Recently, both chambers of the 114 th 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). 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. 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). 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 ). It also would formalize the license-issuance timeline. 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. Additionally, both bills have provisions that could be viewed as controversial. 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.
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.