National Coal Council Reestablishment Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3015.

This bears repeating again: Here we are, 9 months into the new administration and a new Congress, and Republicans have not brought one bill to the floor of the House that will help tackle the cost-of-living squeeze and the affordability crisis.

Folks back home really need help. They are paying more on their groceries despite all the promises, more on their electricity, and now are facing huge increases to the cost of healthcare. It is really not fair.

Now, let's get back to household electricity. Prices are up 10 percent this year. One in three households is cutting back on basic necessities just to pay their rising electric bill. People are very concerned, and they should be, because over 100 gas and electric utilities are proposing higher rates this year.

Mr. Speaker, you know very well that we are grappling in Florida where the largest utility has requested what looks like the largest rate increase in the history of the country. I hear my good friend, the chairman of the committee, talk about this. They care a lot about consumer costs, but their rhetoric does not match their record.

Example number one is the big, ugly bill. I will offer for the Record an analysis by Energy Innovation of the big, ugly bill where they say, ``The bill will reduce additions of new cost-effective electricity capacity, raising power prices for consumers, and decreasing U.S. GDP . . .'' which will hamper development of domestic electricity generation capacity, and by 2035, we forecast a 340 gigawatt decrease in generation capacity due to the bill. As a result, this bill will make it more expensive to meet growing demand in the next 5 critical years in the global artificial intelligence race damaging U.S. competitiveness.

Mr. Speaker, the links for this analysis and two other analyses are as follows:

Https://energyinnovation.org/wp- content/uploads/One-Big-Beautiful- Bill-Senate-Reconciliation- Analysis_July-2025.pdf

Https://earthjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/grid- strategies_cost-of-federal-mandates-to-retain-fossil- burning-power-plants.pdf

Https://energyinnovation.org/wp- content/uploads/Coal-Cost-Update.pdf

Mr. Speaker, we cannot win the AI race of the 21st century with energy policies from the 20th century. Not only is it bad policy, but it is soul crushingly expensive to do so.

Hardworking American families are just looking up here to Washington and saying: Can you all please focus on solutions and not cater to the polluters and the folks who have all too much power here in the Halls of Congress? It is not fair.

This bill is an example of not only is it a waste of time, because here is the secret: This bill is asking for a coal council. I think the ranking member already went to it. The President has already established a coal council, so we don't really even need that.

The real impact is going to be on the bottom line, and let's look at one example of why this is going to cost everybody more. In May, just days before the J.H. Campbell coal-fired power plant was set to close, the Trump administration issued a last-minute order to force the plant to stay open.

We won't even talk about how the Trump administration has pulled permits of fully permitted and almost fully constructed offshore wind projects. We will put that aside. However, to keep the Campbell plant open, the administration cited a so-called grid reliability emergency, but they produced no actual evidence of any kind of emergency. Since their order, the Department hasn't appointed to a single instance where the plant was needed to keep the lights on.

Remember, Mr. Speaker, nobody was asking for this. The company that owns and runs the plant wanted to close it and shift to a mix of energy sources. The plant is losing money, and the administration is now forcing the company to spend nearly $1 million a day to keep it open.

Who will pay the cost of that?

It will be these families across the Midwest, and the Trump administration looks to force the old, uneconomical fossil fuel plants to continue operating past their plan retirement dates nationwide. We estimate that this looks like the cost to the consumer could reach $3 billion a year by 2028.

People can't afford that, and they don't deserve that. Don't forget, Mr. Speaker, the big, ugly bill. If you add what they are doing by enforcing uneconomical plants to stay online so consumers pay the cost, with the big, ugly bill, you are taking away clean energy incentives, cheaper and cheaper energy, and you are asking consumers to pay the cost of what utilities are. Everyone is grappling with these arbitrary Trump tariffs.

This is not fair, and Republicans say we need to keep coal plants online so that the so-called dispatchable resources to meet growing electricity demands will help with the artificial intelligence race with China. However, they are clearly confused about the difference between reliable and dispatchable power. Reliability is not just about being dispatchable. It is about delivering performance under stress.

Here is the truth: Coal-fired power plants are not reliable. They are inflexible. They are outdated. It is outdated technology that actually threatens grid reliability and resilience.

Most of our coal fleet was built in the 1970s and eighties, and years of use has led to a rise in unplanned outages. PJM has capacity accreditation of coal plants at just 83 percent. The Colstrip Coal Mine in Montana is accredited at only 54 percent. That means it is effectively unavailable nearly one-half of the time that it is needed.

As noted by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, large voltage-sensitive loads like data centers require flexible, responsible grid solutions, not slow-ramping generators that can take up to 12 or more hours to come online. Coal plants are inherently inflexible, and that worsens grid congestion. By forcing coal plants to stay online, we are occupying our limited transmission capacity with inflexible generation. That prevents cheaper and cleaner resources from being delivered.

This is a real concern. Independent market monitors in the Midwest have found that congestion-related market distortions have cost customers over $1 billion a year.

That is not fair. This is the United States of America. We are about innovation. We are about modern technology. We are not about looking backwards. If Republicans were serious about meeting energy demand and keeping customer bills low, empowering artificial intelligence, then they would look to real solutions, energy efficiency, virtual power plants, grid-enhancing technologies, batteries, and more.

However, Mr. Speaker, if you keep looking backwards, then we simply will not be able to meet the moment and meet the growing demand that is forecast.

American businesses should not be left holding the bag with higher bills because the majority refuses to march forward in the 21st century on what we need to do on power production and tapping the great innovators across this country.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this very costly bill. This entire package is another cost raiser for families back home that they don't deserve. Please vote ``no.''

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source