A Republican bill with 3 Republican cosponsors · See all 3 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill, known as the ``Bonneville Power Leadership Recruitment Act'', aims to adjust the compensation for the Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration and its employees. The Secretary of Energy will determine pay levels to ensure they are comparable to chief executives and similar positions at consumer-owned utilities in the Western Interconnection. These pay determinations will be based on an annual survey of prevailing compensation in those utilities. The bill also requires pay decisions to consider factors like education, experience, and recruitment needs. Finally, it includes a conforming amendment to title 5 of the United States Code.
Yes· 3 of 5
- Scored +2
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Potential for lower power rates benefits low-income consumers.
- Scored +2
Would middle-income households be better off under this?
Potential for lower power rates benefits middle-class consumers.
- Scored +2
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
Rural residents in the Western Interconnection are primary users of BPA power.
The opposite
- Scored -3
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The bill specifically allows for higher, competitive compensation levels for BPA employees.
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
Increasing pay for agency leadership and staff may increase government expenditures.
- Scored -1
Does this make the government pay for what it commits to?
Increasing salary expenditures generally conflicts with fiscal austerity.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Competitive Compensation for Leadership and Staff: The bill directs the Secretary of Energy to set pay levels for the Administrator and employees to be comparable to similar positions at consumer-owned utilities in the Western Interconnection (Section 2(a)). This is intended to address recruitment and retention needs (Section 2(b)(3)).
-
Strategic Organizational Goals: Pay determinations are required to encourage the widest diversified use of electric power at the lowest possible rates to consumers (Section 2(b)(2)).
-
Focus on Qualifications: For employees, the pay determination process will take into account education, experience, and level of responsibility (Section 2(b)(3)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No specific negative impacts are explicitly stated in the text provided.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Potential for lower power rates benefits low-income consumers. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Potential for lower power rates benefits middle-class consumers. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Rural residents in the Western Interconnection are primary users of BPA power. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Lower power rates are generally positive regardless of income.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The bill mandates that pay determinations encourage the lowest possible power rates for consumers. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The bill specifically allows for higher, competitive compensation levels for BPA employees. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — Increasing pay for agency leadership and staff may increase government expenditures. Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — Increasing salary expenditures generally conflicts with fiscal austerity.
- 4/27/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/27/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
Mark AmodeiRepublican · Nevada
Dan NewhouseRepublican · Washington
Michael SimpsonRepublican · Idaho