Thank you for having me.
As you heard, I was General Counsel to Senator Maria Cantwell and retired at the end of last year to return to the private sector.
Senator Cantwell is a senior member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee as well as the Senate Finance Committee, which oversees trade policy. She is also Ranking Member on the Senate Commerce Committee.
I handled trade, supply chains, and AI among other issues for the Senator.
I led legislative efforts on supply chains on the Senate Commerce Committee. I also helped lead supply chain diplomacy at the State Department during the last administration. Those supply chains included energy.
And I worked with interagency colleagues on the White House Supply Chain Disruption Task Force to tackle acute shortages that hit at the end of the COVID pandemic.
Here are some of the lessons I took away from those experiences:
- Supply chains are complex and global. As much as we work to reshore and friend shore, diversifying supply chains takes time to achieve – years, maybe even decades. Supply chains remain tied to Asia.
- The U.S. Government does not have full visibility into private sector supply chain vulnerabilities. The federal government is very reliant on the private sector for information. While things may have slowly improved as far as understanding critical supply chains, the U.S. Government often still lacks full understanding of the extent of levels of sub-suppliers. They still rely on all of you.
- There is not one agency or department in charge of supply chains for the U.S. Government. There are supply chain initiatives across agencies and departments from the U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Department of War to State, Commerce, and Homeland Security.
- U.S. agencies may have the right information, but this information sits in stovepipes or is siloed. The right person at Energy may not be talking to the right people at the Department of War or Homeland Security. None may be speaking enough to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.
Neither the private sector nor the White House can assume interagency coordination is happening on its own. The private sector cannot assume the departments and agencies always are talking with each other.
- Integrated supply chains are one geopolitical conflict, one global pandemic, one natural disaster away from major disruptions that could have big impacts on the economy. That could be a conflict between China and Taiwan that interferes with semiconductor supply chains.
- It could be a conflict in the Middle East or Russia that disrupts the flow of natural gas and LNG. It could be wildfires, earthquakes, volcanoes or tsunamis that the West know all too well that stop commerce moving out of ports or via rail or trucks. Supply chain disruptions can even happen from major changes to trade policy or export controls.
- It is very important for both the private sector and the federal government to plan and build supply chain resilience. That is the capacity to anticipate risks, the agility to adapt quickly, and the ability to recover fast when disruptions hit.
Federal and state governments, the private sector, academia and civil society must work together. They must bring in our traditional international allies. It is not easy and it takes major investment.
The first Trump Administration started a number the supply chain efforts that the Biden administration continued. Today, the Trump Administration has Pax Silica at the U.S. State Department to build resilient tech ecosystem supply chains for artificial intelligence.
And among other efforts, the administration also has the Supply Chain Resiliency Initiative (SCRI) at U.S. Export Import Bank to provide financing to secure critical minerals and rare earth from allies.
The Trump Administration clearly continues to be focused on the importance of supply chains to our national economy and concerned about impacts.
Now, I want to offer some specific perspective on trade, and energy supply chains.
Trump Trade Policies
Since returning to office, President Trump has leaned heavily on aggressive trade tools — including the International Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) global tariffs that the Supreme Court struck down in February 2026.
Even with IEEPA off the table, the President has made clear he still has multiple tariff authorities at his disposal — from Section 301 to Section 232 to the new Section 122 global tariffs. All of those legal authorities are fully intact and ready for rapid use.
Putting tariffs on steel, aluminum, and copper tariffs is not just abstract trade policy. Every transformer, every tower, and every mile of conductor hung now carries a “tariff premium.”
When the cost of raw inputs jumps by 25% or 50%, the price of every wildfire-hardening project and every substation upgrade jumps right along with them.
All of you in this room and your suppliers are facing a “perfect storm” of demand, rising costs, and strained supply chains.
You are being asked to build faster, build smarter, and build for an AI‑driven load curve—while paying a premium on every material required to do so.
In transmission, materials already account for nearly a third of project costs.
When tariffs spike prices, projects don’t just get more expensive – the projects and the upgrades shrink. Timelines slip. Reliability is compromised. Your rate payers suffer.
On top of those challenges, public utilities are operating in a period of uncertainty, forced to plan billion‑dollar infrastructure around trade policies and tariff rates that can shift overnight.
Let’s talk about the sectoral tariffs hitting your balance sheets the hardest.
STEEL AND ALUMINUM
The original purpose of tariffs under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (19 U.S.C. § 1862) was to protect U.S. production deemed vital to national security. But for public power, 232 tariffs are now doing the opposite.
Steel and aluminum have been under Section 232 since 2018. These tariffs carried through from President Trump’s first term, into the Biden Administration, and expanded in the second Trump term. What started as a narrow national‑security tool has evolved into an added cost that land squarely on the utility supply chain.
Steel and aluminum are the literal backbone of the West — the core of transformers, the skeleton of transmission lines, and the frames of solar arrays. When those inputs spike in price, public power’s not‑for‑profit mission gets harder to fund. Public power companies are now seeing utility‑scale assets climb 10% to 50% depending on the materials mix.
This spring, the policy didn’t just shift — it widened. It is no longer only raw ingots or sheet metal. The tariff net now reaches into ‘derivative products,’ meaning components already built from these metals are being pulled in.
Add the push toward a universal baseline tariff and tighter exemptions for close allies, and the era of cheap imported precursors is over.
That creates a double squeeze for the grid:
Raw materials inflated by the 25% and 10% base or higher tariffs.
Finished equipment — transformers, switchgear, and more — can then get caught in the crossfire of retaliatory duties and new increases under other legal authorities.
COPPER
In August 2025, a 50% copper tariff went into effect under Section 232. Cathode copper was excluded, but the impact on the grid has still been immediate and unavoidable. Copper is the circulatory system of the power sector. It runs through every mile of conductor, every transformer coil, every substation upgrade. As of earlier this month, the tariff no longer just hits the copper content.
As with steel and aluminum, it can hit the full customs value of the semi-finished and derivative products public power relies on. For public power, that pressure is landing exactly where public power can least absorb it: grid‑hardening projects, interconnections, and the expansion work required to keep pace with Western load growth.
In a market already stretched thin, the copper tariffs are the added strain that threatens to slow the region’s buildout.
SEMICONDUCTORS
Semiconductors are the hidden backbone of every inverter, relay, and control system public power deploys. While Washington focuses on AI and advanced computing, the legacy chips that power the grid are being caught in the trade clash.
With Section 301 duties climbing as high as 50% to 100% on certain imports, utilities are staring at a fresh layer of uncertainty.
Section 301 is the U.S. trade tool of last resort — the authority that lets the government hit back when another country is found to be blocking U.S. companies or violating trade commitments.
Under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. § 2411), the U.S. Trade Representative can investigate unfair practices and, if confirmed, impose tariffs or other measures to pressure that country to change course.
In plain English: when foreign practices hurt U.S. commerce, Section 301 is the lever Washington pulls.
For Western public power, the tariffs push up the cost ofmodernizing aging Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems, slow the procurement of protective relays, and stretch timelines.
Public power is already navigating two-year lead times; chip-level tariffs add a new choke point to a supply chain already running hot.
LUMBER
Lumber tariffs add yet another pressure point. Under current Section 232 actions, softwood lumber imports face a 10% tariff. Canadian softwood lumber also remains subject to antidumping and countervailing duties totaling about 35 percent at the border with only a potential reduction to roughly 25 percent later this year, pending final Commerce Department review.
We are still looking at a combined ‘wood tax’ of 35% or more for the foreseeable future. For a rural system trying to harden thousands of miles of line against wildfire, it’s a direct threat to the pace of resilience work. Lumber tariffs directly raise the cost of wood poles, crossarms, and wildfire‑hardening materials. Even if duties drop later in 2026, the uncertainty itself drives suppliers to price in risk, tightening budgets and complicating long‑term planning.
The result is simple: every tariff‑driven increase in lumber costs shows up in the price of resilience from pole replacements after storms to wildfire‑mitigation projects across the West.
ON THE HORIZON
In less than two weeks, on May 5, 2026, USTR opens hearings on a new Section 301 ‘Overcapacity’ investigation. This investigation is broad enough to pull in everything from industrial equipment to grid-critical energy components. At the same time, we’re racing toward the July 24, 2026 expiration of the Section 122 global tariffs.
Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 is the executive’s emergency brake on trade — a fast, broad tool that skips the long investigations. With a simple national‑interest finding, the President can impose an across‑the‑board surcharge of up to 15 percent overnight. But it’s a short‑fuse authority, capped at 150 days, built for moments when balance‑of‑payments pressure or national stability demands immediate action.
Section 122 was always a 150-day stopgap. What replaces these tariffs on July 25, 2026, could be significantly more targeted and more expensive. No utility can plan multi-year procurement when the cost of transformers, conductors, and high-voltage components could swing by 15% to 50%.
That level of volatility is a material risk factor for every capital plan made by the utilities represented in this room.
U.S. – MEXICO CANADA AGREEMENT REVIEW
The review of the U.S. Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA) isn’t coming; it’s already here. USTR has signaled that these negotiations will likely blow past the July 1, 2026 deadline. This isn’t a simple renewal—senior officials are framing this review as an opportunity to reopen and overhaul the entire deal.
This April, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick called the USMCA a ‘bad deal’ that must be ‘reconsidered or potentially ended.’ Simultaneously, USTR Jamieson Greer has made clear: the U.S. is prepared to press for significant concessions from Mexico and Canada.
Furthermore, President Trump has repeatedly signaled that everything is on the table in this review—including the possibility of walking away from the U.S. Mexico Canada Agreement if he doesn’t get the changes he wants. I will not even mention the impact on the U.S. – Canada relationship and the future of the Columbia River Treaty and its modernization.
For Western public power, what happens with the USMCA agreement is a direct pressure point on the cost, timing, and reliability of the hardware you need to keep the lights on.
I don’t have to tell public power companies that Canada and Mexico are primary lifelines for transformers, steel, and switchgear. But public power lives and dies by the 20-year plan. A fractured USMCA turns that horizon into a fog.
Wildfire hardening, grid modernization, and clean-energy buildouts all depend on an integrated North American supply chain that is currently sitting on the chopping block.
A predictable agreement stabilizes costs. A fractured agreement or even the prospect of having no agreement slows capital, complicates investment, and injects risk.
WASHINGTON, D.C. ON OVERLOAD
On top of all these challenges, there is one more that public power faces. Washington is on continual overload. Congress and federal agencies navigate flooded inboxes and shifting priorities amid constant competing demands and emerging crises. Decision makers and their staff are often stretched and diverted by new pressures.
HOW TO DRIVE CHANGE IN FEDERAL POLICY
So how do you cut through the noise and get the visibility required to deliver for your customers?
AI/ENERGY DEMAND – TOP TIER ISSUES
First, I want to mention an issue that gets a lot of attention in DC and around the country right now – artificial intelligence.
You are facing the fastest power load growth in a generation. Regions that spent years projecting half‑percent annual increases are now staring at forecasts approaching five percent — a tenfold jump driven not by new residents. It is from the staggering electricity demands of artificial intelligence and next‑generation data centers.
Nowhere is this surge more concentrated than on the West Coast. From Silicon Valley’s AI labs to the Pacific Northwest’s data‑center corridors, demand has leapt forward by decades in just a few years, reshaping what our grid must deliver and how fast we must build.
To put this problem in perspective: a single 1,000-megawatt block of AI load consumes as much electricity as 750,000 American homes. But there’s a catch. Unlike those homes, this load doesn’t cycle. It doesn’t turn off the lights at night or dial back the AC when the desert sun goes down.
You aren’t just adding new customers; you are being asked to drop the entire residential demand of a city like Salt Lake, San Francisco, or even Las Vegas onto your system—and keep it there at 100% capacity, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
These loads are arriving faster than supply chains can move. Today, a utility looking to secure a large power transformer faces lead times of three to four years, with costs up nearly 100% since 2022. YOU are being asked to build in months what historically took a decade.
This dilemma is a defining challenge for public power: meeting unprecedented demand while protecting the “public power triad” of reliability, affordability, and local accountability. If the United States wants to lead in AI, we need a grid that can keep up—and public power will be the backbone of that infrastructure.
Leadership on artificial intelligence is a top‑tier priority for President Trump. His administration has framed U.S. dominance in artificial intelligence as essential to economic and national‑security strength. On Capitol Hill, the drive to win the global AI race is one of the rare issues that crosses party lines. Both parties see sustained American leadership in AI as a strategic imperative.
The United States can’t lead the world in artificial intelligence if it does not have sufficient modern electric power generation and transmission capacity. Every breakthrough model, every data center, every innovation depends on a grid that can deliver massive, round‑the‑clock electricity. AI dominance isn’t just a tech race — it’s a power‑infrastructure race.
Any policies — any tariffs — that slow the grid, slow AI. We can’t build the world’s most advanced computing clusters on a power system defined by cost spikes and procurement delays. If the United States expects to lead in AI, it must lead on energy infrastructure — and that means trade policies that support grid buildout and power generation, not penalize them.
This is the case you can make to be heard here in Washington, DC.
THE PLAYBOOK
In 2026, public power cannot afford to play defense. The rules of trade and supply chains are being rewritten in real-time. Here’s how to start shaping federal policy.
BE PRECISE WITH THE ASK
Don’t bring a complaint. Bring a precise solution to get traction in DC. General frustration with “supply chains” won’t move the needle with the USTR or Commerce. Put the bottom line upfront!
Whether it’s a clearer waiver pathway for Buy America, a specific adjustment to a Section 301 proposal, or a tweak to a rulemaking that’s slowing procurement, give them a concrete policy change they can adopt.
GO WHERE THE PEN IS
Political capital is too valuable to waste in the wrong room. Congress plays an oversight role, but USTR, Commerce, and the White House are steering the Section 301 investigations and the USMCA review.
Focus advocacy where decisions are being drafted in real time. Here are a few concrete examples.
This month truly was a pen‑holding moment. USTR’s Section 301 overcapacity investigation was open for public comment until April 15, 2026. Utilities had limited time to document that domestic supply of high-voltage equipment cannot meet 2026 demand. Public hearings at the U.S. International Trade Commission begin May 5, 2026, making this the next critical opportunity to reinforce that message.
At the same time, the clock is ticking on the Section 122 global tariffs. By law, the 10% surcharge expires after 150 days—on July 24, 2026—unless Congress acts to extend it.
It means the next few months are the decisive window to influence both the White House and Capitol Hill.
To shape the outcome, utilities must push for “grid reliability” exemptions now, framing high‑voltage components as essential to national energy security and wider deployment of artificial intelligence. If these parts aren’t defined as critical infrastructure, they will remain just another line item for Customs to tax at the border. Importers will keep paying the price.
The President is striking new reciprocal trade deals with partners around the world. They are known as Agreements on Reciprocal Trade (ARTS). These agreements are aimed at lowering barriers, opening markets, and strengthening industrial supply chains. The President’s deals could create real opportunities to reinforce the supply‑chain resilience we need to modernize and build out the grid.
LEAD WITH EVIDENCE
Evidence is currency that trades in D.C. today. Concrete data on stalled substation upgrades and skyrocketing procurement costs turns a technical grievance into a political priority. It gives lawmakers the leverage to demand accountability from the agencies holding the pen.
SHOW UP EARLY; SHOW UP OFTEN
Direct engagement still wins. Arrive with the facts, leave them with the solution, and follow up until you get the change you need and the new policy is adopted.
BUILD COALITIONS THAT SURPRISE WASHINGTON
One voice is easy to dismiss – a coalition is impossible to ignore. When public power joins forces with labor, local industry, and municipal leaders, you shift political math in every federal meeting.
Add tech leaders to that table, and you inject the credibility of the innovation economy, the stakes of America’s long‑term global competitiveness, and a sense of urgency that Washington can’t ignore.
You can even add members of Congress to that coalition to get the attention of the White House.
HUMANIZE THE GRID AND STRESS AFFORDABILITY
Trade policy may be technical, but its consequences are personal. Tie every supply‑chain delay to reliability, affordability, and safety. When a tariff slows a wildfire‑mitigation project or raises a family’s monthly bill, the issue stops being abstract and starts being urgent.
Affordability is now the North Star for every elected official in DC. The price and availability of electricity have become true kitchen‑table issues, shaping family budgets and local economies. When power costs rise, it hits jobs, investment, and state and local economic development. If you can offer solutions that move the needle on affordability, you will have every official’s full attention.
PLAY THE LONG GAME
In 2026, nothing is won in a single meeting. The real victories go to the companies who track every draft, pivot with every new tariff investigation, and stay in the fight until the final tariff is set or struck. Protecting your supply chain means matching the endurance of the federal machinery itself.
And the story can’t be told once. It has to be repeated — across administrations, across parties, across years. Consistent, credible, relentless messaging is how you keep your issues on the field, no matter who holds power.
POTENTIAL CHAMPIONS
Now for a little good news. You have some strong potential bipartisan champions.
My last boss Senator Maria Cantwell is high on that list. She works closely with Senator Risch from Idaho. Senator Risch has been strong on addressing national security and supply chains.
Sen. John Barrasso from Wyoming is now a Senior Senator on the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee. He has been a consistent advocate for grid reliability.
Senator Wyden from Oregon is Senior on Senate Energy and Natural Resources. He is Ranking Member on the Senate Finance Committee which oversees trade policy. Senator Crapo from Idaho is Chair!
Mr. Guthrie, who is Chair of the House Energy & Commerce, has focused on grid security, grid capacity, and affordable, reliable electricity. Congressmen Bob Latta from Ohio and Cliff Bentz from Idaho and Jay Obernolte from California have too. They have also linked the need for expanded grid capacity with the expansion of technologies like AI.
Even if those members of Congress do not see eye to eye with you on every issue, find where they do. Work together!
CONCLUSION
If Washington gets it wrong on trade and tariffs, we’re looking at deeper supply‑chain disruptions and higher costs for the ratepayers you serve. The West — and the country — will feel the impact. It will hurt!
If Washington gets it right, we accelerate the buildout our communities are counting on and unlock the infrastructure that drives a 21st‑century innovation economy. If you make your case with precision, solid data, and persistence, you will be heard here in DC.
Thank you.
