NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

Technical Report

NREL/TP-6A20-71979

January 2019

Basin-Wide Approaches to Hydropower 

Relicensing: Case Studies and 

Considerations

Taylor L. Curtis and Heather Buchanan

National Renewable Energy Laboratory
NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

15013 Denver West Parkway

Golden, CO 80401

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov

Technical Report

NREL/TP-6A20-71979

January 2019

Basin-Wide Approaches to Hydropower 

Relicensing: Case Studies and 

Considerations

Taylor L. Curtis and Heather Buchanan

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Suggested Citation

Curtis, Taylor L. and Heather Buchanan. 2019. Basin-Wide Approaches to Hydropower 

Relicensing: Case Studies and Considerations. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory. NREL/TP-6A20-71979. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/71979.pdf.
NOTICE

This work was authored by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, operated by Alliance for Sustainable 

Energy, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308. Funding 

provided by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Water Power

Technologies Office. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of the DOE or the U.S. 

Government.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) reports produced after 1991 

and a growing number of pre-1991 documents are available 

free via www.OSTI.gov.

Cover Photos by Dennis Schroeder: (clockwise, left to right) NREL 51934, NREL 45897, NREL 42160, NREL 45891, NREL 48097, 

NREL 46526.

NREL prints on paper that contains recycled content.
iii

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Water Power Technologies Office for its funding support. We also thank 

the following reviewers for their time and expertise: Corey Vezina and Tim Welch, U.S. 

Department of Energy, and Jaquelin Cochran, Aaron Levine, Dan Bilello, and Mary Lukkonen 

(editor), National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

We thank the following contributors for their time and expertise: Jessica Hart, Christopher 

Hogan, and Jonathan Binder, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; John 

Wiley, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; David Fox, Cube Hydro Partners, LLC.; Sayad 

Moudachirou, Ampersand Energy Partners, LLC; Steven Murphy, Brookfield Renewable 

Partners; Cheryl Laatsch, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources; Jeff Crocker, Vermont 

Department of Conservation; James Duggan, Laura Trieschmann, and Yvonne Basque, Vermont 

Agency of Commerce and Community Development; Ann Marie Ore and Jeff Wetzel, California 

State Water Resources Control Board; Kathy Howatt, Maine Department of Environmental 

Protection; Loren Moore and Barry Burnell, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality; Mark 

Cecchini-Beaver, Office of Idaho Attorney General; Jan Lee, Northwest Hydropower 

Association; Kevin Lewis, Idaho Rivers United; Melanie Harris, NOAA Fisheries; Kelly Catlett, 

Hydropower Reform Coalition; Mark Oakley and Jeff Lineberger, Duke Energy; and Jack 

Wadleigh, National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
iv

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

List of Acronyms

AIR additional information request 

ALP Alternative Licensing Process

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act

CWA Clean Water Act

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

EA Environmental Assessment

ECPA Electric Consumers Protection Act

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

ESA Endangered Species Act

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

FPA Federal Power Act

FPC Federal Power Commission

FWCA Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

GW gigawatt

HUC hydrologic unit code

IDEQ Idaho Department of Environmental Quality

kW kilowatt

MDEP Maine Department of Environmental Protection

MW megawatt

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NH DES New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOI notice of intent 

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory

NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

ODEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory

PAD pre-application document

REA ready for environmental analysis

SCE Southern California Edison

SWRCB California State Water Resources Control Board

TMDL total maximum daily load

TVA Tennessee Valley Authority

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

VT DEC Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation

WDNR Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

WPL Wisconsin Power and Light Co.

WPSC Wisconsin Public Service Corporation

WSRA Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
v

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Executive Summary

In the United States there are 1,043 active Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) 

licensed hydroelectric projects with a total capacity of 56,097 MW. Of those FERC-licensed 

hydropower projects, 647 with a total capacity of 21,870 MW have license expiration dates from 

2018-2037. FERC anticipates receiving a total of 1,012 hydropower filings for relicense (i.e., a 

new operating license for an existing facility) through September 2032. Of those total filings, 

551 are expected to be notices of intent for a new license and 461 are expected to be applications 

for a new license.

The expected workload in conjunction with the time, cost, and complexity associated with 

issuing a single new license has led to initiatives that aim to increase the efficiency of the 

relicensing process. Federal and state regulators and licensees in states such as California, Maine, 

New York, and Wisconsin have begun to develop approaches to look at hydropower relicensing 

as part of a larger system—a river basin. Recognizing the number of hydropower projects within 

a shared waterway, these basin-wide approaches seek to coordinate different stages of the 

relicensing process for multiple projects at the same time.

Although these basin-wide approaches focus on different aspects of the relicensing process and 

involve varying degrees of coordination and collaboration, the overall intent is the same. The 

goal is that these initiatives increase the efficiency of the relicensing process and allow for a 

more comprehensive analysis of the cumulative impacts of the projects within the basin. These 

innovative approaches to relicensing could also reduce the workload for regulators and costs 

associated with relicensing. To that end, finding regulatory efficiencies and cost savings within 

the relicensing process will help ensure hydropower’s contributions toward meeting the nation’s 

energy needs, maintaining national infrastructure, and improving national security.
vi

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Table of Contents

1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................... 1

2 Background........................................................................................................................................... 2

2.1 Hydropower Relicensing Process.................................................................................................. 2

2.1.1 Electric Consumers Protection Act of 1986 Amendments to the Federal Power Act...... 2

2.1.2 National Environmental Policy Act ................................................................................. 3

2.1.3 Clean Water Act............................................................................................................... 4

2.1.4 Other Federal Statutes...................................................................................................... 7

2.2 Expected Hydropower Relicensing............................................................................................... 8

2.2.1 FERC License Expirations............................................................................................... 8

2.2.2 Expected Relicensing Workload .................................................................................... 10

2.2.3 Projects in a Shared River Basin or Sub-Basin .............................................................. 11

3 Coordinating FERC License Terms for Hydropower Projects Within a Shared River Basin ..... 13

3.1 Accelerating or Extending License Terms.................................................................................. 13

3.1.1 Non-Default FERC License Term Example .................................................................. 14

3.1.2 FERC License Term Extension Examples..................................................................... 14

3.1.3 FERC License Term Acceleration Example .................................................................. 15

3.1.4 FERC License Term Acceleration and Extension Example........................................... 15

4 Basin-Wide Considerations to Relicense ........................................................................................ 16

4.1 History......................................................................................................................................... 16

4.2 Comprehensive Basin-Wide Approaches to Relicense ............................................................... 17

4.2.1 New York Black River Basin-Wide Relicensing Pilot................................................... 17

4.2.2 Wisconsin River Basin-Wide Relicensing Proposal ...................................................... 27

4.2.3 General Advantages and Challenges of Comprehensive Basin-wide Approaches to 

Relicensing..................................................................................................................... 39

4.3 Section 401 Water Quality Certification Coordination............................................................... 40

4.3.1 California Big Creek Basin-Wide Pilot.......................................................................... 41

4.4 Projects Within a River Basin that Cross Multiple Jurisdictions................................................ 47

4.4.1 Hells Canyon Hydroelectric Complex ........................................................................... 47

5 Proposed Federal Legislation ........................................................................................................... 50

6 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 51

References................................................................................................................................................. 52

Federal and State Statutes, and Bills .................................................................................................... 58

Federal and State Regulations.............................................................................................................. 59

Case Law, Dockets, and Orders ........................................................................................................... 59

Settlement Agreements and Offers of Settlement ................................................................................ 60
vii

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

List of Figures

Figure 1. FERC-licensed projects with license expiration dates from 2018–2037....................................... 9

Figure 2. Top 10 states by number of projects—FERC-licensed projects with license expiration dates 

from 2018–2037....................................................................................................................... 9

Figure 3. Top 10 states by authorized capacity—FERC-licensed projects with license expiration dates 

from 2018–2037..................................................................................................................... 10

Figure 4. Expected FERC relicensing filings from 2018–2032.................................................................. 11

Figure 5. FERC-licensed projects with license expiration dates from 2018–2037 within a shared river 

basin or sub-basin................................................................................................................... 12

Figure 6. Black River Basin hydropower relicensing workload—projects and developments................... 18

Figure 7. Black River Basin pilot: map of hydropower projects ................................................................ 19

Figure 8. Black River Basin pilot: Basin-wide relicensing timeline........................................................... 21

Figure 9. Wisconsin River Basin hydropower relicensing workload—projects and developments........... 28

Figure 10. Wisconsin River Basin proposal: map of hydropower projects ................................................ 32

Figure 11. Big Creek case study: map of hydropower projects.................................................................. 42

List of Tables

Table 1. Relicensing Projects Delayed by Pending Water Quality Certifications........................................ 7

Table 2. Black River Basin Pilot: Initial Projects Identified....................................................................... 20

Table 3. Black River Basin Pilot: Project Characteristics........................................................................... 25

Table 4. Black River Basin Pilot: Licensee Characteristics........................................................................ 26

Table 5. Wisconsin River Basin Proposal: Projects.................................................................................... 30

Table 6. Wisconsin River Basin Proposal: License Expiration Date Alignment........................................ 34

Table 7. Wisconsin River Basin Proposal: Project Characteristics............................................................. 35

Table 8. Wisconsin River Basin Proposal: Licensee Characteristics.......................................................... 37

Table 9. Big Creek Case Study: Projects.................................................................................................... 44
1

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

1 Introduction

In the United States there are 1,043 active Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) 

licensed hydroelectric projects with a total capacity of 56,097 MW (FERC 2018a). Of those 

FERC-licensed hydropower projects, 647 with a total capacity of 21,870 MW have license 

expiration dates from 2018-2037 (FERC 2017a).

FERC anticipates receiving a total of 1,012 hydropower filings for relicense (i.e., a new 

operating license for an existing facility) through September 2032. Of those total filings, 551 are 

expected to be notices of intent for a new license and 461 are expected to be applications for a 

new license (FERC 2017a). The relicensing process requires thorough federal, state, and public 

review. The reviews and compliance requirements associated with the relicensing process often 

require significant capital investment and are frequently as time and resource intensive as the 

original licensing process (Uria-Martinez et al. 2018; Levine et al. 2017). 

The expected workload in conjunction with the time, cost, and complexity associated with 

issuing a single new license has led to initiatives that aim to increase the efficiency of the 

relicensing process. Federal and state regulators and licensees in states such as California, Maine, 

New York, and Wisconsin have begun to develop approaches to look at hydropower relicensing

as part of a larger system—a river basin. Recognizing the number of hydropower projects within 

a shared waterway, these basin-wide approaches seek to coordinate different stages of the 

relicensing process for multiple projects at the same time.

In California and Maine, regulators have implemented a basin-wide approach for review and 

issuance of Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 water quality certifications. State regulators 

may, at the request of the licensee, coordinate the review of multiple separately licensed 

hydropower projects within a shared river basin and issue a single certification. In New York and 

Wisconsin, regulators and licensees are working on a more comprehensive basin-wide approach 

to hydropower relicensing. These comprehensive approaches seek to align the relicensing 

timelines of multiple separately licensed hydropower facilities located within a shared basin that 

are owned and operated by different licensees.

Although these basin-wide approaches focus on different aspects of the relicensing process and 

involve varying degrees of coordination and collaboration, the overall intent is the same. These 

initiatives seek to increase the efficiency of the relicensing process and allow for a more

comprehensive analysis of the cumulative impacts of the projects within the shared basin. These 

innovative approaches to relicensing could also reduce the workload for regulators and costs

associated with relicensing.

This report analyzes basin-wide approaches to the FERC relicensing process for non-federal 

hydropower projects. Section 2 provides a summary of the major steps in the FERC relicensing 

process for non-federal hydropower projects and analyzes FERC-licensed projects with license 

expiration dates from 2018–2037. Section 3 discusses FERC’s authority to coordinate license 

terms for hydropower projects within a shared river basin, including examples of instances 

FERC has exercised this power. Section 4 provides basin-wide considerations and relicensing 

case studies. Section 5 provides a summary of proposed federal legislation regarding hydropower 

relicensing.
2

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

2 Background

This section provides a summary of the FERC hydropower relicensing process and analyzes the 

FERC-licensed hydropower projects with license expiration dates from 2018–2037.

2.1 Hydropower Relicensing Process

Obtaining a new license (relicense) from FERC for the continued operation (30 to 50 years) of an 

existing hydropower facility is often a complex multi-year regulatory process that requires 

review by federal and state regulators, Indian tribes, and the public. At least 5 years, but not 

more than 5.5 years, before the license expiration date, a licensee must file a notice of intent 

(NOI) with FERC stating whether they intend to seek a new license (18 C.F.R. § 5.5). At the 

same time as filing an NOI, the licensee must file a pre-application document (PAD) (18 C.F.R. 

§ 5.6). The PAD must include existing information about the project facilities, operation, and 

known or potential impacts on environmental quality, including protection, mitigation, and 

enhancement measures (18 C.F.R. § 5.6).

1 The PAD serves as the basis for the study plan, 

license application, and environmental documents that follow. After filing the PAD, the licensee 

must develop a study plan and conduct studies to supplement the existing information (18 C.F.R. 

§§ 4.38[c], 5.15, 16.8[c]). Typically, studies are undertaken according to the study plan within 3–

3.5 years before applying for a new license.

Consideration: The study plan should include studies that supplement existing information 

needed to complete the exhibits required in the new license application and the environmental 

document, including, but not limited to, water flow data and modeling results and impacts on the 

passage of riverine or diadromous fish; wetlands, riparian, and littoral habitat; rare, threatened, 

and endangered species; recreation and land use; aesthetic resources; and cultural resources (18 

C.F.R. §§ 4.32, 4.34, 4.38, 4.41, 4.61, 5.18, 16.8, 16.10).

At least 2 years before a license expires, the licensee must file an application for a new license 

(relicense) with FERC (18 C.F.R. § 808[c]). The new license application must include project 

information and synthesize the study results and consultation requirements describing the project 

design, operation, and environmental impacts of the project (18 C.F.R. § 4.32). Before issuing a 

new license, FERC assesses the hydropower facility, in accordance with the Federal Power Act

(FPA), to ensure the facility represents the best public use of waterway resources (16 U.S.C. § 

797[e]).

2.1.1 Electric Consumers Protection Act of 1986 Amendments to the Federal 

Power Act

The Electric Consumers Protection Act of 1986 (ECPA) amended the FPA to require that FERC 

give “equal consideration” to developmental and non-developmental values when making a 

public interest determination. Before issuing a license, FERC must consider the power and 

development issues involved as well as issues related to the project’s impact on environmental 

quality (Abenaki Nation of Mississquoi v. Hughes, 990 F.2d 729 [2d Cir. 1993]). Specifically, 

 

1 The licensee must use due diligence when compiling information for the PAD. “Due diligence” includes contacting 

appropriate agencies and Indian tribes that may have relevant information and reviewing federal and state 

comprehensive plans filed with FERC (16 C.F.R. § 5.6[b][2]).
3

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

FERC must extensively study the project, its surrounding environment, and related resources and 

give the same level of reflection and thorough evaluation to developmental and nondevelopmental values, including:

• Utilization of the site’s hydroelectric potential 

• Potential benefits to interstate or foreign commerce

• Adequate protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife (including related 

spawning grounds and habitat) 

• Other beneficial uses, including energy conservation, irrigation, flood control, water 

supply, recreational opportunities, and other aspects of environmental quality. 

(16 U.S.C. § 803[a][1]; 16 U.S.C. § 767[e])

Consideration: Hydropower projects originally licensed prior to 1986 seeking relicense for the 

first time should consider the requirements of the FPA, as amended by ECPA.

ECPA amended the FPA to require consultation between the licensee, FERC, and affected 

federal and state resource agencies (Coggins and Glicksman 2018). In addition: 

• ECPA amended Section 10(a) of the FPA which requires FERC to solicit 

recommendations from resource agencies and Indian tribes on how to make a project 

more consistent with federal and state comprehensive plans for improving, developing, or 

conserving a waterway. 

• ECPA added Section 10(j) of the FPA, which requires FERC to solicit and consider 

recommendations from federal and state fish and wildlife agencies regarding the 

development, operation, and management of the hydropower facility and its impact on 

fish and wildlife.

2.1.2 National Environmental Policy Act

When deciding whether to issue a new license, FERC must comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Under NEPA, FERC must prepare and issue an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) and/or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)2 that 

examines alternatives and the likely effects to the human environment from the hydropower 

facility (40 C.F.R. §§ 1501.3 – 1501.4). FERC typically determines whether an EIS is required 

by preparing an EA. If, after completing the EA, FERC determines that the new license is likely 

to have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment, then an EIS is required. If 

FERC determines that the new license will not have a significant effect on the human 

environment, then a Finding of No Significant Impact is prepared (40 C.F.R. §§ 1501.3, 1501.4). 

The requisite environmental document, either an EA or EIS, is an essential part of the relicensing 

record and forms the basis of FERC’s relicensing decision.

 

2 Compared to an EA, an EIS is a more comprehensive study in which FERC must “rigorously explore and 

objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives” for the project (40 C.F.R. § 1502.14). 
4

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Consideration: The hydropower relicensing process opens the project up to input from multiple 

stakeholders, including federal, state, and local agencies, non-governmental organizations, and the 

public (Cumming 2015). Given the extensive evaluation and stakeholder input required, 

relicensing can have similar timelines and costs to the original licensing process. 

FERC initiates the NEPA process by preparing a scoping document for public comment. The 

scoping document broadly outlines issues to be evaluated in the EA or EIS. Once the licensee 

files the application for a new license and the studies are complete, FERC issues a ready for 

environmental analysis (REA) (18 C.F.R. § 5.22). During the REA, state and federal agencies 

submit mandatory terms and conditions, recommendations, and fishway prescriptions for FERC

to adopt or consider as part of the new license (18 C.F.R. § 5.23).

2.1.3 Clean Water Act 

A project going through relicense requires a waiver, revision, or issuance of a state water quality 

certification. Under Section 401 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1376 [1972]), a federal agency 

may not issue a license authorizing the construction or operation of a project that “...may result 

in any discharge into a navigable water...” unless the appropriate state agency first waives or 

issues a water quality certification (33 U.S.C. § 1341[a][1]). Any limitation included in the state 

certification becomes a mandatory condition of the FERC license. If the state denies the water 

quality certification, FERC may not issue a new license (33 U.S.C. § 1341[a][1]).

States have lead responsibility for protecting water quality under the CWA and for administering 

laws governing allocation of water quantity. The Supreme Court has found that water quality and 

water quantity are inextricably linked and that both are essential to maintaining the integrity of 

the nation’s waters (Strong 1991; Copeland 2015). In Public Utility District No. 1 of Jefferson 

County v. Washington Department of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700 (1994), the Supreme Court held that 

a state acting under the CWA could regulate water quality (e.g., physical and chemical

composition of the water) and water quantity (i.e., amount of water released by a project), as well 

as state-designated water uses (e.g., fishing, boating). The Supreme Court upheld this decision in 

S.D. Warren Co. v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection, 126 U.S. 1843 (2006). In the 

2006 decision, the Supreme Court unanimously held that states, through Section 401 

certification, can impose conditions on a FERC hydropower license if they find it necessary to 

prevent adverse alteration of water quality.

In recent years, many states have come to view Section 401 as an important tool in their overall 

programs to protect the physical and biological, in addition to the chemical, integrity of their 

waters (Copeland 2015). Some states use Section 401 to address a wide range of impacts to their 

water quality, including impacts to aquatic habitat such as wetlands where issues of nonchemical impacts arise (Copeland 2015). Through Section 401, some states have addressed 

inadequate river flow, inundation of habitat, dissolved oxygen levels, and impacts on fish and 

other wildlife from a hydropower project (Copeland 2015).

In addition to considering effluent limitations, water quality standards, national standards for 

new sources, and pretreatment effluent standards, a state agency can impose instream flow 

requirements on hydropower projects (33 U.S.C. §§ 1311-1313, 1316-1317; FERC 2001). State 

agencies, however, do not have to consider the benefits of hydropower or other competing 
5

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

interests when reviewing an application for a water quality certification (FERC 2001). The state 

does not have to consider whether the conditions of the certificate duplicate or conflict with 

those imposed by FERC and other agencies (FERC 2001; 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1376 [1972]). 

2.1.3.1 401 Water Quality Certification Workload

State agencies issue Section 401 water quality certifications not only for hydropower projects 

seeking a FERC license or relicense but also for dredge-and-fill activities in wetlands and other 

waters that require approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the 

CWA and Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act (33 U.S.C. § 1344; 33 

U.S.C. §§ 401-402). In addition, state agencies may require certification for other activities that 

could affect water quality (Public Utility District No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Washington 

Department of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700 [1994]; S.D. Warren Co. v. Maine Board of 

Environmental Protection, 126 U.S. 1843 [2006]). 

Consideration: States often issue thousands of water quality certifications annually. For 

instance, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation issued 5,044 water 

quality certifications in 2017 (Christopher Hogan, New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation, email, September 5, 2018).3

In addition to the number of activities4 that require a water quality certification, review for 

certification has grown more complicated in the face of environmental conditions (e.g., drought)5

and policy changes affecting water resource demands and water quality (Ann Marie Ore, 

California Water Resources Control Board, telephone conference, August 2, 2018; Bauer et al. 

2015). The growing complexity of certification review in light of these additional resource 

demands and environmental conditions has led to delay in the certification process in some states

(Ann Marie Ore, California Water Resources Control Board, telephone conference, August 2, 

2018). State agency budgets and inadequate staffing has, in some cases, exacerbated delay in 

certification issuances and has led to a backlog in many states (Hawaii State Department of 

Health 2015; Colorado Legislative Council 2014; Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

2018; Missouri Department of Natural Resources 2008; Ann Marie Ore, California Water 

Resources Control Board, telephone conference, August 2, 2018; Cheryl Laatsch, Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources, telephone conference, August 7, 2018). There is also evidence 

that the submission of incomplete applications increases the processing timeline of certifications 

 

3 This number includes all 401 water quality certifications issued, including activities triggered by Sections 404 and 

402 of the CWA, Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act, and other activities designated by 

the state. 

4 For example, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has reported that they issued 3,184 

water quality certifications in 2016 and 5,044 in 2017 (Christopher Hogan, New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation, email, September 5, 2018). Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has reported that they 

issue 2,000 general 401 water quality certifications annually; this number does not include individual 401 water 

quality certifications (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 2018). In 2017 California issued 1,221 Section 401 

water quality certifications (Jeff Wetzel, California State Water Resources Board, correspondence, September 19, 

2018).

5 In 2014, 9% of the State of California experienced exceptional drought and two-thirds of the state was in an 

extreme drought. Snow pack near Donner Summit in the Sierra Mountains was at 8 inches, the lowest since 1946 

(FERC 2014; SWRCB 2014).
6

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

and adds to the overall certification backlog (Hawaii State Department of Health 2015; see also 

Hells Canyon case study).

2.1.3.2 401 Water Quality Certification Issuance Timeline

Despite the 1-year time limit prescribed by the CWA, the review of a Section 401 water quality 

certification request can often take much longer depending on the state’s resources and 

workload, the complexity of the project, and the water resources affected. A common reason for 

delay in the hydropower relicensing process is obtaining evidence of a waiver or request for a 

new or revised state water quality certification (FERC 2001; DOE 2016). Table 1 identifies 

hydropower projects, as of December 2018, that have been delayed in the relicensing process by 

pending water quality certifications.
7

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Table 1. Relicensing Projects Delayed by Pending Water Quality Certifications

a Projects that are also delayed by Section 7 Endangered Species Act review. Source: FERC 2018c

2.1.4 Other Federal Statutes

During the relicensing process, the licensee must comply with the FPA, the CWA and other 

federal statutes, including but not limited to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA), the 

Project Licensee State Date of NEPA 

completion

Delay 

(Years)

Vermillion Valleya (P-2086) Southern 

California Edison 

(SCE)

California 05/03/2004 14.70

Upper North Fork Feather 

River (P-2105)

Pacific Gas & 

Electric 

California 11/10/2005 13.18

Portala (P-2174) SCE California 04/27/2006 12.72

Hells Canyona (P-1971) Idaho Power 

Company

Idaho/Oregon 08/31/2007 11.37

Big Creek Project 2Aa (P-7) SCE California 03/13/2009 9.84

Big Creek Project 3a

(P-120)

SCE California 03/13/2009 9.84

Mammoth Poola (P-2085) SCE California 03/13/2009 9.84

Big Creek Project 1 & 2 

(P-2175)

SCE California 03/12/2009 9.84

South Feather (P-2088) South Feather 

Water & Power 

Agency

California 06/04/2009 9.61

McCloud Pit (P-2106) Pacific Gas and 

Electric 

California 02/25/2011 7.88

Brassua (P-2615) Madison Paper 

Industries 

Maine 09/14/2011 7.33

Middle Fork American 

Rivera (P-2079)

Placer County 

Water Agency 

California 02/22/2013 5.88

Merced Rivera (P-2179) Merced Irrigation 

District 

California 12/04/2015 3.10

Merced Fallsa (P-2467) Merced Irrigation 

District

California 12/04/2015 3.10

Trout Creek (P-848) Wells Rural 

Electric Company 

Nevada 12/19/2017 1.06

Pine Creek Minea (P-12532) Pine Creek Mine, 

LLC

California 02/10/2018 0.92

Prospect No. 3 (P-2337) PacifiCorp Energy Oregon 04/16/2018 0.74
8

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), and the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).

Consideration: “Because the relicensing process...requires a renewed evaluation of the project 

and its environs, many projects emerge from the relicensing process with different operational, 

recreational, and environmental [license] conditions...” (Sensiba 2011).

• Section 4(e) of the FPA gives federal land management agencies authority to revise or 

add new mandatory conditions to hydropower projects located within or directly affecting 

federal reservations (16 U.S.C. §§ 791-823d). 

• Section 18 of the FPA allows federal resource agencies to prescribe mandatory fishway 

requirements on hydropower projects that may affect the passage of fish species in a 

project area (16 U.S.C. §§ 791-823d). 

• The FWCA requires FERC to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

and appropriate state and fish wildlife agencies before granting a new license for the 

control, impoundment, or modification of a waterway (16 U.S.C. §§ 661-666c).

• The ESA requires FERC to consult with USFWS and NOAA Fisheries to ensure the new 

license will not jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or 

threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such 

species (16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544).

• The CZMA requires that federal actions affecting a coastal zone’s natural resources be 

consistent with the state’s approved coastal management plan (16 U.S.C. §§ 1451-1464).

• The NHPA requires FERC to consider the impact of the new license on sites and 

facilities listed on, or eligible for, the National Register of Historic Places (16 U.S.C. §§ 

1451-1464).

2.2 Expected Hydropower Relicensing

This section analyzes FERC-licensed hydropower projects with license expiration dates between

2018–2037, the expected new license (relicense) filing workload through September 2032 and

identifies projects within a shared river basin or sub-basin.

2.2.1 FERC License Expirations

Of the 1,043 active FERC-licensed hydropower projects, 647 projects with a total combined 

capacity of 21,870 MW have license expiration dates from 2018–2037 (FERC 2017a; FERC 

2018a). Figure 1 illustrates the number of FERC-licensed hydropower projects and authorized 

capacity due to expire in 5-year periods from 2018–2037. There are 190 projects with license 

expiration dates from 2023–2027 with a total combined capacity of 7,940 MW. In 2026 alone, 48

project licenses expire (5,058 MW). From 2033–2037, 249 project licenses expire (4,428 MW). 

The highest volume of expiration dates is in 2034 with 59 projects.
9

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Figure 1. FERC-licensed projects with license expiration dates from 2018–2037

2.2.1.1 Top 10 States by Number of Projects

Figure 2 illustrates the 10 states with the highest number of projects that have FERC licenses due 

to expire through 2037 (FERC 2017a). The geographic distribution of those projects range across 

the northeast, midwest, west, and northwest United States. New York has the highest number of 

FERC-licensed projects expiring with 75 projects with a total combined capacity of 

approximately 1,834 MW (FERC 2017a).

Figure 2. Top 10 states by number of projects—FERC-licensed projects with license expiration 

dates from 2018–2037

94 190 114 249

6,750

7,940

2,753

4,428

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2018-2022 2023-2027 2028-2032 2033-2037

Authorized Capacity (MW)

Number of Projects

Years

FERC-Licensed Projects Due to Expire

Projects Authorized Capacity (MW)

75 74 70 41 40 35 35 34 29 19

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Number of Projects

States

Top 10 States by Number of Projects

Projects with a FERC license expiring from 2018-2037
10

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

2.2.1.2 Top 10 States by Authorized Capacity

Figure 3 illustrates the 10 states with the highest number of FERC-licensed projects due to expire 

through 2037 by authorized hydroelectric capacity. The geographic distribution of states ranges 

across the northeast, east, southeast, west, and northwest United States. California has the highest 

total combined capacity of FERC-licensed projects due to expire with 4,387 MW across 74

projects (FERC 2017a). Virginia and South Carolina also have multiple large FERC-licensed 

projects set to expire in the coming years (FERC 2017a).

Figure 3. Top 10 states by authorized capacity—FERC-licensed projects with license expiration 

dates from 2018–2037

2.2.2 Expected Relicensing Workload 

Figure 4 illustrates the total number of FERC filings (NOI or an application for a new license) 

expected through September 2032 in 5-year periods. This totals 1,012 expected relicensing 

filings through September 2032 (FERC 2017a). Of those total filings, FERC expects that 551 

NOIs with PADs and 461 applications for a new license (FERC 2017a). The highest number of 

filings is expected between 2028 and September 2032.

4,387 

2,568 

2,013 1,834 1,826 1,821 

1,444 

754 729 706 

 -

 500

 1,000

 1,500

 2,000

 2,500

 3,000

 3,500

 4,000

 4,500

 5,000

Authorized Capacity (MW)

States

Top 10 States by Authorized Capacity

Projects with a FERC license expiring from 2018-2037
11

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Figure 4. Expected FERC relicensing filings from 2018–2032

2.2.3 Projects in a Shared River Basin or Sub-Basin

To estimate the number of FERC-licensed hydropower projects coming up for relicense that are 

within a shared river basin or sub-basin this analysis integrates Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s 

(ORNL) national hydropower plant data set (see Samu et al. 2018) with FERC relicensing 

information (see FERC 2017a). ORNL’s dataset includes FERC-licensed projects and their 

corresponding geospatial hydrologic unit code (HUC), which maps the sub-basin where the 

project is located.6 Figure 5 illustrates the number of hydropower projects with FERC license 

expiration dates from 2018–2037 within a shared river basin or sub-basin in the 10 states with 

the highest number of projects that have FERC licenses due to expire through 2037 (i.e., New 

York, California, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Maine, Idaho, Vermont, Michigan, Washington 

and Utah). 

In New York, 69 FERC-licensed projects are coming up for relicense among 8 river basins or 

sub-basins. The river basin with the largest number of projects due to expire is the HudsonMohawk basin with a total of 21 FERC-licensed projects.7 In addition, 15 projects in the 

Raquette River basin and 13 projects in the Black River basin have FERC license expiration 

dates through 2037. 

In Wisconsin, 68 FERC-licensed projects are coming up for relicense among 6 river basins or 

sub-basins. The river basin with the largest number of projects due to expire is the Wisconsin 

 

6 HUCs are delineated and georeferenced to U.S. Geological Survey topographic base maps according to 

compilation criteria monitored by the national Sub-Committee on Spatial Water Data (EPA 2018a). ORNL’s data

set includes HUC 8 maps that identify the spatial water data on a sub-basin level, analogous to medium-sized river 

basins (Samu et al. 2018). 7 There are a number of tributaries to the basin that have FERC-licensed hydropower projects including, but not 

limited to, Schoharie Creek, Kinderhook Creek, Normans Kill, Fishkill Creek, West Canada Creek, and Fish Creek.

188 169 357 114 128 242 249 164 413

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2018-2022 2023-2027 2028-2032

Number of Filings

Years

FERC Filings

NOIs and PADs Applications Total Filings
12

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

River basin with a total of 19 projects. In addition, 17 projects coming up for relicense are in the 

Peshtigo River and Menominee River basin and 16 projects in the Chippewa River and Flambeau 

River basin.

In California, 50 FERC-licensed projects are coming up for relicense among 8 river basins or 

sub-basins. The river basin with the largest number of projects due to expire is the Feather River 

and Sacramento River basin with a total of 10 projects.

8 The river basin with the second largest 

number projects coming up for relicense is the Kings River and Kerns River basin with a total of 

9 projects. The majority of the projects within the Kings River and Kerns River basin are owned 

by SCE or Pacific Gas and Electric Co.

Figure 5. FERC-licensed projects with license expiration dates from 2018–2037 within a shared 

river basin or sub-basin

 

8

 A number of tributaries to the basin have FERC-licensed hydropower projects including, but not limited to, Bucks 

Creek, Bear River, Battle Creek, Rock Creek, and Cottonwood Creek. 

69 50 68 40 35 29 35 32 22 19

8 8 6 6 5 6 3 6 5 6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Number of Projects and Basins

States

Projects within a Shared Basin

Projects within a shared river basin or sub-basin

Number of river basins or sub-basins with two or more projects
13

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

3 Coordinating FERC License Terms for Hydropower 

Projects Within a Shared River Basin

At the time of relicense, FERC may set a license term to coordinate with other projects in the same 

waterway or a licensee may request a license term extension or acceleration to align a project’s 

expiration date with other projects in a shared river basin. Aligning the relicensing schedule with 

other project(s) can reduce the volume of work that is required for two separate relicensing efforts 

that are on independent schedules. In addition, FERC has found that coordinating the license 

expiration dates of projects within a shared waterway can allow for a more comprehensive analysis 

of the cumulative environmental impacts of the projects (18 C.F.R. § 2.23; FERC 1994).

3.1 Accelerating or Extending License Terms

FERC may grant a new hydropower license (relicense) for a term of 30–50 years (16 U.S.C. § 

808[e]). In 2017, FERC established a 40-year license term default for original and new licenses

for hydropower projects located on non-federal dams. FERC may consider a shorter or longer 

term if:

• Issuing a shorter or longer term would align license terms for projects in the same river basin

• Stakeholders explicitly agreed to a shorter or longer term in a “generally supported”

comprehensive settlement agreement, provided that such term does not conflict with 

coordination

• A longer license term is consistent with other license terms in the same basin, and the 

licensee requests a longer term “based on significant measures expected to be required under 

the new license or significant measures implemented during the prior license term.”

 (FERC 2017b)

FERC must address and consider the cumulative impacts of a project at relicense, but if that 

analysis results in unreasonable delays, FERC has the authority to issue a new license and then 

reopen the license afterwards to reconsider and mitigate the impacts (18 C.F.R. § 2.23; FERC 

1994). FERC established this policy in anticipation of a large influx of new license applications 

in 1994. FERC recognized that the pending workload could hinder the relicensing process, and 

that delay could harm the environment by postponing refurbishments or operational changes 

necessary to mitigate environmental harm (FERC 1994). By aligning the expiration dates of 

projects in a river basin, FERC can avoid using the reserved power of authority to reopen a 

license (18 C.F.R. § 2.23; FERC 1994). 

When issuing an original license or new license, FERC “will coordinate the expiration dates of 

the licenses to the maximum extent possible, to maximize future consideration of cumulative 

impacts” of multiple projects within a single river basin (18 C.F.R. § 2.23; FERC 1994).9 In 

addition, a licensee may request that FERC accelerate or extend the expiration date of a

hydropower license (18 C.F.R. § 2.23; FERC 1994). FERC may grant a license extension or 

 

9 FERC does not require “perfect” coordination but only “to the maximum extent possible” (Public Utility District 

No. 1 of Chelan County, 127 FERC ¶ 61,152 [2009]).
14

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

acceleration request to allow for a more comprehensive analysis of cumulative environmental 

impacts of the projects within the basin.

3.1.1 Non-Default FERC License Term Example 

In December 2015, Brookfield White Pine Hydro LLC (licensee) filed an application for a new 

license with FERC for the Williams Hydroelectric Project. The Williams Project is a 13-MW 

project located on the Kennebec River in Somerset County, Maine. In granting the license, 

FERC deviated from the established 40-year default term and issued a 36.5-year license to align 

the expiration date with two projects downstream of the Williams Project. FERC stated that the 

alignment would “maximize consideration of cumulative impacts” of the projects at the time of 

relicense (Brookfield White Pine Hydro LLC, 161 FERC ¶ 62,083 [2017]).

3.1.2 FERC License Term Extension Examples

3.1.2.1 Cloquet Hydroelectric Project

In late October 2017, Sappi Cloquet, LLC (licensee) filed a request with FERC to extend the 

license term of the Cloquet Hydroelectric Project (P-2363) 10 years from June 30, 2025, to June 

30, 2035. The Cloquet Project is a 6.5-MW project located on the St. Louis River in Carlton 

County, Minnesota. The licensee stated that the license extension would allow them to align the 

project’s expiration date with another project on the same river, the St. Louis River Project (P2360). Both projects received licenses in 1995, and although they are owned by different 

licensees, they are operated in a coordinated manner. In 1995, the St. Louis River Project 

received a 40-year term due to extensive mitigation measures needed, while the Cloquet Project 

received a default 30-year license term. Extending the Cloquet Project’s license term would 

allow the licensee to align the relicensing timelines of the two projects. The licensee stated that 

the alignment would decrease costs, increase efficiency of the relicensing processes, and allow 

the stakeholders to comprehensively analyze the projects’ effects simultaneously (Sappi Cloquet 

LLC, 162 FERC ¶ 62,087 [2018]). FERC approved the license term extension request for the 

Cloquet Project because it would “maximize the future consideration of cumulative and 

environmental impacts for both projects and would improve efficiency in each relicensing 

proceeding” (Sappi Cloquet LLC, 162 FERC ¶ 62,087 [2018]).

3.1.2.2 Saxon Falls Project

In July 2014, Northern States Power Company (licensee) filed a request with FERC to extend the 

license term of the Saxon Falls Project (P-2610) by 5 years from December 31, 2019, to 

December 31, 2024. The Saxon Falls Project is a 1.5-MW project located on the Montreal River 

in Wisconsin and Michigan. The licensee wanted to extend the license term to align the Saxon 

Falls Project’s expiration date with the Superior Falls Project (P-2587) located 3.5 miles 

downstream. The Superior Falls Project was also owned and operated by the licensee. Both 

original licenses were granted for 30-year terms. The licensee claimed that aligning the project’s 

expiration dates would increase the efficiency of the relicensing process and reduce the burden of 

stakeholder consultations. 

In a comment to FERC regarding the license extension, the National Park Service requested that 

FERC instead accelerate the Superior Falls Project expiration date 5 years to achieve alignment. 

American Whitewater also commented on the National Park Service’s proposal – acknowledging
15

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

that the FPA prohibits FERC from setting license terms of less than 30 years but asked FERC to 

consider if there was “any flexibility in this regard.” FERC denied the National Park Service’s 

request and stated that if the licensee wanted to align the two projects, “the only option [was] to 

extend the term of the Saxon Falls license” because the FPA prohibits the issuance of new 

license terms for less than 30 years (Northern States Power Company, 149 FERC ¶ 62,090 

[2014]).

3.1.3 FERC License Term Acceleration Example

In September 2013, the City of Holyoke Gas and Electric Department (licensee) filed a request 

with FERC to accelerate the license term of the Holyoke No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (P-2388) 1

year and 4 months from May 31, 2020, to January 31, 2019. The Holyoke No. 3 Project is a 450-

kW project located on the Connecticut River in northwestern Massachusetts. The licensee stated

that the license term acceleration would allow them to align the relicensing activities and 

timelines of two other projects immediately downstream that they owned—Holyoke No. 1 (P2386) and Holyoke No. 2 (P-2387). Further, the licensee stated that combining the relicensing 

activities for all three projects would result in substantial savings to the licensee who owned and 

operated all three projects and that it would provide for a more effective consultation with the 

resource agencies and other stakeholders. FERC approved the license term acceleration request 

for the Holyoke No. 3 Project, stating that “combining the relicensing activities for all three 

projects should assist the licensee, resource agencies, interested stakeholders, and the FERC staff 

in participating and reviewing all three projects” (City of Holyoke Gas and Electric Department, 

145 FERC ¶ 62,131 [2013]).

3.1.4 FERC License Term Acceleration and Extension Example

In May 2017, Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P. (licensee) filed a request with FERC to extend 

the license term for the Yaleville Hydroelectric Project (P-9222) and to accelerate the license 

term of the Piercefield Hydroelectric Project (P-7387). The licensee requested that FERC extend 

the 30-year license term for the Yaleville Project (2.7 MW) approximately 12 years, from 

January 31, 2022 to December 31, 2033, and accelerate the 40-year license term for the 

Piercefield Project (1.5 MW) by 10 years, from October 31, 2045 to October 31, 2035. Both 

projects are located with four other projects owned by the licensee on the Raquette River in New 

York with licenses expiring on December 31, 2033. The licensee stated that the “requested 

license term adjustments would allow it to coordinate the relicensing activities of all its Raquette 

River projects and would allow for a settlement agreement with stakeholders that addresses the 

river basin as a whole.” FERC approved the license term adjustments for both projects stating 

that “the alignment would allow FERC, resource agencies, and stakeholders to perform a more 

comprehensive analysis of the cumulative environmental impacts of the projects and increase the 

efficiency during the relicensing process for all of the licensee’s Raquette River projects” (Erie 

Boulevard Hydropower, L.P., 161 FERC ¶ 62,021 [2017]).
16

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

4 Basin-Wide Considerations to Relicense 

Basin-wide approaches have been used in various aspects of hydropower development for 

decades. Federal and state regulators, licensees, and other stakeholders have a long history of 

utilizing basin-wide approaches for resource planning and assessments as well as for resource 

review and impact analyses.

Most recently, federal and state resource agencies and licensees have begun to apply a basinwide approach to aspects of the hydropower relicensing process. With more than half of the

FERC-licensed hydropower fleet coming up for relicense, initiatives in states such as California, 

Maine, New York, and Wisconsin seek to improve the efficiency of the relicensing process. 

Regulators and licensees in these states are working together to coordinate different aspects of 

the relicensing process for multiple hydropower projects within a shared watershed or basin. 

These basin-wide approaches involve different levels of coordination and collaboration, which 

seek to improve the efficiency of the relicensing process as well as allow for a more 

comprehensive analysis of the cumulative impacts of the projects within the basin. Initiatives in 

California and Maine seek to coordinate the review and issuance of Section 401 water quality 

certifications for multiple hydropower projects within a shared basin that are owned and operated 

by the same licensee. While initiatives in New York and Wisconsin take a more comprehensive 

basin-wide approach to relicensing by coordinating the timelines of multiple hydropower 

projects owned by different licensees.

4.1 History

As early as the 1960s, FERC began using planning status reports to track planning studies for 

non-federal hydropower developments that were organized by basin (Saulsbury et al. 2010).10

Other federal entities such as the Tennessee Valley Authority and the U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation also have a long history of planning and assessing hydropower at the basin level 

(Saulsbury et al. 2010).11

In addition, basin-wide studies and analyses have been used by licensees and federal and state 

resource agencies during hydropower relicensing. During the relicensing process for a Penobscot 

River project in Maine, the licensee, the Penobscot Indian Nation, six conservation groups, and 

federal and state agencies signed an agreement to balance energy production in the Penobscot 

River basin with competing water uses (Saulsbury et al. 2010). The 2005 agreement aimed to 

restore anadromous fish populations, renew the Penobscot Indian Nation’s sustenance fishing 

rights, and create new tourism and business opportunities through stable and consistent 

management of the river (Saulsbury et al. 2010).

 

10 These reports turned compilations of existing information about hydropower projects into quick summaries of the 

relevant issues within a single basin (Saulsbury et al. 2010). 11 TVA’s Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement: Reservoir Operations Study evaluated 35 projects in the 

Tennessee and Cumberland River watersheds to determine whether they could increase the public value of their 

reservoir system operations (Saulsbury et al. 2010). U.S Bureau of Reclamation’s Basin Studies Program utilizes 

basin-wide approaches to identify risks and impacts to the agency’s ability to deliver water and power while 

maintaining its ecological responsibilities (Saulsbury et al. 2010).
17

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Example: In Oregon, a hydropower project can trigger a cumulative, basin-wide review if the 

Director of the Oregon Water Resources Commission “determines the project may have 

unacceptable cumulative impacts” (OR. ADMIN. R. § 690-051-0290[2]). A basin-wide review

considers all existing, approved, and proposed projects in the same river basin (OR. ADMIN. R. § 

690-051-0290[2]).

4.2 Comprehensive Basin-Wide Approaches to Relicense

The case studies detailed in this section discuss two innovative approaches to hydropower 

relicensing. In both New York and Wisconsin, licensees and regulators are working on a 

comprehensive approach to relicense and manage hydropower as part of a larger system—a river 

basin.12 Both initiatives intend to align the license expiration dates of multiple projects, owned 

and operated by different licensees, within a shared river basin to coordinate project relicensing 

timelines. 

Aligning the relicensing timelines allows for coordination and collaboration among the different 

licensees that seek to streamline consultation, study analyses, and project reviews. These basinwide approaches intend to reduce the costs associated with the relicensing process and provide a 

more comprehensive analysis of the cumulative environmental impacts of the projects. In 

addition, considering the environmental objectives, long-term hydrological changes, and other 

complementary or competing water uses of a basin during relicensing may allow owners and 

operators to work together to create holistic management plans that reduce risk and increase 

resiliency (Oakley 2018). The information for the case studies was obtained primarily through 

interviews with hydropower project licensees and federal and state regulators.

4.2.1 New York Black River Basin-Wide Relicensing Pilot

In New York, regulators and licensees are working together to pioneer one of the nation’s first 

comprehensive basin-wide approaches to hydropower relicensing. Recognizing the large number 

of FERC-licensed hydropower projects due to expire in the coming years, the New York State 

Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and USFWS have devised a strategy to 

handle the pending relicensing workload. NYSDEC and USFWS have identified five licensees 

as potential participants in a basin-wide relicensing pilot for eight hydropower projects (21 total 

developments)13 in the Black River Basin in New York.14 The potential pilot could serve as a 

model for other NYSDEC regions (Christopher Hogan, New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation, email, June 25, 2018).

 

12 Other states such as Vermont are in the beginning stages of considering a basin-wide approach to hydropower 

relicensing. Vermont is working on a basin-wide relicensing strategy for multiple projects within a single river basin 

that would assess the projects’ cumulative impacts on flow, water quality, aquatic habitat, and fish passage (Jeff 

Crocker, Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation, email, July 10, 2018; August 15, 2018). 13 “Development” refers to the dams and powerhouses associated with a hydroelectric project. A hydroelectric 

project can have multiple developments.

14 As of November 2018, no formal agreements or commitments to participate in the basin-wide relicensing pilot 

have been made. 
18

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

4.2.1.1 Hydropower Relicensing in New York

There are 75 FERC-licensed hydropower projects in New York, with a total combined 

generating capacity of 1,834 MW with licenses set to expire between 2018–2037 (FERC 2017a). 

The largest number of hydropower projects coming up for relicense are in NYSDEC’s Region 6 

in Herkimer, Jefferson, Lewis, Oneida, and St. Lawrence counties in northern New York (Jessica 

Hart, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Region 6, and John Wiley, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, telephone conference, August 7, 2018).

Black River Basin 

The majority of the hydropower projects up for relicense in NYSDEC’s Region 6 are located 

within the Black River Basin. Ten FERC-licensed hydropower projects (24 total developments) 

in the Black River Basin have either started the relicensing process or are expected to begin the 

relicensing process by 2027 (NYSDEC 2017). Figure 6 illustrates the expected Black River 

Basin relicensing workload from 2018–2027. The highest number of projects going through the 

relicensing process are expected to be in 2021–2023. A total of 9 projects and 21 corresponding 

developments are projected to be in some stage of the relicensing process in 2021 (Wiley 2015). 

Figure 6. Black River Basin hydropower relicensing workload—projects and developments

4.2.1.2 Implementation History and Process

In late 2014 and early 2015, USFWS initially identified nine projects (22 total developments) 

with six different licensees within the Black River Basin15 with license expiration dates between 

2026 and 2031 (Jessica Hart, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

 

15 The Black River Basin is located in north-central New York State where it drains the western slopes of the 

Adirondack Mountains and flows 180 miles to the eastern edge of the Tug Hill Plateau before emptying into Lake 

Ontario near Watertown. The major tributaries to the Black River Basin include the Black River, the Moose River, 

and the Beaver River (NYSDEC 2004).

2

3 3

9

8 8

7

6 6

1

2

3 3

21 21 21

20

19 19

1

0

5

10

15

20

25

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027

Number of Projects and Developments

Year Expiring

Black River Basin Hydropower Relicensing

Projects Developments
19

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Region 6, and John Wiley, USFWS, telephone conference, August 7, 2018). NYSDEC and 

USFWS representatives first visited the nine hydropower projects identified as well as other 

FERC-licensed and exempt projects within the basin (Jessica Hart, New York State Department 

of Environmental Conservation Region 6, and John Wiley, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

telephone conference, August 7, 2018). The site visits gave the resource agencies a better 

understanding of the hydropower projects, their location, and the overall demands on the ecology 

of the river basin (Jessica Hart, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Region 6, and John Wiley, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, telephone conference, August 7, 

2018). Figure 7 identifies hydropower projects, by development, within the Black River Basin.

Figure 7. Black River Basin pilot: map of hydropower projects 

Recognizing the number of hydropower projects up for relicense and the proximity of these 

projects to one another, USFWS and NYSDEC discussed potential relicensing strategies with 

FERC and then forged the idea of a basin-wide approach. Table 2 identifies the nine hydropower 

projects initially identified in the Black River Basin as potential projects for the pilot. 
20

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Table 2. Black River Basin Pilot: Initial Projects Identified

Project 

Name

Licensee Waterway Basin 

Location

License

Issuance

Date

License 

Expiration 

Date

Beaver River

(P-2645)

Erie Boulevard Beaver River Northeast 08/02/1996 07/31/2026

Beebee Island 

(P-2538)

Erie Boulevard Black River Northwest 12/24/1996 11/30/2026

Black River 

(P-2569)

Erie Boulevard Black River Northwest 12/24/1996 11/30/2026

Forestport 

(P-4900)

Ampersand 

Energy

Black River 

Canal

Southeast 03/20/1987 02/28/2027

Moose River 

(P-4349)

EONY 

Generation 

Limited

Moose River Southcentral 05/06/1986 04/30/2026

Lyons Falls 

(P-2548)

Northbrook 

Lyons Falls 

Moose River Southcentral 05/06/1986 05/31/2026

Lyonsdale 

(P-3255)

Lyonsdale 

Associates

Moose River Southcentral 05/23/1983 05/31/2026

Kayuta Lake 

(P-5000)

Ampersand 

Energy

Black River Southeast 09/12/1984 05/31/2026

Carthage 

(P-10887)

Carthage 

Paperboards

LLC

Black River Northwest 11/22/1991 10/31/2021

Source: FERC 2017a

Outreach

In 2016, NYSDEC and USFWS contacted the six licensees of the nine projects initially 

identified to explain the basin-wide pilot concept and to gauge the licensees’ interest (Jessica 

Hart, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Region 6, and John Wiley, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, telephone conference, August 7, 2018). Later that year,

NYSDEC and USFWS held a meeting with the licensees to solicit feedback and continue 

discussions regarding the proposal (Jessica Hart, New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation Region 6, and John Wiley, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, telephone conference, 

August 7, 2018). NYSDEC and USFWS also engaged other stakeholders including federal and 

state resource agencies, non-governmental organizations, conservation organizations, county 

officials, towns, and villages (Jessica Hart, New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation Region 6, and John Wiley, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, telephone conference, 

August 7, 2018).
21

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

4.2.1.3 Pilot Details

After internal meetings and discussions with FERC in early 2016, USFWS and NYSDEC 

outlined the basin-wide approach to hydropower relicensing concept for the Black River Basin 

(Jessica Hart, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Region 6, and John 

Wiley, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, telephone conference, August 7, 2018). The major 

coordinated relicensing steps include:

• Licensees submit requests to FERC to align license expiration dates for all projects with 

NYSDEC and USFWS support

• Licensees and agencies develop a collaborative Alternative Licensing Process (ALP) with 

communication protocol and coordinated timelines

• NYSDEC and USFWS develop a basin-wide study protocol to utilize for all the projects

• Licensees prepare a joint PAD for all licensees to file 

• Licensees file an NOI and joint PAD at the same time 

• Licensees conduct studies and prepare a joint study report 

• Licensees file the joint study report at the same time 

• Stakeholders negotiate a settlement agreement(s)

• Licensees file new license applications with FERC 

• FERC issues additional informational requests (AIRs), REAs, and notice and comments 

for all projects

• FERC issues licenses for all projects

(Hart 2017; Jessica Hart, and John Wiley, telephone conference, August 7, 2018).

The basin-wide approach would require the licensees to develop and file their own NOI, sitespecific studies, and separate license applications with FERC (Hart 2017; Jessica Hart, New 

York State Department of Environmental Conservation Region 6, and John Wiley, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, telephone conference, August 7, 2018). Figure 8 outlines the proposed timeline 

for the basin-wide relicensing pilot.

Figure 8. Black River Basin pilot: basin-wide relicensing timeline
22

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Developing a Collaborative Communication Protocol and Coordinated Timelines

The basin-wide pilot proposes that the licensees utilize the ALP for relicense. The ALP is 

designed to, among other things, encourage upfront communication and coordination among 

stakeholders, increase participation and cooperation among stakeholders, provide more 

flexibility, streamline pre-filing and administrative processes into a single step, and implement 

other time- and resource-saving measures (18 C.F.R. § 4.34[i][2][i]-[v]).16

For example, the ALP requires early coordination among the licensees and the resource agencies 

to identify stakeholders that may have an interest in the relicensing efforts (18 C.F.R. § 

4.34[i][3]). The licensees, resource agencies, and other stakeholders form a collaborative group 

that must develop a communication protocol that governs how participants in the pre-filing 

consultation process will communicate with each other regarding the merits and

recommendations of the proposal (18 C.F.R. § 4.34[i][3][ii]). The ALP also allows the licensees 

and the collaborative group to set the filing timelines dictating the relicensing schedule (Jessica 

Hart, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Region 6, and John Wiley, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, telephone conference, August 7, 2018; 18 C.F.R. § 4.34[i]).

17

With the ALP, scoping under NEPA is conducted during the pre-filing consultation process. The 

ALP also requires that the collaborative group develop the study plan collectively (FERC 2004).

Consideration: Because of its collaborative process, the ALP may be particularly useful if a 

settlement agreement is being sought (FERC 2004). 

Basin-Wide Study Protocol

USFWS and NYSDEC are in the early stages of putting together a basin-wide study protocol 

proposal for the hydropower relicensing pilot. The protocol would be utilized to inform the study 

plan. After developing a protocol, the resource agencies expect to work for at least 1 year with 

the licensees and other stakeholders to finalize the details of the study plan. The study protocol 

will include, at a minimum, analysis regarding:

• Diadromous fish species 

• Fisheries

• Fish passage

• Water quality for bypass reaches and downstream of each hydropower project

• Mussel species

• Macro-invertebrates 

• Impoundments fluctuations

• Recreation 

• Flows and run-of-river compliance

 

16 For more information on the FERC license authorization processes, see Aaron Levine and Austin Flanagan. 

Forthcoming. “FERC Hydropower Licensing: A Review of the ILP, TLP, and ALP.” NREL/TP-6A20-71982. 

Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 

17 FERC prescribes the filing timeline for all participants in the Integrated Licensing Process and for some 

participants in the Traditional Licensing Process (18 C.F.R.§§ 4.30–4.61, 5).
23

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

• Wetlands

• Analysis of cumulative impacts.

(Jessica Hart, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Region 6, and John 

Wiley, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, telephone conference, August 7, 2018)

Consideration: The basin-wide study analysis could be used to inform Section 10(j) resource 

agency recommendations, Section 10(a) comprehensive plan considerations, and Section 18 fish 

prescriptions pursuant to the FPA, as well as environmental review under NEPA, Section 401 

water quality certification for CWA compliance, and Section 7 species review under the ESA

(Jessica Hart, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Region 6, and 

Jonathan Binder, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, telephone 

conference, July 9, 2018; Jessica Hart, New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation Region 6, email, August 1, 2018).

Aligning License Expiration Dates 

To align the relicensing timelines for all nine of the initially identified hydropower projects, the

licensees for the Carthage Paper Makers Hydroelectric Project, the Kayuta Lake Hydroelectric 

Project, and the Lyonsdale Hydroelectric Project all filed requests with FERC to extend their 

project’s license term to May 31, 2026. FERC granted the license term extension for both the 

Lyonsdale Project and the Kayuta Lake Project but denied the license term extension for the 

Carthage Paper Makers Project.

Consideration: The license term extension requests for all three projects used similar language 

when explaining the basin-wide approach and the reasons for the license term extension. Each 

request was accompanied by letters of support from USFWS and NYSDEC.

Carthage Paper Makers Hydroelectric Project (P-10887)

In August 2016, Carthage Specialty Paperboard Inc.18 filed a request with FERC to extend the 

Carthage Paper Makers Hydroelectric Project license term approximately 5 years from October 

31, 2021, to May 31, 2026 (Carthage 2016). FERC denied the license term extension because the 

Carthage Project license term was originally set at 50 years. Section 6 of the FPA allows FERC 

to issue a license for a maximum term of 50 years (18 C.F.R. § 799 [2012]). Therefore, FERC 

was statutorily prohibited from extending the term of the license (Climax Manufacturing Co., 

156 FERC ¶ 62,197 [2016]).

In 1991, FERC issued the Carthage Project a 30-year license, which would have typically 

allowed FERC to approve the license term extension. However, in the 1991 license order, FERC 

found that the project should have been originally licensed in 1964—the year the Black River 

was found navigable. Because the project should have been previously licensed, FERC 

backdated the effective date of the license 20 years. Therefore, the 1991 license that was issued 

for 30 years was considered the maximum 50-year term permitted under the FPA (Climax 

Manufacturing Co., 57 FERC ¶ 62,145 [1991]).

 

18 Carthage Specialty Paperboard Inc. was formerly Climax Manufacturing Co.
24

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Kayuta Lake Hydroelectric Project (P-5000) and Lyonsdale (P-3255)

In early January 2017, Ampersand Kayuta Lake Hydro, LLC filed a request with FERC to 

extend the license term of the Kayuta Lake Hydroelectric Project approximately 2 years from 

August 31, 2024, to May 31, 2026. Similarly, in late January 2017, Lyonsdale Associates, LLC 

filed a request with FERC to extend the license term of the Lyonsdale Hydroelectric Project 

approximately 3 years from February 28, 2023, to May 31, 2026. Both licensees stated that the 

license extensions would allow their respective projects to align with other projects within the 

Black River Basin that expire in 2026 or 2027.19 Further, the licensees stated that aligning the 

license terms would allow them to participate in a basin-wide initiative that sought to streamline 

the relicensing process, lower costs, and provide a comprehensive environmental analysis 

(Ampersand 2017; Ampersand Kayuta Lake Hydro, LLC 160 FERC ¶ 62,066 [2017]; Lyonsdale 

Associates, LLC 160 FERC ¶ 62,181 [2017]). 

FERC approved the license term extension requests for both the Kayuta Lake Project and the 

Lyonsdale Project. FERC reasoned that “aligning the expiration dates of the projects would 

allow FERC, resource agencies, and stakeholders to perform a more comprehensive analysis of 

the cumulative environmental impacts of the projects and increase the efficiency of the 

relicensing process of all the projects” (Ampersand Kayuta Lake Hydro, LLC 160 FERC ¶ 

62,066 [2017]; Lyonsdale Associates, LLC 160 FERC ¶ 62,181 [2017]).

Forestport Hydroelectric Project (P-4000)

Ampersand Energy Partners would need to accelerate the license term of the Forestport Project 

approximately 3 months to participate in the basin-wide relicensing pilot. The earliest an 

applicant (licensee) can file an NOI and PAD with FERC is 5.5 years before the license term

expires, and the latest a licensee can file is 5 years before the license term expires (18 C.F.R. § 

5.5). The Forestport Project license term expires February 28, 2027, and the other projects’ 

license terms expire mid- to late 2026. Ampersand has stated that they would consider 

accelerating the Forestport Project license term, when the time came, to gain the potential 

benefits associated with the basin-wide relicensing approach (Sayad Moudachirou, Ampersand 

Energy Partners, LLC, telephone conference, August 6, 2018).

4.2.1.4 Project and Licensee Characteristics 

This section identifies the similarities and differences of the hydropower projects and licensees 

within the Black River Basin that may participate in the basin-wide relicensing pilot. 

Project Characteristics

The eight hydropower projects in the Black River Basin that have license terms ending in 2026 

or 2027 vary in size, annual production, basin location, and operating mode. Table 3 highlights 

 

19 See Lawrence R. Taft, 38 FERC ¶ 62,293 (1987) (Forestport Project expiring February 28, 2027); Georgia-Pacific 

Corporation, 35 FERC ¶ 62,229 (1986) (Lyons Falls Project expiring May 31, 2026); Niagara Mohawk Power 

Corporation, 77 FERC ¶ 61,306 (1996) (Black River Project expiring November 30, 2026); and Beebee Island 

Corporation, 77 FERC ¶ 61,305 (1996) (Beebee Island Water Power Project expiring November 20, 2026); Long 

Lake Energy Corporation, 35 FERC ¶ 62,230 (1986) (Moose River Project expiring April 30, 2026) and Amperand 

Kayuta Lake Hydro, LLC, 160 FERC ¶ 62,066 (2017) (Kayuta Lake Project expiring May 31, 2026).
25

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

some of the characteristics of each hydropower project that is eligible to participate in the 

proposed basin-wide relicensing pilot. 

Table 3. Black River Basin Pilot: Project Characteristics

Project 

Name

Operating 

Mode 

Number of 

Developments

Generation 

Capacity 

(MW)20

Annual 

Production 

(MWH)21

Basin 

Location 

Beaver 

River

(P-2645)

Storage and 

Release

8 44.80 245,610 Northeast

Beebee Island 

(P-2538)

Modified 

Run-of-River

1 8.00 51,881 Northwest

Black 

River 

(P-2569)

Modified 

Run-of-River

5 29.60 158,827 Northwest

Forestport 

(P-4900)

Run-of-River 1 3.30 9,286 Southeast

Moose River 

(P-4349)

Run-of-River 1 12.20 65,063 Southcentral

Lyons 

Falls 

(P-2548)

Run-of-River 3 14.35 Privileged Southcentral 

Lyonsdale 

(P-3255)

Run-of-River 1 3.00 13,368 Southcentral

Kayuta Lake 

(P-5000)

Run-of-River 1 0.40 1,394 Southeast

Source: FERC 2017a

Licensee Characteristics

The five licensees of the projects that could participate in the Black River basin-wide 

hydropower relicensing pilot vary in company size and type. Erie Boulevard, LLC, a subsidiary 

of Brookfield Renewable Partners, is the largest independent power producer in the river basin 

owning and operating over 200 hydroelectric plants worldwide totaling 3,247 MW (Brookfield 

Renewable 2017). Ampersand Energy Partners is a much smaller independent power producer,

owning and operating 18 hydropower projects totaling 29 MW (Ampersand Energy 2018). Table 

4 highlights some of the licensee characteristics of each hydropower project that could 

participate in the basin-wide relicensing pilot.

 

20 Generation capacity is the authorized generation capacity per FERC record. 21 Annual production is based on the most recent annual generation report filed with FERC.
26

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Table 4. Black River Basin Pilot: Licensee Characteristics

 Sources: Ampersand Energy 2018; Brookfield Energy 2017; Lyons Falls Hydropower 2018; Cube Hydro 2018; 

Hydro Ottawa Holding Inc. 2017

4.2.1.5 Advantages 

Potential advantages associated with New York’s basin-wide approach to hydropower 

relicensing include:

• Extended license terms for Lyonsdale and Kayuta 

• Early communication and coordination with stakeholders 

• Federal agency (including FERC), state agency, and stakeholder support

• Federal and state agencies conducted site visit of all projects within the basin to better 

understand the water uses and the overall demands on the ecology of the river 

• Federal and state agency-initiated basin-wide study protocol to utilize for all projects 

within the basin

• Consistency in study plan development across projects within the basin 

• Consistency in administration of studies for projects within the basin

 

22 Total capacity owned includes all hydroelectric assets, nationally and internationally owned by the licensee parent 

company (if applicable) and is an approximation acquired from FERC, the licensee, and public documents.

Licensee Licensee 

Parent 

Company

Project Name Owner/Operator Licensee 

Type 

Total 

Capacity 

Owned 

(MW)22

Asset 

Location 

Erie 

Boulevard 

Brookfield 

Renewable 

Energy

Beaver River

(P-2645)

Beebee Island 

(P-2538)

Black River 

(P-2569)

Owner/Operator Independent 

Power 

Producer

4,247 National and 

International

Ampersand 

Energy 

Partners

Forestport 

(P-4900)

Kayuta Lake 

(P-5000)

Owner/Operator Independent 

Power 

Producer

29 National and 

International

EONY 

Generation 

Limited

Hydro Ottawa 

Holding Inc.

Moose River 

(P-4349)

Owner/Operator Electric Utility 

Holding 

Company 

47 National and 

International

Northbrook 

Lyons Falls

Lyons Falls 

Kruger Inc.

Lyons Falls 

(P-2458)

Owner/Operator Manufacturer 545 National and 

International 

Lyonsdale 

Associates

Cube 

Hydro 

Partners, 

LLC

Lyonsdale 

(P-3255)

Owner/Operator Independent 

Power 

Producer

372 National 
27

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

• Coordination and consistency of prescribed terms and conditions among projects 

• Coordinated use of the ALP by all licensees

• Coordinated preparation of a joint PAD for all licensees to file 

• Coordinated FERC filings 

• Coordinated consultation 

• Coordinated studies and preparation of joint study report 

• Reduced cost associated with the relicensing process 

• Settlement agreement among licensees and stakeholders 

• Offsets from external funding sources (e.g., grants)

(Jessica Hart, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Region 6, and John 

Wiley, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, telephone conference, August 7, 2018; Sayad 

Moudachirou, Ampersand Energy Partners, LLC, telephone conference, August 6, 2018; David 

Fox, Cube Hydro Partners, LLC, telephone conference, August 6, 2018).

4.2.1.6 Challenges 

Potential challenges associated with New York’s basin-wide approach to hydropower relicensing 

include:

• Pioneering a comprehensive approach to relicensing—it has never been done before 

• Initiated by federal and state agencies which have multiple resource demands and 

constraints 

• Licensee buy-in 

• Some projects have existing settlement agreements in place, others do not

• Licensees have diverse interests and backgrounds

• Licensees have differing levels of experience in the relicensing process

• Licensees have differing levels of resources available

• Studies will likely extend beyond FERC license boundaries of individual projects

• Conflict when negotiating the terms and conditions of the license—a term or a condition 

for one project may be at the detriment of another project

• Equity of the relicensing process—larger licensees dictating the relicensing process for 

smaller licensees, smaller licensees utilizing the resources of the larger licensees 

(Jessica Hart, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Region 6, and John 

Wiley, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, telephone conference, August 7, 2018; Sayad 

Moudachirou, Ampersand Energy Partners, LLC, telephone conference, August 6, 2018; Steven 

Murphy, Brookfield Renewable Energy Partners LLC, telephone conference, August 16, 2018; 

David Fox, Cube Hydro Partners, LLC, telephone conference, August 6, 2018).

4.2.2 Wisconsin River Basin-Wide Relicensing Proposal

In Wisconsin, licensees and regulators are working together to pioneer one of the nation’s first 

comprehensive basin-wide approaches to hydropower relicensing. Recognizing the number of 

FERC-licensed projects in the Wisconsin River Basin due to expire in the coming years, the 

licensees came together to devise a strategy to relicense these projects in an efficient manner. As 

a result, nine licensees have proposed a basin-wide approach to coordinate the relicense of 20 

Wisconsin River projects in three stages according to the project’s location. The proposal 
28

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

suggests grouping projects into one of three sub-basins (i.e., the North Wisconsin Basin, the 

Central Wisconsin Basin, and the South Wisconsin Basin) and staggering the relicensing 

timelines.

4.2.2.1 Hydropower Relicensing in Wisconsin 

Wisconsin has a total of 70 FERC-licensed hydropower projects, with a total combined 

generating capacity of 457 MW, with license expiration dates from 2018–2037 (FERC 2017a). 

Of those projects, 21 have license expiration dates that require filing an NOI and a PAD for a 

new license with FERC in 2032 (FERC 2017a). The highest volume of hydropower projects in 

Wisconsin due to expire in the coming years are on the Wisconsin River.23

Wisconsin River Basin 

The Wisconsin River Basin24 includes 20 hydropower projects (41 total developments) that are 

scheduled to undergo relicensing between 2026 and 2035 (FERC 2017a). Of those 20 projects,

12 currently have a license expiration date in 2026 (FERC 2017a). Figure 8 illustrates the 

hydropower projects within the Wisconsin River Basin with license expiration dates between 

2026 and 2035.

Figure 9. Wisconsin River Basin hydropower relicensing workload—projects and developments

 

23 The Wisconsin River is the largest river in Wisconsin and stretches 430 miles from Lac Vieux Desert on the 

Wisconsin-Michigan boundary in the north to Prairie due Chien in southwestern Wisconsin, where it empties into 

the Mississippi River (WVIC 2018a). The Wisconsin River is divided into three sub-basins—the northern, central, 

and southern Wisconsin River basins (WDNR 2018a). 24 The Wisconsin River Basin as a whole encompasses 20% of the state, extending from the forest region of 

northeast Wisconsin through the vegetation tension zone of central Wisconsin to the prairie areas of southern 

Wisconsin, including 11,800 square miles (WPSC 2018; U.S. Geological Survey 1917). The largest tributary to the 

Wisconsin River in terms of water flow is the Tomahawk River (WDNR 2018b).

12

0 0 0 1 1 1

3

1 2

30

0 0 0 1 2 1

3

1 2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 3034 2035

Number of Projects and Developments

Year Expiring

Wisconsin River Basin Hydropower Relicensing

Projects Developments
29

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

4.2.2.2 Implementation History and Process

Starting in April 2018, licensees began to submit requests for comment on a proposal to align the 

relicensing timelines of 20 separately FERC-licensed hydropower projects on the Wisconsin 

River and to extend the license terms of their respective projects (WRPC 2018). The licensees 

submitted individual requests to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), 

USFWS, the National Park Service, and other stakeholders with regard to their projects (Cheryl 

Laatsch, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, telephone conference, August 7, 2018). 

The licensees requested comments on the coordinated relicensing effort and the license term 

extensions within 60 days (Cheryl Laatsch, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 

telephone conference, August 7, 2018).

WDNR requested additional information on the rationale behind the proposed extension requests 

and asked the licensees to provide a stakeholder list for each project. In addition, WDNR 

requested that each licensee determine whether they foresaw “any complex or potentially 

controversial issues” related to the relicense of their project (WDNR 2018c). After the comment 

period expires, the licensees intend to submit a non-capacity license amendment request to FERC 

requesting a license term extension for their projects (Domtar 2018; WRPCO 2018).

In total, 9 licensees of 20 separately licensed hydropower projects within the Wisconsin River 

Basin propose to coordinate the relicensing timelines of the projects within the basin. The 

licensees “coordinated extensively regarding the need to align their future license expiration” 

(Domtar 2018). Originally, the licensees considered requesting a single expiration date for all 20 

projects within the basin that are scheduled to expire from 2026–2035 (Domtar 2018; WRPCO 

2018). However, the licensees recognized that relicensing that many projects at the same time 

could put strain on the federal and state agencies and other stakeholders (Domtar 2018; WRPCO 

2018). In addition, the licensees found that “administering a single expiration date for all 

projects...would be impractical given the breadth...” of the river basin (Domtar 2018; WRPCO 

2018). Instead, the licensees propose to coordinate the relicense of the projects in three stages—

grouping projects into one of three sub-basins and staggering the relicensing timelines (Domtar 

2018; WRPCO 2018).

Table 5 identifies the licensees and their corresponding hydropower projects within the 

Wisconsin River Basin that have proposed to coordinate relicensing efforts.
30

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Table 5. Wisconsin River Basin Proposal: Projects

Project Name Licensee Waterway Basin 

Location

License

Issuance

Date

License 

Expiration 

Date

Wisconsin Valley 

Reservoirs 

(P-2113)

Wisconsin Valley 

Improvement Co.

Wisconsin River 

& Headwater 

Tributary 

North 07/18/1996 06/30/2026

Otter Rapids

(P-1957)

Wisconsin Public 

Service Corp.

(WPSC)

Wisconsin River North 10/24/1989 06/30/2030

Rhinelander

(P-2161)

Expera Specialty 

Solutions 

Wisconsin River North 08/13/2003 07/31/2033 

Kings Dam

(P-2239)

Tomahawk 

Power & Pulp Co. 

Wisconsin River North 07/18/1996 06/30/2026

Jersey

(P-2476)

WPSC Tomahawk 

River

North 07/18/1996 06/30/2026

Grandmother

(P-2180)

PCA Hydro Inc. Wisconsin River North 01/06/2005 12/31/2034

Alexander 

(P-1979)

WPSC Wisconsin River North 03/04/2005 02/28/2035

Wausau

(P-1999)

WPSC Wisconsin River North 07/18/1996 06/30/2026

Rothchild

(P-2212)

Domtar Paper 

Company, LLC.

Wisconsin River Central 07/18/1996 06/30/2026

Mosinee

(P-2207)

Expera Specialty 

Solutions 

Wisconsin River Central 04/07/2005 03/31/2035

DuBay 

(P-1953) 

Consolidated 

Water Power Co.

Wisconsin River Central 10/24/1991 06/30/2026

Stevens Point 

(P-2110)

Consolidated 

Water Power Co.

Wisconsin River Central 07/30/2003 06/30/2033

Whiting

(P-2590)

Consolidated 

Water Power Co.

Wisconsin River Central 07/18/1996 06/30/2026

Biron 

(P-2192)

Consolidated 

Water Power Co.

Wisconsin River Central 07/30/2003 06/30/2033

Wisconsin 

Rapids 

(P-2256)

Consolidated 

Water Power Co.

Wisconsin River Central 07/18/1996 06/30/2036
31

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Project Name Licensee Waterway Basin 

Location

License

Issuance

Date

License 

Expiration 

Date

Centralia 

(P-2255) 

Domtar 

Wisconsin Corp. 

Wisconsin River Central 07/18/1996 06/30/2026

Port Edwards 

(P-2291) 

Domtar 

Wisconsin Corp. 

Wisconsin River Central 07/18/1996 06/30/2026

Nekoosa 

(P-2292)

Domtar 

Wisconsin Corp. 

Wisconsin River Central 07/18/1996 06/30/2026

Petenwell and 

Castle Rock 

(P-1984)

Wisconsin River 

Power Co. 

Wisconsin River South 12/07/2001 11/30/2031

Prairie Du Sac 

(P-11162)

Wisconsin River 

Power Co. 

Wisconsin River South 06/27/2002 05/31/2032

Source: FERC 2017a; WRPC 2018; WVIC 2018

4.2.2.3 Proposal Details

The proposal supports subdividing the Wisconsin River Basin into three sub-basins: the Northern 

Basin, the Central Basin, and the Southern Basin. The licensees suggest grouping projects into 

one of the three sub-basins and staggering the relicensing timelines for the 20 projects with 

license term expiration dates between 2026 and 2035 (WPSC 2018; WRPC 2018). The proposal 

requires a license term extension for each hydropower project. Eight hydropower projects within 

the Northern Basin would be extended to June 30, 2035, 10 projects within the Central Basin 

would be extended to June 30, 2038, and the remaining projects within the Southern Basin would 

be extended to June 30, 2041 (WPSC 2018; WRPC 2018).

Consideration: “Dividing the Wisconsin River into three sub-basins with staggered license 

expiration dates will allow for comprehensive studies and analysis of the projects, expedite the 

consultation process for all parties, and maximize the consideration of cumulative environmental 

impacts while minimizing the resource strain associated with having too many projects being 

relicensed at the same time” (WRPC 2018; WPSC 2018). 
32

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Figure 10. Wisconsin River Basin proposal: map of hydropower projects 

The Wisconsin River stretches approximately 430 miles from Lac Vieux Desert on the northern 

Wisconsin-Michigan border to the Prairie due Chien in southwestern Wisconsin (WVIC 2018a). 

“The vegetation, hydrologic and natural resource concerns” from northern Wisconsin through the 

“vegetation tension zone of central Wisconsin to the prairie areas of southern Wisconsin” are 

very different (WPSC 2018; WRPC 2018). The basin-wide relicensing proposal attempts to 

group projects within the same geographic area that have similar vegetation, land cover, 

hydrology, and resource management concerns (WPSC 2018; WRPC 2018).

Consideration: River basins are geographically vast and are often diverse with varying 

vegetation, hydrologic, environmental, and natural resource concerns from one segment of the 

river basin to another. The variations in the surrounding topography and flow of a river basin can 

influence historical, cultural, recreational, and other activities.

The Northern Basin is dominated by forest landscape and wetlands (WDNR 2002). This portion 

of the basin includes 20 storage reservoirs25 managed by Wisconsin Valley Improvement Co. to 

increase river flows. Five licensees with a total of eight hydropower projects are located in the 

Northern Basin, which could allow coordinated operations and management (WPSC 2018; 

WRPC 2018).

 

25 Wisconsin Valley Improvement Co. has one additional storage reservoir as part of the FERC-licensed Wisconsin 

Valley Reservoirs Project (P-2113), which is located in the Central Wisconsin River Basin.
33

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

The Central Basin incorporates portions of the vegetation tension zone “where vegetation 

transitions from northern forest to southern forests and prairies” (WPSC 2018; WRPC 2018).

The landscape in this portion of the basin is defined by agriculture and industry (WDNR 2002). 

In comparison to the Northern Basin, the amount of “woodland decreases and the human 

population density increases” (WPSC 2018; WRPC 2018). Several large tributaries including the 

Little Eau Pleine River and the Lower Yellow River enter the Central Basin, which impact the 

landscape and hydrological and ecological conditions as compared to the Northern Basin (WPSC 

2018; WRPC 2018; WDNR 2018). Three licensees with a total of 10 projects are located in the 

Central Basin, which could allow coordinated operations and management (WPSC 2018; WRPC 

2018).

In contrast, the Southern Basin landscape is dominated by agriculture and prairie lands (WPSC 

2018; WRPC 2018). The Southern Basin drains approximately 4,940 square miles of south 

central and southwestern Wisconsin (WDNR 2018b). Several large tributaries, including Beaver 

Creek and the Middle Kickapoo River, enter the Southern Basin. The large tributaries and the 

culmination of flows from upstream “form large reservoirs which have different hydrologic and 

resource management concerns than projects in the Central Basin” (WPSC 2018; WRPC 2018).

Aligning License Expiration Dates

The proposed basin-wide approach calls for a license term extension for all 20 hydropower 

projects. Table 6 details the proposed license term extensions for each hydropower project. The 

eight hydropower projects in the North Wisconsin River Basin propose license term extensions 

to June 30, 2026. The longest license term extension proposed for the projects in the North 

Wisconsin River Basin is 9 years, and the average license term extension proposed for the 

projects is approximately 5.5 years.

The 10 hydropower projects in the Central Wisconsin River Basin propose license term 

extensions to June 30, 2035. The longest license term extension proposed for the projects in the 

Central Wisconsin River Basin is 12 years, and the average license term extension proposed for 

the projects is approximately 10 years. The two hydropower projects in the South Wisconsin 

River Basin propose license term extensions to June 30, 2041. The Petenwell and Castle Rock 

Project in the South Wisconsin Basin proposes a 9.5-year license term extension while the 

proposal for the Prairie Du Sac Project is 9 years and 1 month.
34

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Table 6. Wisconsin River Basin Proposal: License Expiration Date Alignment

Project Name Licensee Basin 

Location

Current 

License

Expiration

Date

Proposed 

License 

Expiration 

Date

Proposed 

Extension of 

License 

Wisconsin Valley 

Reservoirs 

(P-2113)

Wisconsin Valley 

Improvement Co.

North 06/30/2026 06/30/2035 9 Years 

Otter Rapids

(P-1957)

WPSC North 06/30/2030 06/30/2035 5 Years 

Rhinelander

(P-2161)

Expera Specialty 

Solutions 

North 07/31/2033 06/30/2035 1 Year 11 

Months 

Kings Dam

(P-2239)

Tomahawk Power & 

Pulp Co. 

North 06/30/2026 06/30/2035 9 Years 

Jersey

(P-2476)

WPSC North 06/30/2026 06/30/2035 9 Years 

Grandmother

(P-2180)

PCA Hydro Inc. North 12/31/2034 06/30/2035 6 Months

Alexander 

(P-1979)

WPSC North 02/28/2035 06/30/2035 4 Months 

Wausau

(P-1999)

WPSC North 06/30/2026 06/30/2035 9 Years 

Rothchild

(P-2212)

Domtar Paper 

Company, LLC.

Central 06/30/2026 06/30/2038 12 Years 

Mosinee

(P-2207)

Expera Specialty 

Solutions 

Central 03/31/2035 06/30/2038 3 Years 3 

Months 

DuBay 

(P-1953) 

Consolidated Water 

Power Co.

Central 06/30/2026 06/30/2038 12 Years 

Stevens Point 

(P-2110)

Consolidated Water 

Power Co.

Central 06/30/2033 06/30/2038 5 Years 

Whiting

(P-2590)

Consolidated Water 

Power Co.

Central 06/30/2026 06/30/2038 12 Years 

Biron 

(P-2192)

Consolidated Water 

Power Co.

Central 06/30/2033 06/30/2038 5 Years 

Wisconsin 

Rapids 

(P-2256)

Consolidated Water 

Power Co.

Central 06/30/2038 06/30/2038 12 Years 
35

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Project Name Licensee Basin 

Location

Current 

License

Expiration

Date

Proposed 

License 

Expiration 

Date

Proposed 

Extension of 

License 

Centralia 

(P-2255) 

Domtar Wisconsin 

Corp. 

Central 06/30/2026 06/30/2038 12 Years 

Port Edwards 

(P-2291) 

Domtar Wisconsin 

Corp. 

Central 06/30/2026 06/30/2038 12 Years 

Nekoosa 

(P-2292)

Domtar Wisconsin 

Corp. 

Central 06/30/2026 06/30/2038 12 Years 

Petenwell and 

Castle Rock 

(P-1984)

Wisconsin River 

Power Co. 

South 11/30/2031 06/30/2041 9 Years 5 

Months 

Prairie Du Sac 

(P-11162)

Wisconsin River 

Power Co. 

South 05/31/2032 06/30/2041 9 Years 1 

Month 

Source: FERC 2017a; WRPC 2018

4.2.2.4 Project and Licensee Characteristics 

This section identifies the similarities and differences of the hydropower projects and licensees 

within the Wisconsin River Basin proposing to coordinate relicensing efforts. 

Project Characteristics

The 20 hydropower projects located within the Wisconsin River Basin vary in size, annual 

production, basin location, and operating mode. Table 7 highlights some of the characteristics of 

each hydropower project that may participate in the basin-wide relicensing proposal. 

Table 7. Wisconsin River Basin Proposal: Project Characteristics

Project Name Operating 

Mode 

Number of 

Developments 

Generation 

Capacity 

(MW)26

Annual 

Production 

(MWH)

Basin 

Location 

Wisconsin Valley Reservoirs 

(P-2113)

Storage 21 0 0 North

Otter Rapids

(P-1957)

Run-of-River 1 0.70 2,432 North

Rhinelander

(P-2161)

Run-of-River 1 2.12 10,728 North

Kings Dam

(P-2239)

Storage and 

Release

1 2.51 10,433 North

Jersey

(P-2476)

Unknown 1 0.51 3,011 North

 

26 Generation capacity is the authorized generation capacity per FERC record.
36

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Project Name Operating 

Mode 

Number of 

Developments 

Generation 

Capacity 

(MW)26

Annual 

Production 

(MWH)

Basin 

Location 

Grandmother

(P-2180)

Run-of-River 1 3.00 17,909 North

Alexander 

(P-1979)

Limited 

Peaking/Run-ofRiver

1 4.20 24,103 North

Wausau

(P-1999)

Run-of-River 1 5.40 32,375 North

Rothchild

(P-2212)

Run-of-River 1 3.71 22,736 Central 

Mosinee

(P-2207)

Run-of-River 1 3.05 23,865 Central 

DuBay 

(P-1953) 

Run-of-River 1 7.20 43,278 Central 

Stevens Point 

(P-2110)

Run-of-River 1 3.84 28,184 Central 

Whiting

(P-2590)

Run-of-River 1 6.37 40,343 Central 

Biron 

(P-2192)

Run-of-River 1 6.23 36,497 Central 

Wisconsin Rapids 

(P-2256)

Run-of-River 1 9.23 54,493 Central 

Centralia 

(P-2255) 

Micro/Run-ofRiver1 3.32 23,492 Central 

Port Edwards 

(P-2291) 

Micro/Run-ofRiver

1 3.53 17,863 Central 

Nekoosa 

(P-2292)

Micro/Run-ofRiver1 3.53 26,450 Central 

Petenwell and Castle 

Rock 

(P-1984)

Peaking/Runof-River2 35.00 194,756 South 

Prairie Du Sac 

(P-11162)

Run-of-River 1 27.3 135,012 South

Source: FERC 2017a; WVIC 2018a; WVIC 2018
37

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Licensee Characteristics

The nine licensees of the projects that may participate in the basin-wide hydropower relicensing 

proposal vary in company size and type. The majority of the licensees are either a Wisconsin 

public utility or a manufacturer (paper mill). The WPSC is the largest company in terms of total 

hydropower assets—owning and operating 15 hydropower projects with a total combined 

generation capacity of 97.2 MW. Table 8 highlights some of the licensee characteristics of each 

hydropower project that may participate in the basin-wide relicensing pilot.

Table 8. Wisconsin River Basin Proposal: Licensee Characteristics

Licensee Projects Owner/

Operator 

Licensee Type Total Capacity 

Owned (MW)27

Asset 

Location

Wisconsin 

Valley 

Improvement 

Co.

Wisconsin 

Valley 

Reservoirs 

(P-2113)

Operator Regulated 

Entity28

0 Wisconsin

WPSC Otter Rapids

(P-1957)

Jersey

(P-2476)

Alexander 

(P-1979)

Wausau

(P-1999)

Owner/

Operator 

Public Utility 9729 National

Expera 

Specialty 

Solutions 

Rhinelander

(P-2161)

Mosinee 

(P-2207)

Owner/

Operator 

Manufacturer -

Paper Mill 

5 Wisconsin

Tomahawk 

Power and Pulp 

Co. 

Kings Dam

(P-2239)

Owner/

Operator

Independent 

Power 

Producer

3 Wisconsin

PCA Hydro 

Inc.

Grandmother

(P-2180)

Unknown Independent 

Power 

Producer

Unknown Wisconsin

 

27 Total capacity owned includes all hydroelectric assets, nationally and internationally owned by the licensee, parent 

company (if applicable), and is an approximation acquired from FERC and public documents. 28 The Wisconsin Valley Improvement Company is a private company created by Wisconsin statute in 1907 to 

maintain the Wisconsin River's flow for hydropower generation. Various operators who generate hydropower in the 

Wisconsin River Basin own the company's stock, which supports the company's operating costs (Wisconsin Valley 

Improvement Company, 76 FERC ¶ 61,050 [1996]).

29 WPSC owns 50% of the Petenwell and Castle Rock Hydroelectric Project, which has an approximate total 

capacity of 35 MW, of which WPSC owns 17.5 MW. The 17.5 MW of generation capacity from the Petenwell and 

Castle Rock Hydroelectric Project is calculated within the total capacity owned (WPSC 2018b).
38

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Licensee Projects Owner/

Operator 

Licensee Type Total Capacity 

Owned (MW)27

Asset 

Location

Domtar 

Paper 

Company, 

LLC. 

Rothchild

(P-2212)

Centralia 

(P-2255)

Port Edwards 

(P-2291)

Nekoosa 

(P-2292)

Owner/

Operator 

Manufacturer -

Paper Mill

14 Wisconsin

Consolidated 

Water Power 

Co. 

DuBay 

(P-1953)

Stevens 

Point 

(P-2110)

Whiting

(P-2590)

Biron 

(P-2192)

Owner/

Operator

Public Utility 33 Wisconsin

Wisconsin 

Rapids 

(P-2256)

Wisconsin 

River Power 

Co.30

Petenwell 

and Castle 

Rock 

(P-1984)

Operator Public Utility Unknown Wisconsin

Wisconsin 

Power & 

Light Co.31

Prairie Du 

Sac 

(P-11162)

Owner/

Operator

Public Utility 37 32 Wisconsin

 

30 Wisconsin River Power Co. is 50% owned by WPSC and 50% owned by Wisconsin Power and Light Company

(WPL). The generating capacity of the Petenwell and Castle Rock Project is split evenly between WPSC and WPL. 31 WPL is a subsidiary of Alliant Energy Co. Alliant Energy is a public utility holding company headquartered in 

Madison, Wisconsin. 

32 WPL owns 50% of the Petenwell and Castle Rock Hydroelectric Project, which has a total capacity of 35 MW, of 

which WPL owns 17.5 MW. The 17.5 MW of generation capacity from the Petenwell and Castle Rock 

Hydroelectric Project is calculated within the total capacity owned (WRPC 2018).
39

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

4.2.2.5 Advantages

Potential advantages associated with Wisconsin’s basin-wide approach to relicensing include:

• Extended license term for all 20 projects

• Initiated by the licensees 

• Segmented sub-basin approach groups projects within the same geographic area that have 

similar vegetation, land cover, hydrology, and resource management concerns 

• Minimized resource strain by staggering license expiration dates by sub-basin

• Comprehensive and ecologically sound environmental analysis.

(WPSC 2018; WRPC 2018; Cheryl Laatsch, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 

telephone conference, August 7, 2018)

4.2.2.6 Challenges

Potential challenges associated with Wisconsin’s basin-wide approach to relicensing include:

• Pioneering a comprehensive approach to relicensing—it has never been done before 

• Federal and state agency support

• State agency resource constraints 

• Licensee resistance to formal settlement agreement 

• Licensees have diverse interests and backgrounds 

• Licensees have differing levels of resources available

• Some projects have existing settlement agreements, others do not 

• Diverse hydropower project purposes. 

(Cheryl Laatsch, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, telephone conference, August 7, 

2018)

4.2.3 General Advantages and Challenges of Comprehensive Basin-wide 

Approaches to Relicensing 

Potential advantages associated with basin-wide approaches to relicensing include:

• Extended license terms for projects

• Comprehensive and ecologically sound environmental analysis 

• Ability to collaborate and coordinate multiple demands on projects (e.g., whitewater 

releases)

• Ability to address complex resource balancing issues into a single process 

• Information sharing between licensees

• Increased relicensing process efficiencies (e.g., conducting environmental studies for 

multiple projects at the same time, consolidated consultation processes for multiple 

project)

• Increased economies of scale

• Upfront communication and coordination with stakeholders to eliminate surprises later in 

the relicensing process 

• Settlement agreement among licensees and stakeholders 

• Offsets from external funding sources (e.g., grants)
40

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

• Opportunity to create holistic river basin management plans to reduce risk and increase 

resiliency 

• Reduced workloads for FERC and federal and state resource agencies 

• Reduced workloads for tribes and other stakeholders

• Reduced costs in conducting studies, preparing documents and filings, and consultation—

by pooling resources and spreading costs among licensees

(WPSC 2018; WRPC 2018; Cheryl Laatsch, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,

telephone conference, August 7, 2018; Jessica Hart, New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation Region 6, and John Wiley, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

telephone conference, August 7, 2018; Sayad Moudachirou, Ampersand Energy Partners, LLC, 

telephone conference, August 6, 2018; David Fox, Cube Hydro Partners, LLC, telephone 

conference, August 6, 2018).

Potential challenges associated with basin-wide approach to relicensing include:

• Pioneering a comprehensive approach to relicensing—it has never been done before 

• Accelerated licensed terms for some projects 

• Coordination and collaboration among a large stakeholder group 

• Licensees may have diverse interests and backgrounds 

• Licensees may have differing levels of resources available

• Studies for projects may extend beyond FERC license boundaries 

• May require a single consultant to prepare documents/organize studies 

• Difficult to decide on a fair way to allocate costs among licensees 

• Depends on willingness to collaborate and agreements prior to filing NOI and PAD or 

new license applications

• Additional coordination and collaboration required could increase the relicensing 

timeline for an individual project

• Conflict in the decision-making process (e.g., timeline, schedule, consultant to use)

• Conflict when negotiating the terms and conditions of the license—a term or a condition 

for one project may be at the detriment of another project

• Equity of the relicensing process—larger licensees dictating the relicensing process for 

smaller licensees, smaller licensees utilizing the resources of the larger licensees 

(Jessica Hart, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Region 6, and John 

Wiley, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, telephone conference, August 7, 2018; Sayad 

Moudachirou, Ampersand Energy Partners, LLC, telephone conference, August 6, 2018; Steven 

Murphy, Brookfield Renewable Energy Partners LLC, telephone conference, August 16, 2018; 

David Fox, Cube Hydro Partners, LLC, telephone conference, August 6, 2018; Cheryl Laatsch, 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, telephone conference, August 7, 2018).

4.3 Section 401 Water Quality Certification Coordination

Hydropower stakeholders are starting to apply basin-wide approaches to individual aspects of the 

relicensing process, such as obtaining a Section 401 water quality certification from a state 

resource agency. For instance, California and Maine have implemented a basin-wide approach 

for review and issuance of a Section 401 water quality certification for multiple hydropower 
41

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

projects going through relicense. Both California and Maine33 have or are in the process of 

issuing a single 401 water quality certification for multiple hydropower projects within the same 

river basin. 

Issuing a single certification for multiple hydropower projects is rare—the California and Maine 

examples provided are the only two instances identified as part of this report’s analysis. While in 

California and Maine the primary reason for consolidating review and issuance largely stems 

from the interconnected nature of the projects, other applications and advantages can be 

surmised. 

A basin-wide approach to review and issuance of water quality certifications for multiple 

projects at the same time could allow for a more comprehensive study and analysis of the 

projects’ cumulative impacts on water quality and other environmental attributes, which go 

beyond the FERC project boundary. A basin-wide approach could also lead to regulatory 

efficiencies and cost savings, especially given state agency resource restraints and the number of 

hydropower projects coming up for relicense that are within a shared watershed or river basin.

However, the complexities associated with trying to issue a single certification for multiple 

projects at the same time could outweigh the potential advantages. 

4.3.1 California Big Creek Basin-Wide Pilot

In August 2018, the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) issued a draft 

Section 401 water quality certification for six separate FERC-licensed hydropower projects 

within the upper San Joaquin River watershed34 (SWRCB 2018b). The six hydropower projects 

are owned and operated by a single licensee, SCE, and are collectively known as the Big Creek 

Hydropower Projects (Big Creek Projects). Given the demand for certification and the number of 

FERC-licensed hydropower projects due to expire in the coming years that are within a shared 

basin, the Big Creek pilot could serve as a model for future projects.

 

33 In Maine, the MDEP may issue a single Section 401 water quality certification for the relicense of multiple 

hydropower projects within a river basin at the request of the licensee if the projects exist continuously on a stretch 

of river (Kathy Howatt, Maine Department of Environmental Protection, email, August 03, 2018). In order to 

address the interrelated nature of the projects, MDEP in 2003 issued a single certification for five individually 

FERC-licensed projects—Saccarappa (P-2897), Mallison Falls (P-2932), Little Falls (P-2941), Gambo (P-2931), and 

Dundee (P-2942) (Kathy Howatt, Maine Department of Environmental Protection, email, August 03, 2018; S.D. 

Warren Company, 105 FERC ¶ 61,013 [2003]). 34 The San Joaquin River watershed is 15,600 square miles and flows 100 miles west from the Sierra Nevada 

Mountains and then flows north 260 miles where it joins the Sacramento River (EPA 2018b). The principal

tributaries to the San Joaquin River watershed are the Cosumnes, Mokelumne, Calaveras, Stanislaus, Tuolumne, 

Merced, Chowchilla, and Fresno Rivers (EPA 2018b). 
42

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Figure 11. Big Creek case study: map of hydropower projects

4.3.1.1 Hydropower Relicensing in California

There are 74 hydropower projects in California with a total combined generating capacity of 

approximately 4,387 MW that have FERC licenses due to expire from 2018–2037 (FERC 

2017a). Of those projects, approximately 36 have been identified as being among 13 watersheds 

or river basins (FERC 2017a; ONRL 2018). Of the 74 hydropower projects due to expire, 56 are 

expected to file an application for a new license with FERC from 2019–2032 (FERC 2017a). 

Typically, the licensee files for a Section 401 water quality certification with the state around the

same time as filing an application for a new license with FERC.

In 2017 California issued 1,221 Section 401 water quality certifications (Jeff Wetzel, California State 

Water Resources Board, correspondence, September 19, 2018).

35 As of September 2018, there were 

995 projects under review for certification (Jeff Wetzel, California State Water Resources Board, 

correspondence, September 19, 2018). Of those projects 36 are FERC-licensed hydropower projects

Jeff Wetzel, California State Water Resources Board, correspondence, September 19, 2018).

 

35 Water quality certification total includes those for hydropower projects required by Section 401 of the CWA, dredge and fill 

activities that require USACE approval under Section 401 of the CWA and Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act , 

Section 402 of the CWA and other state requirements.
43

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

4.3.1.2 Big Creek Hydroelectric System

The Big Creek Projects are part of the Big Creek Hydroelectric System36 (Big Creek System).

The Big Creek System is an integrated network of seven individually FERC-licensed 

hydropower projects with a total combined generation capacity of 949.41 MW on the upper San 

Joaquin River watershed in central California (SWRCB 2018a). SCE coordinates all project

operations to meet multiple purposes, including the demand for power, to maximize the value of 

power produced from available water supply and to fulfill downstream water rights and 

contractual obligations (SWRCB 2018b). One of the seven Big Creek Projects—Big Creek No. 4 

(P-2017)—is not part of the basin-wide certification effort.37 Table 9 identifies the seven 

hydropower projects that are part of the Big Creek System, distinguishing which projects are part 

of the basin-wide certification effort and which project is not.

 

36 The Big Creek Hydroelectric System encompasses 800 square miles and consists of 9 powerhouses containing 23 

generating units, 6 major reservoirs, 5 powerhouse forebays, 17 additional diversions, about 54 miles of water 

conveyance systems, and 2 transmission lines (SCE 2000a; SCE 2000b). 37 SWRCB issued a water quality certificate for the Big Creek No. 4 Project in June 2003 (SWRCB 2003).
44

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Table 9. Big Creek Case Study: Projects

Project 

Name

Authorized 

Generation 

Capacity 

(MW)

Annual 

Production 

Generated 

(MWh)38

County License

Issuance

Date

License 

Expiration 

Date

Six Big Creek Hydropower Projects covered by basin-wide Section 401 water quality 

certification

Big Creek 

Nos. 2A, 8, 

and 

Eastwood 

(P-67)

373 969,566 Fresno 03/27/1959 02/28/2009

Big Creek No. 

3

(P-120)

165 1,065,476 Fresno 

Madera 

09/07/1977 02/28/2009

Mammoth 

Pool

(P-2085)

151 1,0008,167 Fresno 

Madera

12/30/1957 11/30/2007

Vermilion 

Valley

Reservoir 

(P-2086)

0 0 Fresno 09/01/1953 08/31/2003

Portal

(P-2174)

11 31,204 Fresno 04/19/1955 03/31/2005

Big Creek 

Nos. 1 

and 2

(P-2175)

150 1,273,849 Fresno 

Madera

03/28/2009 02/28/2009

Big Creek Hydroelectric System project with existing water quality certification

Big Creek 

No. 4 

(P-2017)

99 614,764 Fresno

Madera

12/04/2003 12/04/2039

Source: SWRCB 2018b

4.3.1.3 Implementation History and Process

Initially SCE sought water quality certification for each of the Big Creek Projects separately 

because the projects had different FERC license expiration dates. SCE began the relicensing 

process for the Big Creek Projects in 1997 when it filed an application for a new major license 

with FERC for the Big Creek No. 4 Project and an application for a water quality certification 

with SWRCB (SWRCB 2003). The Big Creek No. 4 Project received a water quality 

certification from SWRCB and a new license from FERC in 2003 (SWRCB 2003).

 

38 The annual generation production is based on SCE’s Fiscal 2017 Gross Generation Statement to FERC (SCE 

2017).
45

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Consideration: SCE recognized that “the common ownership and location of the seven 

hydroelectric projects within one watershed provide[d] a unique opportunity to address complex 

resource balancing issues within a single process” (SCE 2000a).

As early as 1999, SCE determined that although the Big Creek Projects were being relicensed 

independently, due to their license expiration dates, they planned to discuss all licenses as part of 

a basin-wide planning process (SCE 1999). SCE committed to analyzing all seven Big Creek 

Projects during the relicense of Big Creek Nos. 1 & 2 (license expiration 2009); Big Creek Nos. 

2A, 8, & Eastwood (license expiration 2009); Big Creek No. 3 (license expiration 2009); and 

Mammoth Pool (license expiration 2007) (SCE 1999; SCE 2000a; SCE 2000b). SCE sought to 

relicense these four projects through the ALP, which would include developing a basin-wide 

plan to identify and address issues related to the entire Big Creek System (SCE 1999; SCE 

2000a; SCE 2000b). SCE did not seek to align the FERC license expiration dates of the Big 

Creek Projects in order coordinate the relicensing timelines of the projects and, thereby, Section 

401 water quality certification review.

As a result, the majority of the Big Creek Projects had different state and federal filing date 

deadlines. While SCE initiated a multi-year collaborative process for the relicense of the four 

ALP projects, the Vermilion Valley Project (license expiration in 2003) was the next Big Creek 

Project with a FERC license to expire. To meet the filing deadline, SCE applied for a new

license with FERC in August 2001. SCE filed an application with SWRCB requesting a water 

quality certificate or waiver for the Vermilion Valley Project at the same time as filing an 

application for a new license with FERC (SWRCB 2001).

Consideration: “[W]hile the timing of the license expiration for the Vermilion Valley Project 

preclude[d] its inclusion into the ALP process, [SWRCB] expect[ed] that aspects of this project 

would be studied in conjunction with the other relicensing studies conducted in the basin”

(SWRCB 2001).

The 2001 water quality certification application initiated a 1-year time period for SWRCB to act 

on the application for certification for the Vermilion Valley Project. It was then determined that 

due to the integrated nature of the projects and the pending basin-wide analysis that SWRCB 

would use the environmental document prepared for the ALP relicensing efforts to inform the

water quality certification for all six projects (SWRCB 2001; SWRCB 2006). Since 2001, SCE 

has annually withdrawn its application for certification for the Vermilion Valley Project and filed 

a new application with SWRCB. SCE initiated the same certification withdrawal and 

resubmission process for the Portal Project starting in 2003 and the four ALP projects starting in 

2008 (SCE 2015; SCE 2008b).

In 2008, SCE requested that SWRCB consider the Vermilion Project and the Portal Project 

certification along with the other four projects—Mammoth Pool; Big Creek Nos. 1 & 2; Big 

Creek No. 3; and Big Creek Nos. 2A, 8, & Eastwood—as part of an overall water quality 

certification (SCE 2008a). In 2009, FERC staff issued the final EIS for the four ALP projects 

(SCE 2015). Most recently, SCE filed an application for certification of all six projects with the 

SWRCB on November 20, 2017.
46

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Coordinated Review

Utilizing the final EIS and the basin-wide studies, SWRCB staff reviewed all six projects to 

ensure they complied with the state water quality control plans for the basin (SWRCB 2018b). 

The water quality control plans (basin plans) for the basin designate the beneficial uses of waters 

to be protected, along with the water quality objectives necessary to protect those uses (SWRCB 

2018). California’s basin plans provide a list of water quality objectives that set the limits or 

levels of water quality constituents and characteristics that are established by the state to protect 

the beneficial uses identified for the waterbody (SWRCB 2018b). The river basin plan for the 

Central Valley Region lists municipal and domestic supply, irrigation, stock watering, power, 

warm and cold freshwater habitat, contract and non-contact recreation, canoeing and rafting, and 

wildlife habitat as beneficial uses of the San Joaquin River and its sources (SWRCB 2018b).

SCE identified water quality impacts that could be caused by controllable factors from the 

hydropower projects in order to meet the objectives of the basin plan (SWRCB 2001). SWRCB 

staff also had to ensure that certification would comply with the California Environmental 

Quality Act (CEQA). Under CEQA, staff can analyze the project for its incremental effects over 

existing baseline conditions (SWRCB 2018d).

SWRCB issued a draft Section 401 water quality certification for the six FERC-licensed 

hydropower projects in August 2018. Many of the resource monitoring and management 

conditions included in the Big Creek ALP Settlement Agreement filed with FERC in 2007 

served as the basis for conditions of the certification (SWRCB 2018b).

4.3.1.4 Advantages

Potential advantages associated with California’s basin-wide approach for issuing Section 401 

water quality certifications include:

• Consolidated consultation and application process 

• Increased certification process efficiencies 

• Comprehensive analysis of the cumulative impacts of all the projects on water quality 

• Consistency in administration of a single water quality certification 

• Coordination and consistency of prescribed conditions from one project to another. 

(SCE 2015; Ann Marie Ore, California Water Resources Control Board, telephone conference, 

August 2, 2018)

4.3.1.5 Challenges

Potential challenges associated with California’s basin-wide approach for issuing Section 401 

water quality certifications include:

• FERC license expiration dates were not aligned so that filings and review for all projects 

were on the same timeline 

• Increased certification issuance timeline for an individual project 

• Increased timelines can lead to a greater likelihood for: studies to become outdated, evolving 

science, stale agreements, and changing stakeholder representatives.

(SCE 2015; Ann Marie Ore, California Water Resources Control Board, telephone conference, 

August 2, 2018)
47

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

4.4 Projects Within a River Basin that Cross Multiple Jurisdictions

Hydropower projects within a river basin that flows through multiple state jurisdictions may 

need to comply with the statutory and regulatory requirements in those states. During the 

relicensing process, the most common instance of multi-jurisdictional authority occurs when two 

states have a role in ensuring the project complies with the state’s water quality standards and 

issuance of a Section 401 water quality certification or waiver.

For example, three separate FERC-licensed hydropower projects owned and operated by 

TransCanada Hydro Northeast, LLC—Bellows Falls (P-1855), Wilder (P-1892), and Vernon (P1904)—are concurrently going through the relicensing process (FERC 2018b). These projects 

are located on the Connecticut River in Windham County, Vermont, and Cheshire County, New 

Hampshire (Great River Hydro 2017). Due to the projects’ locations, TransCanada must comply 

with the statutory and regulatory requirements of both Vermont and New Hampshire.

Specifically, TransCanada must obtain a Section 401 water quality certification or waiver from 

the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NH DES) and the Vermont 

Department of Environmental Conservation (VT DEC) (Great River Hydro 2017). VT DEC and 

NH DES have been working on the relicensing efforts of these projects since 2012 (Jeff Crocker,

Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation, email, July 10, 2018). Although 

TransCanada has not yet applied for certification for the projects, VT DEC and NH DES have 

already discussed how they plan to work together and address any potential conflicts with regard 

to the states’ water quality standards (Jeff Crocker, Vermont Department of Environmental 

Conservation, email, July 10, 2018).

Similarly, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP) and NH DES are 

currently working together to certify the Lower Great Falls Project (P-4451) (Kathy Howatt, 

Maine Department of Environmental Protection, email, June 27, 2018). The project is located on 

the Salmon Falls River in Strafford County, New Hampshire, and York County, Maine. Due to 

the project’s location, Somersworth Hydro Company, Inc. (licensee) must obtain a certification 

or waiver from both Maine and New Hampshire (Somersworth Hydro 2016). MDEP and 

NE DES are working to coordinate water quality studies and sampling efforts for the relicense of 

the Lower Great Falls Project as discharge occurs in both states during some spill conditions 

(Kathy Howatt, Maine Department of Environmental Protection, email, June 27, 2018; email, 

August 03, 2018). To that end, each state agency shared their water quality standards and 

sampling protocol for hydropower studies and have coordinated study plans (Kathy Howatt, 

Maine Department of Environmental Protection, email, August 03, 2018).

Typically, different water quality standards or classifications of waters between two states with 

authority to issue water quality certifications do not lead to delay in the relicensing process. 

States are usually able to work out their differences and issue certifications that do not conflict 

with one another. However, it is possible that two states with authority could issue draft water 

quality certifications with conflicting conditions, as found in the Hells Canyon case study.

4.4.1 Hells Canyon Hydroelectric Complex

The Hells Canyon Hydroelectric Complex (Hells Canyon Complex) (P-971) is located on a 38-

mile section of the Snake River that runs south to north and forms the border between Oregon 

and Idaho. The length of the project extends just over 95 river miles. The project consists of 
48

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

three developments with a combined generating capacity of 1,167 MW: Hells Canyon (391.5 

MW), Oxbow (190 MW), and Brownlee (585.4 MW). The project generates between 7 million 

MWh and 9 million MWh of electricity annually, providing power to over 758,485 customers in 

Idaho Power Company’s (Idaho Power) southern Idaho and eastern Oregon service territory 

(IDACORP 2017; Idaho Power 2003).

The former Federal Power Commission (FPC) issued an original 50-year license for the Hells 

Canyon Complex in 1955 (Idaho Power Co., 14 FPC ¶ 35 [1955]). The project’s license expired 

in July 2005, and since then, the project has operated under an annual license. The relicense 

application remains pending. 

4.4.1.1 Relicense 

Idaho Power, the project’s licensee, filed a timely NOI to relicense the Hells Canyon Complex 

with FERC in July 2000 and a subsequent application for a new license in July 2003. FERC staff 

issued a draft EIS in July 2006 and a final EIS in August 2007 (FERC 2006; FERC 2007).

Beginning in July 2003, Idaho Power also filed applications for water quality certifications under 

Section 401 of the CWA with the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) and the 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). Since 2003, to avoid possible denial of 

certification, Idaho Power has withdrawn and refiled its water quality certification applications 

each year—establishing a new 1-year deadline (Order Dismissing Petition for Declaratory Order, 

158 FERC ¶ 61,048 [2017]).

Consideration: Licensees commonly withdraw water quality certification applications and 

resubmit them to give deference to state resource agencies that only have 1 year to complete 

often complex water quality studies and consultations (Barry Burnell and Loren Moore, Idaho 

Department of Environmental Quality, telephone conference, August 10, 2018).

Because relicensing the project may affect several threatened and endangered fish species, FERC

must consult with NOAA Fisheries and the USFWS under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 

§ 1536[a][2] [2016]). Both NOAA Fisheries and USFWS have declined to begin ESA 

consultation until after the states have issued or waived water quality certification (Order 

Dismissing Petition for Declaratory Order, 158 FERC ¶ 61,048 [2017]). Idaho Power states the 

“primary reason for the relicensing delay has been the process of obtaining water quality 

certification from both Oregon and Idaho” (Order Dismissing Petition for Declaratory Order, 158 

FERC ¶ 61,048 [2017]).

Project works39 of the Hells Canyon are located in both Idaho and Oregon, and the project 

discharges into the navigable waters of both states for purposes of Section 401 of the CWA (33 

 

39 Under Section 4(e) of the FPA, FERC licenses “project works.” Pursuant to Section 3(12) of the FPA, such 

“works” are defined as the physical structures of the “project” (16 U.S.C. § 796[12]). A project is a “complete unit 

of improvement or development” consisting of “a power house, all dams and appurtenant works and structures 

(including navigation structures)... and all storage, diverting or forebay reservoirs... all miscellaneous structures 

used and useful in connection with said unit or any part thereof, and all water rights, rights-of-way, ditches, dams, 

reservoirs, lands, or interest in lands the use and occupancy of which are necessary or appropriate in the 

maintenance and operation of such unit....” (16 U.S.C. §§ 796[11]-[12], 797[e]).
49

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

U.S.C. § 1341 [2016]). As a result, both states have authority to issue a water quality 

certification for the project under Section 401 of the CWA.

As of June 14, 2018, Idaho Power has withdrawn and resubmitted the project’s water quality 

certification application with IDEQ and ODEQ 15 times since July 2003. Of those 15 

applications, only the 2016 application was complete enough for consideration by the States of 

Idaho and Oregon. (Barry Burnell, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, telephone 

conference, August 10, 2018). The main reasons for delay prior to Idaho Power’s 2016 water 

quality certification application submission stem from complex water quality concerns regarding 

water temperature, dissolved oxygen, nutrients, mercury, and total dissolved gas levels (IDEQ 

2016; DEQs 2004). In 2004, Idaho and Oregon worked together to issue a total maximum daily 

load (TMDL) for the Hells Canyon Complex pursuant to Section 303(d) of the CWA (DEQs 

2004). For waters identified as not meeting water quality standards and listed as impaired, states 

and tribes must develop a TMDL for the pollutants causing impairment, set at a level to achieve 

water quality standards (33 U.S.C. § 1314[a][2][D]). In the joint issuance of the TMDL, both 

states agreed that the Hells Canyon Complex contributed to violations of water quality standards 

related to nutrients and dissolved oxygen, salmonid spawning temperature, and total gas (DEQs 

2004). The 2004 TMDL provided specific allocations for Idaho Power and other sources to attain 

compliance with both Idaho’s and Oregon’s water quality standards (DEQs 2004; IDEQ 2006). 

Consideration: Idaho, Oregon, and Idaho Power have adopted the principle that when faced 

with differing water quality standards, the more stringent standards control the certification 

process for the Hells Canyon Complex (Mark Cecchini-Beaver, Deputy Attorney General, 

telephone conference, August 10, 2018).

In 2016, after more than a decade of studies, meetings, and negotiations, both IDEQ and ODEQ 

issued separate draft water quality certifications. The terms and conditions of the water quality 

certifications were compatible except for issues regarding fish passage and reintroduction of 

anadromous fish in tributaries above Hells Canyon Dam. In short, Oregon supports fish passage

and reintroduction, and Idaho statutes prohibit these measures (Order Dismissing Petition for 

Declaratory Order, 158 FERC ¶ 61,048 [2017]).

Idaho Power and the states are continuing to work together to come to an agreement on these 

measures. Most recently, on June 14, 2018, Idaho Power resubmitted a water quality certification 

application for the Hells Canyon Complex to both IDEQ and ODEQ (Idaho 2018). Until the 

states issue or deny the water quality certification and FERC completes an ESA consultation 

with NOAA Fisheries and USFWS FERC cannot act on the relicense application, and the 

relicense of the Hells Canyon Dam will remain pending (Order Dismissing Petition for 

Declaratory Order, 158 FERC ¶ 61,048 [2017]).
50

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

5 Proposed Federal Legislation

The previous Congress introduced legislation that recognized the value of utilizing basin-wide 

approaches for the FERC hydropower authorization process. H.R. 3043 (Hydropower Policy 

Modernization Act of 2017) would require FERC to establish a program to develop 

comprehensive plans, at the request of a project applicant, on a regional or basin-wide scale 

where there is more than one project (Uria-Martinez et al. 2018). Upon such request, FERC may 

also conduct or commission regional or basin-wide environmental studies, with the participation 

of at least two applicants (H.R. 3043, 115th Congress 2017).
51

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

6 Conclusion

The basin-wide initiatives illustrated in this report operate under existing law and can serve as 

models for hydropower projects that are expected to go through the relicensing process in the 

near future. With more than half the FERC-licensed hydropower fleet due to expire in the 

coming years, these basin-wide approaches could serve an important role to ensure that the 

hydroelectric capacity from these projects continue to support the U.S. electric grid. 

These basin-wide approaches could also act as a spring board for new innovative ideas. The 

basin-wide study analysis that the New York pilot proposes could be utilized to inform Section 

10(j) resource agency recommendations, Section 10(a) comprehensive plan considerations, and 

Section 18 fish prescriptions pursuant to the FPA for multiple projects within a basin (Jessica 

Hart, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Region 6, and Jonathan 

Binder, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, telephone conference, July 

9, 2018; Jessica Hart, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Region 6,

email, August 1, 2018). These basin-wide studies could also inform environmental review under 

NEPA; Section 401 water quality certification for the CWA, as illustrated in California and 

Maine; and Section 7 species review under the ESA (Jessica Hart, New York State Department 

of Environmental Conservation Region 6, and Jonathan Binder, New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation, telephone conference, July 9, 2018; Jessica Hart, New York State 

Department of Environmental Conservation Region 6, email, August 1, 2018). In addition, basinwide approaches could potentially be utilized for Section 106 cultural and historic resource 

review pursuant to the NHPA because the majority of historic settlements were built on or near a 

waterway (James Duggan, Laura Trieschmann, and Yvonne Basque, Vermont Agency of 

Commerce and Community Development, telephone conference July 16, 2018). To that end,

finding regulatory efficiencies and cost savings within the relicensing process will help ensure 

hydropower’s contributions toward meeting the nation’s energy needs, maintaining national 

infrastructure, and improving national security (DOE 2016).
52

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

References

Ampersand Energy (Ampersand Energy Partners, LLC). 2018. “Hydropower.” Last accessed 

August 17, 2018. http://ampersandenergy.com/portfolio/.

Bauer, S., Jennifer Olsen, Adam Cockrill, Michael van Hattern, Linda Miller, Margaret Tauzer, 

and Gordon Leppig. 2015. “Impacts of Surface Water Cultivation on Aquatic Habitat in Four 

Northwestern California Watersheds.” PLOS ONE 10 (9) (March 18, 2015). 

Brookfield Renewable (Brookfield Renewable Partners L.P.) 2017. 2017 Annual Report. 

Bermuda: Brookfield Renewable. https://bep.brookfield.com/~/media/Files/B/Brookfield-BEPIR/Annual%20Reports/2017-annual-report.pdf. 

Carthage (Carthage Specialty Paperboard). 2016. “Carthage Paper Makers Mill Project (P10887) License Extension Request to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.” August 4, 

2016. 

Coggins, G., and Robert L. Glicksman. 2018. “Background—Electric Consumers Protection 

Act.” Amendments, 4 Pub. Nat. Resources L. § 37:23 (2nd ed.) (June 2018). 

Colorado Legislative Council. 2014. “State and Local Impact Note – Repeal of Statutory Quality 

Fee Schedules.” February 6, 2014. http://statebillinfo.com/bills/fiscal/14/SB134_00.pdf. 

Copeland, C. 2015. “Clean Water Act Section 401: Background and Issues.” Congressional 

Research Service Report. July 2, 2015. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/97-488.pdf.

Cube Hydro. 2018. “Cube Hydro Managed Assets.” Last accessed June 13, 2018. 

https://www.cubehydropartners.com/portfolio/.

Cumming, Catherine. 2015. “The Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act: Not Giving a Dam for 

Negative Externalities and Stakeholder Oversight.” Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & 

Technology 16 (2): 917–56. 

DEQs (Idaho Department of Environmental Quality and Oregon Department of Environmental 

Quality). 2004. Snake River – Hells Canyon: Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). http://www.

deq.idaho.gov/media/454498-snake_river_hells_canyon_entire.pdf.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2016. Hydropower Vision Study. Washington, D.C.: DOE. 

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2018/02/f49/Hydropower-Vision-021518.pdf.

Domtar (Domtar Wisconsin Corporation). 2018. “Domtar Non-Capacity Amendment Application Proposal to Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources for Centralia, Port Edwards 

and Nekoosa Hydroelectric Projects.” August 10, 2018.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2018a. “EnviroAtlas Fact Sheet – Hydrologic 

Unit Codes: HUC 4, HUC 8, and HUC 12.” https://enviroatlas.epa.gov/enviroatlas/DataFact

Sheets/pdf/Supplemental/HUC.pdf. 
53

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

———. 2018b. “San Francisco Bay Delta – About the Watershed: The San Joaquin River 

Watershed.” Last accessed September 5, 2018. https://www.epa.gov/sfbay-delta/aboutwatershed. 

———. 2010. Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification: A Water Quality 

Protection Tool for States and Tribes. http://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/wsm/boss/docs/

401_Handbook_2010_Interim.pdf.

FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). 1994. “Policy Statement on Use of Reserved 

Authority in Hydropower Licenses to Ameliorate Cumulative Impacts.” Docket No. RM93-25-

000. December 28, 1994. Washington, D.C.: FERC.

———. 2001. “Staff Report to Congress, Report on Hydroelectric Licensing Policies, 

Procedures, and Regulations – Comprehensive Review and Recommendations Pursuant to 

Section 603 of the Energy Act of 2000.” Washington, D.C.: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission. https://www.ferc.gov/legal/maj-ord-reg/land-docs/ortc_final.pdf.

———. 2004. “Handbook for Hydroelectric Project Licensing and 5 MW Exemptions from 

Licensing.” Washington, D.C.: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. https://www.ferc.gov/

industries/hydropower/gen-info/handbooks/licensing_handbook.pdf. 

———. 2006. Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Evaluates Relicensing of the 1,167 

MW Hells Canyon Hydroelectric Project (P-1971) in Idaho and Oregon. July 28, 2006.

https://www.ferc.

gov/industries/hydropower/enviro/eis/2006/07-28-06.asp.

———. 2007. Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) Evaluates Relicensing of the 1,167 

MW Hells Canyon Hydroelectric Project (P-1971) in Idaho and Oregon. August 31, 2007.

Washington, D.C.: FERC.

———. 2014. “Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Letter to California Hydropower 

Licensees Regarding California Drought.” February 6, 2014. Washington, D.C.: FERC. 

https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues

/programs/water_quality_cert/docs/ferc_drought_final_ltr_020614.pdf. 

———. 2015. “Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance, Compliance 

Handbook.” Washington, D.C.: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 

https://www.ferc.gov/industries/

hydropower/gen-info/handbooks/compliance_handbook.pdf.

———. 2017a. “Expected Relicense Projects FY 2017 – FY 2032.” Updated July 26, 2017. 

https://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/gen-info/licensing.asp.

———. 2017b. “Policy Statement on Establishing License Terms for Hydroelectric Projects.” 

Docket No. PL17-3-000. October 19, 2017. https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/commmeet/2017/101917/H-1.pdf.
54

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

———. 2018a. “Complete List of Active Licenses.” Excel Sheet. Updated December 12, 2018. 

https://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/gen-info/licensing.asp.

———. 2018b. “Pending FERC Hydropower Licenses, Relicenses, and Exemptions.” Excel 

Sheet. Updated December 12, 2018. https://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/geninfo/licensing.asp.

———. 2018c. “Projects Delayed by Water Quality Certifications and Endangered Species Act 

Consultation.” Excel Sheet. Updated December 12, 2018.

https://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/gen-info/licensing.asp.

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010. “Overview of the Federal Power Act and the 

Hydropower Relicensing Process.” Washington D.C.: U.S. Fish and Wild Life Service.

https://www.fws.gov/policy/hydrochap2.pdf.

Great River Hydro (Great River Hydro, LLC). 2017. “Bellows Falls Hydroelectric Project (P1855-045) Application for New License.” May 1, 2017.

Hart, Jessica. 2017. “Black River Hydros: A Basin-Wide Approach.” New York: New York 

State Department of Environmental Conservation Region 6. August 30, 2017.

Hawaii State Department of Health. 2015. “Response to Comments and Final Determinations on 

Public Notice Section 401 Water Quality Certification for Certain 2012 Department of Army 

Nationwide Permits.” August 14, 2015. 

http://health.hawaii.gov/cwb/files/2013/04/08011CEC.15_WQC0804-Response-toComments.pdf.

Hydro Ottawa Holding Inc. 2017. HydroOttawa Annual Report 2017. 

https://static.hydroottawa.com/documents/publications/annual-report/2017-Annual-ReportEN.pdf.

IDACORP, Inc. 2017. Idaho Power Company 2016 Annual Report. February 23, 2017.

http://www.idacorpinc.com/

~/media/Files/I/IDACorp/investor-docs/annual-reports/ar2016.pdf.

Idaho Power (Idaho Power Company). 1997. Formal consultation package for relicensing, Hells 

Canyon Project (FERC No. 1971). Boise, ID: Idaho Power Company. 

———. 2003. “New License Application for the Hells Canyon Project (FERC No. 1971).”

https://docs.idahopower.com/pdfs/relicensing/hellscanyon/hellspdfs/hc_licenseapp.pdf.

———. 2018. “Section 401 Water-Quality Certification Application for Hells Canyon Complex

(FERC No. 1971).” June 2018.

https://docs.idahopower.com/pdfs/Relicensing/hellscanyon/hellspdfs

/HCC401Application.pdf.
55

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

IDEQ (Idaho Department of Environmental Quality). 2016. Draft Section 401 Water Quality 

Certification for Hells Canyon Complex FERC Project No. 1971. 

https://www.deq.idaho.gov/media/60179448/hells-canyon-complex-ferc-401-certification-draft1216.pdf.

Levine, Aaron, Taylor L. Curtis, and Borna Kazerooni. 2017. Regulatory Approaches for Adding 

Capacity to Existing Hydropower Facilities. NREL/TP-6A20-70121. Golden, CO: National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy18osti/70121.pdf.

Aaron Levine and Austin Flanagan. Forthcoming. FERC Hydropower Licensing: A Review of the 

ILP, TLP, and ALP. NREL/TP-6A20-71982. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory.

Lyons Falls Hydropower. 2018. “About Northbrook Lyons Falls.” Last accessed August 25, 

2018. http://www.lyonsfallshydro.com/about-north-brook/.

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2018. “Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality 

Certifications.” Last accessed September 2, 2018. https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/cleanwater-act-section-401-water-quality-certifications.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources. 2008. Funding Missouri’s Clean Water Effort. 

https://dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/cwpf/docs/cwpf-whitepaper.pdf.

NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). 2004. “Black River 

Waterbody Inventory/Priority Waterbodies List Water Quality Assessment Information 

Summary.” https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/pwlblckasmt.pdf. 

Oakley, M. 2018. Using Basin Management to Increase Environmental Resiliency and to 

Mitigate Risk. Presentation at HydroVision International in Charlotte, North Carolina, June 26-

28, 2018.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 2018. “WQ Permitting Program Overview.” Last 

accessed September 2, 2018. https://www.oregon.gov/deq/wq/wqpermits/Pages/WQ-PermittingProgram-Review.aspx.

Samu, N.M., S.-C. Kao, P.W. O'Connor, M.M. Johnson, R. Uria-Martinez, and R.A. 

McManamay. 2018. “National Hydropower Plant Dataset, Version 2 (FY18Q3).” Existing 

Hydropower Assets [series] FY18Q3. National Hydropower Asset Assessment Program. Oak 

Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. https://hydrosource.ornl.gov/market-info-anddata/existing-hydropower-assets/existing-hydropower-assets-datasets/national.

Saulsbury, B., S.H. Geerlofs, G.F. Cada, and M.S. Bevelhimer. 2010. Basin-Scale Opportunity 

Assessment Initiative: Background Literature Review. ORNL/TM-2010/291. Oak Ridge, TN: 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
56

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

SCE (Southern California Edison). 1999. Southern California Edison’s Request to the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission to Use the Alternative Licensing Process for the Relicense of 

Big Creek Hydroelectric System – FERC Project Nos. 067, 120, 2085, and 2175. December 10, 

1999.

———. 2000a. Request for Active Participation by the USFWS Energy and Endangered Species 

Divisions in the Big Creek System Alternative Licensing Process (FERC Nos. 67, 120, 2175, and 

2085). December 20, 2000. 

———. 2000b. “Initial Information Package for the Big Creek Hydroelectric System, 

Alternative Licensing Process.” May 2000. https://www.sce.com/nrc/bigcreek/2000_IIP.pdf. 

———. 2008a. Request for Water Quality Certification for the Relicensing of the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission Projects of Portal (FERC No. 2174) and Vermilion Valley 

(FERC No. 2086). July 10, 2008.

———. 2008b. Application for Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification for the 

Southern California Edison Company’s Mammoth Pool (P-2085), Big Creek Nos. 1 & 2 (P2175), Big Creek No. 3 (P-120), and Big Creek Nos. 2A, 8 & Eastwood (P-67) Hydroelectric 

Projects. March 4, 2008. 

———. 2015. Letter to California State Water Resources Control Board from Southern 

California Edison in regard to withdrawal and resubmission of an application for Clean Water 

Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification for the Vermilion Valley (P-2086), Portal (P-2174), 

Mammoth Pool (P-2085), Big Creek Nos. 1 & 2 (P-2175), Big Creek No. 3 (P-120), and Big 

Creek Nos. 2A, 8 & Eastwood (P-67) Hydroelectric Projects. December 8, 2015. 

———. 2017. Fiscal Year 2017 Gross Generation Statement for FERC Project Nos. 67, 120, 

298, 344, 372, 382, 1388, 1389, 1394, 1930, 1933, 1934, 2017, 2085, 2174, 2175, 2290. October 

30, 2017. 

Sensiba, Charles R. 2011. “Hydropower.” The Law of Clean Energy Efficiency and Renewables, 

479: 484–5. 

Somersworth Hydro (Somersworth Hydro Company, Inc.). 2016. “Pre-Application Document 

Volume 1 of 2: Lower Great Falls Hydroelectric Project (P-4451).” December 2016. 

Strong, Clive J. 1991. Statement on behalf of the National Association of Attorneys General, in, 

U.S. Congress, Senate, Commitee on Environmental and Public Works, Subcommittee on 

Environmental Protection. Water Pollution Prevention and Control Act of 1991, hearings on S. 

1081, 102d Congress, 1st session, Washington, D.C.: GPO. (S. Hrg. 102-335). 

SWRCB (California State Water Resources Control Board). 2001. Response to Request for 

Water Quality Certification, Vermilion Valley Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2086,

September 28, 2001. 
57

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

———. 2003. Water Quality Certification for the Southern California Edison Company Big 

Creek No. 4 Hydroelectric Project. June 13, 2003. 

https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues

/programs/water_quality_cert/docs/bigcreek_fercs/2017bigcreek4.pdf.

———. 2006. Response Regarding Withdrawal and Resubmittal of the Request for Water 

Quality Certification for the Vermillion Valley Hydroelectric Project (FERC 2086). October 31, 

2006. 

———. 2014. “State Water Resources Control Board Letter to Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission Regarding Drought Assistance for California Hydropower Projects. March 11, 

2014. https://www.

waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/water_quality_cert/docs/abrams_ferc_03

112014.pdf. 

———. 2018a. “California State Water Resource Control Board – Water Quality Certification 

Program.” Last accessed September 2, 2018. 

https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs

/water_quality_cert/big_creek/.

———. 2018b. Draft Water Quality Certification for Federal Permit or License for Six Big 

Creek Hydroelectric Projects: Big Creek Nos. 2A, 8 and Eastwood Hydroelectric Project, Big 

Creek No. 3 Hydroelectric Project, Mammoth Pool Hydroelectric Project, Vermilion Valley 

Hydroelectric Project, Portal Hydroelectric Project, and Big Creek Nos. 1 and 2 Hydroelectric 

Project. August 13, 2018. 

https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/water_quality_cert

/big_creek/docs/draft_bc_wqc.pdf. 

———. 2018c. Water Quality Certification Program – Projects. Last accessed September 8, 

2018. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/

waterrights/water_issues/programs/water_quality_cert/ceqa_projects.shtml.

———. 2018d. Division of Water Rights, Water Quality Certification Program Overview. 

https://

www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/water_quality_cert/docs/wqcertpro

g_overview.pdf.

Uria-Martinez, Rocio, Megan M. Johnson, and Patrick W. O’Conner. 2015. 2014 Hydropower 

Market Report. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. https://www.energy.gov/sites/ 

prod/files/2015/05/f22/2014%20Hydropower%20Market%20Report_20150512_rev6.pdf.

———. 2018. U.S. Hydropower Market Report 2017 Update. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge 

National Laboratory.

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2018/04/f51/Hydropower%20Market%20Report.pdf.

U.S. Geological Survey, Department of Interior. 1917. Profile Surveys of Rivers in Wisconsin. 

https://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/0417/report.pdf.
58

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

WDNR (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources). 2002. Headwaters State of the Basin 

Report. https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/watersheds/documents/basins/upwis/headwaters12.pdf. 

———. 2018a. “Central Wisconsin River Basin.” Last accessed August 29, 2018. 

https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/watersheds/basins/cwrb/.

———. 2018b. “Lower Wisconsin River Basin.” Last accessed September 1, 2018. 

https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/watersheds/basins/lowerwis/.

———. 2018c. Response Letter to Wisconsin River Power Company in Regard to Request for 

Comment on the Proposed License Extension of the Petenwell and Castle Rock Hydropower 

Dams (P-1984). July 19, 2018.

Wiley, J. 2015. “Beaver River and Black River Relicensing Excel Data.” December 2, 2015.

WPSC (Wisconsin Public Service Corporation). 2018. Wisconsin Public Service Non-Capacity 

Amendment Application Proposal to Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. April 30, 

2018. 

———. “Hydroelectric Power Plant.” 2018b. Last accessed September 1, 2018. 

https://accel.wisconsinpublicservice.com/company/hydroelectric.aspx.

WRPC (Wisconsin River Power Company). 2018. Wisconsin River Power Company NonCapacity Amendment Application Proposal to Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

April 30, 2018.

WVIC (Wisconsin Valley Improvement Company). 2018a. “Wisconsin River Facts.” Last 

accessed August 29, 2018. http://www.wvic.com/Content/Wisconsin_River.cfm.

———. 2018b. “Wisconsin River Reservoir Operating Plan.” Last accessed August 30, 2018. 

http://www.wvic.com/Content/Operations_Plan.cfm.

Federal and State Statutes, and Bills

Clean Water Act of 1972, PL 92-500, 86 Stat. 47 (33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 – 1376 [October 18, 

1972]).

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, PL 92-583, 86 Stat. 1280 (16 U.S.C. §§ 141 – 1464 

[October 27, 1972]).

Electric Consumers Protection Act of 1986, PL 99-495, 100 Stat. 1243 (16 U.S.C. § 791a 

[October 16, 1986]).

Endangered Species Act of 1973, PL 93-205, 87 Stat. 884 (16 U.S.C. §§ 1531 – 1544 [December 

28, 1973]).

Federal Power Act of 1920, PL 66-281, 41 Stat. 1063 (16 U.S.C. §§ 791 – 828c [June 10, 1920]).
59

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, PL 85-624, 48 Stat. 491 (16 U.S.C. §§ 661-666c [March 10, 

1934]). 

Hydropower Policy Modernization Act of 2017, H.R. 3043, 115th Congress (2017).

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, PL 91-190, 89 Stat. 493 (42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 – 4347 

[January 1, 1970]).

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, PL 102-575, 80 Stat. 915 (16 U.S.C. §§ 470 – 470x6 [October 15, 1966]). 

Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act, PL 90-483, 59 Stat. 10 (33 U.S.C. §§ 400 – 467 [March 

3, 1899]). 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, PL 90-542, 128 Stat. 3791 (16 U.S.C. §§ 1271 – 1287 

[October 2, 1968]). 

Federal and State Regulations

18 C.F.R. §§ 4.1-50.11 (1947), Regulations under the Federal Power Act. 

18 C.F.R. §§ 385.101-385.2202 (1982), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Rules of 

Practice and Procedure. 

40 C.F.R. §§ 1508.1-1508.28 (1970), Council on Environmental Quality Rules and Regulations. 

OR. ADMIN. R. § 690-051-0290 (2018), Appropriation and Use of Water for Hydroelectric Power 

and Standards for Hydroelectric Applications, Consolidated Review.

Case Law, Dockets, and Orders

Abenaki Nation of Mississquoi v. Hughes, 990 F.2d 729 (2d Cir. 1993). 

Ampersand Kayuta Lake Hydro, LLC 160 FERC ¶ 62,066 (2017).

Beebee Island Corporation, 77 FERC ¶ 61,305 (1996). 

Brookfield White Pine Hydro LLC, 161 FERC ¶ 62,083 (2017).

City of Holyoke Gas and Electric Department, 145 FERC ¶ 62,131 (2013).

Climax Manufacturing Co., 57 FERC ¶ 62,145 (1991).

Climax Manufacturing Co., 156 FERC ¶ 62,197 (2016). 

Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P., 161 FERC ¶ 62,021 (2017).

Georgia-Pacific Corporation, 35 FERC ¶ 62,229 (1986).

Idaho Power Co., 14 FPC ¶ 35 (1955). 
60

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Lawrence R. Taft, 38 FERC ¶ 62,293 (1987).

Long Lake Energy Corporation, 35 FERC ¶ 62,230 (1986).

Lyonsdale Associates, LLC 160 FERC ¶ 62,181 (2017).

Niagara Mohawk Corporation, 76 FERC ¶ 61,152 (1996).

Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, 77 FERC ¶ 61,306 (1996).

Northern States Power Company, 149 FERC ¶ 62,090 (2014).

Order Dismissing Petition for Declaratory Order, 158 FERC ¶ 61,048 (2017). 

Public Utility of District No. 1 of Chelan County, Washington FERC ¶ 61,152 (2009).

Public Utility of District No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Washington Department of Ecology, 511 

U.S. 700 (1994).

Sappi Cloquet LLC, 162 FERC ¶ 62,087 (2018).

S.D. Warren Company, 105 FERC ¶ 61,013 (2003). 

S.D. Warren Co. v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection, 126 U.S. 1843 (2006).

Seneca Falls Power Co., et al. 118 FERC ¶ 61,195 Order Denying Rehearing (2007).

Wisconsin Valley Improvement Company, 76 FERC ¶ 61,050 (1996).

Settlement Agreements and Offers of Settlement

Settlement Agreement for Beaver River Project, FERC No. 2645 (1995).

Settlement Agreement for Black River Project, FERC No. 2569 and Beebee Island Project, 

FERC No. 2538 (1995).