Geo POWER Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/8437
Last Updated: August 25, 2026

Sponsored by

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

ID: B001323

Follow the money

The bill

Geo POWER Act

HR. 8437, 119th Congress — read as touching Renewable Energy.

The sponsor

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

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

The money

$71,235 raised

20 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 in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by Voice Vote.

July 20, 2026

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

**HR 8437 – Geo POWER Act: A Prescription for Geothermal Snake Oil (With Federal Funding)** *Diagnosis: Chronic legislative placebo syndrome, exacerbated by bipartisan delusion about renewable energy’s maturity.*

**1. Main Purpose & Objectives** The Geo POWER Act—because nothing says “serious energy policy” like a tortured acronym—purports to “advance next-generation geothermal electricity generation demonstration projects in new regions.” Translation: The federal government will throw taxpayer money at drilling holes in rocks where geothermal energy has never worked before, hoping that this time, magic happens. The stated goals—accelerating commercialization, overcoming high upfront costs, generating public data, and catalyzing innovation via milestone-based financing—are the usual incantations of energy bills that confuse subsidies with strategy. Real objective? Let politically connected contractors and academic consortia play with drilling rigs on the public dime while pretending this will meaningfully contribute to grid decarbonization before fusion becomes viable.

**2. Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** This bill amends Section 615 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 to create a “Milestone-Based Geothermal Demonstration Program” under the Secretary of Energy. It mandates innovative financing (read: loans, loan guarantees, or other opaque financial engineering) for geothermal projects in low-permeability and impermeable reservoirs—i.e., the hard, unyielding rock where conventional geothermal fails. Priority is given to projects in regions with little or no existing geothermal generation (including near tribal lands), those that generate shareable data, aim for ≥30 MW capacity potential, and promise to attract private investment. Crucially, it requires awards to at least three different sponsors across three different states—ensuring geographic pork distribution over technical merit. Authorization of appropriations? “Such sums as are necessary.” In other words: blank check for hopeful drilling.

**3. Affected Parties & Stakeholders** - **Winners:** Geothermal startups with slick PowerPoints, drilling contractors salivating over federal guarantees, national labs eager to publish more inconclusive reports, and consultants who specialize in “de-risking” ventures that shouldn’t exist without subsidies. - **Losers:** Taxpayers funding yet another energy boondoggle; ratepayers who may eventually subsidize uneconomical power; and actual climate solutions (like grid upgrades or storage) that get starved of attention while Congress plays geothermal roulette. - **Ignored:** Geologists who know most of these formations are thermally inert, and tribal nations who may get saddled with exploratory drilling on their land with little benefit.

**4. Potential Impact & Implications** Impact? Minimal. Geothermal’s scalability is limited by geology, not financing. This bill ignores that the real barrier isn’t upfront cost—it’s that most of the U.S. lacks the heat, permeability, and water access needed for economical extraction. Milestone-based financing sounds rigorous but will likely reward PowerPoint compliance over physics. Expect a few demonstration projects that hit technical milestones, burn through federal cash, then collapse when private investors realize the LCOE is absurd. The data generated will be optimistic, narrowly scoped, and useless for broader deployment. In short: another exercise in technological wish fulfillment, where Congress confuses drilling holes with solving energy policy. Prognosis: terminal optimism. Recommend palliative honesty.

Related Topics

Energy Production & ConservationResearch & Innovation PolicyClimate Change & Sustainability
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

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

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$71,235
16 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$0
Committees
$0
Individuals
$71,235

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

1
ODOM, WILLIAM L
2 transactions
$10,000
2
GERONDALE, CHRISTOPHER
2 transactions
$6,600
3
SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE
2 transactions
$6,600
4
SCHWARZMAN, STEPHEN
2 transactions
$6,600
5
LOKEN, TYLER
1 transaction
$5,000
6
FOX, RICHARD
1 transaction
$3,435
7
MCNAMARA, MICHAEL
1 transaction
$3,300
8
FORSYTHE, GERALD R
1 transaction
$3,300
9
HILLMAN, TATNALL LEA
1 transaction
$3,300
10
HUFFMAN, JEREMY
1 transaction
$3,300
11
LETTS, JIM
1 transaction
$3,300
12
SPOKELY, KATHERINE
1 transaction
$3,300
13
TAYLOR, MARGARETTA J
1 transaction
$3,300
14
ANTONSEN, HANS
1 transaction
$3,300
15
ANTONSEN, LAURA
1 transaction
$3,300
16
BABCOCK, KRISTIE
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Rep. Lee, Susie [D-NV-3]

ID: L000590

Top Contributors

30

1
EMILY'S LIST
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$250
Feb 13, 2024
2
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA
$3,300
Jun 27, 2023
3
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA
$3,300
Jun 27, 2023
4
TIGUA INDIAN RESERVATION YSLETA DEL SUR PUEBLO
OrganizationEL PASO, TX
$3,000
Dec 31, 2023
5
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
Jun 5, 2023
6
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
May 9, 2024
7
BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLAS VEGAS, NV
$1,500
Jun 30, 2024
8
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$1,000
Dec 28, 2023
9
RENO SPARKS INDIAN COLONY
OrganizationRENO, NV
$1,000
Jun 21, 2024
10
BRONZE CAFE
OrganizationLAS VEGAS, NV
$550
Mar 30, 2023

Rep. Kim, Young [R-CA-40]

ID: K000397

Top Contributors

39

1
PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS
OrganizationTEMECULA, CA
$3,300
Dec 21, 2023
2
HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE
OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA
$3,300
Jul 28, 2023
3
OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA
OrganizationRED ROCK, OK
$3,300
Jul 28, 2023
4
TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA OF NORTH DAKOTA
OrganizationBELCOURT, ND
$3,300
Jul 28, 2023
5
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Sep 30, 2024
6
PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS
OrganizationTEMECULA, CA
$3,300
Jul 25, 2024
7
AT&T INC & ITS AFFLIATES
OrganizationSACRAMENTO, CA
$3,000
Mar 5, 2024
8
ABBVIE PAC - FEDERAL PAC
OrganizationSACRAMENTO, CA
$2,500
Sep 30, 2023
9
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$2,300
Oct 25, 2024
10
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$2,000
Oct 28, 2024

Rep. Maloy, Celeste [R-UT-2]

ID: M001228

Top Contributors

22

1
THE UTE INDIAN TRIBE
OrganizationFORT DUCHESNE, UT
$3,300
Nov 9, 2024
2
THE UTE INDIAN TRIBE
OrganizationFORT DUCHESNE, UT
$3,300
Nov 9, 2024
3
HOLT, CLIFF
HURRICANE FAMILY PHARMACY • OWNER
IndividualHURRICANE, UT
$3,300
Oct 17, 2024
4
RICKETTS, MARLENE
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualOMAHA, NE
$3,300
Oct 24, 2024
5
IPSON, DON L.
N/A • RETIRED
IndividualSAINT GEORGE, UT
$3,300
Dec 27, 2023
6
MCMAHON, LINDA E.
MCMAHON VENTURES • EXECUTIVE
IndividualGREENWICH, CT
$3,300
Dec 15, 2023
7
SCHWAB, CHARLES
CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION • CHAIRMAN
IndividualPALM BEACH, FL
$3,300
Dec 19, 2023
8
ARNOLD, JOHN
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualHOUSTON, TX
$3,300
Mar 26, 2024
9
BURGESS, BRETT
DEVELOPMENT SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC. • PRESIDENT
IndividualSAINT GEORGE, UT
$3,300
Mar 29, 2024
10
DEATON, TYLER
ALLEGIANCE STRATEGIES, LLC • PRESIDENT
IndividualCALHOUN, GA
$3,300
Mar 20, 2024

Rescom. Hernández, Pablo Jose [D-PR-At Large]

ID: H001103

Top Contributors

0

No contribution data available

Rep. Fong, Vince [R-CA-20]

ID: F000480

Top Contributors

21

1
TULE RIVER TRIBAL COUNCIL
OrganizationPORTERVILLE, CA
$3,300
Aug 9, 2024
2
ANDERSON, DARIUS
PLATINUM ADVISORS • LOBBYIST
IndividualSACRAMENTO, CA
$3,300
Oct 23, 2024
3
LEPRINO, TERRY
LEPRINO FOODS • BOARD DIRECTOR
IndividualDENVER, CO
$3,300
Oct 25, 2024
4
HUNTER, KEN
VAQUERO ENERGY • EXECUTIVE
IndividualSANTA YNEZ, CA
$3,300
Oct 31, 2024
5
BAND MIWOK INDIANS, SHINGLE SPRINGS
N/A • N/A
IndividualPLACERVILLE, CA
$3,300
Nov 6, 2024
6
ROJEWSKI, COLE
RBW GROUP • PARTNER
IndividualCLOVIS, CA
$3,300
Dec 11, 2023
7
ROJEWSKI, COLE
RBW GROUP • PARTNER
IndividualCLOVIS, CA
$3,300
Dec 11, 2023
8
EKEGREN, JONATHAN
BARBER HONDA • GENERAL MANAGER
IndividualBAKERSFIELD, CA
$3,300
Dec 12, 2023
9
EKEGREN, JONATHAN
BARBER HONDA • GENERAL MANAGER
IndividualBAKERSFIELD, CA
$3,300
Dec 12, 2023
10
MOJIBI, AMANDA
IndividualBAKERSFIELD, CA
$3,300
Dec 14, 2023

Rep. Salinas, Andrea [D-OR-6]

ID: S001226

Top Contributors

34

1
COW CREEK BAND OF UMPQUA TRIBE OF INDIANS
OrganizationROSEBURG, OR
$3,300
Apr 30, 2024
2
COW CREEK BAND OF UMPQUA TRIBE OF INDIANS
OrganizationROSEBURG, OR
$3,300
Apr 30, 2024
3
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA
$3,300
Aug 8, 2024
4
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF GRAND RONDE
OrganizationGRAND RONDE, OR
$2,500
Nov 5, 2024
5
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF GRAND RONDE
OrganizationGRAND RONDE, OR
$2,500
May 9, 2024
6
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationPHILADELPHIA, PA
$2,000
Jun 30, 2024
7
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
Jun 7, 2023
8
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
Apr 30, 2024
9
BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA
$1,500
May 24, 2023
10
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION GENERAL FUND
OrganizationPENDLETON, OR
$1,500
Dec 31, 2023

Rep. Whitesides, George [D-CA-27]

ID: W000830

Top Contributors

23

1
SWING LEFT
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$2,400
Nov 5, 2024
2
AMERIPAC: THE FUND FOR A GREATER AMERICA
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$500
Oct 17, 2024
3
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA
$1,000
Aug 8, 2024
4
HARRIS, WILLIAM
MASS GENERAL HOSPITAL • PHYSICIAN
IndividualLEXINGTON, MA
$5,000
Jan 25, 2024
5
HARRIS, WILLIAM
IndividualLEXINGTON, MA
$5,000
Feb 7, 2024
6
BAILEY, DAVID
KPPB LLP • PATENT ATTORNEY
IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA
$3,300
Oct 22, 2024
7
BIRMINGHAM, CYNTHIA
SELF EMPLOYED • ATTORNEY
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$3,300
Oct 30, 2024
8
BROOKS, JAMES
GRACIE FILMS • WRITER/DIRECTOR/PRODUCER
IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA
$3,300
Oct 17, 2024
9
CLUBOK, ANDY
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP • ATTORNEY
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Oct 30, 2024
10
DELANEY, QUINN
NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED
IndividualPIEDMONT, CA
$3,300
Nov 9, 2024

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

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 29 nodes and 38 connections

Total contributions: $38

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

Showing top 16 donors by contribution amount

16 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 helped.

  • +Renewable Energyconfidence 1.00

    Section 2 states the purpose of the Act is to advance next-generation geothermal demonstration projects, which directly benefits the renewable energy industry, specifically geothermal power generation.

  • Section 3 establishes a milestone-based geothermal demonstration program, which may involve the development of new energy infrastructure, such as geothermal power plants and transmission lines, benefiting the energy infrastructure industry.

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 Geo POWER Act aligns strongly with Project 2025's emphasis on advancing clean energy innovation through DOE-led demonstration programs, particularly by leveraging milestone-based financing and public-private partnerships to de-risk emerging technologies like enhanced geothermal systems. Both prioritize expanding domestic energy production, grid resilience, and technological leadership in next-generation energy systems."

Key themes:clean energy innovationDepartment of Energy programsmilestone-based financinggeothermal energyenergy security

— 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. — 412 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 41. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 3, 6, 12, 19, 21, and 23. 42. S. 622, Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, 94th Congress, December 22, 1975, https:// www.congress.gov/94/statute/STATUTE-89/STATUTE-89-Pg871.pdf (accessed February 27, 2023). 43. H.R. 6, Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law No. 109-58, 109th Congress, August 8, 2005, https://www. congress.gov/109/plaws/publ58/PLAW-109publ58.pdf (accessed February 27, 2023). 44. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, “About the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,” https://www.energy.gov/eere/about-office-energy-efficiency-and- renewable-energy (accessed February 28, 2023). 45. Ibid. 46. See note 41, supra. 47. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 19, 23, 43, and 49. 48. See U.S. Department of Energy, Grid Deployment Office, “About Us,” https://www.energy.gov/gdo/about-us (accessed February 13, 2023). 49. U.S. Department of Energy, Grid Deployment Office, “Building a Better Grid Initiative,” https://www.energy. gov/gdo/building-better-grid-initiative (accessed February 13, 2023). 50. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 2, 19, 21, 23, and 84. “The FY 2023 Budget Request to Congress proposes to split the Electricity appropriation account into two accounts: Electricity and Grid Deployment Office (GDO). Had the proposed FY 2023 structure been in place in FY 2021 and FY 2022, the $7,000,000 shown under the Electricity account’s Transmission Permitting and Technical Assistance (TPTA) program would have appeared under Grid Technical Assistance in GDO and the $3,000,000 shown under Program Direction in the Electricity account represents the estimated share of Electricity PD funding associated with TPTA and would have appeared under Program Direction in GDO.” Ibid., p. 84, note. 51. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, “About Us: Our Mission,” https://www. energy.gov/oced/about-us (accessed February 13, 2023). 52. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, p. 6. 53. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, “About Us: Our Story,” https://www. energy.gov/oced/about-us (accessed February 28, 2023). 54. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, “OCED Project Portfolio,” https://www. energy.gov/oced/office-clean-energy-demonstrations (accessed February 28, 2023). 55. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Volume 3, Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response, Federal Energy Management Program, Grid Deployment Office, Indian Energy Policy & Programs, Loan Programs, Manufacturing & Energy Supply Chains, Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, Petroleum Reserves, Power Marketing Administrations, State and Community Energy Programs, April 2022, p. 104, https://www.energy. gov/sites/default/files/2022-09/doe-fy2023-budget-volume-3-v2.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 56. See, for example, ibid., pp. 104 and 107. 57. U.S. Department of Energy, Loan Program Office, “LPO Year in Review 2022: New Legislation,” January 5, 2023, https://www.energy.gov/lpo/articles/lpo-year-review-2022 (accessed February 28, 2023). Emphases in original. 58. H.R. 6256, To Ensure That Goods Made with Forced Labor in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of the People’s Republic of China Do Not Enter the United States Market, and for Other Purposes, Public Law No. 117-78, 117th Congress, December 23, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ78/PLAW-117publ78.pdf (accessed February 28, 2023). 59. H.R. 2272, America COMPETES Act, Public Law 110–69, 110th Congress, August 9, 2007, § 5012, https://www. congress.gov/110/plaws/publ69/PLAW-110publ69.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 60. Ibid., § 5012(c)(1). 61. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, March 2022, p. 103.

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Weak
Vector: 67%
Pages: 413-415AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Geo POWER Act promotes geothermal energy deployment through government-funded demonstration programs, which Project 2025 opposes as market-distorting subsidies that shift risk to taxpayers. While both address energy innovation, the bill's use of federal funding for clean energy demonstrations directly contradicts Project 2025's goal to eliminate such programs like OCED."

Key themes:energy innovationdemonstration projectsprivate sector involvementgovernment funding

— 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

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Weak
Vector: 65%
Pages: 416-418AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Geo POWER Act promotes DOE-backed financing for geothermal innovation, which directly conflicts with Project 2025's goal to eliminate or sunset DOE loan programs due to concerns about taxpayer risk and market distortion. While both support energy innovation, the bill expands federal lending authority that Project 2025 seeks to restrict."

Key themes:Department of Energyloan programsenergy innovationtechnology deployment

— 383 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions Personnel By drawing resources from across the DOE, the OCED has already grown to 70 personnel in six months. If OCED is eliminated, those positions can be eliminated. If OCED is reduced, its personnel can be reduced to fit its scope. LOAN PROGRAM OFFICE (LPO) Mission/Overview “LPO’s mission is to finance next-generation U.S. energy infrastructure,” serve “as a bridge to bankability for breakthrough projects and technologies,” and “de-risk[] them at early stages of investment so they can be developed at commercial scale and achieve market acceptance.”55 The Biden Administration directed the program to subsidize the Administration’s “net zero” energy tran- sition away from conventional fuels by 2050 and to promote union jobs and domestic supply chains.56 The LPO coordinates with the U.S. Treasury Federal Financing Bank and is organized into seven divisions: Outreach and Business Development, Origination, Portfolio Management, Risk Management, Technical and Project Management, Legal, and Management and Operation. Its loan programs were originally designed as temporary programs but have since been amended and expanded. Specifically: The IRA expanded the authority in [LPO’s] existing programs, 1703, ATVM, and Tribal Energy Finance, by $100B. IRA also created the Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment (EIR) Financing Program (1706) which can support up to $250B in loan authority. The CO2 Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (CIFIA)—authorized by the [bipartisan infrastructure law], appropriates $2.1B to support approximately $25B in flexible, low-interest loans. This new legislation will create jobs and wealth, address environmental justice and equity priorities and strengthen our energy security and supply chains.57 Needed Reforms Taxpayers should not be backing risky business ventures or politically pre- ferred commercial enterprises. To save tax dollars and reduce current risk, the new Administration: l Should not back any new loans or loan guarantees. l Should seek to sunset DOE’s loan authority through Congress and eventually eliminate the Loan Program Office. — 384 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise DOE-backed loans and loan guarantees put taxpayers at undue risk, distort private-sector investment decisions, shift private money toward projects with political support, and create additional barriers to entry for companies that are outside of the government’s definition of “innovative” or for companies that choose not to participate. New Policies To the extent that DOE loan programs cannot be repealed, the new Adminis- tration should: l Strengthen due diligence and increase transparency in DOE loan programs. l Limit the use of new loan or loan guarantee authority to projects that will promote the reliability and resilience of the electric grid and other energy infrastructure and support national security objectives. l Establish clear mandatory qualifications requiring applicants to comply with the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act58 and to certify that they are not financed with any other local, state, or federal taxpayer-backed loan, loan guarantee, or bond (such as a state “green bank”). ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY–ENERGY (ARPA–E) Mission/Overview ARPA–E was created in 2007 as part of the America Competes (Creating Oppor- tunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology Education) Act.59 Its statutory goals are “to enhance the economic and energy security of the United States through the development of energy technologies” that reduce “imports of energy from foreign sources;” reduce “energy-related emissions, including green- house gases;” improve “the energy efficiency of all economic sectors;” and “ensure that the United States maintains a technological lead in developing and deploying advanced energy technologies.”60 Some in Congress see ARPA–E as beneficial because the COMPETES Act pro- vides it with more bureaucratic flexibility than other federal programs are allowed. Its goals are essentially the same as those of DOE’s applied energy offices, but its structure is different, and it is focused around individual programs instead of around offices with longer-term agendas.

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