H.R. 9298, the Stopping Harmful and Outrageous Torts Act (ANS)
H.R. 9503, the Officer Leslie Coffelt U.S. Secret Service Police Act (ANS)
H.R. 3342, the BOP Direct-Hire Authority Act (ANS)
H.R. 10335, the Restoring Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Act of 2026 (ANS)
H.R. 9834, the No Racketeers on our Shores Act (ANS)
H.R. 8330, the Stop Climate Shakedowns Act of 2026 (ANS), to forbid all state and local climate-damages lawsuits and climate-damages laws that target the fossil-fuel industry (Hageman R-Wyo.)
H.R. 8330 would grant the fossil-fuel industry, including companies, executives, trade associations, and states or localities, immunity from climate-related laws and lawsuits. “Energy” is defined exclusively as “crude oil, natural gas, lease condensates, natural gas liquids, refined petroleum products, or coal”.
The bill would prohibit any lawsuit, state law, regulation, or ordinance that seeks or requires damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, abatement, restitution, equitable relief, or compensatory payments from, or otherwise exposes to liability, any person engaged in the fossil-fuel business that the law, regulation, or ordinance deems, either directly or through an administrative process, responsible for costs or harms resulting directly or indirectly from climate change, including because of marketing, misrepresentation, failure to warn, or any other speech.
The Thriving Economy Project is a menu of policy ideas developed by SEEC Institute in partnership with Members of Congress, former senior congressional aides, officials from multiple presidential administrations, and leading energy and environmental policy experts. Grounded in the belief that a healthy economy and a healthy environment go hand in hand, the project pairs ambitious ideas with practical, actionable solutions to today’s interconnected challenges. Together, these recommendations offer a path toward meaningful progress for the greatest number of people in the shortest possible amount of time.
House Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition
The debate over data centers—whether to build them, where to build them, and how they impact communities—has become a dominant issue in small towns and big cities, attracting national attention. While some communities have chosen to proceed with data center development, others have pushed back, citing opaque land use agreements, higher electricity bills, environmental concerns, and workforce concerns. Given that the opinions of residents are becoming increasingly critical in the consideration of these deals, the question is whether industry, community, and government can ever get closer to agreement on data center development.
On September 15, the Center for Technology Innovation (CTI) at Brookings will host a conversation that brings together community, economic development, and technology experts to explore the role that communities must play in managing data center development. Panelists will discuss policies and practices that advance equity in data center deals, and strategies to ensure communities are empowered to make choices that truly address their concerns.
Discussion:
Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-Va)
Nicol Turner Lee, Director - Center for Technology Innovation (CTI)
Panel:
Abre’ Conner, Director, Center for Environmental and Climate Justice - NAACP
Michelle Moore, CEO - Groundswell
Elena Schlossberg, Grassroots Coordinator - The Coalition to Protect Prince William County
Marie Sylla-Dixon, Founder and Principal - Tuckahoe Creek Strategies
Melissa Roberts, Founder and Executive Director, American Flood Coalition
Dr. Ali Mostafavidarani, Founder and CEO, Resilitix AI
Dr. Mike Falkowski, Lead Scientist, Earth Fire Alliance
This hearing will examine emerging research and technologies that can strengthen the nation’s
ability to predict, prepare for, and respond to natural disasters. The Committee will explore
cutting-edge developments in artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, advanced sensing,
commercial remote sensing capabilities, data analytics, and next-generation communications and
how continued investment in this research can translate into faster, more actionable information
for emergency managers, first responders, infrastructure operators, and the public.
This
hearing will examine the research pipeline behind these technologies, from early-stage
development to real-world deployment, and identify where continued federal investment,
streamlined regulatory processes, and public-private partnerships can accelerate the next
generation of warning systems.
The Subcommittee on Energy will hold a hearing on Tuesday, September 15, 2026, at
10:00 a.m. (ET) in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building. The hearing is entitled, “Nuclear Spent
Fuel Policy: Examining Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses.” The hearing will examine the
potential role of the Department of Energy’s proposed Nuclear Lifecycle Innovations Campuses
in carrying out the nation’s nuclear waste policy.
Theodore J. Garrish, Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy, Department of Energy
Jared S. des Rosiers, Deputy General Counsel and VP for Public, Government & Regulatory Affairs, Maine Yankee, on behalf of Decommissioning Plants Coalition
Maria Korsnick, President and CEO, Nuclear Energy Institute
Stacey Paradis, Commissioner, Illinois Commerce Commission, on behalf of National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners
Greg R. White, Legacy Officer, Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition
Since the Manhattan Project ushered in the nuclear age, the United States has accumulated
high-level radioactive waste that requires permanent disposal. Use of nuclear reactors to power U.S.
Navy ships and activities to maintain a nuclear deterrent have resulted in about 14,000 tons of
defense waste, which is currently located primarily in Washington State, South Carolina, and Idaho.
For the purposes of this hearing, civilian commercial use of nuclear power to produce electricity has
produced over 99,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel (SNF), currently stored safely at seventy-five sites
in thirty-three states, accumulating at a rate of approximately 2,000 tons annually.2 About a quarter
of the sites no longer have operating reactors.
Congress formally established the nation’s nuclear waste policy with the enactment of the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA). The NWPA created the federal government
obligation to dispose of all high-level radioactive waste. The law established the Department of
Energy (DOE) program and the objective, scientifically based process to select two sites for
permanent geologic disposal. The law established a process to consult with and provide benefits
to states, tribes, and local hosts of a site and obligated DOE to take title of commercial SNF and
remove and transport it for disposal beginning no later than January 31, 1998.
The law established that nuclear utility ratepayers would pay fees—one tenth of a cent
per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated by commercial nuclear plants—into the Nuclear Waste
Fund to cover the disposal costs of SNF, under the principle that those who benefit from nucleargenerated electricity should cover the disposal costs.
In 2002, following extensive scientific and technical analysis by DOE and its national
laboratories, the Secretary of Energy determined Yucca Mountain was suitable as a repository,
and Congress enacted a resolution formally designating the site for a repository. DOE
subsequently prepared and submitted a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) for the Yucca Mountain facility in 2008.
In 2010, the Obama administration announced its intention, for policy not technical
reasons, to abandon the Yucca Mountain project and made a motion to withdraw the Yucca
Mountain license application from the NRC with prejudice. The administration dismantled the
DOE office responsible for implementing the NWPA, terminated all activities to support the
repository program, and established the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future
(BRC) to conduct a review of policies for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle,
including alternatives for storage, processing, and disposal of civilian and defense SNF and highlevel waste.
In January 2013, DOE released a document titled Strategy for the Management and
Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste, which included a response to
the BRC’s recommendations and a framework for meeting the government’s obligation to dispose
of nuclear waste.8 DOE agreed with the BRC that a consent-based siting process would be critical
to the successful implementation of the agency’s waste management strategy. On January 12,
2017, DOE released a document outlining a draft consent-based siting process for disposal and
storage of nuclear waste.
In the meantime, following the administration’s attempt to withdraw the license
application, the states of Washington and South Carolina, in addition to private parties, sued the
federal government to resume NRC’s review of the license. On August 13, 2013, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the petitioners and issued a writ of mandamus forcing
NRC to continue the licensing process for Yucca Mountain.10 As a result, the NRC resumed
consideration of the scientific and technical review of the DOE’s license application and in 2015,
found that DOE’s license application met applicable regulatory requirements, including postclosure requirements that the repository could be reasonably expected to safely protect public
health for one million years. Prior to the Commission making a final decision on the Yucca
Mountain license application, DOE and NRC would have to resolve approximately 300
contentions filed by affected parties associated with the project. DOE has taken no action to
resume the licensing process, and Congress has not supplied the funding to do so.
In November 2013, the D.C. Court of Appeals also ruled in favor of state utility regulators
and held that the Nuclear Waste Fund fee may not be collected from electricity ratepayers due to
the federal government’s lack of a nuclear waste management plan due to DOE’s closure of the
Yucca Mountain Project. The approximately $750 million annual collection was suspended by
DOE in May 2014. As of September 30, 2025, the NWF maintained a balance of $51 billion.13
Given DOE’s failure to fulfill its contractual obligations to begin disposing of SNF in
1998, nuclear utilities began filing lawsuits to recover additional storage costs they would not
have incurred had DOE begun accepting waste as scheduled. Court decisions have held that
compensation would come from the U.S. Treasury’s Judgment Fund, a permanent account that is
used to cover damage claims against the government with taxpayer funds that do not require
congressional appropriations. In FY 2024 and FY 2025, the Judgement Fund paid $500 million
and $1.1 billion, respectively, to settle claims. With $12.2 billion already paid out, DOE
estimates its potential future liabilities for delays in taking SNF could total as much $44 billion
in additional expenditures.
In January of 2026, the DOE issued a Request
for Information (RFI) inviting states to express interest in hosting Innovation Campuses. The
proposed Innovation Campuses would host activities across the nuclear fuel cycle, including
fabrication, enrichment, reprocessing SNF, and disposition of waste.
The proposed goals of the Innovation Campus RFI to co-locate functions across the
nuclear fuel cycle leading to final disposition of waste resulted in several states expressing
interest in hosting a site. In July 2026, DOE signed memoranda of understanding with Utah,
Tennessee, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Idaho, and, in September, with West Virginia, expressing
the shared intention of continuing to explore the opportunity to become a host state for an Innovation Campus. DOE plans to continue negotiating with the 6 states to try to reach hosting
agreements for the Innovation Campuses.
Members of Congress and staff of the Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition Institute will host an online press conference at 9:00am ET on Tuesday, September 15, 2026, to announce a comprehensive menu of policy options included in the first-ever Thriving Economy Project report.
The Thriving Economy Project report is a first-of-its kind set of energy and environmental policy recommendations. Nine Members of Congress worked with subject matter experts to compile more than 800 policy recommendations across nine key areas of the economy. The ideas focus on the challenges affecting American families and businesses today, and cover themes like rising household costs, reliable and affordable energy, economic competitiveness, access to good jobs, ways to make our supply chains, environmental protection, and government efficiency.
This August recess, climate activists across the country mobilized to keep climate front and center for members of Congress returning to their home districts.
Over 5 weeks, “Climate Summer: Too Hot to Ignore,” August recess campaign we collectively kept climate on the radar through 94 visibility events in 40 districts across 19 states.
We are wrapping up the campaign by making sure that as members of Congress return to D.C. they keep hearing our core message: “WE CARE ABOUT CLIMATE and we need you to as well!”
We’ll start the day with a honk and wave to greet returning members of Congress with a loud, visible reminder that “Climate Can’t Wait!”
Wear your blue climate t-shirt and we’ll bring signs. You’re also welcome to bring homemade signs. If you don’t have a climate t-shirt yet, let us know your size and we’ll be sure to bring you one!
Bring your friends and fellow activists to help us send a loud, visible message to Congress that climate can’t wait!
In front of Longworth House Office Building
1 Independence Ave SE, Washington, DC 20003
America’s energy industry is entering a pivotal new chapter. As the federal government advances its agenda, policymakers and industry leaders face pressure to manage AI-driven electricity demand, grid modernization and infrastructure investments while maintaining affordability and reliability.
Join Axios Live in Washington, D.C., for an event about this moment in U.S. power. We’ll convene lawmakers, business leaders and advocates to discuss how technology is reshaping the energy landscape, what role the expansion of programs like the Energy Dominance Financing may play, and what strategies and investments are needed to power future growth.
Axios senior energy reporter Ben Geman and political reporter Hans Nichols will host one-on-one conversations with:
Tristan Abbey, Administrator, U.S. Energy Information Administration
Bob Latta, Representative, Ohio’s 5th Congressional District, Member, House Energy and Commerce Committee
Sam Liccardo, Representative, California’s 16th Congressional District, Member, House Financial Services Committee
Harry K. Sideris, President and Chief Executive Officer, Duke Energy
View From the Top segment moderated by Axios’ Nicholas Johnston
Ted Trabue, Interim Chairman, Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia
The Committee on Rules will meet Monday, September 14, 2026 at 4:00 PM ET in H-313, The Capitol on the following measures:
H.J. Res. 210 – Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to “California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Ocean-Going Vessels At-Berth; Notice of Decision”.
H.J. Res. 213 – Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the “California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Commercial Harbor Craft Regulations; Notice of Decision”.
H.R. 9576 – National Fraud Enforcement Division Act
H.R. 10326 – Preventing Rip-offs and Obtaining Oversight of Funds Act
Neil Bradley, Executive Vice President, Chief Policy Officer, and Head of Strategic Advocacy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
*Julie Moore, Secretary, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, and Vice Chair, Water Committee, Environmental Council of States (ECOS)
Mae Wu, Founder and Principal, Health and Environmental Advising, LLC
Items to be considered:
H.R. ____, Safe Drinking Water Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2026
H.R. ____, Water Cost Accountability Act of 2026, to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to limit the pass-through of data center costs
The Safe Drinking Water Infrastructure Improvement Act would extend or re-establish existing programs to 2027 and add cybersecurity to the Safe Drinking Water Act grant programs.
The Water Cost Accountability Act would require public water systems in states receiving grants from Safe Drinking Water Act State Revolving Loan Funds to charge data centers for costs for connecting to public water system or expanding the system’s infrastructure, and would require the Environmental Protection Agency to provide a report to Congress on data centers whose water usage exceeds 200,000 gallons per day on average.
The Subcommittee on Environment is considering two pieces of draft legislation to
amend the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), which is the main federal law regulating drinking
water in the United States. Under SDWA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establishes drinking water regulations to protect public health and administers funding programs,
including the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF), to help states deliver safe,
reliable and affordable drinking water to their communities. Congress originally enacted SDWA
in 1974, and the law has been reauthorized and amended multiple times, including in 1986, 1996,
2015, 2018, and most recently with enactment of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
(IIJA).
The DWSRF provides capitalization grants to states, enabling states to finance drinking
water infrastructure through low-interest loans. Eligible projects include the construction and
replacement of treatment facilities, upgrades to distribution and storage systems, improvements
to existing infrastructure, and lead service line replacement. The IIJA provided about $50 billion
in supplemental funding to multiple EPA programs, including $11.7 billion in general DWSRF
capitalization grants for fiscal years 2022 through 2026, $15 billion for lead service line
replacement set-asides, and $4 billion to address emerging contaminants such as per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
Annual discretionary appropriations for the core DWSRF program have remained largely
consistent from Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 through FY2026, generally about $1.1 billion per year.
Of the approximately $1.1 billion appropriated by Congress for FY2026, roughly $715 million
was congressionally directed spending in the form of grants for specific projects, rather than used
to capitalize state revolving loan funds, which provide loans that are repaid with interest to fund
future infrastructure investments.
As part of this work, the Subcommittee on Environment staff has examined proposals to
improve access to safe and affordable drinking water, strengthen the security and resilience of
water systems against cyber and other threats, and to ensure that SDWA funding is reaching
small, rural, and disadvantaged systems that need it most.