SECURE Grid Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/7257
Last Updated: September 7, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Latta, Robert E. [R-OH-5]

ID: L000566

Follow the money

The bill

SECURE Grid Act

HR. 7257, 119th Congress — read as touching Electric Utilities.

The sponsor

Rep. Latta, Robert E. [R-OH-5]

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

The money

$71,500 raised

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

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Energy and Related Commissions" section, p. 443-445 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 Energy and Natural Resources.

July 12, 2026

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

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the geniuses in Congress. The SECURE Grid Act, because who doesn't love a good acronym? Let's dissect this farce and uncover the real disease beneath the symptoms.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's stated purpose is to amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to require states to include supporting the physical security, cybersecurity, and resilience of local distribution systems in their energy security plans. How noble. In reality, it's just a thinly veiled attempt to funnel more money to special interest groups and pad the pockets of politicians.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill makes several changes to existing law, including redefining "local distribution system" and expanding the scope of state energy security plans to include cybersecurity threats. Oh, and let's not forget the obligatory report from the GAO, because what's a congressional bill without a healthy dose of bureaucratic busywork? These provisions are merely symptoms of the underlying disease: the insatiable hunger for power and money that drives our politicians.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are affected: electric utilities, equipment suppliers, and state governments. But let's be real, the only stakeholders who truly matter are the lobbyists and special interest groups who will reap the benefits of this bill. The rest are just pawns in their game of corruption.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact is negligible, except for the aforementioned special interest groups, who will likely see a significant increase in funding and influence. For the average citizen, it's just another example of government waste and inefficiency. But hey, at least we'll have more "secure" energy infrastructure... or so they claim.

In conclusion, the SECURE Grid Act is a textbook case of legislative malpractice. It's a bill that promises much but delivers little, except to those who matter most: the politicians and special interest groups who will profit from it. So, let's give it the diagnosis it deserves: a bad case of " Politician-itis," a disease characterized by an insatiable hunger for power, money, and self-aggrandizement, with symptoms including corruption, incompetence, and a complete disregard for the public good. Prognosis: terminal stupidity.

Related Topics

Energy Production & ConservationClimate Change & Sustainability
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Latta, Robert E. [R-OH-5]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$71,500
22 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$5,500
Committees
$0
Individuals
$66,000

No PAC contributions found

1
HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
2 transactions
$2,000
2
WATKINS & EAGER PLLC
1 transaction
$1,000
3
SENECA COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY
1 transaction
$1,000
4
BL PARTNERS GROUP LLC
2 transactions
$1,000
5
CRAWFORD COUNTY CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION
1 transaction
$500

No committee contributions found

1
ERGEN, CANDY MRS.
2 transactions
$6,600
2
ERGEN, CHARLES MR.
2 transactions
$6,600
3
FAISON, JAY
2 transactions
$6,600
4
MURPHY, JAMES
1 transaction
$3,300
5
TAYLOR, KENNETH
1 transaction
$3,300
6
KALMBACH, PAUL MR.
1 transaction
$3,300
7
WARNER, DAVID
1 transaction
$3,300
8
WARNER, GERALDINE B. MRS.
1 transaction
$3,300
9
ARNOLD, JOHN
1 transaction
$3,300
10
ARNOLD, LAURA
1 transaction
$3,300
11
HALE, ROBERT
1 transaction
$3,300
12
MCCAULLEY, KAITLIN
1 transaction
$3,300
13
COOPER, CHERYL J. MRS.
1 transaction
$3,300
14
COOPER, GARY A. MR.
1 transaction
$3,300
15
WILEY, LAWRENCE
1 transaction
$3,300
16
BLOCK, ALLAN MR.
1 transaction
$3,300
17
BLOCK, SUSAN MRS.
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 4 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

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

ID: M001163

Top Contributors

22

1
SOCIETY OF INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
PACFAIRFAX, VA
$2,500
Feb 7, 2023
2
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$2,000
Mar 10, 2023
3
KINNEY, MARY
MGK STYLE • STYLIST/CEO
IndividualSACRAMENTO, CA
$3,300
Oct 30, 2024
4
KONG, MINDY
N/A • HOMEMAKER
IndividualSACRAMENTO, CA
$3,300
Oct 25, 2024
5
TSAKOPOULOS, KATINA
SELF-EMPLOYED • SOMATIC EXPERIENCING PRACTITIONER
IndividualRANCHO SANTA FE, CA
$3,300
Nov 1, 2024
6
TSAKOPOULOS, SOFIA
N/A • HOMEMAKER
IndividualSACRAMENTO, CA
$3,300
Nov 1, 2024
7
VISMARA, LOUIS A.
IndividualSACRAMENTO, CA
$3,300
Nov 1, 2024
8
WAGNER, BELAN KIRK
WAGNER KIRKMAN BLAINE KLOMPARENS • ATTORNEY
IndividualMATHER, CA
$3,300
May 30, 2023
9
KELLEY, LARRY D.
MCCLELLAN PARK • REAL ESTATE
IndividualMCCLELLAN, CA
$3,300
May 11, 2023
10
FRIEDMAN, MARK L.
FULCRUM PROPERTY GROUP • REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER
IndividualSACRAMENTO, CA
$3,300
Jun 14, 2023

Rep. Balderson, Troy [R-OH-12]

ID: B001306

Top Contributors

23

1
THORP FOR SHERIFF
OrganizationNEWARK, OH
$500
Oct 7, 2024
2
FRIENDS OF MARK FRAIZER
OrganizationCOLUMBUS, OH
$250
Jun 15, 2023
3
FRIENDS OF MARK FRAIZER
OrganizationCOLUMBUS, OH
$200
Sep 3, 2024
4
STEMMER, THOMAS A
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualBYESVILLE, OH
$5,800
Feb 28, 2024
5
STEMMER, THOMAS A
IndividualBYESVILLE, OH
$5,800
Feb 28, 2024
6
BORKOWSKI, BRIAN
LACO HOLDINGS • CEO
IndividualBELLEAIR BEACH, FL
$3,300
Oct 22, 2024
7
MACKINNON, JEFFREY
FARRAGUT PARTNERS • LOBBYIST
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Nov 5, 2024
8
DICKERSON, RICHARD D
UTILITY TECHNOLOGY INT'L CORP • CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
IndividualWEST JEFFERSON, OH
$3,300
Oct 26, 2023
9
LEMMON, THEODORE
SHELLY COMPANY • SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT
IndividualNEW PLYMOUTH, OH
$3,300
Dec 15, 2023
10
DICKERSON, JOAN
HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER
IndividualWEST JEFFERSON, OH
$3,300
Oct 26, 2023

Rep. James, John [R-MI-10]

ID: J000307

Top Contributors

25

1
REPUBLICAN CLUB OF SAN FRANCISCO
COMSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$300
Oct 25, 2024
2
PECHANGA BAND OF INDIANS
OrganizationTEMECULA, CA
$3,000
Dec 31, 2023
3
LAS VEGAS PAIUTE TRIBE
OrganizationLAS VEGAS, NV
$1,000
Dec 23, 2024
4
MWR CONSULTING
OrganizationCLARKSVILLE, MD
$1,000
Jan 31, 2023
5
SABBYS LOUNGE
OrganizationSAINT CLAIR SHORES, MI
$250
Sep 11, 2024
6
FAUST, ANNE
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualNEWTOWN SQUARE, PA
$6,600
Apr 30, 2024
7
COURTNEY, KRISTEN ANN
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualOKEMOS, MI
$6,600
May 1, 2024
8
DANIELS, GEORGE G.
DANIELS MANUFACTURING CORP • EXECUTIVE
IndividualORLANDO, FL
$6,600
Jun 26, 2024
9
FAISON, JAY W.
CLEARPATH ACTION INC • PRESIDENT
IndividualCHARLOTTE, NC
$6,600
Jun 27, 2024
10
BRAY, STEVEN R.
POWER PLUS • PRESIDENT / CEO
IndividualNEWPORT BEACH, CA
$6,600
Jun 30, 2024

Rep. Onder, Robert F. [R-MO-3]

ID: O000177

Top Contributors

20

1
O'BRIEN, FRANK
O'BRIEN INDUSTRIAL HOLDINGS • OWNER
IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO
$13,200
Mar 31, 2024
2
ONDER, JAMES G
ONDERLAW, LLC • ATTORNEY
IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO
$13,200
Mar 26, 2024
3
BURNS, ROBERT
PATRIOT MACHINE • VICE PRESIDENT
IndividualCHESTERFIELD, MO
$13,200
Sep 5, 2024
4
POGUE, RICHARD W.
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualWRIGHT CITY, MO
$13,200
Jun 20, 2024
5
SCHULTE, STEVE
HENGES INTERIORS • OWNER
IndividualWELDON SPRING, MO
$13,200
May 8, 2024
6
MUELLER, DOUGLAS
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualO FALLON, MO
$10,000
Mar 6, 2024
7
OBRIEN, JOHN
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualLAKE ST LOUIS, MO
$10,000
Mar 11, 2024
8
SMITH, MENLO
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualCHESTERFIELD, MO
$7,500
Mar 21, 2024
9
STOFFA, ROBERT
WINDBER HOSPITAL • PHYSICIAN
IndividualLIGONIER, PA
$6,870
Mar 28, 2024
10
KOVAC, AMY
BAIN CO • BUSINESS CONSULTANT
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$6,818
Mar 30, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Latta, Robert E. [R-OH-5]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 49 nodes and 58 connections

Total contributions: $58

Top Donors - Rep. Latta, Robert E. [R-OH-5]

Showing top 22 donors by contribution amount

5 Orgs17 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 helped.

  • +Electric Utilitiesconfidence 0.90

    Section 2(2) adds 'and suppliers of equipment for the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity to' after 'owners and operators of' in subsection (b)(2), expanding the scope of entities considered in State energy security plans to include equipment suppliers, which benefits electric utilities and related suppliers by increasing focus on their security and resilience.

  • Section 2(3)(A)(iii) and (B) require addressing supply chain risks for equipment for generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity and cybersecurity threats to local distribution systems, which benefits energy infrastructure companies (pipelines, midstream, LNG) by emphasizing security and resilience of distribution systems they may supply or interconnect with.

  • Section 2(3)(A)(iii) mentions supply chain risks for equipment for generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity, which includes semiconductor and hardware components used in grid equipment, potentially benefiting these industries through increased focus on securing their supply chains.

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.

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Strong
Vector: 68%
Pages: 443-445AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The SECURE Grid Act's focus on enhancing physical and cyber security, resilience, and state-level planning for local distribution systems directly supports the Department of Energy's grid security objectives outlined in Project 2025, particularly the intent behind Executive Order 13920 and related DOE initiatives to secure the nation's electric infrastructure."

Key themes:grid securitycybersecurityphysical securityresiliencestate energy security plans

— 411 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions 19. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13920, “Securing the United States Bulk-Power System,” May 1, 2020, in Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 86 (May 4, 2020), pp. 26595–26599, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/ pkg/FR-2020-05-04/pdf/2020-09695.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 20. 18 U.S. Code § 824a(c), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/16/824a (accessed February 27, 2023). 21. Report No. 117-98, Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2022, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, 117th Cong. 1st Sess., July 20, 2021, p. 6, https:// www.congress.gov/117/crpt/hrpt98/CRPT-117hrpt98.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 22. H.R. 3684, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law No. 11-58, 117th Congress, November 15, 2021, Division J, Title III. 23. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, p. 7. 24. Timothy Gardner, “White House Asks Congress for $500 mln to Modernize Oil Reserve,” Reuters, November 16, 2022, https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-oil-spr-idAFL1N32C36I (accessed February 13, 2023). 25. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Electricity, “Our History,” https://www.energy.gov/oe/about-us/our- history (accessed February 13, 2023). 26. Press release, “Secretary of Energy Signs Order to Mitigate Security Risks to the Nation’s Electric Grid,” U.S. Department of Energy, December 17, 2021, https://www.energy.gov/articles/secretary-energy-signs-order- mitigate-security-risks-nations-electric-grid (accessed February 13, 2023). 27. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Electricity, “Revocation of Prohibition Order Securing Critical Defense Facilities,” Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 76 (April 22, 2021), pp. 21308–21309, https://www.govinfo.gov/ content/pkg/FR-2021-04-22/pdf/2021-08483.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 28. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 19 and 61. 29. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy, “About Us,” https://www.energy.gov/ne/about-us (accessed February 13, 2023). 30. H.R. 3809, Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Public Law No. 97-425, 97th Congress, January 7, 1983, https:// www.congress.gov/97/statute/STATUTE-96/STATUTE-96-Pg2201.pdf (accessed February 24, 2023). 31. The Heritage Foundation, “Budget Blueprint for Fiscal Year 2023: Reduce the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy,” https://www.heritage.org/budget/pages/recommendations/1.270.127.html. 32. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 23 and 58. 33. 42 USC § 16291, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/16291 (accessed February 27, 2023). 34. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, “About Us: Mission,” https:// www.energy.gov/fecm/mission (accessed February 13, 2023). 35. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Carbon Capture and Storage: Actions Needed to Improve DOE Management of Demonstration Projects, GAO-22-105111, December2021, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22- 105111.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 36. International Energy Agency, The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions, World Energy Outlook Special Report, revised March 2022, https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ffd2a83b-8c30-4e9d-980a- 52b6d9a86fdc/TheRoleofCriticalMineralsinCleanEnergyTransitions.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 37. See 42 U.S. Code § 16291. 38. 42 U.S. Code Ch. 55, §§ 4321–4347, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-55 (accessed February 27, 2023). 39. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Categorical Exclusions from Environmental Review,” Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Request for Comment, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 87 (May 7, 2021), pp. 24514–24516, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-05-07/pdf/2021-09675.pdf (accessed February 27, 2023), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Categorical Exclusions from Environmental Review,” Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Reopening of Comment Period, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 160 (August 23, 2021), pp. 47032–47033, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-08-23/pdf/2021-18058.pdf (accessed February 27, 2023). 40. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 19, 21, 23, and 52. — 412 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 41. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 3, 6, 12, 19, 21, and 23. 42. S. 622, Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, 94th Congress, December 22, 1975, https:// www.congress.gov/94/statute/STATUTE-89/STATUTE-89-Pg871.pdf (accessed February 27, 2023). 43. H.R. 6, Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law No. 109-58, 109th Congress, August 8, 2005, https://www. congress.gov/109/plaws/publ58/PLAW-109publ58.pdf (accessed February 27, 2023). 44. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, “About the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,” https://www.energy.gov/eere/about-office-energy-efficiency-and- renewable-energy (accessed February 28, 2023). 45. Ibid. 46. See note 41, supra. 47. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 19, 23, 43, and 49. 48. See U.S. Department of Energy, Grid Deployment Office, “About Us,” https://www.energy.gov/gdo/about-us (accessed February 13, 2023). 49. U.S. Department of Energy, Grid Deployment Office, “Building a Better Grid Initiative,” https://www.energy. gov/gdo/building-better-grid-initiative (accessed February 13, 2023). 50. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 2, 19, 21, 23, and 84. “The FY 2023 Budget Request to Congress proposes to split the Electricity appropriation account into two accounts: Electricity and Grid Deployment Office (GDO). Had the proposed FY 2023 structure been in place in FY 2021 and FY 2022, the $7,000,000 shown under the Electricity account’s Transmission Permitting and Technical Assistance (TPTA) program would have appeared under Grid Technical Assistance in GDO and the $3,000,000 shown under Program Direction in the Electricity account represents the estimated share of Electricity PD funding associated with TPTA and would have appeared under Program Direction in GDO.” Ibid., p. 84, note. 51. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, “About Us: Our Mission,” https://www. energy.gov/oced/about-us (accessed February 13, 2023). 52. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, p. 6. 53. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, “About Us: Our Story,” https://www. energy.gov/oced/about-us (accessed February 28, 2023). 54. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, “OCED Project Portfolio,” https://www. energy.gov/oced/office-clean-energy-demonstrations (accessed February 28, 2023). 55. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Volume 3, Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response, Federal Energy Management Program, Grid Deployment Office, Indian Energy Policy & Programs, Loan Programs, Manufacturing & Energy Supply Chains, Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, Petroleum Reserves, Power Marketing Administrations, State and Community Energy Programs, April 2022, p. 104, https://www.energy. gov/sites/default/files/2022-09/doe-fy2023-budget-volume-3-v2.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 56. See, for example, ibid., pp. 104 and 107. 57. U.S. Department of Energy, Loan Program Office, “LPO Year in Review 2022: New Legislation,” January 5, 2023, https://www.energy.gov/lpo/articles/lpo-year-review-2022 (accessed February 28, 2023). Emphases in original. 58. H.R. 6256, To Ensure That Goods Made with Forced Labor in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of the People’s Republic of China Do Not Enter the United States Market, and for Other Purposes, Public Law No. 117-78, 117th Congress, December 23, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ78/PLAW-117publ78.pdf (accessed February 28, 2023). 59. H.R. 2272, America COMPETES Act, Public Law 110–69, 110th Congress, August 9, 2007, § 5012, https://www. congress.gov/110/plaws/publ69/PLAW-110publ69.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 60. Ibid., § 5012(c)(1). 61. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, March 2022, p. 103.

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Strong
Vector: 65%
Pages: 413-415AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The SECURE Grid Act aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on enhancing grid reliability and resilience, particularly through state-level planning and federal coordination, while shifting focus away from renewable expansion subsidies toward security and physical infrastructure protection."

Key themes:grid reliabilityenergy securitystate energy planscybersecurityresilience

— 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.

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Strong
Vector: 65%
Pages: 401-403AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The SECURE Grid Act directly supports the Project 2025 goal of protecting energy infrastructure from cyber and physical threats by mandating state energy security plans to address local distribution system security, promoting resilience and reliability. While it does not address all policy elements (e.g., eliminating special-interest programs or FERC focus), it strongly aligns with the core objective of enhancing energy security through threat mitigation and coordination."

Key themes:energy securitycybersecurityphysical threatsresiliencereliability

— 368 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise National Energy Security. Protecting American infrastructure from cyber and physical threats, both natural and human, is vital to national security, the economy, and the well-being of the American people. Protecting and advanc- ing these national security interests is a proper role for the federal government. DESAS should: l Focus on studying threats to the electric grid, natural gas, and oil infrastructure; sharing such information with the energy industry; promoting the reliability and security of energy resources and infrastructure; and developing strategies and technologies to combat threats by working with the National Labs. The following offices would report to the DESAS Undersecretary of Energy Security: 1. Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response (CESER), elevated to an Assistant Secretary. CESER would work with the existing or reconstituted versions (as described in more detail below) of the Office of Electricity (OE); Office of Nuclear Energy (NE); Office of Fossil Energy (FE), currently the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management (FECM); Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE); and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to identify and address threats to energy infrastructure.7 Instead of trying to decarbonize the American economy and allocating taxpayer dollars for commercialization of energy technologies, these offices would focus on energy security by identifying threats to energy supplies and infrastructure, developing strategies to address those threats, and funding fundamental science and technology where appropriate. 2. Office of Electricity (Assistant Secretary). 3. Office of Nuclear Energy (Assistant Secretary). 4. Office of Fossil Energy (Assistant Secretary, with Carbon Management deleted from its title and purpose. 5. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (Assistant Secretary). 6. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (stand-alone or part of CESER). l Eliminate special-interest funding programs. Many DOE energy funding programs are not targeted on fundamental science and technology; instead, they focus more on commercialization and act as subsidies to the — 369 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions private sector for government-favored resources. The DOE Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED); Office of State and Community Energy Programs; ARPA-E; Office of Grid Deployment (OGD); and DOE Loan Program should be eliminated or reformed. If they continue to exist, FECM, NE, OE, and EERE should focus on fundamental science and technology issues, particularly in relation to cyber and physical threats to energy security, rather than subsidizing and commercializing energy resources. l Eliminate political and climate-change interference in DOE approvals of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports. In addition, Congress should reform the Natural Gas Act8 to expand required approvals from merely nations with free trade agreements to all of our allies, such as NATO countries. l Focus the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) on ensuring that government buildings and operations have reliable and cost- effective energy. FEMP should stop using taxpayer dollars to force the purchase of more expensive and less reliable energy resources in the name of combating climate change. l Ensure that information provided by the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA), a data and statistical organization, is data-neutral. l Focus FERC on its statutory obligation to ensure access to reliable energy at just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory rates. FERC is a five-member commission created under the DOE Organization Act that regulates the wholesale sales and transmission of electricity, promotes electric reliability through standards, permits natural gas pipelines and LNG export facilities, sets natural gas pipeline shipping rates, and sets oil pipeline shipping rates. It is an economic regulator and should not make itself a climate regulator. l Streamline the nuclear regulatory requirements and licensing process. Such changes would help to lower costs and accelerate the development and deployment of civilian nuclear, such as advanced nuclear reactors (including small modular nuclear reactors). The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is commission tasked with the licensing of civilian nuclear reactors and power plants and regulating other uses of nuclear materials, such as nuclear medicine. Although it is not a DOE agency, its jurisdiction over nuclear reactor, fuel, safety, and trade issues often relates to or impinges on DOE’s jurisdiction.

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.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills