This bill would confirm and clarify FERC’s obligation to assess climate change impacts and environmental justice communities affected by projects approved under the Natural Gas Act. It inserts a mitigation proposal into the NGA, and creates a new framework under Section 7 for determining whether a proposed action is in the public convenience and necessity with a dedicated focus on environmental effects and greenhouse gas emissions.
It also sets thresholds and a weighing process to decide if benefits outweigh environmental harms, and requires mitigation measures to be attached to issued certificates where feasible.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends the Natural Gas Act to require a mitigation proposal as part of applications, and adds a new framework under Section 7 for evaluating whether a proposed action is in the present or future public convenience and necessity, including assessment of significant environmental effects and quantified GHG emissions.
Who It Affects
FERC and its staff, natural gas project applicants, pipeline developers, environmental justice communities in project areas, and state/local agencies coordinating public engagement and health impact assessments.
Why It Matters
It elevates environmental justice and climate considerations to the core of siting and permitting decisions, potentially altering the lifecycle costs and feasibility of gas infrastructure through required mitigation and transparent accounting of emissions.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill changes how the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission evaluates natural gas projects. It requires applicants to include a mitigation plan for environmental effects, including climate-related impacts and effects on communities that suffer environmental injustice.
It adds a formal process within the NGA to determine whether a proposed project remains in the public’s interest when weighed against its environmental footprint.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Commission must quantify reasonably foreseeable greenhouse gas emissions for proposed actions.
Environmental justice impacts must be evaluated using the record and community input.
A mitigation proposal must be submitted with the CNA (certificate) application and can be attached as a condition to the certificate.
There is a presumption of significance for actions with at least 100,000 metric tons per year of CO2e emissions (grossly stabilizing the threshold by 20-year GWP).
The Commission must weigh environmental harms against benefits and provide reasoning if mitigation cannot bring effects below significance.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Mitigation Proposal Insertion into NGA 7(d)
Section 7(d) of the Natural Gas Act would be amended to require a mitigation proposal to accompany an application for a certificate. The mitigation plan would address the environmental effects of the action, including climate change and impacts on environmental justice communities, and could shape subsequent certificate conditions.
PRESENT OR FUTURE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY DETERMINATION
Adds a new subsection to Section 7 setting out how the Commission must decide if a proposed action is in the public convenience and necessity. The determination hinges on whether environmental effects are significant, whether they can be mitigated, the action’s benefits, and its effect on energy reliability and affordability.
In General: Framework for significance and mitigation
This subsection lays the general framework for evaluating whether environmental effects are significant and whether mitigation can address them. It anchors the subsequent detailed subparts that define EJ considerations, GHG quantification, and mitigation requirements.
Significant Environmental Effects: EJ and GHG Evaluation
Establishes criteria to determine significance by requiring analysis of EJ community effects and reasonable GHG emission quantification. It directs the Commission to evaluate existing stressors, adverse stressors, cumulative stressors, and downstream and upstream emissions tied to the proposed action.
Mitigation: Conditions and Implementation
Requires the Commission to attach mitigation conditions to the certificate, to the extent practicable, and to explain why mitigation cannot bring significant effects below the threshold when it cannot.
Weighing: Balancing Effects and Benefits
Directs the Commission to weigh environmental effects against the anticipated benefits of the action. If significant effects persist above the threshold, the Commission must justify why the action remains in the public interest.
Definitions
Defines terms including Certificate, Environmental Effect, Environmental Justice Community, and Proposed Action, and specifies how emissions are calculated (upstream and downstream, with CO2e and 20-year IPCC GWPs).
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment 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
- Environmental justice communities located near proposed natural gas projects, who gain consideration of EJ factors and potential mitigations
- Local public health departments and EJ-focused community organizations monitoring environmental and health impacts
- Federal and state agencies involved in environmental justice review gain clearer, standardized criteria and data requirements
- FERC staff and decision-makers receive a clearer framework and quantifiable criteria for project analyses
Who Bears the Cost
- Pipeline project sponsors and developers who must prepare mitigation plans and conduct enhanced emissions analyses
- Project applicants may face higher compliance costs and longer review timelines
- Ratepayers could see higher costs if mitigation increases project costs or shifts infrastructure plans
- FERC and state agencies may require additional staffing and resources for enhanced reviews
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether robust EJ and climate protections should be applied even if they slow or complicate the approval process for gas projects, potentially affecting energy reliability and affordability. The bill asks the Commission to prefer mitigation and caution when significance is high, but also to justify cases where significant effects persist despite mitigation.
The bill creates a rigorous, science-based framework to evaluate environmental harms and benefits, but implementation will hinge on data quality, the definition of environmental justice communities, and the feasibility of mitigation measures. The balancing test could delay or constrain projects if significant environmental effects cannot be mitigated without unacceptable public costs.
Practical questions include how to allocate costs of mitigation across ratepayers and how to handle upstream emissions that are difficult to monitor or attribute to a single project.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.