SECURE Grid Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Cortez Masto, Catherine [D-NV]
- Committees
- Energy and Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 30, 2026
Bottom line
The SECURE Grid Act aims to enhance the security and resilience of local power grids by requiring states to integrate comprehensive threat assessments into their energy security planning, backed by mandatory federal assistance, and includes a sunset clause for future review.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) to expand the requirements for State energy security plans. It mandates that these plans address the physical security, cybersecurity, and resilience of "local distribution systems" (defined as energy infrastructure owned and operated by an electric utility at 100 kilovolts or less), including supply chain risks for electricity equipment. Furthermore, it changes the Department of Energy's authority to provide technical and financial assistance to states for these plans from discretionary to mandatory, and establishes a sunset date for the relevant section of EPCA.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill is a critical step towards modernizing and securing the nation's energy infrastructure, particularly at the local distribution level which is often a vulnerable point. They contend that explicitly requiring states to plan for physical attacks, cyber threats, and supply chain risks, coupled with guaranteed federal support, will create a more robust and resilient grid capable of withstanding diverse threats and ensuring reliable energy supply for communities.
Opponents contend
Critics, if any, might argue that while grid security is important, this bill could impose additional unfunded mandates on states, even with the promise of federal assistance, potentially diverting resources from other pressing energy priorities. Some might also express concerns about increased federal oversight into state-level planning, or question the necessity of a sunset clause that could disrupt long-term security initiatives.
The bill is concise and its provisions are clearly articulated, making it accessible for a quick and informed review by readers.
Section 2(1), amending EPCA Section 366(a)
Definition of 'Local Distribution System'
This provision adds a new definition to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, specifying that a 'local distribution system' means any energy infrastructure owned and operated by an electric utility at a voltage of 100 kilovolts or less. This clarifies the specific segment of the energy grid that states must now explicitly consider in their energy security plans, focusing on the infrastructure closest to end-users.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that clearly defining 'local distribution system' is essential for ensuring that state energy security plans adequately address the vulnerabilities of the 'last mile' of energy delivery, which is critical for community resilience and often overlooked in broader grid security discussions.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against definitional provisions, as their impact is primarily in clarifying scope rather than imposing direct burdens, though the implications of the definition may be debated.
Tradeoffs
The definition itself presents no inherent tradeoffs, but it sets the stage for increased regulatory focus on a specific part of the energy infrastructure, which could lead to future implementation challenges.
Section 2(3), amending EPCA Section 366(c)
Expanded Scope of State Energy Security Plans
This provision significantly broadens the requirements for State energy security plans. It mandates that these plans address potential hazards to each energy sector or system, explicitly including physical threats (such as weather, physical attacks on both local distribution systems and the bulk-power system, and supply chain risks for electricity equipment) and cybersecurity threats (including those to local distribution systems that may impact the bulk-power system). This ensures a more comprehensive approach to grid security.
Section 2(8), amending EPCA Section 366(i)
Sunset Provision for State Energy Security Plans
This provision establishes that Section 366 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which governs State energy security plans, will expire on September 30, 2031. This means that the requirements and federal assistance related to these plans will cease to be in effect after this date unless Congress reauthorizes or extends the program.
This provision changes the word 'may' to 'shall' regarding the Secretary of Energy's authority to provide technical and financial assistance to States for their energy security plans. This transforms discretionary federal assistance into a mandatory obligation.
Section 2(6), amending EPCA Section 366(f)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative technique for modifying existing statutory authority without creating entirely new sections. While technically precise, it can obscure the significant shift in federal obligation.
Case for: Supporters would argue that making federal assistance mandatory ensures that states have the guaranteed resources needed to meet the expanded and critical energy security planning requirements outlined in the bill. This commitment provides stability and encourages comprehensive implementation across all states.
Case against: Critics might argue that this change removes flexibility from the Department of Energy, potentially obligating federal funds without a clear appropriation mechanism or allowing for prioritization based on evolving national needs. It could be seen as an expansion of federal spending commitments.
Estimated impact: This change significantly increases the federal government's obligation to provide support to states for energy security planning, potentially leading to increased federal expenditures.
These provisions expand the scope of entities with whom states must coordinate and from whom they must seek input for their energy security plans, specifically adding 'suppliers of equipment for the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity.'
Section 2(2) and Section 2(4), amending EPCA Section 366(b)(2) and (d)(3)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for updating lists of stakeholders. While not intentionally evasive, the technical nature of statutory amendments can make such additions less obvious.
Case for: Proponents argue that including equipment suppliers is crucial for addressing supply chain risks, a growing concern for energy security. Engaging these suppliers ensures that state plans consider the vulnerabilities and resilience of the components that make up the grid.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against expanding stakeholder engagement, as it generally improves the comprehensiveness of planning, though some might argue it adds complexity to the coordination process.
Estimated impact: Enhances the comprehensiveness of state energy security plans by incorporating supply chain considerations, potentially leading to more secure and resilient energy infrastructure.