HR-6633-119
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Sponsored by Julie Fedorchak (R-ND)
What it does
This bill would amend the Federal Power Act to require that new and upgraded electricity transmission lines under federal jurisdiction use "best-available transmission conductors" — defined as conductors offering the greatest feasible energy-carrying capacity, highest electrical efficiency, and best thermal sag mitigation at a given voltage level. It would create a legal presumption that using such conductors is prudent and cost-recoverable through utility rates, while creating an opposing presumption that using lower-quality conductors is not prudent and not cost-recoverable. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) would be required to issue implementing regulations within 180 days and to periodically update its methodology as technology improves.
Who benefits
Advanced conductor manufacturers (particularly makers of high-performance conductors such as ACCC or ACSS types) who would gain a mandated market for their products. Electricity consumers broadly, if higher-capacity lines reduce congestion and lower wholesale power prices over time. Renewable energy developers who depend on expanded grid capacity to connect new generation. Grid operators and regional transmission organizations seeking to maximize throughput on existing rights-of-way. Communities where new transmission corridors might otherwise be needed, since higher-capacity conductors can reduce the need for additional lines.
Who is hurt
Utilities and transmission owners who prefer lower-cost, conventional conductors and would face a presumption against cost recovery if they use them. Ratepayers who may bear higher upfront capital costs for premium conductors in the near term, before any long-run efficiency savings materialize. Manufacturers of conventional aluminum and steel-core conductors who could lose market share. Smaller utilities or rural electric cooperatives that may have less flexibility to absorb compliance costs or navigate FERC rulemaking processes. Transmission developers in states with unique geographic or load conditions where the standardized "best-available" definition may not reflect local engineering realities.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the U.S. transmission grid is severely constrained, with the Department of Energy estimating that grid bottlenecks cost consumers billions of dollars annually in higher electricity prices and curtailed renewable energy. They contend that utilities have historically defaulted to cheaper, lower-capacity conductors because the cost-recovery framework did not reward efficiency, and that this bill corrects that market distortion by aligning financial incentives with grid performance. They further argue that advanced conductors can double or triple line capacity on existing rights-of-way at a fraction of the cost of building new transmission corridors, making this a cost-effective path to grid modernization.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that a one-size-fits-all federal conductor standard overrides the engineering judgment of utilities and grid operators who are best positioned to evaluate local conditions, load profiles, and cost-benefit tradeoffs. They contend that the presumption against cost recovery for non-best-available conductors effectively mandates premium products without a full analysis of whether the added expense is justified in every application, potentially raising rates for captive ratepayers. They further argue that delegating the definition of "best-available" to FERC through rulemaking — with periodic updates — creates regulatory uncertainty for long-lived infrastructure investments and may expose utilities to retroactive cost disallowances if the standard changes mid-project.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority to regulate interstate electricity transmission rests on the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), and FERC's jurisdiction under the Federal Power Act is well-established. However, post-Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), FERC's interpretation of "best-available" and its methodology for implementing the standard would receive no automatic judicial deference, meaning courts would independently assess whether the agency's rules stay within the statutory boundaries Congress set.
Checks and balances
Congress grants FERC new rulemaking authority to define and enforce the standard; FERC's implementing regulations are subject to independent judicial review under the post-Loper Bright framework, and utilities may challenge cost-disallowance decisions through FERC's existing adjudicatory process.
Historical precedent
FERC Order 1000 (2011) established transmission planning and cost allocation requirements for public utilities, representing a prior instance of federal rulemaking to shape transmission infrastructure decisions, though it did not mandate specific conductor technology.