New FERC Rule Puts 100,000-Ton CO2 Cap on Pipeline Projects, Elevating Environmental Justice Concerns

The new FERC Greenhouse Gas and Environmental Justice Policy Act of 2025 is aiming to fundamentally change how the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) decides whether to greenlight new natural gas pipelines and facilities. Essentially, this bill amends Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, forcing FERC to bake climate and equity standards right into its core decision-making process—the “public convenience and necessity” test. When a company wants to build a new pipeline, FERC now has to quantify all the greenhouse gases involved and explicitly weigh the project’s benefits against its environmental harm, especially for communities already dealing with heavy pollution.

The New Climate Math: 100,000 Tons and Counting

For the first time, this bill sets a concrete threshold for climate impact. If a proposed project—be it a pipeline extension or a new compressor station—is projected to emit at least 100,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year, it is automatically presumed to have a “significant effect on climate change.” That’s the point where FERC can’t just wave it through; they have to treat the climate impact as a major factor in the approval process. Crucially, the calculation must include emissions from construction, operation, upstream leaks (like methane escaping at the source), and downstream combustion (the gas being burned in homes and power plants later). This means developers can no longer just point to their immediate site; they have to account for the full lifecycle impact.

Equity Check: No Disproportionate Burden

This legislation puts a spotlight on Environmental Justice (EJ) Communities—defined as low-income, Indigenous, or populations of color that already bear a disproportionate burden of pollution. The bill states clearly that no community should bear a disproportionate share of adverse environmental and health impacts from an approved project. For people living near proposed routes, this is a big deal. FERC must now evaluate the project’s impact based on existing public health stressors and the cumulative impacts of all the pollution already in that area. If you live next to a refinery and a highway, a new pipeline can’t just add another layer of risk without serious scrutiny and input from your community.

The Mitigation Mandate vs. Regulatory Discretion

If a project crosses that 100,000-ton threshold or significantly harms an EJ community, the applicant must submit a detailed plan showing how they will mitigate those effects. FERC is required to attach conditions to its approval demanding the company follow through on that mitigation. However, this is where the policy gets tricky. While the bill pushes for mitigation, it still allows FERC to approve a project with significant, un-mitigatable environmental effects if the Commission provides a detailed explanation for why the project is still required by “public necessity.” This means that even if a pipeline is bad for the climate and bad for a local community, FERC can still approve it if they decide the energy reliability or affordability benefits outweigh the harm. The good news is that they have to show their work—they can’t just say “trust us.”

Real-World Impact: Cost, Time, and Energy Supply

For pipeline developers, this means the cost of compliance and the time it takes to get approvals is almost certainly going up. They need to hire experts to model complex upstream and downstream emissions, and they face more rigorous scrutiny from FERC and local communities. For consumers, the impact is a bit of a balancing act. If this bill significantly delays or prevents necessary infrastructure, it could potentially affect energy costs or reliability down the line. Conversely, by forcing companies to internalize the true cost of pollution through mitigation, it aims to reduce the public health burdens currently borne by taxpayers and local residents. Ultimately, the bill sets up a new, tougher regulatory playing field where climate and equity concerns must be addressed upfront, rather than being treated as footnotes.