A Republican bill with 2 Republican cosponsors · See all 2 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
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 is called the Fair Allocation of Interstate Rates Act. It stops transmission providers from passing the costs of certain electric transmission facilities onto consumers in a State unless that State's officials expressly agree to it. The bill applies to transmission facilities built to implement a policy of another State or local political entity. It presumes that the benefits of these facilities only go to the cost causers, which are defined as residents of the State that implemented the policy. Finally, it requires the Commission to issue rules and regulations to carry out this subsection within 180 days.
Yes· 3 of 4
- Scored +6
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
The legislation empowers state officials by giving them veto power over cost allocations for transmission facilities built for other states' policies.
- Scored +5
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
The bill protects consumers from being forced to pay for out-of-state energy transmission projects without state consent.
- Scored +4
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Protecting consumers from unwarranted cost allocations on utility bills provides financial relief to low-income households.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Protection from Unwanted Costs: Under Section 2, adding subsection (h)(2), transmission providers cannot allocate costs for a covered transmission facility to consumers who reside outside of the State whose policy is the basis for building the facility. This protects everyday people from paying for energy policies and projects from other States unless their own public officials give explicit consent.
-
Fairness in Benefit and Cost: Under Section 2, adding subsection (h)(4), the law presumes that the benefits of a covered transmission facility go only to the cost causers, meaning consumers in the State that actually implemented the policy. This helps ensure that elected officials and citizens are held accountable for their own state policies without unfairly burdening neighbors in other States.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Potential Roadblocks for Regional Energy Projects: Under Section 2, adding subsection (h)(2), a transmission provider cannot allocate costs to consumers in other States without express consent from those States' officials. If neighboring States refuse to consent or if communication breaks down, it could make funding and building interstate electric transmission facilities much harder, even if those facilities might offer broad regional improvements.
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.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Protecting consumers from unwarranted cost allocations on utility bills provides financial relief to low-income households. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Middle-class households benefit from avoiding charges for out-of-state energy mandates.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this leave more decisions to the states? — The legislation empowers state officials by giving them veto power over cost allocations for transmission facilities built for other states' policies.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The bill protects consumers from being forced to pay for out-of-state energy transmission projects without state consent.
- 3/11/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 12/1/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in Senate
Tom CottonRepublican · Arkansas
John HoevenRepublican · North Dakota