PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Aug 6, 2015
Free Market Energy Act
This bill amends: (1) the Federal Power Act to define "distributed energy resource" as a resource, technology, or service interconnected to the electricity distribution system that generates, manages, or reduces energy use; and (2) the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 to provide that distributed energy resources shall have a general right of interconnection under such Act.
States must ensure that electric distribution grid operators adopt requirements for interconnection rates and fees that are just and reasonable, that provide for the two-way benefit for the distributed energy resource and the electricity grid, and that are not punitive. Time frames for interconnection shall be well-defined, expeditious, and not unduly protracted. An interconnection may not be delayed or denied unless the electric utility demonstrates that the interconnection is unsafe or impracticable.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
A state regulatory authority that considers modifying the treatment of net energy metering customers must consider requiring that distributed energy resources be eligible to receive just and reasonable energy and rate treatment using dynamic pricing, which may account for locational benefit, to be provided on an unbundled basis, after accounting for the two-way valuation of dynamic rates, for services provided to or by the grid. Dynamic pricing considerations shall include:
pricing for energy sold to, and pricing for energy purchased from, an electric utility,
capacity,
the provision of ancillary services,
the societal value of distributed energy resources, and
transmission and distribution losses.
A state regulatory authority or applicable Regional Transmission Organization or Independent System Operator must consider nontransmission alternatives in instances in which an entity proposes transmission projects seeking cost-of-service rate recovery. To reduce the cost to the ratepayer of a potential transmission upgrade, the cost of the nontransmission alternative shall be recovered from the ratebase or regional recovery mechanism in the same manner as the transmission upgrade otherwise would have been.
People & committees
Sen. King, Angus S., Jr. [I-ME] · I–ME
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Introduced in Senate
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 S.2003 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 S.2003 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 S.2003 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 S.2003 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.