PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 615.
Congressional Research Service
Version 80 · Reported to Senate without amendment · Sep 27, 2010
(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.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
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.
People & committees
Rep. Napolitano, Grace F. [D-CA-38] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 615.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman without amendment. With written report No. 111-329.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman without amendment. With written report No. 111-329.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H4219-4221)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H4219-4221)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 4349.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4219-4222)
Mrs. Napolitano moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 287.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 111-502.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 111-502.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Water and Power Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water and Power.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.4349 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.4349 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.4349 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.4349 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.