PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Mrvan, Frank J. [D-IN-1] · D–IN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Oct 15, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10687 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10687 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10687 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10687 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-10-01 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Utility Affordability and Transparency Act would change federal rules for emergency electricity orders. It would require officials to explain why orders are needed, study lower-cost alternatives before renewing them, and publish estimated costs and other impacts. Affected electric utilities would have to tell their customers about costs. These are proposed requirements, not evidence that electricity bills would fall.
This Act may be cited as the Utility Affordability and Transparency Act.
As part of the order, the Secretary shall explain why such order, including the requirements under such order, will best meet the emergency and serve the public interest.
Before renewing or reissuing an order under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall undertake a robust study of available alternatives that would reduce the net costs as compared to renewing or reissuing the order.
the Commission shall publish, including on a publicly accessible website, a report on— (i) the results of the study of alternatives under paragraph (4), if applicable; (ii) the causes of the applicable emergency; (iii) estimates of the costs that are expected to be incurred by any electric utility and customers of such electric utility as a result of the order; and (iv) other expected impacts of the order.
shall provide in writing to customers of the electric utility a description of the costs incurred due to the order, or costs expected to be incurred as a result of the order
Section 2 would amend the Federal Power Act's emergency authority. It would replace references to the Commission with the Secretary of Energy in specified provisions governing emergency decisions, while expressly naming the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in a provision concerning carrying out an order.
Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824a(c)) is amended
by striking Commission after During the continuance of any war in which the United States is engaged, or whenever the and inserting Secretary of Energy (referred to in this subsection as the Secretary)
by striking its own motion and inserting the Secretary’s motion; (D) by striking its judgment and inserting the Secretary’s judgment
by striking Commission after carrying out such order, the and inserting Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (referred to in this subsection as the Commission)
in paragraph (2)— (A) by striking Commission after law or regulation, the and inserting Secretary
in paragraph (4)— (A) by striking Commission each place it appears and inserting Secretary
The bill would delete the words “or other causes” from paragraph (1). The supplied text does not reproduce the surrounding statutory list, so it does not fully show which emergency causes would remain covered.
by striking or other causes, the Commission and inserting the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy would have to explain in an emergency order why the order and its requirements would best address the emergency and serve the public interest.
As part of the order, the Secretary shall explain why such order, including the requirements under such order, will best meet the emergency and serve the public interest.
For orders covered by paragraph (2), the Secretary would have to identify the specific necessary hours when an order lasts 96 hours or less. For an order lasting more than 96 hours, the Secretary would have to explain the method used to determine those hours. This provision would require an explanation, rather than impose a 96-hour maximum.
The Secretary shall state in each such order— (A) that is in effect for 96 or fewer hours, the specific hours that are necessary to meet the emergency and serve the public interest; or (B) that is in effect for more than 96 hours, the specific methodology by which such hours that are necessary to meet the emergency and serve the public interest were determined.
The bill would remove an environmental-law-conflict qualification from paragraph (4)(A) and add that qualification to the renewal or reissuance language in paragraph (4)(B). It would also require the Secretary to publicly identify the primary federal agency consulted. The underlying provisions are not reproduced, limiting assessment of the full change.
in subparagraph (A), by striking that may result in a conflict with a requirement of any Federal, State, or local environmental law or regulation
in subparagraph (B)— (i) by inserting that may result in a conflict with a requirement of any Federal, State, or local environmental law or regulation after In renewing or reissuing an order under subparagraph (A)
The Secretary shall publicly identify the primary Federal agency consulted.
Before renewing or reissuing an order under paragraph (4)(A), the Secretary would have to conduct a thorough study of available alternatives that would lower net costs compared with continuing the order. The added language requires a study but does not require choosing an alternative.
Before renewing or reissuing an order under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall undertake a robust study of available alternatives that would reduce the net costs as compared to renewing or reissuing the order.
A renewed or reissued order under paragraph (4) could be challenged in court under section 313(b) without first asking the agency to reconsider it or meeting other requirements of section 313(a). The bill does not reproduce the remaining court-review rules.
In the event the Secretary issues a renewed or reissued order under this paragraph, a petition for judicial review of such renewed or reissued order may be filed under section 313(b) without filing a request for rehearing or otherwise complying with any requirements of section 313(a).
Within 30 days after the Secretary issues, renews, or reissues an emergency order, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission would have to publish a report, including on a public website. It would cover any applicable alternatives study, the emergency's causes, estimated costs to utilities and their customers, and other expected impacts.
Not later than 30 days after the date on which the Secretary issues an order under this subsection (including any renewal or reissuance of an order under this subsection), the Commission shall publish, including on a publicly accessible website, a report on— (i) the results of the study of alternatives under paragraph (4), if applicable; (ii) the causes of the applicable emergency; (iii) estimates of the costs that are expected to be incurred by any electric utility and customers of such electric utility as a result of the order; and (iv) other expected impacts of the order.
Within 60 days after an order is issued, renewed, or reissued, each utility affected or expected to be affected would have to send its customers a written description of actual or expected costs caused by the order. The notice would include information from the Commission's report relevant to that utility and its customers.
Not later than 60 days after the date on which the Secretary issues an order under this subsection (including any renewal or reissuance of an order under this subsection), an electric utility that has been, or is expected to be, affected as a result of the order, including any electric utility described in subparagraph (A)(iii), shall provide in writing to customers of the electric utility a description of the costs incurred due to the order, or costs expected to be incurred as a result of the order, including any information relevant to the electric utility and the customers of the electric utility published in the applicable report under subparagraph (A).
New paragraph (7) would prohibit the Commission from issuing, renewing, or reissuing orders that prevent or delay a power plant's permanent closure or require generation at an already permanently closed plant, subject to an exception. The prohibition expressly names the Commission, although other amendments name the Secretary as the emergency decision-maker; that leaves uncertainty about its application to the Secretary.
Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the Commission may not issue an order under this subsection (including any renewal or reissuance of an order under this subsection) that would— (i) prevent or delay the retirement or other permanent closure of a facility for the generation of electric energy; or (ii) require the generation of electric energy at a facility that has retired or otherwise permanently closed.
by striking Commission after During the continuance of any war in which the United States is engaged, or whenever the and inserting Secretary of Energy (referred to in this subsection as the Secretary)
The closure restriction would not apply to a particular plant if an emergency could be addressed only by delaying its permanent closure and the applicable Transmission Organization submitted a written request to the Secretary for that delay. Both conditions would be required. The supplied text does not define “Transmission Organization.”
Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to a particular facility if— (i) an emergency exists that cannot be met in any manner other than the delay of the retirement or other permanent closure of the facility; and (ii) the applicable Transmission Organization requests in writing to the Secretary to delay the retirement or other permanent closure of the facility.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated October 15, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on October 1, 2026. It does not establish subsequent legislative action or enactment.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-15T21:12:52Z. 2026-10-01: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. 2026-10-01: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-10-01. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not cover other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish the absence of earmarks in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential benefit was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. The review does not cover other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 15, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI