The bill
GRID Power Act
HR. 1047, 119th Congress — read as touching Electric Utilities.
Sponsored by
Rep. Balderson, Troy [R-OH-12]
ID: B001306
Follow the money
The bill
HR. 1047, 119th Congress — read as touching Electric Utilities.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
23 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 413-415 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
September 18, 2025
📍 Current Status
Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. The GRID Power Act, a bill so cleverly titled it's almost as if they're trying to convince us that this is actually about ensuring grid reliability and not just another exercise in crony capitalism.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to reform the interconnection queue process for prioritizing and approving new dispatchable power projects. In other words, it's a thinly veiled attempt to grease the wheels for big energy companies to get their projects approved quickly and with minimal oversight. The objectives are twofold: (1) to improve grid reliability and resource adequacy by allowing transmission providers to prioritize certain projects, and (2) to create a new regulatory framework that will inevitably benefit the industry's biggest players.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill introduces several key provisions:
* It allows transmission providers to submit proposals to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to adjust the interconnection queue and prioritize certain projects. * It requires FERC to review and approve or deny these proposals within 60 days. * It mandates regular reporting from transmission providers on grid reliability and resilience.
These changes are nothing more than a Trojan horse for the energy industry's lobbyists, who have been salivating at the prospect of getting their hands on this regulatory framework. The "reforms" will undoubtedly lead to faster approval times for projects that benefit the industry's biggest players, while smaller, innovative companies will be left in the dust.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include:
* Transmission providers (i.e., big energy companies) * Independent System Operators * Regional Transmission Organizations * FERC
Stakeholders include:
* Energy consumers (who will likely see their rates increase as a result of this bill) * Smaller, innovative energy companies that can't compete with the industry giants * Environmental groups (who will be forced to fight an uphill battle against the bill's provisions)
**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is staggering:
* It will further entrench the dominance of big energy companies in the market. * It will lead to a lack of innovation and competition in the industry. * It will result in higher energy costs for consumers. * It will undermine efforts to transition to cleaner, more sustainable energy sources.
In short, this bill is a classic case of regulatory capture, where the industry's biggest players have successfully lobbied Congress to create a framework that benefits them at the expense of everyone else. It's a disease, and the only cure is a healthy dose of skepticism and scrutiny from the public. But don't hold your breath – after all, this is just another example of politics as usual in Washington D.C.
Rep. Balderson, Troy [R-OH-12]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: F000482
Top Contributors
10
ID: W000814
Top Contributors
10
ID: Y000067
Top Contributors
10
ID: L000600
Top Contributors
10
ID: M001205
Top Contributors
10
ID: H001086
Top Contributors
10
ID: D000628
Top Contributors
10
ID: J000302
Top Contributors
10
ID: R000619
Top Contributors
10
ID: B001257
Top Contributors
10
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 48 nodes and 38 connections (36 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $155,250
Showing top 17 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 helped, 1 harmed.
Section 3(a)(1) and (a)(2)(A) require the Commission to initiate rulemaking to prioritize new dispatchable power projects in the interconnection queue to improve grid reliability and resource adequacy, which benefits electric utilities by facilitating faster interconnection of generation resources.
By streamlining interconnection for dispatchable power projects, the bill facilitates grid upgrades and new transmission connections, benefiting energy infrastructure firms involved in transmission and grid modernization.
The bill focuses on prioritizing 'dispatchable power' projects, which typically exclude intermittent renewables like wind and solar, potentially disadvantaging renewable energy projects in the interconnection queue.
For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Balderson, Troy [R-OH-12])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.
— 380 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Budget EERE was funded at slightly more than $2.8 billion in FY 2021, and DOE requested slightly more than $4.0 billion for FY 2023.47 Congress needs to rescind the appropriated monies that EERE has not spent and begin fresh with new appropriations. GRID DEPLOYMENT OFFICE (GDO) Mission/Overview The Grid Deployment Office was established to implement parts of the Infra- structure Investment and Jobs Act. Pursuant to the IIJA, GDO administers funds appropriated by Congress to support transmission expansion and low/zero carbon resources. In addition, GDO is developing studies of the electric grid to address congestion, enhance reliability and resilience, and promote “clean” energy.48 Needed Reforms l End grid planning and focus instead on reliability. FERC and NERC have the primary responsibility for addressing reliability, states have the primary authority to site and permit transmission lines, and regional transmission organizations assist in planning regional transmission needs for parts of the country, but Congress granted some grid planning and siting authority to FERC and DOE through the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and IIJA, as well as grid funding through the Inflation Reduction Act. Instead of focusing on grid expansion for the benefit of renewable resources or supporting low/carbon generation, GDO should be incorporated into the reformed Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response, which would work to enhance the grid’s reliability and resilience. To the extent that they remain in effect, the funding programs that GDO oversees and administers should emphasize grid reliability, not renewables expansion. l Consider whether to defund the civil nuclear tax credit program and hydroelectric power efficiency and production incentives established in the IIJA and administered through GDO. If subsidies for renewable resources are not repealed, it may be necessary to continue subsidies for nuclear and hydro to ensure grid reliability. New Policies l Eliminate GDO and assign necessary activities to the reformed CESER. It appears that GDO’s current purpose is to promote the integration of low/zero carbon resources onto the grid by supporting subsidies for such resources and building new transmission facilities at
— 380 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Budget EERE was funded at slightly more than $2.8 billion in FY 2021, and DOE requested slightly more than $4.0 billion for FY 2023.47 Congress needs to rescind the appropriated monies that EERE has not spent and begin fresh with new appropriations. GRID DEPLOYMENT OFFICE (GDO) Mission/Overview The Grid Deployment Office was established to implement parts of the Infra- structure Investment and Jobs Act. Pursuant to the IIJA, GDO administers funds appropriated by Congress to support transmission expansion and low/zero carbon resources. In addition, GDO is developing studies of the electric grid to address congestion, enhance reliability and resilience, and promote “clean” energy.48 Needed Reforms l End grid planning and focus instead on reliability. FERC and NERC have the primary responsibility for addressing reliability, states have the primary authority to site and permit transmission lines, and regional transmission organizations assist in planning regional transmission needs for parts of the country, but Congress granted some grid planning and siting authority to FERC and DOE through the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and IIJA, as well as grid funding through the Inflation Reduction Act. Instead of focusing on grid expansion for the benefit of renewable resources or supporting low/carbon generation, GDO should be incorporated into the reformed Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response, which would work to enhance the grid’s reliability and resilience. To the extent that they remain in effect, the funding programs that GDO oversees and administers should emphasize grid reliability, not renewables expansion. l Consider whether to defund the civil nuclear tax credit program and hydroelectric power efficiency and production incentives established in the IIJA and administered through GDO. If subsidies for renewable resources are not repealed, it may be necessary to continue subsidies for nuclear and hydro to ensure grid reliability. New Policies l Eliminate GDO and assign necessary activities to the reformed CESER. It appears that GDO’s current purpose is to promote the integration of low/zero carbon resources onto the grid by supporting subsidies for such resources and building new transmission facilities at — 381 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions a cost that poses a barrier to renewable generation expansion. However, some of the grants that it administers under the IIJA appear to be properly focused on enhancing the reliability and security of the electric grid. They should be reassigned to the reformed and expanded CESER. l End DOE/GDO’s role in grid planning for the benefit of renewable developers. Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and IIJA, DOE is to perform grid congestion studies and has authority to identify National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (NIETC). Under the Biden Administration, GDO is working on a National Transmission Planning Study and is administering $2.5 billion to support “nationally significant transmission lines, increase resilience by connecting regions of the country, and improve access to cheaper clean energy sources.”49 l Defund most GDO programs. GDO oversees nearly $20 billion in new appropriations created by the IIJA, including a grid modernization grant program, the transmission facilitation program, and the civil nuclear credit program, among others. Congress should rescind any money not already spent. Budget Congress appropriated $10 million for GDO in FY 2021, and DOE has requested $90.2 million for FY 2023.50 OFFICE OF CLEAN ENERGY DEMONSTRATION (OCED) Mission/Overview The OCED was established in December 2021 to implement the IIJA. Its mis- sion is “[to] deliver clean energy demonstration projects at scale in partnership with the private sector to accelerate deployment, market adoption, and the equi- table transition to a decarbonized energy system.”51 Needed Reforms l End market distortions and stop shifting technology and development risks to taxpayers. The OCED is distorting energy markets and shifting the risk of new technology deployment from the private sector to taxpayers. The IIJA provided more than $20 billion in government subsidies to help the private sector deploy and market clean energy and decarbonizing resources. Government should not be picking winners and losers and should not be subsidizing the private sector to bring resources to market.
— 405 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions l End undue discrimination that allows subsidized resources to distort price formation in RTOs. l Affirm its commitment that states will decide whether to join an RTO instead of imposing RTOs on regions that do not want them. FERC should also consider allowing states to enter into non-RTO power pools with alternative structures for the sharing of resources and electric generation. FERC: ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION Mission/Overview Under the Federal Power Act, FERC has the authority to regulate the rates, terms, and conditions of interstate electric transmission. (Pursuant to court cases, interstate transmission can be entirely within a state, although the part of Texas served by ERCOT is not under FERC transmission jurisdiction.) Needed Reforms FERC has been considering how to plan for and allocate costs for new trans- mission lines and how new generation resources will be interconnected to the transmission grid. (Transmission expansion and replacement decisions are usu- ally made by local utilities or by an RTO or regional planning entity). Through two major rulemakings,118 FERC is attempting to facilitate the building of more long-range transmission lines and to socialize more of the costs of transmission buildouts to more customers in order to make it cheaper for renewable develop- ers (primarily) to interconnect to the grid and sell their power. Socializing such costs is a form of subsidy for generators and will cause further price distortions in RTOs and ISOs that will make it less economical for reliable, dispatchable resources like coal, nuclear, and natural gas to stay operational and support reliability.119 Also, under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, DOE and FERC are granted authority to site and permit high-priority transmission lines as National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (NIETCs). The Inflation Reduction Act provides funding to DOE to support transmission expansion.120 These initiatives will undermine state input and decision-making. FERC will consider rules on how NIETC transmission applications are to be made. New Policies FERC should either change course on its existing transmission rulemakings (if still in progress) or issue a new rulemaking to: — 406 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Ensure that transmission planning and interconnection processes are resource neutral. l Prevent socializing costs for customers who do not benefit from the projects or justifying such cost shifts as advancing vague “societal benefits” such as climate change. l Stop cost allocation from becoming a subsidy for generators, such as renewables. With respect to NIETCs, FERC and the new DESAS should ensure that state interests are respected and not allow such NEITC transmission lines to be devel- oped as a mere subsidy to renewable developers. Furthermore, much of the transmission buildout (including its attendant costs) is being driven by renewable developers seeking market share. These projects are causing rates for customers to go up and hurting reliability. FERC needs to ensure that transmission buildouts are planned for the benefit of customers. FERC: NATURAL GAS PIPELINES Mission/Overview FERC permits, sites, and authorizes the construction and operation of inter- state natural gas pipelines.121 It also regulates the rates for the shipping of natural gas122 (but not the price of the natural gas commodity, which is market based). FERC is charged with ensuring that natural gas pipelines are approved if they are required by the “public convenience and necessity.”123 Pipeline permitting is sub- ject to environmental reviews under NEPA, and the rate for the pipeline and the shipping of the commodity is set by FERC under a just and reasonable standard. Once FERC approves a project, the holder of the certificate has the sovereign’s power of eminent domain. Needed Reforms Natural gas pipelines are vital for the economy, manufacturing, heating, and electric generation. Opposition from “Keep it in the ground” environmentalists has made it harder to gain approvals for natural gas pipelines. Under Democrat leadership, FERC has proposed official policies to consider upstream and down- stream GHG emissions from the use of the natural gas that would be shipped in the pipeline to be part of FERC’s public-interest determination when deciding whether to approve a pipeline. There is conflicting direction from the D.C. Circuit on the GHG issue, which also could be seen as a “major questions” issue under the U.S. Supreme Court’s West Virginia v. EPA decision.124
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.