FUTURE Networks Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/2449

Last Updated: September 7, 2026

FUTURE Networks Act

HR. 2449, 119th Congress — read as touching Telecommunications.

The sponsor

Rep. Matsui, Doris O. [D-CA-7]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$70,500 raised

22 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Financial Regulatory Agencies" section, p. 879-881 of the Mandate for Leadership.

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 Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

April 28, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

📍 Current Status

Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 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

Summary Style:

**Bill Analysis: HR 2449, FUTURE Networks Act**

As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll dissect the implications of this bill on my empire's interests.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The FUTURE Networks Act aims to establish a task force within the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to explore the development and deployment of 6G wireless technology. The primary objective is to facilitate industry-led standards-setting, identify potential uses and limitations of 6G tech, and foster collaboration among government entities.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill creates a task force with representatives from trusted companies in the communications industry, public interest organizations, academic institutions, and various levels of government. The task force will publish a report on 6G technology within one year, addressing standards-setting, potential uses, limitations, and strategies for leveraging this technology.

Notably, the bill introduces a "not trusted" designation for entities deemed to pose a national security threat or be under foreign adversary control. This provision may impact companies with ties to China or other nations considered adversaries.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The primary stakeholders include:

1. Communications industry giants (e.g., Verizon, AT&T) 2. Public interest organizations and academic institutions 3. Government entities at the federal, state, local, and tribal levels 4. Companies with foreign ownership or ties to adversary nations

**Potential Impact & Implications**

For my empire, this bill presents both opportunities and challenges:

* **Consolidation**: The task force's focus on industry-led standards-setting may lead to increased consolidation among communications companies, potentially benefiting my own interests. * **Regulatory hurdles**: The "not trusted" designation could create regulatory barriers for companies with foreign ties, which might impact my partnerships or investments. * **Innovation**: The bill's emphasis on 6G technology development and deployment could accelerate innovation in the sector, creating new opportunities for growth and investment.

However, I remain skeptical about the effectiveness of government-led initiatives. As a visionary entrepreneur, I believe that true progress is driven by market forces, not bureaucratic task forces. This bill may ultimately prove to be a minor speed bump on the road to technological advancement.

**Projection**: Based on my analysis, I estimate that this bill will have a moderate impact on the communications industry, with potential benefits for companies like mine that are well-positioned to adapt to emerging technologies. However, the regulatory landscape remains uncertain, and I will continue to monitor developments closely.

In conclusion, while the FUTURE Networks Act may seem like a minor legislative effort, its implications for my empire's interests are significant. As a master strategist, I will continue to navigate this complex landscape, leveraging opportunities and mitigating risks to ensure the continued growth and dominance of my business empire.

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Matsui, Doris O. [D-CA-7]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$70,500

21 donors

PACs

$2,500

Organizations

$2,000

Committees

Individuals

$66,000

SOCIETY OF INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE

1 transaction

$2,500

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$2,000

No committee contributions found

HALE, KAREN

2 transactions

$6,600

KINNEY, MARY

1 transaction

$3,300

KONG, MINDY

1 transaction

$3,300

TSAKOPOULOS, KATINA

1 transaction

$3,300

TSAKOPOULOS, SOFIA

1 transaction

$3,300

VISMARA, LOUIS A.

1 transaction

$3,300

WAGNER, BELAN KIRK

1 transaction

$3,300

KELLEY, LARRY D.

1 transaction

$3,300

FRIEDMAN, MARK L.

1 transaction

$3,300

SYPHAX, CELESTINE

1 transaction

$3,300

FRIEDMAN, MARJORIE SOLOMON

1 transaction

$3,300

TAYLOR, JOHN M.

1 transaction

$3,300

SANT, ROGER W.

1 transaction

$3,300

KONG, CLEMENT J.

1 transaction

$3,300

BRUNNER, DANIEL

1 transaction

$3,300

FRIEDMAN, MARCINE

1 transaction

$3,300

HALE, ROBERT

1 transaction

$3,300

THOMAS, TINA

1 transaction

$3,300

SMIRA, MICHELLE

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 2 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Allen, Rick W. [R-GA-12]

ID: A000372

Top Contributors

CHEVY CHASE ENERGY LLC

OrganizationHOUSTON, TX

$500

May 19, 2023

RHODES, JIMMY MR.

TAXSLAYER • OWNER

IndividualEVANS, GA

$3,300

Nov 2, 2024

MASSEY, JON G.

NONE • RETIRED

IndividualFOLSOM, LA

$3,300

Oct 28, 2024

RHODES, KERRY MRS.

NONE • HOMEMAKER

IndividualEVANS, GA

$3,300

Nov 2, 2024

DORE, WILLIAM J. SR.

NONE • RETIRED

IndividualMOUNTAIN BRK, AL

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

BAKER, ROBERT D

DUFFEY SOUTHEAST, INC. • CONSTRUCTION

IndividualCEDARTOWN, GA

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

STEPHENSON, DONNA Y. MR.

NONE • HOMEMAKER

IndividualATLANTA, GA

$3,300

Dec 31, 2023

HATCHER, MARILEE MRS.

MAU, INC • SPECIAL EVENT COORDINATOR

IndividualAUGUSTA, GA

$3,300

Dec 11, 2023

WINCHESTER, GAYLE MRS.

NONE • RETIRED

IndividualATLANTA, GA

$3,300

Oct 13, 2023

STEPHENSON, DONNA Y. MR.

NONE • HOMEMAKER

IndividualATLANTA, GA

$3,300

Dec 31, 2023

Rep. Walberg, Tim [R-MI-5]

ID: W000798

Top Contributors

POKAGON BAND OF POTAWATOMI INDIANS

OrganizationDOWAGIAC, MI

$3,300

Dec 31, 2023

WEIR FARMS

OrganizationHANOVER, MI

$500

Aug 21, 2023

WEIR FARMS

OrganizationHANOVER, MI

$500

Aug 12, 2024

HAWORTH, ETHELYN

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSAUGATUCK, MI

$47,900

Jun 5, 2024

HONIG, KEN

KEN HONIG • BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT

IndividualNEW PORT BEACH, CA

$31,600

May 30, 2024

HAWORTH, RICHARD

HAWORTH INC • CHAIRMAN EMERITUS

IndividualSAUGATUCK, MI

$11,600

May 9, 2024

KLARR, GUNNAR

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualJACKSON, MI

$10,000

Dec 29, 2023

HAWORTH, RICHARD

HAWORTH INC • CHAIRMAN EMERITUS

IndividualSAUGATUCK, MI

$10,000

Nov 4, 2024

DRESNER, LINDA

SELF • RETIRED

IndividualBIRMINGHAM, MI

$6,600

Dec 7, 2023

LEVY, EDWARD C JR.

EDWARD C LEVY COMPANY • EXECUTIVE

IndividualBIRMINGHAM, MI

$6,600

Dec 7, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Matsui, Doris O. [D-CA-7]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Showing 41 nodes and 43 connections

Total contributions: $43

Top Donors - Rep. Matsui, Doris O. [D-CA-7]

Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount

1 PAC1 Org19 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 helped.

+Telecommunicationsconfidence 0.90
Section 2 establishes a 6G Task Force within the FCC to study and report on sixth-generation wireless technology, including standards, uses, limitations, and deployment coordination. This directly benefits telecommunications companies by advancing 6G research and potential market opportunities.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Matsui, Doris O. [D-CA-7])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

Telecommunications$9,600
from 4 contributions
- ERGEN, CHARLES$3,300
- ERGEN, CANTEY$3,300
- KATZIN, LAWRENCE$1,500
- SCHANMAN, GARY$1,500

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Financial Regulatory Agencies

Strong

Vector: 69%

Pages: 879-881AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill advances the FCC's Project 2025 priorities by promoting national security (excluding foreign‑adversary entities), unleashing economic prosperity through accelerated 6G deployment, and enhancing FCC accountability via a structured task force. It does not directly address reining in Big Tech, but otherwise aligns closely with the outlined goals."

Key themes:national securityeconomic prosperity6G deploymentFCC oversight

— 847 — Federal Communications Commission The FCC has facilitated the transition from 3G to 4G and now 5G offerings in two ways. First, it has freed spectrum—the airwaves needed to deliver wireless ser- vices. Second, it has preempted state and local siting and permitting laws that could otherwise slow down the buildout of next-generation infrastructure. One of the FCC’s great success stories from 2017 to 2020 was securing U.S. leadership in 5G. The FCC also administers an approximately roughly $9 billion-a-year program called the Universal Service Fund (USF), which has been funded by a line-item charge that traditional telephone companies add to consumers’ monthly bills. Expenditures from this fund subsidize rural broadband networks and low-income programs as well as connections for schools, libraries, and rural health care facil- ities. Through various COVID-era laws, Congress has also provided the FCC with a one-time $24 billion appropriation for various low-income initiatives. POLICY PRIORITIES The FCC needs to change course and bring new urgency to achieving four main goals: l Reining in Big Tech, l Promoting national security, l Unleashing economic prosperity, and l Ensuring FCC accountability and good governance.15 Reining in Big Tech. The FCC has an important role to play in addressing the threats to individual liberty posed by corporations that are abusing dominant positions in the market. Nowhere is that clearer than when it comes to Big Tech and its attempts to drive diverse political viewpoints from the digital town square. Today, a handful of corporations can shape everything from the information we consume to the places we shop. These corporate behemoths are not merely exercising market power; they are abusing dominant positions. They are not simply prevailing in the free market; they are taking advantage of a landscape that has been skewed—in many cases by the government—to favor their business models over those of their competitors. It is hard to imagine another industry in which a greater gap exists between power and accountability. That is why a new Adminis- tration should support FCC action on several fronts. Specifically, the FFC should: l Eliminate immunities that courts added to Section 230. The FCC should issue an order that interprets Section 230 in a way that eliminates the expansive, non-textual immunities that courts have read into the statute. — 848 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise As one of the FCC’s previous General Counsels noted, the FCC has authority to take this action because Section 230 is codified in the Communications Act.16 The FCC’s Section 230 reforms should track the positions outlined in a July 2020 Petition for Rulemaking filed at the FCC near the end of the Trump Administration.17 Any new presidential Administration should consider filing a similar or new petition. As Justice Clarence Thomas has made clear, courts have construed Section 230 broadly to confer on some of the world’s largest companies a sweeping immunity that is found nowhere in the text of the statute.18 They have done so in a way that nullifies the limits Congress placed on the types of actions that Internet companies can take while continuing to benefit from Section 230. One way to start correcting this error is for the FCC to remind courts how the various portions of Section 230 operate. At the outset, the FCC can clarify that Section 230(c)(1) does not apply broadly to every decision that a platform makes. Rather, its protections apply only when a platform does not remove information provided by someone else. In contrast, the FCC should clarify that the more limited Section 230(c)(2) protections apply to any covered platform’s decision to restrict access to material provided by someone else. Combined, these actions will appropriately limit the number of cases in which a platform can censor with the benefit of Section 230’s protections. Such clarifications might also include drawing out the traditional legal distinction between distributor and publisher liability; Section 230 did not do away with the former, nor does it collapse into the latter. l Impose transparency rules on Big Tech. Today, Big Tech offers a black box. After Google manipulates search results, a small business can see its web traffic drop precipitously overnight for no apparent reason, potentially flipping its outlook from black to red. On Facebook, social media posts are left up or taken down, accounts suspended or permanently banned, without any apparent consistency. Out of the blue, YouTube can demonetize individuals who have risked their capital and invested their labor to build online businesses. At present, the FCC requires broadband providers to comply with a transparency rule that can provide a good baseline for Big Tech. Under the FCC’s rule, broadband providers must provide detailed disclosures about practices that would shape Internet traffic—from blocking to prioritizing or discriminating against content. The FCC could take a similar approach to

Federal Communications Commission

Strong

Vector: 65%

Pages: 888-890AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill’s creation of an FCC-led 6G Task Force to study, recommend, and coordinate next‑generation wireless technology aligns closely with Project 2025’s goals of advancing FCC leadership in emerging communications, fostering a national coordinating strategy, and encouraging competition to improve connectivity while safeguarding national security."

Key themes:6G/next‑gen wireless technologyFCC coordination and task forceNational broadband/connectivity strategyEncouraging competition and innovationNational security/supply chain safeguards

— 855 — Federal Communications Commission so a new Administration should redouble efforts to require timely reviews and final actions by agencies with jurisdiction over federal lands, including the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. l Advance America’s space leadership. One of the most significant technological developments of the past few years has been the emergence of a new generation of low-earth orbit satellites like StarLink and Kuiper. This technology can beam a reliable, high-speed Internet signal to nearly any part of the globe at a fraction of the cost of other technologies. This has the potential to significantly accelerate efforts to end the digital divide and disrupt the federal regulatory and subsidy regime that applies to communications networks. The FCC should expedite its work to support this new technology by acting more quickly in its review and approval of applications to launch new satellites. Otherwise, the U.S. risks ceding space leadership to entities based in countries with more friendly regulatory environments. Holding Government Accountable. Federal technology and telecommunica- tions programs have been plagued by a troubling lack of accountability and good governance. They would benefit from stronger oversight and a fresh look at elim- inating outdated regulations that are doing more harm than good. l End wasteful broadband spending policies. Many of the broadband spending policies being pursued by the current Administration are poised to waste taxpayer money while leaving rural communities and unconnected Americans behind. At the same time, the dramatic recent increases in funding through the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act mean that the federal government has more than enough resources to meet its broadband connectivity goals. Congress should therefore hold the agencies accountable so that taxpayer money is used effectively to promote broadband connectivity across the nation. To that end, the next Administration should instruct the various departments and agencies that are administering broadband infrastructure funds to direct those resources to communities without adequate Internet infrastructure instead of to places that already enjoy broadband connectivity. Take, for example, the final rules that the Treasury Department adopted in 2022 that govern the expenditure of $350 billion in ARPA funds. Rather than directing those dollars to the rural and other communities that have no Internet infrastructure, the current — 856 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Administration gave the green light for recipients to spend those funds to overbuild existing high-speed networks in communities that already have multiple broadband providers. A new Administration should eliminate government-funded overbuilding of existing networks. l Adopt a national coordinating strategy. Hundreds of billions of infrastructure dollars have been appropriated by Congress or budgeted by agencies over the past couple of years that can be used to end the digital divide. Yet, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, “U.S. broadband efforts are not guided by a national strategy”; instead, “[f]ederal broadband efforts are fragmented and overlapping, with more than 100 programs administered by 15 agencies,” risking overbuilding as well as wasteful duplication.26 Many of these programs remain plagued by inefficiency, further contributing to waste of limited taxpayer dollars. Moreover, the federal government is failing to put appropriate guardrails in place to govern the expenditure of billions in broadband funds. This is the regulatory equivalent of turning the spigot on full blast and then walking away from the hose. There is a worrisome lack of adequate tracking, measurement, and accountability standards governing all of this broadband spending. As a result, we are likely to see headline levels of waste, fraud, and abuse. A new Administration needs to bring fresh oversight to this spending and put a national strategy in place to ensure that the federal government adopts a coordinated approach to its various broadband initiatives. Similarly, the next Administration should ask the FCC to launch a review of its existing broadband programs, including the different components of the USF, with the goal of avoiding duplication, improving efficiency of existing programs, and saving taxpayer money. l Correct the FCC’s regulatory trajectory and encourage competition to improve connectivity. The FCC is a New Deal–era agency. Its history of regulation tends to reflect the view that the federal government should impose heavy-handed regulation rather than relying on competition and market forces to produce optimal outcomes. President Franklin D. Roosevelt recommended that Congress create the FCC in February 1934 for the purposes of establishing “a single Government agency charged with broad authority” over the field of communications.27 Congress subsequently established the FCC through the Communications Act of 1934. Congress has passed a number of additional statutes—some broad, some

Federal Communications Commission

Strong

Vector: 65%

Pages: 885-887AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill's establishment of a 6G Task Force to promote secure, collaborative development of next-generation wireless aligns closely with Project 2025's objectives of advancing U.S. leadership in next-gen connectivity, ensuring national security by excluding foreign adversaries, and fostering intergovernmental and industry coordination."

Key themes:next-generation wireless (6G)national security safeguardsindustry-government coordinationspectrum leadershippro-growth connectivity agenda

— 853 — Federal Communications Commission are doing this is by giving Beijing access to their high-powered cloud computing services. Therefore, it is time for an Administration to put in place a comprehensive plan that aims to stop U.S. entities from directly or indirectly contributing to China’s malign AI goals. Unleashing Economic Prosperity. The FCC needs to advance a pro-growth agenda that gives every American a fair shot at next-generation connectivity. This is vital for economic opportunity and prosperous communities. The current Administration has appropriated a lot of money for broadband infrastructure proj- ects, but it has failed to pair that spending with reforms that free more airwaves for wireless connectivity or streamline the permitting processes for broadband builds. That failure is holding back America’s hardworking telecommunications crews and leaving Americans stuck waiting on the wrong side of the digital divide. It is time for a return to the successful spectrum and infrastructure policies that prevailed during the Trump Administration—policies that enabled the U.S. to lead the world in 5G. l Refill America’s spectrum pipeline. From 2017 through 2020, the FCC took unprecedented steps to free the airwaves needed to power 5G and other next-generation wireless services. This work not only helped to secure America’s wireless leadership and bolster competition, but also enabled the private sector to create jobs and grow the economy. Recently, the FCC has failed to match the pace and cadence of those spectrum actions. Therefore, the FCC and a new Administration should work together to develop a national spectrum strategy that both identifies the specific airwaves that the FCC can free for commercial wireless services and sets an aggressive timeline for agency action. l Facilitate coordination on spectrum issues. Wireless services now play a central role in advancing America’s economic and national security interests. Over the past few years, this dynamic has led to an increasing number of headline-level disputes between the commercial wireless sector and federal agencies. These disputes are often framed in zero-sum terms as commercial wireless and federal agency stakeholders argue over the appropriate types and amount of airwaves that the government should allocate for various purposes. On the one hand, America’s global economic leadership depends on its ability to free spectrum that will power the U.S. commercial wireless industry. On the other hand, we must ensure that America’s national security and other federal agencies have access to the spectrum resources that they need to carry out their vital missions. — 854 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise It is clear that the current process is not delivering optimal outcomes. In December 2021 and January 2022, for instance, the lack of interagency coordination and communication about mid-band 5G spectrum allocation between the FCC and the Federal Aviation Authority led to significant challenges for the U.S. aviation industry. Over the past two years, the FCC has failed to move spectrum into the commercial marketplace at the same pace and cadence that it did in the recent past. Creating better mechanisms to improve communication and cooperation between different federal agencies could enable a more effective and coordinated U.S. government telecommunications strategy. The White House should work with Congress to establish a spectrum coordination process that will work for both commercial and federal users. l Modernize infrastructure rules. By 2016, the construction of new cell sites—the building blocks for 5G—had essentially flatlined in America. Because of outdated permitting rules, it cost too much and took too long to build wireless infrastructure, so the FCC went to work. The agency updated the environmental and historic preservation rules that needlessly drove up the cost and slowed down the timeline for adding small cells. The FCC put in place guardrails to address outlier fees and delays imposed at the state and local levels on those same small-cell projects. It modernized the permitting process in several additional ways as well. Those FCC reforms delivered results. They allowed America’s private sector to bring thousands of families across the digital divide and to keep Americans connected during the pandemic. In fact, infrastructure builds accelerated at a record pace after those reforms. In 2019, for instance, U.S. providers built over 46,000 new cell sites—a sixty-fivefold increase over 2016 levels. The FCC has not engaged in any similar infrastructure reforms in recent years, and there is much more that needs to be done. For instance, the FCC’s prior reforms focused on streamlining the rules for small wireless facilities. The FCC should now explore similar action for the deployment of other wired infrastructure by imposing limits on the fees that local and state governments can charge for reviewing those wireline applications and time restrictions on the government’s decision-making process. The next Administration should also work to address the delays that continue to persist when it comes to building Internet infrastructure on federal lands. This is an area where the FCC itself has very little jurisdiction,

Federal Communications Commission

Moderate

Vector: 65%

Pages: 888-890AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 FCC section aim to enhance the FCC's role in advancing next‑generation communications technology and improving government coordination, though the bill focuses on a 6G task force while Project 2025 emphasizes satellite broadband deployment and spending accountability."

Key themes:FCCnext‑generation communicationsnational securitygovernment coordinationtechnology deployment

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Minimal

Vector: 65%

Pages: 437-439AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The FUTURE Networks Act focuses on 6G wireless technology deployment and FCC task force creation, which is unrelated to the Project 2025 policy section addressing FERC reforms, electric transmission, natural gas pipelines, and Department of Energy oversight. There is no thematic or policy overlap between wireless technology initiatives and the energy transmission reforms described."

— 405 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions l End undue discrimination that allows subsidized resources to distort price formation in RTOs. l Affirm its commitment that states will decide whether to join an RTO instead of imposing RTOs on regions that do not want them. FERC should also consider allowing states to enter into non-RTO power pools with alternative structures for the sharing of resources and electric generation. FERC: ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION Mission/Overview Under the Federal Power Act, FERC has the authority to regulate the rates, terms, and conditions of interstate electric transmission. (Pursuant to court cases, interstate transmission can be entirely within a state, although the part of Texas served by ERCOT is not under FERC transmission jurisdiction.) Needed Reforms FERC has been considering how to plan for and allocate costs for new trans- mission lines and how new generation resources will be interconnected to the transmission grid. (Transmission expansion and replacement decisions are usu- ally made by local utilities or by an RTO or regional planning entity). Through two major rulemakings,118 FERC is attempting to facilitate the building of more long-range transmission lines and to socialize more of the costs of transmission buildouts to more customers in order to make it cheaper for renewable develop- ers (primarily) to interconnect to the grid and sell their power. Socializing such costs is a form of subsidy for generators and will cause further price distortions in RTOs and ISOs that will make it less economical for reliable, dispatchable resources like coal, nuclear, and natural gas to stay operational and support reliability.119 Also, under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, DOE and FERC are granted authority to site and permit high-priority transmission lines as National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (NIETCs). The Inflation Reduction Act provides funding to DOE to support transmission expansion.120 These initiatives will undermine state input and decision-making. FERC will consider rules on how NIETC transmission applications are to be made. New Policies FERC should either change course on its existing transmission rulemakings (if still in progress) or issue a new rulemaking to: — 406 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Ensure that transmission planning and interconnection processes are resource neutral. l Prevent socializing costs for customers who do not benefit from the projects or justifying such cost shifts as advancing vague “societal benefits” such as climate change. l Stop cost allocation from becoming a subsidy for generators, such as renewables. With respect to NIETCs, FERC and the new DESAS should ensure that state interests are respected and not allow such NEITC transmission lines to be devel- oped as a mere subsidy to renewable developers. Furthermore, much of the transmission buildout (including its attendant costs) is being driven by renewable developers seeking market share. These projects are causing rates for customers to go up and hurting reliability. FERC needs to ensure that transmission buildouts are planned for the benefit of customers. FERC: NATURAL GAS PIPELINES Mission/Overview FERC permits, sites, and authorizes the construction and operation of inter- state natural gas pipelines.121 It also regulates the rates for the shipping of natural gas122 (but not the price of the natural gas commodity, which is market based). FERC is charged with ensuring that natural gas pipelines are approved if they are required by the “public convenience and necessity.”123 Pipeline permitting is sub- ject to environmental reviews under NEPA, and the rate for the pipeline and the shipping of the commodity is set by FERC under a just and reasonable standard. Once FERC approves a project, the holder of the certificate has the sovereign’s power of eminent domain. Needed Reforms Natural gas pipelines are vital for the economy, manufacturing, heating, and electric generation. Opposition from “Keep it in the ground” environmentalists has made it harder to gain approvals for natural gas pipelines. Under Democrat leadership, FERC has proposed official policies to consider upstream and down- stream GHG emissions from the use of the natural gas that would be shipped in the pipeline to be part of FERC’s public-interest determination when deciding whether to approve a pipeline. There is conflicting direction from the D.C. Circuit on the GHG issue, which also could be seen as a “major questions” issue under the U.S. Supreme Court’s West Virginia v. EPA decision.124

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Matsui, Doris O.

Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2025

119/hr/2140

Reversionary Interest Conveyance Act

119/hr/952

Kari's Law Reporting Act

119/hr/5201