Connect the Grid Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA]
- Committees
- Energy and Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 3, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to enhance the reliability and resilience of the Texas electric grid by integrating it more closely with the national grid, while also promoting specific environmental and labor considerations for new transmission infrastructure.
What it actually does
This bill, the "Connect the Grid Act of 2026," brings the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) under the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) by repealing its current exemptions from federal oversight. It mandates the establishment of new reliability standards requiring specific minimum total transfer capabilities (interconnections) between ERCOT and its neighboring grids (SPP, MISO, and the Western Interconnection) by January 1, 2035. The bill also significantly increases the borrowing authority for the Transmission Facilitation Program from $2.5 billion to $13.5 billion to support transmission projects.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that interconnecting ERCOT with the broader national grid is crucial for improving grid reliability and resilience, especially in the face of extreme weather events and increasing electricity demand. They contend that federal oversight and mandated interconnections will prevent future energy crises like those experienced in Texas, allow for greater sharing of generation resources, and facilitate the integration of more renewable energy, thereby enhancing energy security and reducing carbon emissions.
Opponents contend
Opponents, particularly those in Texas who value ERCOT's independence, argue that federalizing ERCOT's oversight and mandating interconnections would infringe on state sovereignty and potentially increase electricity costs for Texans. They may also contend that the existing ERCOT market structure is sufficient and that forced interconnections could expose Texas to reliability issues from other regions or subject it to federal regulations that are not tailored to its unique energy landscape.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to evaluate its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 3
Federal Oversight of ERCOT
This section removes the long-standing exemptions that have kept the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) largely free from federal oversight under Part II of the Federal Power Act. By striking specific subsections from various sections of the Act, it brings ERCOT and its operations under the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), making it subject to federal regulations regarding transmission and wholesale electricity sales.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that federal oversight is essential to ensure ERCOT's reliability and prevent future grid failures, as federal standards and interconnection requirements can provide a more robust and resilient system. They contend that a fragmented grid poses national security and economic risks.
Critics contend
Opponents, particularly within Texas, argue that this constitutes an overreach of federal power into state affairs. They believe ERCOT's independence allows for a market structure tailored to Texas's unique needs and that federal intervention could lead to higher costs, less flexibility, and potentially compromise the state's energy independence.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances state sovereignty and market independence against the perceived benefits of national grid integration and federal reliability standards. It also involves a tension between local control and broader national energy policy goals.
Section 4(b)
Mandated Minimum Total Transfer Capability for ERCOT
This provision directs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to order the Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) to establish a new reliability standard. This standard will require specific minimum levels of electricity transfer capability (interconnection) between ERCOT and the Southwest Power Pool (SPP), the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), and the Western Interconnection. These interconnections must be planned and completed by January 1, 2035.
Section 4(b)(3)
Sustainable Transmission Development Priorities
When siting and constructing new transmission facilities to meet the mandated interconnection reliability standards, this provision requires prioritizing several factors. These include using grid-enhancing technologies, utilizing existing rights-of-way (like highways and railroads), siting facilities on degraded lands (such as brownfields, landfills, and abandoned mine lands), expanding access to renewable energy sources, ensuring meaningful community involvement (especially for environmental justice and Tribal communities), and using registered apprenticeship programs with prevailing wages.
Section 5
Expanded Transmission Project Funding
This section significantly increases the borrowing authority for the Transmission Facilitation Program from $2.5 billion to $13.5 billion. This program, established under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, provides federal support through loans and other financial assistance for the development of new or upgraded high-capacity transmission lines. The increased authority makes substantially more federal capital available for transmission projects.
The bill defines "abandoned mine land" to include land, water, or watersheds contaminated by extraction, beneficiation, or processing of ores or minerals, specifically including phosphate but *excluding coal*. This exclusion is significant because coal mine lands are typically addressed under different federal programs (e.g., SMCRA).
Section 2(1)
Why it matters:This is likely standard legislative practice to align with existing statutory frameworks for different types of abandoned lands, ensuring that the bill's provisions for siting on degraded land do not overlap or conflict with established coal reclamation programs.
Case for: Supporters would argue this specificity prevents duplication of effort and ensures that the bill targets types of abandoned lands that may not have dedicated federal reclamation programs for transmission siting.
Case against: Critics might argue that excluding coal abandoned mine lands misses an opportunity to utilize a vast category of degraded land for transmission development, especially given the environmental impact of coal mining.
Estimated impact: This exclusion narrows the scope of degraded lands available for priority siting under Section 4(b)(3)(C), potentially impacting the total acreage available for transmission development.
This section makes two subtle but important changes to Section 215 of the Federal Power Act, which governs electric reliability. It strikes "or transmission" from subsection (i)(2) and amends (a)(3) to remove "enlarge such facilities or to construct new transmission capacity" from the list of actions the Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) cannot require. By removing the prohibition on the ERO requiring new transmission capacity, it implicitly grants the ERO (and by extension FERC) more direct authority over transmission expansion.
Section 4(a)
Why it matters:This is likely standard legislative practice for technical adjustments to existing law, but their impact is significant. By removing the prohibition on the ERO requiring new transmission capacity, it implicitly grants the ERO (and by extension FERC) more direct authority over transmission expansion, aligning with the bill's broader goals.
Case for: Proponents would argue these amendments are necessary to empower the ERO and FERC to effectively mandate and oversee the construction of new transmission, which is critical for grid reliability and integration, especially given the new interconnection requirements for ERCOT.
Case against: Opponents might argue that these changes expand federal authority over transmission planning and construction beyond what is appropriate, potentially encroaching on state or regional planning processes and property rights.
Estimated impact: These changes could significantly enhance the ERO's and FERC's ability to direct transmission infrastructure development, potentially streamlining projects but also centralizing control.