S-4992-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Sponsored by Steve Daines (R-MT)
What it does
This bill would require the Secretary of the Army to issue guidance within one year establishing standardized procedures for reviewing permit applications (called "Section 408 applications") from non-federal hydropower projects seeking to alter, occupy, or use federal water infrastructure. It would create a standardized checklist of required materials, define what makes an application "complete," set timelines and scope for phased reviews, and establish escalation procedures when deadlines are missed. It would also explicitly prohibit the Army Corps of Engineers from conducting detailed technical or engineering reviews during the completeness review stage, and from requiring compliance with any environmental standard adopted after the application was submitted.
Who benefits
Non-federal hydropower project operators and developers who would face a more predictable, faster permitting process. Renewable energy investors and companies seeking to expand hydropower capacity. Electric utilities that rely on hydropower. Ratepayers who may benefit if reduced permitting delays lower project costs. States with significant hydropower resources (e.g., Montana, New Hampshire, the Pacific Northwest). The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which coordinates with the Army Corps and may see fewer interagency bottlenecks.
Who is hurt
Environmental advocacy groups and downstream communities who argue that limiting the completeness review scope could reduce scrutiny of hydropower projects near federal waterways. Competing energy producers (natural gas, solar, wind) who may face a relative disadvantage if hydropower permitting becomes faster. State and local governments that may lose leverage to impose newer environmental standards after an application is filed. Fish and wildlife interests, including commercial and recreational fishing industries, that depend on river ecosystems potentially affected by hydropower alterations. Army Corps of Engineers staff who may face new procedural constraints and escalation requirements.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the current Section 408 review process lacks standardized timelines and criteria, creating unpredictable multi-year delays that stall clean energy development. They contend that hydropower — which provides roughly 6% of U.S. electricity and the largest share of renewable generation — is critical to grid reliability and decarbonization goals, and that administrative bottlenecks, not technical complexity, are the primary obstacle to expanding capacity. By separating the completeness review from substantive technical review, the bill would reduce duplicative agency work without eliminating safety or environmental oversight, which occurs in later review phases.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that restricting what the Army Corps may consider during the completeness review — including prohibiting requests for design modifications or consideration of post-submission environmental standards — could allow inadequate or environmentally harmful applications to advance further into the review pipeline before problems are identified. They contend that the provision barring newly adopted environmental standards from applying to pending applications could lock in outdated protections for projects that may operate for decades, undermining the ability of agencies to respond to new scientific findings about river ecosystems, water quality, or endangered species.