PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Power.
Congressional Research Service
Version 35 · Passed Senate amended · Sep 27, 1996
Federal Power Act Amendments of 1996 - Exempts certain transmission line facilities associated with the El Vado Hydroelectric Project in New Mexico from Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensing requirements. Amends the Federal Power Act (FPA) to prescribe circumstances under which certain hydroelectric projects in Alaska having a power production capacity of 5,000 kilowatts or less shall be subject to the licensing authority of the State in lieu of FERC. Grants the licensee of a currently FERC-licensed project the discretion to subject such project to the State's authorizing authority. Subjects any State authorization for a project located on Federal lands to the approval of the Secretary with jurisdiction over such lands, and to such terms and conditions as that Secretary may prescribe. Declares that nothing shall preempt the application of Federal environment, natural, or cultural resources protection laws according to their terms. Excludes from FERC voluntary licensing jurisdiction any hydroelectric projects upon fresh waters in Hawaii, unless a license would be required because: (1) the waters are navigable; or (2) the projects affect interstate commerce, are located on Federal lands, or use water from a government dam. Directs FERC to extend for three consecutive two-year periods, upon request of a certain licensee, the time required to commence construction of specified hydroelectric projects in the State of Illinois. Suspends certain FPA use and occupancy fees for a five-year period with respect to a State of Montana political subdivision that accepts the terms of a FERC license for a specified hydroelectric project in Granite and Deer Lodge Counties. Requires payment of such fees in an amount up to $20,000 for any year, after the five-year period, for as long as such subdivision holds such license.
People & committees
Sen. Murkowski, Frank H. [R-AK] · R–AK
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Power.
Referred to the House Committee on Commerce.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Measure laid before Senate. (consideration: CR S11572-11573)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 100.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Original measure reported to Senate by Senator Murkowski. With written report No. 104-77.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Original measure reported to Senate by Senator Murkowski. With written report No. 104-77.
Introduced in Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources ordered to be reported an original measure.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources incorporated provisions of related measures S. 225, S. 359, S. 421, S. 461, S. 522, S. 538, S. 549 in reported measure.
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 S.737 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.737 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.737 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.737 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.