Passed
394 Yea14 Nay22 Not voting2/3 required
S-1020-119
Became Public Law No: 119-90.
Sponsored by Steve Daines (R-MT)
What it does
This law allows the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to grant hydropower project licensees an additional six years beyond the eight-year extension already permitted under current law to begin construction, if the project was licensed before March 13, 2020. The additional time must be granted in no more than three consecutive two-year increments, and only upon the licensee's request. The law also allows FERC to reinstate licenses that expired while awaiting these extended deadlines, treating them as continuously valid from the date they lapsed.
Who benefits
Hydropower developers and energy companies holding pre-2020 FERC licenses who have not yet broken ground — they gain up to six additional years to begin construction. Investors and lenders financing stalled hydropower projects benefit from reduced risk of license forfeiture. Construction and engineering firms that would be hired once projects proceed may benefit from preserved project pipelines. Rural and remote communities near planned hydropower sites could benefit from eventual local energy generation and jobs. Electricity consumers in regions where new hydropower capacity would increase grid supply and potentially reduce prices.
Who is hurt
Competing renewable energy developers — such as solar and wind companies — who may face a less level playing field if hydropower projects that might otherwise have lapsed are kept alive. Environmental and conservation groups that had anticipated license expiration as a mechanism to halt projects they oppose. Downstream landowners, fishing communities, and tribes whose rivers or waterways are affected by hydropower projects that may now proceed after years of delay. Ratepayers or grid operators in regions where prolonged project uncertainty complicates long-term energy planning.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that hydropower is a proven, reliable source of carbon-free electricity, and that many pre-2020 projects were delayed by factors outside developers' control — including permitting backlogs, litigation, and supply chain disruptions. They contend that allowing licenses to expire on projects that are otherwise viable wastes years of environmental review and planning work, and that preserving these projects supports grid reliability and clean energy goals without requiring new congressional authorization for each individual project.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that indefinitely extending construction deadlines allows developers to hold licenses on projects that may no longer be economically viable or environmentally appropriate, effectively blocking rivers from other uses without any guarantee of construction. They contend that the reinstatement of expired licenses — treating lapsed authorizations as continuously valid — bypasses the public review process that would otherwise apply to a new license application, potentially shielding outdated projects from updated environmental standards and community input.
Passed