PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 138.
Congressional Research Service
Version 01 · Reported to Senate with amendment(s) · Aug 30, 2011
Hoover Power Allocation Act of 2011 - 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 located within the marketing area for the Boulder City Area Projects.
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.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
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 (in effect, congressional oversight of) the disposal of capacity and energy from Hoover Dam.
People & committees
Sen. Reid, Harry [D-NV] · D–NV
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. 138.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman under authority of the order of the Senate of 08/02/2011 with amendments. With written report No. 112-58.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman under authority of the order of the Senate of 08/02/2011 with amendments. With written report No. 112-58.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with amendments favorably.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 112-63.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. (text of measure as introduced: CR S1505-1507)
Introduced in Senate
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 S.519 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 S.519 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 S.519 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 S.519 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.