Fedorchak introduces FAIR Act to stop states from being forced to pay for other states’ green energy mandates
Washington, D.C. — Congresswoman Julie Fedorchak (R-ND) introduced H.R. 6336, the Fair Allocation of Interstate Rates (FAIR) Act, to prevent households from being forced to subsidize transmission projects built to satisfy another state’s green energy goals. The bill establishes a clear principle: states must bear the costs of the policies they choose, and consumers in other states should not be stuck with the bill.
“States must pay the costs of their own goals. That’s a basic principle of cost allocation—and it’s being ignored across the country right now,” Fedorchak said. “Families and businesses in states like North Dakota shouldn’t be paying higher electricity bills because other states choose unrealistic, expensive mandates. The FAIR Act restores fairness, respects state sovereignty, and reins in transmission cost-shifting that’s driving up electricity bills nationwide.”
Under current policy, regional transmission organizations spread the costs of large interstate transmission lines—designed to meet individual states’ aggressive renewable mandates—across all consumers in the region, regardless of whether those consumers need the lines. This cost-shifting raises electricity bills, encourages unnecessary permitting battles, and expands the use of eminent domain.
The FAIR Act amends Section 205 of the Federal Power Act to:
Prohibit cost allocation of policy-driven transmission to consumers in states that did not approve or benefit from the underlying policy.
Restore state authority and protect ratepayers and landowners from subsidizing projects they do not need.
Require FERC to issue implementing regulations within six months.
The legislation follows Fedorchak’s September 2025 letter, signed by North Dakota Senators Kevin Cramer and John Hoeven, to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) urging the agency to rein in unjust transmission cost-shifting practices. Senator Cramer introduced the Senate companion to the House bill and Senator John Hoeven cosponsored.
“Unrealistic energy policies hurt consumers by enabling policymakers across state borders to pass senseless climate mandates and then build expensive, redundant infrastructure on the backs of consumers. Too often, ratepayers in North Dakota are left holding the bag after the dust settles on failed energy policies enacted by other states. Our legislation protects the principle of “user pay” by ensuring if activists in Los Angeles, Chicago, or Minneapolis mandate expensive, unreliable electricity, they foot the bill for their decisions,” said Cramer.
“FERC’s 2024 cost allocation rule allows for states with expensive green energy mandates to unfairly shift costs to consumers in other states. North Dakotans shouldn’t be forced to pay higher energy costs to help other states meet their unworkable energy mandates,” said Hoeven. “Our legislation will help to stop this cost-shift while also protecting landowners and consumers from being compelled to host or subsidize new transmission lines when those lines fail to serve their needs.”
WHAT THEY ARE SAYING ABOUT THE FAIR ACT:
Mark Christie, former Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission:
"Transmission costs are one of the major drivers of rising consumer power bills. Rep. Fedorchak's legislation is critically needed to ensure that consumers are paying only for the transmission needed to provide them with reliable power, not for transmission to promote public policy agendas in other states without their state's consent.
"This is a serious problem in regional planning organizations (RTOs) that have been directing billions of dollars’ worth of transmission projects to serve mandatory renewables policies of some states, and without the consent of other states who do not support such policies. Rep. Fedorchak—a former state utility regulator as I am—knows that states in multi-state RTOs should be given the authority to consent before costs are imposed on their consumers for such public policy projects."
North Dakota Governor Kelly Armstrong:
“North Dakotans work hard to power this nation, and they shouldn't have to pay for misguided energy policies enacted by other states. I applaud Rep. Fedorchak for standing up for ratepayers and for state sovereignty with this common-sense legislation.”
“The North Dakota Public Service Commission strongly supports the Fair Allocation of Interstate Rates Act and believes this legislation is necessary to protect North Dakota consumers. This legislation ensures energy transmission facility costs are borne by those who benefit from them and prevents North Dakota utility ratepayers from subsidizing expensive renewable energy strategies advanced by policymakers in other states.
“Transmission costs have rapidly become a large portion of electric customer bills. Over the past 20 years, North Dakota customers saw the portion of their investor-owned utility bill attributed to transmission costs nearly triple. Much of this cost increase is due to the aggressive renewable energy strategies implemented in other states. By nature, renewable energy sources are built in rural locations far from the load they serve. This requires additional transmission, which drives up costs for North Dakota ratepayers, who receive minimal benefit from these facilities.”
North Dakota Farm Bureau:
“NDFB supports the FAIR Act as introduced. Our members should not bear the costs or lose productive farmland to fulfill another state’s energy policy priorities. The FAIR Act is a step toward ensuring citizens are treated fairly, landowners are respected, and states are responsible to pay for their own energy decisions.”
Paul N. Cicio, President & CEO, Industrial Energy Consumers of America:
“The manufacturing sector consumes 29 percent of U.S. electricity and employs 12.7 million people. Electricity transmission prices are escalating across the country due in part to state cost-shifting socialization of transmission costs. We need transmission capacity for reliability and cost-reduction purposes—not state policy-driven socialization of transmission costs.”
Brent Gardner, Chief Government Affairs Officer, Americans for Prosperity:
“Congress has offered a range of proposals on transmission, cost allocation, and how to ensure Americans continue receiving reliable electric service. We are at a pivotal moment for determining the path toward true energy abundance and needed transmission buildout.
“Rep. Fedorchak brings rare, practical expertise as one of the few Members to have served on a Public Service Commission—reflected in her FAIR Act. As the Energy & Commerce Committee considers transmission policy, Members should closely evaluate her legislation, especially as they weigh how differing state energy choices can shift costs onto others.
“We must also avoid unfairly socializing costs across states or demographics. The FAIR Act is a constructive contribution to this important and complex debate.”
Competitive Enterprise Institute:
"The FAIR Act is an important step towards ensuring that ratepayers in one state aren’t paying for the bad policy of neighboring states. When the costs of complying with renewable portfolio standards and other mandates can be socialized to other states, it allows states adopting those policies to avoid the true costs of their decisions. If states want to adopt such policies, then that’s their call. But they shouldn’t expect other states to help foot the bill.”
Justin Forde, State Director, North Dakota Americans for Prosperity:
“As a native North Dakotan, it is a pleasure to see Rep. Fedorchak apply her extensive experience in the utility and transmission space for the benefit of our state.
“As a newer Member of Congress, AFP–North Dakota is encouraged to see Rep. Fedorchak fully embrace her role on the Energy & Commerce Committee and advance real solutions for her constituents and for all Americans.
“The FAIR Act continues an important conversation about the future of our energy and transmission systems—one that the committee should consider in coordination with their colleagues in the U.S. Senate. We thank Rep. Fedorchak for her leadership and her willingness to champion promising solutions in the energy space.”
“The Mississippi Public Service Commission (Mississippi Commission) fully supports the proposed Fair Allocation of Interstate Rates (FAIR) Act. The Mississippi Commission is one of five commissions challenging the Midcontinent Independent System Operator Inc.’s (MISO) designation of twenty-two billion dollars in transmission projects as multi-value projects. The Mississippi Commission agrees with North Dakota that these cross subsidies should not be allowed.” [...]
“Cost allocation decisions should be made based on the benefit a project will provide to a state. Policies that promote these unequitable transmission expenditures and promote cross subsidization should be stopped. The Mississippi Commission is confident that the FAIR Act will restore equity and balance to transmission investment and promote fair cost allocation procedures.”
“This legislation takes an important step toward restoring the constitutional balance between the states and the federal government while ensuring that American ratepayers are not forced to subsidize the policy agendas of other states. This core commitment to state sovereignty and consumer protection aligns directly with the mission of States Trust.
“Texas has demonstrated the benefits of states maintaining control over their own electric systems. In recent years, however, transmission costs in Texas have more than doubled, driven largely by policy decisions that have prioritized connecting distant wind and solar generation to demand in the cities. Texas should serve as a warning to other parts of the country that are making the same mistake: when policymakers socialize transmission costs to pursue objectives other than cost and reliability, the result is higher costs, diminished accountability, and an erosion of local decision-making.”
Cameron Sholty, Executive Director, Heartland Impact:
“No transmission line crossing state boundaries should be constructed, at a minimum, unless and until it has been approved by the appropriate authorities in every state along the transmission line’s proposed route. This bill puts legitimate authority back in the hands of the states.”