US Federal Senate Bill SB4337

US Federal 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/16/26
• Refer: 4/16/26

Caption

No Big Fossil Bailouts on Your Power Bill Act

Summary

SB 4337, the “No Big Fossil Bailouts on Your Power Bill Act,” would amend Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act to sharply limit the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s emergency authority to keep fossil fuel-powered generating facilities online. The bill is aimed at preventing emergency orders from being used to delay the retirement or permanent closure of power plants, except in a narrow circumstance where an emergency cannot be met any other way and the relevant transmission organization specifically requests a delay. It also bars orders that would require generation at a facility that has already retired or permanently closed. The bill adds extensive procedural requirements before and after any emergency order is issued. FERC would have to consider alternatives that meet the emergency while minimizing environmental harm, hold public hearings for renewals or reissuances, assess whether an order would raise rates for ratepayers, consult with relevant state and local agencies, and create a public online docket. The commission would also have to publish detailed reports on the causes of the emergency, alternatives considered, and estimated added system costs, and utilities affected by an order would need to notify customers about the order and its cost impacts.

Impact

If enacted, the bill would significantly narrow and restructure FERC’s emergency powers under the Federal Power Act, especially as they relate to fossil fuel plants and plant-retirement decisions. It would impose new consultation, transparency, cost-analysis, and public-notice requirements, and it would give state and local regulators a more explicit role in emergency-order proceedings. The bill would affect FERC, transmission organizations, electric utilities, ratepayers, and owners/operators of fossil fuel-fired generation facilities, while also reinforcing compliance with federal, state, and local environmental laws.

Sentiment

Based on the bill’s title and structure, the measure appears to be framed as a consumer-protection and anti-subsidy proposal, with a clear policy preference against using emergency authority to prolong fossil fuel generation. No committee transcript or vote data is available, so there is no recorded legislative debate or roll-call sentiment to assess. The available context suggests the bill is likely intended to appeal to lawmakers concerned about utility costs, transparency, and climate impacts.

Contention

The main points of contention are likely to be whether FERC should retain broad emergency flexibility and whether the bill could make it harder to respond quickly to grid reliability emergencies. Supporters would likely emphasize preventing fossil fuel “bailouts,” protecting ratepayers from higher bills, and reducing environmental harm. Opponents would likely focus on reliability concerns, arguing that the restrictions and procedural steps could delay emergency responses or limit the ability to keep power available during shortages. The bill also shifts more authority and consultation toward state and local agencies, which may be welcomed by some and resisted by others who prefer federal primacy in grid emergencies.