This bill inserts a new subsection into Section 205 of the Federal Power Act to restrict when costs for interstate transmission facilities can be spread to consumers in other States. It targets transmission projects that are planned, built, or operated to implement a State policy and blocks allocating those costs to consumers in States whose public officials have not expressly consented.
The change is significant because it shifts the default for who pays for multi‑state transmission away from regional benefit sharing and toward state‑level consent. That will affect transmission planning, project financing, and the balance between state policy actions and regional electricity markets — and it requires the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to issue implementing rules within a short statutory window.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends the Federal Power Act to bar allocation of costs for a 'covered transmission facility' to consumers in a State that did not expressly consent when the facility is, in whole or part, intended to implement a State policy. It builds in a statutory exception allowing allocation if the consumer's State (or a designated State public official) expressly consents, and directs FERC to promulgate implementing rules within 180 days.
Who It Affects
The rule applies to transmission providers that serve customers in two or more States, regional transmission organizations and independent system operators that perform multi‑state planning and cost allocation, investor‑owned and publicly owned utilities participating in multi‑state projects, and retail ratepayers whose states may or may not consent to cost sharing.
Why It Matters
By making non‑consent a statutory bar to interstate cost allocation and prescribing presumptions about who 'causes' costs, the bill changes the bargaining leverage in multi‑state transmission finance. Developers and planners will face new legal and commercial risk; regulators and utilities will face altered incentives when designing region‑wide projects.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill adds a focused, categorical rule to the Federal Power Act: if a transmission project is planned, constructed, or operated to implement a State policy, then consumers in other States cannot be forced to pay for that project unless their State expressly agrees. The statute defines a 'covered transmission facility' by that connection to a State policy and deliberately leaves 'covered policy' broadly defined as any policy of a State or local political entity.
Practically, the text creates a two‑part gate for allocation. First, FERC must determine whether a particular project is a covered transmission facility under the statutory definition — i.e., whether the project exists at least in part to implement a State policy.
Second, where that connection exists, the statute prohibits charging consumers in non‑implementing States unless the consumer's State or a designated public official with authority 'expressly consents.' The bill also sets presumptions that favor non‑allocation: it treats residents of the policy State as the cost causers and treats out‑of‑State residents as non‑cost causers, shifting the evidentiary burden toward anyone seeking to charge those out‑of‑State consumers.The bill does not leave implementation to chance: it requires the Commission to issue rules and regulations within 180 days of enactment to operationalize the prohibition, the exception, and the presumptions. That timetable will require FERC to define key terms, set evidentiary rules for rebutting the statutory presumptions, and adjust its existing cost‑allocation frameworks — all while navigating existing case law and multi‑stakeholder regional planning processes.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Applies only when a transmission provider serves consumers in two or more States; the prohibition targets allocation across State lines.
Defines 'covered transmission facility' as any interstate transmission asset planned, constructed, or operated in whole or in part to implement a State policy (with 'covered policy' defined to include State and local policies).
States that are asked to bear costs can avoid them unless the State or a designated public official 'expressly consents' to the allocation.
Creates statutory presumptions that the benefits of a covered transmission facility accrue solely to the 'cost causers' and that residents of the State implementing the covered policy are the cost causers, while non‑residents are presumed not to be.
Directs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to issue rules and regulations to implement the subsection within 180 days of enactment.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Broad statutory definitions for 'covered policy' and 'covered transmission facility'
The bill defines 'covered policy' as any policy of a State or of a local political entity and ties 'covered transmission facility' to assets that are planned, constructed, or operated at least in part to implement such a policy. That breadth gives the rule wide reach: a future determination that a project implements a State policy — however narrowly construed — can trigger the allocation bar. For implementers and FERC, the practical task will be drawing lines between projects that incidentally serve state goals and projects whose primary rationale is a state policy.
Statutory ban on allocating costs to non‑consenting state consumers
This provision prohibits a transmission provider from allocating costs of a covered transmission facility to consumers who are residents of States other than the one whose policy justified the project. The prohibition specifically applies to providers serving customers in multiple States; it is written as a categorical rule rather than a case‑by‑case balancing test, which replaces or constrains some of the discretion FERC currently exercises in multi‑state cost allocations.
Express consent carve‑out under State control
The statute permits allocation if the consumer's State or a designated public official 'expressly consents' to the allocation. That makes State governments the gatekeepers for cross‑border cost sharing. The text leaves open who qualifies as a 'designated public official' and what form 'express consent' must take, creating key implementation questions for administrative rulemaking and potential litigation.
Shifts evidentiary posture toward non‑allocation with statutory presumptions
The bill sets three presumptions: benefits accrue solely to cost causers; residents of the policy State are cost causers; and non‑residents are not cost causers. Those presumptions invert the burden of proof in allocation disputes and make it harder for proponents to justify spreading costs more broadly. Parties seeking to rebut the presumptions will need to develop new types of benefit analyses and evidence to show region‑wide benefits.
Mandatory FERC rulemaking on a 180‑day clock
FERC must issue rules and regulations to implement the new subsection within 180 days. That short statutory window requires the Commission to define terms like 'express consent' and 'designated public official,' set procedures for evidentiary showings, and reconcile the new statutory regime with existing cost‑allocation tariffs and regional planning orders. The compressed timeline increases the likelihood of interim guidance, stakeholder disputes, and litigation over whether FERC’s implementing rules faithfully execute Congress’s intent.
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
- Retail ratepayers in non‑consenting States — they gain statutory protection against automatic cross‑state surcharges for projects tied to another State’s policy, reducing the risk they will shoulder costs for policies they did not adopt.
- State public officials who oppose regional cost sharing — the bill hands States leverage, giving them a formal veto over whether their residents pay for out‑of‑State policy‑driven projects.
- Local governments or communities resisting transmission corridors — they can press their State governments to withhold consent and thereby block external cost allocation, increasing their bargaining position in siting and permitting debates.
Who Bears the Cost
- Ratepayers in States that adopt policies tied to transmission build‑out — unless their State secures broad cost sharing by obtaining other States’ consent, the bill makes them the default payers for policy‑driven projects.
- Transmission developers and project financiers — the prospect that multi‑state cost allocation can be statutorily blocked raises revenue risk, increases perceived project risk, and may lift the cost of capital or deter investment in projects with cross‑border benefits.
- Regional transmission organizations and ISOs — their regional planning and cost‑allocation mechanisms will face legal and operational strain as they reconcile their tariff‑based allocations with a statutory consent requirement and presumptions favoring local cost allocation.
- FERC and federal regulators — the agency must rapidly produce rules and resolve ambiguous terms, potentially litigating its authority and interpretations in the courts while managing stakeholder backlash.
- Multi‑state utilities — they may see greater rate volatility and exposure to unrecovered costs if projects they support or join cannot secure inter‑State cost sharing.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma: protect States and their residents from being forced to pay for another State’s policy choices, or preserve an integrated regional system in which costs for transmission with multi‑State benefits are shared — the statute solves one problem (involuntary cross‑subsidy) by erecting barriers that may undermine efficient, equitable planning and finance of interconnection and transmission projects that serve broader regional goals.
The bill creates immediate trade‑offs between protecting States and consumers from involuntary cross‑subsidies and preserving the economic logic of regional cost sharing for transmission projects that often produce broad, multi‑State benefits. By prescribing presumptions that favor local cost causation and by requiring 'express consent' before any out‑of‑State allocation, the statute risks creating a holdout problem: a single State or designated official could withhold consent to extract concessions or block projects that provide reliability or decarbonization benefits region‑wide.
Implementation details will dominate outcomes. Key terms — 'covered policy,' 'expressly consents,' and 'designated public official' — are undefined beyond broad labels, so FERC's rulemaking will determine how easily a project triggers the prohibition and how a State can provide consent.
The 180‑day deadline pressures FERC to adopt fast, possibly contested rules. Separately, the bill may collide with existing precedents where courts have deferred to FERC’s allocation methodologies, raising preemption and statutory‑interpretation questions that could produce extended litigation and regulatory uncertainty.
Finally, projects that are hard to parcel into 'state policy' versus regional benefit components will face higher transaction costs as proponents compile evidence to rebut the statutory presumptions.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.