Understanding the Affordable, Reliable, Clean Energy Security Act (“ARC”) — and Why It Matters

As the United States approaches its 250th anniversary, energy has become one of the country’s most pressing concerns. Rising electricity costs, grid instability, and increasing demand have placed new pressure on policymakers, regulators, utilities, and consumers. Against this backdrop, Representative Troy Balderson of Ohio introduced the Affordable, Reliable, Clean Energy Security Act—commonly referred to as the ARC Act.

Given my work over the past four decades in energy regulation, mineral economics, and natural-resources law—and my teaching on the regulatory and political environment of the energy industry in the University of Colorado Denver’s Global Energy Management Program—I pay particular attention to legislative efforts that attempt to redefine federal energy priorities. The ARC Act is one such effort.

The legislation is straightforward but meaningful. It directs federal agencies to prioritize energy decisions according to three pillars: affordable first, reliable second, and clean third. While these concepts frequently appear in policy discussions, they have never been ranked or defined in federal statute. Their practical importance often shifts depending on the administration in power and how agencies interpret their regulatory authority. The ARC Act seeks to create more consistency by requiring agencies—including the Department of Energy, Department of the Interior, and Environmental Protection Agency—to report to Congress on how they are implementing an “all-of-the-above” strategy.

Importantly, the Act does not elevate one energy source over another. In my experience working across upstream oil and gas, renewable energy transactions, land management, and pipeline permitting, I have seen how durable energy policy must draw from a broad portfolio. The ARC framework maintains space for natural gas, oil, nuclear, hydropower, coal, wind, solar, and emerging technologies. Supporters argue that diversity improves resilience and protects the grid from unexpected shifts in demand or supply.

The timing of this proposal is significant. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, electricity prices have increased in most states over the past year, and residential rates remain noticeably higher than they were a decade ago. These trends reflect a mix of market forces, new infrastructure costs, and the evolving composition of generation fleets. As someone who routinely evaluates regulatory impacts, mineral valuation, and market conditions in mediation, arbitration, and expert-witness settings, I’ve seen firsthand how price shifts influence both households and businesses—and how affordability has become a central concern in state and federal energy debates.

At the same time, recent grid events have highlighted vulnerabilities in regional power systems. California’s heat waves in 2020, Winter Storm Uri in Texas in 2021, and Winter Storm Elliot across the eastern U.S. in 2022 all demonstrated how weather, fuel supply shortages, and grid-planning decisions can converge into widespread outages. These events intensified calls for stronger reliability standards, especially as electricity demand increases due to data centers, electrified transportation, and other high-load technologies. These are topics I address frequently in my energy-industry courses and seminars for U.S. and international professionals.

Public sentiment has also shifted. Many states—including Pennsylvania—have reconsidered previous policy commitments after evaluating costs to ratepayers. Pennsylvania’s decision to step away from joining the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative reflects the kind of reassessment occurring nationwide. Notably, the state reduced emissions while slightly increasing electricity generation during the same period—evidence that environmental progress and grid reliability are not mutually exclusive, something I’ve emphasized throughout my consulting, teaching, and legal practice.

Whether one agrees with the ARC Act’s specific ordering of “affordable, reliable, clean,” the proposal underscores a broader recalibration of national energy priorities. Policymakers are working to balance affordability, grid stability, and environmental advancement in a landscape of rising demand and evolving infrastructure requirements. The Act does not attempt to solve every challenge, but it provides a framework that encourages clearer, more consistent federal direction.

As someone who has spent more than forty years navigating the intersection of law, policy, economics, and energy development—whether through expert testimony, arbitration, regulatory analysis, or instruction in mineral economics and energy law—I believe that understanding legislation like the ARC Act is important for businesses, policymakers, and citizens alike. Energy decisions made today will shape utility costs, reliability, competitiveness, and environmental outcomes for decades.

About the Author

Ralph A. Cantafio, Esq. is an attorney, mediator, arbitrator, and expert witness with more than forty years of experience in oil and gas, natural resources, mineral economics, and energy regulation. He holds graduate degrees in Global Energy Management and Mineral Economics, serves on the AAA–ICDR roster of arbitrators and mediators, and teaches energy law and regulatory policy at the University of Colorado Denver’s Global Energy Management Program. His practice focuses on mediation, arbitration, and expert testimony involving upstream oil and gas development, mineral valuation, regulatory matters, and natural-resource disputes.

Contact Ralph

If you have questions about U.S. energy policy, the ARC Act, regulatory impacts, mineral valuation, upstream operations, mediation, arbitration, or expert-witness needs, I welcome inquiries.Contact me directly to discuss your matter or request an expert consultation.