PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Jun 30, 2014
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the Senate on June 27, 2013. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Collinsville Renewable Energy Production Act - Authorizes the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), upon request of the town of Canton, Connecticut (Town), to: (1) reinstate the expired license for either or each of the projects numbered 10822 and 10823; (2) extend for two years after the date on which either or each such project is reinstated the time period during which the licensee must commence project construction, and (3) transfer such license to the Town upon a showing that the transfer is in the public interest.
Sets forth the conditions of such transfer, including those for the protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife and related habitat.
Directs FERC to supplement the environmental impact statement or similar analysis prepared in connection with the issuance of the original license to examine all new circumstances and information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the reinstatement or impact of the license.
People & committees
Rep. Esty, Elizabeth H. [D-CT-5] · D–CT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 113-122.
Became Public Law No: 113-122.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 379 - 3 (Roll no. 340). (text as House agreed to Senate amendment: CR H5605)
House roll call 340 · Individual votesResolving differences -- House actions: On motion that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 379 - 3 (Roll no. 340).(text as House agreed to Senate amendment: CR H5605)
House roll call 340 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H5611-5612)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on agreeing to the Senate amendment to H.R. 316.
Mr. Kinzinger (IL) moved that the House suspend the rules an agree to the Senate amendment. (consideration: CR H5605-5606)
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S3307-3308; text as passed Senate: CR S3308)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S3307-3308; text as passed Senate: CR S3308)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 123.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Wyden with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 113-69.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Wyden with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 113-69.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 113-32.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H441)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H441)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 316.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H441-442)
Mr. Whitfield moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 5.
Reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 113-7.
Reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 113-7.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Power.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.316 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.316 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.316 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.316 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.