Hydropower: Federal and Nonfederal
Investment
Kelsi Bracmort
Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Resources Policy
Charles V. Stern
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Adam Vann
Legislative Attorney
January 22, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42579
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
Hydropower: Federal and Nonfederal Investment
Summary
The 112th Congress has examined numerous energy sources to determine their contribution to the
nation’s energy portfolio and the federal role in supporting these sources. Hydropower, the use of
flowing water to produce electricity, is one such source. Conventional hydropower accounted for
approximately 8% of total U.S. net electricity generation in 2011. The use and support of
hydropower is likely to remain an active issue area for the 113th Congress.
Hydropower has advantages and disadvantages as an energy source. Its advantages include its
status as a continuous, or baseload, power source that releases minimal air pollutants during
power generation relative to fossil fuels. Some of its disadvantages, depending on the type of
hydropower plant, include high initial capital costs, ecosystem disruption, and reduced generation
during low water years and seasons.
Hydropower project ownership can be categorized as federal or nonfederal. The bulk of federal
projects are owned and managed by the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. These projects are typically authorized and funded by Congress. Nonfederal projects
are licensed and overseen by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
Considered by many to be an established and renewable energy source, hydropower is not always
discussed alongside clean or other renewable energy sources in the ongoing energy debate due to
its potential environmental impacts. However, hydropower proponents argue that hydropower is
cleaner than some conventional energy sources, and point to recent findings that additional
hydropower capacity could help the United States reach proposed energy, economic, and
environmental goals. Others argue that the expansion of hydropower in the form of numerous
small hydropower projects could have environmental impacts and regulatory issues similar to
those of existing large projects.
The 113th Congress may face several issues as it addresses how hydropower fits into a changing
energy and economic landscape. For example, existing large hydropower infrastructure is aging;
many of the nation’s hydropower generators and dams are over 30 years old. Proposed options to
address these concerns include increasing federal funding, utilizing alternative financing,
privatizing federally owned dams, and encouraging additional small-capacity generators, among
other options. Whether to significantly expand or encourage expansion of hydropower is likely to
require congressional input due to the uncertainty surrounding the clean and renewable energy
portfolio within power markets. Potential expansion of hydropower projects could take place by
improving efficiency at existing projects or by building new projects, or both. For instance, H.R.
267 would grant small hydropower projects with a capacity of 10 megawatts or less an exemption
from licensing requirements, promote conduit hydropower projects, and require FERC to
examine the feasibility of a two-year licensing process to promote hydropower development at
nonpowered dams and closed-loop pumped storage projects, among other things. Another
important topic is the rate at which FERC issues licenses for nonfederal projects, which some find
slower than ideal. Others defend the licensing process due to the environmental and other statutes
with which agencies must comply. Other controversial issues related to hydropower in the current
Congress include funding for potential changes to the rate structure of the Federal Power
Marketing Administration (PMAs) and federal support for removal of hydroelectric dams.
Legislation to address these issues was introduced in the 112th Congress in the House (H.R. 2842
and H.R. 6247) and the Senate (S. 629).
Congressional Research Service
Hydropower: Federal and Nonfederal Investment
Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Background ...................................................................................................................................... 3
Federal Hydropower ........................................................................................................................ 5
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Projects .................................................................................... 5
Nonfederal Development at Corps Facilities ...................................................................... 6
Bureau of Reclamation Projects ................................................................................................ 7
Nonfederal Development at Reclamation Facilities ............................................................ 8
Federal Dam Removal and Hydropower ................................................................................... 8
Federal Power Marketing Administrations ................................................................................ 9
Chu Memorandum............................................................................................................. 10
Costs to Ratepayers of Compliance With Environmental Laws ....................................... 11
Opportunities and Challenges .................................................................................................. 11
Nonfederal Hydropower ................................................................................................................ 12
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ................................................................................. 12
Opportunities and Challenges .................................................................................................. 14
Other Nonfederal Hydropower Issues ..................................................................................... 15
Role of Hydropower in Renewable Electricity Standards ................................................. 16
Federal Power Act Section 24 Power Site Reservations ................................................... 16
Hydroelectric Power and Shoreline Management Plans ................................................... 17
Legislative Questions ..................................................................................................................... 18
Federal Hydropower ................................................................................................................ 18
What Are Some of the Options to Address Aging Hydropower Infrastructure at
Existing Federal Hydropower Projects? ......................................................................... 18
What Are Some of the Current Data Gaps Related to Federal Hydropower? ................... 19
How Does Uncertainty Affect Operations of Federal Projects? ........................................ 19
Nonfederal Hydropower .......................................................................................................... 20
Should Congress Support Additional Nonfederal Hydropower Projects?......................... 20
In What Ways Can Additional Power Be Generated from Existing Nonfederal
Projects? ......................................................................................................................... 20
What Can Congress Do to Expedite Nonfederal Project Licensing? ................................ 21
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 21
Figures
Figure 1. Conventional U.S. Hydropower Projects: Federal and FERC-Regulated ........................ 4
Appendixes
Appendix. FERC Integrated Licensing Process ............................................................................. 23
Congressional Research Service
Hydropower: Federal and Nonfederal Investment
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 24
Congressional Research Service
Hydropower: Federal and Nonfederal Investment
Introduction
Conventional hydropower1 accounted for nearly 8% (325,074 gigawatt hours) of total net U.S.
electricity generation in 2011.2 The United States has considerable hydropower potential beyond
what is already developed.3 Although there is some interest in increasing the current level of
hydropower investment, such investment remains limited, in part because of federal and
nonfederal financial constraints, high uncertainty in electricity generation policies and markets
(which may dissuade capital investment), and the environmental operating requirements required
for hydropower projects. Some hydropower proponents are pursuing policies to reduce what they
view as impediments to hydropower development. Other stakeholders prefer that hydropower
investments only proceed when they are protective of other interests, including other water users
and the aquatic environment and its species.
At issue for the 113th Congress is whether, and if so how, to change federal support for
hydropower and what priority to give hydropower vis-à-vis other energy investments, and social
and environmental concerns. More than 25 bills dealing with various aspects of hydropower were
introduced in the 112th Congress—a quarter of which were state- or site-specific legislation.4
Some Members of Congress want to provide further support for small hydropower and nonfederal
hydropower at federal sites. For example, the House passed the Bureau of Reclamation Small
Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act of 2012 (H.R. 2842, 112th Congress),
which would have amended the Reclamation Power Act of 1939 to authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to contract for the development of small conduit hydropower (1.5 megawatts or less) at
Reclamation facilities; required that power privilege leases be offered first to an irrigation district
or water users association operating or receiving water from the applicable work; and exempted
small conduit hydropower development from the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) in select cases, among other things.5 Also, in the 112th Congress the Hydropower
1 This report focuses primarily on conventional hydropower. Conventional hydropower refers to the use of dams or
impoundments to store water in a reservoir, whereby water released from the reservoir flows through a turbine to
generate electricity. It does not include small hydro, low head hydro, or new hydropower technologies. For more
information on these technologies, see CRS Report R41089, Small Hydro and Low-Head Hydro Power Technologies
and Prospects, by Richard J. Campbell.
2 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, September 2012, http://www.eia.gov/electricity/
monthly/pdf/epm.pdf. A gigawatt is equal to one thousand megawatts. EIA defines net generation as the amount of
gross generation less the electrical energy consumed at the generating station(s) for station service or auxiliaries.
3 The U.S. Department of Energy reports that adding power to nonpowered dams has the potential to add 12 gigawatts
of new hydropower capacity, with the 100 largest facilities capable of providing 8 gigawatts. U.S. Department of
Energy, An Assessment of Energy Potential at Non-Powered Dams in the United States, April 2012,
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/water/pdfs/npd_report.pdf. The 12 gigawatt potential of new hydropower capacity is
enough to power roughly 9 million “average” homes, based on EIA 2010 data for the average annual electricity
consumption (11,496 kWh, or 11.5 MWh)) for a U.S. residential utility customer.
4 Examples of state- and project- or site-specific legislation includes the Bonneville Unit Clean Hydropower
Facilitation Act (S. 499), which would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to facilitate the development of
hydroelectric power on the Diamond Fork System of the Central Utah Project. Another example is S. 524, which would
terminate certain hydropower reservations relating to Bureau of Land Management patents in Madera County,
California.
5 A lease of power privilege is a contractual right given to a nonfederal entity to use a Bureau of Reclamation facility
for electric power generation consistent with Reclamation project purposes. The National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. §§4321-4347) requires that a detailed statement of environmental impacts be prepared for all
major federal actions significantly affecting the environment. The exemption of certain projects from NEPA
compliance has been a contentious aspect of the hydropower debate. For more information on NEPA, see CRS Report
RL33152, The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): Background and Implementation, by Linda Luther.
Congressional Research Service
1
Hydropower: Federal and Nonfederal Investment
Improvement Act of 2011 (S. 629, 112th Congress) proposed to establish a Department of Energy
grants program for increased hydropower production, and amend the Federal Power Act (FPA) to
authorize the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to exempt electric power
generation facilities on federal lands from the act’s requirements among other things. The Saving
Our Dams and New Hydropower Development and Jobs Act of 2012 (H.R. 6247, 112th Congress)
would have authorized certain hydropower development and eliminated certain environmental
reviews and conditions, as well as prohibited federal funding of dam removal activities and other
actions.
The variety of legislative proposals and stakeholder opinions stems partly from differing views of
the benefits and costs of hydropower development. Many have pointed out advantages and
drawbacks of conventional hydropower. Cited advantages include its renewable energy status,6
zero to minimal greenhouse gas emissions during operation, and high operational efficiency.
Supporters also note its ability to generally serve as a reliable and flexible domestic energy
source. Generally speaking, hydropower generation can be dispatched on relatively short notice,
and can supplement shortfalls in generation. However, others note that conventional hydropower
has high initial capital costs, can be detrimental to surrounding ecosystems (e.g., fish and
wildlife), may not be reliable during low water years and seasons, and may disrupt recreational or
scenic values.7
The legislative environment for hydropower can be complicated. Whether the hydropower project
investor is a federal or nonfederal entity dictates which laws apply and thus may affect which
committees are involved in oversight or changes to such laws. Several federal government
agencies own and operate large hydropower projects, while other agencies administer the process
by which nonfederal hydropower projects are built, maintained, and operated. Large federal
hydropower projects are managed primarily by the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of
Reclamation (Reclamation) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The power from
these projects is generally marketed by the Department of Energy’s Power Marketing
Administrations (PMAs).8 FERC regulates investigation, construction, and operations of
nonfederal hydropower projects as well as overseeing dam safety for nonfederal projects.
This report explains how the federal government is involved directly in hydropower generation at
federal facilities and in the regulation of nonfederal hydropower generation; the focus is on
current roles and processes and common concerns and questions about changing those roles.
6 Some states do not consider hydropower to be a renewable energy source per state guidelines. For example, California
does not consider a new hydropower facility an eligible energy resource for its renewable portfolio standard if it will
require a new or increased appropriation or diversion of water under Division 2, Part 2 of the California water code.
7 Certain conditions, such as a drought, which reduce water availability may affect the ability of a hydropower plant to
generate the amount of electricity intended. There is an ongoing debate about whether and how to consider potential
climate change and its impact on hydropower plant operations during the hydropower plant licensing process. For more
information, see Joshua H. Viers, “Hydropower Relicensing and Climate Change,” Journal of the American Water
Resources Association, August 2011.
8 The federal government operates four Power Marketing Administrations—Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) in
the Pacific Northwest, Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA), Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA), and
Western Area Power Administration (WAPA).
Congressional Research Service
2
Hydropower: Federal and Nonfederal Investment
Background
Most of U.S. hydropower capacity is from conventional hydropower.9 Conventional hydropower
plants take three general forms: storage (or impoundment), run-of-river (or diversion), and
pumped storage.10 A storage plant uses a dam to store enough water in a reservoir so that, when
released, it flows through a penstock to a turbine, spinning it, which in turn activates a generator
to produce electricity.11 A run-of-river plant directs a portion of a river through a canal or
penstock to generate electricity without the need for a reservoir. A pumped storage facility stores
energy and generates electricity by pumping water from a lower reservoir to an upper reservoir
during off-peak hours, releasing the stored water from the upper reservoir to the lower reservoir
during periods of higher electricity demand.
Conventional hydropower is a significant contributor to the national electric power portfolio.12
Hydropower produced 6%-9% of total U.S. electric generation between 1998 and 2009,
depending on water availability.13 Conventional hydropower accounted for roughly 6% and 8% of
U.S. net generation in 2010 and 2011, respectively.14 Hydropower was the largest contributor to
renewable electric power generation in 2011, followed by wind, and wood and wood-derived
fuels.15 The top hydropower-producing states in 2011 were western states—Washington,
California, and Oregon.16
There is an ongoing debate about whether hydropower should be characterized as “renewable.” It
has historically been characterized as renewable because it is a replenishable resource. More
recently, others have asserted that it is not renewable because of its size (e.g., in the case of large-
scale projects) and environmental impact, particularly on ecosystems, and in some cases induced
evaporation (particularly at reservoirs at low elevations in dry climates) and greenhouse gas
emissions during construction. For purposes of this report, hydropower is discussed as renewable
because it does not originate from a fossil fuel (i.e., its source is not finite).
The precise number of hydropower projects in the United States is unknown.17 Different
databases yield different results based on selected criteria. Figure 1 shows the location of both
9 M. J. Sale, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Outlook for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Hydropower Program, 2011-WRO-P-02, Washington, DC, March 2011, p.1. (Hereinafter referred to as
“Corps Hydropower Outlook”).
10 More information on the types of hydropower plants is available at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/water/
hydro_plant_types.html.
11 A penstock is a closed conduit or pipe for conducting water to the powerhouse.
12 At one time, hydropower accounted for 40% of U.S. electricity generation. Over time, as other electricity sources
expanded, hydropower’s share decreased. Other reasons for the decline in electricity generation from hydropower
include aging infrastructure, market conditions, environmental and ecosystem concerns, and the fact that large
conventional hydropower projects are mostly already developed.
13 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Hydropower Has a Long History in the United States, June 8, 2011,
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=2130.
14 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, September 2012, http://www.eia.gov/electricity/
monthly/pdf/epm.pdf; EIA defines net generation as the amount of gross generation less the electrical energy consumed
at the generating station(s) for station service or auxiliaries.
15 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, September 2012, http://www.eia.gov/electricity/
monthly/pdf/epm.pdf.
16 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, September 2012.
17 This is especially true for nonfederal hydropower projects, as one project could have multiple generating stations.
Congressional Research Service
3
Hydropower: Federal and Nonfederal Investment
nonfederal (FERC-regulated) hydropower projects and federal hydropower projects. Additionally,
90 nonfederal hydropower projects are licensed to operate at Corps dams, and 28 are licensed to
operate at Bureau of Reclamation sites.18
Figure 1. Conventional U.S. Hydropower Projects: Federal and FERC-Regulated
Source: FERC, July 2011.
Notes: According to FERC records, no licenses were issued for projects in Hawaii. However, one exemption
was issued, and five projects in Hawaii have been issued preliminary permits.
The public sector (federal, cooperatives, and municipalities) owns the majority of hydropower
capacity, while the private sector (e.g., private utility, private non-utility, and industrial entities)
owns the majority of individual hydropower projects. According to a 2006 Idaho National Lab
(INL) study, the private sector owns two-thirds of U.S. hydropower plants. However, private
plants account for just over 25% of production capacity.19 Similarly, the public sector owns
roughly one-third of the hydropower plants; these plants are responsible for roughly three-
quarters of capacity. The federal government tends to own mostly large hydropower (> 30 MW)
plants. The private sector and cooperatives tend to own mostly small hydro (1-30 MW) and low
power (< 1 MW) plants. Small hydro and low power plants constitute approximately 11% and
less than 1% of total hydropower production capacity, respectively. Large hydropower plants are
responsible for approximately 89% of total hydropower capacity.20
18 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers , U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works, 2009, http://www.usace.army.mil/
CECW/Documents/cecwm/5_yr1/fy09_5yrplan.pdf; Bureau of Reclamation, Hydroelectric Powerplants Operated by
Others, 2011, http://www.usbr.gov/power/data/faclothr.html.
19 Douglas G. Hall and Kelly S. Reeves, A Study of United States Hydroelectric Plant Ownership, Idaho National
Laboratory, June 2006, http://hydropower.inel.gov/hydrofacts/pdfs/
a_study_of_united_states_hydroelectric_plant_ownership.pdf. The study categorized hydropower plant ownership in
six classes: federal, industrial, cooperative, private utility, private non-utility, and municipal and other nonfederal
public.
20 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
4
Hydropower: Federal and Nonfederal Investment
Federal Hydropower
The federal government owns and operates approximately half of all U.S. hydroelectric
generating capacity. This capacity is principally at large multi-purpose dams owned and operated
by the Corps or Reclamation. Combined, the Corps and Reclamation operate almost all federal
hydroelectric dam capacity (91% of federal capacity).21 Other federal entities operating
hydroelectric generation facilities include the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, and the International Boundary and Water Commission. Other entities also own facilities
that generate hydroelectric power, but they are relatively small. While the electricity generated by
these facilities is owned by these federal agencies, the Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs),
which are part of the U.S. Department of Energy, are generally responsible for selling and
distributing this power.
Federal hydropower capacity varies substantially by state and region. For instance, 90% of all
federal capacity is found in 13 states, and the majority of this capacity is in the West.22
Washington and California contain the greatest federal hydroelectric capacity, while Oregon,
Arizona, Montana, and Idaho also have significant federal hydropower capacity. In the East, New
York, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina have the most federal capacity.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Projects
The Corps’ multi-purpose dams are the largest producer of hydropower in the United States.
Much of this power generation capacity is concentrated in the Pacific Northwest. The Corps
constructed hydropower facilities at many of its water resources projects, beginning in 1925. Its
most recent hydroelectric construction project was the R.D. Willis project in Texas, completed in
1989. Today, the Corps owns and operates 353 units at 75 projects, with a total estimated capacity
of 25.8 GW, or approximately one-fourth of all national hydropower capacity.23 These projects
generate approximately 70,000 gigawatt hours (GWH) of hydropower annually, with an average
gross revenue of $5 billion.24 Revenues from the sale of this hydropower are deposited into the
U.S. Treasury.
Hydropower generating units have a nominal 50-year life expectancy, and many Corps
hydropower projects are nearing or exceeding this age. As of 2011, the median age of Corps
hydropower facilities was 47 years, and 90% of Corps projects are 34 years or older.25 Although
hydroelectric generation is highly variable and depends on a number of factors, some have
observed that nationwide, generation at Corps units has fallen over the last decade. According to
the Corps, from 2000 to 2008 generation at its facilities fell from 71,600 GWH in 2000 to 61,700
21 Douglas G. Hall and Kelly S. Reeves, A Study of United States Hydroelectric Plant Ownership, Idaho National
Laboratory, INL/EXT-06-11519, Idaho Falls, ID, June 2006, (hereinafter referred to as “Hall and Reeves”).
http://www.inl.gov/technicalpublications/Documents/3374828.pdf.
22 Hall and Reeves, p vi.
23 Corps Hydropower Outlook, p. 9.
24 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Statement of Michael
Ensch, Chief of Operations, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Investment in Small Hydropower: Prospects of Expanding
Low-Impact and Affordable Hydropower Generation in the West, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., July 29, 2010, p. 2. Hereinafter
referred to as “Ensch.”
25 Corps Hydropower Outlook, p. 2.
Congressional Research Service
5
Hydropower: Federal and Nonfederal Investment
GWH in 2008. The extent to which this trend is due to aging infrastructure in uncertain; however,
some contend age is a factor in declining generation.26 Relative to national generation totals, the
Corps contribution to total hydropower generation decreased from approximately 27% of total
production in 2000 to 24% of total production in 2008.27
In addition to overall declining generation trends, the delivery of Corps hydroelectric power is
also an issue connected to aging infrastructure. That is, unit availability is down because of
maintenance and repairs.28 According to the Corps, many of its hydropower assets have fallen
below the generally accepted hydropower industry goal of 95% unit availability. Unit availability
at Corps dams has fallen to the point where no Corps division is meeting the 95% target, while at
the same time, the total hours of “forced outages” have grown.29
Concerns related to aging infrastructure have resulted in internal reviews of the Corps
hydropower program and recommendations for ways to improve Corps hydropower operations.
The Corps has conducted preliminary reviews of foregone benefits associated with its aging
hydropower infrastructure under its Hydropower Modernization Initiative (HMI). The first phase
of this initiative, completed in 2010, evaluated several facilities that the Corps had identified as
requiring rehabilitation. The Corps concluded that modernization of six “critical needs” projects
could produce 341 GWH in additional electricity, or an average increase in production of
approximately 8% per plant.30 The cost for these upgrades would be approximately $600 million.
The second phase of the HMI looked at facilities outside the Federal Columbia River Power
System (i.e., projects not eligible for funding by the Bonneville Power Administration, or BPA)
and concluded that if the Corps took no action to modernize the 54 units not financed by BPA, it
would forego potential revenues of approximately $7 billion over a 20 year horizon.31 Costs for
the upgrades necessary to avoid the aforementioned losses were estimated at $3.7 billion.
Nonfederal Development at Corps Facilities
Besides federal investment and development, nonfederal development of hydropower at Corps
sites is also permissible under certain circumstances. According to the Corps, as of 2010 there
were 90 nonfederal power units at Corps dams with a total capacity of .003 GW.32 Such
development requires a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license and a Corps
Section 408 permit, which authorizes the nonfederal use of a federal facility.33 The Corps and
FERC signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in March 2011 to coordinate the
26 Corps Hydropower Outlook, p. 9. Availability of water, including the lack of water in certain hydrological conditions
and instream flow requirements, are some of the other factors that may account for decreased generation.
27 CRS analysis of Corps and EIA data. Again, this calculation does not account for water availability in different
regions of the country, which has the ability to effect the Corps contribution to overall generation.
28 “Unit availability” is generally defined as the amount of time (or in this case, percentage of time) a unit is available
to produce electricity, regardless of whether or not it is operated.
29 Corps Hydropower Outlook, p. 10.
30 Ensch, p. 3.
31 Montgomery, Watson, Harza, Phase II Needs and Opportunities Evaluation and Ranking, Reconnaissance
Hydroelectric Assessment Plants Life Extensions and Upgrades, Cumberland River Basin. Report prepared for the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Nashville District, Contract No. W912P5-06-D-0008-0004.
32 Ensch, p. 3.
33 33 U.S.C. §408.
Congressional Research Service
6
Hydropower: Federal and Nonfederal Investment
regulatory review; among other things, the MOU indicates that the Corps will conduct its
regulatory review concurrently to the FERC process to the extent possible.34
Bureau of Reclamation Projects
Reclamation is the second-largest producer of hydroelectric power in the United States.
Reclamation operates in the 17 western states, and 11 of these states have Reclamation
hydropower facilities.35 As part of its mission to facilitate settlement of the West through water
resources development, Reclamation built numerous projects that included facilities to impound
water to provide water supply for irrigation and municipal use and to capture floodwaters.
Reclamation also constructed hydropower units at some of these facilities, in part to finance
project construction for these other purposes.36 Reclamation constructed some of these units in
the early part of the 20th century, and significantly increased its hydropower production during
World War II to meet wartime production demands. Reclamation operates 194 generating units at
58 projects, with total capacity of 14.8 GW, or about 16% of the nation’s hydropower capacity.
Reclamation generates on average 40,000 GWH annually.
There are two tiers of customers for federal hydropower projects. For Reclamation projects,
power is first used for project purposes (e.g., pumping of water for irrigation); the remaining
power is marketed by one of the Power Marketing Administrations with jurisdiction over the
area—Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), or
Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA). In turn, the PMAs provide this power for
distribution and sale (see below section, “Federal Power Marketing Administrations”). Receipts
from hydropower revenues at Reclamation Facilities are deposited into the Reclamation Fund and
are first applied to project repayment costs.37
Like the Corps, Reclamation has identified challenges associated with the operation of its
facilities. Similar to the Corps, Reclamation’s facilities are aging: the majority of Reclamation’s
hydroelectric dams are 40-60 years old, and as of 2007 the average age of its hydropower
facilities was 51 years.38 Reclamation in 2008 estimated that approximately $1.4 billion is needed
to upgrade its hydropower assets.39 However, unlike the Corps, net generation at Reclamation
34 Corps and FERC, Memorandum of Understanding between United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission on Non-Federal Hydropower Projects, http://www.ferc.gov/legal/maj-ord-reg/mou/
mou-usace.pdf.
35 Reclamation operates hydropower projects in the following states (in order of generation capacity): Washington,
Oregon, California, Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico.
36 Although the Reclamation Act of 1902 was the original statute authorizing construction of Reclamation projects,the
Reclamation Service (later renamed the Bureau of Reclamation) was first authorized to develop hydropower resources
in the Town Site and Power Development Act of 1906 (34 Stat 116). The Fact Finders’ Act of 1924 (43 Stat 701) later
authorized the use of hydropower revenues as a credit to construction charges of a project.
37 For more on the Reclamation Fund, see CRS Report R41844, The Reclamation Fund: A Primer, by Charles V. Stern.
38 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Reclamation-Wide Power Profile. Available at http://www.usbr.gov/power/data/recl-
wid.pdf.
39 Statement of Robert W. Johnson, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Subcommittee on Water and Power, Statement of Robert W. Johnson, Hearing on Reclamation’s Aging Infrastructure,
110th Cong., 2nd sess., April 2008.
Congressional Research Service
7
Hydropower: Federal and Nonfederal Investment
facilities has remained somewhat constant over the last 10 years, and Reclamation has stated that
its project performance is generally favorable compared to most industry benchmarks.40
Reclamation has also studied the potential gains associated with upgrades to its hydropower
facilities. However, the potential for additional development at Reclamation facilities appears to
be considerably less than that for Corps facilities. In a 2010 study, Reclamation concluded that
significant upgrades were only feasible at 10 of its 58 facilities, and would increase
Reclamation’s total capacity by 0.067 GW, or less than less than 1%.41
Nonfederal Development at Reclamation Facilities
Nonfederal hydropower facilities at existing Reclamation projects are permitted by Reclamation.
The process is accomplished through either (1) a FERC license (for projects not authorized for
hydropower); or (2) a process managed by Reclamation known as the Lease of Power Privilege
Process (for projects authorized for hydropower, but not developed). As of 2010, Reclamation
reported this type of development at 47 sites which provided capacity of over 46 GW.42
According to Reclamation, whichever of these processes is used, power development must not
conflict with the purposes for which Congress authorized the original Reclamation project, and
must not affect the structural and operational integrity of the project. Furthermore, the
development must not have significant adverse environmental, cultural, or historical impacts.43
Federal Dam Removal and Hydropower
Interest in dam removal for ecosystem and species restoration and recreational purposes is a
controversial issue, especially when the dam is producing hydroelectric power. Congress becomes
involved as proposals for federal dam removal (or support for dam removal) are considered for
authorization and appropriations, as well as in the ongoing implementation of some dam removal
projects. H.R. 6247, introduced in the 112th Congress, would have barred federal agencies from
funding the removal of hydroelectric dams unless explicitly authorized to do so by Congress.
There are a few federal facilities with hydropower units where dam removal has been debated and
actively pursued. Most notably, two formerly nonfederal dams on the Elwha River in Washington
(outside of Olympic National Park) were purchased and removed by the federal government to
restore fish passage and the river ecosystem.44 The Department of the Interior is involved in an
ongoing effort to remove four nonfederal hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in Oregon
(near a major Reclamation project), per an agreement among project water users, a private dam
owner, and others. While the Elwha project was authorized by Congress, the Klamath dam
40 This statement takes into account “available water” for generation, which Reclamation tracks. For instance, see
http://www.usbr.gov/power/data/recl-wid.pdf, p. 6.
41 Bureau of Reclamation, Assessment of Potential Capacity Increases at Existing Hydropower Plants, October 2010,
http://www.usbr.gov/power/AssessmentReport/USBRHMICapacityAdditionFinalReportOctober2010.pdf.
42 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Statement Michael
Conner, Commission, Bureau of Reclamation, Hearing on Investment in Small Hydropower: Prospects of Expanding
Low-Impact and Affordable Hydropower Generation in the West, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., July 29, 2010.
43 For more information on the program, see http://www.usbr.gov/uc/power/progact/nonfedpwr.html.
44 Removal of these two dams was authorized by Congress in 1992 in P.L. 102-495. Among other things, the act
authorized the Secretary of the Interior to acquire the Elwha and Glines Canyon hydroelectric power projects (which
were nonfederal dams at the time).
Congressional Research Service
8
Hydropower: Federal and Nonfederal Investment
removal project (including the relevant studies) has yet to receive congressional authorization and
has been controversial.45
In addition to the aforementioned efforts involving the federal government, some nonfederal
groups are also involved in ongoing efforts (i.e., litigation) to force the removal of federal and
nonfederal hydroelectric dams. The most prominent of these are efforts to remove four
hydroelectric dams on the lower Snake River in Washington State that are operated by the Corps.
The dams supply power to the Bonneville Power Administration and customers in the Pacific
Northwest.46 The status of these dams is controversial among some, who have called for their
removal.47 To date, the Obama Administration has not included removal of these dams as
reasonable or prudent alternatives in several successive biological opinions on the effect of the
Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) on federally listed threatened and endangered
species. However, litigation by nonfederal parties on this issue is ongoing, and some are
concerned it could result in removal of the dams. If dam removal were mandated by the courts,
the Corps would likely require specific authority from Congress to breach or remove any of these
four dams.
Some interests oppose removal of hydroelectric dams, arguing that hydropower is a clean,
renewable energy source. Others argue that dam removal should be considered among the suite of
options in deciding whether to relicense and/or maintain aging hydropower dams, some of which
block or impede fish access to historic habitat and may no longer be cost-effective. Still others
argue that dam removal is the best way to restore fish passage and avoid extinction of certain
species.
Federal Power Marketing Administrations
The federal government operates four Power Marketing Administrations—Bonneville Power
Administration (BPA) in the Pacific Northwest, Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA),
Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA), and Western Area Power Administration (WAPA).48
Each is operated as a distinct and self-contained entity within DOE. Among other responsibilities,
the PMAs are responsible for marketing surplus power from Corps and Reclamation facilities to
their customers.49 The revenue collected from the sale of this power is deposited into the U.S.
Treasury.50 It is generally used to pay with interest the federal investment in the hydropower
facilities. Gross annual revenue returned to the Treasury from power sales of electricity at federal
facilities is estimated at approximately $5 billion, and usually amounts to considerably more than
the budgets for hydropower and related operations and maintenance (O&M) for the Corps and
Reclamation.
45 For more information, see CRS Report R42158, Klamath Basin Settlement Agreements: Issues in Brief, by Charles
V. Stern, Harold F. Upton, and Cynthia Brougher
46 The dams are Lower Granite, Little Goose, Lower Monumental, and Ice Harbor.
47 See, generally, National Wildlife Federation v. National Marine Fisheries Service, No. 01-640-RE.
48 For more information, see CRS Report R41960, Federal Agency Authority to Contract for Electric Power and
Renewable Energy Supply, by Anthony Andrews.
49 Some of the PMAs also own and operate transmission lines associated with these facilities.
50 Revenues from most hydropower receipts are deposited into the General Fund of the Treasury, although as
previously discussed, some hydropower receipts at Reclamation projects are credited to the Reclamation Fund.
Congressional Research Service
9
Hydropower: Federal and Nonfederal Investment
The Flood Control Act of 1944 requires that the PMAs produce power “at the lowest possible rate
consistent with sound business practices.”51 This means that the PMAs typically sell power at a
lower cost than investor-owned utilities (whose purpose is to provide a financial return to
investors). This rate-setting policy was established to encourage regional economic development
and appropriate use of federal assets. Some have pointed out that current PMA policies result in
long-term, low-cost contracts that do not take into consideration major O&M upgrades and
replacement, and are therefore artificially lower than the true cost needed to maintain these
facilities.52
Chu Memorandum
The Obama Administration has undertaken preliminary efforts that will potentially alter the
operations and rates of the PMAs. On March 16, 2012, Secretary Chu issued a memorandum to
the directors of the four PMAs which described in general terms four foundational goals of the
Secretary for the PMAs going forward:
1. Implementing new transmission authorities.
2. Improving rate designs.
3. Improving collaboration with other owners and operators of the grid.
4. Working with Congress to modernize oversight of the PMAs.
Since the memo was initially published, the Department of Energy (DOE) and the PMAs have
engaged PMA customers and other stakeholders in their process to develop recommendations to
Secretary Chu in response to his memo.53 These draft recommendations are expected to be
presented to the Secretary and, according to DOE, will be published in the Federal Register.54
While some of the goals mentioned in the memo were not controversial, others have been
opposed by many power customers and elected officials who fear that changes pursuant to the
memo might jeopardize access to low cost power. Those involved in the subsequent discussions
of the memo’s intent with the department have criticized DOE’s approach in soliciting input on
the aforementioned recommendations. On June 5, 2012, with bicameral support of 166 Members
of Congress, a letter was sent to Secretary Chu raising their concerns with the memo.55 Further,
the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources held two oversight hearings
on the topic, and legislation before the House in the 112th Congress, H.R. 6247, barred funding to
implement the memorandum.56
51 16 U.S.C. §825s.
52 Corps Hydropower Outlook, p. 39.
53 Specifically, during the summer of 2012, WAPA and DOE jointly convened the Joint Outreach Team (JOT), which
is charged with presenting recommendations to the Secretary and has held outreach hearings.
54 Statement of Lauren Azar, Senior Advisor to the Secretary of Energy, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural
Resources, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Hearing on the Chu Memorandum: Directives Could Increase
Electricity Costs for over 40 Million Families and Small Businesses, 112th Cong., 2nd sess., September 10, 2012.
55 Letter to Stephen Chu, Secretary of Energy, June 5, 2012, http://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/
congressionalltrtosecchurepmas06-05-12.pdf.
56 U.S. Congress, House Natural Resources Committee, Water and Power Subcommittee, The Chu Memorandum:
Directives Could Increase Electricity Costs for over 40 Million Families and Small Businesses, Full Committee
Oversight Hearing, 112th Cong., 2nd sess., September 11, 2012, p. http://naturalresources.house.gov/calendar/
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
10
Hydropower: Federal and Nonfederal Investment
Costs to Ratepayers of Compliance With Environmental Laws
The use of hydropower revenues for fish mitigation has been another controversial issue
associated with the PMAs. Previous Congresses have debated the cost of environmental laws to
PMA ratepayers. In previous testimony, BPA estimated that costs for fish and wildlife mitigation,
including the Endangered Species Act, accounted for $802 million, or approximately 30% of
BPA’s charges that year.57 In addition to the magnitude of these costs, critics of these requirements
also note that most PMA power customers are unaware that a part of their bill goes to fish and
wildlife mitigation. In the 112th Congress, Section 5 of H.R. 6247 would have required that the
four PMAs include in their monthly billing statements to power customers estimates of the direct
and indirect costs related to compliance with any federal environmental laws impacting the
conservation of fish and wildlife.
Opportunities and Challenges
Hydropower generation at federal facilities has occurred since the early 20th century and is well
established. These projects have provided low-cost power to many, but also have associated
environmental costs. As previously noted, several recent studies have noted the potential for
increases in federal hydropower, both through efficiency gains and through development of
nonfederal power at federal sites. For instance, Corps and Reclamation staff have estimated that
approximately 2.4 GW of new capacity (i.e., an increase of as much as 7% on top of existing
federal capacity) may be technically feasible to add through additional hydropower development
or refurbishment of existing facilities. While fully realizing this potential would likely depend on
a number of economic and environmental factors, most agree there is some potential for
additional development. Two bills in the 112th Congress, H.R. 2842 and H.R. 6247, were
introduced to facilitate and expand nonfederal development on federal facilities.
Challenges to future production and development persist. At Corps facilities in particular,
hydroelectric production is facing a number of challenges. A common issue, cited by many, is
aging federal hydropower infrastructure, which is often tied to decreasing generation and
increases in forced outages of hydropower units. The federal government is faced with limited
options for dealing with these issues. Financing major upgrades and expansions of federal
hydropower facilities beyond immediate maintenance needs is difficult to accomplish without
congressional appropriations and, in some cases, authorizations. Construction of new projects
also faces challenges. As with expansions and upgrades, new federal developments are dependent
upon congressional actions. Other challenges for hydropower at or on federal facilities include
• Environmental operating restrictions to protect species that would otherwise be
harmed by these projects;
• Uncertain and variable hydrologic conditions (e.g., precipitation and runoff
patterns related to climate variability and change);
(...continued)
eventsingle.aspx?EventID=307274; and Increased Electricity Costs for American Families and Small Businesses: The
Potential Impacts of the Chu Memorandum, April 26, 2012, available at http://naturalresources.house.gov/calendar/
eventsingle.aspx?EventID=288984.
57 Hearing on H.R. 1719, Statement of R. Scott Corwin. Testimony in 2006 by the BPA on H.R. 4857 estimated a
similar percentage for these costs.
Congressional Research Service
11
Hydropower: Federal and Nonfederal Investment
• Limited operational flexibility (e.g., limits derived from congressional
authorization and carefully negotiated operating manuals balancing multiple
uses); and
• Demand for water by other competing uses (e.g., municipal water supply,
navigation, and recreation).
Nonfederal Hydropower
Nonfederal hydropower projects can be privately owned or publicly owned, and may or may not
be located at a federal site. They differ from federal projects primarily in that they are subject to
regulation stemming from their licensing by FERC. According to U.S. Energy Information
Administration (EIA) data, roughly 1,245 nonfederal hydropower plants generated 147,400 GWh
of net electricity in 2010.58 The amount generated constitutes roughly 57% of total electricity
generated from hydropower and roughly 4% of total U.S. electricity in 2010.59
In addition to the general advantages and disadvantages of hydropower discussed earlier in this
report, nonfederal projects have unique benefits. For example, some argue that nonfederal
projects are more likely to receive regular maintenance and major upgrades than federal projects,
since the plant owner has a financial incentive to generate as much electricity as possible. On the
other hand, drawbacks of nonfederal projects generally mirror those of federal projects (e.g.,
initial high capital costs, environmental concerns, regulatory requirements). An additional
drawback of nonfederal projects is the length of time required to obtain state and federal
approval. Still, some surmise that any increase in hydropower generation is most likely to come
from nonfederal projects because, as described earlier, federal projects face hurdles that could
prevent them from adding substantial generation capacity quickly, with the major barrier being
federal financing for major upgrades and expansions.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FERC licenses the construction and operation of nonfederal hydropower projects.60 It has the
exclusive authority to license new nonfederal hydropower projects, relicense existing projects and
58 Energy Information Administration, 2010 December EIA-923 Monthly Time Series File, http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/
electricity/page/eia906_920.html. The amount generated is enough to power roughly 13 million “average” homes,
based on EIA 2010 data for the average annual electricity consumption (11,496 kWh, or 11.5 MWh)) for a U.S.
residential utility customer.
59 CRS calculations do not include pumped storage.
60 Three divisions under the FERC Office of Energy Projects (OEP) administer the hydropower responsibilities of the
Commission—the Division of Hydropower Licensing (DHL), the Division of Hydropower Administration and
Compliance (DHAC), and the Division of Dam Safety and Compliance (DDSC). DHL is responsible for case
management and order preparation for applications for licenses, relicensing, exemptions, major amendment of licenses,
5MW exemptions, and license surrender of constructed projects. DHL is also responsible for the preparation of NEPA
documents (e.g., environmental assessments and environmental impact statements) and pre-filing collaborative work.
DHAC is primarily responsible for reviewing and ensuring compliance by owners of hydropower projects with the
conditions specified in their licenses and exemptions. DDSC is responsible for construction, operation, exemption,
prelicense, and environmental and public use inspections; engineering evaluations and studies; independent consultant
report reviews; emergency action plan development and testing; engineering guidelines development; and
interagency/industry committee participation.
Congressional Research Service
12
Hydropower: Federal and Nonfederal Investment
provide oversight for all ongoing projects, and it has a role in the decommissioning of projects.61
FERC was granted this authority under the Federal Power Act of 1935 (16 U.S.C. 791-828c).
FERC may issue a license for a hydroelectric project that
• is located on navigable waters of the United States;
• occupies public lands or reservations of the United States;
• utilizes surplus water or water power from a U.S. government dam; or
• is located on a body of water over which Congress has Commerce Clause
jurisdiction, for which project construction occurred on or after August 26, 1935,
and which affects interstate or foreign commerce.62
FERC reports that the 1,600 projects it regulates at over 2,500 dams represent 54 GW of
hydropower capacity, or more than half of all U.S. hydropower capacity.63 FERC has issued a
license for 1,017 projects and has given an exemption for 634 additional projects.64 Licenses are
typically issued for 50 years, but if the relicensing process is underway, an annual license is
issued. A 2012 CRS analysis of existing FERC license expiration dates suggests that 42 licensed
projects (4.1%) are set to expire between January 2010 and December 2015, 43 licensed projects
(4.2%) are set to expire between January 2012 and December 2016, and 90 licensed projects
(8.8%) are set to expire between January 2017 and December 2021.65 No expiration dates are
provided by FERC for exemptions, as they are issued in perpetuity.66
FERC’s role with respect to hydropower is to license and oversee projects. Historically, FERC
placed more emphasis on encouraging hydropower development. However, most large-scale
hydropower sites have been developed and FERC’s current role focuses more on licensing
hydropower projects and examining the role of small hydropower projects and hydrokinetics.
FERC has worked with stakeholders, as directed by Congress, to streamline its application
process. FERC now has three licensing processes that applicants may use to apply for a new
license or relicense—the Traditional Licensing Process (TLP), the Alternative Licensing Process
(ALP), and the Integrated Licensing Process(ILP).67 In July 2005, the ILP became the default
licensing process (see Appendix).68
61 In addition to issuing licenses, FERC released a policy statement (66 Federal Register 339) asserting that it has the
legal authority to deny a new license at the time of relicensing . For more on license denial, dam removal, and dam
decommissioning, see CRS Report RL33480, Dam Removal: Issues, Considerations, and Controversies, by Nic Lane;
and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, “Project Decommissioning at Relicensing; Policy Statement,” 60 Federal
Register 339-356, Jan. 4, 1995.
62 16 U.S.C §817.
63 Testimony of Jeff C. Wright, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Full Committee
Hearing: To Hear Testimony on S. 629, S. 630, and Title I, Subtitle D of the American Clean Energy Leadership Act of
2009, 111th Cong., 1st sess., March 31, 2011.
64 A list of licenses and exemptions is available at the FERC Hydropower website: http://www.ferc.gov/industries/
hydropower.asp. Reasons for the difference in the number of nonfederal facilities (roughly 1,600 according to FERC
and roughly 1,245 according to EIA) are unclear.
65 According to a Nov. 2010 letter submitted to Congress by FERC, licenses for more than 50 hydroelectric projects
have expired or will expire between January 2010 and December 2015. See http://www.ferc.gov/about/strat-docs/fy09-
an-rpt.pdf.
66 Some projects are granted an exemption from project licensing. FERC offers two types of exemptions: small
hydropower and conduits. For more information on exemptions, see http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/gen-
info/licensing/exemptions.asp.
67 For background on licensing processes, see CRS Report RL31903, Relicensing of Nonfederal Hydroelectric
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
13
Hydropower: Federal and Nonfederal Investment
Opportunities and Challenges
In many respects, nonfederal projects face the same challenges and opportunities as federal
projects. Both must consider power generation, environmental concerns, and surrounding
community issues (e.g., safety, recreation). Furthermore, hydropower projects can come with
issues associated with power grid connection and transmission. However, there are some issues
unique to nonfederal projects such as satisfying FERC licensing requirements.
Many contend that generation capacity at nonfederal projects could be expanded if the financial
incentives were adequate. Congress may consider whether to modify tax incentives or provide
other subsidies, and could further examine the role of FERC. Environmental costs and impacts
associated with expansion could also be considered.
Challenges unique to nonfederal hydropower projects generally emerge from the regulatory
framework. Some regulatory challenges involve the issuance and renewal of licenses in a
timely manner, and the adequacy of the federal workforce to oversee the license and
exemption process. Other challenges include community opposition, market demand
fluctuations, and data submission and analysis to better assess production capability. For
some time there has been criticism of FERC’s handling of its licensing responsibilities,
much of which centers on the assertion that the full potential of nonfederal hydropower is
not being delivered because of licensing delays. Some argue that additional generation
capacity from hydropower would be possible if FERC’s licensing process were less of a
barrier, specifically with respect to the amount of information needed to apply for a license
and the time it takes to acquire a license.
Several factors affect the license application process. FERC is required to inform potential
applicants about what license they qualify for, and must ensure compliance with various laws.
Also, obtaining a FERC license can involve roughly a dozen federal and state agencies; thus in
some cases the application period may last for six years or more.69 Federal and state agencies that
are consulted during the process may not always adhere to the prescribed time frames. For
instance, a 2001 FERC report to Congress on hydroelectric license policies notes that one
common reason license applications are delayed is untimely receipt of state water quality
certification under the Clean Water Act.70 Testimony by a FERC representative delivered at a
2011 congressional hearing further expresses FERC’s perspective:
Project developers and other stakeholders, not the Commission, in most instances play the leading
role in determining project success and whether the regulatory process will be short or long,
simple or complex.
(...continued)
Projects: Background and Procedural Reform Issues, by Nic Lane.
68 Applicants may petition to use either the ALP or the TLP based on anticipated costs, level of complexity and
controversy related to licensing, and other factors.
69 An initial consultation contact list is available for each state, with information on federal, state, and regional agencies
and more, at http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/enviro/consultlist.aspx. For an account of the changes to
hydropower license processes over time, see CRS Report RL31903, Relicensing of Nonfederal Hydroelectric Projects:
Background and Procedural Reform Issues, by Nic Lane.
70 FERC, Report on Hydroelectric Licensing Policies, Procedures, and Regulations Comprehensive Review and
Recommendations Pursuant to Section 603 of the Energy Act of 2000, May 2001, http://www.ferc.gov/legal/maj-ord-
reg/land-docs/ortc_final.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
14
Hydropower: Federal and Nonfederal Investment
To the extent that a proposed project, even one of small size, raises concerns about water use and
other environmental issues, it may be difficult for the Commission to quickly process an
application. It is important to remember that the small capacity of a proposed project does not
necessarily mean that the project has only minor environmental impacts.71
Another issue of particular concern to some stakeholders is the requirement that agencies
review and provide “mandatory conditions” to protect fish and other resources as part of the
licensing process.72 Others argue that the licensing process needs to be comprehensive,
allowing impacted parties adequate time to review the application and offer comment
because, once approved, licenses are valid for 30 to 50 years. H.R. 6247, introduced in the
112th Congress, proposed to address these “mandatory conditions” concerns by requiring
agencies to submit their conditions earlier in the licensing process and to address the impact
their condition may have on the cost of a project, among other factors, and granting FERC
the discretion as to whether or not to include the conditions in a license.73 However, the bill
did not address the length of time that could be taken to prescribe a condition during the
licensing process once the process has commenced; the bill only addressed pre-application
activities.
Although the challenges for nonfederal projects are significant, there may be opportunities to
overcome or minimize the significance of the barriers mentioned above. For example, energy
legislation incorporating a federal renewable electricity or clean energy standard that includes
hydropower or a price on carbon could reduce some market anxiety and lead to large-scale
investments in new nonfederal projects. Moreover, energy efficiency measures and technological
advancements could spur additional generation at existing projects.
Other Nonfederal Hydropower Issues
Other pressing issues associated with nonfederal hydropower include its treatment in state
renewable portfolio standards, annual charges by FERC for federal lands transferred with a power
site classification, and residential and commercial development on the shoreline of FERC-
71 Testimony of Jeff C. Wright, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Full Committee
Hearing: to hear testimony on S. 629, S. 630, and Title I, Subtitle D of the American Clean Energy Leadership Act of
2009, 111th Cong., 1st sess., March 31, 2011.
72 One of the more recent legislative discussions about this topic was held at a hearing by the U.S. Congress, House
Committee on Natural Resources, Mandatory Conditioning Requirements on Hydropower: How Federal Resource
Agencies are Driving Up Electricity Costs and Decreasing the Original Green Energy, 112th Cong., 2nd sess., June 27,
2012. For more information on the licensing process, see Appendix. For more information on mandatory conditions,
see Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, U.S. Department of Interior, and U.S. Department of Commerce, et al.,
Interagency Task Force Report on Agency Recommendations, Conditions, and Prescriptions Under Part I of the
Federal Power Act, December 2000, http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/indus-act/itf/fpa_final.pdf.
73 While H.R. 6247 addressed mandatory conditioning authority, it did not address the conditions that may be imposed
by the state under the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 which some consider being “frequently the most significant
impediment to timely licensing of hydropower projects.” Testimony of J. Mark Robinson, U.S. Congress, House
Committee on Natural Resources, Mandatory Conditioning Requirements on Hydropower: How Federal Resource
Agencies are Driving Up Electricity Costs and Decreasing the Original Green Energy, 112th Cong., 2nd sess., June 27,
2012. CWA Section 401 requires that an applicant for a federal license or permit provide a certification from the state
in which the facility will be located that any discharges from the facility will comply with the act, including state-
established water quality standard requirements. States may impose conditions on hydropower licenses by exercising
section 401 authority. For more information on CWA Section 401, see CRS Report 97-488, Clean Water Act Section
401: Background and Issues, by Claudia Copeland.
Congressional Research Service
15
Hydropower: Federal and Nonfederal Investment
regulated hydropower projects. These issues, which are discussed below, may have an indirect
impact on the progress of hydropower to meet current and future energy demand.
Role of Hydropower in Renewable Electricity Standards
Some in Congress are interested in strategies that could support more domestic renewable energy
production. One proposed strategy is a federal renewable electricity standard (RES) or clean
energy standard (CES) (e.g., S. 2146, 112th Congress), which could require certain retail
electricity suppliers to provide a minimum percentage of the electricity they sell from renewable
energy sources or other resources.74 While a federal RES does not exist, many states have created
a renewable portfolio standard (RPS)—essentially the same as an RES but carried out at the state
level. As of March 2012, there were 29 states and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico that
had an RPS.75
The inclusion of hydropower in state standards is not uniform, with each state setting its own
criteria. The state standards generally have similar intents, but differ in how they achieve their
goals. For example, many have different yearly targets and eligibility requirements for renewable
sources. Some state standards include hydropower, but almost always with conditions (e.g.,
allowing only new hydro projects that have a capacity of 10 MW or less and do not require a new
dam, allowing only existing hydro projects of 30 MW or less, excluding pumped storage, only
including incremental production at existing facilities). Furthermore, the location and delivery
requirements for the electricity generated differs for state standards, with a handful of states
having caveats for “geographic eligibility” concerns for hydro projects.76
Federal Power Act Section 24 Power Site Reservations
The “power site reservation” under Section 24 of the Federal Power Act has been the subject of a
number of administrative disputes over the years.77 Power site classification is the classification
of public lands that have potential value for water power development. Traditionally, the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) has had the authority to classify the lands as having potential value
for water power development (i.e., power site classification), FERC has jurisdiction over the
power value on the lands, and BLM has certain management jurisdiction over the surface and
subsurface resources, but not the power value. Once land is assigned a power site classification,
this classification remains with the land. The classification is not extinguished if the land has been
transferred out of federal ownership, although there is a process to extinguish the classification.
An administrative dispute associated with power site classification is that hydropower projects on
land transferred from federal ownership to state ownership are still subject to annual fees if the
74 For more information, see CRS Report R42522, Clean Energy Standard: Summary and Analysis of S. 2146, by
Phillip Brown, CRS Report R41797, Clean Energy Standard: Potential Qualifying Energy Sources, coordinated by
Kelsi Bracmort, and CRS Report R41493, Options for a Federal Renewable Electricity Standard, by Richard J.
Campbell.
75 DSIRE, Quantitative RPS Data Project, October 2011, http://www.dsireusa.org/rpsdata/index.cfm.
76 Union of Concerned Scientists, Renewable Electricity Standards Toolkit, http://go.ucsusa.org/cgi-bin/RES/
state_standards_search.pl?template=main.
77 Section 24 (16 U.S.C. §818) establishes that when FERC licenses a hydropower facility on federal land, it reserves
lands associated with that facility for the federal government, and that if and when such lands are later transferred by
the federal government, the government reserves the ability to continue to regulate the hydroelectric facility.
Congressional Research Service
16
Hydropower: Federal and Nonfederal Investment
land has a power site classification.78 According to FERC, annual charges are still required for
federal lands that were transferred with a power site classification because the classification
remains with the land and the United States still has the right to obtain power from this land.79
FERC does not keep a record of the number of acres transferred with a power site classification.80
Hydroelectric Power and Shoreline Management Plans
Controversies over property rights in areas near hydropower facilities have drawn attention to the
FERC “Shoreline Management Plan” (SMP) process. An SMP governs the use and occupancy of
the project reservoir shoreline for activities not related to hydropower production. Recent FERC
orders proposing to limit acceptable use and occupancy near hydroelectric facilities, including
potential interference with existing recreational and other structures, have drawn the ire of nearby
communities (see Appendix). With an SMP, FERC is trying to ensure that waterfront
development along the shoreline of hydropower projects does not have an adverse impact on
project operations, public safety, commercial navigation, and other interests. In recent years,
property owners along some reservoirs have complained when reservoirs are drawn down to
produce power. Such conflicts between shoreline uses can be especially acute during droughts.
The source of FERC’s authority to require SMPs and to enforce their terms on hydropower
license applicants is primarily found in Sections 10(a)(1) and 4(e) of the FPA.81 Section 10(a)(1)
directs FERC to issue hydropower licenses that include a “comprehensive plan for improving or
developing a waterway or waterways for the use or benefit of interstate or foreign commerce, for
the improvement and utilization of waterpower development, for the adequate protection
mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife … and for other beneficial public uses.”
Shoreline management plans are one way that FERC ensures that hydroelectric facilities that it
permits satisfy these requirements. The requirement that FERC-permitted hydropower facilities
file and abide by SMPs is not in the Federal Power Act (FPA).82 In fact, the phrase “shoreline
management plan” does not appear anywhere in the U.S. Code. The only reference to SMPs is in
the titles of the Code of Federal Regulations as a requirement that existing licensees include their
SMPs in their pre-application filing for renewal of the license.83
Within this broad statutory framework, FERC decides on a case-by-case basis whether an SMP is
warranted for a proposed hydropower licensee. On occasion an applicant has submitted a
proposed SMP without prompting. In some cases, FERC determined an SMP was not needed.
Regardless of whether a hydropower licensee is required to submit an SMP, all licensees must
obtain the property rights needed to satisfy any obligations that may be included in an SMP.
78 In November 2011, FERC issued a proposal to revise the methodology for assessing annual charges for the use of
federal lands by hydropower projects. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, “Annual Charges for Use of
Government Lands,” 76 Federal Register 72134-72142, November 22, 2011.
79 Personal communication with FERC Office of the General Counsel, January 31, 2012. Annual charges for
hydropower projects allow FERC to recover costs incurred in the performance of its regulatory responsibilities.
Information on annual charges, including FERC’s proposal to revise the methodology for calculating rental rates for the
use of federal lands by hydropower projects is available at http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/annual-
charges.asp.
80 Written testimony of John Katz. U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee
on Water and Power, Miscellaneous Water Bills, 112th Cong., 2nd sess., September 19, 2012.
81 16 U.S.C. §803(a)(1).
82 16 U.S.C. §792 et seq.
83 18 C.F.R. §5.6.
Congressional Research Service
17
Hydropower: Federal and Nonfederal Investment
Legislative Questions
Federal Hydropower
What Are Some of the Options to Address Aging Hydropower Infrastructure
at Existing Federal Hydropower Projects?
As previously discussed, declining generation trends at federal facilities have been tied to aging
infrastructure and the need for funds to replace and/or upgrade this infrastructure. Several policy
options have previously been proposed to deal with aging federal hydropower infrastructure.
Some of these options are specific to the Corps or Reclamation, while others could generally
apply to both agencies. All of these options have budgetary costs in one form or another. Some of
the options commonly mentioned include
• Increase federal funding for hydropower upgrades and/or modernization
initiatives within annual appropriations processes. This option would
maintain the status quo practice of funding hydropower upgrades within existing
discretionary budget allocations, albeit at increased levels or over a different
timetable. Some point out that increased funding in annual appropriations is
unrealistic in the current budgetary climate.
• Utilize alternative funding mechanisms to finance hydropower upgrades.
Some have proposed alternative funding mechanisms that fall outside of the
regular appropriations process, such as an infrastructure bank or some form of
private sector contracting vehicle (such as Energy Savings Performance
Contracts, or ESPCs).84 Advocates argue that these funding mechanisms could
increase hydropower production without requiring annual appropriations.
However, utilizing these alternative programs to fund federal projects typically
entails “up-front” budgetary costs, especially if they entail federal backing or
guarantee future federal outlays.
• Increase rates to re-coup “full” costs of operations and maintenance
(including major upgrades) and/or institute new user charges to pay for
upgrades. Some argue that rates charged by the PMAs should be increased to
recover the costs for major infrastructure upgrades. Congress could alter existing
law to allow for these increased rates. However, any practice that results in
increased rates for PMA customers may be viewed negatively by customers and
some Members of Congress.
• Privatize federally owned dams through divestiture of assets. One option
sometimes raised is the potential to privatize federally owned hydropower assets,
thereby relieving the federal government of its operation and maintenance
responsibilities and putting these dams in the hands of other interests, who might
better afford to invest in facility upgrades that would increase generation.
However, private entities might also increase electricity rates to achieve greater
revenues and repay investments in these projects.
84 More information on ESPCs is available at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/financing/espcs.html. Currently,
federal hydroelectric projects are ineligible for ESPCs.
Congressional Research Service
18
Hydropower: Federal and Nonfederal Investment
• Allow customers to commit future power revenues to pay for upgrades to
federal facilities. Some would prefer that those entities that benefit from federal
hydropower upgrades be allowed to directly finance these upgrades by
redirecting funds that would otherwise flow to the Treasury for these projects.
Some PMAs, including BPA, already have some form of this authority, and some
advocate for extending it to the other PMAs.85 In the 112th Congress, Section 6 of
H.R. 6247 could have allowed PMA customers to harness funding streams to pay
for future facility upgrades under some circumstances.
What Are Some of the Current Data Gaps Related to Federal Hydropower?
Although a number of the studies previously mentioned in this report collected data on federal
hydropower resources, several data gaps have been identified. For instance, one study identified a
data gap on the value of ancillary benefits from federal hydropower operations.86 Ancillary
benefits, such as the ability to suddenly increase hydropower production when power is needed
(and/or other sources are not available), have the potential to boost the stability and resilience of
the nation’s power system.87 However, the role and value that federal hydropower sources
currently provide or could provide through ancillary benefits has not been well documented.
Additionally, although the Bureau of Reclamation has investigated the economic feasibility of
uprating and capacity additions at its facilities, the Corps has not published a similar study. Other
gaps related to availability of downscaled climate data of sufficient quality to inform operations
of hydropower facilities are a source of ongoing controversy for federal projects.88
How Does Uncertainty Affect Operations of Federal Projects?
Uncertainty, in the form of natural climate variability and other related changes, has affected
water resources in the past and may affect how much and when water is available for
hydroelectric generation in the future. Both the Corps and Reclamation have found that
operations of federal hydropower infrastructure will need to be altered due to climate change.89
Federal facilities are often operated based on procedures set out in operating manuals, which are
commonly put together based on past trends and the assumption of “stationarity” (i.e., the idea
that future hydrologic trends will be similar to past time periods). Revising these estimates can be
difficult, and much uncertainty still exists in the process. Alterations to federal operations are
further complicated by existing requirements to meet multiple competing goals in the face of
uncertain water conditions. Some stakeholders have questioned whether federal agencies will
require greater flexibility in operating existing reservoirs if climate conditions result in changes to
weather patterns, less predictability, and more extreme events. In 2009, the Secretary of the
85 Specifically, Congress provided BPA with “self-financing” authority in 1974 (P.L. 93-454) by establishing a separate
fund in the Treasury, the Bonneville Fund, in which BPA deposits and manages its revenues. The fund allows for BPA
to enter into multi-year commitments. BPA also has the authority to borrow from the Treasury; it must repay these
loans with interest at market rates.
86 Corps Hydropower Outlook, p. 51.
87 Another ancillary benefit is hydropower’s ability to restart electric power systems in the event of a blackout; this is
known as “black start.”
88 Joshua H. Viers, “Hydropower Relicensing and Climate Change,” Journal of the American Water Resources
Association, vol. 47, no. 4 (August 2011), pp. 655-661.
89 For example, see the Corps climate response page at http://corpsclimate.us/responses.cfm. Reclamation research on
climate change is compiled at http://www.usbr.gov/climate/SECURE/.
Congressional Research Service
19
Hydropower: Federal and Nonfederal Investment
Interior, Ken Salazar, issued an order stating that the department (which has purview over the
Bureau of Reclamation) would consider and analyze climate change impacts when undertaking
long range planning exercises, but to date the effect of the order on hydropower operations at
specific facilities remains unclear.90
Nonfederal Hydropower
Should Congress Support Additional Nonfederal Hydropower Projects?
There is a debate about whether more nonfederal hydropower could help to meet current and
future electricity demand.91 Additional hydropower could be less harmful to the environment than
fossil-fueled electricity generation projects, if hydropower projects conform to certain
standards.92 Hydropower can also be a flexible source of generation. It can be a baseload energy
source, meaning that it is readily available, or it can be used for peaking, meaning that it is turned
off and on to meet peak demand. On the other hand, there can be environmental concerns,
regulatory concerns, and energy terrorism. Congress could decide whether to support additional
hydropower development, how much additional development is necessary, and whether the
current regulatory environment for nonfederal hydropower is appropriate. Congress could also
determine how involved it wants to be with nonfederal hydropower projects. Hydropower as a
whole is one of the few remaining energy sources where the federal government owns a
significant portion of the projects that generate the bulk of the electricity. Congress could decide
that hydropower development of a certain size and scale is an energy resource that no longer
requires such large ownership and intervention by the U.S. government, possibly transferring
some of those activities and infrastructure to nonfederal entities.
In What Ways Can Additional Power Be Generated from Existing Nonfederal
Projects?
Congress could offer support for additional hydropower generation using numerous mechanisms.
For example, H.R. 267 would grant small hydropower projects with a capacity of 10 megawatts
or less an exemption from licensing requirements, and promote conduit hydropower projects,
among other things.93 Congress could choose to assess current federally funded efforts for
90 Department of the Interior, Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change on America’s Water, Land, and Other Natural
Resources, Order No. 3289, Washington, DC, September 14, 2009, http://www.doi.gov/whatwedo/climate/cop15/
upload/SecOrder3289.pdf.
91 For a variety of reasons, electricity generation from coal is predicted to be on the decline. The energy source that will
make up for lost electricity generation from coal is currently under discussion, but most new capacity additions are
expected to be from natural gas generators. Any one energy source or mixture of sources could also be tapped to meet
consumer demand.
92 While hydropower is often viewed as being a clean and renewable source of energy, the environmental costs due to
stream flow disruption, particularly effects on fish and wildlife, can be quite high. For example, the Bonneville Power
Administration and Reclamation spend hundreds of millions on salmon restoration and mitigation activities associated
with federal dams and hydropower facilities. Requiring fish mitigation strategies upfront might avoid costly habitat
mitigation later.
93 An identical bill, H.R. 5892, was introduced in the 112th Congress. For more information, see H.R. 5892 Hydropower
Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2012, Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate, June 27, 2012, http://www.cbo.gov/
sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/hr5892.pdf; and testimony of Jeff C. Wright, in U.S. Congress, House Energy
and Commerce Committee, The American Energy Initiative: Hearing on the “Resolving Environmental and Grid
Reliability Conflicts Act of 2012” and the “Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2012, 112th Cong., May 9, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
20
Hydropower: Federal and Nonfederal Investment
nonfederal hydropower projects and take action by providing supplementary funds or modifying
efforts to ensure that congressional goals are met on schedule.94 Congress may or may not expand
and extend tax credits available for hydropower (e.g., H.R. 3307, 112th Congress). Congress may
or may not establish a clean energy standard that includes hydropower as an eligible clean energy
source (e.g., S. 2146, 112th Congress). Congress may or may not amend specific laws to expedite
the licensing process for select projects (e.g., H.R. 2842, 112th Congress).
What Can Congress Do to Expedite Nonfederal Project Licensing?
Congress may decide to further examine the role FERC should or should not have in nonfederal
hydropower regulation. Reasons may include time delays throughout the licensing process, such
as those related to gathering input from multiple affected parties and agencies. Others may argue
that FERC’s role in nonfederal hydropower regulation should continue for safety reasons and
because public resources are being used to generate power. If the length of time required for
licensing continues to be a concern, Congress could impress upon federal, state, and local
agencies involved in the licensing process the need to complete their contributions in a prompt
manner. On the other hand, some stakeholders might object if they believe their concerns (e.g.,
fish, wildlife, recreation, water use, or other impacts) are not being thoroughly vetted. One
provision in H.R. 267 would require FERC to examine the feasibility of a two-year licensing
process to promote hydropower development at nonpowered dams and closed-loop pumped
storage projects. Legislative proposals that addressed project licensing in the 112th Congress
included S. 629 which would, in part, direct FERC to investigate the feasibility of issuing a
license for certain hydropower projects within a two-year period beginning on the date a prefiling
licensing is submitted, and H.R. 6247, discussed earlier.
Conclusion
If Congress determines that increasing hydropower is a priority, then additional hydropower
generation could come from either the public or private sectors or both. It is unclear whether
financing to construct, operate, and maintain projects will be a federal priority. The private sector
has a sizeable presence in the small hydropower market, which may place the sector in a good
position to operate and expand power production. However, there are serious doubts about
whether investments in large hydropower projects, by either the public or private sector, are likely
to happen soon, owing to economic and geographic constraints,95 environmental concerns, and
public perception. It is possible that other forms of water power (e.g., hydrokinetics, ocean
thermal) may one day contribute to the U.S. energy portfolio, but small hydropower is a more
likely near-term option.
As Congress considers whether to alter support for hydropower development, it is also dealing
with current hydropower infrastructure issues. These issues include aging infrastructure, delayed
maintenance, the permitting process, and water availability. Congress may decide to address these
concerns in a variety of ways. For example, legislation passed the House in the 112th Congress
94 For example, DOE supports conventional hydropower through its water power research and development program.
The program’s conventional hydropower activities are focused on new technologies, optimization, and siting
techniques that might improve combined energy and environmental performance.
95 Most of the large, economically feasible generation sites were developed in the 20th century.
Congressional Research Service
21
Hydropower: Federal and Nonfederal Investment
that would exempt nonfederal projects of 1.5 megawatts or less from certain FERC licensing
requirements (i.e., H.R. 2842), and proposed legislation would give tax parity to hydropower
projects (e.g., S. 631).96 Some could argue that hydropower does not need assistance in the form
of tax credits because it is an established source and tax credits should be issued to ease the entry
of new renewable energy sources to the market or all types of generation should have to compete
without federal support. Others could argue that tax credits are needed for hydropower to defray
the large capital costs associated with new projects.
Many of the hydropower issues Congress is likely to address in the near term are the same issues
it has addressed for some time: operation of federal projects, the permitting process for
nonfederal projects, and environmental impacts. The federal government has been responsible for
ownership and operation of the bulk of the larger projects. Regular maintenance and upkeep of
federal projects has not kept a pace that some would prefer. Also, developers of nonfederal
projects would like an easier way to obtain permits and financing for their projects. The
nonfederal project permit process has been revised over time in an effort to streamline the
process, but still is unacceptable to some.
Hydropower has a long tenure in the electricity market, and its advantages and disadvantages are
well documented. However, there are questions for Congress about whether hydropower capacity
could or should be increased, and whether that increase should occur at existing projects or by
building new projects (including small and low-head hydropower), or both. Other issues affecting
conventional hydropower involve the development of nonconventional hydropower technologies,
competition from other energy sources (e.g., wind) that are perceived to be more environmentally
friendly, and competition from fossil fuel energy sources that may be significantly cheaper (e.g.,
natural gas).
96 Other electricity sources receive tax incentives.
Congressional Research Service
22
Hydropower: Federal and Nonfederal Investment
Appendix. FERC Integrated Licensing Process
FERC’s Integrated Licensing Process
The Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) was implemented in 2005 to offer a more efficient
licensing process.97 The ILP incorporates elements of the Traditional Licensing Process (TLP)
created in 1985 (e.g., deadlines for multiple steps), and the Alternative Licensing Process (ALP)
created in 1997 (e.g., focus on early stakeholder involvement). Additionally, the ILP includes a
new process for resolving study disputes and requires FERC to participate earlier in the licensing
process. FERC indicates that these changes are intended to make the process shorter and more
efficient without altering agencies’ authorities under the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. §791 et
al.) or the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1341) to develop license conditions that protect fish,
federal reservations (e.g., national forests, Indian reservations), or rivers’ state-designated uses.
The ILP differs from the TLP and the ALP in that it is more collaborative than the TLP and more
structured than the ALP. Also, the ILP moves FERC’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
scoping process from the post-application phase to the pre-application phase in an effort to
resolve study disputes early in the licensing process.
Some entities that might be consulted during the licensing process include:
• National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries);
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS);
• National Park Service (NPS);
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);
• the federal agency administering any United States lands or facilities to be used
or occupied by the project (e.g., U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land
Management, etc.);
• any state agency with responsibility for fish, wildlife, and botanical resources,
water quality, coastal zone management plan consistency certification, shoreline
management, and water resources;
• the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and Tribal Historic Preservation
Officer (THPO—if applicable);
• local, state, and regional recreation agencies and planning commissions;
• local and state zoning agencies;
• any Indian tribe that may be affected by the project; and
• any potentially affected landowners;
97 FERC receives an annual appropriation from Congress to defray its operating costs and recovers 100 percent of this
appropriation through the collection of annual charges and filing fees. There are no filing fees for hydropower projects.
However, there are annual charges for hydropower projects if the project capacity is greater than 1.5 megawatts (MW).
The annual charges for hydropower projects in 2010 totaled nearly $81 million (The total included 2010 actual
administrative charges, 2010 actual fix annual charges, and 2010 other federal agency annual charges.
http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/annual-charges.asp).
Congressional Research Service
23
Hydropower: Federal and Nonfederal Investment
Applicable laws that might have to be complied with throughout the licensing process include:
• Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA);
• Endangered Species Act (ESA);
• Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act;
• Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA);
• National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA);
• Pacific Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act;
• Wild and Scenic Rivers and Wilderness Act; and
• National Environmental Policy Act.
Author Contact Information
Kelsi Bracmort
Adam Vann
Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural
Legislative Attorney
Resources Policy
avann@crs.loc.gov, 7-6978
kbracmort@crs.loc.gov, 7-7283
Charles V. Stern
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
cstern@crs.loc.gov, 7-7786
Congressional Research Service
24