Good Energy Jobs Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Tonko, Paul [D-NY-20]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 15, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to leverage DOE financial assistance to ensure energy projects create high-quality jobs, support local communities, strengthen domestic manufacturing, and address historical inequities, but could increase project costs and administrative burdens.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Department of Energy Organization Act to impose new requirements on entities receiving financial assistance from the Department of Energy (DOE). It mandates prevailing wages, apprenticeship utilization, and labor neutrality for projects receiving DOE funds. It also requires community benefits plans, promotes domestic manufacturing, and sets a goal for 40 percent of certain DOE financial assistance to benefit small and disadvantaged communities. The bill establishes an advisory group and mandates data collection and public reporting on compliance and outcomes.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill ensures that significant public investments in energy infrastructure and technology translate into broadly shared prosperity, creating good-paying jobs with strong labor protections, fostering local economic development, and building a robust domestic supply chain. They contend it addresses historical injustices by directing benefits to disadvantaged communities and promotes responsible corporate behavior by requiring labor neutrality and community engagement.
Opponents contend
Critics might contend that the extensive labor and community benefit requirements could significantly increase the cost and complexity of energy projects, potentially slowing down the deployment of critical energy infrastructure and technologies. They may argue that these mandates could deter private investment, reduce the number of projects that can be funded, and impose undue bureaucratic burdens on both the DOE and recipient entities, ultimately hindering the pace of energy transition.
The bill is concise and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2, adding new Section 664 to 42 U.S.C. 7251 et seq.
Prevailing Wages and Apprenticeships
This section requires that all laborers and mechanics working on construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair projects that receive DOE financial assistance must be paid prevailing wages, as determined by the Secretary of Labor. It also mandates that at least 15 percent of the total labor hours on such projects be performed by individuals in registered apprenticeship programs, adhering to specified apprentice-to-journey worker ratios. The Secretary of Labor is granted authority to enforce these standards.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that mandating prevailing wages ensures that federal investments create good, family-sustaining jobs and prevent a race to the bottom in labor standards. The apprenticeship requirement fosters a skilled workforce, addresses labor shortages, and provides pathways to stable careers, ensuring long-term benefits from public spending.
Critics contend
Critics may argue that prevailing wage and apprenticeship mandates increase project costs and administrative complexity, potentially making projects less competitive or delaying their completion. They might contend that these requirements could limit the pool of available contractors, especially smaller businesses, and may not always align with local market conditions or workforce availability.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the goal of ensuring high-quality jobs and workforce development with the potential for increased project costs and administrative overhead, which could affect the speed and scale of energy project deployment.
Section 2, adding new Section 665 to 42 U.S.C. 7251 et seq.
Labor Neutrality
This section requires any entity receiving DOE financial assistance to certify that it will remain neutral regarding its employees' and labor organizations' right to organize and bargain collectively under the National Labor Relations Act. This neutrality requirement extends to all contractors and subcontractors involved in activities assisted by the financial assistance.
Section 2, adding new Section 666 to 42 U.S.C. 7251 et seq.
Project Labor Agreements for DOE Facilities
This section requires contractors and subcontractors engaged in construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of DOE facilities costing over $1,000,000 to negotiate or become party to a project labor agreement (PLA). It also encourages these PLAs to include goals for local hire, participation of underrepresented workers (women, people of color, veterans, justice-involved individuals), and apprenticeship utilization.
Section 2, adding new Section 667 to 42 U.S.C. 7251 et seq.
Community Benefits Plans and Associated Agreements
This section requires entities applying for DOE financial assistance for covered projects to submit a community benefits plan. This plan must be informed by a community needs assessment and demonstrate how the entity will engage local stakeholders, address community concerns (like pollution mitigation), and promote job quality and access for disadvantaged workers. The plan should aim to result in legally enforceable workforce or community agreements.
Section 2, adding new Section 668 to 42 U.S.C. 7251 et seq.
Community Benefits and Job Quality Advisory Group
This section requires the Secretary of Energy to establish an advisory group within one year of enactment. This group will consist of representatives from labor organizations, community-based organizations, public interest groups, local and Tribal governments, and academia. Its purpose is to develop recommendations and best practices for community benefit plans, associated agreements (excluding PLAs), and community needs assessments, including metrics for success and transparency methods.
Section 2, adding new Section 669 to 42 U.S.C. 7251 et seq.
Domestic Manufacturing Requirements
This section requires entities applying for DOE financial assistance for research, development, or demonstration projects to commit to substantially manufacturing any resulting products in the United States. Applicants must submit a domestic manufacturing plan. The Secretary is directed to give preference to plans that commit to using workers covered by collective bargaining agreements, registered apprenticeship programs, or joint labor-management training programs that meet specific standards. The bill also prohibits offshoring manufacturing developed with DOE assistance for five years without prior approval.
Section 2, adding new Section 670 to 42 U.S.C. 7251 et seq.
Small and Disadvantaged Communities Initiative
This section establishes a goal that not less than 40 percent of DOE financial assistance from certain listed programs (e.g., climate change, energy production, transportation) must be provided to entities that commit to providing specific, measurable benefits to small or disadvantaged communities. The Secretary must issue and regularly update a list of covered programs and ensure that all DOE assistance to projects in such communities provides meaningful benefits and avoids increased negative impacts.
Section 2, adding new Section 671 to 42 U.S.C. 7251 et seq.
Data Collection and Reporting
This section mandates that entities receiving DOE financial assistance must submit reports to the Secretary to demonstrate compliance with the new requirements (prevailing wages, labor neutrality, community benefits, domestic manufacturing, etc.). The reports will also enable DOE to assess its efforts in job creation, job quality, apprenticeship utilization, and community benefits. The Secretary must annually report to Congress on these efforts and make aggregate data publicly accessible.
The term 'covered project' is defined broadly as 'any construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair project' for the purposes of prevailing wages, apprenticeships, and community benefits plans.
Section 2, adding new Section 664(e) and 667(g)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to define terms within the section where they are primarily used, but its broad scope might be overlooked by a casual reader focusing on the main mandates.
Case for: Supporters would argue that a broad definition ensures comprehensive application of labor and community standards across all relevant DOE-assisted projects, preventing loopholes and ensuring consistent policy implementation.
Case against: Critics might argue that such a broad definition could inadvertently apply complex requirements to minor projects, increasing administrative burden and costs beyond what is necessary or practical for smaller-scale work.
Estimated impact: Significantly expands the scope of projects subject to the new labor and community benefit requirements, impacting potentially thousands of projects receiving DOE financial assistance.
The Secretary shall give preference to domestic manufacturing plans that include a commitment to manufacture covered products only using workers covered by collective bargaining agreements, commitments to utilize registered apprenticeship programs, or joint labor-management training programs that meet specific criteria (e.g., 2 years of successful training, recognized credential, meeting state standards).
Section 2, adding new Section 669(c)
Why it matters:This is a specific policy choice within a broader mandate, often detailed in sub-clauses. It's not evasive but could be missed as a key driver of preference.
Case for: Proponents would argue this preference strengthens the link between federal investment, high-quality union jobs, and proven workforce development models, ensuring that domestic manufacturing growth is equitable and sustainable.
Case against: Opponents might argue that this preference could unduly favor unionized labor or specific training models, potentially limiting competition among domestic manufacturers or excluding innovative non-union training programs that could also contribute to a skilled workforce.
Estimated impact: Directs a significant portion of domestic manufacturing incentives towards projects employing unionized or specifically trained workforces, influencing hiring and training practices across the industry.
Defines 'small or disadvantaged community' based on burdens of negative public health/environmental effects, socioeconomic criteria (historical disinvestment, low/moderate-income households), or a population under 10,000 meeting socioeconomic criteria.
Section 2, adding new Section 670(e)
Why it matters:Standard practice to define terms within their relevant section. The multi-part definition requires careful reading to understand the full scope.
Case for: Supporters would argue that a comprehensive definition ensures that federal resources are precisely targeted to the communities most in need, addressing historical inequities and environmental injustices effectively.
Case against: Critics might argue that the definition is broad and potentially subjective, which could lead to challenges in consistent application or disputes over which communities qualify, potentially diluting the impact or creating administrative complexity.
Estimated impact: Determines which communities are eligible for the 40% set-aside of DOE financial assistance, significantly influencing the geographic and demographic distribution of federal energy investments.