Hydropower: Comparison of Selected Provisions in S. 2012, as Engrossed in the House, and S. 2012, as Engrossed in the Senate
Congressional research reportJun 13, 2016
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Hydropower: Comparison of Selected
Provisions in S. 2012, as Engrossed in the
House, and S. 2012, as Engrossed in the Senate
Kelsi Bracmort
Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Resources Policy
Updated June 13, 2016
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R44523
Hydropower: Comparison of the House and Senate Versions of S. 2012
Summary
In the 114th Congress, the House and Senate have passed energy legislation that addresses
hydropower. Both the North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2016 (S. 2012,
as engrossed in the House) and the Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2016 (S. 2012, as
engrossed in the Senate) contain provisions that would alter the regulation and development of
nonfederal hydropower, among other things. Both bills would establish a formal timeline for
nonfederal hydropower project regulation, would appoint the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) as the lead agency for nonfederal hydropower regulation, and would require
FERC—and other agencies—to maintain and make publicly available more robust hydropower
project data.
There are similarities and differences between the bills. Both bills generally seek to modify
regulation and development processes for nonfederal hydropower. However, the bills would
modify the regulatory process in different ways. For instance, the bills would handle the delay of
issuing a hydropower project license due to interagency disputes differently; the House version
would resolve such a delay in a federal circuit court, whereas the Senate version would resolve
such a delay by referring the issue to the chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality.
Further, each bill would address some aspects of hydropower that the other bill would not
address. For instance, the House version contains a provision that would address hydropower
development at existing, non-powered dams, whereas the Senate version does not contain a
similar provision. Lastly, both bills would modify the regulation process for specific projects
(e.g., extends the time period to start construction for a specific project).
Both the House and Senate versions contain hydropower provisions that could significantly
impact nonfederal hydropower regulation and could be viewed as controversial. For example,
both bills would make FERC the lead agency to coordinate the licensing process. This
designation could be viewed by some as lessening the contribution of other involved agencies
because these agencies would be required to abide by the schedule and decisions set by FERC. It
could also be viewed as making the license issuance process timelier because one agency would
have leadership authority for the process.
This report provides a comparison of the hydropower provisions in each bill and analysis for
certain provisions of the bills.
Congressional Research Service
Hydropower: Comparison of the House and Senate Versions of S. 2012
Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
General Similarities and Differences Between the House and Senate Versions of S. 2012 ............ 1
S. 2012, as Engrossed in the House ................................................................................................. 2
Section 1201 .............................................................................................................................. 2
Section 1202 .............................................................................................................................. 3
Section 1203 .............................................................................................................................. 3
Section 1204 .............................................................................................................................. 3
Section 1205 .............................................................................................................................. 4
Section 1206 .............................................................................................................................. 4
Section 1207 .............................................................................................................................. 5
Section 1208 .............................................................................................................................. 5
Sections 8001-8006 ................................................................................................................... 6
S. 2012, as Engrossed in the Senate ................................................................................................ 6
Section 3001 .............................................................................................................................. 6
Section 3002 .............................................................................................................................. 9
Sections 3003, 3004, 10341, 10342, 10343, 10344, and 10346 .............................................. 10
Section 10345 .......................................................................................................................... 10
Section 10351 .......................................................................................................................... 10
Potential Issues .............................................................................................................................. 10
Tables
Table 1. House- and Senate-Engrossed Versions of S. 2012 for Specific
Hydropower Projects .................................................................................................................. 12
Contacts
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 14
Congressional Research Service
Hydropower: Comparison of the House and Senate Versions of S. 2012
Introduction
For years, Congress has expressed interest in hydropower—the generation of electricity from
flowing water.1 In particular, it has focused on the regulation and development of nonfederal
hydropower, as well as on the environmental impacts of hydropower.2 Additionally, discussions
have taken place between Congress, the executive branch, and several stakeholder groups—
including industry associations, state governments, and tribes, among others—about various
issues with hydropower (e.g., the time to issue a license, resource agency conditions, whether
hydropower should be considered renewable). Recently, both chambers of the 114th Congress
passed energy bills containing hydropower provisions that could potentially transform
hydropower regulation and development to an extent not observed by the industry in some time
(e.g., by changing certain parts of the licensing process).
This report analyzes pertinent components of the hydropower provisions in the North American
Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2016 (S. 2012, as engrossed in the House; referred to
herein as the House version) and the Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2016 (S. 2012, as
engrossed in the Senate; referred to herein as the Senate version).3 The report briefly describes
some of the current statutory requirements related to certain provisions. It does not provide a
comprehensive examination of each hydropower provision, nor does it provide a comprehensive
examination of how proponents or opponents regard individual provisions.
General Similarities and Differences Between the
House and Senate Versions of S. 2012
Both the Senate and the House versions of S. 2012 generally seek to modify regulation and
development processes for nonfederal hydropower.4 The regulation and development provisions
in both bills broadly address three primary objectives: 1) establish a more explicit timeline for the
regulation of nonfederal hydropower projects (e.g., issuing a project license or an extension); 2)
appoint more definitively the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as the lead agency
for nonfederal hydropower facility regulation; and 3) require FERC—and other agencies—to
maintain and make publicly available more robust data on hydropower projects. Additionally,
both bills direct attention to modifying these processes for specific projects (e.g., extending the
time period to start project construction).
Differences in the bills involve how the nonfederal hydropower regulation and development
processes would be modified, which are described in later sections of this report, and the specific
projects referenced. For instance, Section 3001 of the Senate version would allow a construction
1 For more information on hydropower, including nonfederal hydropower opportunities and challenges, see CRS
Report R42579, Hydropower: Federal and Nonfederal Investment.
2 Nonfederal hydropower projects can be privately or publicly owned, may or may not be located at a federal site, and
are regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
3 The House passed H.R. 8, the North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2015, on December 3, 2015,
and the Senate passed S. 2012, the Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2016, on April 20, 2016. H.R. 8 was moved
into the House version of S. 2012; the hydropower provisions under Division A, Subtitle B are identical to H.R. 8. The
House version was passed by the House on May 25, 2016. This report does not discuss the marine hydrokinetic
provisions included in each bill.
4 For more information on nonfederal hydropower licensing and compliance, see FERC, Handbook for Hydroelectric
Project Licensing and 5 MW Exemptions from Licensing, April 2004, and FERC, Compliance Handbook, December
2015.
Congressional Research Service
R44523 · VERSION 2 · UPDATED
1
Hydropower: Comparison of the House and Senate Versions of S. 2012
start date to be extended for eight years for any project, whereas the House version does not
address the extension of a project construction start date. Further, the House version would
require licenses and preliminary extensions for pumped storage projects, whereas the Senate
version does not include such a requirement. The Senate version and the House version would
modify the regulation process for seven specific projects (see Table 1).
S. 2012, as Engrossed in the House
The House version of S. 2012 explicitly addresses hydropower in eight sections under Division A,
Subtitle B (Hydropower Regulatory Modernization) and in six sections under Division A, Title
VIII (Extensions of Time for Various Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Projects). The
majority of the sections under Subtitle B, Sections 1201 and 1203-1208, focus on hydropower
licensing, regulation, and development. One section under Subtitle B, Section 1202, centers on an
extended construction time period for a specific project. The six sections under Title VIII,
Sections 8001-8006, focus on the construction timeline for specific projects or stipulate certain
license criteria.
This portion of the report summarizes the contents of each section of the House version of S.
2012 that addresses hydropower. Where applicable, it also discusses comparable provisions of the
Senate version of S. 2012.
Section 1201
Section 1201 of S. 2012, as engrossed in the House, would modify Section 4(e) of the Federal
Power Act of 1935 (FPA; 16 U.S.C. §§791-828c)—which, in part, authorizes the issuance of
licenses for hydropower projects.5 Section 1201 would add “minimizing infringement of the
useful exercise and enjoyment of property rights held by nonlicensees” as a factor to which FERC
must give equal consideration when issuing a license. Essentially, when issuing a license, FERC
would be instructed to equally consider how the project could balance the use and enjoyment of
nonlicensees with property rights, along with existing requirements, including “purposes of
energy conservation, the protection, mitigation of damage to, and enhancement of, fish and
wildlife (including related spawning grounds and habitat), the protection of recreational
opportunities, and the preservation of other aspects of environmental quality.”6
Section 1201 also would modify Section 10 of the FPA, which addresses license conditions,
including resource agency recommendations, among other things.7 Section 1201 would require
FERC to ensure that the comprehensive plan for the project outlined in Section 10(a) of the FPA
addresses “minimizing infringement of the useful exercise and enjoyment of property rights held
by nonlicensees.” Further, Section 1201 would add a private landownership condition to Section
10 of the FPA. This condition would require the licensee to consider private landownership as a
way to encourage and facilitate private investment and increase tourism and recreation if the
recreational resources within the project area are developed.
The Senate version of S. 2012 contains no comparable language.
5 16 U.S.C. §797(e).
6 Ibid.
7 16 U.S.C. §803.
Congressional Research Service
R44523 · VERSION 2 · UPDATED
2
Hydropower: Comparison of the House and Senate Versions of S. 2012
Section 1202
Section 1202 of S. 2012, as engrossed in the House, would modify various aspects of the license
for a specific project. See Table 1 for a synopsis of the section.
This section is comparable to Section 10343 of the Senate version of S. 2012.
Section 1203
Section 1203 of S. 2012, as engrossed in the House, would modify Part I of the FPA—which
addresses mainly hydroelectric project licensing and dam safety—by adding a new Section 34,
“Hydropower Licensing and Process Improvements,” to the act.8 Essentially, Section 1203 would
designate FERC as the lead agency to coordinate the nonfederal hydropower project licensing
process and to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C.
§§4321 et seq.). It also would formalize the license-issuance timeline. As the lead agency, FERC
would be required to identify and notify any federal or state agency, local government, or Indian
tribe that may participate in the federal authorization of a project. Section 1203 would define
federal authorization to include any authorization required under federal law pertaining to a
license, license amendment, or exemption, among other things.
Section 1203 would establish multiple deadlines for FERC and other involved parties. Further,
the section would require that all parties, including the licensee, adhere to the deadlines set forth
in the final schedule established by FERC. The section would require that the respective federal
or state agency, local government, or Indian tribe identify and share, as early as possible, with
FERC any issues of concern that may delay or prevent the granting of a federal authorization or
prevent the agency or tribe from adhering to the established schedule. FERC would then be able
to move to resolve such issues. Any agency or tribe not able to adhere to the schedule would be
able to file for an extension in federal circuit court or the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia.9 Section 1203 would allow an applicant seeking a federal authorization (i.e., a license)
to pay a third-party contractor—approved by the agency or tribe—to assist in reviewing their
application. FERC would then be able to make a recommendation regarding the scope of the
environmental review to federal and state agencies and Indian tribes, and agencies and tribes
would be able to defer to FERC’s recommendations. Furthermore, FERC would maintain a
complete, consolidated record of all decisions or actions regarding a federal authorization.
This section resembles Section 3001(i) of the Senate version of S. 2012, with some differences.10
Section 1204
Section 1204 of S. 2012, as engrossed in the House, would modify Section 13(b) of the FPA,
which addresses the judicial review of a FERC decision.11 Section 1204 would add a section that
centers on the delay of a federal authorization. More specifically, it would require any agency or
tribe that will not meet the deadline set in the final schedule established by FERC to file for an
extension in a federal circuit court where the project is located or in the Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia at least 30 days prior to the deadline. The court may grant an extension only
if the agency or tribe shows that it otherwise complied with the necessary requirements, except
8 16 U.S.C. §§792 et seq.
9 The process is described in §1204.
10 See “Section 3001” of this report for a discussion of the differences.
11 16 U.S.C. §825l(b).
Congressional Research Service
R44523 · VERSION 2 · UPDATED
3
Hydropower: Comparison of the House and Senate Versions of S. 2012
when complying with the schedule would have prevented the agency from complying with
federal or state law. If the court grants the extension, the court must set a new schedule and
deadline, no longer than 90 days, for the agency to comply. If the court denies the extension—or
if the agency or tribe does not file for an extension and does not complete its responsibilities by
the deadline—FERC and the applicant can move forward with the proposed action.
The Senate version of S. 2012 contains no comparable language.12
Section 1205
Section 1205 of S. 2012, as engrossed in the House, would modify Part I of the FPA—which
addresses mainly hydroelectric project licensing and dam safety—by adding a new Section 35,
“Licensing Study Improvements,” to the act.13 Section 1205 would require FERC, in consultation
with other federal and state agencies and interested members of the public, to compile and make
available a list of current and accepted best practices, studies, data, and more that would support
FERC, the agencies, and the tribes with federal authorization proceedings. Further, the section
would require FERC to establish a basin-wide or regional review program that would develop
comprehensive plans on a basin-wide or regional scale in instances where there is more than one
project or application for a project. FERC, in consultation with the other agencies and tribes,
would be authorized to commission such an environmental study if at least two applicants were
participating in a given project.
This section is similar to Section 3001(i) of the Senate version of S. 2012, with some
differences.14
Section 1206
Section 1206 of S. 2012, as engrossed in the House, would modify Part I of the FPA—which
addresses mainly hydroelectric project licensing and dam safety—by adding a new Section 36,
“Closed-Loop Pumped Storage Projects,” to the act.15 Section 1206 would require FERC to issue
and amend licenses and preliminary permits for closed-loop pumped storage projects. FERC
would be required to assess the safety of the existing dam and other structures related to the
project before issuing a license for such a project. FERC’s authority to place a condition on such
a license would be limited to public safety protection and the prevention of the loss of or damage
to fish and wildlife resources. Additionally, to facilitate the development of a closed-loop pumped
storage project, FERC would be authorized to add entities as joint permittees once a preliminary
permit has been issued and would be able to transfer a license to nonmunicipal entities as colicensees with a municipality.
The first part of this section is similar to Section 3001(i) of the Senate version of S. 2012.16
12 S. 2012 (the Senate version) differs in how it addresses the delay of a federal authorization. See Section 3001(i) of S.
2012 (the Senate version), which discusses resolution of interagency disputes and the use of trial-type hearings for
certain conditions.
13 16 U.S.C. §§792 et seq.
14 See “Section 3001” of this report for a discussion of the differences.
15 16 U.S.C. §§792 et seq.; A closed-loop pumped storage project is defined in the bill as a project in which the upper
and lower reservoirs do not impound or directly withdraw water from navigable waters or are not continuously
connected to a naturally flowing water feature.
16 See “Section 3001” of this report for a discussion of the differences.
Congressional Research Service
R44523 · VERSION 2 · UPDATED
4
Hydropower: Comparison of the House and Senate Versions of S. 2012
Section 1207
Section 1207 of S. 2012, as engrossed in the House, would modify Part I of the FPA—which
addresses mainly hydroelectric project licensing and dam safety—by adding a new Section 37,
“License Amendment Improvements,” to the act.17 Section 1207 would allow FERC to approve a
license amendment for a qualifying project upgrade.18 FERC would have 15 days to make an
initial determination about the proposed change once contacted by the applicant, which would be
followed by a 45-day opportunity for public comment. If the proposed license amendment is not
contested, FERC would publish a notice stating so. If the amendment is contested, FERC would
issue a written determination about whether the license amendment is for a project upgrade. Then,
FERC would proceed with soliciting comments from federal, state, and local agencies and tribes
about the proposed license amendment. FERC would be authorized to take final action on the
application no later than 150 days after the date of the announced initial determination. Any
conditions imposed on the license amendment must relate to public safety protection and the
prevention of the loss of or damage to fish and wildlife resources. If FERC decided the proposed
license amendment was not for a qualifying project upgrade, the procedures mentioned above in
this section would not apply.
FERC would be required to issue a rule 180 days after enactment of this section including the
given definitions for qualifying project upgrade and qualifying criteria. FERC would also be
required to issue a new rule one year after enactment of this section establishing new standards
and procedures for license amendment applications. When issuing the new rule, FERC would be
obligated to consider whether changes in generation or hydraulic capacity could indicate a
potential environmental effect for the proposed amendment, but these factors would not be
determinative.
The Senate version of S. 2012 contains no comparable language.
Section 1208
Section 1208 of S. 2012, as engrossed in the House, would modify Part I of the FPA—which
addresses mainly hydroelectric project licensing and dam safety—by adding a new Section 38,
“Promoting Hydropower Development at Existing Nonpowered Dams,” to the act.19 This section
would allow FERC to issue an exemption for qualifying facilities.20 FERC would consult with
agencies and tribes when granting such an exemption. FERC would be able to impose conditions
on the exemption related to public safety protection and prevention of the loss of or damage to
fish and wildlife resources. An exemption granted under this section would not include a
condition or other requirement that would alter the “storage, control, withdrawal, diversion,
release, or flow operations of the associated qualifying nonpowered dam.” The environmental
review for the proposed exemption would be limited to an environmental assessment, unless
FERC determines that the NEPA obligations can be met with a categorical exclusion. Exemptees
17 16 U.S.C. §§792 et seq.
18 A qualifying project upgrade is defined as a change to a hydropower project license that meets qualifying criteria as
determined by FERC. Qualifying criteria include a project change that would be unlikely to adversely affect threatened
and endangered species, would result in insignificant or minimal cumulative adverse environmental effects, would
increase capacity, would improve efficiency, would protect the environment, or would improve public recreation at the
project, among other things.
19 16 U.S.C. §§792 et seq.
20 A qualifying facility would have to meet certain qualifying criteria. One such criterion is that the facility was not
licensed or exempted from license requirements prior to enactment of the bill.
Congressional Research Service
R44523 · VERSION 2 · UPDATED
5
Hydropower: Comparison of the House and Senate Versions of S. 2012
for facilities located at a nonfederal dam would pay the United States annual charges, with any
proceeds paid into the Treasury.
The Senate version of S. 2012 contains no comparable language in S. 2012.
Sections 8001-8006
Sections 8001-8006 of S. 2012, as engrossed in the House, would modify various aspects of the
license for specific projects. See Table 1 for a synopsis of the sections and comparisons to the
Senate-engrossed version of the bill.
S. 2012, as Engrossed in the Senate
The Senate version of S. 2012 explicitly addresses hydropower in 11 sections—4 of which are
under Title III–Supply, Part I–Hydroelectric; 6 of which are under Title X–Natural Resources,
Part V–Hydroelectric Projects; and 1 of which is under Title X–Natural Resources, Part VI–
Pumped Storage Hydropower Compensation. Seven of the 11 sections focus on the construction
timeline for specific projects or stipulate certain license criteria. Two sections under Title III,
Sections 3001 and 3002, focus on hydropower licensing improvements and incentives. One
section under Title X, Section 10345, centers on termination of authority for the Secretary of the
Interior. Another section under Title X, Section 10351, focuses on compensation for pumped
storage hydropower projects.
This portion of the report summarizes the contents of each of the 11 sections in the Senate version
of S. 2012 that address hydropower. Where applicable, it also discusses comparable provisions in
the House version.
Section 3001
Section 3001 of S. 2012, as engrossed in the Senate, contains several wide-ranging hydropower
initiatives, as well as one general renewable electricity initiative.
Section 3001(a) would convey Congress’s perspective that hydropower is a
renewable and essential energy source and that the United States should increase
hydropower capacity and generation. The House version of S. 2012 contains no
comparable language.
Section 3001(b)(1) would modify the federal purchase requirement for electricity
from renewable sources in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct05; P.L. 109-58)
by setting the federal purchase requirement at no less than 15% starting in
FY2016 and for each fiscal year thereafter.21 With this modification, the Senate
version would double the amount of electric energy the federal government
would be required to consume from renewable energy during any fiscal year.
Although Section 3115 of the House version would address the federal purchase
requirement, the House version has no such comparable language stipulating
what the purchase requirement would be.
Section 3001(b)(2) would modify the definition of renewable energy in Section
203(b) of EPAct05 for the federal purchase requirement to mean “energy
produced from solar, wind, biomass, landfill gas, ocean (including tidal, wave,
21 The statutory requirement is not less than 7.5% in FY2013 and each fiscal year thereafter. 42 U.S.C. §15852.
Congressional Research Service
R44523 · VERSION 2 · UPDATED
6
Hydropower: Comparison of the House and Senate Versions of S. 2012
current, and thermal), geothermal, municipal solid waste, or hydropower.”22 This
new definition would broaden the statutory definition to include all hydropower.
Section 3115 of the House version also would modify the definition of renewable
energy in Section 203(b) of EPAct05, but the modification would address thermal
energy, not hydropower.23
Section 3001(c) would modify Section 4(e) of the FPA to allow FERC to
determine what would be necessary or useful regarding investigations and data
collection.24 The House version of S. 2012 contains no comparable language.
Section 3001(d) would modify Section 5 of the FPA—which addresses
preliminary permits—by allowing FERC to issue a preliminary permit for up to
four years and to extend the preliminary permit period once for no more than four
additional years. Further, it would allow FERC to issue an additional permit to
the permittee after an extension if there are extraordinary circumstances that
warrant such.25 The House version of S. 2012 contains no comparable language.
Section 3001(e) would modify Section 13 of the FPA—which addresses the time
period to construct a project, extensions for the construction start date, and
license terminations—to extend the start of project construction for up to eight
years.26 The House version of S. 2012 contains no comparable language.
Section 3001(f) would modify Section 15(e) of the FPA—which addresses the
term of a license—to require FERC to consider, when determining the term of
the license, project-related investments that could lead to new development,
efficiency improvements, and more, over the term of the existing license.27 The
House version of S. 2012 contains no comparable language.
Section 3001(g) would modify Section 18 of the FPA—which addresses the
operations of navigation facilities in connection to hydropower projects—by
eliminating the applicant’s ability to request a determination on the record
following a trial-type hearing for any disputes related to fishways.28 The House
version of S. 2012 contains no comparable language.
Section 3001(h) would modify Section 33 of the FPA—which addresses
alternative conditions and prescriptions for hydropower licenses—by eliminating
22 The statutory definition of renewable energy is as follows: “The term ‘renewable energy’ means electric energy
generated from solar, wind, biomass, landfill gas, ocean (including tidal, wave, current, and thermal), geothermal,
municipal solid waste, or new hydroelectric generation capacity achieved from increased efficiency or additions of new
capacity at an existing hydroelectric project.” 42 U.S.C. §15852.
23 §3115 of S. 2012 (the House version) says “The term ‘renewable energy’ means electric energy, or thermal energy if
resulting from a thermal energy project placed in service after December 31, 2014, generated from, or avoided by,
solar, wind, biomass, landfill gas, ocean (including tidal, wave, current, and thermal), geothermal, municipal solid
waste (in accordance with subsection (e)), qualified waste heat resource, or new hydroelectric generation capacity
achieved from increased efficiency or additions of new capacity at an existing hydroelectric project.”
24 The statutory language states “to the extent the Commission [FERC] may deem necessary.” 16 U.S.C. §797.
25 The statute allows FERC to issue a preliminary permit for a period of up to three years and to extend the permit for
an additional two years. 16 U.S.C §798.
26 The statute allows FERC to extend the start of project construction once for two years. 16 U.S.C. §806.
27 16 U.S.C. §808e.
28 16 U.S.C. §811. A trial-type hearing is generally defined as a proceeding before an administrative law judge. S. 2012
(the Senate version), §3001(i), adds a new Section 36, Trial-Type Hearings, which would further address trial-type
hearings.
Congressional Research Service
R44523 · VERSION 2 · UPDATED
7
Hydropower: Comparison of the House and Senate Versions of S. 2012
the respective Secretary’s (e.g., Secretary of the Interior) ability to submit to
FERC, for both alternative conditions and alternative prescriptions, a written
statement about a condition for a license including equal consideration, among
other things. In addition, it would eliminate dispute resolution between FERC
and the Secretary about the condition.29 It also would modify the section to apply
to any further conditions or prescriptions proposed or imposed pursuant to
Sections 4(e), 6, and 18 of the FPA. The House version of S. 2012 contains no
comparable language.
Section 3001(i) would modify Part I of the FPA—which addresses mainly
hydroelectric project licensing and dam safety—by adding a new Section 34,
“Licensing Process Improvements,” to the act.30 This section is similar to Section
1205 of the House version, except the Senate bill text emphasizes that any
biological opinion to form the basis for a prescription prepared by the National
Marine Fisheries Service would be done concurrently rather than sequentially
and that water quality certification deadlines would take effect only if the
certifying agency were to request one. Unlike the House version, the Senate
version does not discuss a basin-wide or regional review program that would
develop comprehensive plans on a regional or basin-wide scale.31
Section 3001(i) would modify Part I of the FPA by adding a new Section 35,
“Licensing Process Coordination,” to the act.32 This section resembles Section
1203 of the House version, except the Senate bill would note that it is the “sense
of Congress” that all federal authorizations—including a license or exemption—
should be issued within three years after the date FERC considers an application
to be complete. In addition, the Senate version would stipulate that interagency
disputes regarding failure to adhere to the schedule established by FERC and
issues associated with alternative conditions and prescriptions should be referred
to the chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality.33
Section 3001(i) would modify Part I of the FPA by adding a new Section 36,
“Trial-Type Hearings,” to the act.34 This section would allow for the license
applicant to receive a determination on the record about covered measures (e.g.,
conditions and fishways) following a trial-type hearing that is to last no longer
than 120 days. The decision by the FERC administrative law judge for the case
would be final and not subject to further administrative review. No later than 60
days following the judge’s decision, the Secretary associated with the condition
or prescription being challenged would have to make a determination to adopt,
modify, or withdraw the condition or prescription. If FERC disagrees with the
Secretary’s determination, the matter could be referred to the chairman of the
29 16 U.S.C. §823d. S. 2012 (the Senate version), §3001(i)—which adds a new Section 35, “Licensing Process
Coordination,” would further address the equal consideration requirement.
30 16 U.S.C. §§792 et seq.
31 §3001 of S. 2012 (the Senate version) does contain a pilot program for region-wide, or basin-wide, studies in its
addition of a §38 to the Federal Power Act of 1935 (FPA; 16 U.S.C. §§791-828c).
32 16 U.S.C. §§792 et seq.
33 §1204 of the House version of S. 2012 addresses the delay of a federal authorization, due in part to an interagency
dispute.
34 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
R44523 · VERSION 2 · UPDATED
8
Hydropower: Comparison of the House and Senate Versions of S. 2012
Council on Environmental Quality. The House version of S. 2012 contains no
comparable language.
Section 3001(i) would modify Part I of the FPA by adding a new Section 37,
“Pumped Storage Projects,” to the act.35 This section is similar to the first part of
Section 1206 of the House version. However, the Senate text addresses only what
FERC should consider to be a closed-loop pumped storage project for Section
6(a) of the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 (P.L. 113-23);36 it
does not address closed-loop pumped storage project license issuance, dam
safety, conditions, and transfers.
Section 3001(i) would modify Part I of the FPA by adding a new Section 38,
“Annual Reports,” to the act.37 This section would require FERC to submit to the
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the House Committee
on Energy and Commerce an annual report about the various criteria for project
license and preliminary permit issuance, renewals, the quantity of energy and
capacity for new and reauthorized projects, and more. FERC would be required
to establish and maintain a publicly available website with the required
information. Further, resource agencies would be required to submit to the two
committees a report that describes all of the terms, conditions, and more that the
agencies issued during the year and specifies whether those terms, conditions, or
other requirements would lead to a loss of energy, capacity, or ancillary services
at the project, among other things.38 The resource agencies would be required to
establish and maintain a publicly available website with the required information.
The House version of S. 2012 contains no comparable language.
Section 3001(j) would require FERC to establish a voluntary pilot program for
hydropower focused on covering at least one region with a set of region-wide
studies that could inform subsequent project-level studies within the region. This
section is similar to Section 1205 of the House version.
Section 3002
Section 3002 of S. 2012, as engrossed in the Senate, would modify Section 242 of EPAct05—
which addresses hydroelectric production incentives—to expand the eligibility period for the
hydroelectric production incentive program to 2025. Section 3002 also would establish the sunset
date for the program at 2035 and would reauthorize appropriations for the program at $10 million
annually for FY2016 to FY2025.39 In addition, this section would modify Section 243 of
35 16 U.S.C. §§792 et seq.
36 §6(a) of P.L. 113-23 requires FERC to investigate the feasibility of issuing a license for hydropower projects at non-
powered dams and closed-loop pumped storage projects within a two-year period.
37 16 U.S.C. §§792 et seq.
38 Resource agencies generally refer to those agencies at federal departments (e.g., Department of the Interior,
Department of Agriculture) that may develop conditions or prescriptions for inclusion in a hydropower license issued
by FERC. There has been some discussion about resource agency involvement in the hydropower licensing process.
For more information on resource agency involvement when a dispute arises, see Department of Agriculture,
Department of the Interior, and Department of Commerce, “Resource Agency Hearings and Alternatives Development
Procedures in Hydropower Licenses; Interim Rule,” 80 Federal Register 17156-17220, March 31, 2015.
39 42 U.S.C. §15881.
Congressional Research Service
R44523 · VERSION 2 · UPDATED
9
Hydropower: Comparison of the House and Senate Versions of S. 2012
EPAct05—which addresses hydroelectric efficiency improvements—to reauthorize
appropriations for the program for FY2016 to FY2025.40
The House version of S. 2012 contains no comparable language.
Sections 3003, 3004, 10341, 10342, 10343, 10344, and 10346
Sections 3003-3004, 10341-10344, and 10346 of S. 2012, as engrossed in the Senate, would
modify various aspects of the license for specific projects. See Table 1 for a synopsis of the
sections and comparisons to the House version of the bill.
Section 10345
Section 10345 of S. 2012, as engrossed in the Senate, would modify Section 10(h) of P.L. 86787—which centers on the Equus Beds aquifer recharge and recovery.41 This section would allow
the Secretary of the Interior to carry out any provision under the act for 20 years from the date on
which the law was enacted.42
The House version of S. 2012 contains no comparable language.
Section 10351
Section 10351 of S. 2012, as engrossed in the Senate, would require FERC to identify and
determine mechanisms that would encourage development of and allow for compensation for
pumped storage hydropower assets.
The House version of S. 2012 contains no comparable language.
Potential Issues
The Senate and House versions of S. 2012 contain provisions that would significantly impact
nonfederal hydropower. Chief among these provisions is the one that would make FERC the lead
agency for federal authorizations—and the lead agency for issuing a hydropower license.43 With
this provision, Congress would be signaling that it wants FERC to play a more prominent role
and to be the gatekeeper for the licensing process. It could be argued that FERC could misuse this
leadership authority if the commission does not fully cooperate with the other involved agencies.
On the other hand, having FERC as the lead agency could shorten the licensing process by
facilitating cooperation among the stakeholders. Further, both bills set timeframes for steps within
the licensing process, perhaps as an attempt to make issuing a license timelier.
Additionally, both bills have provisions that could be viewed as controversial.44 In particular,
those provisions pertaining to mandatory conditioning authority and the new hydropower
40 42 U.S.C. §15882.
41 P.L. 86-787; 74 Stat. 1026; 120 Stat. 1474; An Act to Provide for the Construction of the Cheney Division, Wichita
Federal Reclamation Project, Kansas, and for Other Purposes.
42 The statute gives the Secretary of the Interior the authority to carry out any provision under the act for 10 years from
the date on which the law was enacted.
43 §1203 of S. 2012 (House version); §3001(i) of S. 2012 (Senate version).
44 Several stakeholders have expressed their views to Congress on both bills—including the National Hydropower
Association, American Rivers, the California State Water Resources Control Board, Maryland Department of the
Congressional Research Service
R44523 · VERSION 2 · UPDATED
10
Hydropower: Comparison of the House and Senate Versions of S. 2012
licensing schedule have invited debate.45 For instance, some states and environmental groups are
concerned that the bills provide FERC with a unique authority to set the schedule for issuing a
hydropower license. Some contend that a schedule set by FERC could make the other involved
parties unable to contribute to the hydropower licensing process as they have in the past and
could potentially weaken their contribution to the environmental review process of such
projects.46 However, the National Hydropower Association argues that the bills would make the
licensing process more coherent and collaborative and would require regulators to make more
timely decisions “without narrowing the authorities of federal and state resources agencies and
Indian tribes under existing federal environmental laws.”47
Another controversial provision could be Section 3001(b)(2) of S. 2012, as engrossed in the
Senate, which significantly broadens the statutory definition for renewable energy for the federal
purchase requirement to include all hydropower. Some could argue that there should be limits to
what type of hydropower qualifies for the purchase requirement. Others could contend that
hydropower itself is sufficient to qualify for the federal purchase requirement without any relation
to new capacity.48
Environment, Karuk Tribe, Puyallup Tribe, and others.
45 Mandatory conditioning authority allows certain agencies to impose conditions on relicensed projects to ensure that
the projects comply with certain laws, such as the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act. This authority is
granted to the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture/Forest Service under §4(e) of the FPA and
to the Departments of Commerce and the Interior under §18 of the FPA for fishways.
46 Letter from California State Water Resources Control Board to Representatives Upton and Pallone, Jr., Comments in
opposition to provisions of House of Representatives Bill 8—North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act
of 2015, October 15, 2015; Letter from Puyallup Tribe of Indians to Senators Murray and Cantwell, Amendments to
the Federal Power Act in S. 2012, January 26, 2016.
47 National Hydropower Association, “House Passes Bill to Bring Hydropower Licensing Process into the 21 st
Century,” press release, December 3, 2015.
48 For more information on modifying the renewable energy definition for the federal purchase requirement, see the
section titled “Section 3001” in this report.
Congressional Research Service
R44523 · VERSION 2 · UPDATED
11
Hydropower: Comparison of the House and Senate Versions of S. 2012
Table 1. House- and Senate-Engrossed Versions of S. 2012 for Specific
Hydropower Projects
Bill and
Section
No.
FERC
Project
No.
Project
Name
State
Authorized
Capacity
(KW)
WV
14,000
Synopsis of Bill
Requirementa
Comparable Provision
in the Other Bill
S. 2012, as Engrossed in the House
Section
8003
12715
Jennings
Randolph
Would extend the time
period to start
construction for no more
than 3 consecutive 2-year
periods
Would allow FERC to
reinstate the license if the
period to begin
construction expires prior
to enactment of the bill
Would allow FERC to
reinstate the license
Would extend the time
period to start
construction to be within
3 years of the enactment
date of the bill
Would extend the time
period to start
construction to be within
6 years of the expiration
date of the extension
issued by FERC
Would allow FERC to
reinstate the license if the
time period to start
project construction
lapses before enactment
of the bill
Would require that no
more than 20 acres of
federal land be allotted
for the construction,
operation, and
maintenance of the Upper
Hidden Basin Diversion
Expansion of the project
No comparable provision
in the Senate version
S. 2012, as Engrossed in the Senate
Section
3003
Section
3004
Section
10341
12429
12478003
2743
Clark
Canyon Dam
Gibson Dam
Terror Lake
Congressional Research Service
MT
MT
AK
4,700
15,000
36,000
R44523 · VERSION 2 · UPDATED
Section 8001 of the House
version
Section 8002 of the House
version; the House version
does not address
reinstatement of the
license
No comparable provision
in the House version
12
Hydropower: Comparison of the House and Senate Versions of S. 2012
Bill and
Section
No.
FERC
Project
No.
Section
10342
11393
Section
10343
12642
Section
10344
Section
10346
12737;
12740
13287
State
Authorized
Capacity
(KW)
Mahoney
Lake
AK
9,600
Would allow FERC to
continue the stay of the
license or to lift the stay
(within a 10 year period
from enactment of the
bill), making the license
effective on the date the
stay is lifted, and grant
extensions to start
construction of the
project for no more than
3 consecutive 2-year
periods
No comparable provision
in the House version
W. Kerr
Scott
NC
4,000
Would extend the time
period to start
construction for no more
than 3 consecutive 2-year
periods
Section 1202 of the House
version
Would allow FERC to
reinstate the license if the
period to begin
construction expires prior
to enactment of the bill
Would extend the time
period to start
construction for no more
than 3 consecutive 2-year
periods from the
expiration date contained
in the original extension
Would allow FERC to
reinstate the license if the
period to start
construction expires prior
to enactment of the bill
Would extend the time
period to start
construction for up to 4
consecutive 2-year
periods
Would allow FERC to
reinstate the license if the
period to start
construction expires prior
to enactment of the bill
Project
Name
Gathright;
Flannagan
Cannonsville
VA;
VA
NY
3,700;
1,800
14,080
Synopsis of Bill
Requirementa
Comparable Provision
in the Other Bill
Sections 8005 and 8006 of
the House version
Section 8004 of the House
version
Sources: House- and Senate-engrossed versions of S. 2012.
Notes: Bill requirements for each specific project are brief summaries of the more pertinent bill requirements.
See the respective bill for the complete requirement. FERC = Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. KW =
kilowatts.
a. For those projects in which the construction start period is extended, the legislation modifies §13 of the
FPA, which requires licensees to commence project construction within two years of a given date and to
finish construction and start project operation by a given date. Further, §13 allows for the construction start
Congressional Research Service
R44523 · VERSION 2 · UPDATED
13
Hydropower: Comparison of the House and Senate Versions of S. 2012
date to be extended once for a two-year period and allows FERC to extend the completion period given
certain conditions. If the licensee has not begun project construction within the given time frame, FERC may
terminate the license. If project construction began but was not finished within the given time frame, a
resolution is decided by the district court where any part of the project is situated. 16 U.S.C. §806.
Author Contact Information
Kelsi Bracmort
Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural
Resources Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov , 7-....
Congressional Research Service
R44523 · VERSION 2 · UPDATED
14
EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted phone numbers and email addresses of analysts who
produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made any
other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.