Newhouse Calls Out Energy Secretary on Lower Snake River Dams Hypocrisy
Today, Rep. Dan Newhouse (WA-04) participated in a hearing held by the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water to hear Department of Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm testify on the fiscal year 2025 agency budget request.
During the hearing, Secretary Granholm refused to acknowledge the long-term implications of the Columbia River Systems Operation Agreement are a de-facto breach of the Snake River Dams.
Watch Rep. Newhouse’s remarks HERE or read remarks as prepared below:
“Thank you, Chairman. Welcome, Secretary Granholm. It is great to see you here today to testify to the subcommittee on DOE’s FY2025 budget.
I look forward to discussing our national energy challenges and the energy issues which impact my district.
The preservation of the four Lower Snake River Dams is critically important to Central Washington. For years, I have worked to combat environmental activists and dam breaching advocates efforts to breach them. In December, the administration finalized an agreement in the Columbia River System Operations litigation. The agreement acknowledges only Congress has the authority to physically breach the dams, which I appreciated. However, it makes commitments to develop energy replacement for the dams as well as recommending spillage operations.
Stakeholders have expressed reservations. If it comes to fruition, the results will be catastrophic. Adjusting spillage operations will make the dams functionally useless. Energy prices will skyrocket, recreationists will suffer, and the salmon population will be harmed. It is a de-facto breaching of the dams.
Madam Secretary, are you willing to admit the administration is recommending policy that represents de-facto breaching of the dams in an effort to circumvent congressional authority as the sole decision maker on dam breaching?
I would like to transition into discussing the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). PNNL is a leading hydropower lab conducting innovative research for DOE’s Water Power Technologies Office. DOE professes a “clean energy” agenda focused on efficiency, low energy costs, and renewable energy. You have acknowledged hydropower’s role in achieving this.
In April 2023, you testified before the Senate Committee on Commerce. In response to a question, you stated hydropower was a – ‘renewable, cheap, form of power that we should be expanding… and not reducing.’ I could not agree more. Yet, DOE has proposed a $40 million budget cut to the Water Power Technologies Office in FY25. This cut would cripple PNNL’s hydropower efforts and is evidence of DOE’s tacit war on hydropower that unfairly favors wind and solar development.
Madam Secretary, why is DOE proposing to cut research and development into hydropower technologies when we need cheap, clean, and reliable energy more than ever before?
In Central Washington, the private and public sector has done great work to advance all-of-the-above energy development – from hydrogen production facilities, to small modular nuclear reactors, solar and fusion energy projects, and sustainable aviation fuel facilities.
Do you support this type of an all-of-the-above approach to energy development that includes - hydropower, nuclear, wind, solar, hydrogen, oil, gas, and fusion energy?
Another issue I want to discuss is the Hanford Site. DOE has worked to cleanup the radioactive waste left from the plutonium production facility in what is the largest environmental cleanup the U.S. has ever seen. I have always advocated for adequate cleanup funding to ensure the government fulfills its obligation to cleanup the site.
Recently, this funding has culminated in many accomplishments. Hanford completed heat up of the first melter and poured the first non-radioactive test glass. Now, the heat up process for the second melter has started. Funding needs will grow as vitrification continues and the High-Level Waste Facility work ramps up. With that said, there are cleanup projects elsewhere underway that require cleanup funding.
How does DOE plan to ensure their will be enough funding to go around without sacrificing the needs of individual sites like Hanford?
Also concerning Hanford is the Office of River Protection. It is expected to sunset soon and it will combine with the Richland Operations Office. The Office of River Protection was created to ensure Hanford’s tank waste operations got appropriate attention. But, now, I fear it will get all of the attention and the work of the Richland Operations Office will be ignored.
What assurances can you give that the scope of work within both offices will get equal attention once the offices are combined?
Last year, DOE announced the Cleanup to Clean Energy Initiative which aims to lease underutilized DOE land to develop clean electricity projects at DOE sites. Hanford is one of the sites. DOE also announced the issuance of Requests for Qualifications offering 18,000 acres for development. The Tri-City community has concerns about the trajectory of this initiative. They allege DOE has been unwilling to transfer land back to the community and has been favoring short-term solar projects that disincentivize investors who are looking for long-term investments in nuclear and hydrogen development.
As well, constituents are complaining the administration is not listening to their concerns and engaging in policy making that picks energy winners and losers based on a pre-determined agenda. While DOE has hosted community roundtables, their is a difference between inviting groups to participate and taking their feedback while incorporating it into your final decision.
What assurances can you give that DOE will work with the Tri-City community to incorporate their requests into land use decisions and fairly assess all clean energy applications related to this initiative equally?"
Rep. Newhouse is a member of the House Appropriations Committee and serves on the Agriculture, Energy and Water, and Homeland Security subcommittees.
To learn more and watch the full hearing, click here.
###