Keep the Lights Local Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Riley, Josh [D-NY-19]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 18, 2025
Bottom line
The bill seeks to enhance national security by banning foreign ownership of U.S. public utility holding companies, mandating divestiture or restructuring for any currently held by foreign entities within 180 days of enactment.
What it actually does
This bill, titled the "Keep the Lights Local Act," prohibits foreign corporations and foreign governments from owning public utility holding companies in the United States. It amends existing U.S. Code to establish this new prohibition, which will take effect 180 days after the bill's enactment. The measure aims to secure critical infrastructure by preventing foreign entities from controlling essential services.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that prohibiting foreign ownership of public utilities is a critical national security measure, ensuring that essential infrastructure like power grids and water systems remain under domestic control. They contend that foreign ownership could pose risks of espionage, sabotage, or undue influence over vital services, especially from adversarial nations. Supporters believe this bill protects American consumers and national interests from potential foreign interference or control.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that such a broad prohibition could deter foreign investment in critical infrastructure, potentially limiting access to capital for necessary upgrades and expansion. They might also contend that existing regulatory frameworks, such as reviews by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), are sufficient to address national security concerns without a blanket ban. Critics could also point to potential retaliatory measures from other countries or the complexities of forcing divestiture from current foreign owners.
The bill text is extremely short and can be read in under a minute, making it highly accessible for public review.
Section 2, new 42 U.S. Code Section 16464(a)
Prohibition on Foreign Ownership of Public Utility Holding Companies
This provision introduces a new section, 16464, into the U.S. Code, explicitly stating that no foreign corporation or foreign government is permitted to be a public utility holding company. This means that entities defined as "foreign" would be legally barred from owning or controlling companies that hold public utilities. The prohibition becomes effective 180 days after the bill is enacted, allowing a transition period.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision directly addresses national security vulnerabilities by ensuring that critical infrastructure, such as power grids and water systems, remains under the control of domestic entities. They believe it prevents potential adversaries from gaining leverage or access that could be used for espionage, sabotage, or political coercion.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that this blanket prohibition is overly broad and could negatively impact the U.S. economy by discouraging foreign direct investment in a sector that often requires substantial capital. They may also contend that existing regulatory bodies, like CFIUS, are already equipped to review and mitigate national security risks on a case-by-case basis, making a sweeping ban unnecessary and potentially harmful to market efficiency.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances national security concerns against potential economic impacts, such as reduced foreign investment and the complexities of forcing divestiture from existing foreign owners. It also raises questions about the definition of "foreign" and the scope of "public utility holding company" in practice.
The prohibition on foreign ownership becomes effective 180 days after the effective date of the Act.
Section 2, new 42 U.S. Code Section 16464(b)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to provide a transition period for new regulations, not an attempt to hide the provision.
Case for: Proponents argue that a 180-day transition period is necessary and reasonable, allowing existing foreign owners sufficient time to divest their holdings or restructure to comply with the new law without causing immediate market disruption.
Case against: Critics might argue that 180 days is either too short, potentially forcing fire sales and financial losses for current foreign owners, or too long, leaving critical infrastructure vulnerable for an extended period. The specific timeframe could be a point of contention depending on the urgency perceived.
Estimated impact: This provision sets the timeline for compliance, directly impacting the financial and operational decisions of any currently foreign-owned public utility holding companies in the U.S.