POWER Act of 2025
Download PDFSponsored by
Rep. Hoyle, Val T. [D-OR-4]
ID: H001094
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
January 16, 2025
Introduced
Committee Review
Floor Action
Passed House
Senate Review
đź“Ť Current Status
Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.
Passed Congress
Presidential Action
Became Law
đź“š How does a bill become a law?
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Bill Summary
Another masterpiece of legislative theater, brought to you by the esteemed members of Congress. The POWER Act of 2025: because what America really needs is more "essential assistance" for electric utilities.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's primary objective is to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to allow federal agencies to provide hazard mitigation assistance to electric utilities. Wow, how noble. It's not like they're trying to curry favor with a powerful industry or anything. The real purpose? To grease the wheels of the energy lobby and ensure that utility companies get their fair share of taxpayer-funded goodies.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill adds a new subsection (e) to Section 403, allowing electric utilities to carry out hazard mitigation activities in conjunction with power restoration efforts. Oh, and it also makes sure that receiving assistance for emergency restoration doesn't render them ineligible for additional hazard mitigation funding. Because, you know, we wouldn't want those poor utility companies to miss out on any potential handouts.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects: electric utilities, federal agencies, and the taxpayers who will foot the bill. But let's be real, the only stakeholders who truly matter are the utility companies and their lobbyists. They're the ones who'll benefit from this "essential assistance."
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of " disaster capitalism" – using crises as an excuse to funnel money to favored industries. The POWER Act will likely lead to increased costs for taxpayers, while providing a nice windfall for utility companies. And don't even get me started on the potential for abuse and corruption. It's like they're begging for another Enron-style debacle.
In conclusion, the POWER Act is just another example of Congress's boundless creativity in finding new ways to waste taxpayer money and coddle corporate interests. It's a legislative disease, and I'm not sure what's more disturbing – the fact that they think we won't notice or the fact that they're probably right.
Diagnosis: Terminal stupidity, with symptoms including corruption, cowardice, and a healthy dose of greed. Prognosis: Poor. Treatment: None, because let's face it, this patient is beyond saving.
Related Topics
đź’° Campaign Finance Network
Rep. Hoyle, Val T. [D-OR-4]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance
This bill has 1 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
Rep. Ezell, Mike [R-MS-4]
ID: E000235
Top Contributors
10
Donor Network - Rep. Hoyle, Val T. [D-OR-4]
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 23 nodes and 33 connections
Total contributions: $74,600
Top Donors - Rep. Hoyle, Val T. [D-OR-4]
Showing top 18 donors by contribution amount
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.
Introduction
— 380 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Budget EERE was funded at slightly more than $2.8 billion in FY 2021, and DOE requested slightly more than $4.0 billion for FY 2023.47 Congress needs to rescind the appropriated monies that EERE has not spent and begin fresh with new appropriations. GRID DEPLOYMENT OFFICE (GDO) Mission/Overview The Grid Deployment Office was established to implement parts of the Infra- structure Investment and Jobs Act. Pursuant to the IIJA, GDO administers funds appropriated by Congress to support transmission expansion and low/zero carbon resources. In addition, GDO is developing studies of the electric grid to address congestion, enhance reliability and resilience, and promote “clean” energy.48 Needed Reforms l End grid planning and focus instead on reliability. FERC and NERC have the primary responsibility for addressing reliability, states have the primary authority to site and permit transmission lines, and regional transmission organizations assist in planning regional transmission needs for parts of the country, but Congress granted some grid planning and siting authority to FERC and DOE through the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and IIJA, as well as grid funding through the Inflation Reduction Act. Instead of focusing on grid expansion for the benefit of renewable resources or supporting low/carbon generation, GDO should be incorporated into the reformed Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response, which would work to enhance the grid’s reliability and resilience. To the extent that they remain in effect, the funding programs that GDO oversees and administers should emphasize grid reliability, not renewables expansion. l Consider whether to defund the civil nuclear tax credit program and hydroelectric power efficiency and production incentives established in the IIJA and administered through GDO. If subsidies for renewable resources are not repealed, it may be necessary to continue subsidies for nuclear and hydro to ensure grid reliability. New Policies l Eliminate GDO and assign necessary activities to the reformed CESER. It appears that GDO’s current purpose is to promote the integration of low/zero carbon resources onto the grid by supporting subsidies for such resources and building new transmission facilities at
Introduction
— 380 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Budget EERE was funded at slightly more than $2.8 billion in FY 2021, and DOE requested slightly more than $4.0 billion for FY 2023.47 Congress needs to rescind the appropriated monies that EERE has not spent and begin fresh with new appropriations. GRID DEPLOYMENT OFFICE (GDO) Mission/Overview The Grid Deployment Office was established to implement parts of the Infra- structure Investment and Jobs Act. Pursuant to the IIJA, GDO administers funds appropriated by Congress to support transmission expansion and low/zero carbon resources. In addition, GDO is developing studies of the electric grid to address congestion, enhance reliability and resilience, and promote “clean” energy.48 Needed Reforms l End grid planning and focus instead on reliability. FERC and NERC have the primary responsibility for addressing reliability, states have the primary authority to site and permit transmission lines, and regional transmission organizations assist in planning regional transmission needs for parts of the country, but Congress granted some grid planning and siting authority to FERC and DOE through the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and IIJA, as well as grid funding through the Inflation Reduction Act. Instead of focusing on grid expansion for the benefit of renewable resources or supporting low/carbon generation, GDO should be incorporated into the reformed Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response, which would work to enhance the grid’s reliability and resilience. To the extent that they remain in effect, the funding programs that GDO oversees and administers should emphasize grid reliability, not renewables expansion. l Consider whether to defund the civil nuclear tax credit program and hydroelectric power efficiency and production incentives established in the IIJA and administered through GDO. If subsidies for renewable resources are not repealed, it may be necessary to continue subsidies for nuclear and hydro to ensure grid reliability. New Policies l Eliminate GDO and assign necessary activities to the reformed CESER. It appears that GDO’s current purpose is to promote the integration of low/zero carbon resources onto the grid by supporting subsidies for such resources and building new transmission facilities at — 381 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions a cost that poses a barrier to renewable generation expansion. However, some of the grants that it administers under the IIJA appear to be properly focused on enhancing the reliability and security of the electric grid. They should be reassigned to the reformed and expanded CESER. l End DOE/GDO’s role in grid planning for the benefit of renewable developers. Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and IIJA, DOE is to perform grid congestion studies and has authority to identify National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (NIETC). Under the Biden Administration, GDO is working on a National Transmission Planning Study and is administering $2.5 billion to support “nationally significant transmission lines, increase resilience by connecting regions of the country, and improve access to cheaper clean energy sources.”49 l Defund most GDO programs. GDO oversees nearly $20 billion in new appropriations created by the IIJA, including a grid modernization grant program, the transmission facilitation program, and the civil nuclear credit program, among others. Congress should rescind any money not already spent. Budget Congress appropriated $10 million for GDO in FY 2021, and DOE has requested $90.2 million for FY 2023.50 OFFICE OF CLEAN ENERGY DEMONSTRATION (OCED) Mission/Overview The OCED was established in December 2021 to implement the IIJA. Its mis- sion is “[to] deliver clean energy demonstration projects at scale in partnership with the private sector to accelerate deployment, market adoption, and the equi- table transition to a decarbonized energy system.”51 Needed Reforms l End market distortions and stop shifting technology and development risks to taxpayers. The OCED is distorting energy markets and shifting the risk of new technology deployment from the private sector to taxpayers. The IIJA provided more than $20 billion in government subsidies to help the private sector deploy and market clean energy and decarbonizing resources. Government should not be picking winners and losers and should not be subsidizing the private sector to bring resources to market.
Introduction
— 154 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise insurance at prices lower than the actuarially fair rate, thereby subsidizing flood insurance. Then, when flood costs exceed NFIP’s revenue, FEMA seeks taxpay- er-funded bailouts. Current NFIP debt is $20.5 billion, and in 2017, Congress canceled $16 billion in debt when FEMA reached its borrowing authority limit. These subsidies and bailouts only encourage more development in flood zones, increasing the potential losses to both NFIP and the taxpayer. The NFIP should be wound down and replaced with private insurance starting with the least risky areas currently identified by the program. Budget Issues FEMA manages all grants for DHS, and these grants have become pork for states, localities, and special-interest groups. Since 2002, DHS/FEMA have provided more than $56 billion in preparedness grants for state, local, tribal, and territorial governments. For FY 2023, President Biden requested more than $3.5 billion for federal assistance grants.13 Funds provided under these programs do not provide measurable gains for preparedness or resiliency. Rather, more than any objective needs, political interests appear to direct the flow of nondisaster funds. The principles of federalism should be upheld; these indicate that states better understand their unique needs and should bear the costs of their particularized programs. FEMA employees in Washington, D.C., should not determine how bil- lions of federal tax dollars should be awarded to train local law enforcement officers in Texas, harden cybersecurity infrastructure in Utah, or supplement migrant shelters in Arizona. DHS should not be in the business of handing out federal tax dollars: These grants should be terminated. Accomplishing this, however, will require action by Members of Congress who repeatedly vote to fund grants for political reasons. The transition should focus on building resilience and return on investment in line with real threats. Personnel FEMA currently has four Senate-confirmed positions. Only the Administrator should be confirmed by the Senate; other political leadership need not be con- firmed by the Senate. Additionally, FEMA’s “springing Cabinet position” should be eliminated, as this creates significant unnecessary challenges to the functioning of the whole of DHS at points in time when coordinated responses are most needed. CYBERSECURITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY AGENCY (CISA) Needed Reforms CISA is supposed to have two key roles: (1) protection of the federal civilian government networks (.gov) while coordinating the execution of national cyber defense and sharing information with non-federal and private-sector partners — 155 — Department of Homeland Security and (2) national coordination of critical infrastructure security and resilience. Yet CISA has rapidly expanded its scope into lanes where it does not belong, the most recent and most glaring example being censorship of so-called misinformation and disinformation. CISA’s funding and resources should align narrowly with the foregoing two mission requirements. The component’s emergency communications and Chem- ical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) roles should be moved to FEMA; its school security functions should be transferred to state homeland security offices; and CISA should refrain from duplicating cybersecurity functions done elsewhere at the Department of Defense, FBI, National Security Agency, and U.S. Secret Service. Of the utmost urgency is immediately ending CISA’s counter-mis/disinforma- tion efforts. The federal government cannot be the arbiter of truth. CISA began this work because of alleged Russian misinformation in the 2016 election, which in fact turned out to be a Clinton campaign “dirty trick.” The Intelligence Commu- nity, including the NSA or DOD, should counter foreign actors. At the time of this writing, release of the Twitter Files has demonstrated that CISA has devolved into an unconstitutional censoring and election engineering apparatus of the political Left. In any event, the entirety of the CISA Cybersecurity Advisory Committee should be dismissed on Day One. For election security, CISA should help states and localities assess whether they have good cyber hygiene in their hardware and software in preparation for an election—but nothing more. This is of value to smaller localities, particularly by flagging who is attacking their websites. CISA should not be significantly involved closer to an election. Nor should it participate in messaging or propaganda. U.S. COAST GUARD (USCG) Needed Reforms The U.S. Coast Guard fleet should be sized to the needs of great-power compe- tition, specifically focusing efforts and investment on protecting U.S. waters, all while seeking to find (where feasible) more economical ways to perform USCG missions. The scope of the Coast Guard’s mission needs to be focused on protecting U.S. resources and interests in its home waters, specifically its Exclusive Economic Zone (200 miles from shore). USCG’s budget should address the growing demand for it to address the increasing threat from the Chinese fishing fleet in home waters as well as narcotics and migrant flows in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific. Doing this will require reversing years of shortfalls in shipbuilding, maintenance, and upgrades of shore facilities as well as seeking more cost-effective ship and facility designs. In wartime, the USCG supports the Navy, but it has limited capability and capacity to support wartime missions outside home waters.
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
About These Correlations
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.