Build More Power Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Gottheimer, Josh [D-NJ-5]
- Committees
- Science, Space, and Technology Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 14, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to enhance grid reliability and resilience by extending and expanding federal loan guarantees for critical energy infrastructure, particularly those mandated to operate during emergencies, while implicitly targeting upgrades for aging facilities.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 to extend federal loan guarantee programs for energy infrastructure through 2032. Crucially, it makes facilities mandated to generate electricity during emergencies (under Federal Power Act Section 202(c) orders) explicitly eligible for these guarantees and sets aside $20 billion in loan authority specifically for such projects. It also requires the Secretary of Energy to solicit applications from these emergency-mandated facilities.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill is essential for strengthening the nation's energy grid, ensuring reliable power supply during emergencies, and incentivizing necessary upgrades to aging infrastructure. They contend that providing financial certainty through extended loan guarantees will encourage investment in critical facilities that might otherwise be retired, thereby bolstering national security and economic stability.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill could disproportionately subsidize older, potentially less efficient, or higher-emission power plants, thereby hindering the transition to cleaner energy sources. Concerns could also be raised about potential market distortions, the allocation of significant federal funds to specific types of facilities, and the administrative burden on the Department of Energy.
The bill is concise and relatively straightforward, allowing for a quick and thorough understanding of its provisions within a short timeframe.
Section 2(a), amending Section 1706 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
Emergency Electric Generation Facilities Eligibility for Loan Guarantees
This provision clarifies that energy infrastructure facilities required by a federal order (under Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act) to generate electricity during an emergency are considered to have 'ceased operations' for the purpose of qualifying for federal loan guarantees. This effectively makes them eligible for financing under the Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment Financing program, which supports projects that retool, repower, repurpose, or replace energy infrastructure that has ceased operations.
Supporters argue
Supporters contend this provision is crucial for maintaining grid stability, as it provides a financial lifeline for critical power plants that might otherwise be retired, ensuring they can continue to operate or be upgraded to provide essential power during emergencies.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that this provision could be seen as a subsidy for older, potentially less environmentally friendly facilities, potentially delaying the transition to cleaner energy sources and distorting energy markets.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the immediate need for grid reliability and emergency preparedness with long-term goals of energy transition and market efficiency. It prioritizes keeping existing critical infrastructure operational, even if it's older, to prevent power shortages.
Section 2(a), adding new subsection (g)(2) to Section 1706 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
Mandatory Solicitation of Loan Guarantee Applications for Emergency Facilities
This section mandates that when the Secretary of Energy issues an order requiring energy infrastructure to generate electricity during an emergency (under FPA Section 202(c)), the Secretary must simultaneously solicit an application for a loan guarantee from that facility. For any existing emergency orders in effect upon the bill's enactment, the Secretary must solicit applications within 60 days.
Section 2(b)(1) and (2)
Extension of Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment Financing Program
This provision extends the period of availability for funds and commitment authority for the Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment Financing program. It amends the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to change the expiration date from '2028' to '2032' and similarly amends the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 to extend the Secretary's authority to make guarantees and the commitment authority from '2026' and '2028' respectively, to '2032'.
Section 2(b)(2)(B)(iii)
Dedicated Funding for Emergency Generation Facilities
This provision sets aside a substantial portion of the authorized loan guarantee funds. Specifically, it mandates that not less than $20,000,000,000 of the total principal amount of loan guarantees available under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 shall be exclusively used for projects related to energy infrastructure required to generate electric energy by an order issued under Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act.
Section 2(c)
Report to Congress on Loan Guarantees and Recommendations
Within one year of the bill's enactment, the Secretary of Energy is required to submit a report to Congress. This report must detail the projects that received loan guarantees, the amount of electric capacity added by these projects, the total principal amount of guarantees made, and provide recommendations on how to best incentivize investment in upgrades to aging coal facilities.
The bill defines energy infrastructure required to generate electric energy by an order under section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act as having 'ceased operations' for the purposes of subsection (a)(1) of Section 1706 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Section 2(a), amending Section 1706(g)(1) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for amending existing statutes by reference. However, the reinterpretation of 'ceased operations' is a key mechanism for expanding eligibility without directly rewriting the core eligibility criteria.
Case for: Supporters would argue this is a necessary technical adjustment to ensure that critical facilities, even if operating under emergency orders, can access the financing intended for infrastructure upgrades and modernization.
Case against: Critics might argue that this redefinition creates a legal fiction that could be used to justify funding for facilities that are not truly 'ceased operations' in the conventional sense, potentially broadening the program's scope beyond its original intent.
Estimated impact: This redefinition significantly expands the pool of eligible projects for federal loan guarantees, potentially encompassing a wide range of existing power generation facilities deemed critical for emergency operations.
The report to Congress required from the Secretary of Energy must include 'recommendations on how to best incentivize investment in upgrades to aging coal facilities.'
Section 2(c)(4)
Why it matters:This specific recommendation focus might be included to signal an intent or priority without making it an explicit mandate in the operative provisions of the bill, potentially to broaden political appeal or avoid direct controversy.
Case for: Proponents would argue that aging coal facilities are often critical components of the grid, especially in emergencies, and understanding how to upgrade them is vital for energy security. This recommendation helps inform future policy.
Case against: Critics might view this as a subtle signal to prioritize or extend the life of coal-fired power plants, potentially undermining efforts to transition to renewable energy sources, without a direct legislative mandate.
Estimated impact: This provision does not directly allocate funds but signals a policy direction that could lead to future legislative or administrative actions specifically targeting coal facility upgrades, potentially influencing billions in investment.