Three Federal Agencies Sign MOU to Support Hydropower Development at Federal Facilities and on Federal Lands

Sending a strong signal of support for growth of hydropower in the United States, the heads of three federal key agencies – the Department of Energy (DOE), the Department of the Interior, and the Army Corps of Engineers (collectively, Agencies) – signed a potentially ground-breaking Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on March 24, 2010.  The MOU recognizes hydropower as the largest source of renewable electricity in the nation and heralds its additional reliability, economic, and emissions benefits.  The MOU states the Agencies’ goal of increased hydropower development, in an environmentally responsible manner, at federal facilities and on federal lands, to be undertaken by federal and non-federal entities.

The MOU not only sets broad-based goals to better study, promote, and coordinate in the development of hydropower, it also identifies several concrete action items and sets target completion dates, including:

• Identifying potential opportunities for new hydropower generation at currently undeveloped federal dams, the addition of new pumped storage facilities, and efficiency improvements at current generating facilities;
  
  
• Initiating a basin-scale approach to hydropower development for new conventional, hydrokinetic, and pumped storage facilities;
  
  
• Developing a Green Hydropower Certification program;
  
  
• Convening a Federal Inland Hydropower Working Group among the signatory Agencies and other federal agencies involved in the regulation and management of hydropower resources;
  
  
• Cooperating in research and development efforts;
  
  
• Emphasizing hydropower’s critical role in integrating other renewable energy technologies into the electric grid; and
  
  
• Working to facilitate the current hydropower permitting processes for federal and non-federal hydropower projects.

A copy of the MOU can be found here, and a press release is available here.  

Unanswered Questions

Although a strong commitment by a consortium of federal administrators to support, coordinate, and promote development of the nation’s hydropower resources, the MOU raises some questions that presumably will only be answered as the MOU is implemented.  For example:

• The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is not a signatory to the MOU.  USDA, through the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), administers hundreds of millions of acres of federal lands nationwide.  As many existing non-hydropower dams and other potential hydropower sites are located within the National Forests, USFS undoubtedly will have significant involvement and authority in the development of additional hydropower resources, particularly in the West.

• Similarly, the MOU was not signed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), nor is FERC mentioned in the MOU.  At least some of the MOU’s initiatives contemplate greater communication, collaboration, and efficiency in the federal approval process for hydropower projects, and even a possible streamlining of the processes.  It is not clear whether the MOU intends to propose changes in the FERC licensing process or how the initiatives discussed in the MOU might affect the FERC process.

• The MOU includes a Green Hydropower Certification component, under which   DOE will consult with tribes, state governments, and environmental organizations to generate a list of criteria that can be used to certify sustainable and environmentally friendly new hydropower projects.  The MOU does not state whether this certification process will be a prerequisite for all new hydropower projects at federal facilities or on federal lands, or whether it will merely offer incentives to encourage certification on a voluntary basis.  It is also unclear how the Green Hydropower Certification program will relate to the certification program developed by the Low Impact Hydropower Institute.

• Under the MOU, the Agencies will assess the opportunity for a basin-scale approach to hydropower development.  It is unclear how the basin-wide approach might affect the timing of individual project proposals.