|
Showing 1 - 2 of
2 matches in All Departments
Congress is examining numerous energy sources to determine their
contribution to the nation's energy portfolio and the federal role
in supporting these sources. Hydropower, the use of flowing water
to produce electricity, is one such source. Conventional hydropower
accounted for approximately 6% of total U.S. net electricity
generation in 2010. Hydropower has advantages and disadvantages as
an energy source. Its advantages include its status as a
continuous, or baseload, power source that releases minimal air
pollutants during power generation relative to fossil fuels. Some
of its disadvantages, depending on the type of hydropower plant,
include high initial capital costs, ecosystem disruption, and
reduced generation during low water years and seasons. Hydropower
project ownership can be categorized as federal or nonfederal. The
bulk of federal projects are owned and managed by the Bureau of
Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Nonfederal
projects are licensed and overseen by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC). Considered by many to be an established energy
source, hydropower is not always discussed alongside clean or
renewable energy sources in the ongoing energy debate. However,
hydropower proponents argue that hydropower is cleaner than some
conventional energy sources, and point to recent findings that
additional hydropower capacity could help the United States reach
proposed energy, economic, and environmental goals. Others argue
that the expansion of hydropower in the form of numerous small
hydropower projects could have environmental impacts and regulatory
concerns similar to those of existing large projects. Congress
faces several issues as it determines how hydropower fits into a
changing energy and economic landscape. For example, existing large
hydropower infrastructure is aging; many of the nation's hydropower
generators and dams are over 30 years old. Proposed options to
address this concern include increasing federal funding, utilizing
alternative funding, privatizing federally owned dams, and
encouraging additional small-capacity generators, among other
options. Additionally, whether to significantly expand or encourage
expansion of hydropower is likely to require congressional input
due to the uncertainty surrounding the clean and renewable energy
portfolio within power markets. Potential expansion of hydropower
projects could take place by improving efficiency at existing
projects or by building new projects, or both. Congressional
support for this approach is evident in the House passage of the
Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and
Rural Jobs Act of 2012 (H.R. 2842). Senate activity on this matter
includes the Hydropower Improvement Act of 2011 (S. 629), which
proposes to establish a grants program for increased hydropower
production, and to amend the Federal Power Act (FPA) to authorize
FERC to exempt electric power generation facilities on federal
lands from the act's requirements, among other things. Another
issue is the rate at which FERC issues licenses for nonfederal
projects, which is slower than some find ideal. The licensing
process can be delayed significantly as stakeholders and the
approximately dozen federal and state agencies involved give their
input. FERC responded by developing a more streamlined licensing
process in 2003. Still, some object to "mandatory conditions" that
federal agencies can place on new or renewed hydropower facilities.
The 112th Congress has introduced roughly 25 bills regarding
hydropower, a quarter of which are state- or site-specific
legislation.
Four species of non-indigenous Asian carp are expanding their range
in U.S. waterways, resulting in a variety of concerns and problems.
Three species-bighead, silver, and black carp-are of particular
note, based on the perceived degree of environmental concern.
Current controversy relates to what measures might be necessary and
sufficient to prevent movement of Asian carp from the Mississippi
River drainage into the Great Lakes through the Chicago Area
Waterway System. Several bills have been introduced in the 112th
Congress to direct actions to avoid the possibility of carp
becoming established in the Great Lakes. According to the Great
Lakes Fishery Commission, Asian carp pose a significant threat to
commercial and recreational fisheries of the Great Lakes. Asian
carp populations could expand rapidly and change the composition of
Great Lakes ecosystems. Native species could be harmed because
Asian carp are likely to compete with them for food and modify
their habitat. It has been widely reported that Great Lakes
fisheries generate economic activity of approximately $7 billion
annually. Although Asian carp introduction is likely to modify
Great Lakes ecosystems and cause harm to fisheries, studies
forecasting the extent of potential harm are not available.
Therefore, it is not possible to provide estimates of potential
changes in the regional economy or economic value (social welfare)
by lake, species, or fishery. The locks and waterways of the
Chicago Area Waterway System (CAWS) have been a focal point for
those debating how to prevent Asian carp encroachment on the Great
Lakes. The CAWS is the only navigable link between the Great Lakes
and the Mississippi River, and many note the potential of these
waterways to facilitate invasive species transfers from one basin
to the other. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers constructed and is
currently operating electrical barriers to prevent fish passage
through these waterways. In light of recent indications that Asian
carp may be present upstream of the barriers, increased federal
funding to prevent fish encroachment was announced by the Obama
Administration. Part of this funding is being spent by the Corps of
Engineers to explore options relating to the "hydrologic
separation" of the Great Lakes and Mississippi River drainage
basins. The potential closure of navigation structures in the CAWS
is of particular interest to both the Chicago area shipping
industry and Great Lakes fishery interests. Since December 2010,
Michigan and other Great Lakes states have filed a number of
requests for court ordered measures to stop the migration of
invasive Asian carp toward Lake Michigan from the Mississippi River
basin via the CAWS. The U.S. Supreme Court denied several motions
for injunctions to force Illinois, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of
Greater Chicago to take necessary measures to prevent the carp from
entering Lake Michigan. Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
and Wisconsin sought a separate order in federal district court
seeking similar relief, which was also denied. In the 112th
Congress, language in P.L. 112-74 authorized the Corps of Engineers
to take emergency measures to exclude Asian carp from the Great
Lakes. In addition, H.R. 892 and S. 471 would direct federal
agencies to take measures to control the spread of Asian carp.
Notably, each of these bills, as well as H.R. 4406 and S. 2317,
would require the Corps of Engineers to complete the Chicago
portion of a study on hydrologic separation of the Great Lakes and
Mississippi River Basin within 18 months of enactment. H.R. 2432
would require the Corps of Engineers to prepare an economic impact
statement before carrying out any federal action relating to the
Chicago Area Water System. H.R. 4146 and S. 2164 would authorize
the Corps of Engineers to take actions to manage Asian carp
traveling up the Mississippi River in Minnesota.
|
|