The Reinforcing the Grid Against Extreme Weather Act of 2025 directs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to improve interregional electricity transfer capability between immediately adjacent transmission planning regions. It requires a rulemaking to standardize how transfer capability is calculated and to establish a minimum transfer capability that ensures reliability during extreme weather, physical events, or cyberattacks, while also optimizing the transmission benefits.
It also requires planning entities to file a plan within three years of enactment and then at least every five years, detailing interregional transmission projects and how they will meet the minimum transfer capability. The bill authorizes cost allocation for those projects and imposes protections to prevent disclosure of cyberattack information.
Additionally, it requires annual reporting by the Commission on implementation progress and defines key terms such as greenhouse gas, transmission benefit, and related planning concepts.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds a new section to the Federal Power Act that directs FERC to issue regulations for calculating interregional transfer capability between adjacent planning regions, establish a minimum capability, allocate project costs, and protect security-related information.
Who It Affects
Transmission planning entities in adjacent regions, such as regional transmission operators and independent system operators, plus the utilities and market participants involved in cross-border transmission projects.
Why It Matters
A standardized, minimum level of interregional transfer capability aims to improve grid reliability and resilience against extreme weather, cyber threats, and other disruptions, while guiding efficient investment.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
HB603 amends the Federal Power Act to place a formal process around interregional electricity transfers. It requires FERC to issue rules within 24 months that standardize how transfer capability is calculated between adjacent planning regions, ensuring that each region uses a common method.
The rules also set a minimum transfer capability to protect reliability during weather events, physical disruptions, or cyberattacks and to maximize the benefits of cross-regional transmission.
Under the bill, transmission planning entities must file a plan within three years of enactment and every five years thereafter. These plans must identify interregional transmission projects, assess their ability to meet the minimum transfer capability, and describe how costs will be allocated among stakeholders.
FERC must review and approve or deny these plans based on stated factors and publish annual reports on implementation progress. The statute also defines key terms, including which greenhouse gases are covered, what constitutes a “transmission benefit,” and what counts as a transmission planning region, aligning them with existing FERC orders from 2012.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires FERC to issue a rulemaking within 24 months to standardize transfer-capability calculations between adjacent regions.
A minimum interregional transfer capability must be identified to support reliability during extreme weather, physical events, or cyberattacks.
Costs for identified interregional projects must be allocated and recovered to achieve the minimum transfer capability.
Transmission planning entities must file interregional plans within 3 years of enactment and at least every 5 years thereafter.
FERC must prohibit disclosure of sensitive cyberattack information and report on implementation results on a regular basis.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Rulemaking to standardize transfer-capability calculation
Not later than 24 months after enactment, FERC must issue regulations to establish a process for calculating transfer capability between adjacent transmission planning regions. The method must be uniformly applied by all planning entities in both regions and must comply with regulatory requirements set by the Commission. This creates a single, auditable standard for assessing how much electricity can be moved safely and reliably across regional boundaries.
Establishing a minimum transfer capability
The regulations must identify a minimum transfer capability between each pair of adjacent regions. This minimum must ensure reliable operation during weather-related or cyber-related disruptions and must be structured to optimize the overall transmission benefits by enabling more efficient use of existing assets and planned additions.
Cost allocation for interregional projects
The bill requires the identification, selection, and allocation of costs for interregional transmission projects necessary to achieve the minimum transfer capability. Allocation must reflect the anticipated transmission benefits and be recoverable through the usual pricing and rate mechanisms used for cross-regional infrastructure.
Protecting cyberattack information
The regulations must prevent the disclosure of information that could compromise electricity-system security, including details about cyberattacks or vulnerabilities. This aims to reduce operational risk while still enabling regulator oversight and transparency where appropriate.
Plan filing and approval process
Not later than three years after enactment, and at least every five years thereafter, the transmission planning entities for each adjacent region must file with FERC a plan that evaluates interregional projects and demonstrates how minimum transfer capability will be achieved. FERC will approve or deny these plans based on the factors described in subsection (a)(2).
Annual reporting on implementation
Not later than 48 months after the regulations are issued and annually thereafter, FERC must publish a Federal Register report detailing the results of implementing this section, including progress toward achieving the minimum transfer capability and the effectiveness of the planned interregional projects.
Key definitions
Definitions cover terms like greenhouse gas, transmission benefit, transmission planning entity, and transmission planning region. The greenhouse-gas definition lists specific gases and fluorocarbons; the transmission benefit encompasses reliability, resilience, safety, reduced congestion, market effects, and other broadly defined advantages of interregional transmission expansion. The section also anchors planning regions to existing orders from 2012 to maintain consistency with established regional planning frameworks.
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
- Transmission planning entities (RTOs/ISOs) across adjacent regions gain a clear, uniform method for calculating transfer capability, reducing disputes and enabling coordinated planning.
- Utilities operating across regional boundaries benefit from a defined minimum transfer capability, improving cross-border project viability and reliability planning.
- Regulators and oversight bodies gain a transparent framework for evaluating interregional investments and efficiency gains.
- Electricity consumers in regions with improved reliability may see fewer outages and more stable prices tied to better grid resilience.
- Critical government and defense facilities relying on consistent power supply gain from enhanced grid resilience under extreme scenarios.
Who Bears the Cost
- Utilities financing interregional transmission projects to meet the minimum transfer capability.
- Ratepayers and customers who ultimately fund the capital expenditures and project costs.
- Transmission planning entities responsible for implementing the new rulemaking and plan requirements.
- Investors and developers building interregional transmission facilities subject to the new cost-allocation framework.
- Market participants bearing compliance costs associated with meeting new regulatory and reporting requirements.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing the reliability and resilience gains from higher interregional transfer capability against the incremental costs and complexities of implementing uniform calculations and allocating long-term project costs. This involves choosing between aggressive grid modernization and the financial burden it imposes on ratepayers, while safeguarding the security of sensitive information and maintaining regulatory flexibility.
The bill creates a comprehensive framework for interregional transmission planning, but it also raises policy and implementation questions. Requiring a minimum transfer capability could push the grid toward expensive expansions, potentially affecting ratepayer costs and project economics if benefits are not fully realized.
The rulemaking and uniform calculation method must be practical across diverse regions with different planning cultures, markets, and existing assets. The definition of transmission benefits is broad, which is powerful for capturing value, but it could complicate cost-benefit analyses and project selection.
The cybersecurity protection in Section 224(a)(4) protects critical information but must be balanced against the need for regulator insight and public transparency. Finally, the reliance on existing 2012 regional planning orders to define regions is prudent for consistency, but it may constrain future adjustments as regional needs evolve.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.