-2 projects with existing hydroelectric power facilities and a potential for the addition of hydroelectric power capacity. Table 6 contains a listing of Corps projects with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licenses granted but not under construction. Table 7 contains a listing of Corps projects with FERC licenses pending. Table 8 contains a listing of Corps projects without existing hydroelectric power facilities and a potential for the addition of hydroelectric power and no FERC license activity. In the main body of the report is a summary sheet for each location which contains pertinent information about the Corps facility and the potential for hydroelectric power. We have no completed studies performed by the Corps on the potential for increasing hydroelectric power production at Corps facilities that are more recent than the July 1988 report. Studies on specific projects have been prepared in draft form or are underway at this time, but have not been completed and submitted to this office. Sincerely, Enclosures G. Edward Dickey Acting Principal Deputy Committee Note--The material submitted has been retained in Committee files. On February 26, 1991, Kevin Kelly, Director of Electricity, Coal, Following the hearing, you submitted 2 written questions to If we can be of further assistance to you or your staff, please contact our Congressional Hearing Coordinator Valerie Howard on (202) 586-2032. Enclosures Sincerely, Jacqueline Knox Brown Congressional and Intergovernmental Question 1: Answer: QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR WALLOP Please provide the Committee a copy of the 1990 study entitled The Potential of Renewable Energy. I am enclosing a copy of the requested study for the Committee. Committee Note--The material submitted has been retained in Committee files. Question 2: Answer: QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR WALLOP If section 4202 of the bill is adopted and the unlimited license conditioning authority of federal agencies is eliminated, is it not true that federal agencies who desire to have conditions included in a hydro license would still be able to submit those recommendations to FERC, who could resolve inconsistencies between conflicting agency recommendations and determine whether their inclusion would be in the overall public interest? Yes, it is true. Section 4202 of S. 341 eliminates only an agency's ability to mandate a recommendations due weight when balancing the many United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Gail Ann Greely Past President, National Hydropower Association On February 26, 1991, I testified before the Committee about the provisions of S. 341, the National Energy Security Act of 1991, affecting the hydropower industry (Sections 4201-4203, and 10003). As follow-up to the hearing, Senator Wallop asked the National Hydropower Association to respond to four questions concerning these provisions: 1. Your written testimony identifies a number of problems hydroelectric license applicants have had with federal agencies. Are there other provisions you would like to see added to S. 341 to help prevent these kinds of problems and to streamline the licensing process? Yes. There are two other provisions of federal law that have been interpreted to duplicate and conflict with the licensing authority of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: the right-of-way provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act ("FLPMA") and the "dredge and fill" permit of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act was enacted to clarify and consolidate the authority of the Bureau of Land Management to manage the public lands under its administration. Included within the legislation is a provision authorizing BLM and the U.S. Forest Service to issue rights-of-way to permit uses of the lands under their jurisdiction. The structure of the statute and its legislative history indicate that it was not intended to apply as duplicate permitting for licensed hydroelectric projects. However, BLM and USFS have interpreted the statute to require a right-ofway, in addition to the FERC license, before a hydropower project can be constructed on land they administer. (This issue is currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.) For the BLM, which does not generally have the right to impose mandatory license conditions under Section 4(e) of the FPA, because its lands are not "reservations", the FLPMA right-of-way is an opportunity to mandate conditions that may have been rejected by the FERC as contrary to the purposes of the FPA. For the USFS, the right-of-way (or "special use authorization" in USFS parlance) is in addition to the 4(e) conditioning authority. It is also broader. Where the 4(e) conditions are limited to those that are "necessary for the adequate protection and utilization" of the reservation lands, the FLPMA permit is unbounded. |