POWER Act of 2025 would amend the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to explicitly authorize federal agencies to support hazard-mitigation activities for electric utilities in tandem with emergency power restoration. The bill adds a new subsection to Section 403, creating a pathway for resilience investments to run alongside quick-recovery efforts.
It also preserves hazard-mitigation eligibility for facilities that receive restoration aid, ensuring resilience work is not blocked by the need for rapid power restoration. The amendment is prospective, applying to funds appropriated after enactment, and does not alter other Stafford Act authorities.
At a Glance
What It Does
Adds Section 403(e) to authorize electric utilities to undertake hazard-mitigation activities in coordination with emergency restoration funded under the Stafford Act. It clarifies that such activities may be pursued jointly or alongside restoration efforts and that the standard hazard-mitigation funding framework remains in place.
Who It Affects
Directly affects electric utilities and grid operators, as well as federal agencies implementing Stafford Act programs (e.g., FEMA). State and local emergency management offices coordinating recovery and resilience projects also participate.
Why It Matters
Creates a streamlined pathway to fund resilience measures during recovery, enabling grid-hardening investments that reduce future outage risk and improve long-term reliability.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The POWER Act of 2025 tightens the linkage between restoration and resilience for electric infrastructure. It adds a new provision to the Stafford Act that lets electric utilities carry out hazard-mitigation projects while they are restoring power after a disaster.
The intention is to align short-term restoration activities with longer-term resilience investments, so grid-hardening projects—like flood-proofing substations or hardening critical transmission lines—can be funded in concert with restoration work. Because the act places these mitigation efforts within the same funding framework, utilities can pursue resilience projects without waiting for separate grant cycles or new authorities.
A key guardrail is that if a facility receives emergency restoration assistance, it remains eligible for hazard-mitigation funding under the existing Section 406 program. This ensures that rapid recovery does not preempt future resilience investments.
The amendment is prospective, applying only to funds appropriated after enactment, which means pre-enactment projects continue under current rules. The result is a more integrated approach to disaster response and resilience for the electric grid, with federal support structured to support both urgent restoration and longer-term protection against outages.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Section 403(e) is added to authorize hazard-mitigation activities by electric utilities in coordination with restoration.
A facility receiving restoration aid remains eligible for hazard-mitigation assistance under Section 406.
The amendment applies only to funds appropriated after enactment, making it prospective.
ThePOWER Act title signals a national focus on widening electrical resilience funding.
The change is narrowly scoped to electric-utility resilience within the Stafford Act and does not overhaul other relief authorities.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Electric utilities hazard-mitigation authority
The bill creates a new subsection under Section 403 of the Stafford Act, permitting electric utilities to carry out cost-effective hazard-mitigation activities in conjunction with emergency restoration. This allows resilience projects to be planned and funded in parallel with power-recovery efforts, so investments can reduce future outage risk while current damages are being repaired.
Eligibility preserved for hazard mitigation with restoration
If an electric-utility facility receives emergency restoration assistance, that facility remains eligible for hazard-mitigation assistance under Section 406. The policy ensures that rapid restoration does not bypass or undermine long-term resilience funding, enabling simultaneous or sequential mitigation work as part of a holistic recovery.
Applicability date
The amendment applies to amounts appropriated on or after the date of enactment. This clarifies that new authority is prospective and does not retroactively alter ongoing pre-enactment hazard-mitigation or restoration programs.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Energy across all five countries.
Explore Energy in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Electric utilities and grid operators gain a streamlined path to fund and implement resilience projects in tandem with restoration efforts, reducing outage risk and speeding modernization.
- FEMA and other federal agencies gain a more integrated recovery framework, potentially improving efficiency and outcomes by aligning mitigation and restoration activities.
- State and local emergency management agencies can coordinate mitigation investments with utilities, leveraging federal funds to bolster community resilience.
- Electric grid project developers and resilience contractors benefit from clearer funding channels for resilience upgrades tied to disaster recovery.
- Utility customers in disaster-prone regions stand to benefit from more reliable service and fewer outages over the long term.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal and state governments may incur higher short-term outlays to fund expanded hazard-mitigation activities under the Stafford Act.
- Electric utilities will bear compliance and reporting costs associated with coordinating mitigation and restoration projects.
- State and local governments face increased coordination and administrative burden in managing integrated restoration and mitigation grants.
- Ratepayers could see higher bills if resilience investments are recovered through utility rates, though long-term reliability benefits may offset costs.
- Taxpayers may indirectly shoulder costs if general funds are used to support expanded hazard-mitigation funding.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Balancing immediate restoration imperatives with longer-term resilience investments: moving funds and attention toward “mitigation in recovery” can speed grid hardening but risks misalignment with urgent restoration priorities or budget constraints.
The POWER Act enables a tighter coupling of restoration and resilience funding, but it introduces several practical questions. How will projects be prioritized when restoration timelines are urgent but resilience needs are longer-term?
What standards will govern the eligible hazard-mitigation activities to avoid scope creep or duplicative spending across programs? Implementation will require rigorous project screening, performance metrics, and clear reporting to ensure funds target genuine resilience gains without delaying emergency response.
The interaction with existing Section 406 programs must be operationalized to prevent gaps or overlap in funding.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.