[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 212 (Tuesday, December 16, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H5927-H5933]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
POWER PLANT RELIABILITY ACT OF 2025
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, Pursuant to House Resolution 951, I call up
the bill (H.R. 3632) to amend the Federal Power Act to adjust the
requirements for orders, rules, and regulations relating to furnishing
adequate service, to require owners or operators of generating
facilities to provide notice of planned retirements of certain electric
generating units, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate
consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 951, the bill
is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 3632
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Power Plant Reliability Act
of 2025''.
SEC. 2. FURNISHING OF ADEQUATE SERVICE; ADVANCE NOTICE OF
PLANNED RETIREMENTS.
Section 207 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824f) is
amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 207. FURNISHING OF ADEQUATE SERVICE; ADVANCE NOTICE OF
PLANNED RETIREMENTS.
``(a) Furnishing of Adequate Service.--
``(1) In general.--Whenever the Commission, upon complaint
of a State commission or a Transmission Organization, after
notice to each State commission and public utility affected,
and after opportunity for hearing within 90 days of receipt
of such complaint, finds that any interstate service of any
public utility is inadequate or insufficient, or is likely to
become inadequate or insufficient within 5 years of receiving
such complaint, the Commission shall determine the proper,
adequate, or sufficient service to be furnished, and shall
fix the same by issuing an order, rule, or regulation.
``(2) Requirements.--The Commission, in an order, rule, or
regulation issued under paragraph (1)--
``(A) may not--
``(i) compel the enlargement of generating facilities; or
``(ii) compel the public utility to sell or exchange
electric energy when to do so would impair its ability to
render proper, adequate, or sufficient service to its
customers;
``(B) may require--
``(i) continuing the operation of an electric generating
unit; and
``(ii) any affected State commission, Transmission
Organization, or public utility to develop and implement a
long-term plan for the planning, construction, and operation
of interstate transmission facilities that may be necessary
for the public utility to provide adequate and sufficient
interstate service; and
``(C) shall determine--
``(i) any rate or charge necessary to provide compensation
for the additional costs of the proper, adequate, or
sufficient service to be furnished, including compensation to
an owner or operator of an electric generating unit that is
required to continue to operate under such order, rule, or
regulation; and
``(ii) the cost allocation of any rate or charge.
``(3) Term length.--Except as provided in paragraph (4), an
order, rule, or regulation issued under paragraph (1) shall
terminate on the date that the Commission determines
appropriate, which may not be later than 5 years after the
date on which the Commission issues such order, rule, or
regulation.
``(4) Extension.--
``(A) Request for extension.--Not earlier than the date
that is 180 days prior to the date on which an order, rule,
or regulation terminates, as determined under paragraph (3),
and not later than 60 days prior to such termination date,
any affected State commission, Transmission Organization, or
public utility may submit to the Commission a request to
extend such order, rule, or regulation.
``(B) Deadline.--With respect to a request submitted under
subparagraph (A), the Commission shall--
``(i) not later than 14 days after the date on which the
Commission receives the request, notify each affected State
commission, Transmission Organization, and public utility of
the request;
``(ii) provide an opportunity for a hearing on the request
before accepting or denying the request under clause (iii);
and
[[Page H5928]]
``(iii) not later than 60 days after the date on which the
Commission receives the request--
``(I) accept the request and extend the applicable order,
rule, or regulation; or
``(II) deny the request.
``(C) Term length.--An order, rule, or regulation extended
under subparagraph (B) shall terminate on the date that the
Commission determines appropriate, which may not be later
than 5 years after the date on which the Commission extended
such order, rule, or regulation.
``(5) Treatment of certain actions.--To the extent an
omission or action taken by a party, that is necessary to
comply with an order, rule, or regulation issued or extended
under this subsection, including any omission or action taken
to voluntarily comply with such order, rule, or regulation,
results in noncompliance with, or causes such party to not
comply with, any Federal, State, or local environmental law
or regulation, such omission or action shall not be
considered a violation of such environmental law or
regulation, or subject such party to any requirement, civil
or criminal liability, or a citizen suit under such
environmental law or regulation.
``(b) Advance Notice of Planned Retirements.--
``(1) In general.--If an owner or operator of a generating
facility plans to retire an electric generating unit that is
a component of such facility, such owner or operator shall
submit to the Commission and any affected State commission or
Transmission Organization a notice of such plan at least 5
years before the date on which such owner or operator plans
to retire such electric generating unit.
``(2) Unplanned retirements.--An owner or operator of a
generating facility that retires an electric generating unit
due to an unplanned catastrophe, emergency, disaster, or
similar event that renders such electric generating unit
inoperable is not subject to the notice requirement described
in paragraph (1).
``(3) Publicly available.--The Commission shall make
publicly available each notice submitted under paragraph (1).
``(c) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Bulk-power system.--The term `bulk-power system' has
the meaning given such term in section 215(a).
``(2) Electric generating unit.--The term `electric
generating unit' means an electric energy producing unit
that--
``(A) is a component of a generating facility;
``(B) has a power production capacity of not less than 5
megawatts; and
``(C) is interconnected to the bulk-power system.
``(3) Retire.--The term `retire', with respect to an
electric generating unit, means to, for an indefinite period
of time--
``(A) idle the electric generating unit;
``(B) disconnect the electric generating unit from the
bulk-power system; or
``(C) otherwise make unavailable for sale all electric
energy that is generated by the electric generating unit.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour,
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member
of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) and the gentlewoman from Florida
(Ms. Castor) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).
General Leave
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous material on H.R. 3632.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3632, the Power Plant
Reliability Act, sponsored by my colleague from Virginia's Ninth
Congressional District (Mr. Griffith).
This legislation improves existing tools under the Federal Power Act
to keep the lights on for households and ensures more effective long-
term planning for our generation resources.
In the event that a power plant closure creates a shortage of
available electricity, H.R. 3632 equips States and grid operators with
an opportunity to seek relief from FERC until replacement capacity
comes online.
{time} 1530
Mr. Speaker, we are in the midst of a reliability and affordability
crisis because of the Biden-Harris administration and blue States who
took a hatchet to our baseload capacity resources, while making it
impossible to build the necessary energy infrastructure to replace it.
These policies were designed to achieve environmental goals that were
unrelated to reliability, affordability, or stability of the bulk-power
system. Nothing can be more destructive to our communities than a
blackout.
When a State seeks to close a power plant without identifying a
sufficient replacement, there is little recourse for effective
households in neighboring States that need the power. The Power Plant
Reliability Act solves this by providing a bridge solution to maintain
generating resources until sufficient capacity can come online to fill
the gap.
The numbers are staggering. Over the last decade, 115 gigawatts of
power are expected to go offline, while 150 gigawatts of demand are
expected to come online. The Department of Energy finds that the
current pace of retirements and generation growth could increase the
risk of outages over 100 times in just 4 short years.
Making matters worse, our adversaries are close on our heels to
securing leadership positions in the next-generation economy. There is
little time to waste.
Importantly, significant investment is flowing in growing our base of
dispatchable resources. The Trump administration is working tirelessly
to reverse unnecessary barriers to generation development and fuel
innovation and baseload power like advanced nuclear. Yet, before these
policies can take root, we must ensure that States and grid operators
are equipped with the necessary tools to maintain reliability of the
bulk-power system.
This legislation is another step to securing the grid and improving
long-term planning needed to lead the next-generation economy. I urge
my colleagues to support H.R. 3632.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3632. It is a bill that
will raise energy prices for American families by forcing them to pay
for outdated polluting plants that are poisoning their air and water.
A reliable and affordable energy supply is vital to our way of life.
Unfortunately, this bill and Republican policies are making electricity
less reliable and less affordable. Mr. Speaker, electricity bills are
up about 13 percent on average across America this year. They are
higher in many places.
In Florida, they just approved the largest rate increase in the
history of the country. They approved $7 billion in rate hikes for
Florida Power & Light. Tampa Electric and Duke Energy in my neck of the
woods also hiked rates this year. For TECO customers, we are paying 82
percent more than 5 years ago, or $939 more than we were.
Electricity prices are climbing more than twice as fast as the rate
of inflation. Why is this happening? It is because of Republican
policies. It is the chaos and dysfunction. Let's go ahead and get into
this.
Why are electricity prices so high?
What is driving the cost increases?
First, there are the arbitrary Trump tariffs. They are now at the
highest levels than they have been since the 1930s. Estimates are that
the average household is going to pay at least $1,000 more because of
tariffs. When we talk about energy, we are talking, as well, about how
we modernize the grid, power poles, wires, and everything that goes
into an electrical system. The utilities are passing that on to
hardworking families.
Then we have the big, ugly bill that Republicans forced through here
last summer. Predictions were when we take a hatchet to cleaner,
cheaper energy poised to come onto the grid, when we rip away tax
credits and rebates for consumers to keep their electricity bills low,
prices are going to go up. That is what we are seeing now, too.
The big, ugly bill is estimated to raise electricity prices by a
staggering 61 percent over the next decade, particularly as a result of
Republicans declaring war on clean, cheap energy and crippling the
American clean energy industry.
I don't know, Mr. Speaker. Did you see the jobs report that came out
this morning? It doesn't look good. In today's jobs report, the number
of manufacturing jobs continues to slide. November was the seventh
straight
[[Page H5929]]
month of monthly decline. A lot of that goes back to the big, ugly bill
and what the Trump administration has done over the past year in
canceling clean energy projects.
My colleagues have heard all about them. An offshore wind project
might be approved, permitted, and ready to come online. He says: No, we
are not going to do that.
Mr. Speaker, that has an impact on the bottom line for our families.
We might have another project coming online that is ready to go. It is
cleaner energy. Everyone knows that solar power with storage and wind
power with storage is the cheapest energy online. The Trump
administration and Republican policies said no.
When our constituents open up that electric bill, I want them to
understand that all of this has a cost and that they deserve so much
better than the chaos and dysfunction, the distraction of tearing down
the East Wing to build a ballroom, and the parties with dancing girls
at Mar-a-Lago. Why don't my colleagues focus on people's cost of living
for a change?
We would think that folks in Congress would come here to help solve
problems.
Is there going to be an answer for higher healthcare costs? In
Florida, 4.7 million of my neighbors rely on the Affordable Care Act
tax credits.
Do Republicans have any answer for the 20 million families here
during the holiday season who can't buy holiday gifts they want to put
under the tree for their families? No, they will have to pinch every
penny to pay for their healthcare. Many will go without.
Mr. Speaker, think about the cancer patients now who are looking at
the new year and how they are going to afford their treatment.
It is electricity costs. It is groceries. It is healthcare costs.
Then my Republican colleagues will waste our time with a bill that is
another in the line of special treatment for polluters at the expense
of hardworking American families today.
This bill would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission broad
authority to force utilities to keep expensive and polluting fossil
fuel power plants operating for extended periods, up to 5 years. What
that does is it locks customers into paying billions of dollars more
for power plants that were slated for retirement, despite the volatile
fuel costs and the environmental harm.
They want to continue to block cleaner and cheaper energy, which is
the cheapest energy coming onto the grid right now. I think they are
living 20 to 30 years ago. Electricity generated by coal is on the
decline. While it was about 50 percent of the electricity generation in
America in the year 2000, here we are, 25 years later, and it is only
20 percent of electricity generation.
The main reason for that is simple. Coal is more expensive than a lot
of the other options we have today. In almost every case today, it is
actually cheaper to build new renewables than to keep existing coal
plants running. Coal is only getting more expensive. Three-quarters of
coal plants saw costs rising faster than inflation just over the past
few years.
This bill is anticonsumer. Frankly, it is anti-American. People
deserve better. If we want to lower electricity bills, I would ask my
colleagues to march down to the White House because the President is
the only one arbitrarily taking energy generation offline and hiking
electricity costs.
During the last administration, the number of utility-scale electric
power plants actually increased by over 2,000. We produced more energy
than ever before. We have a commitment to serve the people that send us
here and to help them lower their bills through rebates, through energy
efficiency, through help for their pocketbooks, not the bottom line of
polluters who have all too much power here on Capitol Hill.
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Energy already has the authority under
the Federal Power Act to prevent power plants from retiring if doing so
would cause reliability problems. Republicans want to go further. This
bill requires States to file reliability complaints 5 years before a
generator retires. It is almost impossible to predict the impact of a
plant retirement that far ahead.
This bill gives polluting plants a pass to ignore Federal, State, and
local environmental laws. As we have already seen multiple times just
this year, these plants aren't even reliable.
{time} 1540
Mr. Speaker, we will have a whole lot more to say on this, but I
really wish we would not waste people's time by coming here and making
their lives more expensive at a time when they are clamoring for help
on their groceries, on their healthcare, and on their electricity
bills. Republicans brought a bill that actually hikes electricity and
utility costs. They deserve so much better.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in 2024, the FERC Commissioner, Mark Christie, testified
before us in the Energy and Commerce Committee. He was referring to the
severe impact that the Biden administration EPA's power plant rule,
commonly known as the Clean Power Plan 2.0, was having.
He stated this: ``If the EPA's new power plant rule survives court
challenge, it will force the retirements of nearly all remaining coal
generation plants and will prevent the construction of vitally needed
new combined-cycle baseload . . . generation.''
This loss of this dispatchable generation resources will be, in his
words, ``catastrophic''--``catastrophic.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Carter), from the First District.
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Power Plant Reliability
Act of 2025.
H.R. 3632 will help keep baseload power plants running for up to 5
years while allowing FERC the time to address State concerns about the
impacts of shutting down certain power plants. This bill will allow
State grid operators to contest the closure of power plants if the
closure will create a reliability problem in their State.
As we work to lower electricity costs across the Nation, we do not
need to be closing power plants with little to no notice. Americans
deserve affordable electricity prices, and this legislation will do
just that.
Democrats, under President Biden, spent 4 years trying to dismantle
affordable baseload generation in favor of green new scam policies that
have done nothing but raise prices for Americans.
This bill will allow us to plan for the future when thinking about
our energy sources. It is an essential tool for maintaining a reliable,
efficient grid that works for all Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to cosponsor Congressman Griffith's Power
Plant Reliability Act of 2025, and I urge my colleagues to vote for
this bill.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), the ranking member of the
Environment Subcommittee.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the so-called Power Plant
Reliability Act. At a time of rapidly rising energy costs, this is yet
another bill that Republicans are trying to stick our constituents
with.
This legislation would force old, expensive power plants to stay
online for up to 5 years after their scheduled retirement date. There
are already existing tools in the Federal Power Act to ensure that an
electricity generator shutting down will not lead to a reliability
issue.
Sometimes there are legitimate reasons to have these facilities stay
online for a short time period while another project can be completed.
Yet even with these more limited existing authorities, we have
witnessed troubling examples of how these types of must-run orders can
be abused.
For example, the Trump administration has issued numerous 90-day
orders that would force the continued operation of a coal-fired power
plant in Michigan. There was a reason it was shutting down. It was
simply too expensive to continue to run, especially compared to
alternatives.
The power plant's owner and the regional grid operator, MISO, do not
feel
[[Page H5930]]
there is any reliability need for this plant to continue running. Yet
still President Trump has compelled it to continue to operate, and the
people of Michigan and other States covered by MISO are footing the
bill. It has been estimated that these people have paid more than $80
million from May 23 through September 30 due to this action.
We wonder why everyone has seen their utility bills skyrocket under
President Trump. It is thoughtless decisions like this one that
prioritize subsidizing the coal industry instead of actually addressing
legitimate reliability and affordability issues facing our electricity
system.
Mr. Speaker, they paid $80 million in a matter of a few months.
Imagine if that power plant was forced to run not for 90-day increments
but for 5 years, as proposed by this bill.
At the end of the day, we, as Members of Congress, have an important
decision to make: Are we going to protect our constituents from rising
energy bills, or are we going to protect coal companies that
desperately need someone to keep buying and burning their product, even
when it is no longer needed? Our constituents simply cannot afford
another giveaway to coal companies at the expense of their wallets.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members who care about energy reliability and,
yes, affordability, the keyword these days, to come together on
solutions that will actually improve the lives of our constituents, not
just declaring fake emergencies as a pretense to extract more money
from people who simply cannot afford it.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose this bill.
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Balderson), from the 12th District.
Mr. BALDERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Latta for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, the Power Plant Reliability Act is a commonsense step to
ensure that the power plant retirements do not undermine the
reliability of our electric grid.
This legislation requires power plant owners to provide 5 years'
advance notice before retiring a facility, giving grid operators,
regulators, and States the time that they need to plan for replacements
and prevent power shortfalls.
Under current law, FERC has limited authority to address reliability
problems caused by plant retirements, including the ability, under
certain circumstances, to order a plant to remain online.
This bill enhances the authority by allowing grid operators and
States to formally contest a retirement when it would threaten the
reliability.
In order to keep the lights on, strengthen our electric system, and
help to lower Americans' electricity costs, we have to ensure that we
have enough baseload power online. This legislation does just that.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I had a raised smile when I saw that poster, ``House
Republicans are Strengthening the Electric Grid,'' because it is such a
canard. It was just a few months ago where the Trump administration
canceled hundreds of millions of dollars to modernize America's
electric grid in red States and blue States. It was a complicated
system of wires and transmission.
Mr. Speaker, you would think that, in a country such as ours, where
we know electricity demand is going up, that one thing we could agree
on investing in is modernizing our electric grid, but no. The Trump
administration, just like they have taken a hatchet to cleaner, cheaper
energy, has taken a hatchet to those hardworking people and the folks
who keep the lights on for us.
Grid modernization is important, so the last thing Republicans and
this administration are doing is strengthening the grid.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms.
Scholten).
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3632 and in favor of
addressing the affordability crisis that is crippling the American
Dream.
Passing this bill would keep costly, outdated power plants running
and stick hardworking American families with the bill.
There is a lot of bluster here in Washington, so let's break this
down. What is happening with this bill?
H.R. 3632 gives the Federal Government the power to force power
plants to stay open even when local utilities and State regulators
themselves have decided that it makes more sense, financially and in
terms of efficiency and power, to close them.
It also requires utilities to give years of notice before closing a
power plant, giving bureaucrats in Washington and special interests
even more chances to step in and overrule local decisions.
When utilities decide to close a power plant, they don't do so on a
whim. These decisions come after years of study to make sure that power
stays reliable and the bills can stay as low as possible.
H.R. 3632 removes that decisionmaking power, taking it away from the
experts and putting it back to bureaucrats in Washington. Instead of
trusting local experts, this bill puts decisions in the hands of
Washington officials who are far away from their communities.
{time} 1550
Utilities are forced to keep running their plants that cost more to
operate, and those extra costs are passed on to families and small
businesses. Communities should not be told that Washington knows
better, especially when the result is more paperwork and higher bills
for American families.
We are not talking about hypotheticals here, Mr. Speaker. We have
seen this happen firsthand back home in west Michigan. We know what
happens when the Federal Government steps in. The J.H. Campbell coal
power plant back home in west Michigan was set to close after years of
careful planning. I visited the plant. There were just days of coal
supply left. They had already had plans for alternative, more efficient
power outsourcing to support the grid with a fraction of the size and
an even smaller fraction of the pollution and impact on our
environment. Everyone was happy until the Trump administration stepped
in and said, no, you are going to reopen, and sent our community
scrambling.
The plan to close this plant and defuse the power to other cleaner
sources would have saved Michigan families $600 million on their power
bills. Instead, those savings disappeared, and hardworking Michiganders
are paying more every single month.
The President may call the affordability crisis a hoax, but I invite
him to come to west Michigan and talk to people who are paying more
every single month in their utility bills because of this plan.
H.R. 3632 would make this kind of outcome more common. It allows
Federal officials to keep power plants running for years, even when
they cost more and even when local leaders say it is not the right
choice.
This is not a balanced energy plan. It is a top-down order that
raises costs and ignores systems that already work to keep power
reliable and affordable.
At a time when families are struggling to pay for groceries,
healthcare, and housing, they cannot afford higher energy bills caused
by decisions like this from the administration.
For that reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to
recommit this bill to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. If the
House rules allowed, I would have offered a motion with an amendment
that does one simple thing. It would stop this bill from taking effect
if it raises costs for everyday Americans.
Think about that. Wouldn't my Republican colleagues across the aisle
agree that we shouldn't be introducing these bills until we know if
they raise costs? What are we so afraid of?
Allow this amendment because if a bill raises electricity costs, it
is the wrong bill. I founded the Lowering Costs Caucus here in Congress
to fight against policies like this.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record the
text of this amendment immediately prior to the vote on the motion to
recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit.
[[Page H5931]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Fry).
Mr. FRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3632, the
Power Plant Reliability Act, introduced by my colleague from the Ninth
District of Virginia.
This legislation enhances existing authorities under Federal law to
provide targeted and temporary relief when premature plant closures
create a shortage of electricity until sufficient replacements can come
online.
Throughout the year, the Committee on Energy and Commerce has held
several hearings with grid operators, utilities, co-ops, and experts
across the energy sector. Without fail, these witnesses have stated
that our Nation is shutting down too much generation and not replacing
it with adequate alternatives.
Don't take my word for it. Last month, NERC, the very entity that
Congress charged with protecting reliability, called the reliability
crisis a ``five-alarm fire.''
South Carolina has seen this, where Federal regulations under Obama
and Biden made the operation of baseload power plants so expensive that
they had no choice but to shut down.
House Republicans are listening to the experts and advancing the
Power Plant Reliability Act to expand the toolbox for States and grid
operators to secure the grid and improve long-term planning for our
generation resources.
I will say, as a practical matter, we can see the results of this
play out on the world stage. When we look to our ally, Taiwan, which is
shutting down power plants and trying to replace them with wind and
solar, what is the practical effect of that happening? Brownouts
throughout the island. If we are shutting down power but not replacing
it, what is going to happen to our country? I think the lesson that we
can learn is, let's not repeat what is happening in other parts of the
world. Let's do our own thing and make sure that we have adequate
generation.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I simply must call out some of the hypocrisy coming from
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
We have watched over the past few months as electricity costs for
hardworking Americans have gone up. People are asking why this is
happening. We talked about the impact of the arbitrary tariffs that are
raising the cost of living on everyone. The Republican policies in the
big, ugly bill have taken a hatchet to cleaner, cheaper energy coming
onto the grid.
When that is married up with the very significant project
cancellations of the Department of Energy and across the
administration, it comes to lost or delayed private investments of $53
billion; 324 projects canceled or delayed, or layoffs; over 24,000
megawatts lost that could have been coming onto the grid to keep prices
lower. That adds up to over 13 million homes that could have had
cleaner, cheaper energy powering them.
There is so much hypocrisy here in Washington right now. For decades,
Republicans claimed to be the party of free markets and of business and
competition. This bill is anti-competition. I remember a day when
Republicans actually championed competition in the electricity sector.
Those days are over, and that means that our neighbors back home are
going to pay higher prices.
Today's bill has nothing to do with free markets. Instead, it is
government intervention into the electricity sector that would make a
Soviet planner blush. Instead of letting power plants compete to see
who can deliver reliable power at lower costs, Republicans would
instead establish a 5-year plan to mandate which power plants stay
online and forcing Americans to pay the bill. This bill has more in
common with Karl Marx and Chairman Mao than it does with the pre-Donald
Trump Republican Party.
Mr. Speaker, we can't take our eye off the ball here. The reality is
that the President promised to cut Americans' electricity bills. He
promised that he would cut them in half by the time he was 1 year into
his term.
Here we are, at the end of the year, and energy bills are up, way up,
over 13 percent in many places. I think that is a failing grade. I
think it speaks to the weakness of these arguments, as they try to
paper over the struggles of American families and like to pretend that
they are doing something, while we watch healthcare costs go way up and
the costs of groceries weigh people down.
They want free markets when it means well for their fossil fuel
allies, but they want government intervention and socialized costs the
moment consumers might actually benefit from lower prices.
The hypocrisy here is just staggering.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Evans).
Mr. EVANS of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in strong support
of the Power Plant Reliability Act.
Last week, my State Planning for Reliability and Affordability Act
passed the House with bipartisan support, and today's bill is yet
another critical component in the fight to restore sanity when it comes
to energy policy in States like Colorado.
In recent years, ruling Democrats have been pushing to shut down all
coal-fired power plants in Colorado by 2030, including two by the end
of this year, to meet arbitrary climate goals and without regard for
reliability or affordability. This has spiked costs in Colorado 24
percent under Biden and our own Democrat Governor.
I will remind our friends that higher costs increase poverty, which
also increases negative health outcomes.
{time} 1600
This is especially troubling when we consider that these two closures
in Colorado represent more than 10 percent of the baseload,
dispatchable power being retired nationwide, even though Colorado only
accounts for 1.3 percent of total U.S. energy production.
Now, the Democrat-appointed director of the Colorado Energy Office,
Will Toor, is backtracking his own coal plant closure plans because he
knows closing them is going to spike rates and result in more
blackouts.
This is a threat my district is aware of now more than ever because
just last night, thousands of my constituents received a notice from
their utility that beginning today they may have weather-related
blackouts lasting anywhere from a couple hours to several days.
This bill today helps us combat misguided energy policies by allowing
States and grid operators to contest the closure of power plants in
neighboring States if there is an impact to reliability. This is a
commonsense enhancement that is critical to ensuring Americans in
States with reasonable energy policies don't suffer because of States
like Colorado.
House Republicans are committed to lowering energy costs for working
families by championing policies that ensure energy dominance. I am
proud to support this bill, and I urge all of my colleagues to join me
in voting ``yes.''
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
North Dakota (Mrs. Fedorchak).
Mrs. FEDORCHAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my
good friend Morgan Griffith's bill, H.R. 3632, the Power Plant
Reliability Act.
If you ask Americans to define ``common sense,'' I am quite certain
that they would all agree that it is simply common sense to stop
retiring reliable resources to generate power before you have adequate
resources to replace them. The number one thing we need in this country
is reliable power. More than anything else, people must have it for
their safety and for our economy.
Yet, our grid is facing a serious reliability crisis. How do we know
that?
Because the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, NERC,
the one organization responsible for looking at the grid and ensuring
its reliability, is saying we have a five-alarm fire, for good reason.
We are seeing record demand for electricity at the same time that
misguided policies are forcing reliable baseload power off the grid.
That is a
[[Page H5932]]
dangerous mismatch, and it is why we must pass H.R. 3632. It requires
that if a power plant retirement would create a shortage of reliable
electricity, States provide 5 years' advance notice. That is it, 5
years. That is just common sense.
That transparency is critical for grid operators. You cannot plan
transmission, build replacement generation, or ensure grid reliability
without adequate time.
We have gone too fast. The truth is, reliable power is affordable
power. This map shows it. It just came out. The most affordable State
on there is North Dakota, my home State. We still invest in reliable,
clean coal.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bost). The time of the gentlewoman has
expired.
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the
gentlewoman from North Dakota.
Mrs. FEDORCHAK. Mr. Speaker, for affordable and reliable energy and a
grid Americans can count on, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Palmer), who represents Alabama's Sixth District.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3632, the Power
Plant Reliability Act, sponsored by my colleague Mr. Griffith from
Virginia's Ninth Congressional District.
H.R. 3632 enhances existing authority under the Federal Power Act to
protect the bulk-power system from premature retirements of baseload
power and ensures more effective long-term planning for our generating
resources.
It is no secret that we find ourselves in a reliability and
affordability crisis driven by irresponsible decisions to shutter
reliable and affordable baseload power plants.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim their positions
are based on science, but the problem is their science is political
science that will lead to higher energy costs and less reliability.
Even the head of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation,
who is charged with protecting the reliability of our Nation's bulk-
power system, recently called the reliability crisis a five-alarm fire.
This is the path that was laid out by the Biden administration and
Congressional Democrats, pushing their misguided and dangerous
political science.
Making a bad situation worse, we need significant energy resources to
compete in the artificial intelligence arms race. With adversarial
nations like China, whoever wins the AI arms race will not be a
superpower. They will be the superpower.
Manufacturing, industrial processing, and AI data centers all require
affordable and abundant electricity that only comes from baseload and
dispatchable resources. If these energy-intensive industries could run
on wind and solar, they would already be doing so.
The Power Plant Reliability Act is another tool in the reliability
toolbox for States and grid operators to keep the lights on for
households and to fuel the next-generation economy.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time for closing.
Mr. Speaker, this is a really tough time for the folks we represent
back home. It is made worse by Trump's unfolding energy crisis. It is
an affordability crisis.
Looking ahead, looking in the years ahead, I think my colleagues had
a point: We are going to need more energy. So it makes no sense at all
for Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration to take a
hatchet to cleaner, cheaper energy that is poised to come on the grid,
cancel projects, and throw people out of jobs.
I pointed out earlier that if you looked at the jobs report that came
out this morning, manufacturing jobs were on their seventh month of
decline. Part of that is because the Trump administration went into
this year saying that we don't believe in solar power and wind power
and storage and everything that makes your power more efficient. At the
same time, they passed the big, ugly bill that rips away all sorts of
cost-savers, like for families back home that are going to replace
their heating and cooling system, a little bit of help in their
pocketbook to do it in an affordable way.
Meanwhile, the President, what did he promise? He said: I am going to
make life more affordable. But everything that they have done, whether
it is arbitrary tariffs, canceling projects, killing jobs, now trying
to pass bills that heap costs on our families back home, everything
they have done has raised the cost of living.
I was flabbergasted when the President said: This whole affordability
thing, it is a hoax. You tell that to the hardworking people back home
going into the grocery store or the people now looking at their health
insurance bill that this Congress refuses to solve. Then you bring a
bill to the floor to add insult to injury, to make life even more
expensive by making their utility bills more expensive? They are
already up 13 percent on average across the country.
Ever since Republicans took the majority here, we have been waiting
for one bill to lower the cost of living. We have nothing. Just this
year, utilities have asked for $34 billion worth of rate increases.
American families have each spent $1,200 more this year to fund Trump's
tariffs. Electricity prices are up by 13 percent. Natural gas prices
are up by 8 percent, and the big, ugly bill will increase electricity
prices by 61 percent. American families simply cannot afford the weight
of all of this any longer, and they deserve so much better.
What do the Republicans want to do today? They want to pass another
bill that will increase prices by up to $6 billion each year. This is
not a hoax. This is not a hoax. Instead, they offer a Christmas gift to
the Nation's largest polluters.
But I guess Republicans in Congress just believe what the President
said: Affordability is a hoax; nothing to see here.
Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear to all Americans. I don't care if you
are a Democrat, a Republican, or Independent, how you are registered,
we are going to stand up for you. We are going to fight back at every
turn. We are going to fight for your pocketbook. We are not going to
let them get away with this. We are actually going to do something
about it because we know you deserve better. This is not a hoax.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1610
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, this chart tells it all. We talked about it
the other day.
Mr. Speaker, look at the top 12 States that are having problems.
California is at the top. Then look at the New England States: Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont. Their Governors earlier this
year stated that their citizens are paying 40 percent more for fuel
this winter. Why is that?
Well, if they don't allow pipelines, they don't allow energy to get
into their area, and they rely on somebody else to do it for them, then
it is going to happen.
If the people want to know who is causing the prices to go up, then
they had better go home and talk to their State's legislators and their
Governors and find out why, because these numbers don't lie. They do
not lie.
We are going to take off 115 gigawatts of generation alone in this
country when we are supposed to be putting on 155 gigawatts of power.
Earlier this year, the RTOs and the ISOs, those are the folks who
manage the wholesale electricity markets and transmission in this
country, all testified for us in committee and said this: We need more
power not less, more power not less.
They also said this: And we can't take off any generation. If you
want to see prices go up, just keep taking that generation offline
because that is what is going to happen.
I thank the gentleman from Virginia's Ninth Congressional District
for sponsoring this important legislation.
This bill provides a critical tool for States and grid operators to
secure the grid until new generation comes online and ensures long-term
effective planning by improving our understanding of our available
generation resources.
There is nothing more expensive than a blackout, and this bill will
ensure processes are in place to keep the lights--the lights--on for
all Americans and to make their utility bills more affordable.
[[Page H5933]]
H.R. 3632 has broad support from America's Power, the National
Hydropower Association, Americans for Prosperity, and the National
Mining Association.
Democrats like to talk about affordability, but electricity prices
went up over 25 percent--25 percent--during the Biden administration.
House Republicans are taking action with legislation like H.R. 3632, to
help lower Americans' utility bills.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Power Reliability
Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 951, the previous question is ordered on
the bill.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Ms Scholten of Michigan moves to recommit the bill H.R.
3632 to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Scholten is as follows:
Ms. Scholten moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3632 to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith, with the following
amendment:
Add at the end the following:
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall not
take effect until the Secretary of Energy certifies that this
Act and amendments made by this Act will not expose American
families to the risk of higher power bills by paying for
outdated, uneconomic coal-fired power plants to stay online
longer.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings will be postponed.
____________________