[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Page 12979]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  HYDROPOWER REGULATORY EFFICIENCY ACT

  Mr. SESSIONS. I rise today to express my support for the Hydropower 
Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013, H.R. 267. This important legislation 
will encourage and facilitate the development of clean and renewable 
hydropower capacity in the United States.
  Hydropower has played a key role in the economic and industrial 
development of the State of Alabama over the last 100 years. In fact, 
according to the National Hydropower Association, Alabama ranks among 
the top ten States in hydropower generation, with over 8,700,000 
megawatt-hours of conventional hydrogeneration. I believe hydropower 
will continue to make important contributions to meet Alabama's energy 
needs well into the future. For that reason, I believe the Hydropower 
Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 is an important piece of legislation 
that merits this body's full support. I would like to recognize the 
excellent work of the Senate Energy Committee, including the chairman 
and ranking member, on this legislation. At this time, I wish to ask 
the ranking member for permission to engage her in a brief colloquy 
concerning her understanding of Section 6 of this legislation.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I welcome an exchange for the record.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank my colleague for her willingness to discuss 
this legislation. Section 6 of the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act 
of 2013 promotes hydropower development by directing the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, FERC, to investigate the feasibility of a more 
streamlined licensing process for certain hydro projects that should 
not be subjected to the lengthy and expensive licensing process that 
was designed for projects with many more complicated issues and 
stakeholder interests.
  Under H.R. 267, two types of projects would be eligible for the 2-
year licensing process: new hydro developments at existing nonpowered 
dams and closed-loop pumped storage hydro. It is my understanding that 
adding generation capacity at existing nonpowered dams would tap into 
an important and substantial renewable energy resource at projects 
where the impacts of dam construction have already been realized.
  For hydropower developers to take full advantage of any streamlined 
licensing process that FERC may develop as contemplated in Section 6 of 
the act, I believe there needs to be a good understanding of what types 
of pumped storage projects would be considered ``closed-loop pumped 
storage projects.'' This term is not defined in the act, and I am not 
aware of any generally accepted engineering or industry definition for 
that term.
  In order that I might have a better understanding of the types of 
hydropower projects that would be eligible for a streamlined licensing 
process that FERC may develop in accordance with Section 6 of the act, 
would the ranking member kindly provide a description of the types of 
pumped storage projects that she would consider to be ``closed-loop 
pumped storage''?
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Senator for his support of this 
legislation and for his inquiry about Section 6 of the Act. 
Streamlining the licensing process for ``closed-loop pumped storage'' 
projects will encourage development of new and important sources of 
renewable energy that will help balance the country's energy resources 
and provide critical support to the Nation's power grid.
  Section 6 of the bill directs FERC to develop criteria for 
identifying projects featuring ``closed loop pumped storage'' that 
would be appropriate for licensing within a 2-year process. This term 
was used in the bill to generally describe pumped storage projects that 
have a low impact on the various resources considered by FERC during 
the licensing process such as environmental, recreational, and 
navigation interests.
  For example, pumped storage projects that are removed from major 
streams are likely to have fewer significant resource impacts and 
issues to be addressed and resolved, which makes them appropriate for 
the 2-year licensing process. Accordingly, the types of pumped storage 
projects considered ``closed loop'' and, therefore, eligible for FERC's 
expedited licensing process under this bill, would include projects 
where the upper and lower reservoirs do not impound or directly 
withdraw water from a navigable stream and projects that are not 
continuously connected to a naturally-flowing water feature.
  These types of ``closed loop pumped storage'' designs are candidates 
for a 2-year licensing process because the resource impacts associated 
with such projects can be minimal as compared to more traditional 
pumped storage hydro designs and other conventional hydro projects for 
which the existing FERC licensing process was designed.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank Ranking Member Murkowski for her explanation. 
Again, I applaud her for her work on the Hydropower Regulatory 
Efficiency Act of 2013 and for her leadership in this body.

                          ____________________