This bill amends section 216 of the Federal Power Act to create a streamlined federal permitting route for electric transmission projects the Commission finds to be “necessary in the national interest.” It recasts definitions, sets objective findings FERC must make, and requires FERC to act after a defined public comment period.
The Act also prescribes how costs are to be allocated (requiring a tariff filing under section 205 tied to cost-causation principles), designates lead agencies for NEPA-style coordination, changes the legal process for rights-of-way, and preserves limited state consultation and landowner input. The package shifts practical authority and many implementation choices to federal regulators while carving out jurisdictional and procedural exceptions (including an explicit exclusion for ERCOT).
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill rewrites section 216 to require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to issue construction or modification permits for transmission projects that meet specified national-interest findings after a public comment period, establishes objective criteria (congestion reduction, reliability, energy independence, voltage thresholds), and mandates cost-allocation filings under section 205.
Who It Affects
Transmission owners and operators, ISOs/RTOs, state siting authorities, landowners along proposed rights-of-way, and ratepayers in regions that may be allocated costs. Federal agencies tasked with environmental and permitting reviews (and the Department of the Interior for offshore projects) must coordinate under the bill’s lead-agency framework.
Why It Matters
It centralizes and accelerates federal review of interstate transmission viewed as a national priority, changes the default mechanics for who pays for new capacity, and modifies dispute and legal procedures for land access—shifting the balance among developers, states, landowners, and customers.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The SPEED and Reliability Act overhauls the Federal Power Act’s section 216 by creating a clearer federal pathway to permit transmission facilities deemed “necessary in the national interest.” The bill replaces several prior subsections with explicit definitions and criteria so that FERC’s decision turns on enumerated findings such as improved reliability, congestion reduction, consumer protection, support for national energy policy, and minimum technical thresholds for voltage or advanced conductors. Rather than leaving the permitting framework largely descriptive, the text requires FERC to act after notice and at least a 60‑day public comment period.
The bill tightens what qualifies as a national-interest project. It defines “improved reliability” with several objective measures (e.g., compliance with mandatory reliability standards, reduced expected unserved energy, lower correlated outage risk) and sets a floor for the physical reach of eligible facilities (100 kilovolts or lower thresholds for advanced conductors as defined by FERC).
It also requires modifications such as reconductoring to maximize use of existing towers, structures, or rights-of-way to the extent reasonable and economical—pushing developers toward less new land disturbance when feasible.On state and landowner engagement, the statute preserves state siting authority in most cases and requires the Commission to provide affected States, tribes, Federal agencies, private property owners (including farmers and ranchers), and other interested persons a reasonable opportunity to present views. It adds a statutory obligation that FERC must “take into account” landowner input in authorizing work, but it does not replace state processes with an automatic preemption; rather it establishes a federal backstop where the Commission may issue permits if the statutory findings are met.The bill also restructures the legal mechanics around rights-of-way and cost recovery.
Rights-of-way procedures for projects authorized under section 216 are tied to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 71.1, changing how condemnation and access litigation proceeds. For cost allocation, transmitting utilities that own approved projects must file tariffs or tariff revisions under section 205; the Commission must ensure allocations are just, reasonable, and follow cost-causation, accounting for specific benefits (improved reliability, reduced congestion and losses, increased carrying capacity, lower reserve needs, and better access to lower‑cost generation).
Importantly, customers who receive no or trivial benefit cannot be involuntarily assigned costs, though voluntary cost-sharing is permitted.Finally, the bill clarifies interagency coordination and jurisdiction. It makes FERC the lead agency for the coordination role in section 216(h) for projects permitted under subsection (b), except that the Department of the Interior leads for projects on OCS leases, easements, or rights-of-way.
It amends cross-references across other federal statutes, excludes ERCOT from section 216 coverage, and contains a provision that minimizes new rulemaking obligations for agencies implementing the Act. The text concludes with savings clauses that preserve FERC’s lack of authority over retail sales and local distribution.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires at least a 60-day public comment period before FERC issues any construction or modification permit under the new section 216(b) pathway.
To qualify, transmission facilities must operate at not less than 100 kilovolts unless FERC defines lower-voltage equivalencies for advanced conductors (including superconductors).
Rights-of-way and related condemnation procedures for authorized projects are to proceed in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 71.1 rather than the prior, unspecified standard.
Cost allocation must be filed via a section 205 tariff, and FERC must allocate costs consistent with cost-causation principles tied to enumerated benefits (e.g.
reduced congestion, improved reliability, lower delivered power costs).
The statute explicitly excludes the ERCOT region from its scope and clarifies that subjecting entities described in section 201(f) to this section does not convert them into public utilities under section 201(e).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
New definitions and thresholds
This provision replaces the prior subsection (a) with new statutory definitions: 'Commission', 'ERO', 'improved reliability', 'landowner input', and 'Secretary' (which is later generalized to 'lead agency' in coordination provisions). The 'improved reliability' definition is multi-factor, tying the term to concrete measures such as compliance with mandatory reliability standards, reductions in expected unserved energy, and lower correlated outage risk. By putting those measures in statute, the bill narrows the discretionary envelope for what qualifies as reliability-related benefit.
Mandatory FERC permit process and findings
This subsection recasts the construction-permit formula so FERC 'shall' issue permits for projects it finds necessary in the national interest, subject to a minimum 60-day public comment period. The statutory findings list seven concrete requirements (interstate use, public interest, congestion reduction and consumer benefits, alignment with national energy policy, 100 kV threshold or FERC‑defined equivalency, and maximizing use of existing rights-of-way). The language replaces vague timing language with a clear filing-date standard and extends the scope to reconductoring and modifications, not just new line siting.
State consultation and landowner input
The bill preserves state siting authority in most circumstances but requires FERC to afford States, affected Federal agencies, Indian Tribes, private property owners, and other interested persons a reasonable opportunity to present views and recommendations. It adds a statutory duty that FERC 'take into account' landowner input, a non‑technical standard that will require administrative guidance or adjudication to define its practical weight in permit decisions.
Rights-of-way litigation procedure
The statute replaces an older, unspecified rights-of-way conformity standard with an explicit instruction to follow Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 71.1. That change imports the procedural mechanics for civil condemnation into the federal permitting process—affecting service, notice, and timing of takings suits and potentially shifting where and how quickly land access disputes are resolved.
Cost-allocation filing requirements and protections
This subsection requires transmitting utilities owning approved facilities to file tariffs or tariff revisions under section 205 to allocate project costs. It specifies that allocations must be just and reasonable and adhere to cost-causation informed by enumerated transmission benefits (reliability, congestion relief, lower losses, higher capacity, reduced reserve needs, and access to lower-cost generation). Critically, the statute bars involuntary cost allocation to customers who receive no or trivial benefit, while permitting voluntary agreements to allocate costs to broader groups.
Federal coordination and lead agency designation
The bill makes FERC the statutory 'lead agency' for coordination of federal authorizations for projects permitted under subsection (b), except for projects on Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) leases/easements/ROWs where the Department of the Interior leads. It systematically replaces 'Secretary' references with 'lead agency' to generalize roles across agencies and tightens deadlines in the coordination framework to 18 months for certain deliverables from enactment.
Jurisdictional carve-outs, transmission investment, and limits on rulemaking
The bill amends subsection (i) to exclude the ERCOT footprint from section 216 and clarifies that applying the section to entities described in 201(f) does not convert them into public utilities under 201(e). It makes projects on the OCS eligible for cost allocation and adds section 219 treatment allowing costs tied to payments to impacted jurisdictions to be treated as prudently incurred. It also includes a provision that, except where explicitly provided, agencies need not conduct new rulemakings to implement the Act—limiting administrative flexibility.
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
- Regional customers and load centers that receive improved transmission access — they stand to benefit from reduced congestion, potentially lower delivered energy costs, and improved reliability when projects meet the statutory findings.
- Transmission developers and investors — the clarified permit pathway, explicit FERC lead-agency role, and predictable cost-allocation mechanics reduce certain regulatory and revenue risks for projects designated as in the national interest.
- ISOs/RTOs and system planners — clearer statutory criteria for reliability and congestion reduction give planners firmer grounds to prioritize and coordinate large regional projects and to integrate projects into market and operational planning.
Who Bears the Cost
- State and local governments and jurisdictions near project corridors — while the bill allows payments to impacted jurisdictions to be recognized as prudently incurred, these entities may still face local impacts and negotiation burdens to secure mitigation payments and agreements.
- Private landowners (farmers and ranchers) along proposed corridors — even with 'landowner input' required, the FRCP 71.1 path for rights-of-way and explicit federal permit authority creates a realistic risk of expedited condemnation or negotiated easements.
- Transmitting utilities and ratepayers in benefiting footprints — utilities must file tariffs to allocate costs and may shoulder upfront financing, and ratepayers in zones that receive allocated costs (subject to the exclusion rule) may see higher bills if they are deemed beneficiaries.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is speed versus local control: the bill accelerates interstate transmission by concentrating federal authority and clarifying cost recovery, but doing so risks diminishing state and landowner bargaining power and forces difficult choices about who pays for broadly shared benefits—choices that have distributional consequences and legal friction with state land-use and property protections.
The bill attempts to thread competing policy goals—speed, reliability, and fairness—into statute, but that produces several implementation challenges. First, the 'take into account' language for landowner input is vague: it mandates consideration without specifying weight, timing, or remedies, leaving significant discretion to FERC and inviting litigation over sufficiency of outreach and mitigation.
Second, the cost-allocation rules require filings under section 205 and call for allocations according to enumerated benefits, but practical allocation methodology (geographic apportionment, usage-based metrics, or participant-funded models) remains unresolved and will be contested among utilities, ISOs/RTOs, states, and customer advocates.
Third, tying rights-of-way procedures to FRCP 71.1 expedites judicial mechanics for access and condemnation but shifts the arena of dispute to federal court procedures that may not align with state land-use practices or with local mitigation expectations. Fourth, the statute's minimization of required rulemaking constrains agencies’ ability to issue interpretive rules or implementation guidance that could harmonize state and federal processes, potentially producing inconsistent application across projects.
Finally, exclusions and clarifications—such as the ERCOT carve-out and the non‑conversion of section 201(f) entities into public utilities—reduce scope disputes but create gray zones for interconnections that cross jurisdictional lines or involve nontraditional transmitting entities.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.