A Democratic bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The CURRENT Act aims to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reform the permit and licensing process. It changes how certification requests are handled by States, interstate agencies, and the Administrator. The bill implements stricter timelines for agencies to act on certification requests. It also establishes specific criteria that must be met before a request can be denied or conditioned. Additionally, it modifies the requirements for judicial review of certification actions.
Yes· 3 of 8
- Scored +6
Would business owners be better off under this?
The bill significantly reduces the time and regulatory uncertainty involved in obtaining necessary permits for development.
- Scored +5
Does this put more money into wind, solar and other renewable power?
The expedited review and certainty for energy projects may encourage more energy-related infrastructure investment.
- Scored +4
Is this likely to grow the economy?
Reducing regulatory uncertainty for energy and transmission projects can foster long-term economic investment.
The opposite· 3 of 8
- Scored -5
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The bill imposes a higher burden of proof on agencies and strictly limits the conditions they can apply to water discharges.
- Scored -4
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
The bill limits the ability of states to impose specific environmental conditions or withhold certification for longer periods.
- Scored -3
Would Native Americans be better off under this?
Environmental changes and streamlined permitting may impact traditional lands and water rights held by indigenous communities.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased Certainty for Applicants: The bill mandates that a decision to grant, deny, or waive a certification must be made within a period determined by the agency, which cannot exceed one year, and this period cannot be extended or paused for any reason other than at the applicant's request (Section 2, Subsection (a)(1)(A)(vi)).
-
Clearer Standards for Certification: States and agencies must publish their requirements for certification within 30 days of the Act's enactment to demonstrate compliance with specific sections of the Act (Section 2, Subsection (a)(1)(A)(iv)).
-
Protection Against Arbitrary Denials: To deny a certification or impose a condition, the State, interstate agency, or Administrator must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable condition exists to ensure compliance (Section 2, Subsection (d)(2)).
-
Limits on Burdensome Conditions: Any conditions imposed must be the least burdensome possible, considering factors like technical feasibility, cost, and the commercial viability of the activity (Section 2, Subsection (d)(2)).
-
Faster Legal Resolutions: For certain energy-related projects, the bill requires courts to provide expedited consideration of civil actions and issue a final decision within 120 days, with a possible 60-day extension for extraordinary circumstances (Section 2, Subsection (g)(3)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Reduced Agency Flexibility: The one-year deadline for agencies to act on a certification request is absolute and cannot be extended for reasons such as requesting additional information, conducting environmental reviews, or seeking public comment (Section 2, Subsection (a)(1)(A)(vi)).
-
Higher Burden of Proof for Agencies: Agencies are now required to meet a "clear and convincing evidence" standard to deny a certification or impose a condition, which is a high legal threshold (Section 2, Subsection (d)(2)).
-
Restrictions on Hydroelectric Oversight: For hydroelectric projects, certifications may not include conditions regarding the quantity, timing, or rate of water flow (Section 2, Subsection (d)(4)).
-
Limited Ability to Revise Certifications: Once a certification is obtained, it cannot be reopened, modified, supplemented, or withdrawn except by a request from the applicant or a specific court order (Section 2, Subsection (a)(1)(A)(5)).
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.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to grow the economy? — Reducing regulatory uncertainty for energy and transmission projects can foster long-term economic investment. Is this likely to create jobs? — By streamlining the permitting process, the bill may facilitate faster development of energy and infrastructure projects. Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The bill limits the ability of agencies to impose conditions that might protect water quality or public interests.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — The bill significantly reduces the time and regulatory uncertainty involved in obtaining necessary permits for development. Would union members be better off under this? — Streamlined infrastructure projects may stimulate construction and energy sector job opportunities. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Environmental changes and streamlined permitting may impact traditional lands and water rights held by indigenous communities.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this put more money into wind, solar and other renewable power? — The expedited review and certainty for energy projects may encourage more energy-related infrastructure investment. Is this likely to lower the price at the pump? — Streamlined energy and transmission infrastructure could eventually contribute to lower energy costs. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill imposes a higher burden of proof on agencies and strictly limits the conditions they can apply to water discharges. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — By limiting the ability to impose water-flow conditions on hydroelectric projects, the bill may impact renewable energy management. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — The bill limits the regulatory tools available for managing water-related discharges on public lands.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make it easier to do business across state lines? — The bill facilitates interstate energy commerce by easing the regulatory burden on transmission projects. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill requires agencies to publish certification requirements within 30 days, increasing upfront transparency. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — The bill limits the ability of states to impose specific environmental conditions or withhold certification for longer periods. Does this give the federal government more power? — By setting federal timelines that cannot be extended, the bill potentially restricts the discretionary authority of state-level environmental agencies. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — The expedited judicial review and absolute timelines may limit the window for thorough due process in environmental oversight.
- 7/22/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
David RouzerRepublican · North Carolina