JOAN Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Cotton, Tom [R-AR]
- Committees
- Energy and Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 15, 2026
Bottom line
The JOAN Act aims to significantly expedite the permitting and judicial review processes for natural gas infrastructure projects by centralizing authority with FERC and severely limiting legal challenges.
What it actually does
This bill, known as the JOAN Act, significantly streamlines the federal permitting process for natural gas infrastructure projects by designating the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as the sole lead agency for environmental reviews. It eliminates the requirement for state water quality certifications under the Clean Water Act, imposes strict deadlines on federal and state agencies for authorization decisions, and introduces substantial limitations on judicial review of project approvals, including a 180-day court deadline and a high bar for injunctions.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is essential for accelerating critical energy infrastructure development, reducing project delays, and enhancing energy independence and economic growth. They contend that the current permitting process is overly burdensome, leading to unnecessary costs and hindering the timely delivery of natural gas to consumers.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that the bill bypasses crucial environmental safeguards, diminishes the authority of states and other federal agencies, and severely curtails public and judicial oversight. They argue that these changes could lead to less thorough environmental reviews, increased risks of adverse environmental impacts, and an erosion of access to justice for affected communities.
The bill is moderately complex due to its legal and procedural changes, requiring careful reading to understand the full implications, especially concerning judicial review limitations.
Section 1
Short Title - JOAN Act
This section establishes the short title of the bill as the "Jurisdictional Oversight and Adjudication for Natural Gas Act," or the "JOAN Act." This provides a concise and easily referencable name for the legislation.
Supporters argue
Establishing a clear short title is standard legislative practice that facilitates discussion and reference to the bill.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against this provision, as it is purely administrative.
Tradeoffs
None.
Section 2(b)
FERC as Sole Lead Agency for NEPA Review
This provision designates the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as the only lead agency for environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for natural gas projects requiring authorization under Sections 3 or 7 of the Natural Gas Act. FERC is required to coordinate with other participating agencies to gather necessary information.
Section 2(c)
Deference to FERC's NEPA Scope
This section mandates that all other agencies involved in approving a natural gas project must give maximum deference to FERC's determination of the appropriate scope for the project's NEPA review. This means FERC's decision on what environmental aspects to cover will largely dictate the scope for all other federal authorizations.
Section 2(e)
Elimination of CWA Section 401 Certification
This provision removes the requirement for natural gas project applicants to obtain a Section 401 certification under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act). Instead, states or interstate agencies can propose terms or conditions related to water quality to FERC, but FERC only includes these conditions if it finds them necessary to comply with specific CWA provisions.
Section 2(f)
Strict Deadlines for Federal Authorizations
This section sets a deadline of 90 days for federal authorizations after FERC completes its NEPA review, unless another federal law specifies a different schedule. It mandates that federal and state agencies conduct their reviews concurrently with FERC's NEPA process and report progress every 90 days. If an agency misses a deadline, its head must notify Congress and FERC and provide a plan to complete the action.
Section 3(b), (c)
Final Agency Action and Exclusive Judicial Review
This provision declares that FERC's issuance of a 'core authorization' (under NGA Sections 3 or 7) constitutes a final agency action for all federal authorizations related to a natural gas project. It establishes that a single civil action challenging this core authorization is the sole and exclusive means of judicial review for the entire project, barring any subsequent challenges by any party except the project sponsor.
Section 3(c)(4), (5)
Accelerated Judicial Review and Injunction Limitations
This provision sets a 180-day deadline for courts to issue a final determination on civil actions challenging natural gas projects; if missed, the project is considered approved. It introduces a 'multiplicative merit standard' for preliminary injunctions, requiring a cumulative probability of success across all legal requirements to exceed 50%. Injunctions are limited to 60 days, cannot enjoin unrelated project activities, and permanent injunctions require 'clear and convincing evidence' of 'extraordinary circumstances'.
Section 3(c)(6)
Prohibition on Remand with Vacatur
This provision explicitly prohibits courts, when reviewing a civil action, from issuing a remedy of 'remand with vacatur.' This means that if a court finds an agency's authorization unlawful, it cannot simultaneously nullify (vacate) the authorization while sending the decision back to the agency for correction (remand).
Section 3(g)
Consolidated Administrative Record and Judicial Review Basis
This provision requires all federal agencies to submit their administrative records and 'statements of material fact' to FERC within 60 days of a core authorization. FERC then consolidates these submissions into a single record within 90 days, which becomes the exclusive basis for judicial review. Parties can object to the record's completeness within 30 days, with FERC resolving objections within 60 days, after which the record is final and closed.
This provision allows the project sponsor to continue construction for any part of a covered project that is 'unaffected by the civil action' after a civil action challenging the project has been filed.
Section 3(c)(7)
Why it matters:While seemingly a technical clarification, this provision has significant practical implications for project continuity during legal challenges, potentially allowing substantial construction to proceed even while the core authorization is under judicial scrutiny. It might be phrased concisely to appear as a minor procedural detail.
Case for: Supporters argue this ensures that legal challenges to one specific aspect of a project do not halt the entire development, preserving investment, maintaining construction schedules, and preventing unnecessary economic losses.
Case against: Critics contend that this provision could allow significant portions of a project to be built even if the core authorization is later found unlawful, creating stranded assets, causing irreversible environmental damage, or undermining the effectiveness of judicial challenges.
Estimated impact: Potentially allows for substantial construction to proceed during litigation, reducing the leverage of judicial challenges to halt projects entirely.
This provision prohibits any party from filing a civil action if that party did not raise the specific issue giving rise to the civil action during the notice and comment period for the applicable Federal authorization.
Section 3(c)(8)
Why it matters:While it aligns with the administrative law principle of exhaustion of remedies, its broad application to *all* Federal authorizations for a covered project and its placement could be seen as an attempt to quietly restrict the pool of potential litigants and the scope of issues that can be raised in court.
Case for: Proponents argue this encourages early engagement in the administrative process, ensuring agencies have an opportunity to address concerns before litigation. It prevents 'gotcha' lawsuits and ensures that judicial challenges are based on issues properly vetted during public comment.
Case against: Critics argue that this provision could inadvertently bar legitimate challenges if issues only become apparent after the comment period, or if a party was unaware of the specific implications during the initial administrative phase. It could disproportionately affect less resourced groups who may not have the capacity for exhaustive administrative engagement.
Estimated impact: Significantly restricts the pool of potential litigants and the scope of issues that can be raised in court, potentially reducing the overall number of legal challenges.