06/24/2026 at 02:00PM
The markup will consider eight bills.
Legislation to be considered:
- H.R. 9332, Load Forecasting Enhancement Act (Reps. Balderson and Menendez)
- H.R. 9339, Affordable Innovation for the Grid Act (Rep. Harshbarger and Mullin)
- H.R. 9335, Advanced Transmission to Reduce Rates Act (Rep. Goldman)
- H.R. 9340, Ratepayer Protection Act (Reps. Evans (CO) and Castor)
- H.R. 6633, High-Capacity Grid Act (Rep. Fedorchak)
- H.R. 6529, Protecting Families from AI Data Center Energy Costs Act (Rep. Landsman)
- H.R. 2986, Expediting Generator Interconnection Procedures Act of 2025 (Rep. Castor)
- H.R. 9338, Pipeline Safety Authorization Act of 2026 (Rep. Weber)
Democrats criticized the provision in H.R. 9338 expanding criminal prosecution of protests against fossil-fuel pipelines to anyone who “impairs the operation of the pipeline”.
Rep. Lizzie Fletcher (D-Texas): “I am concerned about language that would give too much discretion to the Department of Justice in this administration in interpreting and challenging people in their right to protest. We’ve certainly seen they’re arresting people that are looking at the Reflecting Pool.”
Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.): “I am really concerned that it also might allow oil and gas companies to criminally prosecute protesters.”
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.): “When it comes to pipelines across the United States, and I think the chairman of the full committee noted as well, we want to make sure that we are protecting people’s first amendment right to protest. Under current law, the current law is that knowing and willfully damaging or destroying a pipeline carries up to 20 years in federal prison that is existing in standing law. This bill and the language that this amendment seeks to strike expands that statute to cover anyone who, quote, ‘impairs the operation of a pipeline,’ unquote. Now, the issue that we have here in the text is that ‘impair’ is not defined. It is a very expansive term that could easily encompass many different forms of protest and nonviolent protest and make them federal felonies. Many of these projects are highly controversial in the local communities in which they are often proposed to be sited. Protest is very common in these kinds of developments. And we want to make sure that we are, um, I think protecting people’s First Amendment ability, while of course, respecting existing federal law. I hear the chairman on having that flexibility, and i really appreciate the flexibility and being able to draft that. I want to make sure that we’re being as precise as possible in what we mean by that, which is why i strike this amendment to strike Section Six, and I urge my colleagues to support it as we negotiate to the full bill in committee.”
Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D-Mass.): “I’m going to support the amendment. I think the language is too wide, the trust in the administration is too low. Question, because I… we all want to protect speech and protests. I agree with the vice chairman, you can’t go in there and impair the operation. You can’t turn off the valves. You can’t damage the production. There already are laws against damage and destruction. There’s already laws against trespass, is my understanding as well. Wouldn’t someone who’s going in there and and physically contacting the pipeline, wouldn’t that be trespass under current law? … I would also presume that you can’t physically prevent workers from accessing the work site in a way that’s harassment as well.”
Chair Guthrie promised to carefully define the word “impair” for the full committee markup. In return, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) withdrew her amendment.