SB2044 directs the Secretary of Energy to move the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management out of Washington, DC and into Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and it requires a post-move report on staffing and labor impacts. The bill explicitly creates a relocation mandate and a follow-up accountability requirement for the Department.
This matters because relocating a technical, regulatory office reshapes staffing, institutional memory, and local economic footprints. The bill forces the Department to confront employee turnover, labor-representative dynamics, and the operational continuity risks that follow an enforced move.
At a Glance
What It Does
The legislation compels the Secretary of Energy to relocate the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management to Pittsburgh and directs a single report after the move describing employee attrition, attribution of causes, mitigation plans, and effects on employees’ ability to bargain through representatives. The statute removes any procedural obstacle in title 4 that would otherwise limit such a compelled transfer.
Who It Affects
Directly affects DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management staff, Department leadership charged with executing the move, and the unions or employee representatives that negotiate conditions of employment. Indirectly affects local governments, contractors, and energy firms that work with the Office.
Why It Matters
The bill imposes an operational decision by statute rather than agency discretion, shifting personnel dynamics and potentially setting a precedent for Congress to order physical relocations of executive-branch components. Agencies, HR teams, and labor counsels should track how the Department will staff, fund, and negotiate through the transition.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB2044 contains two operative parts. First, it mandates that the Department of Energy move the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management from its Washington, DC location to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
The move is statutory, not discretionary: Congress tells the Secretary to do it, which narrows the Department’s flexibility about timing and location and can limit administrative processes that would otherwise govern such moves.
Second, the bill requires the Secretary to prepare a single report after the relocation is complete. That report must document how many employees left during and after the move, assess how much of that turnover resulted from the relocation itself, explain the Department’s plans to address the attrition, and describe how the relocation affected employees’ ability to negotiate through their representatives about employment conditions.
The reporting requirement forces the Department to quantify workforce impacts and articulate mitigation steps to Congress.Operationally, the statute creates near-term logistics and human-resources work: identifying which positions transfer, offering relocation assistance or separation options, preserving subject-matter expertise, and maintaining program continuity during the transition. The statutory command also raises practical questions about funding (who pays for moving costs, recruitment, severance, or temporary backfills) and about timing and sequencing to avoid interruptions in ongoing projects.For labor relations, the bill requires the Department to disclose how collective bargaining and representative negotiations were affected by the relocation.
That will surface whether the move impaired recognized channels of employee representation or triggered disputes over bargaining obligations, accommodations, or changes in working conditions. Unions and employee representatives will use the report’s findings in any follow-on negotiations or grievances.Finally, the bill’s relocation-by-statute approach can influence broader agency behavior: agencies facing congressional relocation mandates must translate statutory directives into personnel policy, budgetary requests, and operational plans while responding to congressional oversight requests that probe workforce stability and bargaining rights.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires the Secretary of Energy to relocate the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Relocation must be completed by December 31, 2026, under the statutory timetable.
SB2044 explicitly operates notwithstanding section 72 of title 4, U.S. Code, removing a statutory obstacle to the move.
One year after the relocation is complete, the Secretary must report to Congress on (a) employee attrition during and after the move, (b) the extent attrition is attributable to the relocation, (c) plans to address that attrition, and (d) effects on employees’ ability to negotiate through representatives.
The bill was introduced in the 119th Congress by Senator David McCormick and includes Senator John Fetterman as a cosponsor.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the Act’s name: the "Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management Relocation Act of 2025." This is a formal heading but signals congressional intent and frames the statute as a single-purpose relocation measure, which can matter for interpretation and for how agencies present implementation costs to appropriators.
Statutory relocation mandate
Commands the Secretary of Energy to transfer the Office from Washington, DC to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and contains a concrete completion deadline. Because the provision is mandatory—using a statutory directive rather than a permissive authorization—it limits the Department’s discretion on timing and destination, which affects planning, contracting, and HR processes. The provision also includes a 'notwithstanding' clause limiting the operation of a relocation constraint in title 4, which reduces obstacles that might otherwise slow or prevent the transfer.
Post-relocation reporting requirements
Obligates a single report to Congress filed one year after the move describing workforce attrition statistics, the degree to which attrition resulted from the relocation, the Department’s mitigation strategy for attrition, and how relocation affected employees’ collective bargaining or representative negotiation abilities. Practically, this forces the Department to collect baseline and follow-up HR metrics, coordinate with labor-relations offices, and produce documentable evidence that Congress can use in oversight or further legislative action.
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
- Pittsburgh regional economy — Gains federal jobs, associated local purchases, and potential boosts to professional services and commercial real estate from hosting a technical DOE office.
- Local contractors and vendors — Stand to capture facility fit-out, security, IT, moving services, and ongoing operational contracts tied to a new federal presence.
- State and local elected officials in Pennsylvania — Receive increased leverage and visibility from hosting a federal office and may use the relocation to attract further federal activity and investment.
Who Bears the Cost
- Employees of the Office — Face relocation decisions, potential resignations, or longer commutes; loss of institutional knowledge if technical staff do not move.
- Department of Energy (administration and budget offices) — Must allocate staff time and potentially funds to plan and execute the move, recruit replacements, and maintain continuity.
- District of Columbia economy and service providers — Lose jobs and local contracting revenue tied to the Office’s Washington footprint.
- Unions or employee representatives — May need to engage in negotiations, grievance processes, or representation efforts arising from personnel changes and changes in conditions of employment.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between Congress’s goal of shifting federal presence to a specific region (and the associated economic and policy signaling) and the operational and human costs of imposing a forced relocation on a technical, specialized workforce: achieving regional economic objectives risks losing expertise and disrupting program delivery, while preserving staffing continuity may frustrate congressional intent to move the office.
The bill creates several implementation and legal questions that the statute itself does not resolve. It mandates relocation but does not appropriate money to cover moving costs, hiring incentives, severance, or facility preparation.
That gap forces the Department to absorb costs within existing budgets or to seek appropriations, which will affect the timeline and the scale of mitigation measures for affected employees.
The reporting requirement will surface measured attrition numbers, but it leaves open contested causal attributions: employees leave for many reasons, and isolating the portion 'attributable' to relocation requires choices about metrics, time windows, and counterfactuals. The measure of attribution the Department uses can materially affect Congress’s view of the move’s success and any political or budgetary response.
Equally, the bill asks how the move affected employees’ ability to negotiate through representatives but does not specify standards for evaluating bargaining impacts or whether findings could trigger statutory remedies under labor law.
Finally, the statute’s 'notwithstanding' override of title 4 could prompt challenges or unintended administrative consequences in personnel classification, pay locality, or hiring authorities. The Department will need to coordinate HR, general counsel, and labor-relations offices to ensure compliance with other federal statutes and collective-bargaining obligations while implementing a congressionally mandated operational change.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.