Certainty in Litigation for Electric Asset Reliability (CLEAR) Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Peters, Scott H. [D-CA-50]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 4, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to accelerate the permitting and construction of electric transmission infrastructure by centralizing federal review and judicial challenges, potentially reducing project delays.
What it actually does
This bill amends Section 216(h) of the Federal Power Act to streamline the federal authorization process for electric transmission facilities. It expands the scope of coordination to include construction, designates the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as the lead agency for certain facilities, mandates public publication of final agency actions, and requires a consolidated record of decision. Crucially, it centralizes all rehearing and judicial review for these federal authorizations under Section 313 of the Federal Power Act, superseding other laws.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the current federal permitting process for transmission lines is excessively slow and fragmented, hindering critical infrastructure development needed for grid modernization, reliability, and integrating renewable energy. They contend that this bill will provide much-needed certainty, reduce costly delays, and ensure the timely deployment of essential electric assets.
Opponents contend
Opponents may express concerns that centralizing authority and streamlining judicial review could diminish the thoroughness of environmental assessments, limit public input, and reduce the ability of affected communities and environmental groups to challenge projects effectively. They might argue it prioritizes speed over comprehensive review and local concerns.
The bill text is very short and straightforward, allowing ample time for thorough review and understanding of its provisions.
Section 2(1)
Expanding Scope of Coordination to Construction
This provision clarifies that the federal coordination process for transmission facilities under the Federal Power Act applies not only to the siting of such facilities but also to their construction. This ensures a more comprehensive and streamlined federal authorization for the entire project lifecycle, from initial planning through physical build-out.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this clarification prevents potential loopholes or delays that could arise from a narrow interpretation of 'siting' alone, ensuring a truly coordinated federal process from the initial planning stages to the completion of construction.
Critics contend
Critics might argue this expands federal authority further into areas traditionally managed by states or local entities, potentially reducing local control over construction aspects and associated environmental or community impacts.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the desire for comprehensive federal coordination and efficiency in infrastructure development against potential concerns about federal overreach into local or state construction oversight.
Section 2(2)
FERC as Lead Agency for Certain Facilities
This provision mandates that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) will serve as the lead agency for coordinating federal authorizations for transmission facilities permitted under subsection (b) of Section 216 of the Federal Power Act. This centralizes authority for specific types of projects, ensuring a single point of contact and decision-making for complex multi-agency reviews.
Section 2(3), adding FPA 216(h)(10)
Public Transparency of Authorization Decisions
This provision requires the head of each federal agency with authority to issue a federal authorization for a transmission facility to publish every final agency action related to that authorization in the Federal Register. This aims to increase transparency and public awareness regarding the outcomes of permitting decisions for these projects.
Section 2(3), adding FPA 216(h)(11)
Single Joint Record of Decision
This provision directs the Secretary (presumably of Energy, given the context of FPA 216(h)) to consolidate all records relating to review and permit decisions for all federal authorizations for a transmission facility into a single joint record of decision, 'to the extent practicable.' This aims to create a unified and comprehensive documentation for complex projects, simplifying administrative and legal review.
Section 2(3), adding FPA 216(h)(12)
Unified Judicial Review Process
This provision establishes a unified process for rehearing and judicial review for all federal authorizations coordinated under FPA 216(h). It deems each authorization approval an 'order issued by the Commission' (FERC or lead agency), applies FPA Section 313 (which governs FERC review) to all such approvals, and explicitly states that review can *only* occur under Section 313, 'notwithstanding any other provision of law.' This aims to centralize and potentially expedite legal challenges to transmission projects.
Mandates that all approvals of Federal authorizations for transmission facilities coordinated under this subsection shall be deemed orders issued by the Commission for purposes of section 313 of the Federal Power Act, and that judicial review shall *only* occur under section 313, 'notwithstanding any other provision of law.'
Section 2(3), adding FPA 216(h)(12)(A) and (C)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to amend existing law by reference rather than reprinting entire sections. However, for a non-expert, it obscures the specific changes to judicial review procedures, which are significant.
Case for: Supporters argue that referencing existing law (FPA 313) is efficient and leverages a well-established legal framework for energy infrastructure review, ensuring consistency and predictability in legal challenges.
Case against: Critics argue that this legislative shorthand makes it difficult for the public and non-specialist legal practitioners to understand the significant changes to judicial review rights without consulting external statutes, potentially limiting effective participation and oversight.
Estimated impact: Significantly alters the legal landscape for challenging transmission projects, potentially centralizing and expediting judicial review by channeling all challenges to the U.S. Courts of Appeals, with specific procedural requirements and timelines.