Leadership Quote by Cathy McMorris

Bureaucratic transparency is rarely just transparency, and Cathy McMorris's line is a tidy example of how policy gets fought through the billing statement. On its face, the proposal sounds like good-government sunlight: require Power Administrations to itemize the direct and indirect costs of Endangered Species Act compliance on customers' power bills. Who could oppose letting people see what they are paying for?

The political intent sits in the choice of target and medium. "ESA compliance" is not an everyday phrase; it is a charged acronym that already carries a partisan valence in Western energy politics, where salmon runs, dam operations, irrigation, and hydropower rates collide. Put that acronym on a monthly bill and you convert an abstract regulatory regime into a recurring, personalized annoyance. The bill becomes a campaign mailer that arrives twelve times a year.

The subtext is less about accounting than attribution. By forcing a distinct line item, the legislation would script a story for ratepayers: your power is more expensive because of environmental law. "Direct and indirect costs" widens the net to include nearly any expense that can be rhetorically linked to compliance, inviting contested estimates that still land with the authority of a utility statement. It's a form of agenda-setting by design, turning the mundane infrastructure of payment into a narrative of burden.

Context matters: Power Administrations are public entities, and the fight over ESA often doubles as a fight over federal reach. McMorris is signaling skepticism of regulatory mandates while giving constituents a simple villain and a measurable grievance - without having to pick an explicit fight with species protection itself.