Congress mandates coal and gas plants over cheaper renewables

What it does

This bill amends federal utility regulation to require states with integrated resource planning to ensure reliable electricity generation over a 10-year horizon by maintaining or procuring from 'reliable generation facilities'—defined as plants that can run continuously for 30+ days with on-site fuel or contracted supply, operate in emergencies, and provide grid support services. States must begin considering this standard within 1 year and complete their determination within 2 years; a GAO report will assess whether the requirement improves grid reliability and affordability.

Why we flagged it

The bill's operative mechanism is a new federal standard requiring states to ensure reliable generation capacity, defined in a way that favors dispatchable thermal plants. While framed as reliability and affordability, the definition excludes variable renewables and effectively mandates procurement of a specific generation type.

What the text implies

• The 30-day fuel-reserve requirement effectively excludes wind, solar, and battery storage (which lack on-site fuel), creating a de facto mandate for coal, natural gas, or nuclear generation regardless of cost or state renewable-energy goals.
• States must 'commence consideration' within 1 year and 'complete determination' within 2 years, but the bill does not specify what 'determination' means—states could theoretically reject the standard, creating regulatory uncertainty and potential litigation.
• The bill does not require cost-benefit analysis or affordability impact assessment; states must ensure 'reliable availability' but the bill does not define or cap the cost burden on ratepayers.
• The GAO report (due 1 year post-enactment) will assess effectiveness of prior integrated resource planning, but the bill does not tie future appropriations or enforcement to the report's findings, limiting its practical impact.
• States that have already implemented comparable standards or conducted proceedings in the prior 3 years are exempt, creating a patchwork of compliance and potential competitive disadvantage for utilities in states without prior action.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

The bill addresses a legitimate public interest—grid reliability and affordability—by requiring states to plan for continuous generation capacity. However, the definition of 'reliable generation' is narrowly tailored to favor dispatchable fossil-fuel and nuclear plants (those with 30-day fuel reserves or continuous supply contracts), potentially raising consumer electricity costs by mandating procurement of higher-cost generation over cheaper renewables, while the bill does not explicitly protec

Who stands to gain

• coal-fired power plants
• natural gas utilities and generators
• nuclear power operators
• utilities with existing dispatchable generation portfolios

Named in the bill

Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA), State regulatory authorities, State regulated electric utilities, Comptroller General of the US, AES Corporation, WEC Energy Group, Duke Energy, Consolidated Edison, Xcel Energy

Where it stands

1 cosponsor: 1 Republicans.

• May 29, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• May 29, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Energy and Commerce and Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce”
• Jun 5, 2025 — Markup held in committee · Congress.gov: “Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held”
• Jun 25, 2025 — Reported out of committee · Congress.gov: “Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 25 - 23”
• Dec 11, 2025 — Passed the House · Congress.gov: “On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 218 - 207 (Roll no. 323)”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

14 lobbying clients named this bill on 25 disclosure filings across 3 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $63,978,610 in lobbying spend. A filing names 47 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 94% of bills with at least one filing.

Gabe Evans, the sponsor, reported $1,523,467 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle. $9,000 of that came from 3 PACs tied to these lobbying clients.

• Chamber of Commerce of the U.S.A. — $54,660,000 on 3 filings
• Edison Electric Institute — $4,248,610 on 2 filings
• National Mining Association — $820,000 on 1 filing
• National Grid USA — $780,000 on 2 filings
• Puget Sound Energy — $750,000 on 2 filings

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.