PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Sep 30, 1998
Hydroelectric Licensing Process Improvement Act of 1998 - Amends the Federal Power Act to prescribe factors which Federal agency participants in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) hydroelectric license renewal process (consulting agencies) must consider and document when setting forth conditions for such renewals, including the economic impact of such conditions as well as air quality, flood control, irrigation, navigation, and recreation and drinking water supply. Requires that each condition be subjected to appropriately substantiated scientific peer review based on current empirical data or field-tested data. Requires such consulting agency to provide a license applicant opportunity to obtain expedited administrative review of its proposed conditions before filing a FERC application. Empowers the reviewing body to remand the matter to such agency if the reviewer finds the agency's proposed conditions do not comply with this Act. Sets a one-year deadline by which a consulting agency must file its proposed licensing conditions with FERC. Directs FERC to: (1) conduct an economic analysis of each condition submitted by a consulting agency to determine whether it would render the project uneconomic; (2) conduct a single consolidated environmental review for each licensed project pursuant to its status as lead agency for environmental reviews; and (3) set a deadline for the submission of comments by Federal, State, and local government agencies regarding any environmental impact or assessment required for a project. Instructs FERC to consider the need of license applicants for a prompt decision when setting such deadlines. Directs FERC to study and report to certain congressional committees on the feasibility of establishing a separate licensing procedure for small hydroelectric projects with a generating capacity of five megawatts or less.
People & committees
Sen. Craig, Larry E. [R-ID] · R–ID
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S11182-11183)
Introduced in Senate
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 S.2533 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 S.2533 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 S.2533 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 S.2533 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.