Richard Hudson (R-NC)
Improving Interagency Coordination for Pipeline Reviews Act
A Republican bill with 3 Republican cosponsors · See all 3 cosponsors
Last activity — Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
In the other chamber's committee
Passed one chamber and has been handed to a committee in the other.
The committee decides whether it goes any further, and most bills that reach a committee never leave it. A committee that simply does nothing kills a bill without anyone ever voting against it, so no news from here is usually the news.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Passed House 213–184
- In Senate committee
What this bill would do
The Improving Interagency Coordination for Pipeline Reviews Act aims to streamline the review process for natural gas pipeline authorizations. It establishes the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as the sole lead agency for project-related NEPA reviews. The bill mandates coordination with various agencies and sets specific timelines for processing applications. It also addresses water quality certifications and requires agencies to implement plans to meet established schedules. Additionally, the act includes provisions for public transparency regarding application tracking and mandates security consultations.
Yes· 3 of 5
- Scored +4
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The bill requires the Commission to track and publish project schedules, expected completion dates, and reasons for delays on its website.
- Scored +3
Does this better protect the country from computer attacks?
The bill mandates consultation with the TSA regarding pipeline cybersecurity and infrastructure security.
- Scored +3
Would business owners be better off under this?
The bill reduces regulatory uncertainty and shortens timelines for energy infrastructure applicants.
The opposite
- Scored -4
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The bill reduces the requirement for water quality certifications and limits the ability of agencies to conduct supplemental environmental reviews.
- Scored -1
Would people in cities be better off under this?
The reduction in water quality certification requirements could potentially impact local environmental protections near urban waterways.
- Scored -1
Does this make housing cost less?
The streamlining of energy infrastructure may have indirect effects on land use and housing availability.
What Congress actually voted on
2 recorded votes have been taken on this bill. One of them decided something; the rest moved it along.
- The House: the vote on whether to pass the bill This is the real decision in this chamber. Passing here sends the bill to the other chamber, which must pass it too before it can go to the President. Passed 213 yes · 184 no
12/12/2025 · Roll call 334 · recorded as “On Passage”
- The House: a last attempt to send the bill back to committee The minority party's final chance to change or stall a bill just before the vote on passage. It almost always fails; when it succeeds, the bill does not get its final vote that day. Motion to recommit rejected 194 yes · 204 no
12/12/2025 · Roll call 333 · recorded as “On Motion to Recommit”
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased Efficiency for Pipeline Projects: The Commission is required to take actions necessary to facilitate the "expeditious resolution" of project-related NEPA reviews (Section 2(b)(3)).
-
Clearer Timelines for Applicants: The bill establishes a deadline for Federal authorizations to be issued no later than 90 days after the Commission completes its project-related NEPA review (Section 2(f)(1)).
-
Improved Transparency: The Commission must track and make available to the public on its website information including schedules, required actions, expected completion dates, and reasons for delays (Section 2(h)).
-
Faster Data Processing: Agencies are required to consider data gathered by aerial or other remote means, which may allow for conditional approvals pending subsequent onsite inspection (Section 2(g)(2)).
-
Enhanced Security: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission must consult with the Transportation Security Administration regarding compliance with security guidance for infrastructure, cybersecurity, and personnel (Section 2(i)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Reduced Agency Oversight: Other agencies must give "deference, to the maximum extent authorized by law," to the scope of the NEPA review determined by the Commission (Section 2(c)).
-
Limited Ability for Non-Designated Agencies to Review: Any agency not designated as a "participating agency" may be prohibited from requesting or conducting a supplemental NEPA review unless they prove it is legally necessary and requires information not obtained during the Commission's review (Section 2(d)(4)(A)).
-
Restrictions on Commenting: The Commission is prohibited from considering or including comments or information from agencies that were not designated as participating agencies (Section 2(d)(4)(B)).
-
Changes to Water Quality Certification: An applicant for a Federal authorization will not be required to provide a certification under section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Section 2(e)(1)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill requires the Commission to track and publish project schedules, expected completion dates, and reasons for delays on its website.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this repair or build roads and bridges? — The bill facilitates more efficient approval processes for natural gas pipeline infrastructure. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill reduces the requirement for water quality certifications and limits the ability of agencies to conduct supplemental environmental reviews.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this better protect the country from computer attacks? — The bill mandates consultation with the TSA regarding pipeline cybersecurity and infrastructure security.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — The bill reduces regulatory uncertainty and shortens timelines for energy infrastructure applicants. Would people in cities be better off under this? — The reduction in water quality certification requirements could potentially impact local environmental protections near urban waterways.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — The bill creates more predictable and expedited timelines for energy infrastructure projects which can benefit business planning.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this make housing cost less? — The streamlining of energy infrastructure may have indirect effects on land use and housing availability.
- 12/15/2025
- Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
- 12/12/2025
- Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 213 - 184 (Roll no. 334).
- On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 213 - 184 (Roll no. 334). (text: CR H5814-5816)
- On motion to recommit Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 194 - 204 (Roll no. 333).
- The previous question on the motion to recommit was ordered pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX.
- Mr. Landsman moved to recommit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. (text: CR H5820)
- The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
- DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 3668.
- Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3898, H.R. 3383, H.R. 3638, H.R. 3628, H.R. 3668 and S. 1071. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 3898, H.R. 3383, H.R. 3638, and H.R. 3628 under a structured rule; and H.R. 3668 and S. 1071 under a closed rule. The resolution provides for one motion to recommit on H.R. 3898, H.R. 3383, H.R. 3638, H.R. 3628, and H.R. 3668; and one motion to commit on S. 1071.
- Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 936. (consideration: CR H5814-5822)
- 12/9/2025
- Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 936 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3898, H.R. 3383, H.R. 3638, H.R. 3628, H.R. 3668 and S. 1071. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 3898, H.R. 3383, H.R. 3638, and H.R. 3628 under a structured rule; and H.R. 3668 and S. 1071 under a closed rule. The resolution provides for one motion to recommit on H.R. 3898, H.R. 3383, H.R. 3638, H.R. 3628, and H.R. 3668; and one motion to commit on S. 1071.
- 11/25/2025
- Supplemental report filed by the Committee on Energy and Commerce, H. Rept. 119-297, Part II.
- 9/15/2025
- Reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 119-297, Part I.
- Committee on Transportation discharged.
- Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 253.
- 9/10/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/25/2025
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 27 - 23.
- 6/23/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/5/2025
- Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by the Yeas and Nays: 15 - 11.
- 6/3/2025
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy.
- 6/2/2025
- Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 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.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Troy BaldersonRepublican · Ohio
Neal DunnRepublican · Florida
Michael LawlerRepublican · New York