FERC Greenhouse Gas and Environmental Justice Policy Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Sen. Durbin, Richard J. [D-IL]
- Committees
- Energy and Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Dec 3, 2025
Bottom line
The bill significantly strengthens FERC's mandate to consider and mitigate climate and environmental justice impacts when approving natural gas infrastructure projects.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Natural Gas Act to explicitly require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to assess and mitigate the impacts of natural gas projects on climate change and environmental justice communities. It establishes new criteria for FERC's 'public convenience and necessity' determinations, including specific thresholds for significant environmental effects and mandates for mitigation proposals from applicants.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is essential to ensure FERC's decisions fully account for the public interest, including the urgent need to address climate change and protect vulnerable environmental justice communities from disproportionate pollution burdens. They contend it provides clear, actionable guidance for FERC to fulfill its responsibilities and promotes a more equitable and sustainable energy transition.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that the bill would impose excessive regulatory burdens on natural gas infrastructure development, leading to project delays, increased costs, and potential threats to energy reliability and affordability. They argue that the proposed emissions thresholds are arbitrary and that the expanded environmental review requirements could politicize FERC's decision-making process.
The bill is concise and relatively easy to read, allowing an informed reader to grasp its core changes within the typical time allotted for legislative review.
Section 2(a) amending 15 U.S.C. 717f(d)
Mandatory Mitigation Proposal in Applications
This provision requires all applicants seeking a certificate of public convenience and necessity for natural gas projects to include a detailed proposal outlining how they intend to mitigate the environmental effects of their proposed action. This ensures that mitigation strategies are considered from the outset of the application process.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision ensures that environmental protection and mitigation are integral to project planning, rather than an afterthought. It encourages proactive design choices that minimize harm to climate and communities.
Critics contend
Critics contend that this adds another layer of regulatory burden and cost for project developers, potentially delaying or deterring necessary infrastructure projects without guaranteeing significant environmental benefits.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the desire for comprehensive environmental planning with concerns about increasing the complexity and cost of the project application process.
Section 2(b) adding 15 U.S.C. 717f(i)(1)
New Criteria for Public Convenience and Necessity Determinations
This section mandates that FERC, when determining if a natural gas project serves the 'present or future public convenience and necessity,' must now explicitly consider three factors: whether environmental effects (including on environmental justice communities) are significant and can be mitigated, whether significant environmental effects outweigh project benefits, and whether the project is necessary for energy reliability and affordability.
Section 2(b) adding 15 U.S.C. 717f(i)(2)
Detailed Evaluation of Significant Environmental Effects
This provision outlines specific requirements for FERC's evaluation of significant environmental effects. It mandates assessing impacts on environmental justice communities based on existing stressors, cumulative impacts, and public engagement. It also requires quantifying reasonably foreseeable greenhouse gas emissions, including upstream, downstream, construction, and operational emissions, and their cumulative effects on environmental justice communities.
Section 2(b) adding 15 U.S.C. 717f(i)(2)(D)
Presumptive Significance Thresholds for Environmental Effects
This provision establishes specific thresholds for determining significant environmental effects. It states that no community should bear a disproportionate share of adverse environmental and public health consequences, and it is in the public interest to limit future placement of projects in environmental justice communities. Crucially, it presumes that a proposed action with at least 100,000 metric tons per year of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions has a significant effect on climate change, using 20-year global warming potentials for conversion.
Section 2(b) adding 15 U.S.C. 717f(i)(3)
Mandatory Mitigation Conditions and Justification for Unmitigated Effects
This provision requires FERC to attach conditions to project certificates that mitigate adverse effects on climate change and environmental justice communities, 'to the extent practicable.' If FERC approves a project where significant environmental effects are not mitigated below the significance threshold, the Commission must provide a detailed explanation as to why such mitigation was not practicable.
Section 2(b) adding 15 U.S.C. 717f(i)(4)
Explicit Weighing of Environmental Effects Against Benefits
This provision requires FERC to explicitly weigh all environmental effects, including significant ones that cannot be practicably mitigated, against the benefits of the proposed action. If FERC finds a project is still required by public convenience and necessity despite significant unmitigated environmental effects, it must provide a detailed explanation for this finding.
This provision specifies that greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide shall be converted to carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) using the 20-year global warming potentials (GWPs) from the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment report.
Section 2(b) adding 15 U.S.C. 717f(i)(2)(D)(ii)(II)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining technical parameters, but the choice of 20-year GWP over 100-year GWP has significant policy implications.
Case for: Proponents argue that using 20-year GWPs provides a more accurate and urgent assessment of the short-term climate impact of certain potent greenhouse gases like methane, which have a high warming potential over a shorter period. This aligns with the need for immediate climate action.
Case against: Opponents contend that 20-year GWPs disproportionately emphasize short-lived gases and can inflate the perceived climate impact of natural gas projects compared to the more commonly used 100-year GWPs, which reflect a longer-term climate perspective. This could lead to an unfair disadvantage for natural gas projects.
Estimated impact: This technical choice could significantly increase the calculated CO2e emissions for natural gas projects, making it more likely they exceed the 100,000 metric ton threshold and are deemed to have a 'significant effect on climate change.'
This provision defines 'environmental justice community' as 'any population of color, community of color, indigenous community, or low-income community that experiences a disproportionate burden of the negative human health and environmental impacts of pollution or other environmental hazards.'
Section 2(b) adding 15 U.S.C. 717f(i)(5)(C)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining terms, but the breadth of the definition is substantively important.
Case for: Proponents argue that this broad and inclusive definition ensures that all communities historically and currently overburdened by pollution are explicitly protected under FERC's new review process, aligning with federal efforts to address environmental inequities.
Case against: Opponents might argue that such a broad definition could lead to an expansive interpretation of 'environmental justice community,' potentially encompassing a vast number of areas and making it exceedingly difficult to site any new infrastructure projects without significant challenges.
Estimated impact: This definition significantly expands the scope of communities that FERC must explicitly consider and protect from disproportionate burdens, potentially influencing the siting and approval of a wide range of natural gas projects.