99–010 

Calendar No. 55 

112TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 112–19 

HYDROPOWER IMPROVEMENT ACT 

MAY 18, 2011.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. BINGAMAN, from the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 629] 

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was 

referred the bill (S. 629) to improve hydropower, and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with 

an amendment and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass. 

The amendment is as follows: 

On page 10, line 21, strike ‘‘(b)(3)’’ and insert ‘‘(b)(4)’’. 

PURPOSE

The purpose of S. 629 is to improve and increase hydropower production in the United States. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED

Hydropower represents approximately two-thirds of the renewable electricity generation in the United States and is currently 

providing almost seven percent of the country’s total energy generation. About forty-five percent of all hydropower in the United 

States is generated at federally-owned facilities. With only three 

percent of the nation’s approximately eighty thousand federal and 

non-federal dams currently generating hydropower there is great 

potential to increase hydropower production. Additional hydropower can be sited, constructed, and operated in a responsible 

manner to reduce or avoid environmental damages. S. 629 seeks to 

encourage development of additional hydropower through efficiency 

improvements or capacity additions at existing facilities, including 

conduits, adding hydropower to non-powered dams, small hydropower development, and pumped storage projects. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
2 

Further research will aid in the development of more efficient 

and environmentally sound hydropower technologies. Improving 

the licensing process will also help ensure that additional hydropower can be developed while maintaining environmental protections and the opportunity for public input into the licensing process. Through the workshops and pilot projects called for in S. 629, 

it is anticipated that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(FERC), the Bureau of Reclamation and the resources agencies will 

develop processes that will improve existing procedures. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Senator Murkowski introduced S. 629 on March 17, 2011. The 

bill is co-sponsored by Senators Begich, Bingaman, Cantwell, 

Crapo, Murray, Risch, Whitehouse, and Wyden. The Committee on 

Energy and Natural Resources held a hearing on S. 629 on March 

31, 2011 (S. Hrg. 112– ) and considered the bill and adopted an 

amendment at its business meeting on April 12, 2011. The Committee ordered S. 629 favorably reported, as amended, at its business meeting on April 12, 2011. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in 

open business session on April 12, 2011, by voice vote of a quorum 

present, recommends that the Senate pass S. 629, if amended as 

described herein. Senators Lee and Paul were recorded as opposing 

the measure. 

COMMITTEE AMENDMENT

During its consideration of S. 629, the Committee adopted an 

amendment. The amendment made a technical clarification to the 

bill. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1 provides the short title of the bill and table of contents. 

Section 2 contains findings relating to the potential for development of additional hydropower in the United States. 

Section 3 defines terms used in the Act. 

Section 4 states the Sense of the Senate that the United States 

should increase the capacity and generation of clean, renewable hydropower to improve environmental quality and support job creation and economic investment. 

Section 5 directs the Secretary of Energy to establish a competitive grant program to support the following efforts: efficiency improvements or capacity additions at existing hydropower facilities; 

adding power generation to non-powered dams; addressing aging 

infrastructure concerns; conduit projects, environmental studies; 

and environmental mitigation measures. 

Section 6 directs the Secretary of Energy to develop and implement a plan for research, development and demonstration of increased hydropower production. The Secretary is also directed to 

provide technical assistance for applicable environmental analyses. 

Section 7 directs FERC to conduct workshops and pilot projects 

to investigate whether hydropower development at existing nonVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:15 May 19, 2011 Jkt 099010 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR019.XXX SR019

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
3 

powered dams and closed-loop pumped storage projects can be licensed within two years, and to report back to Congress on the results. 

Section 8 codifies FERC’s regulatory definition of ‘‘conduit’’ and 

allows conduit projects located on federal land to be eligible for 

FERC’s existing licensing exemption process. FERC is also directed 

to enter into a memorandum of understanding with other agencies 

to establish a more efficient approval process for conduit hydropower projects and to conduct workshops and develop pilot projects 

to identify ways to improve the approval process for conduit and 

small hydropower projects while maintaining adequate environmental, health and safety protections. The workshops will also investigate whether the rated capacity for small hydroelectric power 

projects should be increased from five megawatts. 

Section 9 authorizes FERC to extend the term of a hydropower 

preliminary permit for two years. 

Section 10 directs the Commissioner of Reclamation to study the 

barriers to non-federal development at Reclamation projects and to 

enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with FERC to improve 

coordination and timeliness of non-federal development at Reclamation projects. 

Section 11 directs the Secretary of Energy to study the potential 

quantity of hydropower that may be obtained from conduits. 

Section 12 directs the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with 

the United States Geological Survey, to study and identify suitable 

pumped storage sites in the country. 

Section 13 directs the President to report to the Senate Energy 

and Natural Resources Committee and the House Energy and 

Commerce Committee on the actions taken by the agencies to implement the March 24, 2010 Memorandum of Understanding on 

Hydropower. 

Section 14 provides that the Act shall not limit the authority of 

the Bureau of Reclamation to develop new hydropower at existing 

federal projects consistent with Federal law, power and nonpower 

operating requirements, and laws governing Federal Power Marketing Administrations. The Act does not limit the authority under 

existing law of a Federal Power Marketing Administrator in the 

event that operations at Federal projects with hydropower are 

modified. 

Section 15 states that the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 

applies. 

COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

The following estimate of costs of this measure has been provided 

by the Congressional Budget Office: 

S. 629—Hydropower Improvement Act of 2011 

Summary: S. 629 would authorize appropriations for a variety of 

activities aimed at promoting the supply and energy efficiency of 

hydroelectric power. Assuming appropriation of amounts authorized by the bill and estimated to be necessary, CBO estimates that 

implementing S. 629 would cost $378 million over the 2012–2016 

period. S. 629 would not affect direct spending or receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
4 

S. 629 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates 

as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and 

would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of S. 629 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget functions 270 (energy) and 300 

(natural resources and environment). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2012– 

2016 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Estimated Authorization Level .................................................................. 113 100 100 100 100 513 

Estimated Outlays .................................................................................... 23 60 95 100 100 378 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that S. 629 

will be enacted by the end of fiscal year 2011 and that appropriations will be provided near the start of each fiscal year. Estimates 

of outlays are based on historical spending patterns for similar activities carried out by the affected agencies. 

S. 629 would specifically authorize the appropriation of $510 million over the 2012–2016 period for a variety of activities aimed at 

promoting hydroelectric power. That amount includes: 

• $50 million annually over the 2012–2016 period for the 

Department of Energy (DOE) to provide grants to support 

projects to add new hydroelectric-generating capacity, projects 

to increase the energy efficiency of existing facilities that generate hydroelectric power, and analyses and implementation of 

measures to mitigate the environmental impact of such 

projects; 

• $50 million annually over the 2012–2016 period for DOE 

to establish a program to research, develop, and demonstrate 

innovative means of increasing the use, generation, energy efficiency, and environmental quality of hydropower; and 

• A total of $10 million for the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission to establish pilot projects to demonstrate the feasibility of small hydroelectric-power facilities and projects to generate hydroelectric power using water flowing through agricultural, municipal, or industrial conduits. 

In addition, CBO also estimates that funding various studies, reports, and regulatory activities under the bill would require appropriations totaling $3 million in 2012. In total, assuming appropriation of the authorized and estimated amounts, CBO estimates that 

implementing S. 629 would cost $23 million in 2012 and $378 million over the 2012–2016 period, with additional spending occurring 

in later years. 

Pay-as-you-go considerations: None. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 629 contains no 

intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA 

and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Megan Carroll; Impact on 

State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Ryan Miller; Impact on the 

Private Sector: Amy Petz. 

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Assistant Director for 

Budget Analysis. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
5 

REGULATORY IMPACT EVALUATION

In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following evaluation of the regulatory impact which would be incurred in carrying out S. 629. 

The bill is not a regulatory measure in the sense of imposing 

Government-established standards or significant economic responsibilities on private individuals and businesses. 

No personal information would be collected in administering the 

program. Therefore, there would be no impact on personal privacy. 

Little, if any, additional paperwork would result from the enactment of S. 629, as ordered reported. 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING

S. 629, as ordered reported, does not contain any congressionally 

directed spending items, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate. 

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

The testimony provided by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Bureau of Reclamation and Department of Energy, at 

the March 31, 2011, Full Committee hearing on S. 629 follows: 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL L. CONNOR, COMMISSIONER, 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and 

members of the Committee, I am Mike Connor, Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). I am 

pleased to be here alongside the Department of Energy 

(DOE) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(FERC) to discuss activities underway at the Department 

of the Interior (Department) as they relate to S. 629, the 

Hydropower Improvement Act of 2011. 

Hydropower is a clean and efficient way to produce energy and is a renewable resource. Each kilowatt-hour of 

hydroelectricity is produced at an efficiency of more than 

twice that of any other energy source. Where hydropower 

does have environmental impacts, particularly on fish species and their habitats, we work with our partner bureaus 

and agencies to evaluate and mitigate these impacts. Further, hydropower is very flexible and reliable when compared to other forms of generation. Reclamation has nearly 

500 dams and dikes and 10,000 miles of canals and owns 

58 hydropower plants, 53 of which are operated and maintained by Reclamation. On an annual basis, these plants 

produce an average of 40 million megawatt (MW) hours of 

electricity, enough to meet the entire electricity needs of 

over 9 million people on average. 

Reclamation is the second largest producer of hydroelectric power in the United States, and today we are actively engaged in looking for opportunities to encourage development of additional hydropower capacity at our facilities. This afternoon, Reclamation will publish the HydroVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:15 May 19, 2011 Jkt 099010 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6969 E:\HR\OC\SR019.XXX SR019

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
6 

power Resource Assessment at Existing Reclamation Facilities (Assessment), a comprehensive review of power potential at all Reclamation facilities. The Assessment benefitted from public comment received this past winter. The 

Assessment will detail our findings on hydropower potential, providing information on whether or not hydropower 

development at existing Reclamation facilities would be 

economically viable and warrant further investigation. In 

addition to the Assessment, Reclamation will be publishing 

two Federal Register notices in the near future regarding 

Lease of Power Privilege opportunities at Granby and 

Pueblo dams in Colorado (two facilities that were identified to have good hydropower development potential in the 

Assessment). Reclamation and DOE are also working on a 

funding opportunity announcement to conduct several pilot 

studies on a low-head hydropower unit at Reclamation facilities. 

I am pleased to report on these recent activities as they 

relate to the directives in S. 629. Subsection 10(a) of the 

bill calls for study of non-Federal hydropower development 

at Bureau of Reclamation projects. Reclamation is directed 

to conduct a study of barriers to non-Federal hydropower 

development at Reclamation projects. This provision may 

duplicate efforts already underway. For example, the constraints analysis outlined in Chapter 3 of the Assessment, 

titled Site Analysis Methods and Assumptions (specifically, 

Chapter 3.5 of the Assessment), examines how land or 

water use regulations and legal requirements could potentially affect development of hydropower. These factors 

were taken into account when assessing the potential for 

hydropower development on existing Reclamation facilities. 

Further, the identified regulatory constraints have been 

mapped within Reclamation’s regions using Geographic Information System (GIS) data. Local information for fish 

and wildlife and fish passage constraints, issues that could 

add significant development costs to a project site but are 

important to address from an environmental and natural 

resource standpoint, were identified by Reclamation’s regional and area offices and accounted for in the Assessment as well. 

Subsection 10(b) of S. 629 calls for Reclamation and 

FERC to develop and issue a memorandum of understanding to improve the coordination and timeliness of the 

non-Federal development of hydropower resources at Reclamation projects. Reclamation and FERC already have an 

MOU, signed in 1992, that addresses the establishment of 

processes for early resolution of issues related to the timely development of non-federal hydroelectric power at Bureau of Reclamation facilities. Reclamation and FERC recently met to discuss how to improve the timeliness of the 

processes developed in that MOU and other issues. 

Section 8 of the bill would allow low-head hydropower 

development on Reclamation-owned conduits to be eligible 

for inclusion in FERC’s conduit exemption program. Currently, Reclamation is assessing the potential for develVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:15 May 19, 2011 Jkt 099010 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6969 E:\HR\OC\SR019.XXX SR019

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
7 

oping low-head hydroelectric generating capacity on our 

Federally-owned canals and conduits. A report, similar to 

the Resource Assessment, is expected to be released for 

public review by the end of this year. We expect that the 

provisions in Section 8 of the bill would help address uncertainty in the approval process for new licenses and 

would facilitate the development of new capacity at existing facilities. Reclamation supports the opportunity to 

enter into new agreements with private or quasi-public entities to develop low-head hydropower potential in an environmentally-sustainable manner. 

Overall, the Department shares the Committee’s view 

that interagency coordination can leverage Federal and 

private sector investment in additional hydropower development. This consideration was foremost in the Department’s signing a Memorandum of Understanding with the 

Department of Energy and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

on March 24, 2010, to increase communication between 

federal agencies and strengthen the long-term relationship 

among them to increase in a sustainable manner hydropower production at existing Federal facilities. 

In conclusion, Reclamation recognizes the importance of 

hydropower. We hope that the Assessment and the new efforts described will provide a lasting contribution to the 

power supplies of our nation. We will of course continue to 

coordinate with other agencies and look forward to working with the Congress in this important area to avoid duplication, and utilize existing authority and resources. 

This concludes my written statement. I am pleased to 

answer any questions the Committee may have. 

TESTIMONY OF JEFF C. WRIGHT, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF

ENERGY PROJECTS, FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and 

Members of the Committee: My name is Jeff Wright and 

I am the Director of the Office of Energy Projects at the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or 

FERC). I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you 

to discuss S. 629, S. 630, and S. 1462. As a member of the 

Commission’s staff, the views I express in this testimony 

are my own, and not those of the Commission or of any individual Commissioner. 

I. BACKGROUND

The Commission regulates over 1,600 hydropower projects at over 2,500 dams pursuant to Part I of the Federal 

Power Act (FPA). Together, these projects represent 54 

gigawatts of hydropower capacity, more than half of all the 

hydropower in the United States. Hydropower is an essential part of the Nation’s energy mix and offers the benefits 

of an emission-free, renewable, domestic energy source 

with public and private capacity together totaling about 

nine percent of U.S. electric generation capacity. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
8 

Under the FPA, non-federal hydropower projects must 

be licensed by the Commission if they: (1) are located on 

a navigable waterway; (2) occupy federal lands; (3) use 

surplus water from a federal dam; or (4) are located on 

non-navigable waters over which Congress has jurisdiction 

under the Commerce Clause, involve post-1935 construction, and affect interstate or foreign commerce. 

The FPA authorizes the Commission to issue either licenses or exemptions for projects within its jurisdiction. Licenses are generally issued for terms of between 30 and 50 

years, are renewable, and carry with them the right to exercise federal eminent domain to obtain property necessary 

for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a 

project. Exemptions are perpetual, and thus do not need to 

be renewed, but do not permit the use of eminent domain. 

Congress has established two types of exemptions. First, 

section 30 of the FPA allows the Commission to issue exemptions for projects that utilize for generation only the 

hydroelectric potential of manmade conduits that are operated for the distribution of water for agricultural, municipal, or industrial consumption, and not primarily for the 

generation of electricity. Conduit projects must be located 

on nonfederal lands, and have a maximum capacity of 15 

megawatts (40 megawatts if the exemptee is a state or 

local government entity). Second, in section 405(d) of the 

Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, Congress authorized 

the Commission to grant exemptions for small hydroelectric power projects having an installed capacity of 

5,000 kilowatts or less. To qualify for this type of exemption, a project must be located at an existing dam that 

does not require construction or the enlargement of an impoundment, or must use the hydropower potential of a natural water feature, such as a waterfall. Both types of exemptions are subject to mandatory fish and wildlife conditions provided by federal and state resource agencies. 

The Commission has established three licensing processes, with the intent of allowing parties to select the process that is best suited to individual proceedings. The integrated licensing process (ILP) frontloads issue identification and environmental study to the period before an application is filed, and is thus well-suited to complex cases 

with substantial issues. The alternative licensing process 

(ALP) allows participants significant flexibility to tailor licensing procedures in a manner that may work well for 

unique cases. The traditional licensing process (TLP), in 

which environmental and other work can occur after the 

application is filed appears to work best for less controversial matters. The TLP may be the process that is best-suited for many simple cases involving exemptions or small, 

low impact licenses. Commission staff has also developed 

a pilot licensing process for hydrokinetic projects in which, 

with the assistance of federal and state resource agencies, 

a project can be licensed in as little as six months. 

It is extremely important to note that project developers 

and other stakeholders, not the Commission, in most inVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:15 May 19, 2011 Jkt 099010 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6969 E:\HR\OC\SR019.XXX SR019

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
9 

stances play the leading role in determining project success and whether the regulatory process will be short or 

long, simple or complex. The first key issue is site selection 

and proposed project operation. For example, the processing of applications tends to be expedited when applicants propose projects that: (1) are located at an existing 

dam where hydropower facilities do not currently exist, (2) 

would result in little change to water flow and use, (3) are 

unlikely to affect threatened and endangered species and 

are unlikely to need fish passage facilities, and (4) involve 

lands and facilities that are already owned by the applicant. To the extent that a proposed project, even one of 

small size, raises concerns about water use and other environmental issues, it may be difficult for the Commission to 

quickly process an application. It is important to remember that the small capacity of a proposed project does not 

necessarily mean that the project has only minor environmental impacts. 

Another, and related, factor is the extent to which 

project developers reach out to affected stakeholders. If a 

developer contacts concerned citizens, local, state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and environmental organizations, and works with them to develop consensus as to 

what information is needed to understand the impacts of 

a project and what environmental measures may be appropriate, and to develop support for the project, the application and review process is likely to be simpler and quicker. 

Where a project comes as a surprise to affected entities or 

where a developer does not respond to expressed concerns, 

the Commission’s job becomes much more difficult, because 

the Commission must, and does, ensure that all expressed 

concerns are addressed. 

A final, and again related, matter is the development of 

the full record that the Commission needs to act on an application. A potential applicant needs to work with Commission staff and with federal and state resource agencies 

and other stakeholders to determine what information is 

needed to support an application, and to provide the Commission with a complete application. Where Commission 

staff or other stakeholders must ask an applicant to provide information that is missing from an application, the 

regulatory process slows down. 

The other entities with roles in the licensing and exemption process regarding small hydropower projects are also 

key to its success. The quickest, most efficient process can 

be achieved only where federal and state agencies, as well 

as other stakeholders, devote the resources early on to 

help project review move ahead, and where they display 

the flexibility to look at the merits of individual projects 

and the willingness to shorten the process in appropriate 

cases. Commission staff is dedicated to making the regulatory process as short and cost-effective as possible. We 

can only do that where applicants, resource agencies, and 

other stakeholders serve as willing partners in the process. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
10 

II. COMMISSION EFFORTS REGARDING SMALL AND INNOVATIVE

PROJECTS

The majority of the hydropower projects regulated by the 

Commission are small projects, with about 71 percent having an installed capacity of 5 megawatts (MW) or less. In 

recent years, the Commission has seen a greatly increased 

interest in small hydropower projects, in innovative hydrokinetic projects, and in pumped storage projects, particularly closed loop pumped storage, which does not involve 

regular water withdrawals from rivers or other water 

sources. The Commission has responded by implementing 

a number of measures to facilitate efficient review of 

project proposals. In 2007, in order to provide personalized, responsive service to entities seeking to develop small 

hydropower projects, Commission staff established a dedicated phone line and email address for inquiries on small 

hydropower, developed a brochure to provide guidance to 

potential developers of small, low impact hydropower 

projects, and put these resources and a list of frequentlyasked questions on the Commission’s website. 

In light of the continued growing interest in such development, the Commission held a technical conference on 

December 2, 2009, at its Washington, D.C. headquarters to 

explore issues related to licensing, and exempting from licensing, small non-federal hydropower projects in the U.S. 

The December technical conference generated discussion 

on recommendations that could improve the process for authorizing small hydropower projects. In addition to insights received from the panelists and attendees at the December conference, written comments were solicited and 

over 40 comment letters were received from industry representatives; federal, state, and local agencies; private citizens; and non-governmental organizations. At the Commission’s April 15, 2010 meeting, staff reported on the conference and the comments received, and presented an action plan to assist and expedite the review of small hydropower proposals. The action plan adopted the following immediate changes: (1) adding new web-based resources to 

the Commission’s website (www.ferc.gov) to make it easier 

for applicants to understand and complete the licensing 

process; (2) updating or creating Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with other agencies to improve coordination; (3) continuing our small hydropower hotline and 

email address to answer applicant questions; and (4) educating potential small hydropower developers through a 

new education and outreach program. 

The Commission has, under its small hydro initiative, 

held numerous outreach meetings with small hydropower 

developers and interested stakeholders, and implemented 

web based tools, such as conduit application templates and 

application checklists, which potential applicants can use 

to prepare their applications. The small hydro website further contains guidance and sample letters that applicants 

can use to obtain waivers from fish and wildlife agencies 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
11 

for part of the prefiling consultation process. The Commission staff has also relaxed some of the standards, under 

Section 4.39 of its regulations, for exhibits and drawings 

for conduit applications. For those applicants that have 

filed complete and adequate applications, and for which 

the Commission has determined that impacts are minimal, 

the Commission has reduced the public notice period from 

60 days to 30 days and the reply period from 45 days to 

15 days. A number of conduit exemptions have been approved in as short as two months from the date that an 

application has been deemed complete. 

Since the April 15, 2010 Commission meeting, we have 

signed an MOU with the State of Colorado to expedite the 

small hydro licensing process (August 2010); launched a 

small hydro program website (August 2010); participated 

in small hydro workshops in Oregon (September 2010), 

Massachusetts (October 2010), and New Hampshire (November 2010); conducted two webinars on our small hydro 

website (November/December 2010); and updated our 

small hydro brochure. Upcoming outreach efforts will include: participating in small hydro workshops in Washington, DC, Vancouver, BC, and California as well as conducting another webinar this summer. We have also completed an update on our MOU with the Army Corps of Engineers. 

The MOU with the State of Colorado provides an excellent example of a Federal-State solution for developing a 

pilot process to find flexible and innovative ways to reduce 

barriers to small hydro and conduit project development. 

In order to facilitate the Commission approval of such 

projects, the MOU provides that Colorado will prescreen 

any proposals and ensure that the applications are complete and meet Commission regulations before they are 

filed. 

With this background, I will turn to the draft legislation. 

III. S. 629

S. 629, the Hydropower Improvement Act of 2011, has 

the laudable goal of increasing hydropower capacity and 

generation in United States. I strongly support that goal, 

and offer comments on specific sections of the bill. 

A. SECTIONS 5 AND 6

Sections 5 and 6 of the bill would authorize the Secretary of Energy to issue grants to increase hydropower 

generation, and to support hydropower research, development, and demonstration projects. I support these sections, 

which would assist in the development of additional renewable energy. 

B. SECTION 7

Section 7 would require the Commission to investigate 

the feasibility of implementing a two-year licensing process, in particular, with respect to hydropower development 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
12 

at existing, non-powered dams, and for closed-loop pumped 

storage projects. 

I support the goal of an expedited licensing process. Indeed, as I have discussed, it is Commission staff’s goal to 

act on all license applications as quickly as possible, and 

the Commission has established processes that allow for 

great flexibility and efficiency. I am thus not certain 

whether an additional licensing process is necessary. During the last few years, we have been able to issue some licenses in a matter of a few months, where the project proponent had selected a site wisely, stakeholders had agreed 

on information needs, and state and federal agencies performed their responsibilities quickly. Moreover, the Commission operates under significant constraints imposed by 

the FPA, and by other legislation affecting the licensing 

process—the Clean Water Act, Coastal Zone Management 

Act, Endangered Species Act, and National Historic Preservation Act among them. In the absence of the ability to 

waive sections of the FPA and other acts, or to set enforceable schedules in licensing proceedings, it is not clear that 

the Commission, under its existing authorities, can mandate a shortened process. 

C. SECTION 8

Section 8 would establish various measures to promote 

conduit and small hydropower projects. Again, this goal is 

consistent with Commission policy and has been a major 

focus of Commission’s staff’s effort in the last few years. 

Section 8(a)(1) would amend section 30 of the FPA to 

allow conduit projects to be located on federal lands. I support this provision, which would remove the current bar on 

siting conduit projects on federal lands. This section would 

also amend the FPA to provide conditioning authority to 

federal land management agencies. These agencies already 

have the ability to impose conditions on proposed projects 

through the requirement that developers obtain special use 

authorizations under the Federal Land Management and 

Policy Act, so this amendment may not alter the current 

regulatory regime. As a general matter, however, I do have 

some concern that authorizing additional mandatory conditioning authority may slow down the licensing process and 

result in increased potential bars to hydropower development. 

Section 8(a)(3) would require the Commission and the 

Commissioner of Reclamation to conduct regional public 

workshops on reducing barriers to conduit hydropower 

projects and thereafter report any recommendations to 

Congress. We have worked successfully with the Bureau of 

Reclamation in the past and are prepared to join Reclamation in this effort. 

Section 8(b) would require the Commission to conduct 

regional public workshops on reducing barriers to small 

hydropower projects, and to report the results of this effort 

to Congress. Noting the outreach efforts described above, 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
13 

we are prepared to undertake this additional effort should 

Congress deem it helpful. 

D. SECTION 9

Section 9 would amend the FPA to authorize the Commission to extend the term of a preliminary permit issued 

under FPA section 5 once for up to two years. Preliminary 

permits grant the permittee a ‘‘first-to-file’’ preference with 

respect to license applications for projects being studied 

under a permit. Commission staff has heard anecdotally 

that developers are concerned that the need for environmental studies in some instances makes it difficult to complete a license application within the current maximum 

three-year term of a permit, with the result that a developer which has invested substantial time and money 

studying a project may face the possibility of losing its 

project based on competition from other entities—particular those with statutorily-granted municipal preference—if it needs to seek a subsequent permit. I therefore 

support the proposed FPA amendment, which could ameliorate this problem. It might be worth considering, as an 

alternative, authorizing the Commission to issue permits 

for terms of up to five years, which could avoid the need 

for developers to go through the process of seeking an extension. 

E. SECTION 10

Section 10 would require the Commissioner of Reclamation, in consultation with the Commission, to study barriers to non-federal hydropower development at Bureau of 

Reclamation projects and to develop a memorandum of understanding to improve the coordination and timeliness of 

such development. We have already begun working with 

the Bureau of Reclamation on this matter, and we have no 

objection to Section 10. 

IV. THE MARINE AND HYDROKINETIC RENEWABLE ENERGY

PROMOTION ACT OF 2011

S. 630 would authorize the Secretary of Energy to take 

various steps to promote marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy technology. As a general matter, the bill is 

consistent with the Commission’s initiatives to support the 

development of appropriate marine and hydrokinetic 

projects, which I have previously described. I have only 

two comments on the bill. 

Section 3 of S. 630 would allow the Secretary of Energy 

to issue grants to support national testing facilities for marine and hydrokinetic technology research, development, 

and demonstration. Commission staff has informally discussed this concept with DOE staff over the last year or 

so, and I believe that testing centers could be extremely 

helpful in the development of new renewable technologies. 

Section 3 provides that test centers may be nonprofit institutions, state or local governments, national laboratories, 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
14 

or National Marine Renewable Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration Centers established pursuant to 

section 634 of the Energy Independence and Security Act 

of 2007. The Federal Power Act contains no provisions allowing the Commission to authorize the testing of jurisdictional hydropower facilities; accordingly, with some limited 

exceptions, tests centers operated by private entities or by 

state and local government may be required to be licensed 

by the Commission. Moreover, if a test center were to use 

a variety of technologies with differing environmental impact, the Commission might be required to issue separate 

authorizations for individual tests. This would not be the 

case for centers under the aegis of other federal entities, 

such as DOE, which do not fall within the Commission’s 

jurisdiction. Therefore, to allow for the maximum flexibility and simplicity, it may be worth considering either 

placing any test centers under the authority of DOE or another federal agency or providing an exemption from the 

provisions of Part I of the FPA for such test centers. 

Second, section 6 of the bill would authorize the Secretary of Energy to issue grants to advance the development of marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy; to help 

fund the costs of environmental analysis, the collection 

and dissemination of environmental data; and to support 

demonstration projects. The provision of grant funding to 

address the environmental information needs surrounding 

these new technologies directly addresses an issue of concern to federal agencies and other stakeholders. Environmental information is essential to the development and 

regulation of energy projects, yet, because marine and 

hydrokinetic technology is relatively new, and because 

these projects may be sited in areas, such as coastal zones, 

where the environment is not as well understood as onshore areas, much necessary information has yet to be developed. The cost of obtaining environmental information 

falls in large part on pioneering developers, and may thus 

discourage their efforts. The Commission and other federal 

agencies are partnering to reduce this burden by assembling and sharing environmental information. However, 

there are still issues which will require new studies, some 

of which are relevant to many developers. Federal funding 

to support gathering such information will help the regulatory process and advance the development of the technology as a whole. 

V. THE AMERICAN CLEAN ENERGY LEADERSHIP ACT OF 2009

Title I, subtitle D of the American Clean Energy Leadership Act deals with the integration of energy and water resources. While this subtitle would not impose any direct 

requirements on the Commission, I note that the Commission recognizes the link between energy development and 

the use of our Nation’s water resources. In siting natural 

gas and hydropower projects, the Commission conducts 

thorough analyses of the impact of proposed projects on 

water resources, authorizes only those projects that approVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:15 May 19, 2011 Jkt 099010 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6969 E:\HR\OC\SR019.XXX SR019

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
15 

1http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/25/remarks-president-state-union-address. 

priately balance energy development and environmental 

protection, and imposes mitigation measures to ensure 

that approved projects are developed in an environmentally responsible manner. 

VI. CONCLUSION

There is a great deal of potential for the development of 

additional hydropower projects throughout the country, including small projects and marine and hydrokinetic 

projects. Working within the authority given it by Congress, the Commission continues to adapt its existing, 

flexible procedures to facilitate the review and, where appropriate, the approval of such projects. Commission staff 

remains committed to exploring with project developers, its 

sister federal agencies, Indian tribes, the states, local government, and other stakeholders every avenue for the responsible development of our nation’s hydropower potential. The legislation under consideration will, as I have testified, assist in realizing that potential. 

This concludes my remarks. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN G. CHALK, CHIEF OPERATING OFFI- CER & ACTING DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR RE- NEWABLE ENERGY, OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND

RENEWABLE ENERGY DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Murkowski, 

Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity 

to discuss the three pieces of legislation before us today: S. 

629, the Hydropower Improvement Act of 2011; S. 630, the 

Marine and Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Promotion 

Act of 2011; and Title I, subtitle D of the American Clean 

Energy Leadership Act of 2009 (ACELA, S. 1462 from the 

111th Congress). 

In his State of the Union address in January, President 

Obama referred to America’s need to transition to a clean 

energy economy as ‘‘our generation’s Sputnik moment,’’ a 

goal so important that we need to ‘‘reach a level of research and development we haven’t seen since the height 

of the Space—Race.’’ 1 S. 629 and S. 630 would dramatically increase the federal government’s investment in both 

conventional hydropower and marine and hydrokinetic 

(MHK) renewable energy technologies. 

The provisions being considered from ACELA address 

the interdependence of our energy and water consumption. 

Water is an integral component of many traditional and 

alternative energy technologies used for transportation, 

fuels production and electricity generation. Energy-related 

water demands are beginning to compete with other demands from population growth, agriculture and sanitation. 

This competition could become fiercer if climate change increases the risk of drought, making our water supply more 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
16 

2See, for example, the activities undertaken by the National Energy Technology Laboratory, 

http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/ewr/water/index.html. 3http://eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia906l920.html. 4FY09 DOE Interim Conventional Hydro Resource Assessment, Oak Ridge National Lab. 

5http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa.pdf. 

6http://www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/docs/07l06l1ERPIlreport.pdf. 

vulnerable. The Department of Energy (DOE) has initiated 

many activities over the last few years to address this energy-water nexus.2

Since fiscal year 2008, when DOE restarted its Water 

Power Program, it has made significant strides in advancing next-generation water power technologies, assessing 

existing resources, promoting deployment opportunities, 

and cooperating with other government agencies to accelerate water power development. About 45 percent of all 

hydropower in the United States is generated at Federallyowned facilities, providing clean, renewable power to the 

grid.3 DOE’s estimates indicate that there could be an additional 300 gigawatts of hydropower through efficiency 

and capacity upgrades at existing facilities, powering nonpowered dams, new small hydro development and pumped 

storage hydropower.4

DOE works on both conventional hydropower and on 

marine and hydrokinetic (MHK) technologies. The combined FY 2012 Budget Request for conventional hydropower and MHK technologies is $38.5 million. Conventional hydropower—energy derived from water using 

dams, diversionary structures, or impoundments for electric power—generates more electricity than any other renewable energy source in the U.S. Conventional hydropower represented 65 percent of U.S. renewable electricity 

generation in 2010, and seven percent of total U.S. electricity generation that year.5 Conventional hydropower 

principally serves as a baseload electricity supply, but can 

also function as a dispatchable resource to balance variable renewable energy technologies such as wind and 

solar. 

MHK technologies include energy devices that can extract energy from moving water, including waves and currents in oceans, rivers, and tidal areas, and from ocean 

thermal and salinity gradients. These resources if also developed in an environmentally responsible manner hold potential for helping our nation meet its clean energy goals. 

In a March 2007 report, the Electric Power Research Institute indicated that its conservative estimate was that 

MHK power (from wave and tidal sources alone) could provide an additional 13,000 megawatts (MW) of capacity by 

2025.6 MHK power and ocean thermal energy are resources that typically can have higher capacity factors 

than some other renewable energy sources. In addition, 

they may not present the same level of integration challenges that large-scale development of variable renewable 

energy sources such as wind and solar may create for electricity grid planners and operators. 

Through its Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs), 

DOE promotes and creates opportunities for new convenVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:15 May 19, 2011 Jkt 099010 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6969 E:\HR\OC\SR019.XXX SR019

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
17 

7http://www.energy.gov/news/8793.htm. 

8http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1344/pdf/c1344.pdf. 

9http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/EPRI-Volume-4.pdf. 

tional hydropower technologies and development. PMAs 

encourage the most widespread use of hydropower possible 

at the lowest rates consistent with sound business principles. Some PMAs have established an active hydropower 

modernization program, adding hundreds of megawatts of 

capacity at existing facilities by updating equipment, while 

others have faced challenges in arranging financing. Because some of the challenges are statutory in nature, the 

PMAs and their customers may consult with the Committee on measures that would actively encourage expansion of hydropower capacity through updates to existing facilities. 

Last year, DOE, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the 

Army Corps of Engineers signed a memorandum of understanding (MOM on hydropower that aims to build longterm working relationships between agencies by 

prioritizing similar goals and aligning ongoing and future 

renewable energy development efforts. 7 The objectives of 

the MOU include deploying new, environmentally sustainable hydropower capacity, including upgrading existing facilities; powering non-powered dams; and research, development and deployment (RD&D) into new hydropower 

technologies, among other objectives. The pursuit and ultimate achievement of these goals will serve to strengthen 

our economy, enhance our national security, and protect 

our environment. 

Water is an integral aspect of energy consumption and 

generation for many energy technologies other than hydropower as well. Many types of energy production make use 

of water, particularly for cooling, and increasingly, waterefficient technologies are being developed to reduce these 

impacts and help America use less water to meet its energy demands and use less energy to meet its water demands. Still, power generation from thermal energy 

sources (which include coal, natural gas and nuclear energy) accounted for approximately 41% of U.S. freshwater 

withdrawals in 2005.8 Although most of the water withdrawn for cooling thermal power plants is subsequently returned to the source, this still can have disruptive effects 

on water flows and temperatures, which in turn negatively 

affect aquatic organisms, namely fish populations such as 

salmon. DOE estimates that there are significant opportunities to reduce water consumption for both electricity and 

fuels production. For example, in the electricity sector, development of hybrid wet-dry cooling systems may reduce 

water consumption by 70–80 percent compared to recirculating cooling systems. Moving, pumping and treating 

water and wastewater is in itself quite energy-intensive, 

representing roughly four percent of U.S. electricity consumption.9

The Department, through its National Laboratories and 

collaboration with universities and the private sector, is 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
18 

10http://www.ferc.gov/legal/staff-reports/03-17-11-energy-infrastructure.pdf. 

pursuing three major objectives to address the energywater challenge. First, to address the increasing limited 

supplies of freshwater, DOE is considering strategies to increase use of nontraditional water resources in the power 

sector. Second, DOE is working to reduce the consumption 

of fresh water when generating electricity, while considering the full life-cycle of various energy technologies to 

determine how much water they demand and what kind of 

water quality they need. Finally, DOE is researching 

water-efficient technologies for the production of alternative or unconventional fuels for transportation. 

I am pleased to offer the Department’s perspective on 

these pieces of legislation. I will discuss these bills in the 

order they appeared in my invitation to testify before this 

Committee. 

S. 629: HYDROPOWER IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2011

The Hydropower Improvement Act of 2011, S. 629, seeks 

to substantially increase hydroelectric capacity and generation and improve its environmental performance. 

A recent report from the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (FERC) demonstrates that little additional hydropower is in the pipelines.10 Concerns include environmental issues and nontechnical barriers to reduce the expense and uncertainty of the regulatory process is needed. 

The most significant provision of S. 629 is a proposed 

authorization to DOE of $50 million per year for competitive grants and $50 million per year for RD&D to increase 

hydropower generation. This authorization level is significantly higher than the FY 2012 Budget Request for 

EERE’s conventional hydropower program of $20 million, 

and would also represent a substantial increase to the FY 

2010 Budget for conventional hydropower of $13 million. 

These additional resources, if appropriated would enable 

increases in renewable hydropower generation, and provide for the accelerated demonstration of innovative technologies that can improve environmental performance. 

In FY 2010, DOE funded the Hydropower Advancement Project (HAP) for $3 million. The HAP is focused on the 

most cost-effective, least-controversial types of new hydropower development, and seeks to stimulate further hydropower development and generation without new dams. The 

project has already identified multiple opportunities for 

adding generation and/or improving environmental performance without sacrificing energy efficiency. Current 

funding allows for fifty initial facility assessments and 

three to five detailed engineering design studies. Additional resources would be used to support facility improvements that could result in increased hydropower generation at the most cost-effective sites. 

DOE has invested in a three year program of research 

and development (R&D) to address issues related to the 

environmental performance and siting of hydropower techVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:15 May 19, 2011 Jkt 099010 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6969 E:\HR\OC\SR019.XXX SR019

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
19 

11 Conduits are defined as tunnels, canals, pipelines, aqueducts, flumes, ditches, or similar 

manmade water conveyance systems that distribute water for agricultural, municipal, or industrial consumption and not primarily for the generation of electricity. 12The National Hydropower Asset Assessment Project, to be released in April 2011. 

nologies. These efforts focus on increasing fish passage, investigating adequate environmental flows and improving 

water quality and will help ensure that increases in conventional hydropower generation are coupled with concurrent improvements in the environmental sustainability of 

the industry, issues that DOE has been working on since 

the mid 1990s. If realized, the additional funding authorized by S. 629 would help scale-up the advanced turbines 

and optimize operational scenarios. 

A quicker, two-year FERC licensing process, as proposed 

by S. 629 would help accelerate development of conventional hydropower resources. A streamlined licensing approach already has been implemented by FERC for small 

hydropower projects; expanding this quicker process would 

be welcomed by DOE and the hydropower industry. At the 

same time, we must be sure that this quicker licensing 

process does not sacrifice rigorous maintenance of environmental standards and ensures adequate opportunity to 

allow for public input. Providing a quicker regulatory process when all environmental and public concerns have been 

addressed is a valuable goal. 

S. 629 would require FERC and the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct workshops on small hydropower projects 

and conduit hydropower.11 These workshops would provide 

opportunities for the federal government, including natural 

resource agencies, industry, environmental organizations 

and other stakeholders to reach consensus on strategies to 

overcome barriers to greater hydropower deployment, including conflicting definitions of eligible projects and complicated, poorly understood permitting and licensing processes. 

S. 629 would define a ‘‘small hydroelectric power project’’ 

according to the definition found in Section 4.30 of title 18 

in the Code of Federal Regulations. DOE finds this definition problematic in this context, since this definition specifies that a small hydroelectric power project cannot be 

‘‘owned or operated by the United States or by an instrumentality of the Federal Government.’’ A majority of the 

non-powered dams that are proposed to be powered 

through this legislation are federally-owned by the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. 

In fact, initial analysis by DOE for a forthcoming report 

indicates that the ten largest non-powered dams in the 

U.S. with potential to produce more than one megawatt 

are all operated by the Army Corps of Engineers.12 DOE 

accordingly recommends that the definition of small hydroelectric power project that appears in this legislation delete the requirement that the dam not be federally-owned 

or operated. 

The Department appreciates that S. 629 recognizes the 

non-application of this legislation to the PMAs. In addiVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:15 May 19, 2011 Jkt 099010 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6969 E:\HR\OC\SR019.XXX SR019

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
20 

tion, the PMAs believe that they should have the approval 

right for efficiency power or capacity additions, improvements or replacements at Federal projects, made in association with this legislation, where the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation seek appropriations. 

All other provisions of S. 629 would either build on or 

support current DOE activities and areas of interest. 

S. 630: MARINE AND HYDROKINETIC RENEWABLE ENERGY

PROMOTION ACT OF 2011

S. 630, the Marine and Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy 

Promotion Act of 2011, seeks to accelerate the growth of 

the MHK industry through additional federal aid, and expansion of the scope and scale of DOE’s MHK activities. 

The additional funding authorized by this bill would represent a significant increase in DOE’s program for MHK 

technologies and is significantly higher than either the FY 

2012 Budget Request of $18 million or the FY 2010 Budget 

of $37 million. 

DOE already has several MHK systems engineering efforts underway, but the additional systems engineering required by S. 630 would be used to accelerate these programs. 

S. 630 would also require DOE to devote more R&D 

funding to develop open interface standards. This would 

ensure consistent design and development and allow unbiased comparison between competing technologies to 

achieve optimal energy generation in resulting systems. As 

the U.S. market develops, it will be crucial to avoid the 

pitfalls seen in the development of MHK technologies in 

Europe, where, despite tremendous strides that have been 

12 The National Hydropower Asset Assessment Project, to 

be released in April 2011. made in device development and 

deployment, the interface standards with devices and data 

are still being developed. 

The creation of a competitive grant program for MHK 

RD&D test facilities would mimic similar innovative activities already sponsored by DOE for other renewable energy 

technologies. DOE is currently investing in three MHK 

test facilities that focus on the demonstration of multiple 

MHK technologies. Investment in these National Marine 

Renewable Energy Centers (NMRECs) is critically important in order to help MHK technologies realize their full 

potential and to support their rapid commercialization if 

done in an environmentally responsible way. Each Center 

is currently developing plans for the development of openwater test facilities. Further investment in NMRECs, as 

called for by this legislation, would enable the open-water 

test berths to be established. Third-party testing and evaluation of device performance and reliability would enable 

private sector investment in these emerging technologies. 

All three of DOE’s existing NMRECs are unrestricted in 

terms of the device types they develop and support. Although none are geographically located for in-stream testVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:15 May 19, 2011 Jkt 099010 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6969 E:\HR\OC\SR019.XXX SR019

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
21 

ing, tidal device research and development can substitute. 

It is unnecessary to distinguish between ‘‘marine’’ and 

‘‘hydrokinetic’’ centers as the existing NMRECs could conduct research on any type of device. 

On June 29, 2010, the Department of Energy and the 

Department of the Interior (DOI) signed an MOU for the 

coordinated deployment of renewable energy technologies 

on the OCS. The MOU’s Action Plan includes a number of 

MHK-related activities, including coordination of studies 

and other activities to support future BOEMRE-issued 

MHK research leases, the development of environmental 

monitoring and mitigation protocols and collaboration on 

environmental study efforts, and development of a plan for 

MHK resource management and prediction. Additionally, 

on August 3, 2010, DOE announced the designation of 

Florida Atlantic University (FAU) as a national center for 

ocean energy research and development. With this designation, DOE awarded the new Southeast National Marine Renewable Energy Center $250,000 to undertake research and development of technologies capable of generating power from ocean currents and ocean thermal energy. FAU has applied for a five-year limited lease under 

BOEMRE’s Interim Policy. If issued, this lease would 

allow for limited testing of ocean current devices on the 

OCS offshore Florida. DOE has also provided funding to 

the Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center 

to aid in the development of facilities to serve as an integrated, standardized test center for developers of wave and 

tidal energy, and the Hawaii National Marine Renewable 

Energy Center for the development of a site for the testing 

of wave energy conversion devices and ocean thermal energy conversion systems. DOE may seek to obtain research 

leases from DOI. 

If funding is realized under S. 630, development of MHK 

technologies would be accelerated, speeding their transformation from promising but fledgling technologies to 

commercially viable, clean, renewable energy sources. 

TITLE I, SUBTITLE D OF THE AMERICAN CLEAN ENERGY

LEADERSHIP ACT OF 2009

Title I, Subtitle D of ACELA contains provisions that 

would create an energy-water clean technology grant program in DOE and would require several studies on the energy-water nexus. 

The grant program created under ACELA could serve as 

a useful way to spur industry to devote time and resources 

to develop strategies to minimize water consumption in energy processes. These provisions would also require DOE 

and other agencies to collaborate on several studies on this 

subject. The study that would be run by the Natural Academy of Sciences regarding the effects of energy development and production on U.S. water resources would be a 

useful, in-depth analysis. However, in this legislation, the 

analysis appears limited to a current assessment. While 

this in itself would be useful, DOE recommends that any 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
22 

13http://www.energy.gov/news/8793.htm. 

such study also consider the expected increase in water demand from projected growth in energy production, and the 

water implications of moving to a clean energy economy. 

This will be especially important since certain clean energy technologies (carbon capture and storage, bioenergy, 

concentrated solar power, etc.) may result in increased 

water demands. The effects of climate change on water 

availability should also be analyzed in order to better understand the potential vulnerability of the energy sector to 

water constraints. 

One of the other studies included in ACELA would require the Department of the Interior (DOI) to evaluate the 

amount of energy used in water storage and delivery operations. This study would be useful, but DOE suggests that 

the proposed study would benefit from consultation with 

other agencies with expertise in the energy-water area, including DOE. 

In general, interagency consultation must be an integral 

component of our national strategy to address the energywater nexus. Along with energy production, agriculture 

uses more water than any other sector in the U.S., so engagement with the U.S. Department of Agriculture will be 

essential. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers must also 

play a vital role in developing more efficient water usage 

strategies. DOE welcomes efforts to build on existing collaborations with these and other agencies, such as the 

MOU referenced above. 

These provisions would also require DOE to develop an 

Energy-Water R&D Roadmap to define future RD&D and 

commercialization efforts necessary to address emerging 

water-related challenges to future clean energy generation 

and production. DOE has already produced a report examining these issues, which it transmitted to Congress in 

January of 2007, and has developed a follow-up report, 

‘‘Energy-Water Challenges and Research and Development 

Issues,’’ that we expect will be finalized and transmitted to 

Congress shortly. 

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I would like to again thank this Committee for its leadership in supporting both conventional 

hydropower and MHK energy technologies and in confronting the challenges associated with the interrelation of 

our energy and water consumption. 

As Secretary Chu stated last year, ‘‘While hydropower is 

the largest source of renewable electricity in the nation, 

hydropower capacity has not increased significantly in decades. As the single largest owner of hydropower generation 

in the United States, it is important for the federal government to tap this valuable asset so it can continue to contribute to our clean energy portfolio and energy security.’’ 13 S. 629 and S. 630 both contain provisions that 

would help realize this goal; however, both bills contain 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
23 

authorizations significantly in excess of the 2012 Budget 

request within EERE for Water Programs. The President’s 

FY 2012 budget represents DOE’s priorities for applied 

R&D in energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. 

Transitioning to a clean energy economy will be greatly 

enhanced if we also identify ways to minimize or eliminate 

water use associated with energy generation. The ACELA 

provisions could be the catalyst to finding these solutions. 

I would be pleased to address any questions the Committee might have. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill, as 

ordered reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be 

omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in 

italics, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

Section 5 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 798) is amended 

as follows: 

FEDERAL POWER ACT 

The Act of June 10, 1920, Chapter 285, as Amended 

AN ACT To 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 

United States of America in Congress assembled, 

* * * * * * * 

øEach preliminary permit issued under this Part shall be for the 

sole purpose of maintaining priority of application for a license 

under the terms of this Act for such period or periods, not exceeding a total of three years, as in the discretion of the Commission 

may be necessary for making examinations and surveys, for preparing maps, plans, specifications, and estimates, and for making 

financial arrangements. Each such permit shall set forth the conditions under which priority shall be maintained. Such permits shall 

not be transferable, and may be canceled by order of the Commission upon failure of permittees to comply with conditions thereof or 

for other good cause shown after notice and opportunity for hearing.¿ 

(a) Each preliminary permit issued under this Part shall be for 

the sole purpose of maintaining priority of application for a license 

under the terms of this Act for such period or periods, not exceeding 

a total of three years, as in the discretion of the Commission may 

be necessary for making examinations and surveys, for preparing 

maps, plans, specifications, and estimates, and for making financial 

arrangements. 

(b) EXTENSION.—The Commission may extend the term of a preliminary permit once for not more than 2 additional years if the 

Commission finds that the permittee has carried out activities under 

the permit in good faith and with reasonable diligence. 

(c) Each such permit shall set forth the conditions under which 

priority shall be maintained. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
24 

(d) Such permits shall not be transferable, and may be canceled 

by order of the Commission upon failure of permittees to comply 

with conditions thereof or for other good cause shown after notice 

and opportunity for hearing. 

* * * * * * * 

Section 30 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 823a) is amended 

as follows: 

(a) EXEMPTION QUALIFICATIONS.—Except as provided in subsection (b) or (c), the Commission may grant an exemption in whole 

or in part from the requirements of this part, including any license 

requirements contained in this part to any facility (not including 

any dam or other impoundment) constructed, operated, or maintained for the generation of electric power which the Commission 

determines, by rule or order— 

ø(1) is located on non-Federal lands, and 

ø(2) utilizes for such generation only the hydroelectric potential of a manmade conduit, which is operated for the distribution of water for agricultural, municipal, or industrial consumption and not primarily for the generation of electricity.¿ 

(1) is located on non-Federal lands or Federal lands; and 

(2) uses for the generation only the hydroelectric potential of 

a conduit. 

(b) MAXIMUM INSTALLMENT CAPACITY FOR EXEMPTION.—The 

Commission may not grant any exemption under subsection (a) to 

any facility the installed capacity of which exceeds 15 megawatts 

(40 megawatts in the case of a facility constructed, operated, and 

maintained by an agency or instrumentality of a State or local government solely for water supply for municipal purposes). 

(c) CONSULTATION WITH FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES.—In 

making the determination under subsection (a) the Commission 

shall consult with øthe United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 

National Marine Fisheries Service and the State agency¿ the Secretary of the department that supervises the land on which the facility is or will be located, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 

the National Marine Fisheries Service and the State agency exercising administration over the fish and wildlife resources of the 

State in which the facility is or will be located, in the manner provided by the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act ( 16 U.S.C. 661, 

et seq.), and shall include in any such exemption— 

(1) such terms and conditions as the øFish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service¿ the Secretary of the department that supervises the land on which the facility is or 

will be located, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the 

National Marine Fisheries Service, and the State agency each 

determine are appropriate to prevent loss of, or damage to, 

such resources and to otherwise carry out the purposes of such 

Act, and 

(2) such terms and conditions as the Commission deems appropriate to insure that such facility continues to comply with 

the provisions of this section and terms and conditions included in any such exemption. 

* * * * * * * 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
25 

(f) SAVINGS CLAUSE.—Nothing in the section alters or affects the 

authority of the Secretary of the Interior under the reclamation 

laws- 

(1) to authorize private hydropower development under a 

lease of power privilege; or 

(2) to develop other hydropower generation at facilities of the 

Bureau of Reclamation. 

(g) DEFINITION OF CONDUIT.—In this section, the term ’’conduit’’ 

means any tunnel, canal, pipeline, aqueduct, flume, ditch, or similar manmade water conveyance that is operated for the distribution 

of water for agricultural, municipal, or industrial consumption and 

not primarily for the generation of electricity. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS