Improving Interagency Coordination for Pipeline Reviews Act
HB3668, the Improving Interagency Coordination for Pipeline Reviews Act, would change how federal and state agencies review certain natural gas pipeline-related authorizations under the Natural Gas Act. The bill focuses on applications for LNG export/import authorizations under section 3 and pipeline certificates of public convenience and necessity under section 7, and it makes the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) the sole lead agency for the related NEPA environmental review process. It requires early coordination with other agencies, sets deadlines for identifying participating agencies, and limits supplemental NEPA reviews by agencies that are not designated as participating agencies unless a separate review is legally necessary and requires information not already obtainable through FERC’s review.
The bill also seeks to speed permitting by imposing tighter schedules for federal authorizations, requiring agencies to process applications concurrently with FERC’s NEPA review, and mandating regular progress reports and public tracking of permitting milestones on FERC’s website. It directs agencies to identify issues early, consider remote or aerial survey data, and allows applicants to fund third-party contractors to help review applications. In addition, it requires FERC to consult with the Transportation Security Administration on pipeline security, cybersecurity, personnel security, and related best practices.
A major substantive change is the bill’s treatment of water quality review. It would eliminate the need for applicants to obtain a Clean Water Act section 401 water quality certification for the covered federal authorization, while still allowing state or interstate water agencies to propose conditions tied to compliance with specified Clean Water Act provisions. The bill also requires FERC to consider those conditions only if they are necessary to ensure compliance with the listed water pollution control requirements.
The general sentiment reflected in the House vote suggests support for streamlining and coordinating pipeline permitting, though the close vote on the motion to recommit indicates some opposition or concern. The bill ultimately passed the House, but the margin shows the issue remains contested. No committee transcript was provided, so the available context does not show detailed floor debate, but the structure of the bill indicates a policy preference for faster approvals and reduced duplication in environmental review.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s narrowing of supplemental environmental review, its limitation on state involvement in the permitting process, and its removal of the section 401 water quality certification requirement for these authorizations. Supporters are likely to view the bill as improving efficiency, predictability, and energy infrastructure development, while critics are likely to argue that it weakens environmental oversight, reduces state authority, and constrains agency discretion in reviewing pipeline projects.
The bill would amend the Natural Gas Act framework for FERC-led review of certain natural gas pipeline and LNG-related authorizations, and it would alter how related NEPA reviews and permitting timelines are handled. It would also affect the Federal Water Pollution Control Act by eliminating the requirement for a section 401 water quality certification for the covered federal authorization, while preserving a narrower role for state or interstate agencies to propose water-quality-related conditions. In practice, the bill would centralize review authority at FERC, limit supplemental agency reviews, and impose faster deadlines and reporting obligations on federal and state agencies involved in pipeline permitting.
The House vote history suggests the bill had meaningful support but also significant opposition. Passage on the floor indicates that a majority favored the bill’s permitting reforms, likely viewing them as a way to reduce delays and improve coordination for energy infrastructure projects. At the same time, the relatively close vote on the motion to recommit shows that concerns remained strong enough to generate organized resistance, especially around environmental review, state participation, and water-quality protections.
The most notable controversy is over whether the bill over-centralizes authority in FERC and limits the ability of other federal, state, local, and tribal entities to conduct independent review or add conditions. Environmental and state-regulatory critics would likely object to the restriction on supplemental NEPA review and the elimination of the section 401 certification requirement, arguing that these changes weaken environmental and water-quality safeguards. Supporters, by contrast, are likely to argue that the bill prevents duplicative review, improves permitting certainty, and helps ensure timely decisions on energy infrastructure projects. Another likely point of contention is the bill’s requirement that agencies defer to FERC’s scope of review to the maximum extent allowed by law, which may be seen as reducing agency autonomy.