On Dec. 11, 2025, the U.S. House of Representatives passed two bills to address rising electricity demand driven by artificial intelligence and data centers and to strengthen grid supply chain resilience. Both measures will move to the Senate and have potential for revisions.
Key Takeaways
- House Passage and Date: Both bills passed the House on Dec. 11, 2025. HR 3628 passed 218–207 and HR 3638 passed 267–159.
- Scope of Bills: HR 3628 would reorient state integrated resource plans (IRP) toward “reliable availability” over 10 years. HR 3638 would require the Department of Energy (DOE) to periodically review grid supply chain risks and mitigation options.
- Reliability Construct: HR 3628’s 30-day continuous operability concept favors power sources that can deliver electricity around the clock for extended periods, raising uncertainty for wind or solar energy paired with battery storage.
- Federal Oversight Signal: HR 3638 implies the industry will see recurring DOE data requests, as well as heightened federal visibility into utility procurement and vendor strategies.
- Senate Outlook: The industry should expect early‑2026 referrals. HR 3638 has clearer bipartisan traction, while HR 3628 may see revisions on cost‑benefit and treatment of storage‑hybrid resources
- State‑Federal Alignment and Differences: At the state level, commissions and energy policy bodies, like Virginia’s Commission on Electric Utility Regulation (CEUR), are advancing reliability, storage and grid‑readiness measures that overlap with the House bills. However, CEUR more explicitly supports renewables while HR 3628’s 30‑day construct does not favor standalone wind and solar.
What Passed and Why It Matters
HR 3628 would require state regulators to ensure “reliable availability” of power over a 10‑year planning horizon and would reorient IRPs toward resources that can operate continuously for at least 30 days. This includes: gas‑fired generation with firm fuel supply, coal units with on‑site stockpiles, hydroelectric with adequate reservoir storage, as well as nuclear and geothermal energy. The House also adopted an amendment directing the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review current IRP practices and ensure that “reliable generation” is being considered.
HR 3638 would direct DOE to conduct periodic reviews of risks and vulnerabilities across generation, transmission and grid‑component supply chains and recommend mitigation strategies. Floor amendments added assessments of advanced transmission deployment and whether foreign actors are exploiting supply disruptions to undermine U.S. leadership in AI. The measure received bipartisan support amid ongoing bottlenecks for distribution transformers and gas turbines.
Political and Procedural Outlook
Both bills must clear the Senate and be reconciled. We can expect debate over the degree of federal direction to state IRPs, how storage‑paired renewables are treated under the 30‑day concept, whether to include cost‑benefit analyses, and DOE’s capacity to carry out expanded reviews. HR 3638’s bipartisan vote improves its odds, while HR 3628 is more contested and may be revised. Committee referrals and potential hearings will begin in early 2026. HR 3638 is expected to move more quickly through procedures and HR 3628 is likely to see negotiation or amendment before any floor action.
New Concepts May Concern Industry
Several elements in the House bills could be viewed as prescriptive, duplicative or administratively burdensome for utilities, developers and large‑load customers.
HR 3628.
- The 30‑day continuous operability concept functions as a de facto technology screen that tends to favor nuclear, gas with firm fuel, coal with on‑site stockpiles, as well as some hydro and geothermal.
- Federal Pressure on State IRPs: A reliability‑first requirement could conflict with existing state mandates and portfolio diversity goals, and it may politicize IRP outcomes.
- It lacks an explicit cost‑benefit test, raising concerns that uneconomic legacy units could be retained with rate impacts and stranded‑cost risk.
- The bill is ambiguous regarding storage and renewable‑plus‑storage hybrids and how multi‑week “continuous” deliverability would be demonstrated for qualification and financing.
- Added Oversight and Workload: Tight consideration timelines for commissions, expanded modeling and proceeding burdens for utilities and a GAO review overlay increases the scrutiny of state planning.
- Environmental and Policy Conflict Risk: There is potential to slow retirements of thermal units and create friction with state climate targets and corporate net‑zero commitments.
HR 3638.
- Periodic DOE supply‑chain assessments would expand federal oversight into utility procurement and vendor strategy.
- Recurring data requests raise confidentiality and critical‑infrastructure information concerns. Companies may need new controls to manage sensitive commercial data and security-sensitive information about critical energy infrastructure (CEII).
- Potential for “Soft Mandates”: Recommendations can become reference points for future rules, funding conditions or procurement preferences that influence sourcing and technology choices.
- Capacity Constraints at DOE: No new funding in the bill raises questions about timeliness, depth and the value of assessments without diverting resources from other priorities.
- Scope expansions through amendments, such as advanced transmission deployment reviews and foreign influence risks, could broaden inquiries into vendor origin, cybersecurity posture and technology decisions, adding compliance friction.
Implications for Data Centers, Developers, Utilities and Investors
Data Centers and Large Loads: Expect tighter reliability showings in IRPs and interconnection proceedings, with increased emphasis on firm capacity, long-duration storage, and the use of Power Purchase Agreements (PPA) or on-site generation to firm supply over extended operating periods. Plan for equipment lead‑time risk to drive siting and commercial operation timelines.
Developers: Prioritize portfolios that can demonstrate multi‑week deliverability, like hybrids with longer‑duration storage or firming contracts. Manage transformer and turbine lead times early and prepare confidentiality protocols for potential DOE data requests.
Utilities: Anticipate additional IRP proceedings and modeling centered on reliability metrics and continuous availability. Build internal processes to respond to periodic DOE supply‑chain information requests and to document procurement strategies.
Investors: Reprice schedule and procurement risk and favor exposures to firming solutions, domestic manufacturing capacity and grid‑enhancing technologies. Track Senate outcomes that could narrow or broaden the 30‑day construct and affect the ability of storage‑hybrid assets to secure financing.
State Lens: How Virginia’s CEUR Compares to the House Bills
Because state approaches will shape how federal policy plays out on the ground, we use Virginia’s CEUR package as a representative example of state‑level action. Both sets of proposals elevate reliability for large new loads, anticipate a bigger role for firming and long‑duration solutions, and focus on clearing real‑world blockers to timely capacity additions. Each seeks better visibility into constraints that delay interconnections or delivery, encourages modernization of the transmission system and relies on structured processes and reporting to keep planning aligned with fast‑rising demand from data centers and other power‑intensive facilities.
Where the Federal Proposals and a Representative State Package (Virginia’s CEUR) Diverge
The approaches differ in two important ways:
- HR 3628’s 30‑day operability concept implicitly disfavors standalone wind and solar and creates uncertainty for storage‑hybrid portfolios, while CEUR’s package explicitly supports clean resources through expanded storage targets, REC carve‑outs that include geothermal, shared‑solar adjustments and programmatic tools that help renewables connect and deliver.
- HR 3638 would centralize supply‑chain reviews at DOE, whereas CEUR focuses on state‑level program levers such as brownfield siting, interconnection grants for public entities and governance reforms to strengthen execution without a federal review overlay.
We are monitoring Senate action and potential amendments that could affect IRP design, resource qualification for reliability and the scope and cadence of DOE supply chain reviews.
How McGuireWoods Consulting Can Add Value Beyond Traditional Lobbying
- Federal and State Comment Strategy: Drafting and filing persuasive comments on supply‑chain assessments and related rulemakings and coordinating multistate submissions that align with utility commission priorities.
- Site Selection and Incentives for Power‑Intensive Facilities: Integrating grid capacity, interconnection timing, transformer/turbine lead‑time risk and local permitting into location decisions, while structuring competitive incentive packages.
- Grant and Funding Capture: Identifying and pursuing federal and state funding streams tied to grid equipment, advanced transmission, storage and resiliency.
- Competitive Intelligence: Monitoring supply‑chain conditions, legislative movement and utility procurement calendars to inform commercial timelines and risk pricing.
- Stakeholder and Community Strategy. Coordinating local engagement and communications to support siting and permitting for generation, storage and data center projects.
We can help translate these federal and state policy shifts into actionable strategies for your operations and portfolio. If you would like to discuss how these proposals could affect development plans, interconnection timelines, procurement strategies or site selection and incentives for power‑intensive facilities, please reach out. We would be pleased to discuss.
