FERC Gets the Keys: New Bill Centralizes Pipeline Approval, Setting 90-Day Deadlines for Federal Agencies

This bill, the Improving Interagency Coordination for Pipeline Reviews Act, is essentially a regulatory fast-pass for natural gas pipelines. It takes the often-slow, multi-agency review process and shoves it all under one roof: the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). When a company applies to build a new natural gas pipeline, FERC becomes the sole lead agency for the environmental review required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The goal is speed, coordination, and cutting out bureaucratic overlap.

The New Regulatory Express Lane

Think of the current process like getting a mortgage where you need approvals from five different banks, each with its own timeline. This bill changes that by making FERC the single point of contact and the chief scheduler. FERC has 60 days after an application is filed to designate all the other federal, state, and tribal agencies that need to sign off on the project. Critically, any agency that doesn't formally join the process early on is generally barred from coming in later to conduct a separate environmental review or submit comments. The message is clear: get on the bus or get left behind.

Deference and Deadlines: The Tight Squeeze

Once FERC finishes its environmental review, the clock starts ticking for everyone else. The bill sets a hard deadline: all final federal authorizations must be issued no later than 90 days after FERC’s NEPA review is complete. This means agencies like the Army Corps of Engineers or the Forest Service have to plan their work to finish concurrently with FERC's schedule. If they miss that 90-day window, the head of the agency has to report the failure to Congress and FERC within five days, explaining why and outlining a fix.

This is where it gets tricky for state and local regulators. The bill requires other agencies to give "deference"—meaning they should rely heavily—on the scope of the environmental review FERC decides is appropriate. For a state water quality board, for example, this could mean they have less flexibility to expand the scope of analysis beyond what FERC has already done, even if they feel the project needs more detailed local study. While the bill still requires consultation on water quality, FERC only has to include the state’s proposed conditions if the Commission agrees they are necessary to meet federal pollution laws.

What This Means for the Real World

For pipeline developers, this is a massive win. It provides schedule certainty and prevents projects from being stalled indefinitely by one reluctant agency. For the busy professional, this could mean faster construction of infrastructure that potentially lowers energy costs or increases supply reliability, though that's a long-term projection.

The trade-off is the potential for less thorough review. When agencies are rushed to meet a 90-day deadline for complex permitting, there’s a risk that details get overlooked. For people living near the proposed route, especially those relying on local agencies for environmental protection, the pressure on those agencies to meet tight deadlines could compromise their ability to conduct the deep, localized analysis needed to protect specific resources. Essentially, the bill prioritizes speed and efficiency over the comprehensive, slow-moving scrutiny that multi-agency reviews often provide. To keep things transparent, FERC is required to track all these deadlines publicly on its website, showing exactly who is doing what and when—or why they are late.