Undersea Cable Protection Act of 2025

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/261
Last Updated: September 7, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Carter, Earl L. "Buddy" [R-GA-1]

ID: C001103

Follow the money

The bill

Undersea Cable Protection Act of 2025

HR. 261, 119th Congress — read as touching Telecommunications.

The sponsor

Rep. Carter, Earl L. "Buddy" [R-GA-1]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$71,565 raised

23 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Financial Regulatory Agencies" section, p. 879-881 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

February 11, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

📍 Current Status

Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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!

Bill Summary

Another masterpiece of legislative legerdemain, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. The Undersea Cable Protection Act of 2025 - a bill so brazenly self-serving, it's a wonder they didn't just title it "The Telecom Industry's Wet Dream."

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill is a thinly veiled attempt to deregulate the installation and maintenance of undersea fiber optic cables in national marine sanctuaries. The stated purpose? To "protect" these cables from pesky environmental regulations. In reality, it's a giveaway to telecom giants, allowing them to operate with impunity in sensitive ecosystems.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the National Marine Sanctuaries Act to prohibit the Secretary of Commerce from requiring permits or authorizations for undersea cable activities that have already been approved by a Federal or State agency. This effectively creates a loophole, allowing telecom companies to bypass environmental reviews and oversight.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Telecom industry lobbyists are no doubt popping champagne corks, while environmental groups and marine conservationists are left to pick up the pieces. The bill's sponsors claim it will "streamline" the permitting process, but in reality, it's a recipe for disaster - allowing unchecked development in sensitive ecosystems.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of regulatory capture, where industry interests have hijacked the legislative process to serve their own agenda. By gutting environmental protections, we can expect increased damage to marine habitats, harm to endangered species, and a further degradation of our nation's natural resources.

In short, this bill is a symptom of a far more insidious disease - the corrupting influence of money in politics. It's a stark reminder that, in Washington D.C., the only "sanctuary" is the one reserved for corporate interests, where they can operate with impunity and disregard for the public good.

Diagnosis: Terminal stupidity, compounded by greed and corruption. Prognosis: Poor. Treatment: A healthy dose of skepticism and outrage from an informed citizenry - but don't hold your breath.

Related Topics

Telecommunications & Broadband Access
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Carter, Earl L. "Buddy" [R-GA-1]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$71,565
20 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$2,500
Committees
$0
Individuals
$69,065

No PAC contributions found

1
SAVANNAH TOYOTA
2 transactions
$2,000
2
TYBEE MARKET
1 transaction
$500

No committee contributions found

1
SADOWSKI, GARY T.
2 transactions
$6,600
2
KIMBELL, JEFFREY
2 transactions
$6,600
3
SMITH, BYRON L.
1 transaction
$5,000
4
MUNOZ, DONALD
1 transaction
$4,665
5
RICKS, DAVID A.
1 transaction
$3,300
6
STEERE, WILLIAM C. JR.
1 transaction
$3,300
7
HENNESSY, MARK W.
1 transaction
$3,300
8
MCWANE, C. PHILLIP
1 transaction
$3,300
9
MILNER, STEPHEN DONALD
1 transaction
$3,300
10
BOERNER, CHRISTOPHER
1 transaction
$3,300
11
DAVIS, ROBERT M.
1 transaction
$3,300
12
GATES, WILLIAM H. III
1 transaction
$3,300
13
HEAD, KATHRYN
1 transaction
$3,300
14
MARTIN, JOHN
1 transaction
$3,300
15
O'DAY, DANIEL
1 transaction
$3,300
16
RABAH, TAREK
1 transaction
$3,300
17
HENNESSY, MARK W
1 transaction
$3,300
18
HENNESSY, PAULA B.
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 7 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Dunn, Neal P. [R-FL-2]

ID: D000628

Top Contributors

21

1
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$3,300
Aug 19, 2024
2
SHOOTS, KYLE MR.
SYSTEM SERVICE & ENGINEERING INC • PRESIDENT
IndividualPANAMA CITY, FL
$10,000
Jun 18, 2024
3
CAMAISA, ALLAN
CALIDI BIO • CHAIRMAN AND CEO
IndividualRANCHO SANTA FE, CA
$6,600
Apr 12, 2023
4
PERGOLINI, WILLIAM
AUDIENTIS LLC • PRESIDENT
IndividualROSWELL, GA
$5,000
Sep 2, 2023
5
PERGOLINI, WILLIAM
AUDIENTIS LLC • PRESIDENT
IndividualROSWELL, GA
$5,000
Sep 2, 2023
6
SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$5,000
Jun 5, 2024
7
SCHWARZMAN, STEPHEN
BLACKSTONE • CEO AND CHAIRMAN
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$5,000
May 31, 2024
8
D'ISERNIA, MIRIAM A. MS
HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER
IndividualPANAMA CITY BEACH, FL
$3,400
Sep 29, 2023
9
PERGOLINI, WILLIAM
IndividualROSWELL, GA
$3,400
Sep 29, 2023
10
SHOOTS, CHRISTINA MRS.
IndividualPANAMA CITY, FL
$3,400
Jun 18, 2024

Rep. Cammack, Kat [R-FL-3]

ID: C001039

Top Contributors

25

1
PASS THE HAT
OrganizationATHENS, GA
$3,610
Jul 15, 2024
2
SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA
OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL
$3,300
Aug 14, 2024
3
S & K BARRINGTON FARMS
OrganizationMAYO, FL
$600
Mar 31, 2024
4
83 FARMS, LLC
OrganizationBELL, FL
$283
Mar 31, 2023
5
RADIANT CREDIT UNION
OrganizationGAINESVILLE, FL
$250
Jun 30, 2023
6
ADOLFSSON, MARCUS
RETIRED
IndividualGULFPORT, FL
$6,600
Jun 30, 2023
7
KEMMERER, JOHN
KEMMERER MANAGEMENT CORP • EXECUTIVE
IndividualJACKSON, WY
$6,600
Apr 18, 2023
8
KEMMERER, KAREN
NONE • RETIRED
IndividualJACKSON, WY
$6,600
May 11, 2023
9
HOROWITZ, BEN
ANDREESSEN HOROWITZ • ANDREESSEN HOROWITZ
IndividualLAS VEGAS, NV
$6,600
Apr 11, 2024
10
GASTON, BILL FAYE
BUSINESS OWNER
IndividualGAINESVILLE, FL
$5,205
Feb 29, 2024

Rep. Kiggans, Jennifer A. [R-VA-2]

ID: K000399

Top Contributors

23

1
AIPAC- EARMARKS
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$2,000
Oct 22, 2024
2
PEAKE FOR SENATE
COMLYNCHBURG, VA
$500
Jan 9, 2024
3
PEAKE FOR SENATE
COMLYNCHBURG, VA
$250
Jan 9, 2024
4
KEHOE, MICHAEL
KINSALE MGMT INC • CEO
IndividualRICHMOND, VA
$13,200
Jun 8, 2023
5
MITCHUM, ELZA
C & M INDUSTRIES • PRESIDENT
IndividualCHESAPEAKE, VA
$6,600
Oct 18, 2023
6
SILVERMAN, JEFFREY
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualMIAMI BEACH, FL
$6,600
Oct 17, 2023
7
PERRY, J DOUGLAS
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualNORFOLK, VA
$6,600
Nov 6, 2023
8
WEEKLEY, RICHARD
SELF EMPLOYED • REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER
IndividualHOUSTON, TX
$6,600
Nov 8, 2023
9
GILLIAM, MARVIN
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualBRISTOL, VA
$6,600
Mar 30, 2024
10
BOHANNON, DAVID
LONDON BRIDGE TRADING INC. • PRESIDENT
IndividualVIRGINIA BEACH, VA
$6,600
May 23, 2024

Rep. Fry, Russell [R-SC-7]

ID: F000478

Top Contributors

24

1
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC
$3,300
Feb 20, 2024
2
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC
$3,300
Sep 5, 2024
3
RMS LLC
OrganizationHOOVER, AL
$2,500
Sep 5, 2024
4
ROBERT S GUYTON PC
OrganizationMYRTLE BEACH, SC
$1,000
Jun 17, 2024
5
GAMBLE, KATHRYN
UNAKA CO • BUSINESS EXECUTIVE
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$6,600
Jul 15, 2024
6
AUSTIN, ROBERT
UNAKA CO., INC. • BUSINESSMAN
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$6,600
Jul 19, 2024
7
MOORE, KEVIN
R.H. MOORE COMPANY, INC. • CONSTRUCTION
IndividualPAWLEYS ISLAND, SC
$6,600
Aug 20, 2024
8
LOWELL, RANDY
BURR FORMAN • ATTORNEY
IndividualISLE OF PALMS, SC
$3,435
Dec 2, 2024
9
GRUBBS, WESLEY
BEACH FORD • CAR DEALER
IndividualMYRTLE BEACH, SC
$3,435
May 30, 2024
10
WOOTEN, GAIL
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualMURRELLS INLET, SC
$3,435
Jun 19, 2024

Rep. Pfluger, August [R-TX-11]

ID: P000048

Top Contributors

23

1
SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION
OrganizationEL CAJON, CA
$3,300
Apr 18, 2024
2
SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION
OrganizationEL CAJON, CA
$3,300
Jun 30, 2023
3
ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE
OrganizationLIVINGSTON, TX
$1,000
Sep 27, 2024
4
DIMEMMO, COLETTE
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualFORT MYERS, FL
$6,600
Oct 24, 2024
5
PUDWILL, JAMES
IndividualNIPOMO, CA
$6,600
Sep 16, 2024
6
GELBMAN, JOEL
IndividualNAPLES, FL
$6,600
Sep 16, 2024
7
GELBMAN, JOEL
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualNAPLES, FL
$6,600
Aug 26, 2024
8
PUDWILL, JAMES
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualNIPOMO, CA
$6,600
Aug 3, 2024
9
WILSON, CELIA R
OIL AND GAS • SELF-EMPLOYED
IndividualMIDLAND, TX
$5,800
Mar 31, 2024
10
WILSON, CELIA R
SELF • OIL AND GAS
IndividualMIDLAND, TX
$5,800
Apr 9, 2024

Rep. Bentz, Cliff [R-OR-2]

ID: B000668

Top Contributors

45

1
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF SILETZ INDIANS
OrganizationSILETZ, OR
$3,300
Dec 18, 2023
2
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Dec 18, 2023
3
SAN PABLO LYTTON BAND OF POM INDIANS
OrganizationSAN PABLO, CA
$3,300
Apr 9, 2024
4
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF SILETZ INDIANS
OrganizationSILETZ, OR
$3,300
Aug 1, 2023
5
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE COLVILLE RESERVATION
OrganizationNESPELEM, WA
$3,300
Sep 30, 2023
6
THE TULALIP TRIBES OF WASHINGTON
PARTNERSHIP
OrganizationMARYSVILLE, WA
$3,300
Sep 30, 2023
7
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF SILETZ INDIANS
OrganizationSILETZ, OR
$3,300
Sep 3, 2024
8
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE COLVILLE RESERVATION
OrganizationNESPELEM, WA
$3,300
Sep 26, 2024
9
PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS
OrganizationTEMECULA, CA
$3,300
Sep 26, 2024
10
THE TULALIP TRIBES OF WASHINGTON
OrganizationTULALIP, WA
$3,300
Aug 19, 2024

Rep. Begich, Nicholas J. [R-AK-At Large]

ID: B001323

Top Contributors

20

1
LOKEN, TYLER
IndividualANCHORAGE, AK
$5,000
Oct 17, 2024
2
ODOM, WILLIAM L
ODOM CORP • VICE CHAIRMAN
IndividualANCHORAGE, AK
$5,000
Oct 26, 2024
3
ODOM, WILLIAM L
IndividualANCHORAGE, AK
$5,000
Oct 26, 2024
4
FOX, RICHARD
GMS LLC • MANAGER
IndividualANCHORAGE, AK
$3,435
Sep 4, 2024
5
GERONDALE, CHRISTOPHER
SELF
IndividualJUNEAU, AK
$3,300
Oct 16, 2023
6
GERONDALE, CHRISTOPHER
SELF
IndividualJUNEAU, AK
$3,300
Oct 16, 2023
7
MCNAMARA, MICHAEL
MICHAEL MCNAMARA • PHYSICIAN
IndividualANCHORAGE, AK
$3,300
Oct 25, 2023
8
SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
Nov 1, 2023
9
SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
Nov 1, 2023
10
SCHWARZMAN, STEPHEN
BLACKSTONE
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
Oct 30, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Carter, Earl L. "Buddy" [R-GA-1]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 40 nodes and 43 connections

Total contributions: $43

Top Donors - Rep. Carter, Earl L. "Buddy" [R-GA-1]

Showing top 20 donors by contribution amount

2 Orgs18 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 helped.

  • +Telecommunicationsconfidence 0.90

    Section 2 prohibits the Secretary of Commerce from requiring permits or prohibiting undersea fiber optic cables in national marine sanctuaries if authorized by a Federal or State agency, directly benefiting telecommunications companies that install and operate such cables.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Financial Regulatory Agencies

Moderate
Vector: 60%
Pages: 879-881AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill supports the FCC's objective of unleashing economic prosperity by streamlining permitting for undersea fiber‑optic cables, which bolsters critical communications infrastructure. It also indirectly advances national security goals, though it does not address the FCC's Big‑Tech or accountability priorities."

Key themes:economic prosperitynational securityinfrastructure permittingbroadband expansion

— 847 — Federal Communications Commission The FCC has facilitated the transition from 3G to 4G and now 5G offerings in two ways. First, it has freed spectrum—the airwaves needed to deliver wireless ser- vices. Second, it has preempted state and local siting and permitting laws that could otherwise slow down the buildout of next-generation infrastructure. One of the FCC’s great success stories from 2017 to 2020 was securing U.S. leadership in 5G. The FCC also administers an approximately roughly $9 billion-a-year program called the Universal Service Fund (USF), which has been funded by a line-item charge that traditional telephone companies add to consumers’ monthly bills. Expenditures from this fund subsidize rural broadband networks and low-income programs as well as connections for schools, libraries, and rural health care facil- ities. Through various COVID-era laws, Congress has also provided the FCC with a one-time $24 billion appropriation for various low-income initiatives. POLICY PRIORITIES The FCC needs to change course and bring new urgency to achieving four main goals: l Reining in Big Tech, l Promoting national security, l Unleashing economic prosperity, and l Ensuring FCC accountability and good governance.15 Reining in Big Tech. The FCC has an important role to play in addressing the threats to individual liberty posed by corporations that are abusing dominant positions in the market. Nowhere is that clearer than when it comes to Big Tech and its attempts to drive diverse political viewpoints from the digital town square. Today, a handful of corporations can shape everything from the information we consume to the places we shop. These corporate behemoths are not merely exercising market power; they are abusing dominant positions. They are not simply prevailing in the free market; they are taking advantage of a landscape that has been skewed—in many cases by the government—to favor their business models over those of their competitors. It is hard to imagine another industry in which a greater gap exists between power and accountability. That is why a new Adminis- tration should support FCC action on several fronts. Specifically, the FFC should: l Eliminate immunities that courts added to Section 230. The FCC should issue an order that interprets Section 230 in a way that eliminates the expansive, non-textual immunities that courts have read into the statute. — 848 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise As one of the FCC’s previous General Counsels noted, the FCC has authority to take this action because Section 230 is codified in the Communications Act.16 The FCC’s Section 230 reforms should track the positions outlined in a July 2020 Petition for Rulemaking filed at the FCC near the end of the Trump Administration.17 Any new presidential Administration should consider filing a similar or new petition. As Justice Clarence Thomas has made clear, courts have construed Section 230 broadly to confer on some of the world’s largest companies a sweeping immunity that is found nowhere in the text of the statute.18 They have done so in a way that nullifies the limits Congress placed on the types of actions that Internet companies can take while continuing to benefit from Section 230. One way to start correcting this error is for the FCC to remind courts how the various portions of Section 230 operate. At the outset, the FCC can clarify that Section 230(c)(1) does not apply broadly to every decision that a platform makes. Rather, its protections apply only when a platform does not remove information provided by someone else. In contrast, the FCC should clarify that the more limited Section 230(c)(2) protections apply to any covered platform’s decision to restrict access to material provided by someone else. Combined, these actions will appropriately limit the number of cases in which a platform can censor with the benefit of Section 230’s protections. Such clarifications might also include drawing out the traditional legal distinction between distributor and publisher liability; Section 230 did not do away with the former, nor does it collapse into the latter. l Impose transparency rules on Big Tech. Today, Big Tech offers a black box. After Google manipulates search results, a small business can see its web traffic drop precipitously overnight for no apparent reason, potentially flipping its outlook from black to red. On Facebook, social media posts are left up or taken down, accounts suspended or permanently banned, without any apparent consistency. Out of the blue, YouTube can demonetize individuals who have risked their capital and invested their labor to build online businesses. At present, the FCC requires broadband providers to comply with a transparency rule that can provide a good baseline for Big Tech. Under the FCC’s rule, broadband providers must provide detailed disclosures about practices that would shape Internet traffic—from blocking to prioritizing or discriminating against content. The FCC could take a similar approach to

Federal Communications Commission

Moderate
Vector: 59%
Pages: 888-890AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill shares the Project 2025 theme of reducing regulatory burdens to promote private sector infrastructure deployment and competition, though it focuses on undersea cables in marine sanctuaries rather than FCC-specific overbuilding or broadband program reforms."

Key themes:regulatory streamliningprivate sector infrastructurecompetition promotionbroadband connectivityreducing bureaucratic hurdles

— 856 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Administration gave the green light for recipients to spend those funds to overbuild existing high-speed networks in communities that already have multiple broadband providers. A new Administration should eliminate government-funded overbuilding of existing networks. l Adopt a national coordinating strategy. Hundreds of billions of infrastructure dollars have been appropriated by Congress or budgeted by agencies over the past couple of years that can be used to end the digital divide. Yet, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, “U.S. broadband efforts are not guided by a national strategy”; instead, “[f]ederal broadband efforts are fragmented and overlapping, with more than 100 programs administered by 15 agencies,” risking overbuilding as well as wasteful duplication.26 Many of these programs remain plagued by inefficiency, further contributing to waste of limited taxpayer dollars. Moreover, the federal government is failing to put appropriate guardrails in place to govern the expenditure of billions in broadband funds. This is the regulatory equivalent of turning the spigot on full blast and then walking away from the hose. There is a worrisome lack of adequate tracking, measurement, and accountability standards governing all of this broadband spending. As a result, we are likely to see headline levels of waste, fraud, and abuse. A new Administration needs to bring fresh oversight to this spending and put a national strategy in place to ensure that the federal government adopts a coordinated approach to its various broadband initiatives. Similarly, the next Administration should ask the FCC to launch a review of its existing broadband programs, including the different components of the USF, with the goal of avoiding duplication, improving efficiency of existing programs, and saving taxpayer money. l Correct the FCC’s regulatory trajectory and encourage competition to improve connectivity. The FCC is a New Deal–era agency. Its history of regulation tends to reflect the view that the federal government should impose heavy-handed regulation rather than relying on competition and market forces to produce optimal outcomes. President Franklin D. Roosevelt recommended that Congress create the FCC in February 1934 for the purposes of establishing “a single Government agency charged with broad authority” over the field of communications.27 Congress subsequently established the FCC through the Communications Act of 1934. Congress has passed a number of additional statutes—some broad, some — 857 — Federal Communications Commission narrow—that pertain to the FCC’s authority, including most significantly the Telecommunications Act of 1996,28 which opened up markets for greater competition and largely deregulated industry segments. Technological change in the connectivity sector is occurring rapidly. We are now seeing an unprecedented level of convergence, innovation, and competition in the market for connectivity. On the one hand, traditional cable providers like Charter are now offering mobile wireless services to consumers in direct competition with traditional wireless companies like Verizon. On the other hand, a new generation of low-earth orbit satellite services like StarLink and Amazon’s Project Kuiper stand to offer high- speed home broadband in competition with legacy providers. Furthermore, broadcasters are offering high-speed downloads directly to consumers over spectrum that previously provided only TV service. These rapidly evolving market conditions counsel in favor of eliminating many of the heavy-handed FCC regulations that were adopted in an era when every technology operated in a silo. These include many of the FCC’s media ownership rules, which can have the effect of restricting investment and competition because those regulations assume a far more limited set of competitors for advertising dollars than exist today, as well as its universal service requirements. Ultimately, FCC reliance on competition and innovation is vital if the agency is to deliver optimal outcomes for the American public. The FCC should engage in a serious top-to-bottom review of its regulations and take steps to rescind any that are overly cumbersome or outdated. The Commission should focus its efforts on creating a market-friendly regulatory environment that fosters innovation and competition from a wide range of actors, including cable-based, broadband-based, and satellite- based Internet providers. AUTHOR’S NOTE: The preparation of this chapter was a collective enterprise of individuals involved in the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. All contributors to this chapter are listed at the front of this volume. While this chapter identifies certain issues on which the contributors did not all agree, the author alone assumes responsibility for the content of this chapter, and no views expressed herein should be attributed to any other individual.

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Weak
Vector: 59%
Pages: 437-439AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on streamlining permitting for undersea telecom cables in marine sanctuaries, while the Project 2025 section addresses FERC reforms for electric transmission, natural gas pipelines, and preventing renewable subsidies. Both touch on reducing regulatory burdens for infrastructure, but their substantive policy domains and objectives differ significantly."

Key themes:permitting streamliningfederal agency coordinationinfrastructure development

— 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

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills