Subcommittee Markup of Eight Pieces of Legislation
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsKathy Castor
We need to do more to ensure tech companies meet their promises to not only pay for energy infrastructure, but also power their data centers with cleaner, cheaper energy and battery storage. Today's hearing also includes a long-overdue reauthorization of our pipeline safety program. While the bill is still incomplete, I appreciate that my Republican colleagues are working with us and hope that we can come to a bipartisan agreement that protects the American people, not just oil and gas special interests. Let me be clear: the bills we're discussing today will not address all of the challenges facing the high cost of energy and the need to upgrade our grid, but they take an important step in the right direction. I hope we can all continue to work together to deliver clean, reliable energy that can power the 21st-century economy and lower costs for all Americans.
Brett Guthrie
Appreciate you having this markup today, the consideration today. The subcommittee will consider eight bills to protect electric ratepayers from unnecessary cost, increase grid capacity, and improve pipeline safety. Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 6
Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, the chairman of the full committee, for five minutes for an opening statement.
Brett Guthrie
The bills reflect a significant amount of bipartisan work. They take a practical step to address some of the most pressing energy and power issues of the day. These issues concern the cost for our power system to reliably meet growing power demand and what is needed to protect ratepayers from unprecedented spending to meet that demand. We also take up reauthorizing PHMSA to ensure a safe and affordable supply of oil and gas for businesses and households. Throughout this Congress, the Energy Subcommittee has developed a large hearing record on various forces that will affect the future of our energy system.
For the power sector, we've heard from more than 40 expert witnesses representing all aspects of the industry, from small utilities to major grid operators to state and federal regulators. We've examined reliability, the challenges, benefits, and vital importance of data centers, and what is needed to build the power generation and grid we need for the future and to do so quickly. These are complex challenges that frustrate simple or one-size-that frustrate simple or one-size-fits-all solutions, especially when it comes to the various ways states and communities are responding to energy and power needs. Even at the federal regulatory level, one-size-fits-all power sector policy may not be appropriate. Just this past week, rather than issue a sweeping regulatory proposal for connecting large data centers to transmission systems, FERC chose to assess different regions on their own terms, recognizing that what works in the Midwest may not work in New England.
Regional and state approaches matter, and we should not forget that. This is why policies that support the sharing of technical information to encourage best practices make sense. Whether it's the grid or pipeline safety, it also makes sense to set general frameworks that states may then adjust to meet the needs of their communities. This is what several bills do today. We're on a good track.
Thanks to your work, Chairman Latta, and thanks to the members on both sides of the aisle and the Ranking Member Castor, we appreciate the willingness to work together. We're committed to doing so, and I yield back.
Frank Pallone
Thank you. The gentleman yields back, and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, the ranking member of the full committee, for five minutes for an opening statement.
Thank you, Chairman Latta. Most of the bills on today's agenda are framed around trying to minimize the impact of data centers on our nation's power grid, and I think in general these bills are a useful first step. But compared to the challenges the American power grid is facing, they are not nearly enough. Energy consumption from data centers doubled between 2017 and 2023. That's a six-year period, and that's just the beginning if Big Tech gets its way.
Last week, Berkeley Lab put out a report claiming that data centers may be responsible for over 15 percent of our nation's total electricity use by 2030, just four years from now. The North Atlantic Electric Reliability Corporation put out its most severe warning last month, saying that data centers cause significant risk to the reliability of our power grid. And these data centers consume a lot of electricity, driving up monthly energy costs for hardworking American families. Across the country, electricity prices are 18 percent higher than they were when President Trump was inaugurated. Promises by the data center industry and Big Tech that these facilities will bring down costs have fallen flat.
Instead, the grid operator for the Mid-Atlantic region estimated that ratepayers, including families in New Jersey, paid over $9 billion last year for the electricity that data centers and Big Tech need to fuel their AI-their AI demand. And then there are the environmental impacts. We are seeing data centers running on dirty diesel generators that drive up pollution, while the Trump administration runs roughshod over the Clean Air Act's critical community protections to shield Elon Musk from accountability. There are reports of data centers being approved without any analysis of their water use, even in water-stressed communities. Those living and working near data centers complain of chronic noise pollution and increased light pollution, and the EPA is even trying to fast-track the approval of chemicals like new PFAS for use in data centers, putting the health of Americans across the nation at risk.
So Mr. Chairman, this simply cannot continue. And that's why I am in favor of a national AI data center moratorium until we can find a way to ensure they don't harm our nation's air, water, and power bills. Towns in my district are way ahead of this Congress in seeking a moratorium. Asbury Park, Red Bank, Old Bridge, and Sayreville all have taken this bold step. The city of New Brunswick put a stop on a data center plan after the community stood together to oppose the project.
And we need to follow in their footsteps here in Congress. Americans across the country have expressed concern and opposition to the rampant construction of AI data centers, and Congress should take this political groundswell seriously with a data center moratorium. That's what we need. Even President Trump has realized he has a data center popularity problem, but instead of trying to drive real change, Trump asked Big Tech to sign a so-called ratepayer protection pledge with no enforcement. At a time when Americans are seeing their bills skyrocket, we need action, not toothless promises from Big Tech.
Last week's action by FERC to craft rules of the road may have some promise, but it's going to take months, if not years, to come to fruition. And Americans need help now, not in two years. Democrats have been clear: families around the country should not see their power bills rise by a single cent because of data centers. Real families are suffering real harm because of the pace of this build-out. Unfortunately, I don't think Republicans believe that.
Just a few weeks ago, committee Republicans initiated an investigation insisting that China is somehow the reason that Americans oppose an unlimited build-out of data centers. Well, that's not the case. In fact, when I go home in New Jersey, I talk to constituents who are concerned about data centers. These are real people with real worries, not paid Chinese actors or people unwittingly tricked by the Chinese Communist Party. It's simply not true.
The committee has to take more aggressive action to ensure that data center developers are held accountable and that consumers aren't left holding the bill. And finally, I want to address pipeline safety. I have to, I'll say more about it when we get to that in the markup, Mr. Chairman, but I do want to thank Chairman Guthrie and Latta and their staff for working together constructively to find a bipartisan path forward. We're not quite there yet, but we have momentum, and I'm confident that we can eventually craft a product all of us can support with regard to the pipeline safety bill. And so thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Speaker 4
Well, thank you very much, the gentleman yields back the balance of his time, and the chair reminds members that pursuant to committee rules, all members' opening statements will be made part of the record. Are there any further opening statements? Hearing none, the chair calls up H.R. 9332 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 4
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill will be open for amendment at any point, so ordered. Does any member seek to be recognized on the bill? For what purpose does the gentleman from Ohio's 12th district seek recognition?
Mr. Chairman, I have a last-minute...
Troy Balderson
The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this markup today, including my bill, H.R. 9332, the Load Forecasting Enhancement Act, I apologize.
I'd also like to thank my colleague from New Jersey, Congressman Menendez, for working with me on this legislation and co-leading the bill with me. Our electric grid has entered a period of unprecedented change. Advanced manufacturing, increased electrification, and the surge of AI data centers have created a historic increase in electricity demand. We've seen this firsthand in Ohio's 12th Congressional District, which has 41 data centers in operation or being built, the most in the state. My constituents are seeing these data centers being built in their neighborhoods and are rightfully concerned about what this rapid growth means for their families and their communities.
Congress must do more to help get new generation built quickly to power this growth and ensure large loads customers and not our constituent are the ones paying for this upgrades and new cost. At the very least, we can ensure that grid operators, states, utilities, and power providers are accurately planning for this growth to keep the grid reliable and protecting our constituents. This bill is a great step to ensuring states and utilities are using the best tools available to measure the load growth so that they can appropriately plan for the new generation and transmission. Accurate load forecasting prevents the underbuilding of electric infrastructure and generation that is critical to maintaining grid reliability. And just as importantly, this bill will help prevent the overbuilding of unnecessary electric infrastructure for speculative projects that can end up hurting ratepayers.
The Load Forecasting Enhancement Act establishes regional joint boards to bring state utility regulators and FERC commissioners together to examine, identify, and report to Congress the best practices that improve the accuracy, transparency, and accountability of projects of new electric load. The bill amends the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act to require each state to consider incorporating the recommendations that lead to better load forecasting. Just this week, one of the Department of Energy's national labs released a report showing data centers could double their share of US power and account for 10 to 15 percent of our electricity use by 2030. Given this uncertainty with projected demand, utilities and states need better tools to distinguish between speculative demand projects, projections, and projects that have demonstrated a genuine commitment to move forward. Better forecasting means better planning.
And better planning means a more reliable grid and more responsive investment decisions. I urge my colleagues on the subcommittee to support this bill and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 4
Well, thank you very much. The gentleman yields back. The chair recognize for what purpose the gentleman from New Jersey wish to be recognized?
I move to strike the last word and speak in support of the bill.
Speaker 4
The gentleman from New Jersey's 8th District is recognized for five minutes to strike the last word.
Robert Menendez
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm glad the committee is holding today's markup to consider bills that are a vital first step toward addressing challenges to our grid brought on by the growth of AI data centers. And I'm proud to partner with Congressman Balderson on H.R. 9332, the Load Forecasting Enhancement Act. Load forecasting is a key piece to ensuring there's enough energy supply to meet our future energy demands and would help utilities and states with their long-term planning. This bill would push state utility commissions and investor-owned utilities to adopt best practices when forecasting demand, including large loads such as AI data centers.
And in turn, make sure that we have an accurate idea of how much energy we'll need years down the line. Accurate data and better load forecasting practices will help us make sure that the planning we're doing today matches the demands of tomorrow.
Improving load forecasting will help prevent blackouts and brownouts and make sure our constituents don't experience sudden avoidable spikes to their energy bills. So while I'm happy to see the committee taking steps in the right direction, I want to acknowledge that we should be using every tool in the toolbox to protect Americans from blackouts and rising energy costs. And we also need to make sure that tech companies that are developing AI data centers are held accountable for the economic, environmental, and health impacts they have on our communities. One way that we can do this is by having more transparency into data centers' energy use and the impact they have on the water we drink and the air we breathe. My bill, the Data Center Transparency Act, would shed light on these factors.
So today's markup is a step in the right direction. I'm proud to work on bipartisan legislation to address these pressing needs. I encourage my colleagues to continue this work and vote in support of this bill. I yield back.
Speaker 4
Thank you. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. Is there any further discussion on the bill? For what purpose does the gentleman from New York's 20th district seek recognition?
Speaker 18
Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the committee's recognition that we are experiencing significant but uncertain electricity demand growth. Current load forecasting methods lack transparency and can vary significantly across regions and utilities. This bill takes a good step towards addressing these challenges.
Regional coordination to harmonize best methods and a consistent framework for forecasting large, fast-moving, and uncertain loads is a critical step to meeting this new demand in ways that maintain affordability and reliability for all ratepayers. But I want to again express my view that DOE can and should also play an important role. I don't think I'm alone in this view. At our budget hearing earlier this year, Secretary Wright agreed that the DOE's role in load forecasting is a major focus of this administration. DOE has tremendous analytical and modeling capabilities and can do more to provide technical assistance to grid operators, to the states and utilities, better as they better plan for increased energy demand.
This includes utilities such as public power entities and rural co-ops that may be responsible for load forecasting but do not typically work with FERC. Technical assistance from DOE national labs can go a long way in helping smaller co-ops and municipal utilities that may not have the capacity or capability to model load growth at the scale that larger utilities can. So Mr. Chair, I hope you and Ranking Member Pallone would be open to working with me as this bill moves to a full committee markup to ensure that we are explicitly recognizing the complementary capabilities of DOE and authorizing DOE's ability to provide technical assistance to support these load forecasting efforts. With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back and thank you.
Speaker 4
Well, thank you very much. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. Are there any other members wishing to speak on the bill? Hearing none, are there any amendments on the bill? Seeing none, the question now occurs on adopting HR 9332.
All those in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and the bill is adopted and forwarded to the full committee. The chair calls up HR 9339 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 8
HR 9339, a bill to require the Secretary of Energy to conduct an assessment on the use.
Speaker 4
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill will be open for amendment at any point, so ordered. Does any member wish to be recognized on the bill? For what purpose does the gentlelady from Tennessee's first district seek recognition?
The gentlelady is recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.
Diana Harshbarger
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My bipartisan legislation with Representative Mullin, the Affordable Innovation for the Grid Act, would direct the Department of Energy, FERC, and NERC to analyze how high-performance computing and AI can enhance our bulk power system and assess what limitations may delay their adoption. As energy demand continues to grow at lightning pace, grid infrastructure needs to operate at peak efficiency and capacity. These emerging technologies have the potential to provide our grid operators with the tools to dramatically speed up the interconnection queue process, expediting timelines to bring new generation online. They can also enhance existing operations through predictive maintenance, identifying what assets need repairs now before they fail.
Many utilities and operators have begun integrating these technologies into their operations, but many are apprehensive and would like more information. This study will provide critical analysis of this new technology that will serve both policymakers and energy stakeholders in informing them how to better adapt to the next wave of energy demand. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I yield back.
Speaker 25
Well, thank you very much. The gentlelady yields back. Are there other members wishing to be recognized on the bill? For what purpose does the gentleman from California's 15th district seek recognition?
Kevin Mullin
I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chair, and speak in support of the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank my colleague, Representative Harshbarger, for her leadership and for partnering with me to co-lead the Affordable Innovation for the Grid Act. Our nation's power demands are surging and electricity rates are rising, so we must pursue every opportunity available to expand grid capacity and maximize efficiency. This bipartisan bill does that by directing the Department of Energy to study how artificial intelligence and high-performance computing can modernize our power system.
I'm particularly interested in the potential for these advanced technologies to get new energy sources connected to the grid more quickly. Right now, generators face an average five-year wait to achieve interconnection, and a significant portion of that delay is due to the complex engineering studies required to ensure grid reliability. But advanced tools are being developed right now that can accurately model the grid in a fraction of the time. In fact, a company in my district, Tapestry, is doing incredible work on this exact problem. By replacing computationally intensive traditional modeling with AI simulations, we can radically compress these timelines.
Last March, FERC Commissioner Rosner noted that an interconnection study that originally took two years was replicated by an advanced computing model in just 10 days. That kind of progress is astounding. And by passing this bill, we can begin to increase efficiency, reduce barriers to adoption, and safely speed up energy deployment. I want to again thank Representative Harshbarger for her collaboration and leadership of this important effort, and I yield back.
Speaker 4
Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back. Are there other members wishing to be recognized on the bill? Hearing none, are there any amendments to the bill? Hearing none, the question now occurs on adopting HR 9339.
All those in favor will signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed, nay. The ayes have it. The bill is adopted and forwarded to the full committee.
The chair calls up HR 9335 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 8
HR 9335, a bill to direct the Secretary of Energy to establish a clearinghouse for advanced transmission technology.
Speaker 4
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with and the bill will be open for amendment at any point so ordered. Does any member seek recognition on the bill? For what purpose does the gentleman from Texas' 12th district seek recognition?
Craig Goldman
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word and speak in favor of the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Grid congestion is a hidden tax on every American family and business. My bill, the Advanced Transition Technology to Reduce Rates Act, would bring those costs down by making our electric grid smarter and more efficient without mandates, without federal overreach, and without waiting on Washington.
As my home state of Texas continues to rapidly grow, more people and more businesses are demanding even more from the grid. And when the grid is congested, it drives up the cost of energy for utilities. My bill directly addresses that problem by expanding access to advanced transmission technologies, tools like advanced conductors and dynamic line ratings that move electricity more effectively and reduce congestion on the grid. This is truly a common sense bill. It would create a public DOE database of information on advanced transmission projects, provide voluntary technical support to utilities and state regulators, and direct DOE to develop voluntary best practices to reduce wildfire risk.
Also, it exempts certain DOE grants and loans for these projects from NEPA review because states like Texas shouldn't have to wait on extremely long bureaucratic process to modernize their grids. No new mandates, no top-down requirements, just better tools, streamlined approvals, and the kind of state-driven approach that has always worked best for Texas. I encourage and urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back.
Kathy Castor
Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back. For what purpose does the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentlelady from Florida, seek recognition?
I move to strike the last word. Section 2C of the bill creates a carve-out that exempts any Department of Energy funding for ATTs from the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. While I strongly support the general thrust of Representative Goldman's bill promoting advanced transmission technologies, or ATTs, I do want to highlight my concern with one provision. For the last few years, Congress has had a debate around the role of environmental review, including the question of how or if federal grants or financial assistance should be subject to NEPA.
Frankly, that question is better left to the broader permitting discussions that are underway right now, and I don't want it to poison what is going on, our much, much narrower discussion here about the role of ATTs. There's a lot I do like in this bill. I think the clearinghouse that the bill establishes at DOE would genuinely be very useful. The best practices for wildfire mitigation that it promotes could be a game changer, especially as climate change makes more and more of the country at risk for wildfires. So while today we're going to hammer out some bipartisan progress, I have to request that we save the NEPA debates for the broader permitting conversation and let this bill be only about unlocking the potential of these advanced technologies.
Thanks, and I yield back.
Speaker 4
Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. Are there any other members wishing to be recognized to speak on the bill? Hearing none, are there any amendments on the bill? For what purpose does the gentleman from Texas's 12th district seek recognition?
The clerk will report.
Speaker 23
Amendment to HR 9335 offered by Mr. Goldman of Texas, page 6, beginning on line 1, strike loan or grant.
Speaker 11
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in support of the amendment.
Speaker 12
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of this amendment, which clarifies the NEPA exclusion for Department of Energy funding programs that support advanced transmission technologies. The amendment ensures that cooperative agreements are covered alongside loans and grants so that the federal government gets out of the way and lets utilities do the work to modernize their systems. This amendment strengthens the NEPA exclusion to make sure these innovative technologies can be deployed quickly in Texas and around the country. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and yield back.
Speaker 4
Thank you, the gentleman yields back. Is there discussion, any further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, if no further discussion, the vote occurs on the amendment. All those in favor shall signify by saying aye, aye. Those opposed, nay.
The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. Are there any further amendments to the bill? Hearing none, the question now occurs on adopting H.R. 9335 as amended. All those in favor signify by saying aye, aye. Those opposed, nay.
The ayes have it and the bill as amended is adopted and forwarded to the full committee. The chair now calls up H.R. 9340 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 8
H.R. 9340, a bill to amend the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 to establish a federal standard with...
Speaker 20
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with and the bill will be open for amendment at any point so ordered. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? For what purpose does the gentleman from Colorado's eighth district seek recognition?
Gabe Evans
Move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I of course want to thank my partner, the ranking member, for her support of this bipartisan bill, H.R. 9340, the Ratepayer Protection Act. This legislation is shaped by directly what I'm hearing from my constituents, families, farmers, small business who are concerned about the cost of living, especially as they see growth in electricity demand surge all around them. Two things can be true. The AI phenomenon, that toothpaste ain't going back into the tube.
The only question is, do we lead in it or do we cede ground to the Chinese? And if you're concerned about AI, you need to be terrified about what happens if communist China is leading in this space. And so we have to have the framework in place not just for the nation and not just for national security, but in Colorado. We are a massive aerospace space, and in conversations, the growing technology in space and space development requires being able to crunch a lot of data, and that ties back to data centers. But the second thing is also true.
These costs should not be borne by ratepayers. And people want to know, how are we going to pay for this? And that's what this bipartisan bill does. It says loud and clear that we cannot accelerate growth on the backs of Americans who are working hard to pay their electric bill at the end of every month. And the Ratepayer Protection Act requires each state regulatory authority to consider adopting a large load standard, one that applies to customers with 100 megawatts or more of power demand at their peak at a single facility, so things like large data centers and hyperscalers, because these are the customers that can single-handedly trigger the need for new generation, new substations, new transmission lines.
And without these guardrails, those costs can get pushed onto everyone else.
This bill stops that. The Ratepayer Protection Act rests on three common sense principles. First, large load customers should cover the full incremental cost of any generation, transmission, or distribution upgrades needed to serve their load. And if a data center needs a new high-voltage line or a new generating station to meet that load, they are responsible for those costs, not businesses or families. Second, contracts should include meaningful financial assurances, upfront and long-term, to make sure that these large load demand entities have the money to be able to pay for this built-out infrastructure.
Communities should not be left paying for infrastructure built by a single customer who later scales back or relocates. Third, this bill has flexibility. It says the what, but it leaves the how to the states. It does not impose a federal mandatory standard. Instead, it provides a thoughtful requirement for states to consider how they connect these large loads.
States know their grids, their industries, and all of these stakeholders need to engage together with their local utilities, counties, and local governments to decide what approach is best for them. This builds upon the success of the President's Ratepayer Protection Pledge, and this legislation represents that public-private commitment to ensuring responsible economic growth and lower the cost for community members. Expanding the electric power system and adding more paying customers, that actually can improve reliability, strengthen the grid, reduce long-term costs, and harden infrastructure against outages and surges in demand. When large load customers are picking up the tab for all of those things, communities actually see the benefits from that improved infrastructure. In my community and many others across the country, people are anxious about the pace of data center development.
They're not opposed to innovation. They just want assurances that their monthly bills aren't going to go up. And this bill is particularly important for states like Colorado, which have not yet set a standard for how large loads like data centers should be integrated into the grid. Colorado has debated data center-related proposals, but without a framework and a nudge, families and businesses remain at risk for higher utility bills. The bipartisan Ratepayer Protection Act gives states like Colorado a responsible policy foundation to work from and reassures community members that they will be protected from price surges.
This bill's bipartisan. It's common sense. It keeps energy costs low for Americans, and it helps us build partnerships that build and improve the reliability and the affordability of the energy backbone that we need to compete and win in the AI area, and specifically in Colorado, that we need to protect our massive aerospace economy. I urge my colleagues to support the Ratepayer Protection Act, and yield back.
Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time, and the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Florida, the ranking member of the subcommittee, for five minutes.
Kathy Castor
Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank Representative Evans, too, for being my partner on this bill. The Ratepayer Protection Act, you know, communities across the country are very nervous, including communities back home in my home state of Florida. They're facing very complex technical decisions about how to site or approve data centers. They're hearing about the potential for jobs and increased tax revenue, but they're also concerned with how that's going to affect electricity rates for the folks they represent, a lot of hardworking families and small business owners. And those neighbors also are, when you've watched some of these debates, many are angry, many are anxious, others are scared.
It goes into this context of higher inflation, an affordability squeeze and high cost of living. Electricity bills are already sky high.
So we have to act. That's why this is an important first step. This is also an opportunity for our country and for all of us because I believe we can address the increased energy demand and help consumers lower cost by updating and modernizing America's electric grid. Most of the power grid across the United States was built in the 1960s and 1970s. It's reaching the end of its useful life.
It's increasingly burdened by extreme events driven by the heating climate, which means that we need to make significant investments in our grid. And this is the United States of America. This is home to innovation and we have all sorts of new technological tools at our disposal to help address this with the right guardrails. And that's why this is a very fundamental early guardrail to protect the folks we represent back home to make sure they are not bearing the burden of higher electric bills and higher costs at this time. We're already starting to see some of these innovations happen.
A few examples. Earlier this month, Google announced it would fund a 100 megawatt virtual power plant in PJM, aggregating distributed energy resources from customers across the Northeast. In Minnesota, Google is also funding a utility distributed procurement program which will deploy batteries at customer sites across the state. This frees up the grid capacity while improving community resilience and helping unlock cleaner, cheaper energy. In Nevada, the Public Utilities Commission approved a clean transition tariff allowing large customers to pay a premium for power from emerging energy technologies like advanced geothermal.
But here we are at this moment, at this time. The Ratepayer Protection Act takes the first step to unlocking the opportunity for innovation but protecting consumers. It places the cost burden solely on the large load customers. So again, I want to thank Representative Evans, Chairman Guthrie, Chairman Latta. I hope we can do more to ensure that these large loads are also served by cleaner, cheaper energy with battery storage.
So I'm eager to continue advancing real bipartisan solutions with the partnership of innovative companies and forward-looking regulators. We can use this opportunity to build an energy system that works for everyone, not just the special interests that want to buy their way through. Our neighbors back home are counting on us, so I encourage my colleagues to support this bill and I yield back my time.
Speaker 30
Thank you, the gentleman yields back. Are there any other members wishing to be recognized? The gentleman from, for which purposes the gentleman from Texas 11th District seek recognition?
To speak in favor of this bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to speak in favor of the Ratepayer Protection Act, and I thank Mr. Evans from Colorado for his leadership on it. In West Texas where I represent, we're seeing tremendous interest in this subject, specifically in data center development, and there's a lot of questions on this. We know that these facilities can bring jobs, they can bring investment, they can bring economic growth, but I think the questions are around them bringing, imposing a burden of significant amounts of electricity and in some cases new generation and transmission and distribution infrastructure that would be required to do that. The families and the farmers, ranchers and small businesses already connected to the grid should not be forced to subsidize those costs.
And if a large new load requires new infrastructure, the entities creating that demand should be paying for it. This bill helps ensure that as we build the infrastructure needed to support AI and other emerging technologies, and we do so in a way that protects ratepayers and keeps electricity affordable for the people who depend on it every day. We want America to lead the world in artificial intelligence and that will require building more power.
But winning the AI race cannot come at the expense of the people already paying their electric bills every month. Innovation and economic growth should lower costs and create opportunities for Americans, not shift the bill onto hardworking ratepayers. I think this bill gets it exactly right. It supports growth, it protects consumers, and helps ensure that existing ratepayers are not left holding the bag for new large load development. And I'll just say, I think that we as a committee, Energy and Commerce, Mr. Chairman, need to be clear-eyed on the fact that the Chinese Communist Party has every incentive to be working through the information channels, working through misinformation channels, using social media outlets, non-factual outlets, to sway the public opinion.
And I think that's why a bill like this can push back on that, and we can do all of these things that are required. We can keep protection for our communities, but we can also compete against China. So I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass this legislation, and I yield back.
Speaker 4
Thank you, the gentleman yields back, and the chair recognizes the gentleman from California's 50th district for what purpose does the gentleman wish to seek recognition?
Chair, I move to strike the last word.
Speaker 4
Thank you, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.
Gabe Evans
Thank you, I wanted to commend Chair Guthrie and Latta, as well as ranking members Pallone and Castor for the bipartisan work that has gone into hearing today. I also want to thank Mr. Evans for this bill in particular, his work on this, and also the staff of both sides for working together to get some agreement here. I think all of us come here trying to get things done, and I know the staff has a big role on that, so I want to thank you for working and getting us some good products. At nearly every hearing this year, I have talked about the significant growth in energy demand every region in the United States is facing. And even though that growth is very exciting, it comes with real challenges, and these bills are attempting to deal with that.
Americans are feeling the strain of these challenges on their wallets. Electricity prices are 8% higher today than they were a year ago. Some projections show residential utility rates climbing as much as 18% in the coming years. I've also been saying at nearly every hearing this Congress that this committee is wasting time debating old Biden-era policies or talking about cutting regulations for snowmobiles. Today we're not doing that, I'm grateful.
These bills are a welcome change, but we are still on track to lose our competitive edge to nations like China if we don't build on today's bipartisan work. In the 2020s, China has completed more than 8,200 miles of high-voltage long-range transmission lines, 8,200, while the United States has built only 375. European utilities are also rapidly increasing the minimum transfer capacity between countries to move power back and forth. Over 125,000 miles of advanced conductors, which can help us get the most out of the grid, have been installed in India, Europe, and China. The US has installed less than 10% of that.
The North American Reliability Corporation, who is responsible for reliability and these assessments, has told us that the country needs 35 gigawatts of interregional transfer capacity just to keep the lights on. If our North Star is getting more generation on the grid, reducing rates, and making the grid more resilient, we have to direct FERC to act on an interregional transmission planning rule.
This rulemaking will show regions how we can get to those 35 gigawatts without prescribing any outcomes or forcing anyone to build anything in particular. Right now, without meaningful action on planning, we're spending over $25 billion on transmission to distribution, an all-time high, but 90% of that is local reliability upgrades and the replacement of old equipment. The spending on inefficient solutions crowds out more efficient projects like interregional transmission and drives up rates without meaningful new transmission capacity that would lower rates and improve reliability. These projects receive limited scrutiny, they're not transparent, and they fall in the regulatory gap between states and FERC, driving up costs for everyone. We need planning so we can evaluate lower-cost, more efficient, and larger-scale alternatives that give consumers much more bang for their buck.
Studies have found that for every $1 invested in larger-scale interregional lines, consumers receive nearly $5 in benefits. I will support the bills we are considering today because they are bipartisan, common sense, and a down payment on real reforms, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to strengthen these bills, add some more, and ensure we're meeting the current moment. Thank you and I yield back.
Speaker 4
Thank you, the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The chair recognizes the at-large member, the gentlelady from North Dakota. To what purpose does the gentlelady seek recognition?
Julie Fedorchak
Mr. Chairman, I seek to strike the last word. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I want to thank my friends Gabe Evans and Kathy Castor for their bipartisan work on this Ratepayer Protection Act. This legislation is an important step towards protecting American families from increased electricity costs and making sure we get cost allocation right. At its core, this issue comes down to a very simple principle: those who cause costs should pay for those costs on our transmission grid and our energy systems.
For decades, regulators, utilities, and consumer advocates have generally agreed on this principle. If a customer or a class of customers creates the need for new infrastructure, the costs associated with serving that demand should be borne by those customers and those who benefit from it, not shifted onto everybody else. That principle is especially important today as we see unprecedented growth in large loads across our country. America needs more power. We want to build things again.
We want manufacturing, innovation, artificial intelligence, and economic growth. But we must pursue that growth in a way that protects families and small businesses from subsidizing infrastructure built primarily to serve others. Earlier this year, our subcommittee held a hearing on this topic. I asked every witness a simple question: is it fair for American families to pay for infrastructure upgrades driven by large energy users? Every witness answered the same way: no.
I then asked whether large loads, including data centers, have demonstrated a willingness to pay for the infrastructure needed to serve their demand. Again, every witness agreed: yes. And that's a very important point. The conversation is often framed as a choice between economic growth and affordable electricity. In reality, we can and must have both if we get the cost allocation right.
In my home state of North Dakota, we've worked carefully to structure rates for customers and large load customers so they cover the costs they create. When done correctly, new load can actually strengthen the system, improve asset utilization, and help lower costs for existing customers rather than increase them. In my state, we've saved customers $30 million. But that only works when we maintain the principle that cost-causers pay. And this is a different take on beneficiaries pay, which has been the standard.
Focusing on cost-causers first more granularly assigns the costs on our system. Families should not be asked to subsidize infrastructure built to serve some of the largest and most sophisticated companies in the world. Likewise, businesses making major investments deserve transparency and certainty about the costs that they will bear. Getting cost allocation right protects hardworking Americans, supports economic development, and helps build the infrastructure needed to meet growing demand. That is why the Ratepayer Protection Act is such an important step forward, and I appreciate the committee's bipartisan work to advance it.
It's a great step, but we also have more work to guide and direct cost allocation to protect ratepayers and promote affordability. We have more work to do, and I look forward to working with my colleagues and the committee staff in that end. Mr. Chairman, thank you and I yield back.
Speaker 21
Thank you, the gentleman yields back. Are there other members wishing to be recognized on the bill? For what purpose does the gentlelady from Washington's eighth district seek recognition?
Data center build-out is a big concern for Washington State and we're hearing that same concern all across the country. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. AI development continues to accelerate and people are worried. AI brings both tremendous opportunity and risk.
They're worried about what AI might mean for their jobs, and for their privacy, and for their kids' education, and for society. And they are worried also about the tremendous energy demand of data centers and what it'll mean for their utility bills and whether they can keep the lights on. Compared to last year, we're paying nearly 15 percent more on our utility bills in the eighth district and the experts tell me that by 2028, the Northwest energy supply may not always be capable of meeting demand. And that's due to multiple things: changing climate, the Trump administration's cuts to investments in clean and affordable energy, sluggish building from permitting and red tape, skyrocketing growth of data center energy use, and frankly, and I've talked about it in this committee before, holding hostage a decommissioned coal plant, this is being done by the administration, that was being converted to run on liquid natural gas. And while these companies, AI companies, tech, reap tremendous benefits from advancing AI using our data and our power, hardworking families who are already being hit with rising energy prices, they can't be left in the dark with an unpredictable energy supply and stuck with the bill.
And if big companies want the energy, they're just going to have to reach into their pockets and fund it, and build it, and connect it to the grid if that is what is needed. So I want to thank Representative Evans and Representative Castor for introducing this bill. I am proud to support the Ratepayer Protection Act and I yield back.
Speaker 4
Thank you, the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. Are there other members wishing to seek recognition? For what purpose does the gentlelady from California's seventh district seek recognition?
Speaker 24
Thank you very much. I move to strike the last word and speak in support of this of this bill. I'm glad we're holding this markup. I support this legislation because it's a no-brainer. American families should not be paying for tech companies' utility bills.
I move to strike the last word.
The baseline protections set in this bill are a good starting point. But to be frank, this is really the bare minimum. We could and we should be doing so much more to bring down Americans' utility costs. We're in the middle of an energy crisis. And everyone who opens an energy bill every month knows it.
Democrats know the electric grid needed major upgrades to meet growing demand. That's why Democrats invested billions of dollars in building the next generation of clean energy infrastructure when we were in control. And for years, we warned that failing to make those investments would drive electricity costs even higher. Republicans ignored those warnings. As a result, the cost of electricity has gone up 18% since Mr. Trump took office.
Instead of lowering costs, Republicans and President Trump have spent the last two years moving in the wrong direction. Repealing clean energy programs that save Americans money, canceling hundreds of grants for critical energy infrastructure, and blocking hundreds of solar and wind projects across the country. It's ridiculous and American families are paying for it. So I'm glad we're holding this markup. But let's not pretend like this is going to solve the problem.
It is only a good first start. I urge my colleagues to talk to their constituents. It's time to put aside the partisan nonsense and get serious and about lowering electricity costs. And with that I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 4
Thank you. The gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. Are there other members seeking recognition on the bill? For what purpose does the gentlelady from Virginia's fourth district seek recognition?
Jennifer McClellan
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to strike the last word. Thank you. If any of you have watched local news while you have been here during vote weeks, you have seen that data centers and their impacts on communities and on consumers has been in the news quite a bit in Virginia, which should be no surprise as we are the data center capital of the globe. And we have really been grappling as a Commonwealth in particular with how to balance the need to meet our energy demands in an increasingly digital world where US households have on average 21 devices that are connected to the internet.
And if you think that's crazy, my husband and I counted, and when you count your Alexa, if your kids have a Switch, phones, devices, your smart TV, your alarm systems that you can remotely monitor, it you get to 21 pretty fast. And that was before the AI revolution jumpstarted the need for data centers and for the electricity and I would add water that they consume and the worry of constituents that they are bearing the brunt of that cost. I during the recess period, you know, my district is rural, urban, and suburban. And everywhere I went during the district work period, when asked about my work on the Energy and Commerce Committee, the first question I get is, tell us about these data centers and what you all are doing about them and how you're going to make sure that in a time when we already can't pay, we're struggling to pay our electric bills and electric bills have risen as much as 13% nationwide since last year, they're looking for us to strike that balance.
And these bills are, are really a good starting point. And in Virginia, our State Corporation Commission, our state regulatory body, approved in November the creation of a new rate class for data centers and similar big users of electricity, um, to try to begin to grapple with that. But whether your state begins to develop such a rate shouldn't depend, you know, that, whether you're, you are bearing the brunt of the load and paying for the load of data centers shouldn't depend on which state you're in. And that's why this bill is so important, um, but we need to make sure they don't just consider establishing a new rate class, um, but that they actually do it. And as we are working through these bills, which are incredibly important first step, there's one stakeholder we haven't talked about yet that needs to be, have a seat at the table, and that's the local governments that are under pressure to meet their own revenue needs and are being courted very heavily by these data centers.
Some, and some in my district find themselves in this position, are so desperate for the economic development that can come from a data center that they're not part of the equation on what's the load going to be, not just in this community, but for the rest of the state and for the region. So as we go forward with this bill, these bills, which are an incredibly important first step, let's make sure we take the next step and bring all the stakeholders to the table and ensure that whether you are in Virginia or Colorado or South Dakota or North Dakota, that you all are sure that this body is making sure you're not paying the price and bearing the burden for the AI needs of big business. And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Speaker 26
Thank you, the gentlelady yields back. Are there any other members? For what purpose does the gentleman from New York's 20th District seek recognition?
Speaker 18
Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word. Thank you. I appreciate the committee for taking up this bill, including Ranking Member Castor's leadership. We should be doing whatever necessary to protect residential ratepayers from undue system costs imposed by large loads, especially data centers and crypto mining facilities. A PURPA 111(d) amendment is a good first step, but I do not think we should stop there.
If we really want to ensure our constituents stop being burdened by rising utility bills, we should be getting at other root causes of energy affordability. So I do hope this is just the first step of several that we can advance to truly protect ratepayers. I would also mention that this bill defines large loads as greater than 100 megawatts and captures more than just data centers, which may undercut manufacturers' competitiveness. I fully acknowledge that wherever we draw the megawatt threshold for large loads, it will be somewhat arbitrary, but I believe it would be more appropriate to pick a threshold that reflects the consensus already emerging at the state and RTO levels. And that number is 50 megawatts.
This would align with the definition adopted by the PJM Board of Managers in January. Even 50 megawatts is a lot of power. It would be more than enough to power every home in my hometown many times over. That's surely large enough to impose costs on residential ratepayers, and I think it is worth us having a closer examination of this definition moving forward. And we've focused a lot today in the discussion on the markup of data centers and their impact.
But it goes well beyond, I believe, the electric utility bill sticker shock. We're talking about water impact, we're talking about quality of water, water supplies that are threatened. We're talking about soil contamination, we can talk about air pollution. There are a lot of aspects to this whole effort, and to Ms. McClellan's comments, you know, we need to look at the whole picture and all of the impacts and come together with a comprehensive plan that will best serve consumers out there and the general public per se.
So with that, Mr. Chair, I thank you and yield back.
Speaker 4
Thank you. The gentleman yields back. Are there any other members wishing to be recognized on the bill? Are there any amendments on the bill? Seeing none, the question now occurs on adopting HR 9340.
The chair calls up HR 6633 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 8
HR 6633, a bill to establish a best available transmission conductor standard for certain transmission projects.
Speaker 4
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with and the bill will be open for amendment at any point, so ordered. Is there any member seeking recognition on the bill? For what purpose does the gentlelady, the at-large member from North Dakota, seek recognition?
Speaker 29
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment in the nature of substitute to HR 6633.
Speaker 4
Is there a specific number on it? Does the clerk have it? Okay. The clerk will report.
Speaker 8
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 6633 offered by Mrs. Fedorchak of North Dakota.
Speaker 4
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes in support of her amendment.
Julie Fedorchak
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on my legislation, the High Capacity Grid Act, and I want to thank the committee staff for their work to include this bill in today's markup. This legislation addresses one of the biggest challenges facing our electric grid and one of the biggest drivers of rising electricity costs for American families, and that is transmission, electric transmission. When people think about rising utility bills, they often focus on the cost of generating electricity. But the reality is that transmission costs are the fastest growing component of electric bills.
According to a Brattle and Energy Information Administration study, transmission costs have increased more than 180 percent since 2005, even as generation costs have declined. At the same time, electricity demand is growing rapidly. New manufacturing, data centers, electrification, and population growth are placing unprecedented demands on our aging grid. Yet permitting and constructing new transmission lines can take years, often more than a decade from concept to completion. Hopefully, we'll fix that with permitting reform.
But meanwhile, we cannot permit and build our way out of this challenge fast enough, even with permitting reform. It just won't be fast enough. So we need to get more capacity out of the infrastructure we already have. The good news is there's a lot of ways to do that. And that's exactly what the High Capacity Grid Act does.
First, it requires utilities building new interstate transmission lines or rebuilding existing ones to use the best commercially and economically available transmission conductors whenever practical. Second, it helps maximize the capacity of every transmission corridor by incentivizing advanced conductor technologies, technology that can often carry significantly more electricity than traditional wires on the same structures and right-of-way. And third, it protects families from paying for outdated technology by creating the precedent that utilities cannot pass the cost of lower performing conductors on to ratepayers unless they can clearly demonstrate that those conductors are the best option for a specific project.
This is a common-sense approach. Advanced conductors can dramatically increase the amount of electricity delivered over existing corridors while improving efficiency, safety, and reliability. In many cases, they allow us to double capacity without acquiring new rights-of-way or waiting years for new permits. That's good for reliability, it's good for affordability, and it's good for hardworking families who are ultimately paying the bill. The High-Capacity Grid Act is about modernizing our grid with today's technology, maximizing existing infrastructure, and delivering more power at a lower cost.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back.
Speaker 4
Thank you. The gentleman yields back the balance of her time, and the chair recognizes for what purposes the gentlelady from California is seeking recognition.
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Speaker 24
Thank you. I move to strike the last word and speak in support of this amendment. Advanced conductors play an important role in lowering electricity bills. By allowing power lines to carry more electricity, advanced conductors can effectively increase the capacity of the grid for far less money than it takes to build a new power line or a new power plant. That saves money.
And ultimately, that means lower electricity bills for American families. It's one of the many small solutions that will help move the needle in the right direction. So I want to thank Congressman Fedorchak for leading on this important bill. And I want to thank the committee staff for working with my office on this bill. I believe the legislation has moved in the right direction, and I look forward to continuing to work with Congressman Fedorchak and the committee to improve this bill.
And thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 4
Thank you. The gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. Are there any other members wishing to be recognized on the amendment? Hearing none, without further discussion, the vote occurs on the amendment. All those in favor shall signify by saying aye.
Aye. All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. Are there any further amendments on the bill? Hearing none, the question now occurs on adopting H.R. 6633 as amended.
All those will signify by saying aye in favor. Aye. Those opposed, nay. The ayes have it. The bill as amended is adopted and forward to the full committee.
The chair calls up H.R. 6529 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 8
H.R. 6529, a bill to require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to hold a technical conference on protecting residential ratepayers from increased costs associated with large electricity.
Speaker 4
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill will be open for amendment at any point so ordered. Does any member seek recognition on the bill?
For what purposes the the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentlelady seek recognition?
The clerk will report the amendment.
Speaker 8
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 6529 offered by Ms. Castor of Florida. Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following.
Kathy Castor
Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I also want to thank our colleague Representative Landsman for drafting this bill. It requires FERC to hold a technical conference on ways to protect American families and small businesses from increased costs associated with data centers, essentially pushing FERC to have its own version of the legislative hearing that we held back in April on these issues. While FERC took a step towards establishing rules of the road to connect data centers to the power grid last week, all of the commissioners readily admitted that they are still seeking more information. So a technical conference would complement the orders FERC issued last week and help ensure that each commissioner has who has they have important perspectives as they evaluate proposals from grid operators over the coming months.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman and Chairman Guthrie and all of the professional staff for working together to find a version of this bill that could help that everyone could support. This amendment reflects those conversations and helps sharpen the bill's approach, ensuring that FERC focuses on matters directly within its control and not under state jurisdiction. I'm grateful for the cooperation here and I urge all of our colleagues to support both the amendment and the underlying bill. I yield back.
Speaker 4
Well, thank you very much. The gentlelady yields back. Are there any other members wishing to be recognized on the amendment? Hearing none, there's no further discussion. The vote will occur on the amendment.
All those in favor shall signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed nay. The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. Are there further amendments on the bill?
Hearing none, the question now occurs on adopting HR 6529 as amended. All those in favor shall signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed nay. The ayes have it and the bill is adopted and forwarded to the full committee.
The chair calls up HR 2986 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 8
HR 2986, a bill to require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to promulgate regulations that accelerate...
Speaker 4
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with and the bill will be open for amendment at any point so ordered. Are there any members wishing to be recognized on the bill?
Well, right at is are there any amendments?
I have an amendment at the desk labeled ANS 2986_01.
The clerk will report the amendment.
Speaker 8
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 2986 offered by Ms. Castor of Florida. Strike all after...
Kathy Castor
Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Colleagues, all across the United States, there are new energy projects that are stalled. They're waiting in long lines to interconnect to the grid. This amendment would make changes to my Expediting Generator Interconnection Procedures Act, which directs FERC to make common sense updates to speed up the interconnection process.
This is low hanging fruit. It will reform the outdated and sluggish interconnection process. It will give grid operators more flexibility and promote the use of proven tools like automation. The amendment makes several key changes to the bill. First, it directs FERC to immediately initiate a show cause proceeding for each transmission provider, similar to the show cause proceedings they initiated last week for connecting data centers to the grid.
This proceeding shall find that delays beyond 15 months for a generator interconnection agreement are unjust, unreasonable, and unduly discriminatory. Within a year of the proceeding, FERC must make a final finding on the generation interconnection procedures for each transmission provider. If transmission providers fail to meet this 15-month standard, FERC shall intervene to fix those processes. Further, this bill would direct FERC and the Department of Energy to study the best practices for generator interconnection queue management, including lessons that can be applied to regions without an organized wholesale electricity market. This bill builds on the bipartisan work that FERC already is doing, including their recent efforts to accelerate large load interconnection.
We should celebrate the innovation that this bill provides. It would encourage among, we should celebrate the innovation that this bill would encourage among grid operators. For example, we saw MISO last year, they instituted an automated process that was able to nearly replicate in 10 days the result of an interconnection study that took nearly two years to conduct. We've discussed this and heard from witnesses in this committee and everyone was enthusiastic about that, how they were speeding up interconnection. So we should all be able to appreciate this type of common sense progress.
I hope my GOP colleagues will continue to work with us to advance this important legislation, helping to bring more reliable energy onto the grid to power the American economy and lower costs for our neighbors back home. And I want them to know that my team and I stand ready to work in a bipartisan way to find a path forward that works for everyone on both sides of the aisle to speed up the process of building power plants and connecting them to the grid. Thank you so much and I yield back.
Speaker 4
Thank you. The gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. The chair recognizes himself for five minutes to speak on the amendment. Again, I want to thank the ranking member from Florida's 14th district for her amendment to the Expediting Generator Interconnection Procedures Act. This amendment revises the approach in the underlying bill to provide an overarching policy.
Interconnection timelines should not extend beyond 15 months. The bill provides discretion for how each region may address their own interconnection procedures, respecting the unique differences and need for a bottom-up approach to more effective electricity policy. Every member here recognizes the urgency behind interconnecting the right resources quickly to address our ongoing reliability crisis and affirm US leadership in the next generation economy. Having said that, this legislation needs more process to better understand its potential impact and it may need revisions as we conduct that due diligence. While we may not fully support this legislation in its current form, we're willing to continue working with the gentlelady and our Democratic colleagues on it to see if we can find a bipartisan compromise.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and I yield back. Are there any other members seeking recognition on the amendment? Hearing none, all those in favor of the amendment shall signify by saying aye.
Aye. Aye. All those opposed nay. Hearing none, the amendment is agreed to. Are there any other amendments on the bill?
Hearing none, the question now occurs on adoption of HR 2986 as adopted, as amended, excuse me. All those in favor shall signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed nay. The ayes have it, the bill is adopted and forwarded to full committee.
The chair calls up HR 9338 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 8
HR 9338, a bill to amend Title 49, United States Code, to improve the safety of pipeline transportation and for other purposes.
Speaker 4
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with and the bill will be open for amendment at any point, so ordered. Is there any member wishing to seek recognition on the bill? For what purpose does the vice chairman of the subcommittee seek recognition?
Randy Weber
I'd speak on the bill, I request to speak on the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding. I'm proud to lead HR 9338, the Pipeline Safety Reauthorization Act of 2026, to reauthorize the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, PHMSA, Office of Pipeline Safety for the next five years. The bill before us today reflects several updates from the discussion draft this subcommittee reviewed in March of this year. Those changes are the result of ongoing conversations with my colleagues across the aisle as we work toward a strong bipartisan, bipartisan final product.
Throughout this process, we have worked closely with stakeholders across the industry and within the government to develop and refine this legislation, and I look forward to continuing that collaboration as HR 9338 advances to the full committee. This bill provides PHMSA with the resources and direction necessary to continue safeguarding more than three million miles of pipeline infrastructure across these great United States. From ensuring that PHMSA's cost-benefit analysis remains focused on safety factors within the United States to promoting best practices across state damage prevention programs, HR 9338 helps strengthen pipeline safety across the board. Americans deserve nothing less than our continued effort to move the needle closer and closer to 100 percent safety, and this legislation helps do exactly that. Our nation's pipeline infrastructure operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to safely deliver the reliable and affordable energy that powers American homes, American businesses, and American industry, while supporting our allies across the world.
Now, few regions in the country can rival the pipeline infrastructure that we have along the Texas Gulf Coast. Every day, those pipelines help produce, refine, process, and export the energy that powers America and again supports our allies abroad. In my part of the country, we understand that pipeline infrastructure is often the foundation upon which everything else is built. Without it, Americans would pay more to heat their homes, fill their gas tanks, power their businesses, and keep everyday goods on the store shelves. Texas's 14th District produces and moves more energy than just about any other district in these United States of America.
Few places better illustrate the important role pipeline infrastructure plays in our lives.
Whether the energy originates in the Permian Basin or from our neighbors to the north in Alberta, Canada, producing it is only half of the battle. American energy dominance depends on our ability to deliver that energy safely and reliability to the people, those businesses and those industries that depend on this every single day. I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation and I look forward to continuing the work with my colleagues across the aisle, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Speaker 4
Well thank you very much, the gentleman yields back and the for purposes the gentleman from New Jersey seek recognition.
Frank Pallone
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I just want to take this opportunity to comment on the status of our pipeline safety negotiations and remind everyone that a pipeline safety law is now nearly three years overdue. Back in March, the subcommittee held a hearing on a draft bill that every Democrat on this committee felt missed the mark. Since then we have been engaged in negotiations with the majority to try to find a bipartisan path forward.
But I want to remind everyone what our disagreements were about. We were concerned that the bill didn't authorize adequate funding for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration or PHMSA. We were also concerned that the bill did not authorize a vital grant program funded by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law that has helped countless municipal utilities make their pipeline systems safer. Among other issues, the bill also attempted to criminalize some protected activities under the First Amendment and did nothing to strengthen penalties against pipeline operators who flout the law. The point on criminal penalties is especially relevant, Mr. Chairman.
Republicans need to know that Democrats cannot in good conscience agree to the ambiguous language that is currently in the bill granting the Department of Justice far too much leeway in determining what counts as interfering with the operation of a pipeline. Just in the last week we have seen Americans get arrested on the National Mall for examining the reflecting pool now that the President has ruined it. And that's unacceptable and we will not agree to anything that risks persecuting Americans for exercising their First Amendment rights. But I don't think any final product will be perfect, I understand that, few bills are. My colleague from New York has an amendment that would help on this point and I urge members to support it.
Hopefully we can get to a place where our members all feel comfortable and then we can continue discussions with the colleagues on the Transportation Infrastructure Committee while examining the bill that the Senate passed in April. Otherwise, for the second Congress in a row, Republicans on this committee will have failed to do the necessary work. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Chair.
Speaker 34
For what purposes is the chairman of the full committee seek recognition?
Brett Guthrie
Thanks, thanks Mr. Chair, I appreciate the recognition and I appreciate the comments from my friend the ranking member. I know my friend from New York has an amendment and so if somebody physically breaks or attacks or something in a protest a pipeline, that's a criminal act, we know that. So that damage, it's, it's, the second thing people can do, they can do other, so we're trying to address like they can turn the pipeline off or they can do other things to the pipeline that isn't technically damage, but it damages the pipeline as they go forward.
What we're not trying to do is interfere with the people's First Amendment right to protest with this. I don't want to criminalize people who are truly protesting and not trying to affect the operations of the pipeline. And so, I know this is important to you, I know it's obviously important to our friend from New York, and we'd certainly be willing to work on language to clarify that it has to be physical. Damage isn't the right word because turning it off and affecting the pipeline isn't technically damage, but we want that to not be acceptable behavior. But we absolutely don't want to criminalize people exercising their First Amendment.
So we'd be willing to work on language as we move forward on this if you would like to do that and offer that up, and I will yield back.
Speaker 52
Thank you very much, the gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion? For what purpose does the gentlelady from Texas's 7th District seek recognition?
Speaker 37
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Thank you, Chairman Latta. This bill is hugely important to the people that I represent in Houston. I am, of course, Congressman Weber's neighbor, just a little bit to the west. And companies in Houston and the people who work there control more than 58% of US natural gas pipeline capacity and 33% of US oil pipeline capacity.
So I know that the people that I represent take pipeline safety incredibly seriously, and there are people who dedicate their entire careers to making sure that pipelines operate safely and that we get the energy that we need moved where it needs to be across this country and around the world. And the professionals who work in this industry know that pipeline safety is paramount, and the safety for our communities has to remain a priority as the demand for energy grows, which we talk about on this subcommittee all the time, and we need to be able to build the infrastructure to deliver it. And so to that end, I think that the safety of this pipeline infrastructure really depends and has always depended on a working partnership between industry and government regulators, in this case, PHMSA. And unfortunately, in the last year and a half, as we have seen across the Trump administration, the President's cuts and chaotic deregulatory push have left PHMSA struggling to fulfill its statutory obligations and to do the work that we need PHMSA to do. We as citizens need it, the companies that are operating these pipelines need it.
But since the beginning of this administration, more than half of PHMSA's senior leadership has departed, and several major rulemakings were abandoned in response to the President's memorandum on the regulatory freeze pending review. I'm also hearing from folks in the energy industry that PHMSA just lacks the resources for proper training and isn't prepared to meet the challenges of growing demand for pipelines to meet our energy needs. And so I too am happy with the progress that has been made and that's reflected in this draft. As I said, this is hugely important for the people I represent to get this over the finish line. I do believe there's more work to be done to make sure that PHMSA has adequate resources now and in the future.
And I also agree with Chairman Pallone that as important as it is, I agree with Chairman Guthrie too, I'm sorry, Ranking Member Pallone, Chairman Guthrie, I do believe it's important to get this right. And I am concerned about language that would give too much discretion to the Department of Justice in this administration in interpreting and challenging people in their right to protest. We've certainly seen they're arresting people that are looking at the reflecting pool. We take very seriously people's First Amendment right to speak and to speak out about the things that matter in their lives.
And so I appreciate Chairman Guthrie your statement about working together and I really do think it's essential that we get this right and that we write language that protects these pipelines and allows them to operate safely at all times without the dangerous interference that can be caused while also protecting the rights of American citizens that frankly are being trampled in this administration. So in addition to that, I just want to add, you know, we do need PHMSA to be forward-looking to ensure pipeline safety innovation meets the challenges of tomorrow and that's why in the last PHMSA reauthorization, I worked on a technology pilot program that was in the 2020 bill and that was back when I was on the T&I committee. But the technology demonstration program was designed to advance the latest high-tech inspection technologies and analytics that could be used to make pipelines safer. And I would really like to see us be able to work that into this reauthorization. It was a bipartisan program and it's included in the Senate PHMSA reauthorization.
So I'm very hopeful that in addition to the work that we're doing to address the real concerns that are laid out here, that we can include that so that we can do everything we can to ensure that we can continue to operate and and build the pipelines that we need for the things that we want across this country in a way that is safe and consistent with the safety of our communities across the country. So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that and I yield back.
Speaker 4
Thank you, the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. Are there any other members wishing to speak on the bill? Does the gentlelady wish to speak on the bill or have an amendment? All right. Are there any other members wishing to speak on the bill?
Are there any amendments on the bill? Does the gentlelady from California wish to speak on the bill? I'm sorry. For what purpose does the gentlelady from California's 7th district wish?
Speaker 24
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and speak in opposition to this bill. Thank you very much. I want to make clear I do not support this bill in its current form. Pipeline safety is incredibly important. It's critical that we get this right.
This bill as currently written does not meet this moment and it does not serve the needs of my constituents. Under President Trump, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration has been gutted and enforcement of pipeline safety has plummeted, endangering public health and threatening Americans' lives. In some cases, PHMSA has even been turned into a political weapon. In California, President Trump is using PHMSA to force the restart of offshore oil drilling, trampling all over California's authority to protect our coast and our communities from disastrous oil spills. This bill would allow PHMSA to ignore environmental impacts in regulating pipelines and I am really concerned that it also might allow oil and gas companies to criminally prosecute protesters.
So I cannot support this bill in its current form. And I hope the committee will continue to work on this legislation to improve it before the full committee markup. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 4
Well thank you very much, the gentlelady yields back. Are there any other members wishing to speak on the bill? Are there any amendments to the bill? For what purpose does the gentlelady from New York's 14th district seek recognition?
Yes. It's OCASNY060.
The clerk will report the amendment.
Speaker 4
Amendment to HR 9338 offered by Ms. Ocasio-Cortez of New York. Strike section 6.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In when it comes to pipelines across the United States, and I think the chairman of the full committee noted as well, we want to make sure that we are protecting people's First Amendment right to protest. Under current law, the current law is that knowingly and willfully damaging or destroying a pipeline carries up to 20 years in federal prison. That is existing and standing law. This bill and the language that this amendment seeks to strike expands that statute to cover anyone who, quote, "impairs the operation of a pipeline," unquote.
Now, the issue that we have here in the text is that "impair" is not defined. It is a very expansive term that could easily encompass many different forms of protest and nonviolent protest and make them federal felonies. Many of these projects are highly controversial in the local communities in which they are often proposed to be sited. Protest is very common in these kinds of developments, and we want to make sure that we are, I think, protecting people's First Amendment ability while, of course, respecting existing federal law. So I hear the chairman on having that flexibility, and I really appreciate the flexibility in being able to draft that.
I want to make sure that we're being as precise as possible in what we mean by that, which is why I strike this amendment to strike section 6, and I urge my colleagues to support it as we negotiate to the full bill in committee. Thank you.
Speaker 41
Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. For what purpose does the vice chairman from Texas...
Randy Weber
The gentleman's recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment.
Yeah, I'm going to be have to speak against the amendment because she referenced section 6 of the bill. Section 6 of this bill actually ensures that individuals who knowingly and willfully participate in activities like these are prosecuted under the full extent of the law. Well, what do we mean by that? They don't get to go on there and shut off all the valves and back up all the processes in a pipeline because they want to complain. They want to go on that land, they want to go in that area, they want to have signs, they want to do all those things, they have the right to do that.
We don't want to limit that right, but they can't do things that absolutely shut down the equipment and thereby introduce damage into that facility because they're trying to move that product. They've got to do it on a schedule. And if they can't move that product on a schedule, then everything will come to a screeching halt. And these people don't get the right to shut down the product. They can protest all they want, but there are there are penalties for absolutely shutting down the equipment and producing havoc, if you will, in that chemical plant.
I yield back.
Yes, sir, I yield.
Brett Guthrie
I agree, that that is exactly what we're trying to to deal with. So 20 years of a of a felon is a big big sentence. And so that's what we want to deal with. I agree that we need to take the word "impair" and define it better to get to what you want to deal with. I don't want to support the amendment, but I do want to commit that between now and full committee, we will come up with the, I mean, taking somebody's freedom for 20 years is a big issue.
And we want to make sure the legislative, somebody doesn't use this somewhere later, not this administration, some in the future, well, they impaired because they prevented somebody from going to work, they impaired because...
And so we want to make sure we get this right. So as I'm not supporting the amendment, I do support that we need to have better define the word impair.
Speaker 43
You said it better than I could, Mr... That's why you're the chairman, why I'm the vice. I yield back.
I yield back too.
Speaker 4
The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. Is there further discussion on the amendment? The gentleman from New Jersey, the ranking member of the full committee, is recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill or on the amendment.
Frank Pallone
Thank you. I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment. You know, I just want you to understand that there's a lack of trust with the Department of Justice right now. I mean, I haven't spent, you know, every day at the reflecting pool, but I mean, I think it's a good example where we have every reason to believe that people that just protested at the reflecting pool, didn't jump into the pool, didn't try to destroy the pool, didn't try to stop the water from flowing in the pool, were arrested. And so that's the concern here.
In other words, I understand what Chairman Guthrie is saying, that in fact, if someone tries to destroy the pipeline or shut off the valve, you know, that that's considered an offense. But the fear is that if we don't have some much more precise language here, and the gentlewoman from New York talked about impair, you know, that that could easily be interpreted by the Justice Department to say, oh, you're close to the pipeline and I don't like the way you look, and therefore I'm going to arrest you. So I do think we should support this amendment, but you know, even if it doesn't pass, let's work on this to make this clearer because this lack of distrust, in my opinion, on our side as to what DOJ might do with this language that's in the bill. So did you want me to yield to Mr. Auchincloss, yes, gentleman from Massachusetts.
Jake Auchincloss
Thank you. I'm going to support the amendment. I think the language is too wide, the trust in the administration is too low. Question, because we all want to protect speech and protest. I agree with the vice chairman, you can't go in there and impair the operation, you can't turn off the valves, you can't damage the production.
Question for the vice chairman: there already are laws against damage and destruction, there's already laws against trespass, as my understanding as well. Wouldn't someone who's going in there and physically contacting the pipeline, wouldn't that be trespass under current law? And I yield.
Randy Weber
In that particular, what you're laying out, I would say yes. But there's also another facility, I think what we ought to do is, and I was talking about this with some of my colleagues, people can go and protest at the schoolhouse, but they don't have the right to block the doors and prevent people from getting in, kids and students from getting in. So there's certain possibilities here that they can be there, that doesn't mean that they have the right to turn off the valve as you pointed out. But they still have the right to be there and protest. This bill in no way limits that whatsoever.
Speaker 50
I think what I'm asking though is why is that language necessary because we have trespass, we have damage, destruction, can't do it. I would also presume that like you can't physically prevent workers from accessing the worksite in a way that's harassment as well.
Jake Auchincloss
What's the lacuna, what's the gap here that we're trying to cover with this new language?
Randy Weber
Well look, the goal of this section is clear. We recognize that there are still bipartisan negotiations going on to make sure we get the language right and we ensure that there are no unintended consequences impacting people's right to protest under the First Amendment. But I think the amendment is not necessarily called for. We can continue work on this as the chairman said. For that reason, I'm going to ask my colleagues to vote against the amendment.
I yield back.
Speaker 47
Okay, I'll yield back to the ranking member, I think is now who has the time.
Speaker 56
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I did want to ask Chairman Guthrie, you know, one of the areas I think that people have concern with in this country is lack of legislative oversight. And I believe the chairman when he says that he would not want anyone to be arrested for exercising their First Amendment rights. And I was just wondering from him if the administration did cross those boundaries where they did arrest someone for just exercising their First Amendment rights, like the Judge Judy lady who's in charge here now, would you, would the committee be willing to say it was not our intent when we passed this legislation for people to be arrested just for exercising their First Amendment rights? I'm sorry, I didn't, I don't want you to have to repeat all that, but I didn't quite follow what you're asking.
So you're saying is it...
Speaker 55
I'm saying that if the administration decided that they did want to arrest someone just for exercising their First Amendment rights, would the committee be willing to say that was not our intent? We intentionally did not want someone to be arrested just for doing that. I don't want the Judge Judy lady to think that, hey, or Genie, whatever her name is, to think that she can enforce that and then this committee not say anything.
Brett Guthrie
Well, so I don't want anybody arrested for the, I don't think anybody on our side of the aisle wants to see anybody arrested for exercising their First Amendment rights. And so what I was agreeing with our friend from New York is that can some future administration, this administration, any, use the word impair and say, well, and broaden it out? And so to get to our friend from Massachusetts, so you can trespass and be arrested for trespassing. But if you turn a valve, let's say it builds pressure up and it damages it somewhat later, that's what we're trying to get at, to be clear. And so in order to ensure that somebody doesn't, I guess any administration, I can point to some in the previous administrations that said, well, that really isn't enforcing the law the way we intended it for it to be.
The best way to do the law as intended is define it as best as we can. And so I'm open between now and full committee to make sure we take the word impair and define it as closely as we can to what we want the Justice Department to do. That's our job. And so yeah, I'm willing to say I don't want anybody arrested for the First Amendment, just purely violating, I don't want somebody arrested just purely exercising in peaceful protest. But we want to make sure we have this protection in place too.
And so we will continue to work, it's good that you pointed out the word impair. We look at it and say, alright, maybe there, that may be broad, can some future administration, you say this one, I argue maybe a future, could use that term that's broad and we want to make it more precise. And I think that's fair. That's a fair request from your side.
Speaker 4
The gentleman, the ranking member from New Jersey's time has expired. Are there other members wishing to be recognized on the amendment? Hearing none, we're going to roll...
Brett Guthrie
I just wonder if we could withdraw the amendment and work together. That's what I, and I commit before we come to full committee, we'll do, I can't commit to the outcome, but I can absolutely commit to an honest negotiation to try to get to the proper outcome because I agree that the word impair could be interpreted as broad. I mean, I agree that the word impair could be interpreted and we want to get to the right outcome.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Okay, thank you. Sorry, I'm out of my own turn. I appreciate... I appreciate the chairman being willing to work together on this and... And in that spirit of refining that language and ensuring that we're protecting those folks who want to make sure that they are expressing themselves, in the spirit of that negotiation, I'm happy to withdraw the amendment as we work forward to full committee.
Speaker 44
Thank you. That's fair, and we will be committed to working together. Thank you. All right. I yield back.
Speaker 4
The gentlelady has withdrawn... Asked to withdraw the amendment. I'm sorry.
Speaker 4
For what purpose is the gentleman from Texas, the vice chair, seek recognition?
Move to strike the last words.
Speaker 4
Okay. You guys messed it up. Are there any further amendments on the bill? Hearing none, the question now occurs on adopting HR 9338. All those in favor will signify by saying aye.
Aye. All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and the bill is adopted and forwarded to full committee. Without objection, staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes to the legislation approved by the committee today, so ordered. And without objection, the committee stands adjourned.