HR-10687-119
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Sponsored by Frank Mrvan (D-IN)
What it does
The bill would amend section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act to name the Secretary of Energy as the official who issues emergency orders, with FERC carrying out and reporting on them. It would require each order to explain why it best meets the emergency and to state its specific hours or the method used to set them. It would require a study of lower-cost alternatives before an order is renewed, and a FERC report within 30 days of each order. Affected utilities would have to give customers written cost information within 60 days. Renewed orders could go straight to court review without a rehearing request. It would also bar orders that prevent or delay a power plant's retirement, or that require a closed plant to generate power. The bar would not apply to a plant if an emergency cannot be met any other way and the applicable Transmission Organization asks in writing for the delay.
Who benefits
Electricity customers in areas served by plants slated to retire, who would receive cost disclosures and may avoid costs from forced plant operation. Owners of plants planning to retire, who would gain more certainty to close them. Environmental and public health groups and nearby communities concerned about pollution from older plants. Competing generators and clean energy developers, whose projects could be favored if retiring plants close on schedule. Parties seeking quicker court review of renewed orders.
Who is hurt
Grid operators and reliability planners who may lose a tool for keeping plants available during shortages and could face tighter supply during emergencies. Owners and workers of fossil plants that might otherwise be kept running, and communities that depend on those plants. Utilities and FERC, which would take on new reporting and notice duties. DOE, which would face new study, explanation, and timing requirements that could slow urgent orders. Customers in regions where a retirement goes ahead and reserve margins prove thin.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that emergency orders keeping retiring plants open have imposed large, repeated costs on ratepayers with little public explanation. They contend that requiring stated reasons, a study of cheaper alternatives, public cost reports, and customer notices would let consumers see what they pay and why. They also argue a ban on delaying retirements, with a narrow exception when an emergency has no other solution and the grid operator asks, would stop a short-term emergency tool from becoming a long-term mandate.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the emergency authority exists so the federal government can act fast to keep the lights on, and that added studies, explanations, and reports could slow responses during real shortages. They contend that a general bar on delaying retirements, with an exception requiring both a finding that no other option exists and a written grid-operator request, could remove a key reliability tool. They also argue this could raise outage risk and, in some cases, costs for the customers the bill aims to protect.
Constitutional context
Congress regulates interstate electricity markets under the Commerce Clause, and may set the terms of authority it delegates to executive agencies, a power the Court has recognized under the nondelegation doctrine (J.W. Hampton v. United States, 1928). Questions about how far agency emergency powers reach are actively litigated after West Virginia v. EPA (2022) and Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), and this bill would narrow and clarify that authority by statute.
Checks and balances
The bill shifts the order-issuing role to the Secretary of Energy and reduces executive discretion by adding explanation, study, and reporting duties and a ban on delaying retirements, while also speeding court review of renewed orders.
Historical precedent
Section 202(c) has been used in past emergencies, and recent DOE orders keeping retiring plants running have been challenged in court, but I am not certain of a directly analogous enacted law restricting this authority.