HB3668 requires the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to act as the sole lead agency for NEPA reviews tied to authorizations under section 3 and certificates under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act. The bill prescribes tight timelines for identifying and designating participating agencies, mandates interagency coordination to run concurrently with FERC’s project NEPA work, and instructs agencies to give deference to FERC’s chosen NEPA scope “to the maximum extent authorized by law.”
The bill also limits duplicative State or federal NEPA reviews, removes the applicant’s obligation to provide a Clean Water Act Section 401 certification for the covered federal authorization, requires public tracking of required authorizations on FERC’s website, allows applicants to fund third‑party reviewers, and requires FERC to consult the Transportation Security Administration on pipeline security. For project sponsors and regulators, HB3668 is a pronounced shift toward centralized, schedule-driven permitting with limited avenues for independent supplementary analyses.
At a Glance
What It Does
Designates FERC as the only lead agency for NEPA reviews tied to Natural Gas Act section 3 and 7 authorizations, requires early identification and invitation of potentially responsible agencies, sets specific deadlines for those designations, and directs agencies to coordinate concurrently and defer to FERC’s NEPA scope. It also removes the applicant’s obligation to provide a Section 401 water quality certification for the covered federal authorization and creates public tracking and reporting requirements.
Who It Affects
Natural gas pipeline developers and applicants, FERC staff and other Federal and State permitting agencies, State water quality authorities, consultants and third‑party contractors hired by applicants, and stakeholders concerned with environmental review and pipeline security (including TSA).
Why It Matters
The bill compresses and centralizes interagency permitting processes that are typically fragmented, aiming to reduce delay by forcing concurrent reviews and limiting supplemental state NEPA activity. That changes the leverage and timeline agencies and states have in resolving technical and environmental questions, and raises litigation and implementation risks that compliance officers and project planners must manage.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
HB3668 rewrites how NEPA and related permitting for certain interstate natural gas pipeline actions will be organized. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission becomes the exclusive lead NEPA agency when an applicant seeks authorization under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act or a certificate under section 7; FERC must coordinate early with any agency that might issue a related Federal authorization and structure its NEPA work to produce information usable by those agencies.
The statute requires FERC to take steps to expedite completion of the project‑related NEPA review and directs other agencies to defer, within legal limits, to the scope FERC sets for that review.
The bill imposes concrete coordination milestones: FERC must identify potentially relevant Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies within 30 days of receiving an application, invite them to participate within 45 days, and formally designate participating agencies within 60 days unless the agency opts out in writing. An agency that is not designated generally cannot conduct a supplemental NEPA review or have its comments admitted into the FERC NEPA record unless it can demonstrate a legal need for a separate review and that the information could not have been obtained during FERC’s process.
Agencies that will consider authorizations must implement plans to complete their work concurrently with FERC and provide periodic status reports; if an agency misses a deadline, the head of the relevant federal agency must notify Congress within five days and propose an implementation plan.On water quality, HB3668 removes the applicant’s obligation to supply a Clean Water Act Section 401 certification for the covered federal authorization, while preserving a role for States: a State or interstate water agency identified as a participating agency can propose conditions for inclusion in FERC’s authorization intended to ensure compliance with core Clean Water Act provisions, but FERC may include such conditions only if it finds they are necessary to ensure compliance. The bill also authorizes FERC and other agencies to accept remote or aerial survey data (and to grant conditional approvals contingent on later on‑site verification), allows applicants to fund third‑party contractors to assist in application review, requires public tracking of permitting steps and responsible contacts on FERC’s website, and mandates that FERC consult the Transportation Security Administration on security and cybersecurity considerations for pipeline projects.
The Five Things You Need to Know
FERC must identify agencies that may issue related federal authorizations within 30 days of receiving an application, invite them to participate within 45 days, and designate participating agencies within 60 days unless an agency opts out in writing.
An agency not designated as a participating agency generally may not conduct a supplemental NEPA review or have its comments included in FERC’s NEPA record unless it shows the review is legally required and requires information unobtainable in FERC’s process.
The bill removes the applicant’s requirement to provide a Clean Water Act Section 401 certification for the federal authorization at issue; States may propose water‑quality conditions, but FERC can adopt them only if it finds they are necessary to ensure compliance with specific CWA sections.
FERC must set a deadline for downstream federal authorizations no later than 90 days after FERC completes its project‑related NEPA review (unless another federal law establishes a different schedule); agencies must report progress at least every 90 days.
If an agency misses a deadline established under FERC’s schedule, the head of the relevant federal agency must notify Congress and FERC within 5 days and provide a recommended implementation plan to finish the action.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions
This short subsection fixes terms used through the bill: 'Commission' means FERC; 'Federal authorization' points to the definition in NGA section 15(a); 'NEPA review' and 'project‑related NEPA review' are defined to capture reviews tied to section 3 and section 7 actions. Practically, the definitions limit the bill’s reach to NEPA work directly connected to Natural Gas Act authorizations, excluding unrelated FERC or agency activities.
FERC duties as sole NEPA lead
FERC must serve as the only lead agency under NGA section 15(b)(1) for the covered actions and to coordinate early with participating agencies so that the NEPA product is usable by those agencies. The clause that FERC 'shall be the only lead agency' centralizes responsibility for scope, scheduling, and record‑building. That concentrates the task of integrating technical resource analyses and legal findings in FERC and increases the importance of FERC’s procedural choices during scoping and draft environmental analysis.
Deference to FERC’s NEPA scope
The bill directs other agencies to give deference 'to the maximum extent authorized by law' to FERC’s determination of the appropriate scope for the NEPA review. This is not an absolute bar to independent analysis, but it raises the evidentiary and legal threshold for other agencies to justify separate or broader NEPA work and shifts the initial scope decision’s power into FERC’s hands.
Participating agency identification, invitation, and consequences
FERC must identify potential Federal and State agencies, local governments, and Indian Tribes within 30 days of an application, invite them within 45 days, and designate participating agencies within 60 days unless an agency opts out by saying it lacks jurisdiction, expertise, or will not submit comments. Agencies that are not designated lose routine rights to conduct supplemental NEPA reviews or to have comments included in the FERC NEPA record, unless they can show legal necessity and that required information couldn’t have been collected during FERC’s review. The subsection also allows FERC to extend invitation deadlines for good cause, giving FERC discretion to manage timing disputes.
Water‑quality handling and Section 401
HB3668 removes a statutory obligation on applicants to submit a Section 401 certification for the covered federal authorization, but it gives States and interstate water agencies a participatory role: if identified as participating agencies, they can propose terms to assure compliance with core Clean Water Act provisions. FERC may include such conditions only if it finds them necessary to ensure compliance. That keeps States at the table but makes FERC the ultimate gatekeeper for formal inclusion of state‑proposed water quality conditions.
Schedules, concurrent reviews, and missed deadlines
The statute ties agency timing to the schedule FERC sets under NGA section 15(c)(1): federal authorizations should be completed within 90 days after FERC finishes its NEPA review unless other law controls. Agencies must develop plans to perform reviews concurrently, notify applicants within 30 days whether an application is 'ready for processing,' and file progress reports with FERC at least every 90 days. If an agency misses a deadline, a senior official must notify Congress and propose an implementation plan within five days—procedural accountability without direct statutory penalties for delay.
Application processing mechanics — remote surveys and third‑party reviewers
The bill requires agencies to accept data gathered by aerial or remote means and allows conditional approvals that hinge on later onsite verification. It also allows applicants to fund third‑party contractors to assist agencies in reviewing applications. Both steps aim to speed technical review but raise quality control and conflict‑of‑interest questions that agencies will need to manage through contracting and verification protocols.
Transparency, tracking, and security consultation
FERC must publish an itemized, public tracking page for multi‑authorization projects that lists required actions, expected completion dates, responsible agency contacts, and brief explanations for delays. Separately, FERC must consult the Transportation Security Administration on compliance with pipeline security and cybersecurity guidance. The combination creates a single public locus for progress and brings DHS/TSA expertise into the permitting conversation.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Energy across all five countries.
Explore Energy in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Pipeline developers and project applicants — Gain a single, centralized lead (FERC) controlling NEPA scope and timelines, reducing the risk of staggered, duplicative federal and state reviews and enabling faster schedule predictability.
- Applicants’ consultants and third‑party contractors — The bill explicitly allows applicants to fund independent contractors to help review applications, creating additional contracting opportunities for engineering, environmental, and legal service providers.
- FERC staff — Acquires clearer statutory authority to set scope and schedule for NEPA reviews, which concentrates decision‑making and may simplify interagency coordination roles.
- TSA and federal security stakeholders — The statutory requirement to consult TSA formalizes a role for security and cybersecurity expertise early in authorization decisions, improving visibility of security concerns in permit deliberations.
Who Bears the Cost
- State water quality agencies — Lose a routine leverage point because applicants are no longer strictly required to provide a Section 401 certification for the covered federal authorization and FERC retains discretion over adopting state‑proposed conditions.
- Other federal and state permitting agencies — Must reorganize to perform concurrent reviews, meet short deadlines (30/45/60‑day designations and 90‑day reporting cycles), and produce rapid 'ready for processing' determinations, adding administrative burdens without new funding in the statute.
- Environmental and community groups — Face reduced procedural avenues to force supplemental environmental review or slow permitting via parallel state NEPA or Section 401 processes, which may limit opportunities to expose or litigate project risks.
- Tribes and local governments — While included in the identification process, they may experience compressed timelines to marshal input, and non‑designation removes routine means to submit comments into the FERC NEPA record.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits a management objective—faster, centralized federal permitting under a single FERC lead—against traditional safeguards: rigorous, agency‑specific technical review and state water quality authority. Speed and predictability for applicants come at the cost of concentrated decision authority and compressed windows for agency and public input, producing a trade‑off between timely infrastructure deployment and the thoroughness and independent judgment of environmental and state regulators.
The bill pushes coordination and speed but leaves open contested legal and operational questions. Removing the applicant’s obligation to provide a Section 401 certification for the covered federal authorization raises potential conflicts with existing Clean Water Act frameworks and recent court interpretations that treat the 401 process as a state prerogative; those conflicts may spawn litigation over whether the statute can limit or reshape statutory 401 processes in practice.
The 'deference' requirement is qualified by 'to the maximum extent authorized by law,' but that phrase is legally indeterminate and will invite disputes about how much deference agencies must actually provide, particularly on issues with distinct statutory or technical jurisdiction (e.g., endangered species, cultural resources, or navigable waters).
Operationally, the bill relies heavily on concurrent review and tight reporting, but it does not appropriate funding or create new enforcement mechanisms beyond mandatory notices to Congress for missed deadlines. Agencies will shoulder the administrative load of new plans, 90‑day reporting, and frequent 'ready for processing' determinations without guaranteed resources, increasing the risk that work will be rushed or that litigable gaps will appear in administrative records.
Allowing applicants to fund third‑party reviewers and to submit remote survey data speeds review but introduces conflicts of interest and verification challenges; the statute gives agencies discretion to condition approvals on onsite verification but does not specify quality controls or standards for contractor independence.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.