A Democratic bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill, titled the "Enhancing Electric Grid Resilience Act," seeks to amend the Federal Power Act. It focuses on authorizing the allocation of costs for specific electric power transmission lines. This includes interstate transmission lines and those located offshore. The bill defines "transmission facilities of national significance" based on specific capacity and timing requirements. It also establishes how the Commission should handle tariffs related to these facilities.
Yes· 3 of 4
- Scored +3
Is this likely to grow the economy?
The bill facilitates the construction of large-scale transmission facilities which supports economic activity through enhanced energy infrastructure.
- Scored +3
Does this give the federal government more power?
The bill expands the authority of the Commission to regulate and mandate cost-allocation principles for transmission facilities of national significance.
- Scored +2
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
By enhancing grid resilience and capacity, the bill supports the integration of diverse energy resources.
The opposite
- Scored -1
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Mandated cost-sharing for large transmission projects may lead to increased electricity costs for households within affected regions.
- Scored -1
Would middle-income households be better off under this?
The allocation of costs for large-scale infrastructure projects may result in higher utility rates for middle-income customers.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Cost Allocation based on Benefits: Under Section 2(a)(3), the Commission will require cost allocation based on a broad range of benefits, including reliability, economic, public policy, and resilience. This ensures that the costs of these major projects are tied to the actual advantages they provide.
-
Commensurate Cost Distribution: According to Section 2(a)(2), the Commission will require that costs are allocated to customers in a manner that is at least roughly commensurate with the estimated anticipated benefits. This aims to ensure that those receiving the benefits are the ones responsible for the costs.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Cost Burdens on Specific Regions: As stated in Section 2(a)(2), the bill requires that costs for transmission facilities of national significance be allocated to customers within applicable transmission planning regions. Depending on the project, this could result in specific groups of customers bearing the financial costs of large-scale transmission lines or offshore lines.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — By enhancing grid resilience and capacity, the bill supports the integration of diverse energy resources. Does this invest in rural communities? — The expansion of interstate and offshore transmission capacity can improve energy reliability for rural regions within planning areas.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to grow the economy? — The bill facilitates the construction of large-scale transmission facilities which supports economic activity through enhanced energy infrastructure.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill expands the authority of the Commission to regulate and mandate cost-allocation principles for transmission facilities of national significance.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Mandated cost-sharing for large transmission projects may lead to increased electricity costs for households within affected regions. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — The allocation of costs for large-scale infrastructure projects may result in higher utility rates for middle-income customers.
- 7/22/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- Introduced in House
4 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.