
- The focus on electricity generation and navigation restrictions will impact transport logistics, potentially affecting supply chains and local businesses reliant on river navigation.
- Due to safety and grid reliability reasons, adjustments or operations of these dams directly involve federal employees and contractors, hence policies may affect job security and operational procedures for these individuals.
- Consideration of environmental advocates also enters the equation, where changes to river operations could impact native species habitats, resulting in conflicting interests between economic and ecological priorities.
Simulated Interviews
Hydroelectric Engineer (Portland, Oregon)
Age: 57 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ensuring the dams remain operational aligns with our goals of reliable power supply.
- There are concerns about ecological impacts, but our primary focus is stable energy supply.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Farmer (Boise, Idaho)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Maintaining water levels is critical for my crops.
- Worried about long-term ecological impacts affecting water availability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 2 |
Environmental Advocate (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 63 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy focuses too much on energy over ecological health.
- It's important to consider the long-term impacts on wildlife.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Logistics Coordinator (Spokane, Washington)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Navigation restrictions would severely impact our shipping schedules.
- The policy helps assure no unforeseen changes to the navigation routes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 2 |
Energy Policy Analyst (Salem, Oregon)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The act provides clarity for energy policy planning.
- Maintaining current operations could neglect pressing environmental concerns.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Restaurant Owner (Eugene, Oregon)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- River management impacts the fish available for local business.
- Stable operations bring comfort, but long-term sustainability is vital.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
Fishery Scientist (Walla Walla, Washington)
Age: 44 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The act could undermine the efforts to restore fish populations.
- There's a need to prioritize ecological considerations alongside energy needs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Construction Worker (Lewiston, Idaho)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The stability of dam operations means more consistent work and income.
- Any operational changes could disrupt job availability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Graduate Student (Richland, Washington)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy provides an interesting case study for balanced governance.
- However, the uncertainty for ecological impacts remains a concern.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired (Yakima, Washington)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Dams could alter fish populations affecting my pastime.
- Keeping things stable is good but at times affecting fish stocks negatively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $8000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $10000000)
Year 2: $8000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $10000000)
Year 3: $8000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $10000000)
Year 5: $8000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $10000000)
Year 10: $8000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $10000000)
Year 100: $8000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $10000000)
Key Considerations
- Maintaining the existing operational framework for dams avoids high costs associated with structural changes.
- Operational adherence to the Environmental Impact Statement ensures environmental standards are maintained.
- Support for regional industries reliant on river navigation and consistent power supply is crucial.