{
  "id": "R44523",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R44523",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 588309,
      "date": "2016-06-13",
      "retrieved": "2020-01-02T15:45:39.258282",
      "title": "Hydropower: Comparison of Selected Provisions in S. 2012, as Engrossed in the House, and S. 2012, as Engrossed in the Senate",
      "summary": "In the 114th Congress, the House and Senate have passed energy legislation that addresses hydropower. Both the North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2016 (S. 2012, as engrossed in the House) and the Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2016 (S. 2012, as engrossed in the Senate) contain provisions that would alter the regulation and development of nonfederal hydropower, among other things. Both bills would establish a formal timeline for nonfederal hydropower project regulation, would appoint the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as the lead agency for nonfederal hydropower regulation, and would require FERC\u2014and other agencies\u2014to maintain and make publicly available more robust hydropower project data. \nThere are similarities and differences between the bills. Both bills generally seek to modify regulation and development processes for nonfederal hydropower. However, the bills would modify the regulatory process in different ways. For instance, the bills would handle the delay of issuing a hydropower project license due to interagency disputes differently; the House version would resolve such a delay in a federal circuit court, whereas the Senate version would resolve such a delay by referring the issue to the chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality. Further, each bill would address some aspects of hydropower that the other bill would not address. For instance, the House version contains a provision that would address hydropower development at existing, non-powered dams, whereas the Senate version does not contain a similar provision. Lastly, both bills would modify the regulation process for specific projects (e.g., extends the time period to start construction for a specific project).\nBoth the House and Senate versions contain hydropower provisions that could significantly impact nonfederal hydropower regulation and could be viewed as controversial. For example, both bills would make FERC the lead agency to coordinate the licensing process. This designation could be viewed by some as lessening the contribution of other involved agencies because these agencies would be required to abide by the schedule and decisions set by FERC. It could also be viewed as making the license issuance process timelier because one agency would have leadership authority for the process.\nThis report provides a comparison of the hydropower provisions in each bill and analysis for certain provisions of the bills.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44523",
          "sha1": "71d8760cf6bbac9c530528bce6539f6409cf234f",
          "filename": "files/20160613_R44523_71d8760cf6bbac9c530528bce6539f6409cf234f.html",
          "images": {}
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44523",
          "sha1": "23546032ada1567f9a2182d54948285093375f73",
          "filename": "files/20160613_R44523_23546032ada1567f9a2182d54948285093375f73.pdf",
          "images": {}
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4927,
          "name": "Renewable Energy & Efficiency"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Agricultural Policy",
    "Energy Policy",
    "Environmental Policy"
  ]
}