Congress locks in coal and gas plants, forces taxpayers to pay for it

What it does

This bill prohibits electric power plants (coal, gas, nuclear) from retiring or switching fuel sources in regions where the grid operator says there is a high or elevated risk of power shortages. Plant owners can petition the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for an exemption within 90 days if retirement would cause financial losses or safety risks; if approved, the Department of Energy may provide grants or loans to keep the plant running. The bill explicitly bars the Commission from considering greenhouse gas emissions when deciding exemptions.

Why we flagged it

The bill's core mechanism is a retirement prohibition tied to grid-reliability assessments, but it operationalizes this through DOE grants and loans to utilities, making it functionally a subsidy program for aging baseload generators dressed in reliability language.

What the text implies

• The bill creates a permanent subsidy pathway: utilities can petition for exemptions based on unprofitability, triggering DOE grants/loans funded from existing infrastructure appropriations, effectively converting grid-reliability policy into a utility-support program with no sunset or spending cap.
• By explicitly prohibiting the Commission from considering greenhouse gas emissions, the bill insulates coal and gas plants from climate-based retirement decisions, potentially locking in decades of continued fossil-fuel generation even in regions with viable renewable alternatives.
• The 90-day exemption petition window and 180-day DOE loan decision timeline create a fast-track approval process that may bypass normal environmental review and public comment procedures, concentrating decision-making power in FERC and DOE without transparent stakeholder input.
• The bill's definition of 'covered electric generating unit' excludes intermittent renewables but includes all dispatchable plants ≥25 MW, meaning it protects coal, gas, and nuclear equally—potentially preventing utilities from retiring uneconomic coal plants in favor of cheaper gas or nuclear alternatives.
• Revenue from loan interest is directed to 'deficit reduction' rather than grid-reliability investments, suggesting the loan program is structured as a fiscal transfer rather than a self-sustaining reliability mechanism.

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

Who it affects

The bill addresses a real grid-reliability concern by preventing premature retirements of dispatchable power plants in stressed regions, which could benefit consumers by reducing blackout risk. However, it also shields aging coal and gas plants from retirement, delays the transition to cleaner energy, and uses public funds (DOE grants/loans) to subsidize private utilities' operating costs—transferring the cost of grid reliability from utilities to taxpayers while explicitly blocking climate cons

Who stands to gain

• coal-fired power plant operators
• natural gas power plant operators
• nuclear power plant operators
• regional transmission organizations (RTOs) and independent system operators (ISOs)
• utilities with aging baseload generation assets

Named in the bill

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Department of Energy (DOE), North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs), Independent System Operators (ISOs), AES Corporation, WEC Energy Group, Duke Energy, Consolidated Edison, Xcel Energy, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Public Law 117–58), Inflation Reduction Act (Public Law 117–169)

Where it stands

26 cosponsors: 26 Republicans.

• Jun 9, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Jun 9, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Energy and Commerce · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce”

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

Money around this bill

12 lobbying clients named this bill on 19 disclosure filings across 3 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $9,478,610 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 93% of bills with at least one filing.

Julie Fedorchak, the sponsor, reported $1,042,850 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle. $7,000 of that came from 1 PAC tied to these lobbying clients.

• Edison Electric Institute — $4,248,610 on 2 filings
• National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (nreca) — $1,750,000 on 2 filings
• Entergy Services LLC — $710,000 on 1 filing
• Firstenergy Corp — $500,000 on 2 filings
• American Electric Power Company, Inc. and Affiliated Corporations — $380,000 on 1 filing

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