State Planning for Reliability and Affordability Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/3628
Last Updated: December 13, 2025

Sponsored by

Rep. Evans, Gabe [R-CO-8]

ID: E000300

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

December 11, 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

âś…

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

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Diagnosis:** This bill is a textbook case of "Regulatory Capture Syndrome," where special interest groups hijack the policymaking process to serve their own interests.

**Symptoms:**

1. **New regulations being created or modified:** The bill amends the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, adding a new standard for state consideration of reliable generation facilities. Sounds innocuous, but don't be fooled. 2. **Affected industries and sectors:** The electric utility industry is the primary beneficiary (read: puppeteer) behind this bill. Specifically, fossil fuel-based power plants will reap the rewards. 3. **Compliance requirements and timelines:** States have 1-2 years to implement these new standards, which will undoubtedly lead to a flurry of lobbying and regulatory capture. 4. **Enforcement mechanisms and penalties:** The bill relies on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for enforcement, but we all know how effective FERC is at policing its friends in the industry.

**Underlying disease:**

This bill is a thinly veiled attempt to prop up the dying fossil fuel industry by forcing states to prioritize "reliable generation facilities" – code for coal and gas plants. The real motivation? Follow the money:

* The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) has been lobbying heavily for this bill, with donations pouring in from major coal producers like Peabody Energy. * The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA), representing rural electric cooperatives, has also thrown its weight behind the bill. Guess who's a major donor to NRECA? You guessed it – fossil fuel companies.

**Treatment:**

This bill needs a healthy dose of transparency and accountability. We need to expose the cozy relationships between lawmakers, lobbyists, and industry donors. It's time to put an end to this regulatory capture nonsense and prioritize the public interest over special interests.

**Prognosis:** Without significant reforms, this bill will only exacerbate our addiction to fossil fuels, perpetuating climate change and harming public health. The patient (our democracy) is already showing symptoms of terminal illness – it's time for a drastic intervention.

Related Topics

Government Operations & Accountability Small Business & Entrepreneurship Congressional Rules & Procedures National Security & Intelligence Criminal Justice & Law Enforcement Transportation & Infrastructure Civil Rights & Liberties Federal Budget & Appropriations State & Local Government Affairs
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

đź’° Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Evans, Gabe [R-CO-8]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$94,620
27 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$3,750
Committees
$0
Individuals
$90,870

No PAC contributions found

1
UNIVERSITY PLACE ASSOCIATES 3.0
1 transaction
$1,000
2
BRIDGE ACROSS PA PAC
1 transaction
$1,000
3
DILWORTH PAXSON LLP
1 transaction
$1,000
4
KLEINBARD LLC
1 transaction
$500
5
MARTHA ALDRIDGE
1 transaction
$250

No committee contributions found

1
LONG, CHARLES
2 transactions
$19,800
2
SPRADLIN, MARK
2 transactions
$13,470
3
FYDA, MARIANNE
1 transaction
$6,600
4
FLYNN, KATHLEEN BELL
1 transaction
$3,300
5
FLYNN, STEVEN
1 transaction
$3,300
6
HANSSTON, KNUTE
1 transaction
$3,300
7
LYNCH, MARK S
1 transaction
$3,300
8
LYNCH, SARAH
1 transaction
$3,300
9
NORD, RICHARD
1 transaction
$3,300
10
TOPPER, LEWIS
1 transaction
$3,300
11
TOPPER, MARGARET
1 transaction
$3,300
12
RENO, MATHEW J MR.
1 transaction
$3,300
13
GREEN, MARGARET
1 transaction
$3,300
14
KUSMIAK, EUGENE
1 transaction
$3,000
15
FARRELL, PETER C DR.
2 transactions
$3,000
16
SMITH, LECIA
1 transaction
$2,500
17
KLINGENSTEIN, THOMAS
1 transaction
$2,300
18
LUCAS, CHARLOTTE
1 transaction
$2,000
19
DUNLAP, ROBERT H MR
1 transaction
$2,000
20
MINERVA, WILLIAM
1 transaction
$1,200
21
ALLEN, GWYNDA MS.
1 transaction
$1,000
22
BRACCIALE, JOSEPH
1 transaction
$1,000

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Rep. Langworthy, Nicholas A. [R-NY-23]

ID: L000600

Top Contributors

10

1
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
PAC CHEROKEE, NC
$3,300
Dec 17, 2024
2
SENECA NATION OF INDIANS
PAC SALAMANCA, NY
$3,300
May 30, 2024
3
ONEIDA INDIAN NATION
COM ONEIDA, NY
$2,500
Mar 31, 2023
4
ONEIDA INDIAN NATION
PAC ONEIDA, NY
$2,000
Jun 17, 2024
5
SENECA NATION OF INDIANS
COM SALAMANCA, NY
$1,500
Mar 7, 2023
6
ONEIDA INDIAN NATION
PAC ONEIDA, NY
$1,200
Jun 17, 2024
7
THE CHICKASAW NATION
Organization ADA, OK
$1,000
Jun 19, 2023
8
2504 NIAGARA FALLS BOULEVARD LLC
Organization WILLIAMSVILLE, NY
$500
Dec 27, 2023
9
BARCLAY DAMON LLP
Organization SYRACUSE, NY
$500
Sep 26, 2023
10
BARRY ZEPLOWITZ & ASSOCIATES
Organization WILLIAMSVILLE, NY
$250
Aug 2, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Evans, Gabe [R-CO-8]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 32 nodes and 33 connections

Total contributions: $103,720

Top Donors - Rep. Evans, Gabe [R-CO-8]

Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount

5 Orgs22 Individuals

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.

Introduction

Moderate 62.7%
Pages: 395-397

— 363 — 12 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND RELATED COMMISSIONS Bernard L. McNamee AMERICAN ENERGY AND SCIENCE DOMINANCE The next conservative Administration should prioritize energy and science dominance to ensure that Americans have abundant, affordable, and reliable energy; create good-paying jobs; support domestic manufacturing and technology leadership; and strengthen national security. Achieving these goals will require bold policy action and reforms that involve the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE); the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC); and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). American Energy Dominance. Access to affordable, reliable, and abundant energy is vital to America’s economy, national security, and quality of life. Yet ideologically driven government policies have thrust the United States into a new energy crisis just a few short years after America’s energy renaissance, which began in the first decade of the 2000s, transformed the United States from a net energy importer (oil and natural gas) to energy independence and then energy dominance. Americans now face energy scarcity, an electric grid that is less reliable, and arti- ficial shortages of natural gas and oil despite massive reserves within the United States—all of which has led to higher prices that burden both the American people and the economy. The new energy crisis is caused not by a lack of resources, but by extreme “green” policies. Under the rubrics of “combating climate change” and “ESG” (environmen- tal, social, and governance), the Biden Administration, Congress, and various states, as well as Wall Street investors, international corporations, and progressive spe- cial-interest groups, are changing America’s energy landscape. These ideologically — 364 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise driven policies are also directing huge amounts of money to favored interests and making America dependent on adversaries like China for energy. In the name of combating climate change, policies have been used to create an artificial energy scarcity that will require trillions of dollars in new investment, supported with taxpayer subsidies, to address a “problem” that government and special interests themselves created. The result has been increased energy costs that: l Hurt individuals and families, especially low-income Americans and seniors on fixed incomes; l Make businesses that create the jobs that drive our economy and quality of life less competitive; and l Make America less energy secure. Moreover, increased energy scarcity will allow government, either directly or through access to banks and Wall Street investors, to decide who is “worthy” to receive funding for energy projects. In the end, government control of energy is control of people and the economy. This is one reason why the trend toward nationalization of our energy industry through government mandates, bans on the production and use of oil and natural gas, and nationalization of the electric grid is so dangerous. At the same time, adversaries like China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, and non-state actors are constantly engaged in cyberattacks against our energy infra- structure. We have already seen what supposedly “minor” attacks, such as the cyberattack on the Colonial Oil Pipeline1 or the physical attack on electric infra- structure in North Carolina,2 can do. A coordinated cyber and physical attack on natural gas pipelines and the electric grid during an extended cold spell could be catastrophic. Yet the current Administration’s first concern is plowing taxpayer dollars into intermittent wind and solar projects and ending the use of reliable fossil fuels. A conservative President must be committed to unleashing all of America’s energy resources and making the energy economy serve the American people, not special interests. This means that the next conservative Administration should: l Promote American energy security by ensuring access to abundant, reliable, and affordable energy. l Affirm an “all of the above” energy policy through which the best attributes of every resource can be harnessed for the benefit of the American people.

Introduction

Moderate 62.5%
Pages: 437-439

— 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

Introduction

Moderate 61.9%
Pages: 398-400

— 365 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions l Support repeal of massive spending bills like the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)3 and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA),4 which established new programs and are providing hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies to renewable energy developers, their investors, and special interests, and support the rescinding of all funds not already spent by these programs. l Unleash private-sector energy innovation by ending government interference in energy decisions. l Stop the war on oil and natural gas. l Allow individuals, families, and business to use the energy resources they want to use and that will best serve their needs. l Secure and protect energy infrastructure from cyber and physical attacks. l Refocus the Department of Energy on energy security, accelerated remediation, and advanced science. l Promote U.S. energy resources as a means to assist our allies and diminish our strategic adversaries. l Refocus FERC on ensuring that customers have affordable and reliable electricity, natural gas, and oil and no longer allow it to favor special interests and progressive causes. l Ensure that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission facilitates rather than hampers private-sector nuclear energy innovation and deployment. American Science Dominance. Ever since the age of Benjamin Franklin, the United States has been at the forefront of scientific discovery and technological advancement. Beginning with the groundbreaking science of the Manhattan Proj- ect, the U.S. has developed 17 National Laboratories that conduct fundamental and advanced scientific research. The National Labs have been critical in supporting national defense and ensuring that the United States leads on scientific discoveries with transformative applications that benefit America and the world. In recent years, however, U.S. science has been under threat. Externally, adversaries like the Chinese military have been engaged in scientific espionage, infiltrating taxpayer-funded scientific research projects, and funding their own science research. In addition, the National Labs have been too focused on climate change and renewable technologies.

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

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.