FLOWS Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Langworthy, Nicholas A. [R-NY-23]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 21, 2026
Bottom line
The FLOWS Act seeks to reduce regulatory burdens and accelerate the development of both conventional hydropower maintenance and small-scale hydrokinetic energy projects by clarifying FERC's oversight authority and establishing expedited licensing procedures.
What it actually does
The bill amends the Federal Power Act to streamline the regulatory process for existing hydropower projects by clarifying when Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approval is required for alterations, maintenance, and repairs. It also creates a new, expedited licensing pathway for "micro hydrokinetic energy projects" with capacities up to 5 megawatts, aiming to accelerate their deployment by setting strict deadlines for FERC action and allowing for categorical environmental exclusions.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill will reduce unnecessary regulatory delays and costs for hydropower operators, allowing for more efficient maintenance and modernization of existing infrastructure, which is crucial for grid reliability. They also contend that streamlining the licensing process for micro hydrokinetic projects will unlock new sources of renewable energy, contributing to climate goals and energy diversification without significant environmental impact due to their small scale and non-impounding nature.
Opponents contend
Opponents might express concerns that by limiting FERC's approval requirements for alterations and maintenance, the bill could inadvertently reduce oversight of environmental and safety standards for hydropower projects. They may also argue that the expedited licensing and categorical exclusions for micro hydrokinetic projects could bypass necessary environmental reviews, potentially harming aquatic ecosystems or other protected resources, despite the projects' small scale.
The bill is concise and relatively easy to read, allowing for a quick understanding of its main provisions within the typical time allotted for legislative review.
Section 2(a) amending FPA Section 10(b)
Hydropower Project Alteration Approval Standards
This provision clarifies that FERC approval is only required for "substantial alterations or additions" to existing hydropower project works or operations. It explicitly states that approval is not needed for other types of alterations or for temporary operational variances caused by unforeseen events like extreme weather or equipment failures. This aims to reduce regulatory hurdles for minor changes.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision will prevent unnecessary delays and costs for hydropower operators, allowing them to respond more quickly to operational needs, maintain infrastructure efficiently, and adapt to changing conditions without protracted regulatory processes for minor issues.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that defining "substantial" too narrowly or exempting temporary variances could reduce FERC's oversight capacity, potentially leading to cumulative environmental impacts or safety concerns if many minor changes are made without review.
Tradeoffs
Balances the need for regulatory oversight to ensure safety and environmental protection with the desire to reduce administrative burdens and increase operational flexibility for hydropower facilities.
Section 2(b) amending FPA Section 10(c)
Routine Hydropower Maintenance Exemption
This provision explicitly states that FERC approval or a license amendment is not required for routine maintenance, repair, or replacement of any part of a hydropower project's works. This further streamlines operations for licensees by removing regulatory steps for standard upkeep activities.
Section 2(c)
Regulatory Definitions for Hydropower Project Changes
This section mandates FERC to initiate a rulemaking process within 90 days of enactment to propose definitions for "substantial alteration or addition," "nonsubstantial alteration or addition," and "routine maintenance, repair, or replacement." Following public comment, FERC must finalize these standards and a formal process for determining what requires approval within 180 days of the proposed rule.
Section 3, adding FPA Section 37(a)
Micro Hydrokinetic Energy Project Definition
This provision defines "micro hydrokinetic energy project" as a project with an installed capacity of not more than 5 megawatts that converts hydrokinetic energy from waves, tides, currents, or free-flowing water into electricity. Crucially, it specifies that such projects do not impound water, distinguishing them from traditional hydropower dams.
Section 3, adding FPA Section 37(c)
Streamlined Licensing for Micro Hydrokinetic Projects
This provision establishes an expedited licensing process for micro hydrokinetic energy projects. It sets strict deadlines: applicants must file a notification of intent, then an application within one year, and FERC must take final action on the application within one year of its filing. It also mandates FERC and other agencies to establish joint schedules to meet these deadlines.
Section 3, adding FPA Section 37(d)(2)
Environmental Review Streamlining for Micro Hydrokinetic Projects
This provision mandates FERC's implementing regulations to include one or more categorical exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for "low disturbance activities" necessary for micro hydrokinetic energy projects. It also allows for extraordinary circumstances where such exclusions would not apply.
Directs FERC to base its proposed rulemaking for defining "substantial alteration" and "routine maintenance" on the results of a specific Notice of Inquiry (NOI) issued on November 20, 2025 (90 Fed. Reg. 53310; Docket No. RM26-3-000).
Section 2(c)(1)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to reference existing administrative processes or findings. It ensures that the new regulations are informed by prior agency research and public input, rather than starting from scratch.
Case for: Supporters would argue that leveraging existing agency work ensures that the new regulations are well-informed, build on previous stakeholder engagement, and are developed efficiently, avoiding duplication of effort.
Case against: Critics might argue that relying on a prior NOI, whose scope and findings might not perfectly align with the bill's specific directives, could limit the flexibility of the new rulemaking or embed pre-existing biases.
Estimated impact: Ensures the new regulatory definitions are grounded in previous FERC analysis and stakeholder feedback, potentially shaping the scope of future hydropower project oversight.
A savings clause explicitly states that nothing in Section 2 or its amendments affects FERC's authority to require notice from licensees, enforce FPA requirements or license terms regarding dam and appurtenant works safety, or to require changes in advance of work to protect dam safety.
Section 2(d)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to ensure that new provisions intended to streamline processes do not inadvertently undermine critical existing authorities, especially concerning public safety.
Case for: Proponents would highlight this as a crucial safeguard, ensuring that while regulatory burdens are reduced for routine activities, FERC retains full authority to protect public safety and critical infrastructure, addressing potential concerns about deregulation.
Case against: While generally uncontroversial, some might argue that if the new definitions of "substantial alteration" are too broad, the practical effect might still be a reduction in proactive safety oversight, even with the savings clause.
Estimated impact: Preserves FERC's paramount authority over dam safety, ensuring that streamlining efforts do not compromise structural integrity or public safety.