House approves bill to expand hydropower

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Republican-controlled House has approved a bill aimed at expanding hydroelectric power, an action supporters said would boost a clean source of renewable energy but opponents denounced as a giveaway to large power companies.

Only 3 percent of the nation's 80,000 dams now produce electricity. Electrifying some of the larger sites - primarily locks and dams on the Ohio, Mississippi, Alabama and Arkansas Rivers that are operated by the Army Corps of Engineers - would generate electricity for millions of homes and create thousands of jobs, an Energy Department report said.

The bill would make the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the lead agency on hydropower licensing and require states, tribes and other federal agencies to defer to the commission.

There are times when congress makes the hair stand up on the back of my head. This action is one of them.

According to the Washington Times, taxpayers are on the hook for more than $2.2 billion in expected costs from the federal government’s energy loan guarantee programs, according to a new audit Monday that suggests the controversial projects may not pay for themselves, as officials had promised. (Heard that before?)

Nearly $1 billion in loans have already defaulted under the Energy Department program, which included the infamous Solyndra stimulus project and dozens of other green technology programs the Obama administration has approved, totaling nearly about $30 billion in taxpayer backing, the Government Accountability Office reported in its audit.

The hefty $2.2 billion price tag is actually an improvement over initial estimates, which found the government was poised to face $4 billion in losses from the loan guarantees. But as the projects have come to fruition, they’ve performed better, leaving taxpayers with a shrinking — though still sizable — liability. And the addition of the rivers and streams the AP indicated as use takes an average of 18 months to license a new natural gas plant, it can take up to 10 years or longer to license a new dam or relicense an existing dam, she and other Republicans said. So the additional expense is going to raise the bill to the taxpayers considerably.

rwood

Agree 150%. They’re real busy lining their pockets as they prepare for life after being voted out of office.

And that is easily preventable. Simply require ALL political donations to be ANONYMOUS. You can't sell influence if you don't know who is buying. Americans should be allowed to donate any amount they wish to any candidate or party; that is FREEDOM. But purchasing an outcome is BRIBERY, a CRIME. Proceed accordingly with prison time for violators.

Sorry if I led you to believe the new projects were involved with guaranteed loans involved. That was accomplished during the Obama fallacy. This bill 257-166, was just to get the ball rolling using taxpayers money. And in Washington, it might as well be the same thing.

If I read the bill right, the Army Corps of Engineers will be tasked with the project. The current hiring rate for a civil engineer within the Corp of Engineers can reach $106K per year. A project manager $130K, a project engineer $92K (he’s cheap), and an electrical engineer $101K. Numerous of these are going to be required to try to commit as many as 80 damns that can be converted. So we have already reached a long way toward $1M just to establish what the top dogs are going to make for one project. Not a circuit purchased, not one electrical contractor hired, not even an environmental impact statement requested, and the taxpayers are already in the hole, with not one shovel of dirt in sight yet.

They are estimating many years before the light at the end of the tunnel for something we already really have becomes visible. So the added cost of the failure of the first effort to the time and expense of the second multi, multi-billion dollar investment with an economy that I don’t feel can handle the stress of another shock, could be very destructive. Government needs to consider getting off their heels and back on their feet before this effort.

Our economy is not based upon government subsidy. It is based upon self sustainment by public companies. With Social Security and Medicare funds depleting at an alarming rate, our states’ infrastructures breaking down from lack of funds and attention, the job providers being taxed into not hiring or creating jobs with a live-able wage and still pay their commitments, and healthcare crashing in upon itself, now may not be the time to throw funds at a project that can try to hold its own for more people needings essentials long enough to recover enough to start forward. I just don’t feel now is the time to gamble such a great expense with not a whole lot in the cupboard mother Hubbard.

rwood

“This sounds like a great jobs program for Environmentalist Lawyers.”

This is the type of government red tape that can eat the green stuff alive. They may have to double the costs by printing more money so they can use established tax levels with the money being worth half of what it is now, to increase taxes to save us from ourselves. Oh aren’t we so lucky to have such a caring group of civil servants running amok out there? Bet part of the bill ends up with pay increase for them so they can hunt down other projects to suck up for them? I can see it.

rwood

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.