Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Illinois for yielding. It is an honor to work with the gentleman on this bill and other things. Mr. Speaker, last night in this very Chamber, the President declared that America is in a golden age. He…
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Illinois for yielding. It is an honor to work with the gentleman on this bill and other things.
Mr. Speaker, last night in this very Chamber, the President declared that America is in a golden age. He said that energy prices were plummeting. He said that we are winning so much that we don't know what to do about so much winning.
He celebrated record fossil fuel production and assured the American people that drilling alone is delivering affordability. He dismissed clean energy as a scam and suggested that the path forward is simply to double down on the past.
I agree that every one of us should want America to be strong, prosperous, and secure. Yet, the real test of any energy policy is not what sounds good in
a televised address. It is whether working families feel relief when they open their utility statements. It is whether small businesses can forecast stable costs. It is whether seniors on fixed incomes are insulated from volatility rather than being exposed to it.
Families don't experience energy affordability through slogans. They experience it through monthly statements. Electricity costs are up 13 percent, and residential gas prices are up nearly 60 percent across the country.
One in six households is now behind on their electric or gas bills. Families are paying more to heat and cool their homes, more to keep the lights on, and more just to get through the month. For millions of Americans already stretched thin, this is yet another bill that they can't afford.
This comes despite the President promising on the campaign trail to cut energy bills by 50 percent. It is not just a broken promise on costs. It is a strategic failure at a defining moment for America's economic future.
We are living through the most important global energy transition since the industrial revolution. The countries that deploy clean energy the fastest are lowering costs, strengthening domestic manufacturing, and securing control over the energy supply chains that will define economic power for decades.
This is the moment when the winners of the global energy race are being decided, but instead of leading, the United States is being pulled backward.
Over the past year, more than 165,000 clean energy jobs have been wiped out or delayed. Projects capable of powering roughly 13 million homes have been canceled or frozen. Clean energy tax credits are under attack. Grants have been rescinded. Permitting for wind and solar has been effectively paused. Billions of dollars in private investment are sitting idle because Federal policy has injected uncertainty into the marketplace.
At the same time, the administration is doubling down on fossil fuel policies that leave families exposed to volatile global markets and rising prices.
Mr. Speaker, let's be honest about what is happening. Families are paying more because this administration is choking off the supply of clean, low-cost electricity while forcing ratepayers to subsidize aging, expensive fossil fuel plants.
It is not ideology. It is math. It is math. If we are serious about affordability--truly serious--we must ask a different question. It is not how much we can drill, but rather how we build an energy system that delivers stable, low-cost power for decades?
The truth--and it is a truth grounded in financial analysis, not political branding--is that clean energy is the lowest cost new electricity in the United States. Wind and solar, on an unsubsidized basis, undercut new coal and frequently undercut new natural gas generation. Utilities choose clean not because of ideology but because they are the least expensive options available to meet demand.
That isn't to say that I disagreed with everything that the President had to say last night. In fact, I was genuinely pleased that he acknowledged the pressure that data centers are placing on our electric grid. The explosion of artificial intelligence, cloud computing, and advanced manufacturing is real, and it is transforming our economy. It is driving electricity demand upward at a pace that we haven't seen in decades. Ignoring that reality would be irresponsible, and confronting it is necessary.
Mr. Speaker, the President suggested that tech companies should build their own power plants so that household rates don't rise. At its core, I think that intention is correct. Ratepayers should not be forced to subsidize infrastructure built to serve trillion-dollar tech companies.
Families living on fixed incomes shouldn't be forced to underwrite private server farms for Big Tech. Small businesses shouldn't be absorbing the transmission costs created by hyperscale expansion, and protecting consumers must be the starting principle.
Yet, the correct intentions of the President aren't enough. We need statutory guardrails so that utilities can socialize grid upgrade costs across all customers. Without clear cost allocation rules, transmission investments triggered by large new loads can be spread broadly rather than assigned to the source of the demand.
Without modernized planning, the infrastructure required for rapid load growth can crowd out other investments and create bottlenecks that ultimately drive rates higher for everyone.
There is a second layer to this. Even if data centers build dedicated generation, the broader grid still absorbs the consequences of rising demand. If demand rises and the cheapest new resources are constrained, prices rise for everybody. If transmission is insufficient, congestion increases and wholesale prices spike for everybody. If fossil fuel generation continues to dominate, the corresponding volatility is transmitted directly into higher retail electric bills for everybody.
In sum, if we restrict the cheapest sources of electricity while demand rises, prices are going to go up. It is not ideological. It is just supply and demand. If we slow the deployment of the lowest-cost wind and solar, if we delay transmission build-out, if we limit storage, then the system will rely more heavily on higher-cost generation, and consumers are going to pay the difference.
If, on the other hand, we modernize the grid, we deploy the lowest- cost resources at scale--if we accelerate transmission expansion, integrate storage, and allow clean energy to compete fairly and fully-- then rising demand can be met with falling costs and less volatility. Infrastructure will be built more intelligently, enhancing reliability rather than undermining reliability.
Again, this is not ideology. It is math. It is common sense.
Today, along with my friend from Illinois (Mr. Casten), with whom I am so proud to work, we are embarking on really a new path forward, the Energy Bills Relief Act.
This is all about math, and it is all about common sense. It is all about how electricity markets actually function. It is all about the need for grid modernization as an economic imperative. It is all about fairness in who pays the bill for the modernized electric grid. It is all about protecting ratepayers with enforceable policy rather than with empty statements.
The American people deserve more than rhetoric. They deserve a system built on data and durability. They deserve leadership that understands that affordability is engineered, not declared.
They deserve lower bills. The path to lower bills runs directly through the clean energy deployment that markets are already telling us is the cheapest way forward. That is why we are here today, and that is what the Energy Bills Relief Act is designed to deliver.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Illinois for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to just spell out some basic facts and some myths about clean energy because there is a whole lot of misinformation out there these days.
The first thing I will say is that clean energy is the lowest-cost new electricity in America. Independent financial analysis confirms that utility-scale solar and onshore wind are the cheapest forms of new electricity generation available in the United States. This is from Lazard, their Levelized Cost of Energy analysis, showing that unsubsidized solar and wind consistently undercut new coal and new natural gas generation.
There was recently a report that solar projects are on average 41 percent cheaper than the lowest cost fossil fuel alternatives globally, and onshore wind projects are 53 percent cheaper. Another analysis shows that solar is approximately $64 per megawatt-hour cheaper than coal and $20 cheaper than combined-cycle gas. Wind is $61 cheaper than coal and $17 cheaper than gas.
Markets are already choosing clean energy because it is the least expensive option. In fact, States leading in renewable generation generally see lower electricity prices. According to EIA data, 17 of 22 States with above-average shares of wind and solar had below-average electricity prices last year. Thirteen of those States voted Republican in 2024, I might add. Another analysis showed that the 4 States with the highest renewable generation saw prices fall in 2025. While 9 of the 10 States with the lowest renewable energy penetration saw prices rise.
This isn't that hard. The cheapest, most affordable energy is the cleanest energy. Yet, instead of expanding that supply, the administration chooses to restrict it.
The second thing I want to talk about is coal and market distortion. At the same time that clean energy deployment is being obstructed, this Department of Energy has issued emergency orders forcing aging coal plants to remain online.
In Colorado, for example, that decision is estimated to cost ratepayers $20 million over 90 days, roughly $85 million annually, and potentially up to $150 million per year if required to operate continuously.
In Michigan, ratepayers paid approximately $80 million over 4 months to keep a coal plant running. If coal were the lowest cost option, it would not need these sorts of emergency orders.
Ninety-nine percent of U.S. coal plants are more expensive to operate than replacing them with new wind or solar, according to Energy Innovation. Coal is aging, it is unreliable, it is costly, and more than half the fleet is already scheduled to retire. NERC reliability data shows increasing forced outage rates for coal plants in recent years.
This is not free market competition. This is protectionism for expensive incumbents while families are footing the bill.
The third thing I would like to talk about is reliability. Opponents sometimes argue that wind and solar are unreliable. The evidence says exactly the opposite.
Battery storage deployment is absolutely taking off. The U.S. is projected to add more than 18 gigawatts of new utility-scale battery storage. Just last year, 2025, there was a huge record number. Nearly 11 gigawatts were added in 2024. By the end of 2026, the assumptions are, there will be nearly 65 gigawatts of total storage capacity.
The majority of new solar projects in the western interconnection area now include co-located storage. Battery costs have dropped drastically in the last couple of years.
Transmission expansion connects regions experiencing different weather patterns, improving reliability and lowering costs for everyone, delivering the grid of the future, delivering the interconnected, flexible, diversified grid of the future.
Meanwhile, what is the alternative? Well, during Winter Storm Fern in January of 2026, coal plants ramped up as expected, but fuel prices spiked, stockpiles dropped to their lowest levels in years, and the system was strained.
We know that gas infrastructure can freeze. We know that peaker plants can be overstressed. We know that fossil fuels are not immune from failure.
Reliability comes from diversification and modernization, not by clinging to a single fuel.
Next, I hear that clean energy can't meet growing demand. That is not true either. Electricity consumption hit a record high last year, and it is projected to continue rising in 2026, according to EIA. AI-driven data centers, I think we all know, are a major contributor, with electricity demand from data centers expected to double by 2030.
Clean energy is the fastest resource to deploy. Not only is it cheapest, but it is fastest to deploy. The average solar project can be built in 15 to 17 months. A natural gas plant often takes 4 years or longer. Gas turbine shortages mean new turbines may not be available until the 2030s.
Solar and wind growth outpaced global demand growth in the first half of 2025, with solar alone meeting 83 percent of global electricity demand growth in the first half of 2025.
If we are serious about meeting rising demand and doing so affordably, we must accelerate the most affordable and fastest-to- deploy resources, which also happen to be the cleanest resources.
Next, I want to talk about data centers and fairness.
Data centers are expanding dramatically, and utilities are investing billions of dollars in transmission upgrades.
For example, in PJM, $4.3 billion in transmission costs associated with data center growth were passed to ratepayers. An additional $7.3 billion in increased generation costs were recorded.
Without guardrails, households and small businesses are subsidizing infrastructure where trillion-dollar companies are making the money.
That is why I am proud that our Energy Bills Relief Act includes protections for consumers to ensure that data centers pay for their own grid updates. It incentivizes clean, zero-emission electricity use to reduce overall system costs and pollution.
We need to make sure that as growth continues, that ratepayers are not stuck with the bill while trillion-dollar corporations reap all the benefit.
Now, I will turn close to my home for just a second and talk about wildfires and, in particular, California.
California's electricity rates have gone up since the mid-2000s. No question about that. That is despite the fact that we have led in energy efficiency.
Wildfire mitigation and grid hardening are now 16 percent of total utility costs, 16 percent. Ratepayers in California have borne more than $27 billion in wildfire-related costs just between 2019 and 2024.
Investor-owned utilities have passed on bankruptcy settlements and infrastructure upgrades tied to wildfire liability, and they have stuck it to the ratepayer.
That is why blaming renewable energy for rate increases doesn't tell the picture. They are wildfire driven. These are simply misrepresented facts by those who have a grudge against renewable energy.
The Energy Bills Relief Act includes a grant program to support grid upgrades that would reduce wildfire risks, that would prevent catastrophic utility failures, lowering long-term ratepayer burdens.
Next, I want to talk about LNG exports and volatility.
As LNG exports increase, domestic natural gas prices increasingly reflect international demand. Global volatility becomes domestic volatility.
Wind and solar, on the other hand, have no fuel price. They have no geopolitical premium. They have no shipping constraints. When you build renewable generation, the fuel is free forever. The fuel is free forever. That is a big deal. That is long-term price stability.
What would our bill do? I am very proud of a lot of the things that it would accomplish.
Number one: It would rescind the tax hike on low-cost, clean energy, and it would restore tax credits for clean energy such as those in the Inflation Reduction Act.
Number two: It would reverse roadblocks to clean energy permitting and restrict the abuse of Department of Energy emergency orders.
Number three: It would ensure that data centers pay their fair share.
Number four: It would expand LIHEAP and weatherization assistance to help struggling families.
Number five: It would protect natural gas markets from international volatility.
Number six: It would build a nationally interconnected grid to improve affordability, reliability, and resilience.
Most importantly and lastly: It would share the economic benefits of clean energy with host communities.
It is a good bill. It is one that we worked on for a long time, and we are going to get as much support as we can.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank my good friend from Ohio, Marcy Kaptur, from whom I have learned so much on the Appropriations Committee and otherwise.
Mr. Speaker, this debate should not be partisan, and it does not have to be partisan. The physical laws of energy do not care who is in the majority. The economics of electricity do not change with the party label or which district you are from, Mr. Speaker. The grid does not ask whether the power flowing through it came from a red State or a blue State.
We really need to answer only one question: Is there power when it is needed at a price families can afford?
That is why this ought to unite us. Republican and Democratic States alike lead wind and solar generation. Red and blue districts alike host clean manufacturing. Farmers earn steady lease payments from solar panels and wind turbines that help keep their family farms afloat through droughts, floods, and commodity swings. Veterans and skilled tradespeople are building the advanced technologies that strengthen our energy security and reduce our dependence on volatile fuel markets. This is an American project, happening in every region across every map.
The choice before us is simple: Do we want to play politics with the energy system that powers our economy, or do we want to win the future?
That is because the truth is that families do not experience energy policy as ideology. They experience it as a bill. They experience it as a choice between paying the utility bill and paying for groceries. They experience it as small business owners deciding whether to hire or to cut hours. They experience it as seniors on a fixed income turning down the thermostat and hoping the next heat wave doesn't last too long. That is what energy affordability means in real life.
Right now, energy bills are higher. Too many jobs have been put at risk or pushed offshore. Too many families have been stretched thinner. Too many communities are being asked to subsidize decisions that protect the incumbent energy players instead of protecting consumers.
We can keep doing what we have been doing: restricting the cheapest new supply, forcing ratepayers to carry the cost of uneconomic fossil fuel plants, and letting the infrastructure needs of trillion-dollar tech companies get passed down to households.
We can keep pretending that the answer to every 21st-century challenge is the same 20th-century playbook. We can cling to the past and see the costs rise across the country for the average person, or we can do what responsible leaders do. We can modernize and we can compete.
We can build the grid that matches the economy that we actually have, not the economy that we used to have. We can expand transmission so that power can move to where it is needed. We can deploy storage so reliability is stronger in heat and cold and storms. We can make cost allocation fair so households aren't paying for private infrastructure that should be borne by the companies that profit from it.
We can strengthen resilience against wildfires and extreme weather so ratepayers are not trapped in a cycle of catastrophic costs. We can do what markets are already trying to do: scale the lowest cost electricity available.
Here is what cannot be debated away with partisan politics: Clean energy is the lowest cost new energy in America. Clean energy is the fastest path to stabilizing energy bills. Clean energy is how we meet rising demand without squeezing households. Clean energy is how we compete with China, rather than handing them the supply chain of the future. Clean energy is how we reduce volatility, because sunshine and wind do not spike in price when global markets panic.
That is why the question is not whether clean energy wins. It is already winning in every market that allows fair competition to function. The question is whether America leads.
Will we lead in building the industries that power the next generation of manufacturing? Will we lead in the technologies that make the grid more reliable, not less reliable? Will we lead in protecting consumers rather than protecting entrenched interests? Will we lead in an energy system that is affordable, resilient, and secure?
History is not going to remember who had the better slogan. History,