We believed a win for each party and stakeholders was preferable to the existing status quo of lawsuits, appeals, and uncertainty.

This idea of the breach is not good for people.

Let's roll up our sleeves and figure out what this conflict is about.

this is, in my view, another attempt by the current Administration to promote an unreasonable and irrational agenda for their energy policy.

This is the hell that the environmental left produces wherever it seizes control.

It has been made clear by Congressman Simpson, Senator Murray, and Governor Inslee that the energy and capacity of the dams must be replaced prior to dam removal.

What changed is the administration and the energy agenda. It was political.

The Administration's exclusion of Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and Nevada from the agreement, confining negotiations to Oregon and Washington, exposes the purely partisan nature of their decision-making.

This issue is not just important, it is a slap in the face of the hard-working people of Montana and the entire Northwest.

this is a moment for action, not for more process

But my real question to you, Mr. Simms, is who pays?

It is kind of a means of imposing an obligation upon the people of the Northwest to pay millions, if not billions.

I would much rather be subject to that than the vicissitudes of a government that is trying to decrease the amount of energy that we produce in America.

the common thread in all of these kind of whiplash experiences with our colleagues across the aisle is that whatever serves the interests of Big Oil and Gas is where they go.

It is just a benefit analysis.

Just tell me about the good things. Correct?

But we should be taking a closer look.

So, this isn't even about a cost benefit analysis at all, correct?