Next Generation Pipelines Research and Development Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/2613

Last Updated: November 5, 2025

Next Generation Pipelines Research and Development Act

HR. 2613, 119th Congress — read as touching Pipelines & Energy Infrastructure.

The sponsor

Rep. Weber, Randy K. Sr. [R-TX-14]

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

The money

$128,000 raised

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

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Energy and Related Commissions" section, p. 443-445 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.

April 28, 2025

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

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

Summary Style:

**Analysis of HR 2613: Next Generation Pipelines Research and Development Act**

As a visionary entrepreneur, I'll cut through the bureaucratic jargon and distill this bill into its essence.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of HR 2613 is to accelerate the development and deployment of next-generation pipeline systems, focusing on advanced materials, technologies, and manufacturing processes. The bill aims to improve public-private partnerships, increase federal research funding, and enhance coordination among relevant agencies.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

1. **Establishment of the Advanced Pipeline Materials and Technologies Demonstration Initiative**: This initiative will award financial assistance to eligible entities for demonstration projects on low- to mid-technology readiness level subjects. 2. **Coordination and Collaboration**: The bill mandates coordination among various federal agencies, including the Department of Energy, Transportation, and Interior, as well as with private sector partners. 3. **Eligible Entities**: The bill expands the definition of eligible entities to include institutions of higher education, nonprofit research organizations, National Laboratories, private commercial entities, and partnerships or consortia.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. **Pipeline Industry**: Companies involved in pipeline construction, operation, and maintenance will benefit from the development and deployment of advanced technologies. 2. **Energy Sector**: The bill's focus on next-generation pipeline systems will impact the energy sector, particularly those involved in fossil fuel transportation. 3. **Research Institutions**: Universities, research organizations, and National Laboratories will have opportunities to participate in demonstration projects and receive funding.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Increased Efficiency and Safety**: The development of advanced pipeline materials and technologies can lead to improved safety, reduced leakage rates, and increased efficiency in pipeline operations. 2. **Job Creation and Economic Growth**: The bill's focus on public-private partnerships and demonstration projects may create new job opportunities and stimulate economic growth in the energy sector. 3. **Consolidation of Power**: As a visionary entrepreneur, I recognize that this bill can lead to further consolidation of power among large pipeline companies, potentially limiting competition and innovation.

In conclusion, HR 2613 presents an opportunity for strategic investment and partnership between government agencies, research institutions, and private sector entities. By accelerating the development of next-generation pipeline systems, we can drive efficiency, safety, and economic growth in the energy sector. As a self-serving billionaire, I'll be keeping a close eye on this bill's progress and exploring ways to leverage its provisions for my own business interests.

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Weber, Randy K. Sr. [R-TX-14]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$128,000

22 donors

PACs

Organizations

$9,500

Committees

Individuals

$118,500

No PAC contributions found

SCOTT M. BROWN P.C.

2 transactions

$5,000

TIGUA INDIAN RESERVATION - YSLETA DEL SUR PUEBLO

1 transaction

$2,500

ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE

1 transaction

$1,000

ALLEN BOONE HUMPHRIES ROBINSON LLP

1 transaction

$1,000

No committee contributions found

SCOTT, WILLIAM F. JR.

2 transactions

$13,200

CLARK, LISA M.

1 transaction

$10,000

GEISELMAN, CULLEN

2 transactions

$10,000

SULLIVAN, JOHN R. MR.

1 transaction

$6,600

TEICHMAN, KEVIN MR.

1 transaction

$6,600

MCCORVEY, MITZY

1 transaction

$6,600

MCCORVEY, TONY

1 transaction

$6,600

JENKINS, WILLIAM

1 transaction

$6,600

SMITH, THOMAS

1 transaction

$6,600

FAISON, JAY WINTERS MR.

1 transaction

$6,600

RICE, SCOTT

1 transaction

$6,600

UIHLEIN, RICHARD

1 transaction

$5,800

WORTHAM, KAREN MRS.

1 transaction

$5,000

ENSELL, DUKE

1 transaction

$5,000

MOHN, JERRY A. MR.

1 transaction

$5,000

GUINDON, KEITH MR.

1 transaction

$5,000

CLARK, RANDY A.

1 transaction

$3,400

CEARLEY, TRACEY

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 1 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Ross, Deborah K. [D-NC-2]

ID: R000305

Top Contributors

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$1,000

Dec 8, 2023

COOPER, JOHN D JR.

NOT EMPLOYED • CONTRACTOR/ENGINEER

IndividualRALEIGH, NC

$6,600

May 8, 2023

MARTIN, LOUISE PORTER

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualRALEIGH, NC

$4,600

Dec 29, 2023

WILKES, NANCY

UNC HOSPITALS • PHYSICIAN

IndividualCHAPEL HILL, NC

$3,300

Oct 31, 2024

ALLEN, DIANA

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualCARY, NC

$3,300

Dec 30, 2023

ALSOP, JOSEPH

ALSOP LOUIE PARTNERS • VENTURE PARTNER

IndividualBEVERLY, MA

$3,300

Dec 29, 2023

ALSUP, WILLIAM B III

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$3,300

Oct 17, 2023

BEEUWKES, REINIER

ISCHEMIX • CEO

IndividualCONCORD, MA

$3,300

Dec 31, 2023

DEBNAM, CAREY

SELF EMPLOYED • PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

IndividualRALEIGH, NC

$3,300

Dec 21, 2023

DEBNAM, SESHA F

DEBNAM PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC • PROPERTY MANAGER

IndividualRALEIGH, NC

$3,300

Dec 21, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Weber, Randy K. Sr. [R-TX-14]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 52 nodes and 28 connections (52 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $140,200

Top Donors - Rep. Weber, Randy K. Sr. [R-TX-14]

Showing top 22 donors by contribution amount

4 Orgs18 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 5 helped.

+Pipelines & Energy Infrastructureconfidence 0.95
Section 4 establishes the Advanced Pipeline Materials and Technologies Demonstration Initiative, which provides financial assistance to eligible entities for demonstration projects on pipeline systems, components, and related technologies, including liquefied natural gas facilities and storage. This directly benefits the energy infrastructure industry (pipelines, midstream operators, LNG terminals) by funding R&D and deployment of next-generation pipeline technologies.
+Oil & Gasconfidence 0.90
Section 4(c)(3)(A) prioritizes projects involving gas and liquid hydrocarbons, including natural gas, renewable natural gas, methane, ethane, and liquefied natural gas. This indicates the bill supports research and development applicable to oil and gas pipeline systems, providing a benefit to the oil and gas industry through improved pipeline technologies and potential market expansion for hydrocarbon transport.
+Renewable Energyconfidence 0.85
Section 4(c)(3)(B) includes carbon dioxide, (C) hydrogen, (D) biofuels, (E) water, (F) substances in the hydrogen supply chain (ammonia, liquid organic hydrogen carriers), (G) blends of gases or liquids including hydrogen blends. This shows the bill supports R&D for pipelines transporting alternative fuels, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide, which benefits renewable energy and emerging low-carbon fuel industries by enabling infrastructure for their transport and storage.
+Electric Utilitiesconfidence 0.80
Section 4 authorizes appropriations from the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management. Section 5 establishes a Joint Research and Development Program that includes coordination with the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. This suggests potential benefits for electric utilities through grid resilience and integration of renewable energy via pipeline-enabled hydrogen or other low-carbon fuels, though the connection is less
+Defense Contractorsconfidence 0.70
Section 4(c)(10) includes 'Strategies and technologies for integrated cybersecurity considerations and countering cyberattacks.' This cybersecurity focus could benefit defense contractors involved in pipeline security, though the bill does not explicitly mention defense applications.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Weber, Randy K. Sr. [R-TX-14])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.

Industries this bill HELPS

Pipelines & Energy Infrastructure$3,300
from 1 contribution
- KEAN, STEVE$3,300

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.

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Strong

Vector: 66%

Pages: 443-445AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on DOE-led research and public‑private coordination to strengthen energy infrastructure and security, particularly through advancing pipeline safety and technology."

Key themes:DOE research initiativespublic‑private partnershipspipeline infrastructureenergy securityadvanced technology development

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Strong

Vector: 64%

Pages: 443-445AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill's focus on DOE-led research, development, and demonstration of advanced pipeline technologies aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on strengthening DOE's role in energy security and coordinating government‑private sector efforts to protect critical energy infrastructure."

Key themes:energy securityDOE research coordinationpipeline infrastructureadvanced technologiespublic-private partnerships

— 410 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. Sean Michael Kerner, “Colonial Pipeline Hack Explained: Everything You Need to Know,” TechTarget, April, 26, 2022, https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/feature/Colonial-Pipeline-hack-explained-Everything-you-need-to- know (accessed February 13, 2023). 2. Jacob Knutson, “N.C. Power Company: Substation Repairs Complete After Alleged Attack,” Axios, December 7, 2022, https://www.axios.com/2022/12/07/duke-energy-moore-county-substation-attack (accessed February 13, 2023). 3. H.R. 3684, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law No. 117-58, 117th Congress, November 15, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ58/PLAW-117publ58.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 4. H.R. 5376, Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117-169, August 16, 2022, https://www.congress. gov/117/plaws/publ169/PLAW-117publ169.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 5. S. 826, Department of Energy Organization Act, Public Law 95-91, 95th Congress, August 4, 1977, https://www. congress.gov/95/statute/STATUTE-91/STATUTE-91-Pg565.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 6. DOE also promotes domestic energy security by providing research and coordination between government and the private sector on physical and cyber-related threats to energy security. This work should continue and be enhanced under the next Administration. 7. Elimination of OE, NE, FE, and EERE might also be considered; however, there are benefits from having political appointees run separate offices. Specifically, separate program offices can focus on threats that are unique to their energy areas, and having political appointees run separate offices helps to ensure focused, unobstructed pursuit of policy objectives. 8. H.R. 6586, Natural Gas Act, Public Law No. 75-688, 75th Congress, June 21, 1938, https://govtrackus. s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/52/STATUTE-52-Pg821a.pdf (accessed February 24, 2023). 9. U.S. Department of Energy, “Promoting Energy Justice,” https://www.energy.gov/promoting-energy-justice (accessed February 13, 2023). 10. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Economic Impact and Diversity, “Justice40 Initiative,” https://www. energy.gov/diversity/justice40-initiative (accessed February 13, 2023). 11. Press release, “DOE Releases First-Ever Plan to Advance Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility,” U.S. Department of Energy, September 1, 2022, https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-releases-first-ever-plan- advance-diversity-equity-inclusion-and-accessibility (accessed February 14, 2023). 12. Including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science Foundation, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, etc. 13. Table, “Environmental Management: Lifecycle Cost by Project Baseline Summary (PBS) ($M),” in U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Volume 6, Environmental Management, April 2022, p. 53, https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/ files/2022-09/doe-fy2023-budget-volume-6-em-v3.pd (accessed February 13, 2023). 14. KPMG, “Independent Auditor’s Report, United States Department of Energy Nuclear Waste Fund Annual Financial Report as of and for the Years Ended September 30, 2022 and 2021,” November 8, 2022, p. 8, in U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Inspector General, Office of Cyber Assessments and Data Analytics, Audit Report: The Department of Energy Nuclear Waste Fund’s Fiscal Year 2022 Financial Statement Audit, DOE- OIG-23-05, November 2022, p. 10, https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/DOE-OIG-23-05.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 15. See Patty-Jane Geller, “U.S. Nuclear Weapons,” in 2023 Index of U.S. Military Strength, ed. Dakota L. Wood (Washington: The Heritage Foundation, 2023), pp. 481–506, http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2022/ Military_Index/2023_IndexOfUSMilitaryStrength.pdf. 16. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, March 2022, pp. 9, 21, 23, and 43, https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/ files/2022-03/doe-fy2023-budget-in-brief-v2.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 17. H.R. 4346, CHIPS and Science Act, Public Law No. 117-167, 117th Congress, August 9, 2022, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ167/PLAW-117publ167.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 18. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response, “About Us,” https://www.energy.gov/ceser/ceser-mission (accessed February 27, 2023). — 411 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions 19. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13920, “Securing the United States Bulk-Power System,” May 1, 2020, in Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 86 (May 4, 2020), pp. 26595–26599, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/ pkg/FR-2020-05-04/pdf/2020-09695.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 20. 18 U.S. Code § 824a(c), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/16/824a (accessed February 27, 2023). 21. Report No. 117-98, Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2022, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, 117th Cong. 1st Sess., July 20, 2021, p. 6, https:// www.congress.gov/117/crpt/hrpt98/CRPT-117hrpt98.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 22. H.R. 3684, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law No. 11-58, 117th Congress, November 15, 2021, Division J, Title III. 23. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, p. 7. 24. Timothy Gardner, “White House Asks Congress for $500 mln to Modernize Oil Reserve,” Reuters, November 16, 2022, https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-oil-spr-idAFL1N32C36I (accessed February 13, 2023). 25. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Electricity, “Our History,” https://www.energy.gov/oe/about-us/our- history (accessed February 13, 2023). 26. Press release, “Secretary of Energy Signs Order to Mitigate Security Risks to the Nation’s Electric Grid,” U.S. Department of Energy, December 17, 2021, https://www.energy.gov/articles/secretary-energy-signs-order- mitigate-security-risks-nations-electric-grid (accessed February 13, 2023). 27. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Electricity, “Revocation of Prohibition Order Securing Critical Defense Facilities,” Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 76 (April 22, 2021), pp. 21308–21309, https://www.govinfo.gov/ content/pkg/FR-2021-04-22/pdf/2021-08483.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 28. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 19 and 61. 29. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy, “About Us,” https://www.energy.gov/ne/about-us (accessed February 13, 2023). 30. H.R. 3809, Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Public Law No. 97-425, 97th Congress, January 7, 1983, https:// www.congress.gov/97/statute/STATUTE-96/STATUTE-96-Pg2201.pdf (accessed February 24, 2023). 31. The Heritage Foundation, “Budget Blueprint for Fiscal Year 2023: Reduce the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy,” https://www.heritage.org/budget/pages/recommendations/1.270.127.html. 32. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 23 and 58. 33. 42 USC § 16291, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/16291 (accessed February 27, 2023). 34. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, “About Us: Mission,” https:// www.energy.gov/fecm/mission (accessed February 13, 2023). 35. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Carbon Capture and Storage: Actions Needed to Improve DOE Management of Demonstration Projects, GAO-22-105111, December2021, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22- 105111.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 36. International Energy Agency, The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions, World Energy Outlook Special Report, revised March 2022, https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ffd2a83b-8c30-4e9d-980a- 52b6d9a86fdc/TheRoleofCriticalMineralsinCleanEnergyTransitions.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 37. See 42 U.S. Code § 16291. 38. 42 U.S. Code Ch. 55, §§ 4321–4347, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-55 (accessed February 27, 2023). 39. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Categorical Exclusions from Environmental Review,” Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Request for Comment, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 87 (May 7, 2021), pp. 24514–24516, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-05-07/pdf/2021-09675.pdf (accessed February 27, 2023), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Categorical Exclusions from Environmental Review,” Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Reopening of Comment Period, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 160 (August 23, 2021), pp. 47032–47033, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-08-23/pdf/2021-18058.pdf (accessed February 27, 2023). 40. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 19, 21, 23, and 52.

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Strong

Vector: 64%

Pages: 446-448AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill directs the DOE to create a demonstration initiative for next-generation pipeline technologies, emphasizing public-private partnerships and advanced R&D—core goals of the DOE's Office of Technology Transitions and Project 2025's focus on accelerating energy innovation and infrastructure modernization."

Key themes:Department of Energytechnology transfer/public-private partnershipsadvanced materials researchpipeline safety and efficiencyinteragency coordination

— 414 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 81. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Technology Transitions, “About Us: Mission,” https://www.energy.gov/ technologytransitions/mission-0 (accessed February 13, 2023). 82. Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR); Basic Energy Sciences (BES); Biological and Environmental Research (BER); Fusion Energy Sciences (FES); High-Energy Physics (HEP); Nuclear Physics (NP); Isotope R&D and Production (IRP); and Accelerator R&D and Production (ARDAP). U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Volume 5, Science, April 2022, pp. 10–14, https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/doe-fy2023-budget-volume-5- science-v2.pdf (accessed March 1, 2023). 83. For example, the CHIPS and Science Act authorizes $50 billion for the Office of Science. U.S. Department of Energy, “Statement by Secretary Granholm on Congressional Passage of the CHIPS and Science Act,” July 28, 2022, https://www.energy.gov/articles/statement-secretary-granholm-congressional-passage-chips-and- science-act (accessed February 13, 2023). 84. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Volume 5, Science, April 2022, p. 7, https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/doe- fy2023-budget-volume-5-science-v2.pdf (accessed March 2, 2023). 85. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, “Mission,” https://www.energy.gov/em/ mission (accessed March 1, 2023). 86. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, “Cleanup Sites,” https://www.energy.gov/ em/cleanup-sites (accessed March 1, 2023). 87. U.S. Government Accountability Office, “DOE’s Environmental Liability,” GAO-21-585R, June 2021, p. 2, https:// www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-585r.pdf (accessed March 13, 2023). 88. Chart, “EM’s Annual Spending and Estimated Environmental Liability (Fiscal Years 2011–2020),” in ibid., p. 1. 89. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Volume 6, Environmental Management, April 2022, p. 53, https://www.energy.gov/sites/ default/files/2022-09/doe-fy2023-budget-volume-6-em-v3.pdf (accessed March 1, 2023). 90. Ibid. 91. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Nuclear Waste: DOE Needs Greater Leadership Stability and Commitment to Accomplish Cleanup Mission, GAO-22-104805, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-104805. pdf#:~:text=DOE%20Needs%20Greater%20Leadership%20Stability%20and%20Commitment%20to,May%20 2022%20GAO-22-104805%20United%20States%20Government%20Accountability%20Office May 2022, (accessed February 14, 2023). 92. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 23 and 93. 93. H.R. 3809, Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Public Law No. 97-425, Title I, Subtitle B. 94. Ibid., Title III, § 304. 95. See, for example, Chapter 4, “The Need for Geologic Disposal,” in Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, Report to the Secretary of Energy, January 2012, pp. 27–31, https://www.energy.gov/sites/ default/files/2013/04/f0/brc_finalreport_jan2012.pdf (accessed February 14, 2023). 96. Press release, “DOE Announces $16 Million to Support Consent-Based Siting for Spent Nuclear Fuel,” U.S. Department of Energy, September 20, 2022, https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-announces-16-million- support-consent-based-siting-spent-nuclear-fuel (accessed February 14, 2023). 97. U.S. Department of Energy, Agency Financial Report, Fiscal Year 2022, DOE/CF-0191, p. 58, https://www. energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/fy-2022-doe-agency-financial-report.pdf (accessed March 13, 2023). 98. H.R. 3809, Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Public Law No. 97-425, Title III, § 302. 99. Ibid., p. 57. 100. Table, “Department of Energy Comparative Organization by Congressional Control, FY 2023,” p. 5, in U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, “FY 2023 Budget Justification: Summary Budget Documents,” https://www.energy.gov/cfo/articles/fy-2023-budget-justification (accessed March 13, 2023). 101. U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, “Missions,” https://www.energy.gov/ nnsa/missions#:~:text=NNSA%20ensures%20the%20United%20States%20maintains%20a%20safe%2C,of%20 nuclear%20and%20radiological%20terrorism%20around%20the%20world (accessed March 2, 2023). — 415 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions 102. S. 1059, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, Public Law 106-65, 106th Congress, October 5, 1999, §§ 3201–3299, https://www.congress.gov/106/plaws/publ65/PLAW-106publ65.pdf (accessed February 14, 2023). 103. See Geller, “U.S. Nuclear Weapons.” 104. U.S. Department of Defense, 2022 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America, Including the 2022 Nuclear Posture Review and the 2022 Missile Defense Review, pp. 3 and 20, https://media.defense. gov/2022/Oct/27/2003103845/-1/-1/1/2022-NATIONAL-DEFENSE-STRATEGY-NPR-MDR.PDF (accessed March 2, 2023). 105. U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, “Plutonium Pit Production,” https:// www.energy.gov/nnsa/plutonium-pit-production (accessed March 13, 2023). 106. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, p. 27. 107. 16 U.S. Code § 824o, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/16/824o (accessed March 2, 2023). 108. 16 U.S. Code § 824o-1, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/16/824o-1 (accessed March 2, 2023). 109. For example, the California blackouts in August 2020 and the Texas blackouts and deaths in February 2021. 110. North American Electric Reliability Corporation, “Announcement: Extreme Weather Heightens Reliability Risks This Summer,” May 18, 2022, https://www.nerc.com/news/Headlines%20DL/May%2018%202022%20SRA%20 Announcement.pdf (accessed February 14, 2023). 111. Ethan Howland, “ISO-NE, ERCOT, MISO Face Possible Capacity Shortfalls in Extreme Winter Weather: FERC,” Utility Dive, October 21, 2022, https://www.utilitydive.com/news/FERC-iso-ne-ercot-miso-extreme-winter- weather-report/634682/ (accessed February 14, 2023), and North American Energy Reliability Corporation, “Announcement: NERC Warns Generation Resources Tight in Large Portion of North America This Winter,” November 17, 2022, https://www.nerc.com/news/Headlines%20DL/2022%20WRA%20Release%20final.pdf (accessed February 14, 2023). 112. Note that the challenges to the grid are coming mainly from subsidized renewable resources. Renewable resources have beneficial attributes, and the electric grid can benefit from embracing an all-of-the-above approach to power generation. 113. See U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Glossary: Reserve Margin,” https:// www.eia.gov/tools/glossary/index.php?id=reserve_margin (accessed February 14, 2023). 114. Dan Frosch and Ginger Adams Otis, “North Carolina Power Outage Leaves 33,000 Without Electricity After Substation Attack,” The Wall Street Journal, December 5, 2022, https://www.wsj.com/articles/ attack-on-north-carolina-power-substations-leaves-45-000-without-electricity-11670200585 (accessed February 14, 2023). 115. U.S. Department of Energy, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, “Power Sales and Markets: RTOs and ISOs,” last updated May 3, 2022, https://www.ferc.gov/power-sales-and-markets/rtos-and-isos (accessed February 14, 2023). 116. Such as the blackouts and shortages in California (August 2020, summer 2022) and Texas (February 2021, summer 2022). 117. See notes 110 and 111, supra; North American Electric Reliability Corporation, “2022 Summer Reliability Assessment,” May 2022, https://www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/ra/Reliability%20Assessments%20DL/NERC_ SRA_2022.pdf (accessed March 13, 2023); and North American Electric Reliability Corporation, “2022–2023 Winter Reliability Assessment,” November 2022, https://www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/ra/Reliability%20 Assessments%20DL/NERC_WRA_2022.pdf (accessed March 13, 2023). 118. U.S. Department of Energy, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, “Building for the Future Through Electric Regional Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation and Generator Interconnection,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 86 (May 4, 2022), pp. 26504–26611, https://www.govinfo.gov/ content/pkg/FR-2022-05-04/pdf/2022-08973.pdf (accessed February 14, 2023), and U.S. Department of Energy, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, “Improvements to Generator Interconnection Procedures and Agreements,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 127 (July 5, 2022), pp. 39934–40032, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-07-05/pdf/2022-13470.pdf (accessed February 14, 2023).

19

Moderate

Vector: 64%

Pages: 655-657AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 section emphasize public‑private collaboration, emerging technologies, and improving infrastructure safety and efficiency, though the bill focuses on R&D funding while the policy centers on P3 financing mechanisms and value‑for‑money analysis."

Key themes:public-private partnershipsemerging technologiesinfrastructure safety/efficiencyfederal agency coordinationdemonstration/pilot projects

— 623 — Department of Transportation l Policymakers should maintain awareness and promote transparency regarding the continued existence of this loan program and whether private financiers are being disintermediated by the subsidized BAB lending that the private sector simply cannot match. l A cost-benefit analysis of the federal government’s potential replacement and disintermediation of the private financing sector regarding infrastructure loans, which is not currently performed, should be conducted on a regular basis. PUBLIC–PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS Much infrastructure could be funded through public–private partnerships (P3s), a procurement method that uses private financing to construct infrastructure. In exchange for providing the financing, the private partner typically retains the right to operate the asset under requirements specified by the government in a contract called a concession agreement. In addition, the private partner is given the right either to collect fees from the users of the asset or to receive a periodic payment from the government conditioned on the asset’s availability: If a highway is not open to traffic when it should be, for example, the government’s payment to the private concessionaire is reduced. The best practice for a government that is interested in using a P3 to deliver a project is for the government first to perform a value-for-money study, which compares the costs and benefits of procuring the asset under a typical procurement against the costs and benefits of utilizing a P3. Since private equity is involved, the financing costs for P3s are higher, but they also are frequently more than offset by the private sector’s ability to generate efficiencies and cost savings in the design, construction, maintenance, and operation of the asset. If the value-for-money study finds that the efficiencies of a P3 and the value of risk shifted to the private sector exceed the additional financing costs, then utilizing a P3 is good public policy because Americans have better infrastructure at a lower cost. As well as providing better transportation facilities for Americans, P3s offer a number of benefits to governments. Specifically, they: l Provide access to some of the world’s best talent with vast experience in delivering infrastructure, l Create incentives for innovation and creativity, l Shift unique project risks to companies that are familiar with those risks, and — 624 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Allow designers, contractors, and maintenance teams to work together through the delivery of the process to focus on lifecycle costs as opposed to just initial design and construction costs. It should be noted that project funding and P3s are not synonymous. Policy- makers and government leaders frequently mistake the financing that P3s provide for funding. A P3 allows the government to obtain equity from the private sector, but that equity has to be paid back with interest. Like a loan, a P3 can be used to accelerate revenues and provide needed capital to help pay the upfront costs of a project, but also like a loan, the private P3 investors must be paid back for investors to realize a financial return. Some mistakenly think that using a P3 would allow a road or bridge to be deliv- ered without increases in tolls or taxes. It is important to remember that all funding for governmental infrastructure comes from either taxes or user fees. P3 financing can be used to make those funding sources more efficient, but it cannot replace the need for taxes or user fees to provide the funding for the project. In addition, a poorly managed P3 procurement process (the process govern- ment uses to identify the best private P3 partner) can result in excessive consultant costs and years-long delays in delivery. While P3s can offer efficiencies in delivering the project, the P3 procurement process itself can be significantly longer and more expensive than traditional procurement processes. Finally, and possibly most important, a P3 gives a private party the ability to collect fees or payments over decades (a period well beyond the length of the careers of the political appointees who sign contracts with private parties). Thus, P3s create an opportunity for current governmental leaders to obtain a higher upfront payment from the private party in exchange for greater user fees paid by future generations who will use the asset. In other words, a governmental CEO (governor, mayor, head of an authority) can use a P3 to impose unnecessarily high costs on users decades in the future in exchange for upfront cash. It is important that contracts be transparent in order to minimize this possibility. A P3’s greatest public value is realized when the procurement model is used for a project that is unusually risky or a type of project with which the government has limited experience such as a tunnel or light rail line. P3s are an excellent tool for transferring risk from the public sector to the private sector and can create considerable value for the taxpaying public. However, a high degree of expertise is required to ensure that the risk transfer warrants the higher financing and pro- curement costs that P3s impose. EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES As private companies develop a future of new, emerging technologies, one role for DOT is driving clarity in the government’s role and setting standards for safety,

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Weak

Vector: 64%

Pages: 413-415AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on advancing pipeline technology through federal R&D partnerships, while Project 2025 seeks to eliminate DOE demonstration programs like OCED that subsidize private sector clean energy deployment, viewing them as market distortions. Although both involve DOE-led technology development, their objectives are fundamentally opposed—one promotes federal support for innovation, the other calls for ending such subsidies."

Key themes:Department of Energytechnology demonstrationpublic-private partnershipsenergy infrastructure

— 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. — 382 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise New Policies l Eliminate OCED. The next Administration should work with Congress to eliminate all DOE energy demonstration programs, including those in OCED. Taxpayer dollars should not be used to subsidize preferred businesses and energy resources, thereby distorting the market and undermining energy reliability. l Refocus on resources that will support reliability. To the extent that the various energy research and development funding authorities cannot be repealed, funded projects should be consistent with the programmatic goals of the next Administration. For example, the already awarded Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program should help to move SMRs from pilot scale to commercialization and in the process address material, fuel, and regulatory issues that would pose deployment risk to utilities and Wall Street. Budget DOE’s FY 2023 budget request includes $214 million “to initiate a new $150 million competition to support demonstrations that address integration issues of renewable energy into the U.S. transmission and distribution grids.”52 Overall, the “$21.5 billion provided by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law”53 supports several OCED programs: l Advanced Reactor Demonstration Projects ($2.5 billion). l Carbon Capture Large-Scale Pilot Projects ($937 million). l Carbon Capture Demonstration Projects Program ($2.5 billion). l Clean Energy Demonstration Program on Current and Former Mine Land ($500 million). l Energy Improvements in Rural or Remote Areas ($1 billion). l Industrial Demonstrations Program ($6.3 billion). l Long Duration Energy Storage Demonstrations ($505 million). l Regional Clean Energy Hubs ($8 billion). l Regional Direct Air Capture Hubs ($3.5 billion).54

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.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Weber, Randy K. Sr.

PACK Act

119/hr/6832

Pipeline Safety Authorization Act of 2026

119/hr/9338

Pipeline Cybersecurity Preparedness Act

119/hr/7272