H.R. 3657House bill · 119th CongressSigned into lawdonor lobbied it Energy

Hydropower Licensing Transparency Act

Sponsored byKim SchrierD-WA-8Introduced May 29, 2025Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Sep 25, 2026) — Signed by President.

What it does

Congressional Research Service, May 29, 2025

Hydropower Relicensing Transparency Act

This bill directs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to report annually to Congress on the status of the relicensing process for each application for a renewed hydropower dam license.

Face Value

as enrolled

100Narrow

How much of this bill its name accounts for.

Every bill starts at100
Nothing counted against it: one area of law, and short enough that length doesn't register.

Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out

Who lobbied on this

4 organizations

These organizations told Congress, in their own quarterly disclosures, that they were lobbying on this bill.

American Public Power Associationwanted it passed
“…Discussed support of H.R. 3657, the Hydropower Licensing Transparency Act, to direct the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to report annually to Congress on the…” filing ↗
Duke Energy Corporationno position stated
“…Demand (SPEED) and Reliability Act (transmission market reform, siting of large transmission infrastructure, and interconnection queue reform). H.R. 3657 - The Hydropower Relicensing Transparency Act (uprating and approvals of hydropower turbine replacement). H.R. 3617 - Securing Americas…” filing ↗
Edison Electric Instituteno position stated
“…Act H.R. 3638, Electric Supply Chain Act H.R. 3157, State Energy Accountability Act HR. 3628, State Planning for Reliability and Affordability Act H.R. 3657, Hydropower Relicensing Transparency Act H.R. 3015, National Coal Council Reestablishment Act H.R. 3617, Securing Americas Critical Minerals…” filing ↗
Xcel Energyno position stated
“…H.R. 3657, Hydropower Relicensing Transparency…” filing ↗

Most filings say only that an organization lobbied on a bill, not which side it took — where that's the case we say so rather than guessing. Quotes are verbatim from the filing. How this is built.

Discussion

11 comments

Sort

OldLineStateDemoOH-1voted Yea10d ago

I'd support this and still say the effective date is optimistic. Everything downstream of it assumes agencies move faster than they do. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.

omar.vasquezDemoNY-5voted Yea12d ago

The drafting is loose in places where loose drafting is expensive. Conference could fix it; conference could also make it worse. The committee report would settle it either way.

hollow_commuterDemoIA-2voted Nay10d ago

In favour. The transparency provisions alone justify it, and they're the hardest part to undo later. None of that is settled by the summary.

publiclandsfanDemoNC-1110d ago

Agreed on substance, disagreed on timing. Doing this badly now makes doing it well later harder.

cecilia_ruizDemoMI-3voted Nay12d ago

This looks like it codifies practice that already exists informally. Worth doing — informal practice evaporates when an administration changes. The floor version may not be this version, which is the usual problem.

omar.vasquezDemoNY-5voted Yea12d ago

That's true of almost every bill though, isn't it? At some point the objection stops being about this one.

b_haverfordDemoLA-6voted Yea10d ago

The cost estimate assumes full compliance, and full compliance never happens. That gap is where these things go wrong. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.

birch_ledgerDemoLA-2voted Nay9d ago

Support, without enthusiasm. A narrow fix now beats a comprehensive one that never arrives. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.

j_okonkwoDemoNC-14voted Nay11d ago

Worth reading the sponsor list before deciding — it's less partisan than the framing suggests. The committee report would settle it either way.

pine_machinistDemoAZ-5voted Yea11d ago

No from me. Pushing the cost to states without saying so is still an unfunded mandate. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.

j_okonkwoDemoNC-14voted Nay11d ago

Fair, though the alternative on the table is nothing, and nothing has a cost too.

Your position on H.R. 3657No positions yet