Crystal Reservoir Conveyance Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/s/2754

Last Updated: September 7, 2026

Crystal Reservoir Conveyance Act

S. 2754, 119th Congress — read as touching Agribusiness.

The sponsor

Sen. Bennet, Michael F. [D-CO]

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

The money

$74,350 raised

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

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of the Interior" section, p. 563-565 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.

July 15, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

📍 Current Status

Next: The full Senate will vote on whether to pass the bill.

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

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: S 2754 - Crystal Reservoir Conveyance Act**

As a visionary entrepreneur and astute observer of the legislative landscape, I shall dissect this bill with surgical precision, focusing on its implications for wealth creation, power dynamics, and regulatory frameworks.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this bill is to convey approximately 45 acres of federal land, including Crystal Reservoir, to the City of Ouray, Colorado. This transfer aims to facilitate local management and control over the reservoir's operations, maintenance, and water rights.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

1. **Conveyance:** The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to convey the federal land to the City of Ouray, subject to certain conditions and requirements. 2. **Water Rights:** The bill transfers associated water rights, including those related to Full Moon Ditch and Reservoir Number 10, to the City. 3. **Easements:** The City must grant easements for existing trails and roads on the federal land. 4. **Maintenance and Operations:** The City assumes responsibility for repairs, operations, and maintenance of Full Moon Dam and related infrastructure.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. **City of Ouray:** The primary beneficiary of this bill, gaining control over Crystal Reservoir and associated water rights. 2. **Federal Government:** Transfers ownership and management responsibilities to the City, potentially reducing federal liabilities and costs. 3. **Local Communities:** May benefit from increased local control and decision-making authority regarding the reservoir's operations.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Consolidation of Power:** This bill exemplifies a trend towards decentralization and privatization of public assets, which can lead to increased efficiency and innovation in management. 2. **Regulatory Frameworks:** By transferring ownership and control to local authorities, this bill may reduce federal regulatory oversight, allowing for more flexible and adaptive management practices. 3. **Water Rights and Management:** The transfer of water rights may have significant implications for regional water management, potentially influencing the allocation and distribution of this vital resource.

In conclusion, S 2754 represents a strategic opportunity for the City of Ouray to consolidate control over Crystal Reservoir and associated water rights. As a visionary entrepreneur, I recognize the potential benefits of decentralization and privatization in driving innovation and efficiency. However, it is essential to monitor the implications of this bill on regional water management and regulatory frameworks to ensure that they align with the interests of key stakeholders, including myself.

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Bennet, Michael F. [D-CO]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$74,350

18 donors

PACs

Organizations

$3,250

Committees

Individuals

$71,100

No PAC contributions found

CHEROKEE NATION

2 transactions

$2,000

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

1 transaction

$1,000

QUILLER GALLERY LLC

1 transaction

$250

No committee contributions found

HEGYI, ALBERT

2 transactions

$6,600

JAMES, TATIANA B

2 transactions

$6,600

PRICE, H CHARLES

2 transactions

$6,600

ARNOLD, JOHN D

2 transactions

$6,600

FISHER, ROBERT J.

2 transactions

$6,600

BARRON, THOMAS A

1 transaction

$5,000

WALLINGER, DANIELLE

1 transaction

$5,000

WALLINGER, DIRK

1 transaction

$5,000

LEPRINO, TERRY LYNN

1 transaction

$3,300

SIE, JOHN J.

1 transaction

$3,300

JORDAN, KIMBERLEY B

1 transaction

$3,300

KAUFELT, JONATHAN D

1 transaction

$3,300

TOUFF, MICHAEL

1 transaction

$3,300

FATO, LUCIANA

1 transaction

$3,300

KAHL, JEFFREY

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 1 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Hickenlooper, John W. [D-CO]

ID: H000273

Top Contributors

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$1,300

Dec 12, 2023

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$1,200

Dec 12, 2023

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$900

Dec 31, 2023

ALLHASSANI, MEHDI

PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES • OPERATIONS

IndividualPALO ALTO, CA

$3,300

Nov 25, 2023

SANKAR, SHYAM

PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES • DIRECTOR

IndividualGREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO

$3,300

Nov 25, 2023

CARSON, RUSSELL

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Nov 17, 2023

SANKAR, SHYAM

PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES • DIRECTOR

IndividualGREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO

$3,300

Nov 25, 2023

CARSON, RUSSELL

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Nov 17, 2023

GATES, WILLIAM H. III

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION • PHILANTHROPIST

IndividualREDMOND, WA

$3,300

Oct 19, 2023

JAIN, AKASH

PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES • EXECUTIVE

IndividualOAKLAND, CA

$3,300

Nov 26, 2023

Donor Network - Sen. Bennet, Michael F. [D-CO]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 42 nodes and 58 connections

Total contributions: $58

Top Donors - Sen. Bennet, Michael F. [D-CO]

Showing top 18 donors by contribution amount

3 Orgs15 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

+Agribusinessconfidence 0.80
Section 2(e)(1)(C) maintains the Federal land as open space for recreational activities, including fishing, which may benefit agribusiness through increased access to natural resources and potential for related economic activities
+Real Estateconfidence 0.70
Section 2(b) conveys Federal land to the City, potentially increasing local real estate values and development opportunities
+Construction & Engineeringconfidence 0.60
Section 2(e)(1)(B) assumes responsibility for repairs, operations, and maintenance of Full Moon Dam and related infrastructure, which may create opportunities for construction and engineering firms

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Bennet, Michael F. [D-CO])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

Real Estate$1,500
from 1 contribution
- PETERSON, MICHAEL A$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.

Department of the Interior

Moderate

Vector: 57%

Pages: 563-565AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 policy emphasize transferring management authority from federal agencies to state or local entities for water and land resources, though the bill applies to a Colorado reservoir while the policy focuses on Alaska wildlife, waters, and land use."

Key themes:devolution of federal managementlocal/state control of water resourcespublic access and recreation

— 531 — Department of the Interior Wildlife and Waters. Throughout Alaska’s history, the federal government has treated Alaska as less than a sovereign state. This is especially the case when it comes to two of Alaska’s most valued resources, its wildlife and its waters. Immediate action is required to end, at least in part, this injustice. A new Admin- istration should: l Revoke National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rules regarding predator control and bear baiting, which are matters for state regulation. Such revocation is permitted under the 2017 Congressional Review Act.62 l Recognize Alaska’s authority to manage fish and game on all federal lands in accordance with ANILCA as during the Reagan Administration, when each DOI agency in Alaska signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game ceding to the state the lead on fish and wildlife management matters.63 l Issue a secretarial order declaring navigable waters in Alaska to be owned by the state so that the lands beneath these waters belong to Alaska. This will force the BLM to prove that water is not navigable, since in the case of non-navigability, any submerged lands belong to the BLM. Currently, BLM requires Alaska to prove navigability at its own expense—including the BLM’s preposterous assertion that the mighty Yukon River is non-navigable. l Reinstate President Trump’s 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule64 for the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, which was replaced by a Biden Roadless Rule that continues a 2001 Clinton rule affecting 9.37 million of the forest’s 16.7 million acres.65 The Clinton rule affects an area where communities are in small islands with no road access. It has prevented multiple infrastructure projects, including roads, electric transmission lines, and water and sewer projects, and it forces residents to use a heavily subsidized ferry system. Logging has been shut down to the extent that New York harvests more timber than does all of Alaska. OTHER ACTIONS The 30 by 30 Plan.66 President Biden’s Executive Order 14008 (30 by 30 plan)67 requires that the federal government, which already owns one-third of the country: (1) remove vast amounts of private property from productive use; and (2) end congressionally mandated uses of all federal land. The end result will be “total federal control of an additional 440 million acres of land or oceans in the U.S. by 2030.”68 — 532 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Although the new President should vacate that order, DOI under a conservative President must take immediate action on the 30 by 30 plan by vacating a secre- tarial order issued by the Biden DOI69 that eliminated the Trump Administration’s requirement for the approval of state and local governments before federal acquisi- tion of private property with monies from the Land and Water Conservation Fund.70 National Monument Designations. As has every Democratic President before him beginning with Jimmy Carter, Joe Biden has abused his authority under the Antiquities Act of 1906. Like the outrageous, unilateral withdrawals from public use of multiple use federal land under the Carter, Clinton, and Obama Administrations, Biden’s first national monument was one in Colorado—adopted over the objections of scores of local groups and at least one American Indian tribe.71 In the days before the 2024 election, Biden will likely designate more western monuments. Although President Trump courageously ordered a review of national mon- ument designations, the result of that review was insufficient in that only two national monuments in one state (Utah) were adjusted.72 Monuments in Maine and Oregon, for example, should have been adjusted downward given the finding of Secretary Ryan Zinke’s review that they were improperly designated. The new Administration’s review will permit a fresh look at past monument decrees and new ones by President Biden. Furthermore, the new Administration must vigorously defend the downward adjustments it makes to permit a ruling on a President’s authority to reduce the size of national monuments by the U.S. Supreme Court. Finally, the new Administration must seek repeal of the Antiquities Act of 1906, which permitted emergency action by a President long before the statutory author- ity existed for the protection of special federal lands, such as those with wild and scenic rivers, endangered specials, or other unique places. Moreover, in recent years, Congress has designated as national monuments those areas deserving of such congressional action. Oregon and California Lands Act. One national monument worthy of down- ward adjustment is in Oregon, where its designation and subsequent expansion interfere with the federal obligation to residents to harvest timber on its BLM lands. A federal district court ruled in 2019 that land subject to the Oregon and California (O&C) Grant Lands Act of 193773 was set aside by Congress to be har- vested for the benefit of the people of Oregon. Specifically, those federal lands are to be “managed…for permanent forest production” and its timber “sold, cut, and removed in conformity with the princip[le] of sustained yield.”74 As the district court concluded,75 beginning in 1990, the federal government erected a trifecta of illegal barriers to the accomplishment of the congressional mandate, beginning with a response to the listing of the northern spotted owl,76 continuing a decade later with the designation of the Cascade–Siskiyou National Monument,77 and concluding in 2017 with an expansion of that monument.78 In

Environmental Protection Agency

Weak

Vector: 57%

Pages: 461-463AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on transferring federal land and reservoir management to a local municipality, while the Project 2025 EPA section outlines regulatory reforms for the Office of Water (e.g., guidance reform, WOTUS rule, CWA Section 401). The only connection is a general concern for water resources, but there is no direct alignment with the EPA's proposed policy changes."

Key themes:water managementlocal controlwater storage

— 428 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Personnel, Budget, and Office Restructuring l Place a political appointee in Ann Arbor, Michigan, for the Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ, regulating mobile sources) and a political appointee in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, for the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS, regulating stationary sources) and give those appointees the requisite titles and authority to oversee the OTAQ and OAQPS staff. l Establish a political Chief of Staff in D.C. to manage the entire air office. l Pull the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program out of OTAQ; establish its own suboffice in D.C. (with status parallel to OTAQ and OAQPS) that is headed by a political appointee; and establish a Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Energy to work together to establish RFS programs. l Require regional air offices to receive approval from OAR before moving forward with enforcement actions in order to ensure that enforcement is meeting the requirements established by regulations and is not going beyond them. OFFICE OF WATER (OW) OW is responsible for ensuring safe drinking water and restoring and main- taining oceans, watersheds, and their aquatic ecosystems to protect human health, support economic and recreational activities, and provide healthy habitats for fish, plants, and wildlife. Its two main statutes include implementing the Clean Water Act (CWA)26 and Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).27 OW has generated a large number of expansive regulations that infringe on private property rights, most notably with the Waters of the U.S. program. Needed Reforms The overarching theme for reform is guidance on guidance. OW relies heav- ily on guidance documents that are outdated and that sometimes have been in a “deliberative” state for years. Additionally, there are significant issues surrounding OW’s holding up guidance as something more than simply guidance: as something akin to law in certain circumstances. The August 6, 2019, “Office of Water Policy for Draft Documents” memorandum28 should be strictly enforced to ensure transpar- ency as well as good governance by not letting guidance linger in draft form and by also ensuring that guidance documents are clearly just that: guidance. They do not have the effect of law and should not be treated by the office as if they did have any such effect. — 429 — Environmental Protection Agency As a matter of broad practice, OW should be complying with statutorily estab- lished deadlines in all situations with only minimal exceptions. In cases where statutory deadlines will not be met, senior management should be made aware of the delay and should have an opportunity to determine whether alternative courses should be taken. Depending on the outcome of regulations from the Biden Administration as well as intervention by the Supreme Court on both waters of the United States (WOTUS) and CWA Section 401,29 the repeal and reissuance of new regulations should be pursued. New Policies New regulations should include the following: l A WOTUS rule that makes clear what is and is not a “navigable water” and respects private property rights. Coordinate with Congress to develop legislation, if necessary, to codify the definition in Rapanos v. United States that “waters of the United States” can refer only to “relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water…as opposed to ordinarily dry channels through which water occasionally or intermittently flows.”30 l A rule that provides clarity and regulatory certainty regarding the CWA Section 401 water quality certification process to limit unnecessary delay for needed projects, including by establishing a discharge-only approach with a limited scope (from point sources into navigable waters), assessing only water quality factors that are consistent with specific CWA sections, and excluding speculative analysis regarding future potential harm. l A rule to ensure that CWA Section 30831 has a clear and enforced time limit. l A rule to clarify the standard for criminal negligence under CWA Sections 40232 and 404.33 l A rule to prohibit retroactive or preemptive permits under CWA Section 404. l A rule to promote and shape nutrient trading that utilizes a carrot-versus- stick approach when dealing with nutrient compliance. l A rule to update compensatory mitigation that imposes no new or additional requirements beyond current law. l A rule on updates necessary for the effective use of the CWA needs survey.

Department of the Interior

Weak

Vector: 56%

Pages: 554-556AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on transferring a small parcel of federal land for local recreation and water management, whereas Project 2025's DOI section emphasizes expanding fossil fuel production and rolling back climate restrictions on federal lands. There is only a tangential connection through general federal land management themes."

Key themes:federal land conveyancelocal land managementpublic access

— 521 — Department of the Interior declining. Additionally, 42 percent of coal production takes place on federal lands in 11 states.12 DOI manages a subsurface mineral estate of 700 million acres onshore and 1.76 billion acres offshore, for a total of 2.46 billion acres. The total land area of the U.S. is 2.263 billion acres. Private and state lands, at 1.563 billion acres, make up only 39 percent of the total onshore and offshore subsurface area of the United States. Oil, natural gas, coal, and other minerals on federal lands and waters are managed by the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, and Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement; these agencies’ responsibilities frequently overlap with resource management by the U.S. Forest Service in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, state governments, and private property owners. Biden is “aligning the management of…public lands and waters…to support robust climate action,” as envisioned in Executive Orders 14008 and 13990.13 One of his first actions was to ban federal coal, oil, and natural gas leasing on federal lands and waters to fulfill his campaign promise of “no federal oil,” followed by actions from Interior Secretary Deb Haaland to rescind the Trump Administration’s Energy Dominance Agenda. To this end, DOI unilaterally overhauled resource management plans, lease sales, fees, rents, royalty rates, bonding requirements, and permitting processes to prevent new production of coal, oil, and natural gas on federal lands and waters; to dramatically increase production of solar and wind energy; and to accomplish its “30 by 30,” “America the Beautiful” agenda to remove federal lands from “multiple”—that is, productive—use. DOI is abusing National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)14 processes, the Antiquities Act,15 and bureaucratic procedures to advance a radical climate agenda, ostensibly to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, for which DOI has no statutory responsibility or authority.16 The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OSCLA), General Mining Law,17 and other congressional acts clearly set forth multiple-use principles and processes that include production of coal, oil, natural gas, and other minerals, as legitimate activities consistent with the welfare of all Americans and of environmental stewardship. Biden’s DOI is hoarding supplies of energy and keeping them from Americans whose lives could be improved with cheaper and more abundant energy while making the economy stronger and providing job opportunities for Americans. DOI is a bad manager of the public trust and has operated lawlessly in defiance of congressional statute and federal court orders. ADMINISTRATION PRIORITIES Rollbacks. A new Administration must immediately roll back Biden’s orders, reinstate the Trump-era Energy Dominance Agenda, rescind Secretarial Order (SO) 3398, and review all regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, and — 522 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise similar agency actions made in compliance with that order.18 Meanwhile, the new Administration must immediately reinstate the following Trump DOI sec- retarial orders: l SO 3348: Concerning the Federal Coal Moratorium;19 l SO 3349: American Energy Independence;20 l SO 3350: America-First Offshore Energy Strategy;21 l SO 3351: Strengthening the Department of the Interior’s Energy Portfolio;22 l SO 3352: National Petroleum Reserve—Alaska;23 l SO 3354: Supporting and Improving the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Program and Federal Solid Mineral Leasing Program;24 l SO 3355: Streamlining National Environmental Policy Reviews and Implementation of Executive Order 13807, “Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects”;25 l SO 3358: Executive Committee for Expedited Permitting;26 l SO 3360: Rescinding Authorities Inconsistent with Secretary’s Order 3349, “American Energy Independence;”27 l SO 3380: Public Notice of the Costs Associated with Developing Department of the Interior Publications and Similar Documents;28 l SO 3385: Enforcement Priorities;29 and l SO 3389: Coordinating and Clarifying National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Reviews.30 Actions. At the same time, the new Administration must: l Reinstate quarterly onshore lease sales in all producing states according to the model of BLM’s IM 2018–034, with the slight adjustment of including expanded public notice and comment.31 The new Administration should work with Congress on legislation, such as the Lease Now Act32 and

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Minimal

Vector: 56%

Pages: 428-430AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on transferring federal land and water infrastructure to a local municipality for recreational and water storage purposes, which is unrelated to the Project 2025 policy objectives concerning nuclear waste management, Yucca Mountain licensing, or Environmental Management reform within the Department of Energy."

— 396 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Increase the use of commercial waste disposal. Using commercial disposal would reduce capital costs (~ $2 billion) for new disposal sites to accelerate cleanup and reduce local post-cleanup environmental liability at multiple sites. l Revisit the Hanford cleanup’s regulatory framework. Hanford poses significant political and legal challenges with the State of Washington, and DOE will have to work with Congress to make progress in accelerating cleanup at that site. DOE and EPA need to work more closely to coordinate their responses to claims made under the TPA and work more aggressively for changes, including congressional action if necessary, to achieve workable cleanup goals. l Establish more direct leadership and accountability to the Deputy Secretary consistent with Government Accountability Office recommendations.91 l Change Environmental Management’s culture to promote innovation and completion. Budget Environmental Management received slightly less than $7.6 billion in FY 2021, and its budget request for FY 2023 is approximately $8.06 billion.92 The additional funding necessary to accelerate closure of the program will need to be considered as part of a broader government-wide discussion about yearly appropriations. OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT (OCRWM) (CURRENTLY OFFICE OF SPENT FUEL AND WASTE DISPOSITION) Mission/Overview The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982 conferred the responsibility for commercial nuclear waste disposal on the federal government,93 and in 2002, Congress designated a single repository located at Yucca Mountain in Nevada as the national repository site. The act also established the Office of Civilian Radio- active Waste Management (OCRWM).94 The Obama Administration shut down OCRWM in 2010. The Office of Spent Fuel and Waste Disposition, which is headed by a non-confirmed Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Office of Nuclear Energy, is currently responsible for the management of nuclear waste, and interim disposal is taking place on various sites. Providing a plan for the proper disposal of civilian nuclear waste is essential to the promotion of nuclear power in the United States. — 397 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions Needed Reforms l Work with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as it reviews DOE’s permit application for Yucca Mountain. According to both the scientific community and global experience, deep geologic storage is critical to any plan for the proper disposal of more than 75 years of defense waste and 80,000 tons of commercial spent nuclear fuel.95 Yucca Mountain remains a viable option for waste management, and DOE should recommit to working with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as it reviews DOE’s permit application for a repository. Finishing the review does not mean that Yucca Mountain will be completed and operational; it merely presents all the information for the State of Nevada, Congress, the nuclear industry, and the Administration to use as the basis for informed decisions. l Reform the licensing process. The reactor licensing process is inadequate. Fixing nuclear waste management will require wholesale reform that realigns responsibilities, resets incentives, and introduces market forces without creating chaos within the current nuclear industry that has been built around the current system. l Produce concrete outcomes from consent-based siting. Beginning in the Obama Administration and resurrected during the Biden Administration, consent-based siting for a civilian waste nuclear repository has been a way to delay any politically painful decisions about siting a permanent civilian nuclear waste facility. In 2022, DOE announced $16 million to support local communities in consent-based siting.96 The next Administration should use the consent-based-siting process to identify and build temporary or permanent sites for a civilian waste nuclear repository (or repositories). New Policies l Restart Yucca Mountain licensing. DOE should restart the Yucca Mountain licensing process. Any continuation of interim storage facilities should be made part of an integrated waste management system that includes geologic storage. Further, building on the consent-based siting process already underway, DOE should find a second repository site. l Fix the policy and cost drivers that are preventing nuclear storage. The federal government continues to hold $46 billion97 in the Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF),98 funded by utilities and their ratepayers for permanent disposal of nuclear waste. However, no such storage exists, and spent nuclear fuel remains on site at most nuclear plants. Meanwhile, Congress uses those funds to finance unrelated spending. Moreover, DOE’s

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Minimal

Vector: 56%

Pages: 437-439AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Crystal Reservoir Conveyance Act focuses on transferring federal land and water infrastructure to a local municipality for recreational and water management purposes, which is unrelated to the Project 2025 policy objectives concerning FERC's role in electric transmission, RTOs, cost allocation, and natural gas pipeline permitting. There is no thematic or policy overlap between the bill and the specified section of Project 2025."

— 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 Sen. Bennet, Michael F.

Colorado Outdoor Recreation and Economy Act

119/s/764

Gunnison Outdoor Resources Protection Act of 2025

119/s/1791

Dolores River National Conservation Area and Special Management Area Act

119/s/1787