Hastings Speaks about Hydropower at NW RiverPartners Members Forum

Today Congressman Doc Hastings spoke at the Northwest RiverPartners Members Forum.  He discussed the valuable role of hydropower for energy production and the environment. 

Hastings' remarks, as prepared, follow:

"Thank you for inviting me to join you today – and I want to commend you for holding your fall 2008 meeting in such a beautiful part of the Pacific Northwest – (I guess I might be a little impartial).  I appreciate Terry Flores and the members of the RiverPartners here today for your efforts to stand up and speak out on behalf of the Columbia and Snake River hydropower system.  You understand the importance of your mission and the challenges you face, and your attendance here today demonstrates the strength and effectiveness of your work.  I appreciate the opportunity to share some of my thoughts about the direction of national and regional policies on energy security and climate change and hydro’s important role in each.

Everyone agrees that work must be done to move towards a cheaper, cleaner, more efficient and diverse energy system, and improvements can be made to contribute to a cleaner environment for our children and grandchildren.  But now here we are again in the midst of a very hot political season, and I guess it shouldn’t be a surprise that the same extreme interest groups that have played politics with energy in the past are back at it again – and they do so while conveniently ignoring the reality of their inconsistent views.  They claim to want to eliminate carbon-emitting power sources and make America energy independent, but they advocate tearing out hydropower dams, continue to oppose nuclear energy, and have a love-hate relationship with wind power. 

I have long supported policies that I believe fit well with Northwest RiverPartner’s appropriate motto of “Green Dams, Blue Skies.”  These include:

• Promoting the value of clean, renewable, non-polluting hydropower dams.
• Embracing nuclear power to meet our growing energy needs.
• Increasing water storage for irrigation and municipal needs.
• Taking advantage of agriculture and wood waste products to generate energy.
• Encouraging our world-class scientists, including those at the Pacific Northwest National Lab here in Richland to explore new forms of energy and technologies to improve efficiency.
• Cutting taxes and reducing the burden of government regulations on energy production, and
• Making it easier for free markets and personal freedom to foster innovation and to improve our quality of life.

To me, these are not only the best paths to take to move the ball forward for climate change, but they are just plain the right paths and policies in general.  

I certainly don’t need to convince anyone in this room about the benefits of hydropower.  All of you here today play an important role in what we all know is the largest renewable power source in our region – and you deserve to have a meaningful role at the table as proposals that would change our power system are considered.  Our region needs more people at the table who understand that annual hydropower output is equivalent to the energy produced from 200 million barrels of oil – that hydropower is more efficient than any other form of electricity generation and that hydropower offsets more carbon emissions than all other renewable energy sources combined.

It is very troubling that, because of politics, some of the most vocal climate change activists are incapable of plainly stating that low-cost hydropower is a clean energy source, a renewable energy source, and a non-emitting energy source.  As you know, two years ago, hydropower was excluded from the 2006 ballot initiative sponsored by these activists on renewable mandates in Washington state. 

As candidates are running for office or re-election this year are they saying what they would do if elected (or re-elected) to work to ensure that hydropower is included as a renewable?   Because hydropower is a renewable energy source and should officially be recognized as such by any legal or regulatory standard established by the federal or state governments – and I challenge you to ask candidates and elected officials that are in positions to influence these policies where they stand on including hydropower as a renewable energy source, and then hold them accountable.  This is a fundamental issue – and it should be a “no brainer.” 

Second, I am amazed that some continue to demand the removal of the four Snake River dams in the name of climate change.  This is pure politics and hypocrisy at its worst.  Late last year when the Northwest Power and Conservation Council issued its report on Carbon Dioxide Footprint of the Northwest Power System, some anti-dam interest groups were less than pleased over the cold hard facts it contained on Snake River dam removal. 

Because replacing the power from the dams would result in increased coal and natural gas production – which was calculated to increase carbon emissions by 3.6 million tons over the Council’s base case and result in a 59 percent increase over the 1990 rate.  Also, what’s not included in these calculations are all of the non-power generation benefits of the dams, most important to this discussion is the replacement of river barge traffic.  That replacement is estimated to be 70,000 diesel trucks.  This would greatly increase gasoline consumption, traffic, and yes, emissions.   Keep in mind, in Washington the largest carbon emitter isn’t power production, its transportation, which makes up 46% of emissions.

Anyone serious about global warming, cannot seriously support Snake River dam removal.  Tearing out these dams would make global warming worse and make reducing carbon emissions more difficult.

But, there are groups who claim that the power produced by the Snake River dams won’t have to be replaced by coal and natural gas, that conservation and renewables can fill the void.  But the Power Council report states, and I quote: “tying the increased development of conservation and renewables to dam breaching is misleading.  Removal of the lower Snake River dams will not make additional CO2-free energy resources available to meet future load growth or retire any existing coal plants.  Given the difficulty of reducing CO2 emissions, discarding existing CO2-free power sources has to be considered counterproductive.”

That is very well said.  This would be a much more rational discussion if all the Governors of the states who appoint members to the Power Council would take similar action by standing up themselves and speaking plainly and bluntly against dam removal and about the benefits of hydropower.  They have done it in the past, and they should now reiterate it again.  But they don’t and the reason is politics.  Elected officials can count votes and these Governors know they get elected with the support of the urban population centers that are home to the groups and activists who push dam removal in the name of fighting of climate change.

As we know, a Seattle congressman has repeatedly introduced legislation aimed at Snake River dam removal.  He even testified on behalf of the bill at a House subcommittee hearing in June that included a panelist representing the RiverPartners.  The vast majority of Representatives who’ve signed onto this bill don’t even live in the Pacific Northwest – over half are from east of the Mississippi.  Does a Congressman from Florida sign on to this bill because of their great knowledge and interest in Ice Harbor dam?  No, they do it because of politics.  They sign on because it appeases national environmental groups pushing dam removal.

And it’s a congressman representing Portland, who is incidentally one of the most vocal advocates for stopping global warming, that authored a letter and gathered signatures to push for rewriting the salmon BiOp to include dam removal.

The Power Council’s report also analyzes the impact of summer spill on carbon emissions in the Northwest.  The report calculates that if summer spill were halted, the additional 550 megawatts of clean hydropower would displace coal and natural gas power, thereby reducing annual carbon emissions. 

I’ve long believed that we could halt summer spill and both reduce power rates and invest in other fish recovery efforts that are proven to have a greater benefit to fish.  Now I can add reduced carbon emissions and fighting global warming to the benefits of halting or reducing summer spill.

The Power Council report also calculated what it called the “court-ordered spill” scenario.  Even as salmon returns this year were some of the more robust in recent years, a federal judge in Portland still threatens to impose greater control of the Northwest’s power and river system, resulting in less clean hydropower and more carbon emissions from coal and gas power.

So the challenge is, instead of efforts to remove dams and limit their value as renewable energy sources through policies like spill, our region should seek ways to maximize their benefit.  Why not pursue incentives for increased or more efficient hydropower generation? 

There are existing federal dams with empty turbine bays, including four at John Day, three at Dworshak and three at Libby Dam.  Could these available resources be utilized?  If not now, could they be in the future?  Of the turbines that are currently in Northwest dams and generating power, most were installed in the 1940s, 50s and 60s – obviously with updates and rehab occurring since.  Yet we know there is new turbine technology that is more efficient and can produce more power with the same amount of water.  Should turbine replacement be an option that is pursued?

Right now, the hydrosystem is under assault and losing generation capacity, but in addition to rebuffing these attacks we should be examining whether we can achieve more by utilizing the resources we already have on hand.  To those that promote renewable energy, if capturing the energy of the wind blowing and the sun shining is renewable, then so is water running downhill.

Just as the under-riding political agendas of climate change activists colors their views on dam removal and hydropower as renewable, these same activists are stuck in the 1960’s when it comes to nuclear power.  “No nukes” politics is alive and well.  As we know, the only nuclear power plant in the Pacific Northwest – is right here in the Tri-Cities–Energy Northwest’s Columbia Generating station, and I strongly believe we should explore more development of nuclear power.

Just as hydro is clean air power, nuclear is also a non-carbon emitting energy source.  This refusal to embrace nuclear as a climate change solution is not driven by science – it’s driven by politics.  The flawed logic in opposition to nuclear power is that it might be non-emitting, but it’s dangerous and produces radioactive waste.

It is not dangerous, it is safe.  That’s a fact, but facts don’t stop fear-mongering against nuclear power.  For all the credit and respect that climate change activists heap on Europe, there is no reciprocal acknowledgement of the importance of nuclear power to our friends across the Atlantic Ocean.  In France, 78% of their energy comes from nuclear power.

In Washington, the Legislature refused to even study nuclear power because of opposition from special interest groups, including the NW Energy Coalition.  Not only should Washington’s Legislature and Governor strongly back a bill to study nuclear power, they should take steps to encourage its development in Washington. 

Just as with any energy source, there are jobs involved in construction and production.   With nuclear, there are reactor components to be manufactured and fuel to be enriched and fabricated.  These jobs could come to the Tri-Cities and our state.  We already have a fuel fabrication facility in Richland that employs hundreds.  Our Governor and Legislature should stop hiding and start leading on nuclear power, which can attract more of these high-paying jobs to our state.  For climate change to be taken seriously, this anti-nuclear foolishness has to stop.

Other concerns must be taken into account in the overall discussion of climate change, including the inequities of imposing major restrictions on emissions on the United States at the same time that other nations are furiously pursuing policies to build more greenhouse gas-producing sources.  Just two years from now the greenhouse gas emissions from the developing world – China, India, the Middle East, Africa and South America – will surpass the U.S., Canada, the European Union, Japan, Korea and Australia according to information provided to the House Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality. 

Our nation must seriously consider what economic harm we are willing to impose on our citizens while the most populous nations on Earth are increasing their emissions at astounding rates.  We cannot ignore these facts.  The United States cannot blindly impose the tax and regulatory schemes pushed by climate change activists that would cause our power rates to increase, would put us at a distinct disadvantage in competing with the rest of the world, and would seriously harm the U.S. economy. 

As you know, cap and trade proposals for our country, not to mention our states, are not merely abstract ideas but are under active consideration with actual legislation before Congress.  Earlier this week, two of my House colleagues, Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell and Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee Chairman Rick Boucher introduced draft cap-and-trade legislation.  Although I have not had time to thoroughly review their proposal, I can say that it aims to reduce emissions by 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.  The draft also eliminates all state run cap-and-trade programs.  Obviously any hearings on this bill will not begin until 2009.  However, by introducing a draft bill in October, it is clear that some members of Congress are hoping to quickly move global warming legislation at the start of the 111th Congress.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (someone who has repeatedly supported removing the Snake River dams) claimed that global warming was one of her top priorities.  Yet, it appears that with this legislation introduced so late in the Congress, she intends to wait until a new President is in the White House.  This obviously was a political decision and one meant to influence the election.  And, it could be that the Democratic majority hopes the results of November’s elections will allow the bill to be passed next year without a full, honest, scientific debate.

Ranking the fifty states by the amount of carbon dioxide per unit of electricity produced puts Oregon at 47th, Washington 48th, and Idaho 49th.  This means that our region has potentially more to lose than gain from this legislation.  That’s why there’s a need to get engaged.

And, as Congress moves further towards a cap-and-trade system we should all be concerned that the Northwest’s hydropower system would be penalized for starting out with much cleaner power than any other region – while regions that rely heavily on coal would profit.  It would be a twisted outcome if cap and trade legislation actually punished our region for having clean hydropower, while rewarding the polluting coal states with billions in benefits.

To prepare for the coming debate, there are several principles or priorities that our region should unite behind: 1) first and foremost, that hydropower is considered a renewable energy source; 2) that our unique hydro-based system must be protected, and that it should not be penalized while polluters are rewarded; 3) hydro should actually be encouraged by making incremental or increased hydro output an emissions offset and 4) that our forests, and potentially our orchards and agriculture lands, should be credited for capturing and sequestering carbon.  If these conditions cannot be met, then this is not legislation that deserves even a thought of support.

I have deep concerns about creating an artificial market in general, and do not favor new tax schemes or tax increases.  Yet, if these four conditions are not met then the entire undertaking is likely nothing more than a giveaway to the heaviest polluters.

In legislation, compromise is the name of the game.  Yet, the fierce debate that will occur between regions and states and industries and other varied interests is not likely to come to a close quickly. What I fear most is that those who place their faith in government control and coercion win out over the proven ability of free markets to innovate and produce rapid change and advancement.  While I haven’t yet thoroughly reviewed the recently introduced cap and trade bill, I am inherently skeptical of the solutions and legislation that’s being presented in Congress and in the states.  I recognize, though, that as one Congressman, I have a duty to engage on behalf of my constituents and region, just as you recognized your need to engage on behalf of your customers and our region.

And just as I have not been shy about speaking bluntly about: hydropower as a renewable resource, on the hypocrisy of pushing dam removal and ignoring nuclear power, and the political agendas underlying the climate change debate – you to must not be afraid to standup, speak clearly and advocate for a sane, fair approach for your customers.

The logic that “well, everyone else is doing it” doesn’t work for teenagers or for lemmings, and so it shouldn’t apply here.  The right measure is not how deeply you believe, how much you care, or too what lengths you are willing to blindly leap – it’s keeping a level head and making sound, informed decisions.

If there are fundamental messages I want to leave you with today, it’s that your industry – your work on a day-to-day basis – the time you’ve committed to hydropower – you are part of the solution, and please, for the sake of the region and our children’s children, don’t forget it. 

While I recognize that in many regards the decks are stacked against your efforts, please never forget that the movement to address climate change must not be based solely on emotion and lofty goals with unknown, potentially economy-crippling effects.  And that an honesty and forthrightness is needed in speaking clearly about causes, solutions, their impacts and the political agendas being advanced.

With that, I say thank you for inviting me to join you and for allowing me to be here with you this morning."