Bill Overview
Title: To address the recovery of certain costs with respect to certain Reclamation facilities in the Colorado River Basin, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill prohibits the federal government from recovering certain costs related to certain hydropower facilities in the Colorado River Basin (e.g., Glen Canyon Dam in Arizona) when no power is being produced. The bill provides funding to the Bureau of Reclamation and the Western Area Power Administration to cover activities and obligations that otherwise rely on the recovery of these costs.
Sponsors: Rep. O'Halleran, Tom [D-AZ-1]
Target Audience
Population: People reliant on the Colorado River Basin's hydropower facilities.
Estimated Size: 40000000
- The Colorado River Basin is critical for water supply and hydroelectric power for the southwestern United States.
- Hydropower facilities are often situated in regions that have communities reliant on their operation for electricity.
- Activities funded by the Bureau of Reclamation and Western Area Power Administration can have broad implications for infrastructure, environmental stewardship, and recreation in the affected regions.
- Changes in funding structure or financial obligations toward these facilities will typically affect electric utility companies, local economies, and potentially electricity pricing for consumers.
Reasoning
- The population affected includes approximately 40 million residents in the southwestern United States, particularly those in Arizona, California, Nevada, and surrounding areas that rely on Colorado River Basin hydropower. Given the budget constraint, the policy would directly influence the local utility companies' financial models and potentially affect electricity costs or availability.
- The policy may positively impact communities by reducing financial burdens on utility companies during periods when hydropower generation is not active. This can prevent cost recovery pressures from influencing utility rates for consumers.
- People living further from the hydropower facilities are less likely to be directly affected, given the geographic focus of the policy. Local economies and businesses directly involved with or reliant on the river basin's resources and hydropower operations will notice changes the most.
- The long-term impacts will depend on ecological and climate factors affecting water levels and power generation. Any policy ensuring financial support during low production times aligns with broader environmental and infrastructural resilience goals, but might face challenges if future state budgets limit ongoing federal funding.
Simulated Interviews
Electrical Engineer (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This new policy seems like a safety net for us, ensuring that we don't have to pass high costs onto our customers when the dam isn't generating power.
- It could stabilize our operations financially in dry years, helping us maintain competitiveness and invest more in infrastructure upgrades.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Small Business Owner (Las Vegas, Nevada)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Considering how unpredictable utility costs affect my business, any policy that manages to reduce unexpected rate hikes is welcome.
- I hope this leads to more stable electricity bills long-term, as it directly influences my operational costs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Environmental Scientist (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While not directly affected, stability in hydropower funding means better ecological management decisions long-term.
- Hopefully, the policy encourages sustainable usage and conservation efforts within the basin.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Public Policy Analyst (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 44 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy can provide a needed backstop to prevent passing massive infrastructure costs onto consumers during droughts.
- It's an important part of adaptive management strategies to account for climate variability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Retired (Yuma, Arizona)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- On a fixed income, any rise in my utility bill makes a big difference.
- This policy easing potential rate hikes in hard times could greatly benefit me and others like me.
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 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Electric Utility Manager (Sacramento, California)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see this as a significant positive for planning purposes, allowing us more certainty in years where hydropower generation is unpredictable.
- It gives us options without immediately looking for alternate funding in dry periods.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
College Student (Flagstaff, Arizona)
Age: 22 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- These policies affect environmental conservation, which is a crucial part of our studies.
- I'm skeptical but hopeful it results in better funding allocation without ecological trade-offs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired Teacher (Carson City, Nevada)
Age: 74 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We always worry about electricity costs when we hear news of reduced hydropower output.
- This support could mean fewer price spikes and help fixed-income seniors manage better.
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 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Tour Boat Operator (Boulder City, Nevada)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Tourism dips when dam operations change unexpectedly, which affects my business.
- A steady approach with this policy might help keep Lake Mead's levels stable and predictable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Energy Consultant (San Diego, California)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy interventions like this can have noticeable effects on energy markets and pricing stability.
- It may not drastically change things but adds predictability favored by energy consultants like me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 2: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 3: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 5: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 10: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Key Considerations
- The affected hydropower facilities are essential infrastructure for regional energy stability.
- Ensuring operational stability during low production periods is vital for public utility management.
- Funding source shifts require oversight to ensure efficiency.