Improving Interagency Coordination for Pipeline Reviews Act
Latest action (Dec 15, 2025) — Received in the Senate and Read twice and on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
What it does
Congressional Research Service, Sep 15, 2025This bill expedites the environmental review of certain natural gas pipeline projects or liquefied natural gas (LNG) import or export terminals for authorizations under the Natural Gas Act.
Specifically, the bill makes the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) the only lead agency for the purpose of coordinating the environmental review of such projects under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Thus, agencies involved in the environmental review process must defer to FERC's approved scope for a NEPA review.
FERC must invite certain federal, state, local, or tribal governmental agencies to participate in the review process for an authorization and designate the applicable governments as participating agencies by deadlines established by the bill. In addition, FERC must consult with the Transportation Security Administration regarding various pipeline security measures.
The bill prohibits FERC from establishing a deadline for authorizing a project that is more than 90 days after the completion of the NEPA review. It also requires concurrent reviews when multiple federal or state agencies are involved.
Applicants for projects do not have to obtain a water quality certification from states under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. FERC must coordinate its NEPA review with states where a potential discharge into navigable waters may occur.
If a federal or state agency requires an applicant for a pipeline authorization to submit data, the agency must consider any such data gathered by aerial or other remote means that is submitted.
Face Value
as passed the HouseHow much of this bill its name accounts for.
- Every bill starts at100
- Nothing counted against it: one area of law, and short enough that length doesn't register.
Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out
What Congress did
2 recordeddecisive vote
House · Dec 12, 2025
Whether the bill passes the House. This is the vote most people mean.
On
House · Dec 12, 2025
The minority party's last attempt to change the bill by sending it back to committee. It usually fails and is usually about forcing an awkward vote.
Who lobbied on this
3 organizationsThese organizations told Congress, in their own quarterly disclosures, that they were lobbying on this bill.
- American Gas Associationno position stated
“…Permitting Reform. Improving Interagency Coordination for Pipeline Reviews Act (H.R. 3668). Assigns FERC the lead role in pipeline permitting and improve coordination among federal and state agencies reviewing permitting…” filing ↗
- Interstate Natural Gas Association of Americano position stated
“…H.R. 3061, Promoting Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act (provisions relating to the interstate natural gas pipeline sector). H.R. 3668, Improving Interagency Coordination for Pipeline Reviews Act (provisions relating to the interstate natural gas pipeline sector). H.R. 1949,…” filing ↗
- Xcel Energyno position stated
“…H.R. 3668, Improving Interagency Coordination for Pipeline Reviews…” filing ↗
Most filings say only that an organization lobbied on a bill, not which side it took — where that's the case we say so rather than guessing. Quotes are verbatim from the filing. How this is built.
Discussion
0 commentsSign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.
No comments yet. Be the first to make the case.