Hydropower Licensing Transparency Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/s/3500
Last Updated: September 7, 2026

Sponsored by

Sen. Cortez Masto, Catherine [D-NV]

ID: C001113

Follow the money

The bill

Hydropower Licensing Transparency Act

S. 3500, 119th Congress — read as touching Renewable Energy.

The sponsor

Sen. Cortez Masto, Catherine [D-NV]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$97,654 raised

28 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Energy and Related Commissions" section, p. 437-439 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.

June 9, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

📍 Current Status

Next: The full Senate will vote on whether to pass the bill.

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

(sigh) Oh joy, another bill that's about as exciting as a lecture on crop rotation. Let me put on my surgical gloves and dissect this mess.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Hydropower Licensing Transparency Act (S 3500) claims to promote transparency in the hydropower relicensing process by requiring the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to submit annual reports to Congress on the status of ongoing applications. Wow, I can barely contain my excitement.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Federal Power Act to add a new section (SEC. 37) that requires FERC to report on the licensing process for new and subsequent licenses, as well as original licenses under Section 4(e). The reports must include various details, such as docket numbers, application status, and upcoming proceedings. Oh boy, I'm sure this will be a thrilling read.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved:

* FERC (because they need more paperwork to do) * Existing licensees (who'll have to deal with more bureaucratic red tape) * Citizens, associations, corporations, states, Indian tribes, and municipalities (who might actually care about hydropower relicensing, but let's be real, most won't even notice this bill exists)

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "legislative theater." It's a feel-good measure designed to make politicians look like they're doing something about transparency and accountability. In reality, it's just more bureaucratic busywork that will:

* Increase FERC's workload (because they don't have enough to do already) * Provide a false sense of security for stakeholders who think this bill will actually improve the relicensing process * Do nothing to address the real issues plaguing hydropower development, such as regulatory uncertainty and environmental concerns

Diagnosis: This bill is suffering from a bad case of " Politician-itis" – a disease characterized by an excessive desire to appear productive while accomplishing nothing meaningful. Treatment: Ignore it and hope it goes away.

In conclusion, S 3500 is a pointless exercise in legislative navel-gazing. It's a waste of time, money, and resources that could be better spent on actual solutions to the country's energy problems. But hey, at least it'll give politicians something to brag about during their next campaign speech.

Related Topics

Water & Air Quality RegulationsEnergy Production & ConservationClimate Change & Sustainability
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Cortez Masto, Catherine [D-NV]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$97,654
24 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$11,850
Committees
$0
Individuals
$85,804

No PAC contributions found

1
LAS VEGAS PAIUTE TRIBE
1 transaction
$3,300
2
MISSISSIPPI BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS
1 transaction
$2,500
3
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
2 transactions
$2,000
4
ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE
1 transaction
$1,500
5
MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION
1 transaction
$1,000
6
MOHEGAN TRIBE OF INDIANS OF CONNECTICUT
1 transaction
$1,000
7
CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
1 transaction
$550

No committee contributions found

1
LONGTIN, LUANN
1 transaction
$17,325
2
ROOPE, CALEB
2 transactions
$6,600
3
PORTER, KRISTINE L.
2 transactions
$6,600
4
PORTER, JON CHRISTOPHER JR
2 transactions
$6,600
5
SLIFKA, ROSALYN
1 transaction
$5,800
6
NAGY, AURANGZEB N.
1 transaction
$4,800
7
LONGTIN, DAVID
1 transaction
$4,700
8
DE BURLO, C. RUSSELL
1 transaction
$3,500
9
SIMON, DEBORAH
1 transaction
$3,375
10
COOKE, JOHN
1 transaction
$3,356
11
SEYEDIN, NADER
1 transaction
$3,348
12
SWEEN, PAUL
1 transaction
$3,300
13
CARUSO, RICK J.
1 transaction
$3,300
14
EMERSON, WILLIAM
1 transaction
$3,300
15
MOLASKY, CHRISTY
1 transaction
$3,300
16
KATZ, MICHAEL
1 transaction
$3,300
17
LEVIN, DEBORAH
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 1 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Daines, Steve [R-MT]

ID: D000618

Top Contributors

30

1
CONFEDERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAI TRIBES OF THE FLATHEAD NATI
OrganizationPABLO, MT
$6,600
Mar 30, 2023
2
BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA
$5,000
Jun 18, 2024
3
BLUECHIP FINANCIAL
OrganizationBELCOURT, ND
$3,300
Jun 20, 2024
4
HPUL PROJECT OPERATION
OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA
$3,300
Jun 20, 2024
5
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC
$3,300
Nov 5, 2024
6
SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE
OrganizationSUQUAMISH, WA
$3,300
Sep 20, 2024
7
ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE
OrganizationLIVINGSTON, TX
$2,500
Oct 31, 2024
8
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Jun 5, 2024
9
MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION
OrganizationOKMULGEE, OK
$1,000
Jun 20, 2024
10
CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
OrganizationDURANT, OK
$765
Oct 17, 2023

Donor Network - Sen. Cortez Masto, Catherine [D-NV]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 70 nodes and 73 connections

Total contributions: $73

Top Donors - Sen. Cortez Masto, Catherine [D-NV]

Showing top 24 donors by contribution amount

7 Orgs17 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 helped.

  • +Renewable Energyconfidence 0.90

    Section 2 requires FERC to submit an annual report on the status of ongoing hydropower relicensing applications, increasing transparency and potentially reducing delays in licensing, which benefits hydropower operators within the renewable energy sector.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Cortez Masto, Catherine [D-NV])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Weak
Vector: 67%
Pages: 437-439AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses hydropower licensing transparency, while the Project 2025 policy focuses on FERC's transmission planning, natural gas pipeline approvals, cost allocation, and state sovereignty; they share only a general theme of increasing FERC oversight and transparency."

Key themes:FERCtransparencyoversight

— 405 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions l End undue discrimination that allows subsidized resources to distort price formation in RTOs. l Affirm its commitment that states will decide whether to join an RTO instead of imposing RTOs on regions that do not want them. FERC should also consider allowing states to enter into non-RTO power pools with alternative structures for the sharing of resources and electric generation. FERC: ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION Mission/Overview Under the Federal Power Act, FERC has the authority to regulate the rates, terms, and conditions of interstate electric transmission. (Pursuant to court cases, interstate transmission can be entirely within a state, although the part of Texas served by ERCOT is not under FERC transmission jurisdiction.) Needed Reforms FERC has been considering how to plan for and allocate costs for new trans- mission lines and how new generation resources will be interconnected to the transmission grid. (Transmission expansion and replacement decisions are usu- ally made by local utilities or by an RTO or regional planning entity). Through two major rulemakings,118 FERC is attempting to facilitate the building of more long-range transmission lines and to socialize more of the costs of transmission buildouts to more customers in order to make it cheaper for renewable develop- ers (primarily) to interconnect to the grid and sell their power. Socializing such costs is a form of subsidy for generators and will cause further price distortions in RTOs and ISOs that will make it less economical for reliable, dispatchable resources like coal, nuclear, and natural gas to stay operational and support reliability.119 Also, under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, DOE and FERC are granted authority to site and permit high-priority transmission lines as National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (NIETCs). The Inflation Reduction Act provides funding to DOE to support transmission expansion.120 These initiatives will undermine state input and decision-making. FERC will consider rules on how NIETC transmission applications are to be made. New Policies FERC should either change course on its existing transmission rulemakings (if still in progress) or issue a new rulemaking to: — 406 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Ensure that transmission planning and interconnection processes are resource neutral. l Prevent socializing costs for customers who do not benefit from the projects or justifying such cost shifts as advancing vague “societal benefits” such as climate change. l Stop cost allocation from becoming a subsidy for generators, such as renewables. With respect to NIETCs, FERC and the new DESAS should ensure that state interests are respected and not allow such NEITC transmission lines to be devel- oped as a mere subsidy to renewable developers. Furthermore, much of the transmission buildout (including its attendant costs) is being driven by renewable developers seeking market share. These projects are causing rates for customers to go up and hurting reliability. FERC needs to ensure that transmission buildouts are planned for the benefit of customers. FERC: NATURAL GAS PIPELINES Mission/Overview FERC permits, sites, and authorizes the construction and operation of inter- state natural gas pipelines.121 It also regulates the rates for the shipping of natural gas122 (but not the price of the natural gas commodity, which is market based). FERC is charged with ensuring that natural gas pipelines are approved if they are required by the “public convenience and necessity.”123 Pipeline permitting is sub- ject to environmental reviews under NEPA, and the rate for the pipeline and the shipping of the commodity is set by FERC under a just and reasonable standard. Once FERC approves a project, the holder of the certificate has the sovereign’s power of eminent domain. Needed Reforms Natural gas pipelines are vital for the economy, manufacturing, heating, and electric generation. Opposition from “Keep it in the ground” environmentalists has made it harder to gain approvals for natural gas pipelines. Under Democrat leadership, FERC has proposed official policies to consider upstream and down- stream GHG emissions from the use of the natural gas that would be shipped in the pipeline to be part of FERC’s public-interest determination when deciding whether to approve a pipeline. There is conflicting direction from the D.C. Circuit on the GHG issue, which also could be seen as a “major questions” issue under the U.S. Supreme Court’s West Virginia v. EPA decision.124

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Weak
Vector: 65%
Pages: 440-442AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill concerns hydropower relicensing transparency, whereas the Project 2025 excerpt focuses on FERC's LNG/GHG policy and NRC reforms; they share only a tangential link through FERC oversight."

Key themes:FERClicensing processregulatory oversighttransparency

— 408 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise FERC is considering policy statements that would consider GHG emissions as part of its NEPA review and its NGA determination as to whether approval of an LNG export facility is consistent with the public interest. New Policies Since Congress through the NGA has already determined that LNG exports to countries with free trade agreements are in the public interest,129 and because LNG exports help to ensure America’s ability to support our friends and allies around the world while also supporting domestic natural gas production, FERC: l Should not use environmental issues like climate change as a reason to stop LNG projects. l Should ensure that the natural gas pipelines that are needed deliver more of the product to market, both for domestic use and export, and are reviewed, developed and constructed in a timely manner. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Mission/Overview The Energy Reorganization Act of 1974130 created the Nuclear Regulatory Com- mission (NRC). Before then, the commercial nuclear industry was regulated by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), which was established by the 1954 Atomic Energy Act.131 Importantly, the AEC was responsible for encouraging and regulat- ing commercial nuclear power. Broad criticism of this dual function was a major factor in the establishment of the NRC, which held regulatory authority while the newly established Department of Energy held the advocacy function. Today, the NRC is responsible for a broad range of regulatory activities, including reactor safety, oversight of nuclear materials, and protection against radiation as well as permitting new reactors, certifying new reactor designs, and regulating nuclear waste management activities. Needed Reforms In 1989, the NRC established alternative licensing processes that were meant to provide a more predictable and efficient regulatory pathway for new Light Water Reactors (LWRs) by combining construction and operating nuclear power plant licenses, allowing for Early Site Permits, and establishing a framework for pre- approval of reactor designs. More recently, the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act directed the NRC to establish a technology-neutral licensing process for new, advanced reactor technologies.132 Despite these efforts, the NRC remains a significant cost and regulatory barrier to new nuclear power. Especially — 409 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions frustrating is that these costs to a large extent are due to the agencies being overly prescriptive rather than outcomes-focused and fall on well-known and understood LWR reactor technologies. New Policies While refocusing its regulatory efforts on new reactor technologies, the NRC should also continue to ensure the security of radiological sources and mitigate cybersecurity risks across the industry. Applications for Combined Operating Licenses (COLs) and design certifications that rely on light-water technology should generally be completed within two years. Early Site Permits should gener- ally be issued within one year for construction on or adjacent to an existing reactor site. Additionally, the NRC should: l Expedite the review and approval of license extensions of existing reactors, which will require the NRC to streamline and focus its NEPA review process. l Set clear radiation exposure and protection standards by eliminating ALARA (“as low as reasonably achievable”) as a regulatory principle and setting clear standards according to radiological risk and dose rather than arbitrary objectives. l Work with Congress to reform its funding approach so that licensee fees are generally required for activities that are specific to a regulated entity, with other agency costs being provided through normal appropriations. Budget In FY 2022, the NRC was required to recover approximately 85 percent of its $887.7 million budget through licensee fees.133 The Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act requires the NRC to recover nearly all of its costs through fees. These reforms would likely not cost additional money but could rebalance the fee-versus-appropriations calculation. AUTHOR’S NOTE: The preparation of this chapter was the work of many individuals. All contributors to this chapter are listed at the front of this volume, but I wish to give special thanks to Brent Bennett, Willis Bixby, Travis Fisher, Ben Lieberman, Brian McCormack, Tom Pyle, Mark Robeck, Daniel Simmons, Jack Spencer, Katie Tubb, and David Walsh. Though informed by many, the author alone assumes responsibility for the content of this chapter, and no views expressed herein should be attributed to any particular individual.

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Weak
Vector: 64%
Pages: 440-442AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses hydropower licensing transparency, whereas the Project 2025 FERC section focuses on natural gas pipeline certification, LNG exports, and limiting NEPA analysis; there is only a tangential connection through FERC oversight."

Key themes:FERC oversightenergy licensingregulatory reporting

— 407 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions New Policies FERC should: l Recommit itself to the NGA’s purpose of providing the American people with access to affordable and reliable natural gas. l Limit its NGA decision-making on natural gas pipeline certificates to the question of whether there is a need for the natural gas. l Limit its NEPA analysis to the impacts of the actual pipeline itself, not indirect upstream and downstream effects. In addition, Congress, the states, and FERC should consider how better to pro- tect and compensate property owners whose property is taken for the benefit of the public. FERC also needs to be mindful that natural gas pipelines and projects are important for domestic access to natural gas, including local natural gas utilities, natural gas–fired electric generation, and manufacturing, as well as for exports of liquefied natural gas. FERC: LNG EXPORT FACILITIES Mission/Overview FERC permits, sites, and authorizes the construction and operation of LNG export facilities.125 It does not authorize the export of natural gas; DOE exercises that authority. LNG export facilities are important for delivering natural gas to markets around the world and have become an important policy tool in limiting the ability of Russia and Middle Eastern countries to use energy as a tool in for- eign affairs. Needed Reforms LNG exports are opposed by climate activists. In addition, some domestic man- ufacturers argue that LNG exports decrease available U.S. supplies of natural gas and increase the domestic price, thereby harming the competitive advantages of U.S. manufacturers in world markets. Currently, most LNG export facilities are along the Gulf of Mexico in Texas and Louisiana.126 Attempts to build facilities on the west coast (Jordan Cove LNG127) and the east coast have not moved forward for a variety of reasons; delays and costs of litigation can cause developers to cancel projects. An Alaska facility was approved by FERC in 2020, and the Biden Administration has indicated its sup- port.128 An east coast facility in Pennsylvania (or nearby) would unlock Marcellus shale natural gas for export. — 408 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise FERC is considering policy statements that would consider GHG emissions as part of its NEPA review and its NGA determination as to whether approval of an LNG export facility is consistent with the public interest. New Policies Since Congress through the NGA has already determined that LNG exports to countries with free trade agreements are in the public interest,129 and because LNG exports help to ensure America’s ability to support our friends and allies around the world while also supporting domestic natural gas production, FERC: l Should not use environmental issues like climate change as a reason to stop LNG projects. l Should ensure that the natural gas pipelines that are needed deliver more of the product to market, both for domestic use and export, and are reviewed, developed and constructed in a timely manner. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Mission/Overview The Energy Reorganization Act of 1974130 created the Nuclear Regulatory Com- mission (NRC). Before then, the commercial nuclear industry was regulated by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), which was established by the 1954 Atomic Energy Act.131 Importantly, the AEC was responsible for encouraging and regulat- ing commercial nuclear power. Broad criticism of this dual function was a major factor in the establishment of the NRC, which held regulatory authority while the newly established Department of Energy held the advocacy function. Today, the NRC is responsible for a broad range of regulatory activities, including reactor safety, oversight of nuclear materials, and protection against radiation as well as permitting new reactors, certifying new reactor designs, and regulating nuclear waste management activities. Needed Reforms In 1989, the NRC established alternative licensing processes that were meant to provide a more predictable and efficient regulatory pathway for new Light Water Reactors (LWRs) by combining construction and operating nuclear power plant licenses, allowing for Early Site Permits, and establishing a framework for pre- approval of reactor designs. More recently, the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act directed the NRC to establish a technology-neutral licensing process for new, advanced reactor technologies.132 Despite these efforts, the NRC remains a significant cost and regulatory barrier to new nuclear power. Especially

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills