H.R. 4349: Hoover Power Allocation Act of 2010
Before you vote › Federal bills
H.R. 4349: Hoover Power Allocation Act of 2010
111th Congress · introduced 2009-12-16 · Energy · Latest: Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 615.
federal
Follow this bill, step by step
- Where it came from: introduced 2009-12-16 · official record
- Who proposed it: Rep. Napolitano, Grace F. [D-CA-38] · what a sponsor is
- What happened next: no floor votes in our records yet. Why?
- Where it stands now: Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 615. Not final yet: this can still change. We check for updates every day.
- If it becomes law and spends money: follow the money to money laws, then agencies and contracts and grants.
Official title
Hoover Power Allocation Act of 2010
Plain summary
(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the House on June 8, 2010. The summary of that version is repeated here.) Hoover Power Allocation Act of 2010 - (Sec. 2) Amends the Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984 (HPPA) to modify, commencing October 1, 2017, certain statutory schedules governing contracts for delivery of hydroelectric power generated at Hoover Dam to specified localities in Arizona, California, and Nevada. Directs the Secretary of Energy to: (1) create, from certain apportioned allocations of contingent capacity and firm energy, a resource pool equal to 5% of the full rated capacity of 2.074 million kilowatts and associated firm energy; (2) offer Schedule D contingency capacity and firm energy to new allottees not receiving contingent capacity and firm energy for delivery commencing October 1, 2017; and (3) allocate through the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) for delivery commencing October 1, 2017, 66.7% of Schedule D contingent capacity and firm energy to specified new allottees within the marketing area for the Boulder City Area Projects. Requires, in the case of Arizona and Nevada, Schedule D contingent capacity and firm energy for new allottees other than federally recognized Indian tribes to be offered through the Arizona Power Authority and the Colorado River Commission of Nevada, respectively. Requires Schedule D contingent capacity and firm energy that is allocated to federally recognized Indian tribes to be contracted for directly with WAPA. Grants WAPA 36 months to complete allocation to new allottees in California. Requires each contract offered under HPPA to: (1) authorize and require WAPA to collect from new allottees a pro rata share of Hoover Dam repayable advances paid for by contractors before October 1, 2017, and to remit such amounts to the contractors that paid such advances in proportion to the amounts paid by them as specified in a certain Implementation Agreement; (2) permit transactions with an independent system operator; and (3) contain the same material terms included in those long-term contracts for purchases from the Hoover Power Plant that were made in accordance with HPPA and are in existence on the date of enactment of this Act. Subjects the contractual obligation of the Secretary to deliver contingent capacity and firm energy under HPPA to the availability of the water needed to produce such contingent capacity and firm energy. Continues through FY2067 the requirements of HPPA as the exclusive method for the disposal of capacity and energy from Hoover Dam (in effect, congressional oversight). (Sec. 3) Requires the budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, to be determined by reference to the latest statement titled "Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation" for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.
Congressional Research Service summary (Reported to Senate without amendment), quoted unchanged (nonpartisan). Read the source.
What a vote does
A “Yea” vote
If it passes both chambers and is signed, it becomes law.
A “Nay” vote
If it is not passed, current law stays as it is.
PSI Sci description of the legislative step (not an opinion).
What does this mean? (plain words)
Official text
Hoover Power Allocation Act of 2010
Source: Congressional Research Service summary (Reported to Senate without amendment)
AI explanation – may be wrong, check the official text
No AI explanation yet. It takes up to a minute to write and is then saved for everyone.
Limited to a few requests an hour per person.
The strongest published arguments
Arguments for (supporters)
Needs sources: no published arguments on this side yet. We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.
Arguments against (opponents)
Needs sources: no published arguments on this side yet. We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.
Alternatives
Needs sources: no published alternatives yet (for example a different bill, a law instead of an amendment, or keeping current law). We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.
How did my representative vote? · This bill's floor votes
Officials and money
Sponsor: Rep. Napolitano, Grace F. [D-CA-38] · 43 cosponsors
Cost estimate: CBO cost estimate: H.R. 4349, Hoover Power Allocation Act of 2010 (2010-05-20); CBO cost estimate: H.R. 4349, Hoover Power Allocation Act of 2010 (2010-05-20); CBO cost estimate: H.R. 4349, Hoover Power Allocation Act of 2010 (2010-08-03); CBO cost estimate: H.R. 4349, Hoover Power Allocation Act of 2010 (2010-08-03)
Cosponsors on this site
Ken Calvert (R-CA), Judy Chu (D-CA), Jim Costa (D-CA), John Garamendi (D-CA), Darrell Issa (R-CA), Doris O. Matsui (D-CA), Linda T. Sánchez (D-CA), Brad Sherman (D-CA), Adam B. Schiff (D-CA), Dina Titus (D-NV), Maxine Waters (D-CA)
No linked floor roll calls in our collected records yet. This does not mean the bill has never had a vote. Check the official bill history.
Words on this page, explained (3)
- Authorization
- A law that creates or continues a government program and says what it may do, often with a suggested spending ceiling. An authorization alone does not provide money; a separate appropriation does.
- Obligation
- A binding promise by a government agency to pay money, for example by signing a contract or awarding a grant. Spending data such as USAspending.gov counts money when it is obligated, which can be before it is actually paid out.
- Statute
- A written law passed by a legislature. A statute can be changed by a later law; changing a constitution needs an amendment.
Plain meanings written from linked sources. All words.
Sources
- Congressional Research Service summary (Reported to Senate without amendment)
- Congress.gov
- Data: GovInfo BILLSTATUS bulk data (Library of Congress), BILLSTATUS-111hr4349.xml <https://www.govinfo.gov/bulkdata/BILLSTATUS/111/hr>
Record fed-us-cong111-hr4349 · catalog fed-us-congress-bills-cong111 · updated 2026-11-15 by psicol fed-bills-cong111