PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Dec 1, 2009
Directs the Secretary of Energy to carry out a research, development, and technology demonstration program to improve the efficiency of gas turbines used in power generation systems and to identify the technologies that will lead to gas turbine combined cycle efficiency of 65% or simple cycle efficiency of 50%.
Requires the program to: (1) support first-of-a-kind engineering and detailed gas turbine design for megawatt-scale and utility-scale electric power generation; (2) include technology demonstration through component testing, subscale testing, and full scale testing in existing fleets; (3) include field demonstrations of the developed technology elements to demonstrate technical and economic feasibility; and (4) assess overall combined cycle and simple cycle system performance.
Sets forth as program goals: (1) in phase I, to develop the conceptual design of, and to develop and demonstrate the technology required for, advanced high efficiency gas turbines that can achieve at least 62% combined cycle efficiency or 47% simple cycle efficiency on a lower heating value basis; and (2) in phase II, to develop the conceptual design for advanced high efficiency gas turbines that can achieve at least 65% combined cycle efficiency or 50% simple cycle efficiency on a lower heating value basis.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs the Secretary, in selecting program proposals, to emphasize the extent to which the proposal will: (1) stimulate the creation or increased retention of jobs in the United States; and (2) promote and enhance U.S. technology leadership.
Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Rep. Tonko, Paul [D-NY-21] · D–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 266 - 118 (Roll no. 911). (text: CR H13368-13369)
House roll call 911 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 266 - 118 (Roll no. 911).(text: CR H13368-13369)
House roll call 911 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H13372)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 3029.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H13368-13370)
Mr. Tonko moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 196.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Science and Technology. H. Rept. 111-343.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Science and Technology. H. Rept. 111-343.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote .
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.
Referred to the House Committee on Science and Technology.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 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.3029 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.3029 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.3029 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.3029 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.