Steve Daines (R-MT)
A bill to require the Secretary of the Army to issue guidance relating to the review of applications for alteration or temporary or permanent occupation or use of certain hydropower projects, and for other purposes.
A Republican bill with 1 Democratic cosponsor · See all 2 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill requires the Secretary of the Army to create specific guidance for reviewing applications related to the alteration or use of certain hydropower projects. The Secretary must establish a standardized checklist of required materials for these applications. The guidance must also include clear criteria for what makes an application complete and establish phased review procedures with specific timelines. Additionally, the bill mandates escalation procedures for cases where deadlines are not met. The guidance is intended to limit the scope of completeness reviews to document verification only.
Yes
- Scored +5
Would business owners be better off under this?
The bill benefits energy project operators by providing predictable review timelines and limiting the scope of initial completeness reviews.
- Scored +4
Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts?
The bill enhances due process by mandating specific timelines and escalation procedures for application reviews.
- Scored +3
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The bill improves transparency by establishing standardized checklists and clear timelines for hydropower application reviews.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Standardized Application Process: The requirement for a standardized checklist of required materials (Section 1(b)(1)(A)) and clear completeness criteria (Section 1(b)(1)(B)) could provide clarity for those applying for project alterations.
-
Predictable Timelines: The mandate for phased review procedures to include a specific timeline for each phase (Section 1(b)(1)(C)(ii)) may help project operators plan more effectively.
-
Accountability for Deadlines: The establishment of escalation procedures (Section 1(b)(1)(D)) provides a way to refer applications to higher-level officials if deadlines for the application process are not met.
-
Limited Scope of Initial Reviews: By prohibiting the Secretary from conducting detailed technical reviews or requesting design modifications during a completeness review (Section 1(b)(3)(A-C)), the bill aims to ensure the initial review process remains focused on verification rather than design evaluation.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No specific negative impacts or burdens are explicitly detailed in the text provided.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — The bill enhances due process by mandating specific timelines and escalation procedures for application reviews. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill improves transparency by establishing standardized checklists and clear timelines for hydropower application reviews.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — The bill benefits energy project operators by providing predictable review timelines and limiting the scope of initial completeness reviews.
- 8/7/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/15/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in Senate
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Maggie HassanDemocrat · New Hampshire
David McCormickRepublican · Pennsylvania