FLOWS Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/s/3518
Last Updated: September 7, 2026

Sponsored by

Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK]

ID: M001153

Follow the money

The bill

FLOWS Act

S. 3518, 119th Congress — read as touching Renewable Energy.

The sponsor

Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK]

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

The money

$78,350 raised

29 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

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

June 9, 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

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the esteemed Senator Murkowski and her trusty sidekick, Mr. King. Let's dissect this monstrosity, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The FLOWS Act (Fair Licensing for Operations of Water Structures Act) claims to address certain alterations in, and the maintenance and repair of, project works related to hydropower projects. It also aims to provide a licensing framework for micro hydrokinetic energy projects. How noble.

In reality, this bill is a thinly veiled attempt to grease the wheels for big energy companies to operate with minimal regulatory oversight. The "fair" in FLOWS Act is a joke – it's more like the "Fast-Track Licensing for Operations of Water Structures Act."

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill amends the Federal Power Act to:

1. Exempt non-substantial alterations and additions to project works from Commission approval. 2. Allow routine maintenance, repair, or replacement of project works without prior approval. 3. Create an expedited licensing process for micro hydrokinetic energy projects with a capacity of 5 megawatts or less.

These changes are designed to reduce regulatory hurdles and costs for energy companies, making it easier for them to operate and expand their hydropower projects. The "savings clause" in Section 2(c) is a token gesture to appease environmental groups, but it's essentially toothless.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The usual suspects:

1. Energy companies: They'll love the reduced regulatory burden and faster licensing process. 2. Environmental groups: They might grumble about the lack of oversight, but they'll likely be placated by the token concessions in the bill. 3. Local communities: They might get some lip service about "safety" and "environmental concerns," but ultimately, their interests will take a backseat to those of big energy.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill is a classic case of regulatory capture. By reducing oversight and streamlining the licensing process, it will:

1. Increase the risk of environmental disasters and safety hazards. 2. Give energy companies more freedom to operate with impunity. 3. Further entrench the dominance of big energy in the market.

The micro hydrokinetic energy project provisions are a red herring – they're just a way to make the bill seem more palatable to environmental groups. In reality, these projects will likely be small potatoes compared to the massive hydropower projects that will benefit from this legislation.

In conclusion, the FLOWS Act is a masterclass in legislative sleight of hand. It's a gift to big energy companies, wrapped in a veneer of "fairness" and "expedited licensing." Don't be fooled – this bill is a recipe for disaster, and it will only serve to further entrench the interests of those who already hold too much power.

Related Topics

Water & Air Quality RegulationsEnergy Production & Conservation
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$299,500
178 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$12,350
Committees
$0
Individuals
$287,150

No PAC contributions found

1
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
2 transactions
$4,300
2
THE CHICKASAW NATION
1 transaction
$2,500
3
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
2 transactions
$2,000
4
PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS
1 transaction
$1,000
5
SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE
1 transaction
$1,000
6
TOHONO O'ODHAM NATION
1 transaction
$1,000
7
CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
1 transaction
$550

No committee contributions found

1
BLACK, JULIE R
2 transactions
$6,600
2
JONES, GEORGE BRADFORD
2 transactions
$6,600
3
KARP, ALEXANDER C DR
2 transactions
$6,600
4
LANCE, RYAN M
2 transactions
$6,600
5
MICHAELS, LAURIE
2 transactions
$6,600
6
SEGAL, PAUL
2 transactions
$6,600
7
WALTON, ROB
2 transactions
$6,600
8
FOX, RICHARD C
2 transactions
$5,700
9
ARISON, MICKY
3 transactions
$4,800
10
COX, MEGHAN
2 transactions
$4,300
11
O'KELLY, SEBASTIAN P
7 transactions
$4,050
12
PFEFFER, DESIREE
2 transactions
$3,800
13
ARNOLD, JOHN
1 transaction
$3,300
14
GIBBONS, LILE
1 transaction
$3,300
15
GOLDMAN, KEN
1 transaction
$3,300
16
GUESS, MATTHEW
1 transaction
$3,300
17
KARSNER, ALEXANDER
1 transaction
$3,300
18
LOBEL, JULIE
1 transaction
$3,300
19
LUNDQUIST, ANDREW
1 transaction
$3,300
20
PFEFFER, MARK
1 transaction
$3,300
21
ROSE, KELLY
1 transaction
$3,300
22
BARRETT, SHEILA M
2 transactions
$3,000
23
BARRETT, THOMAS J
2 transactions
$3,000
24
EVANS, ROBERT A
2 transactions
$3,000
25
FOX, RABUN
1 transaction
$3,000
26
HENDRIX, JOHN
1 transaction
$3,000
27
INDIAN TRIBE, COWLITZ
1 transaction
$3,000
28
MCDONNELL, CAROLYN
3 transactions
$3,000
29
BERTOSON, TODD
1 transaction
$2,500
30
BODE, DENISE A
1 transaction
$2,500
31
GIRAUD, CHARLES WILLIAM IV
1 transaction
$2,500
32
NEESER, GERALD E.
1 transaction
$2,500
33
O'BRIEN, ANDY
1 transaction
$2,500
34
RASMUSON, CATHRYN
1 transaction
$2,500
35
SAN MANUEL, BAND OF MISSION INDI
1 transaction
$2,500
36
BARRETT, CRAIG
1 transaction
$2,000
37
DEVORE, JON
4 transactions
$2,000
38
DOORNENBAL, HEIDI JANSEN
2 transactions
$2,000
39
EVERTS, ROBERT W
1 transaction
$2,000
40
JANSEN, GUY
2 transactions
$2,000
41
JANSEN, JIM
2 transactions
$2,000
42
JANSEN, VIC
2 transactions
$2,000
43
JANSEN, VICKI
2 transactions
$2,000
44
KNUTSON, KAREN
1 transaction
$2,000
45
OLDS, NICK
1 transaction
$2,000
46
PAUL, TERRY L
4 transactions
$2,000
47
WOOLSTON, KRISTINA
1 transaction
$2,000
48
DOWNS, RAISSA H
2 transactions
$2,000
49
SILVER, STEVEN
3 transactions
$1,750
50
ASHLOCK, CAROL S
1 transaction
$1,500
51
BAKER, BRETT
1 transaction
$1,500
52
BAKER, BRUCE ANDREW
1 transaction
$1,500
53
BAKER, MILES C
1 transaction
$1,500
54
BRADWAY, COURTNEY
1 transaction
$1,500
55
BUCKALEW, ADAM
1 transaction
$1,500
56
BUNDRANT, JOSEPH
1 transaction
$1,500
57
BUNDRANT, MARY SUE
1 transaction
$1,500
58
DAVIDSON, VALERIE
1 transaction
$1,500
59
FAWAZ, RAMZI
1 transaction
$1,500
60
FEATHERLY, WALTER
1 transaction
$1,500
61
GILLOTT, CHRISTOPHER D
1 transaction
$1,500
62
HALL, HUNTER
1 transaction
$1,500
63
IRIZARRY, STEVEN
1 transaction
$1,500
64
IYER, SWAMINATHAN
1 transaction
$1,500
65
LAWRENCE, COURTNEY
1 transaction
$1,500
66
MARSHALL, MEGAN
1 transaction
$1,500
67
MARTIN, MARGARET
1 transaction
$1,500
68
MCKECHNIE, ANDREW
1 transaction
$1,500
69
MCMILLIN, ROBERT
1 transaction
$1,500
70
PATE, HEWITT
1 transaction
$1,500
71
PETERSON, MICHAEL
1 transaction
$1,500
72
POPP, MONICA
1 transaction
$1,500
73
ROSEN, DEAN
1 transaction
$1,500
74
STOLPE, CAROL
1 transaction
$1,500
75
STRONG, MIRANDA
1 transaction
$1,500
76
THOMPSON, TAYLOR
1 transaction
$1,500
77
VAN PELT, JASON
1 transaction
$1,500
78
WALTON, ROBERT
1 transaction
$1,500
79
WHITE, DERRICK
1 transaction
$1,500
80
SOUTER, ALEXANDER
2 transactions
$1,300
81
ANDERSON, TRAVIS K
1 transaction
$1,000
82
BELL, STEPHEN E
1 transaction
$1,000
83
BICKWIT, LEONARD JR.
2 transactions
$1,000
84
BUNDRANT, DIANE L
1 transaction
$1,000
85
BURNETT, WALLACE DAVID
2 transactions
$1,000
86
CAMPBELL, CORA
1 transaction
$1,000
87
CARTER, ZACHARY
1 transaction
$1,000
88
CHAVEZ, JP
1 transaction
$1,000
89
CHRISTENSEN-WOODWARD, LORI M
1 transaction
$1,000
90
CURBELO, CECILIA
1 transaction
$1,000
91
DALY, JOHN JOSEPH
1 transaction
$1,000
92
DAUM, ROBERT C
1 transaction
$1,000
93
DEATON, TYLER
1 transaction
$1,000
94
DOREMUS, PAUL
2 transactions
$1,000
95
EPPLIN, ROBERT
1 transaction
$1,000
96
FERGUSON, JACK
2 transactions
$1,000
97
FITCH, EMMETT
1 transaction
$1,000
98
GUERRIERO, PATRICK
1 transaction
$1,000
99
HALL, PAULI
1 transaction
$1,000
100
HAMBLETON, DAVID
1 transaction
$1,000
101
HELMBRECHT, MICHAEL
1 transaction
$1,000
102
HENDERSCHEDT, JOHN
1 transaction
$1,000
103
HRAP, HEATHER
1 transaction
$1,000
104
HUGHES, MARY
1 transaction
$1,000
105
JARVIS, ALEIX
1 transaction
$1,000
106
KING, ANDREW
2 transactions
$1,000
107
KING, WENDY
1 transaction
$1,000
108
KRECZKO, ALAN
1 transaction
$1,000
109
LANGHOFER, RACHEL
1 transaction
$1,000
110
LEACH, TIMOTHY
1 transaction
$1,000
111
LINK, MICHAEL R
1 transaction
$1,000
112
LONG, RAYMOND
1 transaction
$1,000
113
LYNCH, KARINA V.
1 transaction
$1,000
114
MACKLON, DOMINIC
1 transaction
$1,000
115
MAR, SAM
1 transaction
$1,000
116
MEHRKAM, NOAH B
1 transaction
$1,000
117
MEZA, ROBERT
1 transaction
$1,000
118
MICHELS, DANIEL J
1 transaction
$1,000
119
MOIR, MATTHEW
1 transaction
$1,000
120
NYHOLM, ALLISON
2 transactions
$1,000
121
PEARSON, RACHEL T.
1 transaction
$1,000
122
SATTERBERG, WILLIAM R JR.
1 transaction
$1,000
123
SIRACUSE, CECE
1 transaction
$1,000
124
STOOPS, REED
2 transactions
$1,000
125
SUTTER, BRIAN
1 transaction
$1,000
126
SWEENEY, TARA
1 transaction
$1,000
127
THIESSEN, PAMELA
2 transactions
$1,000
128
TRIBE OF INDIANS, PUYALLUP
1 transaction
$1,000
129
VAN SCOYOC, H STEWART
1 transaction
$1,000
130
WILLIAMS, CHRISTINE V
2 transactions
$1,000
131
WILLIAMS, MICHAEL RYAN
1 transaction
$1,000
132
WILLIAMSON, BRAD
1 transaction
$1,000
133
ZUANICH, ROBERT
1 transaction
$1,000
134
WILT, SINCLAIR
2 transactions
$1,000
135
ZANE, C.J.
1 transaction
$750
136
BALASH, JOSEPH
1 transaction
$500
137
BLACKSMITH, DIANE
1 transaction
$500
138
BURKE, LARRY
1 transaction
$500
139
CANFIELD, CAROLINE
1 transaction
$500
140
CATANZARO, MICHAEL
1 transaction
$500
141
CUSACK, MIKE
1 transaction
$500
142
CUSTER, JASON R
1 transaction
$500
143
EASTON, JOHN
1 transaction
$500
144
EGAN, JAMES B
1 transaction
$500
145
ENLOW, THOMAS D SR.
1 transaction
$500
146
GORTON, KIM
1 transaction
$500
147
HANRAHAN, JOHN T
1 transaction
$500
148
HAWKS, THOMAS
1 transaction
$500
149
IANI, FRANCES S
1 transaction
$500
150
JOHNSTON, JENNIFER
1 transaction
$500
151
KALMIN, JOSEPH
1 transaction
$500
152
MACCHIAROLA, FRANK J
1 transaction
$500
153
MATHISEN, CARL
1 transaction
$500
154
MAXWELL, BRYAN
1 transaction
$500
155
MEISSNER, OLIVER R
1 transaction
$500
156
MILNE, JOHN D
1 transaction
$500
157
O'LEARY, BRIAN
1 transaction
$500
158
PETRIZZO, T.J.
1 transaction
$500
159
REY, MARK
1 transaction
$500
160
ROSENBAUM, JERR
1 transaction
$500
161
SAPRYKINA, NATALIA
1 transaction
$500
162
SCOTT, J. TYLER
1 transaction
$500
163
SHAW, RHOD
1 transaction
$500
164
SMITH, CRAIG F.
1 transaction
$500
165
STEVENSON, ROBERT
1 transaction
$500
166
STEWART, DONALD
1 transaction
$500
167
TRAUTNER, TODD
1 transaction
$500
168
WOOLF, MALCOLM
1 transaction
$500
169
ZAMGOCHIAN, ARAM
1 transaction
$500

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Sen. King, Angus S., Jr. [I-ME]

ID: K000383

Top Contributors

24

1
2120 SEA ISLAND LLC
OrganizationRIVER FOREST, IL
$3,300
Oct 26, 2023
2
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$3,300
May 22, 2024
3
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$2,000
Mar 29, 2024
4
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$1,300
May 22, 2024
5
SMITH, BRAD
MICROSOFT CORPORATION • ATTORNEY
IndividualBELLEVUE, WA
$6,600
Feb 13, 2024
6
SMITH, BRAD
IndividualBELLEVUE, WA
$6,600
Feb 20, 2024
7
DOWNEY, NANCY A.
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$5,000
Sep 4, 2024
8
DOWNEY, NANCY A.
NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$5,000
Aug 31, 2024
9
OTTEN, LESLIE B.
AMERICAN SKIING COMPANY • OWNER
IndividualBETHEL, ME
$5,000
Oct 4, 2024
10
BEKENSTEIN, ANITA
NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED
IndividualWAYLAND, MA
$3,300
Oct 24, 2024

Sen. Daines, Steve [R-MT]

ID: D000618

Top Contributors

30

1
CONFEDERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAI TRIBES OF THE FLATHEAD NATI
OrganizationPABLO, MT
$6,600
Mar 30, 2023
2
BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA
$5,000
Jun 18, 2024
3
BLUECHIP FINANCIAL
OrganizationBELCOURT, ND
$3,300
Jun 20, 2024
4
HPUL PROJECT OPERATION
OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA
$3,300
Jun 20, 2024
5
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC
$3,300
Nov 5, 2024
6
SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE
OrganizationSUQUAMISH, WA
$3,300
Sep 20, 2024
7
ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE
OrganizationLIVINGSTON, TX
$2,500
Oct 31, 2024
8
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Jun 5, 2024
9
MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION
OrganizationOKMULGEE, OK
$1,000
Jun 20, 2024
10
CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
OrganizationDURANT, OK
$765
Oct 17, 2023

Donor Network - Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 55 nodes and 63 connections

Total contributions: $63

Top Donors - Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK]

Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount

7 Orgs14 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

  • +Renewable Energyconfidence 0.90

    Section 3 creates a licensing framework for micro hydrokinetic energy projects (up to 5 MW) from waves, tides, currents, or free-flowing water, with expedited process and categorical exclusions under NEPA, directly benefiting renewable energy developers.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK])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

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: 60%
Pages: 443-445AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The FLOWS Act’s focus on streamlining hydropower maintenance and creating an expedited licensing process for micro hydrokinetic projects aligns with the Department of Energy’s objectives in Project 2025 to enhance grid reliability, promote clean energy, and reduce regulatory barriers for renewable energy deployment."

Key themes:hydropowerrenewable energygrid reliabilityregulatory streamliningclean energy

— 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 Housing and Urban Development

Weak
Vector: 63%
Pages: 548-550AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The FLOWS Act deals with hydropower and micro hydrokinetic licensing reforms, whereas the Project 2025 HUD section focuses on housing policy, DEI/ESG concerns, and housing supply reforms. Both texts share a general theme of reducing regulatory burdens and streamlining approval processes, but they operate in unrelated sectors with no substantive policy overlap."

Key themes:regulatory reformstreamlining approvalsadministrative efficiencyreducing burdens

— 515 — Department of Housing and Urban Development 25. Process must prioritize where political leadership can implement administrative reforms through regulatory action and subregulatory guidance reforms. 26. China and other foreign nations should not be able to disrupt our nation’s housing markets, including by artificially driving up prices and reducing affordability and access to housing for Americans who are crowded out of the market by such market participation. 27. These initiatives are maintained under such designations as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI); critical race theory (CRT); black, indigenous, Pacific Islander, and other people of color (BIPOC); and environmental, social, and governance (ESG). 28. At a minimum, these efforts duplicate what the federal government already collects and assesses; at worst, they institute arbitrary procedures in real estate appraisal practices that undermine integrity and perversely introduce arbitrary biases into what should be an unbiased system for determining financial value. 29. Revise regulatory and subregulatory guidance, where applicable within statutory authorities, that adds unnecessary delay and costs to the construction and development of new housing and has been estimated to account for about 40 percent of new housing unit costs in multifamily housing. 30. The Biden Administration has issued a proposed rule to replace the Trump Administration’s “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice” rule that had repealed earlier rules expanding AFFH enforcement. See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Fair Housing, “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 153 (August 7, 2020), pp. 47899–47912, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-08-07/pdf/2020-16320.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023), and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing,” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 27 (February 9, 2023), pp. 8516–8590, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-07-16/pdf/2015-17032.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 31. Certain pilot initiatives may encourage greater take-up of loan products designed for faster equity accumulation, including loans with shorter terms and accelerated amortization schedules. In concept, the FHA’s Home Equity Accelerator Loan (HEAL) and Good Neighbor Next Door (GNND) pilot initiatives might lead to meaningful wealth generation for first-time buyers, but they should be available to all eligible households only when they do not arbitrarily discriminate based on race or other characteristics. 32. Housing supply does remain a problem in the U.S., but constructing more units at the low end of the market will not solve the problem. Investors and developers can deliver at more efficient cost new units that will allow for greater upward mobility of rental and ownership housing stock and better target increased construction of mid-tier rental units. Further, and more fundamental to the housing supply challenge in markets across the U.S., localities can consider revising land use, zoning, and building regulations that constrict new housing development, adding time delays and costs that impede construction. Federal housing policy should get out of the way where possible and minimize the distortive impact that stimulating greater demand through loose lending can have in driving up housing prices for households that are looking for affordable entry into the housing market. 33. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, “Housing and Community Development Act of 1980: Verification of Eligible Status,” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 91 (May 10, 2019), pp. 20589–20595, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-05-10/pdf/2019-09566.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 34. Reforms should contemplate rent payment flexibilities, allow escrow savings, and set maximum term limits that can reduce implicit penalties for increasing household incomes over eligibility terms for housing assistance and reweight waiting-list prioritization for two-parent households. 35. Some PHAs have been able to implement work requirements and term limit policies in various congressionally authorized demonstration programs, notably the Moving to Work (MTW) demonstration program established in 1996 for 39 PHAs (Congress has since authorized another 100 PHAs) in which participating MTW PHAs were given authority to implement rent reforms, work requirements and other experimental policies in rental assistance programs along with flexibilities in the use of capital and operating appropriations. 36. The FSS program has a general five-year term with a possible two-year extension, which could be applied at the term limit for overall benefits, and certain PHAs have imposed five-year to seven-year term limits. Families in these programs build escrow savings during their term eligibility that helps to facilitate successful transitions to family self-sufficiency and unassisted housing. — 516 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 37. HUD should implement administrative changes in regulation and guidance and seek statutory authority to end all Housing First directives of Continuum of Care (CoC) grantees and contract homelessness providers in addition to establishing restrictions on local Housing First policies where HUD grant funds are used. 38. The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) was established in the 1990s, and numerous Administrations have devoted enormous resources to the Housing First model, experimenting with various ways to provide federally financed rapid rehousing and permanent housing opportunities. Housing First is a far-left idea premised on the belief that homelessness is primarily circumstantial rather than behavioral. The Housing First answer to homelessness is to give someone a house instead of attempting to understand the underlying causes of homelessness. Federal intervention centered on Housing First has failed to acknowledge that resolving the issue of homelessness is often a matter of resolving mental health and substance abuse challenges. Instead of the permanent supportive housing proffered by Housing First, a conservative Administration should shift to transitional housing with a focus on addressing the underlying issues that cause homelessness in the first place. 39. The Senate Low-Income First-Time Homebuyers (LIFT) Act would address this policy goal. See S. 2797, Low-Income First-Time Homebuyers Act of 2021 (LIFT Homebuyers Act of 2021), 117th Congress, introduced September 22, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/s2797/BILLS-117s2797is.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 40. FHA did not facilitate the widespread use of 30-year mortgages until the 1950s when, interacting with Federal Reserve policies, federal agencies began broader adoption of the mortgages, which, despite lowering the monthly repayment terms, result in slow equity accumulation and wealth-building opportunities. 41. The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 fundamentally revised the scope of federal regulation in the nation’s housing finance system, placing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the purview of a newly established Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and establishing a Housing Trust Fund (HTF) that is administered in the HUD Office of Community Planning and Development. See H.R. 3221, Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, Public Law No. 110-289, 110th Congress, July 30, 2008, https://www.congress. gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 42. Guiding questions: What reforms should be proposed that could be accomplished within five years? What reforms can be done administratively, and what reforms would need legislative authorization? Are there functions that HUD administers that could be achieved more effectively at another department or agency? What big-picture reforms should be proposed that might take more than five years that would reorganize HUD and its programs to meet the objectives in the vision or mission? What would occur in the absence of these public finance subsidies? How much crowd-out do these subsidies create in the market? Would America be a seriously underhoused nation without these subsidies? Who are the policies intended to benefit? What organizational changes must be made? 43. The Faircloth Amendment (Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998) amended the Housing Act of 1937 to maintain public housing units at 1999 levels, preventing housing authorities from maintaining more public housing than they did then. H.R. 4194, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law No. 105-276, 105th Congress, October 21, 1998, Title V, https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ276/PLAW-105publ276.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). In recent years, the statutory restriction on new construction of public housing units has been circumvented through some narrow uses of preservation programs such as the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program, initially authorized in 2012 and reauthorized several times since under higher program unit conversion caps. Congress also provided paths for renewal and continuation of a portion of existing public housing; project/site-based housing stock (refinancing with long-term HAP contract commitments); and Section 8 units through the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (MAHRA). H.R. 2158, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, Public Law No. 105-65, 105th Congress, October 27, 1997, Title V, https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ65/PLAW-105publ65.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 44. As the evolution of HUD rental assistance transitions away from the public housing model toward housing choice vouchers, there should be adequate landlord participation to ensure that the supply of housing units for rent in these programs meets the demand for rent among eligible tenants. This issue has been addressed in various ways, including by a task force instituted at the department during the Trump Administration, but could likely remain a challenge in the administration of the program.

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Weak
Vector: 62%
Pages: 437-439AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 policy involve FERC and the Federal Power Act, but the bill focuses on hydropower maintenance and micro hydrokinetic licensing, whereas the policy addresses transmission planning, cost allocation, RTO participation, and NIETCs, resulting only tangential overlap."

Key themes:FERCFederal Power Actregulatory reformenergy licensing

— 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.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills