Federal Energy Regulatory Commission members appeared on Capitol Hill on Tuesday to address issues shaping how the country confronts challenges around grid reliability and rising power prices.
The House Energy and Commerce Energy subcommittee hearing came at a particularly fraught moment for the nation’s energy infrastructure.
Severe winter storms last week pushed regional grids to the brink, while the nation’s grid watchdog warned that the U.S. was ill-prepared to meet surging electricity demand as artificial intelligence operations expand rapidly.
Laura Swett, making her first appearance before Congress as FERC chair, sought to assure lawmakers that the agency was focused on delivering “reliable, affordable energy.”
“I’m committed to guiding FERC through the monumental growth opportunity before us,” Swett said. “We’re already working to streamline FERC processes, cut down connection times, and ensure efficient, durable infrastructure development and maintenance.”
The commissioners largely sidestepped partisan flashpoints that often dominate Energy and Commerce hearings. Ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) did urge them to “stand up to the madness that’s coming from President Trump” when it comes to efforts against renewable energy projects.
Republicans, led by Energy Subcommittee Chair Bob Latta (R-Ohio), pushed commissioners to prioritize baseload energy like fossil fuels and nuclear.
Here are main takeaways:
Offshore wind
Disagreements over lessons learned from Winter Storm Fern’s impact on New England’s power grid prompted one lawmaker to press FERC members on whether the administration’s recent offshore wind pauses were justified.
Rep. August Pfluger (R-Texas) pointed to high power prices during and after the storm, as well as the region’s reliance on oil-fired generation, arguing those problems stem from New England’s refusal to build more natural gas pipelines.
That drew a response from Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D-Mass.), who said a fully operational offshore wind farm would have supplied valuable power during the storm.
“Those turbines would have been blowing — rotating at absolute peak capacity — during the beginning part of the storm and during the middle part of the storm,” Auchincloss said. “The problem is that the Trump administration keeps canceling permits.”
The administration paused construction in December on Vineyard Wind off the Massachusetts coast, along with four other offshore wind projects. Federal judges have rules against the work stoppages.
Auchincloss asked Republican Commissioner Lindsay See whether her stated support for “legally durable signals that get steel in the ground” also applied to turbines installed offshore.
See, who previously defended West Virginia-issued permits for the Mountain Valley pipeline before joining FERC, suggested the matter falls outside the agency’s jurisdiction.
“When we have issues and matters in front of us, I agree, it is important for us to act in a legally durable way,” See said.
Auchincloss said her answer was “tortured,” before turning to David Rosner, the commission’s senior Democrat. He offered a sharper critique of policies that remove generation from the grid.
“What I would say to Massachusetts — and any state — is we need electrons,” Rosner said. “If you can get us more electrons, that would be great. From every type of fuel.”
NEPA
The commissioners also addressed recent changes to streamline the agency’s environmental reviews, including by sidelining consideration of greenhouse gas emissions.
The National Environmental Policy Act requires the government to consider a broad range of environmental impacts for major development projects. But a 2024 Supreme Court ruling limited the scope of NEPA reviews to issues that were within each agency’s jurisdiction.
Rep. Russell Fry (R-S.C.) asked the FERC chair about changes the agency had made in response to the Supreme Court’s holding.
“Now we no longer analyze the indirect emissions from upstream production or downstream combustion. That in itself has cut down the time that is necessary for environmental review from staff in the building,” Swett responded. “We also no longer use GHG emissions as a basis to require a much more resource-heavy environmental impact statement.”
Rosner also that the agency has instructed staff to “start writing the order while writing the environmental review document.” FERC decisions are often issued as orders.
“In the order, we have a summary of the environmental review. You can start writing the order while you’re finalizing the environmental document. It’s not rocket science,” Rosner told POLITICO’s E&E News after the hearing.
“When people agree — when there’s consensus — that flows through to the entire agency and allows the staff to work more efficiently.”
Rosner told lawmakers that recent process changes have allowed the agency to approve projects up to 30 percent faster in some cases.
Environmentalists often challenge natural gas pipelines and export terminals by attacking the validity of FERC’s NEPA analyses. When a court finds an agency’s environmental review to be deficient, it usually sends FERC back to the drawing board. Such litigation sometimes results in projects being canceled.
Congress is actively negotiating potential reforms to NEPA aimed at making the project approval process less time consuming.
Data centers
Swett and Rosner indicated that they believed the agency had authority to act on a controversial proposal from Energy Secretary Chris Wright that the agency streamline the grid interconnection of large loads like data centers. The administration considers the artificial intelligence programs that many data centers service to be a critical national security asset.
“As someone who adheres very religiously to the statutes that Congress has provided, we are committed to allowing and facilitating large load connections within our jurisdiction in a way that ensures that consumers pay just and reasonable rates,” Swett told Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.).
Rosner was a bit more direct: “I think the commission has jurisdiction over connecting large loads to the transmission system,” he said.
Grid operators are currently forecasting a 32 percent growth in U.S. power demand over the next 5 years. A bit more than half of that comes from energy-intensive data centers.
But some legal experts are wary that FERC action could cross into states’ turf if it acts on Wright’s proposal.
“FERC does not have authority over retail customer interconnection. That is clearly under state authority under the Federal Power Act,” said Mark Christie, a former FERC chair under the second Trump administration. “And for FERC to try to preempt the states would be a massive federal power grab.”
State utility regulators are urging federal officials to respect state jurisdiction and protect existing ratepayers from rising costs as the Trump administration moves to expedite power grid connections for energy-intensive AI data centers.
In a December order, a unanimous FERC laid out how it sees the dividing lines between federal and state authority over large loads.
“States have exclusive jurisdiction over how the costs [are] assigned to eligible customers,” the order said.
However, because Congress gave the agency power over interstate transmission service, including costs, “the Commission has exercised jurisdiction over the terms of certain interconnections to the transmission system,” the order said.
Within certain parameters, the commission said, that could include some say over large-load customers interconnections.
Wright submitted his proposal as Swett was sworn in last October, and he asked FERC to act by April 2026.
FERC vs. states?
Commissioners appeared open — to varying degrees — to expanding FERC’s authority over state regulators, depending on the type of infrastructure involved.
Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.) focused his questions on electricity transmission and whether the Department of Energy was doing a good enough job promoting it.
The agency has limited backstop authority, through its National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor program, to permit interstate transmission lines over certain state objections.
The authority, however, has never actually been used to build a line, and Peters wondered if FERC could be more effective.
“We provided backstop authority to DOE, but it never produced any lines,” Peters said. “I think it’s time to do something different.”
Rosner signaled interest in Congress exploring expanded authority for FERC.
“If Congress wanted to give FERC more tools to site projects more efficiently — while maintaining a very important role for states — that’s something I’d be delighted to provide input on,” he said.
See struck a more cautious note.
“When it comes to interregional transmission, I’m more focused on cooperation as opposed to mandates,” she said.
State regulators have long opposed giving FERC backstop authority over transmission, arguing it would force residents to pay for projects that provide little local benefit.
Swett, however, strongly supported giving FERC greater power to override state objections to interregional pipelines.
New York, under Gov. Kathy Hochul, recently sought to block construction of the Constitution pipeline, which would deliver natural gas from Pennsylvania into the state.
Swett said FERC has no authority to overrule such state action, unless Congress acts. And Hill Republicans are indeed pushing legislation that would make it harder for states to use the Clean Water Act to block energy infrastructure.
“It’s clear that the Clean Water Act probably needs to be revised to put some type of limit on a state’s ability to effectively veto a federal project,” Swett said.
This story also appears in Energywire.
