Expediting Generator Interconnection Procedures Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Castor, Kathy [D-FL-14]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 24, 2026
Bottom line
H.R. 2986 aims to streamline and expedite the process for new power plants and energy storage facilities to connect to the national electricity grid by directing FERC to mandate specific procedural reforms for transmission providers.
What it actually does
This bill mandates the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to initiate a rulemaking within 180 days and finalize it within 18 months to overhaul existing procedures for connecting new electricity generation and energy storage projects to the transmission grid. It specifically directs FERC to require transmission providers to adopt more efficient modeling assumptions, study methods, cost-effective solutions, and transparent queue management practices to accelerate interconnection and ensure timely construction of necessary network upgrades.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the current interconnection queue process is a major bottleneck hindering the deployment of new, often renewable, energy resources and energy storage, leading to significant delays and increased costs. They contend that this bill will accelerate grid modernization, enhance grid reliability by bringing more diverse resources online faster, and reduce consumer costs by enabling more efficient energy markets. The bill's focus on "more efficient and effective interconnection procedures" and "cost-effective solutions" is seen as crucial for meeting future energy demands and climate goals.
Opponents contend
Opponents, or those with concerns, might argue that mandating specific procedural changes could inadvertently create new complexities or unintended consequences for grid operators, potentially compromising grid reliability if not implemented carefully. They might also raise concerns about the potential for increased administrative burdens on transmission providers or the Commission, or that the bill oversteps FERC's existing authority to manage these processes. Some might also argue that the bill's directives could shift costs unfairly or prioritize certain types of generation over others.
The bill is short and relatively easy to read, allowing ample time for an informed reader to grasp its core directives.
Section 1
Short Title
This section establishes the official short title of the Act as the "Expediting Generator Interconnection Procedures Act of 2025." This title is used for easy reference to the legislation.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a clear and descriptive short title helps in public discourse and legislative tracking, immediately conveying the bill's primary objective.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the short title of a bill, as it is a standard legislative practice.
Tradeoffs
None apparent for the short title itself.
Section 2
Key Definitions for Interconnection
This section defines crucial terms used throughout the Act, such as "Commission" (FERC), "energy storage project" (including batteries, pumped hydro, hydrogen, etc.), "generation project," "interconnection customer," "interconnection request," "public utility," "transmission facility," "transmission provider," and "transmission system." These definitions clarify the scope and application of the bill's mandates.
Section 3(a)
Mandate for FERC Rulemaking on Interconnection Procedures
This core provision requires FERC to initiate a rulemaking within 180 days of the bill's enactment. The purpose is to address current inefficiencies in processing interconnection requests, ensuring new generation and energy storage projects can connect to the transmission system quickly, cost-effectively, and reliably. It specifically directs FERC to revise its pro forma Large Generator Interconnection Procedures and Agreement.
Section 3(a)(2)(A)-(F)
Modernizing Interconnection Study and Management
This section details specific requirements that FERC's new regulations must impose on transmission providers. These include using realistic modeling assumptions for different resource types, studying requests based on customer risk tolerance, selecting cost-effective reliability solutions, providing transparent information to customers, implementing queue management best practices (like advanced computing and automation), and ensuring timely, cost-conscious construction of network upgrades after an agreement is signed.
Section 3(b)
Rulemaking Completion Deadline
This section mandates that FERC must promulgate a final rule completing the initiated rulemaking within 18 months after the date of enactment of the Act. This sets a firm timeline for the regulatory process.
Section 3(c)
Preservation of FERC's Ratemaking Authority
This section clarifies that nothing in the Act alters FERC's existing authority under Section 205 of the Federal Power Act regarding the allocation of costs for the transmission system. This ensures that while interconnection procedures are streamlined, FERC retains its power to determine how the costs of transmission upgrades are fairly distributed.
This provision explicitly states that the Act does not alter FERC's existing authority under Section 205 of the Federal Power Act regarding the allocation of costs for the transmission system.
Section 3(c)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to clarify the scope of new legislation relative to existing law, particularly in complex regulatory areas where cost allocation is a highly sensitive issue. It aims to prevent unintended interpretations.
Case for: Supporters argue this clause is essential to provide certainty to all stakeholders (utilities, developers, ratepayers) that the fundamental principles of transmission cost allocation, a complex and often litigated area, will not be inadvertently disrupted by the new interconnection procedures. It ensures that FERC retains its established role in this critical area.
Case against: No direct case against this specific clause, as it preserves existing authority. However, some might argue that by explicitly protecting FERC's existing cost allocation authority, the bill misses an opportunity to address perceived inefficiencies or inequities in current cost allocation practices, which are often cited as a barrier to new transmission development.
Estimated impact: Ensures continuity and stability in how the costs of transmission infrastructure are assigned, potentially impacting billions of dollars in future grid investments and ultimately affecting consumer rates.
The definition of "energy storage project" is expansive, explicitly including "batteries, compressed air, pumped hydropower, hydrogen storage (including hydrolysis), thermal energy storage, regenerative fuel cells, flywheels, capacitors, superconducting magnets, or other technologies identified by the Commission."
Section 2(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to ensure comprehensive coverage and future-proofing. The detailed list aims to leave no doubt about the intent to include a wide array of existing and emerging storage technologies.
Case for: Proponents argue that this broad definition is crucial for ensuring that the new interconnection procedures are applicable to the full spectrum of modern energy storage solutions, including nascent technologies. This foresight prevents the need for future legislative updates as technology evolves, promoting innovation and grid flexibility.
Case against: Some might argue that such a broad and open-ended definition ("or other technologies identified by the Commission") could create regulatory uncertainty or complexity for FERC, requiring it to continually assess and integrate new technologies into the interconnection framework, potentially slowing down the rulemaking process or leading to inconsistent application.
Estimated impact: Ensures that all forms of energy storage, critical for grid modernization and renewable energy integration, are explicitly covered by the expedited interconnection procedures, potentially unlocking significant investment in diverse storage solutions.