S-465-119
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Sponsored by John Hoeven (R-ND)
What it does
This bill would require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to start a rulemaking within 90 days and finish a final rule within 180 days of enactment. The rule would change the standard large-generator interconnection procedures so transmission providers could propose giving higher queue positions to new "dispatchable" power projects that improve reliability and resource adequacy. Providers would have to show need, explain the reliability benefit, hold public comment before filing, and report regularly. FERC would have 60 days to approve or deny each proposal and would review the rules at least every five years.
Who benefits
Developers of dispatchable generation (such as natural gas, nuclear, hydropower, geothermal, or storage resources that meet the definition) who could gain faster grid access. Grid operators and regional transmission organizations that would gain a tool to address reliability shortfalls. Electricity customers in regions facing supply shortfalls, who may see fewer reliability problems if new capacity connects sooner. Utilities needing to meet resource adequacy obligations.
Who is hurt
Developers of non-dispatchable projects, such as many wind and solar projects, who could be moved lower in the queue and face delays or higher costs. Projects already waiting in queues that could be displaced by reprioritized entries. FERC, which would face tight statutory deadlines that could strain staff and limit analysis. Ratepayers could bear costs if reprioritization leads to more expensive resources or network upgrades. Stakeholders who may contend the vague term "dispatchable" leaves room for disputes and litigation.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that interconnection queues are badly backlogged, with many projects waiting years, and that reliability regulators such as NERC have warned of resource adequacy shortfalls in several regions. They contend the bill is permissive and bounded: operators must demonstrate need, take public comment, and win FERC approval within 60 days, so prioritization would be targeted and transparent. They argue that dispatchable power gives operators known output during peak demand and extreme weather, and that the queue should be able to reflect that value.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the queue's first-come, first-served structure gives developers predictability, and that letting operators reorder it would introduce uncertainty, disputes, and possible favoritism toward certain technologies. They contend the bill's tight deadlines, 180 days for a final rule and 60 days per proposal, would limit careful review, and that the vague "dispatchable" definition invites litigation. They argue that the backlog is better addressed by broad queue reforms, such as FERC Order 2023, and added transmission capacity, rather than technology-based preference that could delay lower-cost resources.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority rests on the Commerce Clause, since FERC regulates interstate transmission and wholesale power under the Federal Power Act, and the Court upheld that federal role in FERC v. Electric Power Supply Association (2016). Because the bill gives FERC specific, deadline-bound direction, it is less exposed to major questions doctrine challenges (West Virginia v. EPA, 2022), though post-Loper Bright courts would independently interpret terms like "dispatchable."
Checks and balances
Congress directs FERC's rulemaking agenda and deadlines, and FERC gains discretion to approve or deny queue proposals, while checks include notice-and-comment requirements, public stakeholder processes, rehearing, judicial review in federal courts of appeals, and a five-year review mandate.
Historical precedent
FERC Order 2023 (2023) overhauled interconnection procedures to address queue backlogs, and earlier orders such as Order 2003 set the standardized procedures this bill would amend.