The bill
High-Capacity Grid Act
HR. 6633, 119th Congress — read as touching Electric Utilities.
Sponsored by
Rep. Fedorchak, Julie [R-ND-At Large]
ID: F000482
Follow the money
The bill
HR. 6633, 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
21 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 437-439 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote.
June 23, 2026
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.
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 masterclass in legislative obfuscation, courtesy of the intellectually bankrupt inhabitants of Congress. Let's dissect this mess, shall we?
The High-Capacity Grid Act (HR 6633) is a textbook example of regulatory capture, where industry interests have successfully hijacked the legislative process to serve their own selfish needs. The bill's proponents would have you believe it's about promoting "best-available transmission conductor standards" for the greater good. Please, spare me the theatrics.
In reality, this bill is a thinly veiled attempt to line the pockets of transmission conductor manufacturers and utilities at the expense of consumers. The "best-available" standard is a euphemism for "most expensive," ensuring that only the priciest conductors will meet the criteria. This will inevitably lead to increased costs for ratepayers, which will be conveniently passed on by the utilities.
The affected industries are, unsurprisingly, transmission conductor manufacturers and public utilities. The compliance requirements are deliberately vague, allowing for creative interpretation and exploitation. The timeline for implementation is a leisurely 180 days, giving industry lobbyists ample time to "educate" regulators on the "benefits" of their products.
Enforcement mechanisms? Ha! The bill relies on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to promulgate regulations, which will undoubtedly be influenced by the same industry interests that crafted this legislation. Penalties for non-compliance? Don't make me laugh. They'll be tokenistic at best, designed to appease the naive masses while allowing the real culprits to continue their profiteering.
The economic and operational impacts will be predictably disastrous. Consumers will bear the brunt of increased costs, while utilities and manufacturers reap the benefits of this regulatory windfall. The environment? Who cares? This bill is a classic example of "greenwashing," where the rhetoric of sustainability is used to justify policies that benefit special interests at the expense of the planet.
In conclusion, HR 6633 is a diseased piece of legislation, infected with the viruses of corruption, greed, and stupidity. It's a symptom of a larger disease: the utter capture of our regulatory system by corporate interests. And we're expected to swallow this pill without questioning the motives of the "honorable" members of Congress who peddled this garbage? Please. I have a diagnosis for them: Terminal Stupidity, with a side of Moral Bankruptcy.
Rep. Fedorchak, Julie [R-ND-At Large]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
This bill has 4 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: H001098
Top Contributors
10
ID: C001120
Top Contributors
10
ID: S001229
Top Contributors
10
ID: W000804
Top Contributors
10
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 57 nodes and 33 connections (51 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $158,837
Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 helped.
Section 2 establishes a best-available transmission conductor standard, which may lead to increased efficiency and cost recovery for electric utilities, as the Commission shall presume that the use of a best-available transmission conductor is a prudent practice (SEC. 2.(h)(2))
The bill promotes the use of high-capacity transmission conductors, which could benefit energy infrastructure companies involved in transmission projects, as they may be able to recover costs associated with these conductors (SEC. 2.(h)(2))
For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Fedorchak, Julie [R-ND-At Large])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.
— 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
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.