69–006 

115TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 115–223 

PROMOTING INTERAGENCY COORDINATION FOR REVIEW 

OF NATURAL GAS PIPELINES ACT 

JULY 17, 2017.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. WALDEN, from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 2910] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce, to whom was referred 

the bill (H.R. 2910) to provide for Federal and State agency coordination in the approval of certain authorizations under the Natural 

Gas Act, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that 

the bill do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 2 

Background and Need for Legislation .................................................................... 2 

Committee Action .................................................................................................... 3 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 4 

Oversight Findings and Recommendations ........................................................... 9 

New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures ............. 9 

Congressional Budget Office Estimate ................................................................... 9 

Federal Mandates Statement ................................................................................. 10 

Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives .................................... 10 

Duplication of Federal Programs ............................................................................ 10 

Committee Cost Estimate ....................................................................................... 10 

Earmark, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff Benefits ............................. 10 

Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings ..................................................................... 10 

Advisory Committee Statement .............................................................................. 10 

Applicability to Legislative Branch ........................................................................ 11 

Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation ...................................................... 11 

2 

1 18 C.F.R. § 157.22 

2 INGAA Foundation, Expedited Federal Authorization of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines: Are 

Agencies Complying with EPAct?, December 21, 2012. 3Government Accountability Office, Interstate and Intrastate Natural Gas Permitting Processes Include Multiple Steps, and Time Frames Vary, February 2013. 

Exchange of Letters with Additional Committees of Referral ............................. 14 

Dissenting Views ..................................................................................................... 16 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H.R. 2910, the ‘‘Promoting Interagency Coordination for Review 

of Natural Gas Pipelines Act,’’ was introduced by Representative 

Flores (R–TX) on June 15, 2017. The legislation would help address 

the critical need to expand and modernize the nation’s natural gas 

pipeline infrastructure by promoting more timely and efficient reviews. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is the principal Federal agency involved in the review of interstate natural 

gas pipelines. FERC has exclusive authority under section 7 of the 

Natural Gas Act (NGA) to review and grant the certificate of public 

convenience and necessity required to construct a new or expanded 

interstate natural gas pipeline. FERC conducts the environmental 

review of each proposed natural gas pipeline project as required 

under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Under the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), FERC is designated as the lead 

agency for coordinating necessary environmental reviews and associated Federal authorizations. As the lead agency, FERC often coordinates with a variety of Federal, State, and local governments 

and Indian tribes to balance a wide range of issues, including potential impacts on environmental and wildlife resources, land-use, 

and property rights. 

Multiple permits are often required for a natural gas pipeline 

project, including permits under the Clean Water Act, Endangered 

Species Act, and Clean Air Act. Under current FERC regulations, 

Federal and State agencies participate in the development of the 

NEPA analysis for a pipeline project and then are required to complete their respective permit application reviews no later than 90 

days after FERC issues its final environmental document, unless 

another schedule is established by Federal law.1

Despite the increased authority given to FERC under EPAct, 

there is growing evidence that pipeline infrastructure approvals are 

being delayed unnecessarily due to a lack of coordination or insufficient action among agencies involved in the permitting process. A 

December 2012 study conducted by the INGAA Foundation found 

that since the enactment of EPAct’s permitting reforms, the occurrence of Federal authorization delays exceeding 90 days has risen 

from 8 percent to 28 percent, while delays exceeding 180 days have 

risen from 3 percent to 20 percent.2 A February 2013 GAO report 

discussed the complexities of interstate pipeline permitting and described the various groups of stakeholders and permitting steps.3

While FERC has established a pre-filing phase to facilitate and expedite the review, some agencies and States do not fully participate 

in the process, leading to delays. Testimony before the Subcommittee on Energy has shown that the lack of coordination 

3 

4See hearing entitled ‘‘Modernizing Energy and Electricity Delivery Systems: Challenges and 

Opportunities to Promote Infrastructure Improvement and Expansion’’ held on February 15, 

2017. 

among Federal and State regulators is having a negative impact on 

infrastructure modernization, job creation, and economic growth.4

H.R. 2910 would improve the permitting process by strengthening the lead agency role of FERC and further defining the process for participating Federal and State agencies. The intent of 

these provisions is to involve stakeholders sooner so that they can 

be involved in the setting of the schedule and identify issues of concern earlier in the process. The legislation would require agencies 

that may consider an aspect of an application to participate in the 

review process and comply with the schedules established by 

FERC. The legislation requires that agencies conduct their respective reviews concurrently, and in conjunction with, the project-related review conducted by FERC in compliance with NEPA. In considering an aspect of an application, Federal and State agencies 

may accept remote aerial survey data and use that data to grant 

conditional approvals, conditioned on the onsite inspection. Remote 

aerial surveys are a widely accepted, proven method of collecting 

environmental data, and allowing their use will lead to better, 

more informed decisions. H.R. 2910 would increase public accountability, transparency, and efficiency by requiring FERC to publish 

the schedule, a list of all actions required by each applicable agency, and the status of all pending actions. 

COMMITTEE ACTION

On May 3, 2017, the Subcommittee on Energy held a legislative 

hearing on discussion draft entitled ‘‘Promoting Interagency Coordination for Review of Natural Gas Pipelines Act.’’ The Subcommittee received testimony from: 

• Terry Turpin, Director, Office of Energy Projects, Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission; 

• John Katz, Deputy Associate General Counsel, Office of the 

General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; 

• Jeffrey Leahey, Deputy Executive Director, National Hydropower Association; 

• Donald Santa, President and CEO, Interstate Natural Gas 

Association of America; 

• Andy Black, President and CEO, Association of Oil Pipe 

Lines; 

• Jeffrey Soth, Legislative and Political Director, International 

Union of Operating Engineers; 

• Bob Irvin, President and CEO, American Rivers; and, 

• Jennifer Danis, Senior Staff Attorney, Eastern Environmental Law Center. 

On June 22, 2017, the Subcommittee on Energy met in open 

markup session and forwarded H.R. 2910, without amendment, to 

the full Committee by a record vote of 17 yeas and 14 nays. On 

June 28, 2017, the full Committee on Energy and Commerce met 

in open markup session and ordered H.R. 2910, without amendment, favorably reported to the House by a record vote of 30 yeas 

and 23 nays. 

4 

COMMITTEE VOTES

Clause 3(b) of rule XIII requires the Committee to list the record 

votes on the motion to report legislation and amendments thereto. 

The following reflects the record votes taken during the Committee 

consideration: 

5 


Insert graphic folio 6 HR223.001

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE-- llSTH CONGRESS 

ROLL CALL VOTE# 41 

BILL: H.R. 2910, Promoting Interagency Coordination for Review of Natural Gas Pipelines Act 

AMENDMENT: An amendment olfered by Ms. Castor, No. I, to provide that section 2 of the Act shall not take 

e!Tect until the Director of the Office of Management and Budget publishes a detennination 

that the requirements of such section will not be duplicative of other Federal efforts to improve 

the timeliness, predictability, and transparency of the Federal environmental review and 

authorization process; and will not result in wasteful government spending. 

DISPOSITION: NOT AGREED TO, by a roll call vote of 22 yeas and 29 nays. 

REPRESENTATIVE YEAS NAYS PRESENT REPRESENT A TlVE YEAS NAYS PRESENT 

Vfr. Walden X Mr. Pallone X 

Vfr. Barton X Mr. Rush X 

Vfr. Upton X Ms. Eshoo X 

Vfr. Shimkus X Mr. Engel X 

Vfr. Murphy X Mr. Green 

Mr. Burgess X Ms. DcGcttc X 

Mrs. Blackburn X Mr. Doyle X 

Mr. Scalise Ms. Schakowsky X 

Mr. Latta X Mr. Butterfield X 

Mrs. McMotTis Rodgers X Ms. Matsui X 

Mr. Harper X Ms. Castor X 

Mr. Lance X Mr. Sat·banes X 

Mr. Guthrie X Mr. McNerney X 

Mr. Olson X Mr. Welch X 

Mr. McKinley X Mr. Lujan X 

Mr. Kinzinger X Mr. Tonko X 

Mr. Griffith X Ms. Clarke X 

Mr. Bilirakis X Mr. Loebsack X 

Mr. Johnson X Mr. Schrader X 

Mr. Long Mr. Kennedy X 

Mr. Bucshon X Mr. Cardenas X 

Mr. Flores X Mr. Ruiz X 

Mrs. Brooks X Mr. Peters 

Mr. Mullin X Ms. Dingell X 

Mr. Hudson X 

Mr. Collins X 

Mr. Cramer X 

Mr. Walberg X 

Mrs. Walters X 

Mr. Costello X 

Mr. Carter X 

06/28/2017 
6 


Insert graphic folio 7 HR223.002

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE-- IISTH CONGRESS 

ROLL CALL VOTE# 42 

BILL: H.R. 2910, Promoting Interagency Coordination for Review of Natural Gas Pipelines Act 

AMENDMENT: An amendment offered by Mr. Rush, No.2, to provide that subsection (h) of section 7 of the 

Natural Gas Act shall not apply to any holder of a certificate of public convenience and 

necessity issued under such section after the date of enactment of this Act unless the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission makes a finding that the application of such subsection to 

such holder is in the public interest. 

DISPOSITION: NOT AGREED TO, by a roll call vote of24 yeas and 29 nays. 

REPRESENTATIVE YEAS NAYS PRESENT REPRESENT A TIV NAYS PRESENT 

Mr. Walden X Mr. Pallone X 

Mr. Barton X Mr. Rush X 

Mr. Upton X Ms. Eshoo X 

Mr. Shimkus X Mr. Engel X 

Mr. Murphy X Mr. Green X 

Mr. Burgess X Ms. DeGette X 

Mrs. Blackburn X Mr. Doyle X 

Mr. Scalise Ms. Schakowsky X 

Mr. Latta X Mr. Butterfield X 

Mrs. McMorris Rodgers X Ms. Matsui X 

Mr. Harper X Ms. Castor X 

Mr. Lance X Mr. Sarbanes X 

~Guthrie X Mr. McNerney X 

Mr. Olson X Mr. Welch X 

Mr. McKinley X Mr. Lujan X 

Mr. Kinzinger X Mr. Tonko X 

Mr. Griffith X Ms. Clarke X 

Mr. Bilirakis X Mr. Loebsack X 

Mr. Johnson X Mr. Schrader X 

Mr. Long Mr. Kennedy X 

Mr. Bucshon X Mr. Cardenas X 

Mr. Flores X Mr. Ruiz X 

Mrs. Brooks X Mr. Peters X 

Mr. Mullin X Ms. Dingell X 

Mr. Hudson X 

Mr. Collins X 

Mr. Cramer X 

Mr. Walberg X 

Mrs. Walters X 

Mr. Costello X 

Mr. Cm1er X 

06/2812017 
7 


Insert graphic folio 8 HR223.003

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE -- II 5TH CONGRESS 

ROLL CALL VOTE# 43 

BILL: H.R. 2910, Promoting Interagency Coordination for Review of Natural Gas Pipelines Act 

AMENDMENT: An amendment offered by Mr. Pallone, No. 3, to provide that no holder of a certificate of 

public convenience and necessity referred to in section 2 that is issued after the date of 

enactment of this Act may exercise the right of eminent domain to acquire any right-of-way, 

land, or other property in relation to any pipe line with respect to which such certificate is 

issued. 

DISPOSITION: NOT AGREED TO, by a roll call vote of24 yeas and 29 nays. 

REPRESENTATIVE YEAS NAYS PRESENT REPRESENTATIVE YEAS NAYS PRESENT 

I Mr. Walden X Mr. Pallone X 

Mr. Barton X Mr. Rush X 

Mr. Upton X Ms. Eshoo X 

Mr. Shimkus X Mr. Engel X 

Mr. Murphy X Mr. Green X 

Mr. Burgess X Ms. DcGctte X 

Mrs. Blackburn X Mr. Doyle X 

Mr. Scalise Ms. Schakowsky X 

Mr. Latta X Mr. Butterfield X 

gers X Ms. Matsui X 

Mr. Harper X Ms. Castor X 

Mr. Lance X Mr. Sarbanes X 

Mr. Guthrie X Mr. McNerney X 

Mr. Olson X Mr. Welch X 

Mr. McKinley X Mr. Lujan X 

Mr. Kinzinger X Mr. Tonko X 

Mr.Gril1ith X Ms. Clarke X 

Mr. Bilirakis X Mr. Loebsack X 

Mr. Johnson X Mr. Schrader X 

Mr. Long Mr. Kennedy X 

Mr. Bucshon X Mr. Cardenas X 

Mr. Flores X Mr. Ruiz X 

Mrs. Brooks X Mr. Peters X 

Mr. Mullin X Ms. Dingell X 

Mr. Hudson X 

Mr. Collins X 

Mr. Cramer X 

Mr. Walberg X 

Mrs. Walters X 

Mr. Costello X 

Mr. Carter X 

06/28/2017 
8 


Insert graphic folio 9 HR223.004

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE-- !15TH CONGRESS 

ROLL CALL VOTE # 44 

BILL: H.R. 2910, Promoting Interagency Coordination for Review of Natural Gas Pipelines Act 

AMENDMENT: A motion by Mr. Walden to order H.R. 2910 favorably reported to the House, without 

amendment. (Final Passage) 

DISPOSITION: AGREED TO, by a roll call vote of30 yeas and 23 nays. 

REPRESENTATIVE YEAS 

VIr. Walden X Mr. Pallone X 

\1r. Barton X Mr. Rush X 

Mr. Upton X Ms. Eshoo X 

Mr. Shimkus X Mr. Engel X 

Mr. Murphy X Mr. Green X 

Mr. Burgess X Ms. DeGette X 

Mrs. Blackbum X Mr. Doyle X 

Mr. Scalise Ms. Schakowsky X 

Mr. Latta X Mr. Butterfield X 

Mrs. McMorris Rodgers X Ms. Matsui X 

Mr. Harper X Ms. Castor X 

Mr. Lance X Mr. Sarbanes X 

Mr. Guthrie X Mr. McNemey X 

Mr. Olson X Mr. Welch X 

Mr. McKinley X Mr. Lujan X 

Mr. Kinzinger X Mr. Tonko X 

Mr. Griffith X Ms. Clarke X 

Mr. Bilirakis X Mr. Loebsack X 

Mr. Johnson X Mr. Schrader X 

Mr. Long Mr. Kennedy X 

Mr. Bucshon X Mr. Cardenas X 

Mr. Flores X Mr. Ruiz X 

Mrs. Brooks X Mr. Peters X 

Mr. Mullin X Ms. Dingell X 

Mr. Hudson X 

Mr. Collins X 

Mr. Cramer X 

Mr. Walberg X 

Mrs. Walters X 

Mr. Costello X 

Mr. Carter X ' 

06/28/2017 
9 

OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of rule 

XIII, the Committee held a hearing and made findings that are reflected in this report. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY, AND TAX

EXPENDITURES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII, the Committee finds that 

H.R. 2910 would result in no new or increased budget authority, 

entitlement authority, or tax expenditures or revenues. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII, the following is the cost 

estimate provided by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to 

section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: 

U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, July 14, 2017. 

Hon. GREG WALDEN, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2910, the Promoting 

Interagency Coordination for Review of Natural Gas Pipelines Act. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Megan Carroll. 

Sincerely, 

MARK P. HADLEY

(For Keith Hall). 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 2910—Promoting Interagency Coordination for Review of Natural Gas Pipelines Act 

Under the Natural Gas Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is the lead federal agency involved in approving 

and regulating interstate pipelines that carry natural gas. Such 

projects are subject to a variety of federal and nonfederal permits 

and authorizations related to a range of issues, particularly environmental matters. Under current law, FERC coordinates those efforts and is ultimately responsible for granting the certificate of 

public convenience and necessity required to construct or expand 

interstate natural gas pipelines. 

H.R. 2910 would specify timeframes and procedures for FERC 

and other affected agencies to follow in conducting environmental 

reviews related to natural gas pipelines. Based on information from 

FERC and other federal agencies that regulate aspects of interstate 

natural gas pipelines, CBO estimates that implementing the bill 

would have no significant net effect on the federal budget. The bill 

would not affect the scope of federal agencies’ responsibilities in 

overseeing such pipelines, and CBO expects that meeting the timeframes specified in the bill would not require a significant change 

in the level of discretionary funding provided to those agencies. 

Further, because FERC recovers 100 percent of its costs through 

10 

user fees, any change in that agency’s costs (which are controlled 

through annual appropriation acts) would be offset by an equal 

change in fees that the commission charges, resulting in no net 

change in federal spending. 

Enacting H.R. 2910 would not affect direct spending or revenues; 

therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. CBO estimates 

that enacting H.R. 2910 would not increase net direct spending or 

on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028. 

H.R. 2910 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would 

impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Megan Carroll. The estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant 

Director for Budget Analysis. 

FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT

The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 

pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance 

goal or objective of this legislation is to promote more timely and 

efficient reviews of pipeline certificate applications. 

DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII, no provision of H.R. 2910 

is known to be duplicative of another Federal program, including 

any program that was included in a report to Congress pursuant 

to section 21 of Public Law 111–139 or the most recent Catalog of 

Federal Domestic Assistance. 

COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII, the Committee adopts as 

its own the cost estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974. 

EARMARK, LIMITED TAX BENEFITS, AND LIMITED TARIFF BENEFITS

Pursuant to clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI, the Committee 

finds that H.R. 2910 contains no earmarks, limited tax benefits, or 

limited tariff benefits. 

DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS

Pursuant to section 3(i) of H. Res. 5, the Committee finds that 

H.R. 2910 contains no directed rule makings. 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this legislation. 

11 

APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to the 

terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or 

accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION

Section 1. Short title 

This section provides the short title, the ‘‘Promoting Interagency 

Coordination for Review of Natural Gas Pipelines Act.’’ 

Section 2. FERC process coordination for natural gas pipeline 

projects 

Section 2(a) provides definitions for terms used throughout this 

section. 

Section 2(b) designates FERC as the only lead agency for the 

purposes of complying with the National Environmental Policy Act 

for an authorization under section 3 of the NGA or a certificate of 

public convenience and necessity under section 7 of the NGA. This 

section requires FERC to coordinate as early as practicable with 

each agency designated as a participating agency under subsection 

(d)(3) and to take such actions as necessary and proper to facilitate 

the expeditious resolution of its project-related NEPA review. 

Section 2(c) directs each agency to give deference, to the maximum extent authorized by law, to the scope of the project-related 

NEPA review that FERC determines to be appropriate, when making a decision with respect to a Federal authorization under section 

3 of the NGA or a certificate of public convenience and necessity 

under section 7 of the NGA. 

Section 2(d)(1) requires FERC to identify as early as practicable, 

after it is notified by a person applying for an authorization under 

section 3 of the NGA or a certificate of public convenience and necessity under section 7 of the NGA, any Federal or State agency, 

local government, or Indian Tribe that may issue a Federal authorization or is required by Federal law to consult with FERC on the 

issuance of a Federal authorization. 

Section 2(d)(2) requires FERC to invite the identified agencies to 

participate in the review process for the applicable Federal authorization. The invitation shall establish a deadline for when the agency must submit a response to FERC. FERC may extended the 

deadline for good cause. 

Section 2(d)(3) requires FERC to designate identified agencies as 

participating agencies with respect to an application for authorization under section 3 of the NGA or a certificate of public convenience and necessity under section 7 of the NGA, unless the agency 

informs FERC, in writing, that the agency does not have jurisdiction over the application, has no special expertise relevant to the 

NEPA review, and does not intend to submit comments for the 

record for the NEPA review conducted by FERC. 

Section 2(d)(4) provides that any agency not designated as a participating agency may not request or conduct a NEPA review that 

is supplemental to FERC’s project-related NEPA review, unless the 

agency (1) demonstrates that such review is legally necessary or (2) 

requires information that could not have been obtained during 

12 

FERC’s project-related NEPA review. Additionally, it directs FERC 

not to consider any comments or other information submitted by an 

agency that is not designated as a participating agency for FERC’s 

project-related NEPA review and not to include any comments in 

the record for the Commission’s NEPA review from an agency that 

is not designated as a participating agency. 

Section 2(e)(1) directs the Commission not to establish a deadline 

for a Federal authorization exceeding 90 days after the Commission 

completes its project-related NEPA review. 

Section 2(e)(2) directs each Federal and State agency considering 

a Federal authorization for an application or an aspect of an application under section 3 of the NGA or a certificate of public convenience and necessity under section 7 of NGA to formulate and implement a plan to ensure completion of Federal authorizations in compliance with schedules established by FERC. When considering an 

aspect of an application for a Federal authorization, each Federal 

and State agency shall carry out the obligations of that agency 

under applicable law concurrently with FERC’s project-related 

NEPA review, and in compliance with FERC’s established schedule, unless the agency notifies FERC in writing that doing so would 

impair the ability of the agency to conduct needed analysis or otherwise carry out the agency’s obligations. Each Federal and State 

agency considering an aspect of a Federal authorization shall 

transmit to FERC a statement acknowledging receipt of the schedule established by FERC. The statement shall also contain the plan 

formulated to ensure completion of the Federal authorizations in 

compliance with FERC’s schedule. Not later than 30 days after the 

agency receives an application for a Federal authorization under 

section 3 of the NGA or a certificate of public convenience and necessity under section 7 the NGA, a Federal or State agency shall 

transmit to the applicant a notice indicating whether the application is ready for processing. If the application is not ready for processing, the agency shall provide a comprehensive description to the 

applicant of the information needed for the agency to determine 

that the application is ready for processing. Each Federal and State 

agency shall transmit to FERC a report once every 90 days describing the progress made in considering an application. 

Section 2(e)(3) specifies that if a Federal or State agency fails to 

meet a deadline for a Federal authorization set forth in FERC’s 

schedule, the head of the relevant Federal agency shall notify Congress and FERC of such failure and set forth a recommended implementation plan to ensure completion of the action. 

Section 2(f)(1) directs Federal and State agencies considering an 

aspect of an application for a Federal authorization to identify any 

issues of concern that may delay or prevent an agency from working with FERC to resolve the identified issues and grant the authorization. FERC may forward any identified issue of concern to 

the heads of relevant agencies for resolution. 

Section 2(f)(2) instructs Federal or State agencies considering an 

aspect of an application for a Federal authorization to consider any 

data gathered by aerial or other remote means submitted by the 

applicant. The agency may grant a conditional approval for the 

Federal authorization based on data gathered by aerial or remote 

means, conditioned on the verification of such data by subsequent 

onsite inspection. 

13 

Section 2(f)(3) specifies that FERC, and Federal and State agencies, may allow a person applying for a Federal authorization to 

fund a third-party contractor to assist in reviewing an application. 

Section 2(g) directs FERC, with input from any Federal or State 

agency considering an aspect of an application, to track and make 

available to the public on the Commission’s website information related to the actions required to complete a Federal authorization. 

14 


Insert offset folio 17 here HR223.005

EXCHANGE OF LETTERS WITH ADDITIONAL COMMITTEES OF 

REFERRAL 

lEl.~. llfnu.at nf i!ttprt.attttatiut.a 

Qlnmmittcc tlU Natural mcnnttrt£!3 

lllllmdlill!Jfnn. lilQl2II515 

The Honorable Greg Walden 

Chairman 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

July 14,2017 

I write concerning H.R. 2910, the Promoting Interagency Coordination for Review of 

Natural Gas Pipelines Act. The bill, as ordered reported, contains provisions within the Rule X 

jurisdiction of the Natural Resources Committee. 

In the interest of permitting you to proceed expeditiously to floor consideration of this 

very important bill, I waive this committee's right to a sequential referral. I do so with the 

understanding that the Natural Resources Committee does not waive any future jurisdictional 

claim over the subject matter contained in the bill that fall within its Rule X jurisdiction. I also 

request that you support my request to name members of the Natural Resources Committee to 

any conference committee to consider such provisions. Finally, please place this letter into the 

committee report on H.R. 2910 and into the Congressional Record during consideration of the 

measure on the House floor. 

Thank yon again for the very cooperative spirit in which you and your staff have worked 

regarding this matter and others between our respective committees. 

Sincerely, 

http·i:rwtu! c1!rtlSOUI ccs.house .guv 
15 


Insert offset folio 18 here HR223.006

t ~\t\NK PJ\L.LONf:. JH. fJF'/V ,:FHSL Y 

HUNDf"\~D CONGRESS 

\Congress of tbt 7l!lnittb ~tares 

i!)ousr of i'cprrscntatil.lcs 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYUUFIN Housr. Orne£ Bu!LOJr-.;t.~ 

WASIIINc>fON, DC 20515--6115 

The Honorable Rob Bishop 

Chairman 

Committee on Natural Resources 

1324 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Bishop: 

July 14, 2017 

Thank you for your letter concerning H.R. 2910, Promoting Interagency Coordination for 

Review of Natural Gas Pipelines Act. As you noted, the bill, as ordered reported, may contain 

provisions within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Natural Resources Committee. 

I appreciate your willingness waive the Committee's right to request a sequential referral on 

the bill so that it can proceed expeditiously to floor consideration. 1 agree that the Natural Resources 

Committee does not waive any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matter contained in the bill 

that fall within its Rule X jurisdiction. I will support your request to name members of the Natural 

Resources Committee to any conference committee to consider such provisions. Finally, I will place 

this letter into the committee report on H.R. 2910 and into the Congressional Record during 

considemtion of the measure on the House floor. 

Sincerely, 

~.r!u~ Chairman 
(16) 

1P.L. 114–94. 

2 House Committee on Energy and Commerce, transcript not published, Hearing on ‘‘Legislation Addressing Pipeline and Hydropower Infrastructure Modernization,’’ Testimony of Terry 

Turpin, Director, Office of Energy Projects, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 115th Cong. 

(May 3, 2017). 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

H.R. 2910, introduced on June 15, 2017 by Rep. Bill Flores (R– 

TX), is almost entirely different from the draft legislation that was 

the subject of the May 3, 2017 legislative hearing on this subject. 

Proponents argue the purpose of the bill is to streamline the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) process for approving 

natural gas pipelines by increasing transparency, predictability, accountability, and timeliness. However, these concerns are already 

being addressed by the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering 

Council (FPISC), established in 2015 through Title 41 of the Fixing 

America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act.1 This council is currently overseeing and coordinating the permitting process for 32 

major infrastructure projects, including seven interstate natural 

gas pipelines. 

The siting of natural gas pipelines is often controversial and requires detailed regulatory scrutiny by FERC. At the legislative 

hearing, FERC’s Director of the Office of Energy Projects, Terry L. 

Turpin, noted that ‘‘on average it is 88 percent of the projects get 

issued within one year’’ and the single greatest factor in slowing 

down an application was the license applicant failing to provide 

FERC and other agencies with ‘‘timely and complete information 

necessary to perform Congressionally-mandated project reviews.’’ 2

H.R. 2910 does not address any of the concerns raised by FERC 

at the legislative hearing. Instead, H.R. 2910 indirectly attempts to 

rewrite key aspects of sections 3, 7 and 15 of the Natural Gas Act 

(NGA). Among other things, the bill would require FERC to establish a schedule with deadlines for submission of information from 

other federal or state agencies, local governments or Indian tribes 

for a natural gas pipeline or liquefied natural gas project requiring 

FERC approval. Concurrent reviews by these federal or state agencies would be required, based on the scope of environmental review 

determined by FERC, to provide the Commission with timely information for the purpose of complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and other environmental statutes such as the Clean Water Act (referred to as ‘‘federal authorizations’’). FERC would be allowed to pursue remedies or implementation plans if a federal or state agency failed to meet the schedule 

established by FERC under this section. 

Other agencies conducting environmental reviews for relevant 

projects would be further constrained since H.R. 2910 only provides 

for an agency to be designated as a ‘‘participating’’ agency, not a 

cooperating agency. Mr. Turpin noted that some of the proposed 

17 

3 Id. 

4 House Committee on Energy and Commerce, transcript not published, Hearing on ‘‘Legislation Addressing Pipeline and Hydropower Infrastructure Modernization,’’ Testimony of Kim 

Kann, 115th Cong. (May 3, 2017). 

NGA modifications would alter the Commission’s role from one of 

collaboration with its fellow agencies to . . . monitoring other 

agency execution of their Congressionally-mandated duties. I am 

concerned that this . . . could lead to unproductive tension between the agencies involved in the review process.3

H.R. 2910 also goes further to define a status for certain agencies 

called ‘‘non-designation,’’ which prohibits such agencies from being 

able to ‘‘request or conduct a NEPA review that is supplemental to 

the project-related review conducted by the Commission. . . . ’’ The 

bill prohibits FERC from considering any comments or other information provided by a non-designated agency or including its comments or supplemental information in the record. 

Furthermore, the bill introduces a number of new terms into federal law. Some of these terms appear to be duplicative and unnecessary, while others are a cause for great concern. Most significantly, language introduced in H.R. 2910 requires agencies responsible for federal authorizations to deem applications ‘‘sufficiently 

complete’’ to begin consideration, regardless of whether the application is complete enough to fulfil its statutory obligations. 

Finally, H.R. 2910 would require federal and state agencies to accept aerial survey data, and provides that such agencies may grant 

conditional approvals based on that data, conditioned further on 

data verification via subsequent onsite inspection. This provision 

allows companies working to build natural gas pipelines the ability 

to circumvent property owners’ rights when surveying land. In a 

number of cases, companies have not obtained the requisite permits to survey the land they are seeking to access, and this language appears designed to allow them to sidestep that aspect of the 

application process. At the legislative hearing on the bill, the Subcommittee received testimony from a private landowner from Pennsylvania who described the abuses of eminent domain authority by 

a company planning to build a natural gas pipeline through her 

family farm.4

During the Full Committee Markup of H.R. 2910, Democrats offered several amendments to the bill to address their concerns. 

Ranking Member Bobby Rush (D–IL) offered an amendment to 

amend the bill so that pipeline applicants cannot use eminent domain unless FERC makes an additional finding that the project 

and taking of private property would be in the public interest. Rep. 

Kathy Castor (D–FL) offered an amendment that would have 

added a new section that would stop the bill from taking effect 

until the Director of the Office of Management and Budget publishes a determination that the requirements of the bill would not 

be duplicative of other Federal streamlining efforts (e.g., FPISC) 

and will not result in wasteful government spending. Lastly, Ranking Member Frank Pallone, Jr. (D–NJ) offered an amendment that 

would prohibit the use of federal eminent domain for pipeline 

projects after the date of enactment of the bill. All three amendments failed on recorded votes. 

18 

H.R. 2910 short circuits the process for considering natural gas 

project applications at the expense of private property owners, 

state and tribal rights, and the environment. The bill is unnecessary, not only because infrastructure permitting streamlining is already occurring at FPISC, but also because 88 percent of these 

projects are being certificated within one year. At best, it is a solution in search of a problem; at worst, it is an assault on private 

property rights and the environment in the name of corporate profit and expediency. 

For the reasons stated above, we dissent from the views contained in the Committee’s report. 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., 

Ranking Member. 

BOBBY L. RUSH, 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Energy. 

Æ