H.R. 9705: To require the Secretary of the Army to issue guidance relating to the review of applications for alteration or temporary or permanent occupation or use of certain hydropower projects, and for other purposes.

This bill would require the Secretary of the Army to create standardized guidance for reviewing certain applications related to non-federal hydropower projects that need permission under 33 U.S.C. 408 to alter, temporarily occupy, or permanently use certain project areas.

What the bill would require

• Within 1 year of enactment, the Army Secretary would have to issue guidance for how these applications are reviewed.
• The guidance would have to include a standard checklist of required application materials.
• That checklist would be developed with input from:
  • the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
  • the Corps of Engineers’ Hydroelectric Design Center,
  • hydropower project operators, and
  • relevant industry groups.
• The guidance would also have to clearly define what counts as a complete application, including:
  • the required documents and analyses,
  • formatting and submission rules, and
  • proof that the project complies with any applicable FERC license.

How the review process would be limited

The bill says that the initial “completeness review” would be limited to checking whether the application package is properly filed and contains the required items. In that stage, the Army would only verify:

• all required documents were submitted,
• the documents are in the required format, and
• the application addresses the items on the standardized checklist.

The bill would prohibit the completeness review from becoming a deeper engineering or policy review. In particular, the Army could not:

• do detailed technical analysis of engineering calculations,
• judge whether the project design is adequate or consider alternative designs,
• ask for design changes or additional analysis during the completeness review,
• consider factors not included in the standardized checklist, or
• require compliance with environmental standards that were not already established by a federal or relevant state agency before the application was submitted.

Phased reviews and missed deadlines

If an application requires a phased design review, the guidance would also need to spell out:

• the purpose and scope of each phase,
• a timeline for each phase, and
• definitions of terms such as “fatal flaw,” “final quality assurance,” and “technical review.”

The bill would also require procedures for escalating an application to higher levels within the Corps of Engineers if a required deadline is missed.

Practical effect

In plain terms, the bill is meant to make the Army’s review of certain hydropower-related permission requests more standardized and limited at the early stage. It would focus the first review on whether an application is complete, rather than on technical redesign or broader engineering judgment, and it would create clearer rules and timelines for both applicants and reviewers.

Relevant Companies

• None found