PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 79 · Reported to House without amendment · Jun 29, 2012
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2012 - (Sec. 3) Amends the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) to increase from 5,000 to 10,000 kilowatts the size of small hydroelectric power projects which the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) may exempt from its license requirements.
(Sec. 4) Amends the Federal Power Act to revise the limitation on the maximum installation capacity of qualifying conduit hydropower facilities that are eligible for an exemption from licensing requirements.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires any person, state, or municipality proposing to construct a qualifying conduit hydropower facility to file with FERC a notice of intent to do so. Requires FERC, within 15 days after receiving such a notice of intent, to make an initial determination as to whether the facility meets the qualifying criteria.
Waives license requirements for any conduit hydroelectric facility that: (1) uses for electric power generation only the hydroelectric potential of a non-federally owned conduit, (2) has a maximum installed capacity of five megawatts, and (3) is not currently licensed or exempted from license requirements.
Redefines "conduit" to specify any tunnel, canal, pipeline, aqueduct, flume, ditch, or similar manmade water conveyance operated for the distribution of water for agricultural, municipal, or industrial consumption and not primarily for the generation of electricity.
Authorizes FERC to exempt from license requirements any electric power generation facility that utilizes for such generation only the hydroelectric potential of a conduit, and has an installed capacity or 40 megawatts or fewer.
(Sec. 5) Authorizes FERC to extend the preliminary permit period for up to two additional years beyond the three years otherwise allowed if it finds that the permittee has implemented activities under the permit in good faith and with reasonable diligence.
(Sec. 6) Directs FERC to: (1) investigate the feasibility of issuing a license for hydropower development at nonpowered dams and closed loop pumped storage projects during a two-year period, and (2) hold workshops and develop hydropower pilot projects.
(Sec. 7) Directs the Secretary of Energy (DOE) to study: (1) the technical flexibility that existing pumped storage facilities can provide to support intermittent renewable electric energy generation, including the potential for such facilities to be upgraded or retrofitted with advanced commercially available technology; and (2) the technical potential of existing pumped storage facilities and new advanced pumped storage facilities to provide grid reliability benefits.
People & committees
Rep. McMorris Rodgers, Cathy [R-WA-5] · R–WA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
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 the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 372 - 0 (Roll no. 454). (text: CR H4666-4668)
House roll call 454 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 372 - 0 (Roll no. 454).(text: CR H4666-4668)
House roll call 454 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H4671-4672)
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 H.R. 5892.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4666-4670)
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 404.
Reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 112-563.
Reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 112-563.
Ordered to be Reported.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
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.
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.5892 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.5892 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.5892 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.5892 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.