HR-9838-119
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure, and Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by Ken Calvert (R-CA)
What it does
This bill would allow the President to designate interstate oil and natural gas pipelines as "covered pipeline projects" if deemed necessary for military installations, the defense industrial base, or critical infrastructure. Once designated, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) would have exclusive authority to approve or deny those pipelines, overriding state, local, and tribal permitting requirements. The President could also waive compliance with major environmental laws — including NEPA, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act — to prevent delays, with quarterly reports to Congress required.
Who benefits
Oil and natural gas pipeline companies seeking faster project approvals. The U.S. military and defense contractors who rely on stable energy supplies. Energy-intensive defense manufacturers in the defense industrial base. Regions with constrained energy supply that could gain new pipeline access. FERC, which would gain consolidated permitting authority. Investors and lenders in pipeline infrastructure who face reduced regulatory uncertainty. Workers employed in pipeline construction and operation.
Who is hurt
Landowners along pipeline routes who face expedited eminent domain proceedings, even with just compensation requirements. State and local governments that would lose permitting authority over projects crossing their jurisdictions. Tribal nations whose land-use and environmental review rights would be preempted. Environmental groups and communities near pipeline routes who rely on NEPA, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Endangered Species Act reviews to raise concerns. Competing energy sources (renewables, rail, trucking) that do not receive equivalent permitting advantages. Wildlife and ecosystems in areas where environmental review waivers are exercised. Future Congresses and courts, whose oversight role is narrowed by deemed-approval timelines and exclusive D.C. Circuit jurisdiction.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that fragmented federal, state, and local permitting processes have delayed critical energy infrastructure for years or decades, creating real vulnerabilities for military installations and the defense industrial base that depend on reliable fuel supplies. They contend that concentrating authority in FERC with strict timelines — 180 days for federal agencies, 60 days for state and tribal agencies — mirrors successful permitting streamlining models and that the national security waiver is a narrowly targeted emergency tool subject to congressional notification and quarterly oversight. They further argue that just compensation requirements, independent appraisals, and good-faith negotiation mandates protect landowners' Fifth Amendment rights throughout the eminent domain process.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's presidential designation authority is effectively unchecked — the "national security" and "critical infrastructure resilience" criteria are broad enough to encompass nearly any major pipeline, allowing the executive branch to bypass environmental laws for commercially motivated projects. They contend that the 60-day deadline for state and tribal agencies to complete environmental reviews is functionally impossible for complex projects, making deemed approval a near-automatic outcome rather than a genuine safety valve. They further argue that waiving the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act for pipeline construction — which historically has caused spills and habitat destruction — removes the primary legal tools communities and tribes use to protect drinking water and ecosystems, with no substitute protection mechanism.
Constitutional context
The bill raises significant questions under the major questions doctrine established in West Virginia v. EPA (2022) and the post-Chevron framework of Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024): courts will independently assess whether the broad presidential waiver authority over NEPA, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act is clearly authorized by Congress, and whether FERC's exclusive preemption of state and tribal permitting is consistent with the Tenth Amendment's limits on federal commandeering of state regulatory processes. The eminent domain provisions implicate the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, and the bill's explicit just compensation and severance damage requirements reflect those constitutional constraints.
Checks and balances
The Executive Branch gains significant new authority — the President can designate projects and waive major environmental statutes — checked only by a 7-day congressional notification requirement, quarterly reporting, and judicial review in the D.C. Circuit under an arbitrary-and-capricious standard.
Historical precedent
The Natural Gas Act already grants FERC authority to approve interstate natural gas pipelines and eminent domain rights to certificate holders, but no prior law has granted the President authority to waive NEPA, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act simultaneously for energy infrastructure projects.