Technical corrections only. The diff primarily updates the legislative status information to reflect the bill's referral to the Senate and includes the name of the House Clerk. No substantive policy changes were made to the bill's text between v3 and v4.
Improving Interagency Coordination for Pipeline Reviews Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Hudson, Richard [R-NC-9]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Dec 15, 2025
Bottom line
The bill aims to accelerate natural gas pipeline approvals by centralizing environmental review authority with FERC and imposing tighter timelines and reduced state agency influence on the permitting process.
What it actually does
This bill streamlines the federal permitting process for natural gas pipelines by designating the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as the sole lead agency for environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). It mandates strict deadlines for federal and state agencies involved in the permitting process, requires deference to FERC's NEPA scope, and significantly alters the water quality certification process under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act by removing the applicant's requirement for certification and limiting state authority to impose conditions. It also adds a requirement for FERC to consult with the Transportation Security Administration on pipeline security.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill will reduce bureaucratic delays and inefficiencies in critical infrastructure projects, ensuring timely development of natural gas pipelines necessary for energy security and economic growth. They contend that centralizing the NEPA review process under FERC and setting clear deadlines will prevent redundant reviews and protracted permitting timelines that currently hinder energy development.
Opponents contend
Opponents would likely argue that the bill undermines environmental protections by limiting the scope of NEPA reviews and reducing the authority of state and federal agencies to conduct thorough environmental assessments, particularly regarding water quality. They might contend that it prioritizes pipeline development over environmental safeguards and public input, potentially leading to adverse ecological impacts.
The bill is relatively short and its core provisions are understandable with a careful read, making it accessible for an informed reader to evaluate within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2(b)(1)
Designation of FERC as Sole Lead Agency
This provision designates the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as the only lead agency for complying with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) when reviewing authorizations for natural gas pipelines under sections 3 and 7 of the Natural Gas Act. This means other federal agencies cannot conduct their own independent NEPA reviews for these projects, centralizing the environmental review process under FERC's authority.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this streamlines the environmental review process by eliminating duplicative efforts and conflicting directives from multiple lead agencies, thereby accelerating project approvals for critical energy infrastructure.
Critics contend
Critics might argue this provision diminishes the comprehensive nature of environmental reviews by concentrating authority in a single agency, potentially overlooking critical environmental impacts that other agencies with specific expertise might identify.
Tradeoffs
Balances the desire for expedited infrastructure development against the need for thorough, multi-agency environmental oversight.
Section 2(c)
Deference to FERC's Scope of NEPA Review
This provision requires all other agencies making decisions on Federal authorizations for natural gas pipelines to give 'deference, to the maximum extent authorized by law,' to the scope of the NEPA review determined by FERC. This means other agencies have limited ability to expand or alter the environmental review scope set by FERC for their specific permitting decisions.
Section 2(d)
Formalizing and Limiting Participating Agencies
This section outlines a process for FERC to identify and invite federal, state, local, and tribal agencies to be 'participating agencies' in the review process. Agencies that decline or are not designated are explicitly prohibited from conducting supplemental NEPA reviews or having their comments included in the record, unless specific legal necessity and information unavailability criteria are met. This formalizes participation but imposes strict penalties for non-engagement.
Section 2(e)
Modification of Water Quality Certification Requirements
This provision states that applicants for federal authorizations for pipeline projects are not required to provide a certification under Section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA). Instead, states or interstate agencies identified as participating agencies may propose terms or conditions to FERC, which FERC may include if it finds them necessary for compliance with specific FWPCA sections. This significantly alters the state's traditional veto power over projects impacting water quality.
Section 2(f)
Imposition of Strict Deadlines and Concurrent Reviews
This section sets a 90-day deadline for federal authorizations after FERC completes its NEPA review. It also mandates that federal and state agencies formulate plans to comply with FERC's schedules, carry out their obligations concurrently with FERC's NEPA review, and report progress every 90 days. Failure to meet deadlines requires the head of the relevant federal agency (or overseeing federal agency for states) to notify Congress and FERC, along with an implementation plan.
Section 2(h)
Public Tracking of Permitting Actions
For projects requiring multiple federal authorizations, FERC is required to track and make publicly available on its website information related to all actions needed to complete federal authorizations. This includes schedules, lists of actions, expected completion dates, agency points of contact, and explanations for any delays.
Section 2(i)
Consultation with TSA on Pipeline Security
This provision requires FERC to consult with the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) regarding an applicant's compliance with TSA security guidance and best practice recommendations for pipeline infrastructure, cybersecurity, and personnel security when considering applications for natural gas pipelines.
Any agency not designated as a participating agency cannot request or conduct a supplemental NEPA review unless it demonstrates legal necessity and that required information couldn't be obtained during FERC's review. Furthermore, FERC will not consider comments or information submitted by non-designated agencies for the project-related NEPA review.
Section 2(d)(4)
Why it matters:This is a highly consequential detail that significantly curtails the independent review capabilities of federal and state agencies. While presented as a logical consequence of non-participation, its placement might be seen as an attempt to de-emphasize the severity of the restriction on other agencies.
Case for: Proponents would argue this prevents agencies from holding up projects by conducting redundant reviews or submitting late comments after declining to participate in the coordinated process. It incentivizes early and full engagement.
Case against: Critics would argue this provision could be used to sideline legitimate environmental or safety concerns from agencies that may have limited resources to participate fully from the outset or whose specific expertise becomes relevant later in the process. It risks excluding critical input.
Estimated impact: Significantly alters the interagency review landscape for pipeline projects, potentially reducing the breadth of environmental and regulatory scrutiny.
If a Federal or State agency requires data from an applicant, it must consider data gathered by aerial or other remote means. The agency may grant a conditional approval for a Federal authorization based on such remote data, conditioned on subsequent onsite verification.
Section 2(g)(2)
Why it matters:This could be framed as a technical efficiency measure, but it has substantive implications for the rigor of initial data collection and review. Its placement might downplay its potential to reduce initial on-site scrutiny.
Case for: Proponents would argue this accelerates the initial review phase by allowing agencies to use modern remote sensing technologies, reducing the time and cost associated with early-stage data collection and site visits.
Case against: Critics might argue that relying on remote data for conditional approval could lead to approvals based on incomplete or inaccurate information, potentially missing critical site-specific details that only on-site inspection can reveal, increasing environmental risk.
Estimated impact: Could significantly speed up early permitting stages, but potentially at the cost of initial data thoroughness.