H.R. 9340House bill · 119th CongressOn the calendarEnergy

Ratepayer Protection Act

Sponsored byGabe EvansR-CO-8Introduced Jun 18, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Sep 10, 2026) — , Calendar No. 713.

What it does

not written yet

The Congressional Research Service writes the plain-English summary for every bill, usually a few weeks after it's introduced. This one doesn't have one yet. It will appear here when it does.

In the meantime the most reliable description is the bill's own official title, which is the heading above — written by its sponsor, and the only account of the bill that exists at this stage. The full text is on congress.gov ↗

We don't write our own summaries. Everything else on this site links back to a record you can check, and a description of a bill that came from us rather than from the bill would be the one thing here that didn't — on the page that asks you to take a position on it.

Face Value

as reported to the House

100Narrow

How much of this bill its name accounts for.

Every bill starts at100
Nothing counted against it: one area of law, and short enough that length doesn't register.

Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out

Who lobbied on this

17 organizations

These organizations told Congress, in their own quarterly disclosures, that they were lobbying on this bill.

American Chemistry Councilno position stated
“…H.R.9340 - Ratepayer Protection…” filing ↗
American Public Power Associationno position stated
“…Discussed technical assistance for public power utilities for load forecasting. Discussed H.R. 9340, the Ratepayer Protection Act, to amend the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 to establish a federal standard relating to the…” filing ↗
Basf Corporationno position stated
“…H.R. 9340 - Ratepayer Protection Act. BASF supports the Section 45Z tax credit, expansion and/or restoration of related incentives, and broader…” filing ↗
Caterpillar Inc.no position stated
“…to research and development related to power generation (no bill number) Discussions related to power generation and electricity infrastructure. H.R. 9340 Ratepayer Protection Act (entire bill)” filing ↗
Cleveland-cliffs Inc.no position stated
“…The Ratepayer Protection Act - H.R. 9340. Engaged in response to the definition of "Large Load Customer".” filing ↗
Comcast Corporationno position stated
“…H.R.9340 - Rate Payer Protection…” filing ↗
Dish Network Corporationno position stated
“…S. 4207 (the Spectrum and National Security Act of 2024), S. 3909 (the Spectrum Pipeline Act of 2024), S. 3909 (the Spectrum Pipeline Act of 2024), H.R. 9340 (the Supporting National Security with Spectrum Act), S. 4049 (the Supporting National Security with Spectrum Act) and S. 4317 (the Secure…” filing ↗
Duke Energy Corporationno position stated
“…Load Forecasting Enhancement Act H.R.9339, Affordable Innovation for the Grid Act H.R.9335 Advanced Transmission Technology to Reduce Rates Act H.R. 9340, Ratepayer Protection Act H.R. 6336, Fair Allocation of Interstate Rates Act H.R. 6633, High-Capacity Grid Act H.R. 6529, Protecting…” filing ↗
Edison Electric Instituteno position stated
“…H.R. 9340, Ratepayer Protection…” filing ↗
Edison Internationalno position stated
“…services to help consumers, organizations, and governments manage their energy usage and improve electric grid reliability, and for other purposes. HR 9340 Ratepayer Protection Act HR 7977 To provide relief from high energy bills, and for other purposes. S. 4827 A bill to reauthorize a program for…” filing ↗
Firstenergy Corp.no position stated
“…H.R. 9340, Ratepayer Protection Act (all…” filing ↗
Intel Corporationno position stated
“…H.R. 9340, Ratepayer Protection Act Issues related to CHIPS and Science Act (Public Law 117-167) implementation, implementation of the Bipartisan…” filing ↗

Most filings say only that an organization lobbied on a bill, not which side it took — where that's the case we say so rather than guessing. Quotes are verbatim from the filing. How this is built.

Discussion

11 comments

Sort

rustbelt_rayDemoLA-2voted Yea1d ago

The summary reads clearly enough, but the enforcement mechanism is doing all the work and it's the part with the least detail. That's a drafting question rather than a political one.

publiclandsfanDemoNC-11voted Nay2d ago

I keep going back and forth on this one. The problem is real; I'm not convinced this is the instrument for it. None of that is settled by the summary.

yusuf.aDemoCA-28voted Yea3h ago

The cost estimate assumes full compliance, and full compliance never happens. That gap is where these things go wrong. The floor version may not be this version, which is the usual problem.

r_castellanoDemoMN-6voted Nay2d ago

Has a version of this been introduced before? It feels familiar, and if it died last Congress I'd want to know what killed it. The same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.

avery.nbDemoWA-3voted Yea2d ago

The summary reads clearly enough, but the enforcement mechanism is doing all the work and it's the part with the least detail. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.

RedRiverRonDemoNJ-1voted Yea1d ago

No from me. Pushing the cost to states without saying so is still an unfunded mandate. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.

yusuf.aDemoCA-28voted Yea1d ago

Voting no on process rather than substance. This hasn't had a hearing I can find, which is a lot of reach for a bill nobody has questioned in public. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.

birch_ledgerDemoLA-2voted Nay1d ago

Against, and not because the goal is wrong. It stacks a new process on top of two that already don't talk to each other. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.

harbor_districtDemoOH-4voted Nay4h ago

What I'd want before deciding: who administers it, out of which budget, and who they answer to when it doesn't work. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.

nadia.hartleyDemoNV-2voted Yea13h ago

In favour. The transparency provisions alone justify it, and they're the hardest part to undo later. That's a drafting question rather than a political one.

n_farhadiDemoMO-4voted Nay2d ago

The pilot-programme framing is the part I'd watch. Pilots have a way of becoming permanent at the next reauthorisation. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.

Your position on H.R. 9340No positions yet