Categorical Exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act for Certain Terminations or Revocations of Water Power Licenses or Exemptions

Neil P. Osnato, Founder of Persistence Analytics Group LLC / United Grid, supports the Commission's action to streamline hydropower review but emphasizes the need for a rigorous "implementation-verification screen." He argues that while categorical exclusions are appropriate for low-impact actions, FERC must maintain clear documentation on dam safety, environmental impacts, and public-interest records to ensure accountability and safety.

The Nature Conservancy opposes the proposed rule because it would allow hydropower licensees to walk away from dams without a full NEPA review, potentially creating "orphaned dams" and shifting risks to local communities. They argue that the categorical exclusion would deprive the Commission of necessary information regarding public safety, environmental impacts, and stakeholder input.

Patriot Hydro, LLC supports the Commission's proposed rulemaking to expand the categorical exclusion (CE) for certain terminations or revocations of water power licenses. The company argues that the Commission should further extend this CE to include voluntary surrenders of hydroelectric facilities that result in minor environmental impacts to improve administrative efficiency and reduce regulatory burdens.

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources opposes the proposed categorical exclusion for water power license and exemption terminations or revocations. They argue that the proposal fails to account for the environmental consequences of inaction, such as dam safety risks, infrastructure deterioration, and the loss of habitat management, and recommend continued environmental review.

The Hydropower Reform Coalition (HRC) opposes the proposed categorical exclusion for license termination, surrender, and revocation of water power licenses. They argue that the proposal fails to account for the environmental consequences of inaction, such as the degradation of unmaintained infrastructure, and bypasses the requirement to evaluate alternatives like dam removal.

American Whitewater and the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance oppose the proposed Categorical Exclusion for hydropower license terminations or revocations. They argue that exempting these actions from NEPA review fails to consider decommissioning alternatives, prevents the Commission from making informed public interest determinations, and creates a negative incentive for orderly project surrender.

New York Rivers United (NYRU) expresses a mixed position on the proposed expansion of categorical exclusions for hydropower license terminations. While they support streamlining for projects with minimal environmental impact, they argue for caution and the preservation of site-specific reviews for projects with aging infrastructure, safety concerns, or complex land ownership issues.

Madeline Stewart, a student completing a legal writing assignment, suggests that the proposed rule should more clearly define the term "minor" regarding disturbances to ground or water flow. She argues that vague terminology could lead to inconsistent compliance and potential harm to water quality or ecosystems.

Addison Lee, a private individual, opposes the proposed categorical exclusion because it lacks clear standards for what constitutes "minor" environmental disturbance. The commenter argues for more rigorous accountability and a requirement for site cleanup or revitalization when water power licenses are terminated.