FLOWS Act licensing reforms

Summary#

The FLOWS Act changes parts of the Federal Power Act to (1) reduce some FERC approval requirements for minor changes and routine maintenance at licensed hydropower projects, and (2) create a new, faster licensing path for small “micro hydrokinetic” energy projects (devices that make electricity from moving water without impounding it). The bill’s broad goal is to speed small water‑power projects and reduce regulatory steps for routine dam work while keeping agency safety authority.

• Minor changes and routine maintenance: Licensees would not have to get FERC approval for nonsubstantial alterations, routine maintenance, repair, replacement, or temporary/seasonal operational adjustments caused by circumstances beyond their control.
• Safety and notice preserved: The bill expressly keeps FERC’s authority to require notice, enforce safety requirements, consult informally, and require changes to protect dam safety.
• Micro hydrokinetic projects: Adds a new licensing category for projects up to 5 megawatts that generate power from waves, tides, currents, or free‑flowing water and do not impound water.
• Expedited timeline: Applicants must file a notification of intent and then an application (usually within 1 year). FERC must take final action within 1 year after the application is filed. FERC must issue implementing regulations within 180 days.
• NEPA and categorical exclusions: The bill requires FERC regulations to include one or more categorical exclusions (types of actions that normally skip full environmental review) for low‑disturbance activities, while allowing exceptions for extraordinary circumstances.
• Reporting: FERC must report to Congress within 5 years (or sooner if 50 projects have run one year) on environmental, economic, reliability, and affordability impacts.

What it means for you#

• Existing hydropower licensees (dam owners/operators):

  • You would not need FERC approval for minor alterations or routine maintenance and some temporary seasonal changes.
  • You still may need to give notice and must comply with FERC safety requirements.
  • You could consult informally with FERC about safety before doing work.

• Micro hydrokinetic project developers (small river, tidal, or wave projects):

  • You can seek a new, faster license category for projects up to 5 MW that do not impound water.
  • Expect an accelerated schedule: notification, then application within about a year, and a final FERC decision within a year of the application.
  • FERC regulations will try to speed deployment and may allow certain low‑impact activities to avoid full NEPA review.

• Federal and state permitting agencies:

  • Agencies would be expected to coordinate a joint schedule with FERC to meet the one‑year decision deadline.
  • Agencies may need to adjust review processes to fit the expedited timeline.

• Local communities and nearby water users:

  • Projects could be built or altered more quickly. This could mean faster local changes to waterways or infrastructure, but the bill does not list specific community protections beyond existing laws.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

• The bill requires FERC to write regulations within 180 days and to meet faster licensing deadlines. This could increase FERC workload and administrative costs, and it could require coordination with other agencies.
• The bill does not include a fiscal note or specific budget figures in the supplied material.

Proponents' View#

• The bill appears intended to reduce delays and paperwork for routine dam maintenance and for small hydrokinetic projects.
• Supporters may argue this could speed deployment of small water‑power technologies and reduce costs for licensees by removing the need to seek FERC approval for minor work.
• An expedited, dedicated licensing path for micro hydrokinetic projects could make it simpler for entrepreneurs and utilities to invest in small-scale water power.

Opponents' View#

• One concern is that allowing categorical NEPA exclusions and tight review deadlines could reduce environmental review for projects that still affect ecosystems.
• The bill does not fully explain what counts as a “nonsubstantial” alteration or a “low disturbance” activity, so it may leave important decisions vague.
• Faster decision deadlines could strain FERC and other agencies, possibly reducing time for technical study or public input.
• Although the bill preserves FERC’s safety authority, some may worry that fewer approval steps for changes could make oversight of dam safety more difficult in practice.