Alan Armstrong (R-OK)
American Energy and Mineral Infrastructure Act of 2026
A Republican bill with 20 Republican cosponsors · See all 20 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
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 American Energy and Mineral Infrastructure Act of 2026 aims to streamline the permitting processes for natural gas pipelines, water quality certifications, and environmental reviews. It designates the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as the sole lead agency for natural gas pipeline environmental reviews and sets strict timelines for interagency coordination. The legislation alters the judicial review process by limiting the ability of courts to vacate or stop projects and restricting who can file lawsuits. It also extends general permit terms under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act from five years to ten years. Additionally, the bill introduces provisions for hardrock mining mill sites and establishes the Abandoned Hardrock Mine Fund. Finally, it defines the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as a purely procedural statute that does not mandate specific environmental outcomes.
Yes· 3 of 17
- Scored +7
Would business owners be better off under this?
Drastically reduces permitting timelines and regulatory hurdles for energy/mining firms.
- Scored +6
Would billionaires be better off under this?
Directly benefits owners of large energy and mining corporations.
- Scored +5
Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this?
Favors large-scale infrastructure developers and energy moguls.
The opposite· 3 of 12
- Scored -7
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The bill explicitly declares NEPA as purely procedural and limits the scope of environmental reviews.
- Scored -6
Does this reduce how much oil, gas and coal is produced?
The act facilitates the expansion of natural gas and mineral extraction.
- Scored -6
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
Reduces state authority over water quality certifications under the Clean Water Act.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Establishment of the Abandoned Hardrock Mine Fund: Section 6(b) establishes the Abandoned Hardrock Mine Fund using amounts collected from claim maintenance fees on mill sites. This fund can be used to carry out necessary mine reclamation work under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which helps address environmental hazards.
-
Streamlined Public Tracking and Transparency: Section 2(i) requires the Commission to track and make available to the public on its website information related to Federal authorizations, schedules, and expected completion dates. This provision increases accountability and helps the public stay informed about the status of energy infrastructure projects.
-
Support for Tribal Trust Resources: Section 7(b) creates a presumption that the effects of taking no action will be negative for federally recognized Indian Tribes when proposed agency actions affect Tribal trust resources initiated by those Tribes. This provision helps protect Tribal interests by acknowledging potential harms of inaction.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Restrictions on Judicial Remedies: Sections 2(j), 3(h), and 5(c) limit the authority of courts to set aside, vacate, or enjoin permits, orders, or certifications found to be non-compliant with federal law. Instead, courts are generally required to remand the matter back to the agency without stopping the project, which may reduce legal recourse for individuals or groups affected by harmful environmental impacts.
-
Exclusion of Certain Water Quality Certifications: Section 2(f) states that a certification under section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act shall not be required with respect to a Federal authorization for natural gas pipelines. This change could reduce state oversight and protections regarding local water quality impacts from pipeline discharges.
-
Stricter Standing Requirements for Lawsuits: Sections 3(h), 5(c), and 7(h) impose strict limitations on who can challenge permits and environmental reviews in court, requiring parties to prove direct and irreparable economic harm or that they submitted detailed comments during the public process. These hurdles may prevent everyday citizens and public interest organizations from holding officials accountable through legal action.
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.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — Drastically reduces permitting timelines and regulatory hurdles for energy/mining firms. Would billionaires be better off under this? — Directly benefits owners of large energy and mining corporations. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — Favors large-scale infrastructure developers and energy moguls. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — Benefits investors in the energy and mineral sectors. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Provides a presumption of negative impact for taking no action on Tribal trust resources. Would union members be better off under this? — Increased infrastructure construction creates demand for skilled trade labor. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Potential for lower energy costs and investment growth. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Brings investment and development to rural mining and energy regions. Would children be better off under this? — Reduction in environmental protections may negatively impact long-term health and environmental quality. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Environmental deregulation often disproportionately affects minority communities. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Environmental deregulation often disproportionately affects minority communities. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Marginalized communities are often more affected by reduced environmental oversight. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Potential for increased industrial pollution near urban centers. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Decreased environmental protections impact future generations' ecology.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — Facilitates energy and mineral infrastructure in rural areas. Is this likely to lower the price at the pump? — Increased pipeline capacity can lower natural gas costs. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — Creates a fund specifically for the cleanup of abandoned hardrock mines. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill explicitly declares NEPA as purely procedural and limits the scope of environmental reviews. Does this reduce how much oil, gas and coal is produced? — The act facilitates the expansion of natural gas and mineral extraction. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — Streamlining natural gas and mineral projects generally increases fossil fuel infrastructure.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to grow the economy? — Reduction of regulatory delays for energy and mining projects promotes capital investment and growth. Is this likely to create jobs? — Streamlining energy and mineral infrastructure permitting likely stimulates industrial construction and employment. Is this likely to slow the rise in prices? — Faster energy infrastructure development could potentially lower energy costs over the long term. Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — Reduced environmental and water quality oversight may diminish protections for consumers regarding local environment health.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — Establishes FERC as the sole lead agency and limits state water quality certification power. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Requires public tracking of authorization progress and expected completion dates on the website. Does this make it easier to do business across state lines? — Simplifies cross-state energy infrastructure permitting. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — Significantly restricts judicial review and limits the ability of courts to vacate or enjoin permits. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Reduces state authority over water quality certifications under the Clean Water Act.
- 9/22/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/14/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 8/7/2026
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- 8/6/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 8/5/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 8/4/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/29/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 7/28/2026
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- 7/13/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/24/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
Marsha BlackburnRepublican · Tennessee
Ted BuddRepublican · North Carolina
Katie BrittRepublican · Alabama
John CornynRepublican · Texas
Tom CottonRepublican · Arkansas
Steve DainesRepublican · Montana
Bill HagertyRepublican · Tennessee
Jon HustedRepublican · Ohio
John KennedyRepublican · Louisiana
Cynthia LummisRepublican · Wyoming
James LankfordRepublican · Oklahoma
Lisa MurkowskiRepublican · Alaska
Roger MarshallRepublican · Kansas
Bernie MorenoRepublican · Ohio
David McCormickRepublican · Pennsylvania
Ashley MoodyRepublican · Florida
Rick ScottRepublican · Florida
Tim SheehyRepublican · Montana
Thomas TillisRepublican · North Carolina
Roger WickerRepublican · Mississippi