S-1821-116
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 261.
Sponsored by Ron Wyden (D-OR)
What it does
This bill would direct the Department of Energy's Water Power Technologies Office to run a program aimed at expanding marine energy production in the U.S. energy supply. It would require DOE to award grants to universities to continue and expand existing National Marine Energy Centers and establish new ones. It would also require DOE to study how advanced marine energy technologies could support maritime transportation, related energy infrastructure, and scientific operations at sea and in extreme environments such as the Arctic.
Who benefits
Universities and research institutions that would receive federal grants to study and test marine energy technologies. Researchers and scientists working in marine and ocean energy fields. Maritime transportation companies and workers who could benefit from new energy options. Coastal and Arctic communities that could gain access to locally generated marine energy. Early-stage marine energy technology companies that could benefit from publicly funded research and a developing domestic supply chain.
Who is hurt
Competing energy sectors — such as fossil fuels, wind, and solar — whose federal research funding could face indirect competition for DOE budget resources. Taxpayers who would fund the grants and studies with no guaranteed commercial outcome. Universities or research centers not selected for grants, who may be disadvantaged relative to funded institutions. Existing energy suppliers in coastal regions who could face future market competition if marine energy becomes commercially viable.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that marine energy — power generated from ocean waves, tides, and currents — represents a largely untapped and predictable domestic energy source that could strengthen U.S. energy security and reduce dependence on imported fuels. They contend that early-stage federal research funding is essential to move promising technologies from the laboratory to commercial use, just as federal support helped launch the solar and wind industries. Supporters also argue the bill would create high-skilled jobs, build a domestic supply chain, and position the U.S. to compete globally in an emerging energy sector. They point to the bill's focus on maritime transportation and Arctic operations as practical near-term applications that serve both economic and national security interests.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the federal government should not direct taxpayer dollars toward energy technologies that have not yet proven commercially viable, when private markets are better positioned to identify and fund promising innovations. They contend that existing DOE programs and National Marine Energy Centers already address this research space, making new legislative mandates duplicative and potentially wasteful. Opponents also argue that the bill's broad mandate — covering supply chains, maritime transportation, Arctic research, and new university centers — lacks the focus needed to produce measurable results. They suggest that funding decisions of this kind are better left to the annual appropriations process, where Congress can weigh competing priorities, rather than being locked in by standalone authorizing legislation.
Constitutional context
The bill rests primarily on Congress's Commerce Clause authority (Art. I, §8, cl. 3) to regulate energy markets and interstate commerce, and the Spending Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 1) to fund grants to universities. The Necessary and Proper Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 18) supports DOE's broad programmatic mandate. Because the bill delegates program design and grant-making authority to DOE, it could face scrutiny under the post-Loper Bright (2024) framework, which requires courts to independently assess whether agency actions stay within statutory bounds, and under the major questions doctrine established in West Virginia v. EPA (2022), which requires clear congressional authorization for agency actions of vast economic or political significance — though the bill's research focus likely falls well below that threshold.
Checks and balances
The bill would expand executive branch authority by directing DOE to design and administer a new research program, award grants, and conduct studies — all with significant discretion over implementation. Congress retains indirect oversight through the appropriations process, since the bill authorizes but does not itself appropriate funds. The legislative branch would also retain oversight authority through committee hearings and reporting requirements typical of DOE programs.
Historical precedent
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 similarly authorized DOE research and development programs for emerging energy technologies, including early-stage funding for wind and solar power that preceded broader commercial deployment.