FLOWS Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK]
- Committees
- Energy and Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 10, 2026
Bottom line
The FLOWS Act aims to reduce regulatory burdens for hydropower operators and accelerate the deployment of small-scale hydrokinetic renewable energy by streamlining FERC's approval and licensing processes.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Federal Power Act to streamline regulatory processes for existing hydropower projects by exempting certain minor alterations, routine maintenance, and temporary operational adjustments from requiring Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approval. It also establishes a new, expedited licensing framework for 'micro hydrokinetic energy projects' (up to 5 megawatts, non-impounding), including a mandate for FERC to develop categorical exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for these projects.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill will reduce unnecessary bureaucratic delays and costs for hydropower operators, allowing for more efficient maintenance and quicker responses to operational needs without compromising safety. They also contend that expediting the licensing of micro hydrokinetic projects will accelerate the deployment of clean, renewable energy technologies, fostering innovation and contributing to energy independence and climate goals by removing regulatory hurdles for small-scale, low-impact projects.
Opponents contend
Critics might express concerns that reducing FERC's approval requirements, even for 'nonsubstantial' changes or 'routine' maintenance, could lead to a cumulative weakening of environmental oversight or create ambiguities in what constitutes a minor change. Regarding micro hydrokinetic projects, opponents may argue that broad categorical exclusions under NEPA could bypass necessary environmental scrutiny, potentially leading to unforeseen ecological impacts if numerous small projects are deployed without adequate individual review.
The bill is concise and clearly written, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its provisions and implications within a short timeframe.
Section 2(a) and 2(b) of the bill, amending Section 10(b) and 10(c) of the Federal Power Act
Streamlining Approvals for Hydropower Project Alterations and Maintenance
This provision amends the Federal Power Act to exempt hydropower licensees from needing FERC approval for 'nonsubstantial alterations or additions' to project works, as well as for 'routine maintenance, repair, or replacement' of project works. It also removes the requirement for FERC approval for 'seasonal or temporary adjustments to project operations' made in response to circumstances beyond the licensee's reasonable control. These changes aim to reduce administrative burdens and expedite operational flexibility for existing hydropower facilities.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that these changes will eliminate unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles that delay essential maintenance and minor improvements, thereby enhancing the efficiency and reliability of hydropower operations. They contend that FERC's current approval process for these activities is overly burdensome and that the bill allows operators to respond more quickly to operational needs without compromising safety, which is explicitly preserved.
Critics contend
Critics may argue that even seemingly 'nonsubstantial' alterations or 'routine' maintenance, when aggregated across many projects, could have cumulative environmental impacts that warrant regulatory review. They might also express concern about how 'nonsubstantial' will be defined and whether it could lead to a loophole for changes that should undergo more scrutiny.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the desire to reduce administrative burdens and operational costs for hydropower facilities with the need to maintain environmental oversight and ensure public safety. The tension lies in defining the threshold at which regulatory review becomes essential versus when it is an unnecessary impediment.
Section 3 of the bill, adding new Section 37 to Part I of the Federal Power Act
Expedited Licensing Process for Micro Hydrokinetic Energy Projects
This provision creates a new section in the Federal Power Act specifically for 'micro hydrokinetic energy projects,' defined as projects with an installed capacity of not more than 5 megawatts that convert hydrokinetic energy from waves, tides, currents, or free-flowing water, and do not impound water. It mandates an expedited licensing process for these projects, setting strict deadlines for applicants (1 year to file application after notification of intent) and for FERC (1 year to take final action after application filing). It also requires FERC to establish categorical exclusions under NEPA for 'low disturbance activities' related to these projects.
This 'Savings Clause' clarifies that nothing in Section 2 (regarding hydropower maintenance and temporary adjustments) affects FERC's authority to require notice from licensees, enforce existing requirements, or ensure the safety of any dam and appurtenant works and structures. It also explicitly allows for prompt, informal consultation between licensees and FERC regarding safety and permits FERC to require changes in advance of work to protect dam safety.
Section 2(c) of the bill
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to include savings clauses to clarify legislative intent, prevent unintended repeal or limitation of existing authorities, and preemptively address potential criticisms regarding safety or enforcement.
Case for: Ensures that the streamlining of administrative burdens for minor hydropower alterations and maintenance does not compromise critical safety oversight for hydropower infrastructure, which is paramount for public safety and environmental protection. It provides a crucial safeguard against potential misinterpretations of the bill's intent.
Case against: No direct opposition is typically raised against a safety-preserving clause. However, some might argue that while the clause preserves FERC's authority, the initial exemptions from approval could still create a perception of reduced oversight, potentially leading to less proactive engagement from licensees on safety matters, even if FERC retains ultimate authority.
Estimated impact: Significant in ensuring continued public safety and structural integrity of hydropower projects. It mitigates risks associated with potential dam failures and related hazards by explicitly retaining FERC's robust authority in this critical area.
This provision mandates that FERC's regulations for implementing the expedited licensing process for micro hydrokinetic energy projects 'shall provide for the use of 1 or more categorical exclusions, including allowing for extraordinary circumstances under which the categorical exclusion shall not be available, under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) for low disturbance activities necessary for micro hydrokinetic energy projects.'
Section 3(d)(2) of the bill
Why it matters:It is standard legislative practice to delegate the specifics of regulatory implementation to the relevant agency. However, the explicit instruction to create NEPA categorical exclusions represents a significant policy directive, rather than just a procedural detail, making its placement somewhat 'buried' within the regulatory mandate.
Case for: Proponents argue that this directive is essential for truly expediting micro hydrokinetic projects. They contend that requiring full NEPA environmental assessments for small-scale, non-impounding projects that are inherently 'low disturbance' is an unnecessary burden that stifles innovation and renewable energy deployment. Categorical exclusions, with provisions for extraordinary circumstances, provide a sensible balance.
Case against: Environmental advocates may argue that mandating categorical exclusions for an entire class of projects, even 'low disturbance' ones, could weaken the fundamental protections of NEPA. They might express concern that cumulative impacts from numerous small projects could be overlooked, and that the definition of 'low disturbance' or 'extraordinary circumstances' could be interpreted too broadly, leading to inadequate environmental review.
Estimated impact: Could significantly reduce the time and cost of environmental reviews for numerous small hydrokinetic projects, potentially leading to faster deployment of these technologies. However, it also shifts the burden of defining 'low disturbance' and 'extraordinary circumstances' to FERC, which will be critical in determining the actual level of environmental scrutiny.