[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 121 (Tuesday, July 18, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H5935-H5937]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FEDERAL POWER ACT AMENDMENT
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 2786) to amend the Federal Power Act with respect to the criteria
and process to qualify as a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, as
amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
[[Page H5936]]
H.R. 2786
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. QUALIFYING CONDUIT HYDROPOWER FACILITIES.
Section 30(a) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 823a(a))
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking ``45 days'' and
inserting ``30 days''; and
(2) in paragraph (3)(C)--
(A) in clause (i), by adding ``and'' after the semicolon;
(B) by striking clause (ii); and
(C) by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (ii).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Upton) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
General Leave
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
insert extraneous material in the Record on the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this bill, H.R. 2786, introduced by my two colleagues,
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson) and the gentlewoman from
Colorado (Ms. DeGette), has always been a bipartisan bill. It amends
the Federal Power Act to promote renewable energy from small conduit
hydropower facilities.
The bill would encourage the generation of electricity from existing
manmade conduits operated for the distribution of water for
agriculture, municipal, or industrial consumption.
I would note that Congress established qualifying conduit exemptions
under the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013. This bill, H.R.
2786, builds on that law to provide benefits to a greater range of
conduit hydropower projects. This bill, in fact, will shorten the
review period and allow larger conduit projects to be eligible for
exemption from certain listing requirements.
I know of no serious objections to the bill. It is bipartisan, as it
should be. I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2786, the Promoting Small
Conduit Hydropower Facilities Act of 2017.
In 2013, our committee moved bipartisan legislation by Representative
McMorris Rodgers and Representative DeGette that created an exemption
from hydropower licensing for certain conduit hydropower facilities of
5 megawatts capacity or less.
Under the provision established in the McMorris Rodgers-DeGette bill,
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, must determine within
15 days after receipt of a notice of intent to construct a small
conduit project by the developer if the project meets the qualifying
criteria for exemption under the law.
If FERC makes an initial determination that the project meets that
criteria, current law requires FERC to publish a public notice of that
determination and provide the public 45 days for an opportunity to
comment on or contest FERC's determination.
That bill went on to be signed into law by President Obama and, as of
May of this year, has resulted in qualifying 83 projects being exempted
from Federal licensing requirements.
{time} 1315
The bill before us now, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2786, sponsored by Mr.
Hudson and Ms. DeGette, will amend the Federal Power Act to lift the 5-
megawatt cap on conduit projects that could qualify for exemption. The
bill would also reduce from 45 days to 30 days the amount of time the
public will have to comment on or contest FERC's determination of
whether a project qualifies for exception.
There is clearly strong support on both sides of the aisle for the
development of conduit hydroelectric projects and for efforts like the
Hudson-DeGette bill, which cuts red tape to ensure that environmentally
sound projects can move forward quickly and efficiently.
However, Mr. Speaker, the original version of this bill cut the 45-
day timeframe for public comment on a proposed exemption too much, down
to 15 days. That, in my view, Mr. Speaker, and that of many of my
colleagues, was too short a period of time to allow for meaningful
public input into the process.
Fortunately and wisely, Mr. Speaker, Chairman Upton and Chairman
Walden accepted an amendment by Ranking Member Pallone that reduced the
amount of time for public notification by a third, from 45 days to 30
days, rather than the 15 days that many of us felt was excessive.
As a result, we now have a bill that is good policy, that cuts down
on unnecessary regulation, while properly balancing the interests of
hydropower development with that of the public.
The bill was rightfully reported by the committee with the unanimous
support of Members on both sides of the aisle, and I hope the full
House will do the same today.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson), the original author of the
bill.
Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
support H.R. 2786, my bipartisan legislation focused on tapping our
Nation's immense conduit hydropower potential.
Hydropower remains one of the most efficient and affordable sources
of electricity, as well as one of the largest sources of renewable
electricity in America. In North Carolina alone, it generates enough
electricity to power 350,000 homes each year.
The opportunity is tremendous. Picture a tiny turbine placed in an
existing man-made pipe that transports water from a water treatment
plant. We can produce clean electric power inside these types of man-
made conduits. There are over 1.2 million miles of water supply mains
in the United States creating literally thousands of energy-recovery
hydropower generation opportunities. This technology is readily
available and environmentally friendly, but Federal regulations have
discouraged and stifled the development.
That is exactly why I introduced this commonsense bill with my
colleague, Diana DeGette, whom I will say, even though her Broncos
defeated my Panthers in the Super Bowl a couple years ago, it has
really been a pleasure to work with on this.
What we are working on is to streamline the Federal review process
for noncontroversial conduit hydropower projects and make the projects
eligible for streamlined consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to
expand the development of conduit hydropower projects, create clean
energy jobs, increase production of affordable renewable power, reduce
consumer electricity costs, and improve energy diversity.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), the cosponsor of this bill.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of bipartisanship, I won't
talk exclusively about the Broncos today. Instead, I want to thank
Representative Hudson for working with me on the bill. It has been a
pleasure.
I also want to thank Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Rush and
Energy and Commerce Chairman Walden and Ranking Member Pallone for
helping us work on this important bill. It is really an example of what
we can accomplish when we put partisanship aside and work to address
our country's needs.
Hydropower is a clean, domestic energy source. Over the last 2 years,
it has provided almost 6 percent of U.S. electricity and almost half of
all renewable electricity. It also supports hundreds of thousands of
good jobs across the country.
As a westerner, I know how important water is to our environment and
to our communities, and I am committed to advancing hydropower in a way
that both respects existing water rights and minimizes environmental
disruption.
Hydropower is often associated with large-scale projects like dams,
but I have been particularly interested in
[[Page H5937]]
smaller-scale projects attached to existing infrastructure, including
irrigation canals and municipal water supply systems.
As Mr. Rush noted, in 2013, I worked with Representative Cathy
McMorris Rodgers, another westerner, to pass the Hydropower Regulatory
Efficiency Act. That bill became law, and it established a process for
qualifying conduit hydropower facilities to move forward without
requiring a license from FERC.
A lot of people in western Colorado told me that this was one of the
most important bills that they had ever seen come out of Congress, only
demonstrating that all politics is local. Even though maybe it didn't
seem so important to some people here at the time, 83 hydropower
projects have been successfully promoted using the new process,
including 23 projects in Colorado. This progress is encouraging, but
there is even more we can do.
The Colorado government estimates that existing agricultural
irrigation conduits in our State could support an additional 30
megawatts of hydropower, and municipal water supply systems could
support another 20 to 25 megawatts. But to realize this potential, we
need to listen to the advice that the Energy and Commerce Committee has
heard on how to make the process as simple and flexible as possible.
We have heard testimony from FERC that the existing comment period is
rarely used for comments that have a bearing on determining whether the
project qualifies under the statute. In response, the bill we are
considering today would shorten the comment period from 45 to 30 days
to avoid unnecessary delays.
Second, FERC suggested lifting the megawatt cap on qualifying conduit
projects. The amount of energy demonstrated by a hydroelectric project
is not a good indication of its environmental impact. In fact, any
project built on existing conduit infrastructure will have little to no
environmental impact because it is using water that has already been
diverted from its natural course.
The bill would not change the requirement in existing law that the
project be built on a conduit that is primarily intended for non-power
generating uses, further limiting the potential for any environmental
impact.
Together, these two changes will open the door to more conduit
hydropower projects without compromising important environmental
protections.
Mr. Speaker, again, I would like to emphasize that bill shows what
Congress can accomplish when we work together in a bipartisan manner to
address our country's needs now and in the future. I urge everyone to
support it.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I just want to comment briefly on the remarks
by my two colleagues.
This is an important bill, and for those of us who have always
supported all of the above, whether it be renewable or safe nuclear,
all those different things, hydro is part of that mix.
I would just note that I had a question yesterday morning. I did a
big Farm Bureau breakfast in my district, and the question about
hydropower came up. Just like my friend from Colorado talks about the
most important bill in Colorado, this is an important bill.
It is also important that we work together to get this bill done so
that the Senate can follow suit. I urge my colleagues to vote for this
bipartisan legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 2786, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
____________________