PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Feb 6, 2025
Guaranteeing Reliability through the Interconnection of Dispatchable Power Act or the GRID Power Act
This bill requires the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to issue and periodically review a rule that revises the approval process for interconnection requests of generating units that produce electricity to prioritize dispatchable power projects (e.g., certain fossil fuel projects).
Under the bill, dispatchable power generally refers to an electric energy generation resource, such as a generating unit that produces electricity from fossil fuels, capable of providing known and forecastable electric supply in time intervals necessary to ensure grid reliability. Currently, FERC receives interconnection requests from those projects and other generating units, such as units that produce electricity from renewable energy. Interconnection requests are requests from generating units to connect to the high voltage transmission lines of the electric grid.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
First, the rule must address the efficiency and effectiveness of the existing procedures for processing interconnection requests to ensure that new dispatchable power projects that improve grid reliability and resource adequacy can interconnect to the electric grid quickly, cost-effectively, and reliably.
Second, the rule must revise the pro forma Large Generator Interconnection Procedures, and the pro forma Large Generator Interconnection Agreement as appropriate, to authorize transmission providers to submit proposals to FERC to prioritize new dispatchable power projects that will improve grid reliability and resource adequacy by assigning those projects higher positions in the interconnection queue of the provider. FERC must review and approve or deny such proposals within 60 days after the proposal is submitted.
People & committees
Sen. Hoeven, John [R-ND] · R–ND
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 119-366.
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: Oct 2, 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.465 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.465 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.465 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.465 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.