Protect LNG Act of 2025

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/3592
Last Updated: December 4, 2025

Sponsored by

Rep. Hunt, Wesley [R-TX-38]

ID: H001095

Follow the money

The bill

Protect LNG Act of 2025

HR. 3592, 119th Congress — read as touching Pipelines & Energy Infrastructure.

The sponsor

Rep. Hunt, Wesley [R-TX-38]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$84,535 raised

20 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

64% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 440-442 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 14 - 9.

September 9, 2025

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of our esteemed representatives in Congress. Let's dissect this farce and reveal the underlying disease.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Protect LNG Act of 2025 is a thinly veiled attempt to shield liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities from environmental lawsuits and regulatory scrutiny. The bill's primary objective is to grease the wheels for LNG exports, regardless of the environmental consequences. It's a classic case of "regulatory capture," where industry interests hijack the legislative process to serve their own agenda.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill introduces several provisions that undermine environmental regulations and judicial review:

1. **Limiting litigation:** Section 3(a) ensures that civil actions related to environmental reviews won't affect the validity of permits, licenses, or approvals issued to LNG facilities. 2. **Remand without vacating:** If a court finds an environmental review flawed, the bill requires the agency to resolve the issue instead of setting aside the permit (Section 3(b)). 3. **Expedited judicial review:** Section 4(a) grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Court of Appeals for the circuit where the LNG facility is located, with expedited review and a tight deadline for filing claims (90 days). 4. **Transfer of existing actions:** Pending petitions will be transferred to the new court, ensuring that existing lawsuits won't hinder the LNG industry's plans.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved:

1. **LNG industry:** The primary beneficiary of this bill, as it streamlines the permitting process and reduces regulatory hurdles. 2. **Environmental groups:** These organizations will face significant obstacles in challenging LNG projects, thanks to the bill's limitations on litigation and judicial review. 3. **Local communities:** Residents near proposed LNG facilities may be exposed to environmental risks without adequate recourse or protection.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a recipe for disaster:

1. **Environmental degradation:** By weakening environmental regulations and limiting judicial review, the bill increases the risk of ecological damage and health hazards associated with LNG production. 2. **Industry dominance:** The Protect LNG Act further entrenches the influence of corporate interests in the legislative process, undermining democratic principles and public accountability. 3. **Erosion of trust:** This bill will likely exacerbate public distrust in government and regulatory agencies, as it prioritizes industry profits over environmental protection and community well-being.

In conclusion, the Protect LNG Act is a symptom of a deeper disease: the corrupting influence of corporate power on our democracy. It's a stark reminder that, in Washington D.C., money talks, and the environment walks.

Related Topics

Water & Air Quality RegulationsClimate Change & Sustainability
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Hunt, Wesley [R-TX-38]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$84,535
17 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$0
Committees
$0
Individuals
$84,535

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

1
HUNT, RAY L.
2 transactions
$9,900
2
HARTZOGE, ALLISON
2 transactions
$8,400
3
CARAYANNOPOULOS, GEORGE
1 transaction
$6,600
4
FLORY, DAVID
1 transaction
$6,600
5
ROWLING, ROBERT B. MR.
1 transaction
$6,600
6
FLOURNOY, CHARLES H. MR.
2 transactions
$6,600
7
HILDEBRAND, MELINDA MRS.
1 transaction
$5,000
8
HLAVINKA, TOBIAS M. MR.
1 transaction
$5,000
9
CHILDERS, DOUGLAS
1 transaction
$3,435
10
DAVIS, PHILLIP
1 transaction
$3,300
11
RODMAN, LANCE
1 transaction
$3,300
12
MORGAN, NICHOLAS
1 transaction
$3,300
13
DABBAR, JOHN
1 transaction
$3,300
14
GIBSON, GARY F. MR.
1 transaction
$3,300
15
RAYES, PATRICK MR.
1 transaction
$3,300
16
SHACK, BRIAN J.
1 transaction
$3,300
17
AHMED, TANWEER
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Tiffany, Thomas P. [R-WI-7]

ID: T000165

Top Contributors

10

1
SOLBERG, TRYGVE A
SELFBUSINESS OWNER
IndividualMINOCQUA, WI
$13,200
Sep 30, 2023
2
SHANNON, JEAN L
RETIREDRETIRED
IndividualMILWAUKEE, WI
$13,200
Jul 27, 2023
3
NICKLAUS, GREG
INCREDIBLE BANKVICE CHAIRMAN
IndividualARBOR VITAE, WI
$13,200
Mar 31, 2024
4
NICKLAUS, GREG
INCREDIBLE BANKVICE CHAIRMAN
IndividualARBOR VITAE, WI
$13,200
Mar 31, 2024
5
BUHOLZER, RONALD
KLONDIKE CHEESEPRESIDENT
IndividualMONROE, WI
$13,200
Jun 30, 2024
6
MAYER, SCOTT A
QPS EMPLOYMENT GROUPCHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
IndividualFRANKLIN, WI
$10,000
Feb 29, 2024
7
HILGEMANN, WILLIAM
RETIREDRETIRED
IndividualSTRATFORD, WI
$9,900
Jun 30, 2024
8
ZIETLOW, DONALD P
RETIREDRETIRED
IndividualLA CROSSE, WI
$6,666
Jun 28, 2023
9
ALBEE, ALAN P
EAGLE WASTE AND RECYCLING INCPRESIDENT
IndividualMINOCQUA, WI
$6,600
Aug 12, 2024
10
ALDRIDGE, KENNETH
SELFEXECUTIVE
IndividualLIBERTYVILLE, IL
$6,600
Aug 3, 2023

Rep. Cloud, Michael [R-TX-27]

ID: C001115

Top Contributors

10

1
BUTLER CONSULTING
OrganizationPORT LAVACA, TX
$250
Oct 25, 2024
2
BURDGE, THOMAS R
VP OF ACCOUNTING
IndividualVICTORIA, TX
$6,600
Oct 3, 2024
3
BORCHERS, CHARLA
RANCHINGINVESTMENTS
IndividualVICTORIA, TX
$6,600
Oct 2, 2024
4
BURDGE, THOMAS R
VP OF ACCOUNTING
IndividualVICTORIA, TX
$6,600
Oct 3, 2024
5
ATNIP, CHAR
IndividualCORPUS CHRISTI, TX
$3,300
Sep 30, 2024
6
ATNIP, CLIF
IndividualCORPUS CHRISTI, TX
$3,300
Oct 28, 2024
7
BURDGE, TAMI
IndividualVICTORIA, TX
$3,300
Oct 28, 2024
8
RAMIREZ, PHILIP
TURNER, RAMIREZ & ASSOCIATES, INC.ARCHITECT
IndividualCORPUS CHRISTI, TX
$3,300
Jan 4, 2024
9
PARKER, ROBERT E.
REPCON INC.PRESIDENT
IndividualCORPUS CHRISTI, TX
$3,300
Jan 12, 2024
10
TROXLER, JOSEPH G.
RETIREDRETIRED
IndividualCORDOVA, TN
$3,300
Jan 16, 2024

Rep. Gill, Brandon [R-TX-26]

ID: G000603

Top Contributors

10

1
BOERNE STAGE AIRFIELD
OrganizationBOERNE, TX
$2,500
Mar 12, 2024
2
HOLMES LAW
OrganizationDALLAS, TX
$500
Feb 14, 2024
3
WILLIAMS, JOHN
RETIREDRETIRED
IndividualWESLEY CHAPEL, FL
$6,818
Feb 6, 2024
4
AZRIELI, MATTHEW
BASTE RECORDSEXECUTIVE
IndividualBOCA RATON, FL
$6,818
Nov 20, 2023
5
BENNETT, MATT
CHRISTIAN UNIONMINISTER
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,818
Nov 20, 2023
6
GILL, BEVERLY
RETIREDRETIRED
IndividualCLYDE, TX
$6,818
Nov 20, 2023
7
GILL, JUDITH
RETIREDRETIRED
IndividualCLYDE, TX
$6,818
Nov 20, 2023
8
GILL, RUSSELL
DELTA AIR LINESPILOT AND RANCHER
IndividualCLYDE, TX
$6,818
Nov 20, 2023
9
GILL, JUDITH
RETIREDRETIRED
IndividualCLYDE, TX
$6,818
Nov 20, 2023
10
SCHOOLEY, BRUCE
NOBLE PRODUCTIONS INCSELF-EMPLOYED
IndividualALAMO, CA
$6,818
Nov 20, 2023

Rep. Pfluger, August [R-TX-11]

ID: P000048

Top Contributors

10

1
SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION
OrganizationEL CAJON, CA
$3,300
Apr 18, 2024
2
SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION
OrganizationEL CAJON, CA
$3,300
Jun 30, 2023
3
ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE
OrganizationLIVINGSTON, TX
$1,000
Sep 27, 2024
4
DIMEMMO, COLETTE
RETIREDRETIRED
IndividualFORT MYERS, FL
$6,600
Oct 24, 2024
5
PUDWILL, JAMES
IndividualNIPOMO, CA
$6,600
Sep 16, 2024
6
GELBMAN, JOEL
IndividualNAPLES, FL
$6,600
Sep 16, 2024
7
GELBMAN, JOEL
RETIREDRETIRED
IndividualNAPLES, FL
$6,600
Aug 26, 2024
8
PUDWILL, JAMES
RETIREDRETIRED
IndividualNIPOMO, CA
$6,600
Aug 3, 2024
9
WILSON, CELIA R
OIL AND GASSELF-EMPLOYED
IndividualMIDLAND, TX
$5,800
Mar 31, 2024
10
WILSON, CELIA R
SELFOIL AND GAS
IndividualMIDLAND, TX
$5,800
Apr 9, 2024

Rep. Ellzey, Jake [R-TX-6]

ID: E000071

Top Contributors

10

1
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$3,300
Nov 5, 2024
2
BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS AGUA CALIENTE
OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Feb 9, 2024
3
INDIAN COMMUNITY AK-CHIN
OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ
$3,300
Feb 9, 2024
4
BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS AGUA CALIENTE
OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Sep 30, 2024
5
PECHANGA BAND OF INDIANS
OrganizationTEMECULA, CA
$3,000
Nov 6, 2023
6
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$2,500
Dec 11, 2023
7
TIGUA INDIAN RESERVATION TRIBAL COUNCIL GENERAL FUND
OrganizationEL PASO, TX
$2,500
Aug 9, 2023
8
INDIAN COMMUNITY AK-CHIN
OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ
$2,000
Sep 30, 2024
9
ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE
OrganizationLIVINGSTON, TX
$1,000
Oct 16, 2024
10
TALK FARMS
OrganizationITASCA, TX
$500
Dec 31, 2023

Rep. McCaul, Michael T. [R-TX-10]

ID: M001157

Top Contributors

10

1
SOUTH SPUR LP
OrganizationHOUSTON, TX
$3,300
Jan 31, 2024
2
TRACEY FOX KING & WALTERS
OrganizationHOUSTON, TX
$1,000
Feb 17, 2023
3
CHILDS, JOHN W.
JW CHILDS ASSOCIATESOWNER
IndividualVERO BEACH, FL
$50,000
Dec 12, 2023
4
LANIER, BECKY MRS.
LANIER LAW FIRMATTORNEY
IndividualHOUSTON, TX
$50,000
Mar 4, 2024
5
LANIER, MARK W.
LANIER LAW FIRMATTORNEY
IndividualHOUSTON, TX
$50,000
Mar 4, 2024
6
CHILDS, JOHN W
IndividualVERO BEACH, FL
$38,400
Mar 15, 2024
7
CHILDS, JOHN W.
JW CHILDS ASSOCIATESOWNER
IndividualVERO BEACH, FL
$38,400
May 7, 2024
8
CHILDS, JOHN W
IndividualVERO BEACH, FL
$33,400
Nov 14, 2024
9
CARLTON, C. CRAIG MR.
C.C. CARLTON INDUSTRIESOWNER
IndividualAUSTIN, TX
$25,000
Feb 13, 2024
10
LUROS, HILARY
RETIREDRETIRED
IndividualSUGAR LAND, TX
$25,000
Feb 27, 2024

Rep. Fallon, Pat [R-TX-4]

ID: F000246

Top Contributors

10

1
DODD CG LLC
OrganizationDALLAS, TX
$3,000
Aug 6, 2024
2
NORTH TEXAS RHEUMATOLOGY PA
OrganizationDALLAS, TX
$1,700
Oct 7, 2023
3
PARTEE, SUE
PARTEE ENTERPRISESOIL AND GAS PRODUCTION
IndividualBIG SPRING, TX
$20,757
Oct 10, 2024
4
PARTEE, SUE
IndividualBIG SPRING, TX
$20,757
Dec 3, 2024
5
PENZ, WILLIAM
RODMAN EXCAVATIONVP
IndividualFRISCO, TX
$10,000
Apr 24, 2024
6
GLENDENNING, REX
REX REAL ESTATEBROKER/OWNER
IndividualCELINA, TX
$5,000
Apr 25, 2024
7
PHILLIPS, BRADFORD
LIBERTY BANKERSCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & CHAIRMAN OF
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$5,000
Apr 26, 2024
8
SNYDER, RICK
HEARTPLACECARDIOLOGIST
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$3,425
Nov 5, 2024
9
ADAMS, CAROL
SELFOIL, GAS & AGRICULTURE
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$3,300
Sep 30, 2023
10
GOTT, JANET
IndividualSHERMAN, TX
$3,300
Aug 16, 2023

Rep. Williams, Roger [R-TX-25]

ID: W000816

Top Contributors

10

1
POARCH BANK OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$3,300
Dec 2, 2024
2
FORD, GERALD J. MR.
DIAMOND-A CORPORATIONBANKER
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$6,600
Jan 10, 2024
3
PRINCE, ZAN MRS.
SELF EMPLOYEDINSURANCE AGENT
IndividualWEATHERFORD, TX
$6,600
Mar 30, 2023
4
WOODARD, DONALD M. MR. JR.
WESTERN COMMERCE GROUPFINANCE
IndividualFORT WORTH, TX
$6,600
Mar 5, 2024
5
CARVALHO, ANNE MARIE MRS.
RETIREDRETIRED
IndividualFORT WORTH, TX
$6,600
May 5, 2023
6
ROWAN, CAROLYN
SELF EMPLOYEDFASHION DESIGNER
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Apr 19, 2023
7
ROWAN, MARC
APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENTCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Apr 19, 2023
8
DUNIGAN, MIKE MR.
MIKE DUNIGAN RARE COINSOWNER
IndividualFORT WORTH, TX
$6,000
Mar 5, 2024
9
LOWRANCE, DAN E. MR.
RETIREDRETIRED
IndividualFORT WORTH, TX
$5,000
Oct 31, 2023
10
NICHOLS, THOMAS B. MR.
U.S. POLYCOPRESIDENT
IndividualSPARKS, NV
$5,000
Feb 10, 2023

Rep. Nehls, Troy E. [R-TX-22]

ID: N000026

Top Contributors

10

1
ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE
COMLIVINGSTON, TX
$1,000
Sep 30, 2024
2
GONSOULIN, AL A
RETIREDRETIRED
IndividualSUGAR LAND, TX
$6,600
Feb 26, 2024
3
FISHER, KENNETH
FISHER INVESTMENTSEXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN
IndividualPLANO, TX
$6,600
May 23, 2024
4
FISHER, SHERRILYN
PLANO 6500 LLCMEMBER
IndividualPLANO, TX
$6,600
May 23, 2024
5
MARCHELI, DANNY
CLEAR PAVEPRESIDENT
IndividualRICHMOND, TX
$5,000
Sep 30, 2023
6
EMPARTIO, JOESPH
HERITAGE RANCH LLCOWNER
IndividualRICHMOND, TX
$5,000
Sep 10, 2024
7
DOUDS, KENNETH
KBR BUILDERSOWNER
IndividualSTAFFORD, TX
$5,000
Dec 3, 2024
8
GILL, EDWARD
RETIREDRETIRED
IndividualHALLETTSVILLE, TX
$5,000
Dec 3, 2024
9
MARCHELI, DANIEL
CLEAR PAVE LLCPRESIDENT
IndividualRICHMOND, TX
$5,000
Dec 3, 2024
10
DOUDS, ROBERT F JR.
SELF EMPLOYEDCONSTRUCTION
IndividualHOUSTON, TX
$5,000
Dec 3, 2024

Rep. Weber, Randy K. Sr. [R-TX-14]

ID: W000814

Top Contributors

10

1
TIGUA INDIAN RESERVATION - YSLETA DEL SUR PUEBLO
OrganizationEL PASO, TX
$2,500
Jun 30, 2023
2
SCOTT M. BROWN P.C.
OrganizationANGLETON, TX
$2,500
Aug 13, 2024
3
SCOTT M. BROWN P.C.
OrganizationANGLETON, TX
$2,500
Aug 14, 2024
4
ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE
OrganizationLIVINGSTON, TX
$1,000
Sep 30, 2024
5
ALLEN BOONE HUMPHRIES ROBINSON LLP
OrganizationHOUSTON, TX
$1,000
Jul 25, 2023
6
CLARK, LISA M.
IndividualHOUSTON, TX
$10,000
Feb 23, 2024
7
SULLIVAN, JOHN R. MR.
SULLIVAN COMPANIESOWNER
IndividualGALVESTON, TX
$6,600
Oct 31, 2023
8
TEICHMAN, KEVIN MR.
TEICHMAN GROUP LLCCEO
IndividualFRIENDSWOOD, TX
$6,600
Dec 12, 2023
9
MCCORVEY, MITZY
MCCORVEY INDUSTRIAL FABRICATIONOWNER
IndividualHOUSTON, TX
$6,600
Feb 9, 2023
10
MCCORVEY, TONY
MCCORVEY INDUSTRIAL FABRICATIONOWNER
IndividualHOUSTON, TX
$6,600
Feb 9, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Hunt, Wesley [R-TX-38]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 58 nodes and 35 connections (49 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $164,903

Top Donors - Rep. Hunt, Wesley [R-TX-38]

Showing top 17 donors by contribution amount

17 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 helped.

  • Section 3(a) states that civil actions relating to environmental review under the Natural Gas Act or NEPA shall not affect the validity of a permit, license, or approval issued to a covered facility (LNG facility). Section 3(b) further provides that if a court finds the environmental review violates law, the court shall remand to the agency rather than vacate the permit, and the agency shall continue processing covered applications. This reduces litigation risk and delays for LNG export faciliti

  • +Oil & Gasconfidence 0.90

    The bill facilitates LNG export authorizations by limiting judicial challenges to permits under the Natural Gas Act and NEPA. Since LNG exports depend on natural gas supply from upstream producers, this benefits oil and gas companies involved in gas extraction and production by securing export markets and reducing regulatory uncertainty.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Hunt, Wesley [R-TX-38])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

  • Oil & Gas$4,820
    from 3 contributions
    • DABBAR, JOHN$3,300
    • MARSHALL, DEBRA S. MS.$1,000
    • GUERARD, RICHARD$520
  • from 3 contributions
    • NELSON, JULIE A. MS.$1,561
    • CAUTHEN, KHARY$1,041
    • PERRY, JAMES$520

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.

Introduction

Moderate63.7%
Pages: 440-442

— 407 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions New Policies FERC should: l Recommit itself to the NGA’s purpose of providing the American people with access to affordable and reliable natural gas. l Limit its NGA decision-making on natural gas pipeline certificates to the question of whether there is a need for the natural gas. l Limit its NEPA analysis to the impacts of the actual pipeline itself, not indirect upstream and downstream effects. In addition, Congress, the states, and FERC should consider how better to pro- tect and compensate property owners whose property is taken for the benefit of the public. FERC also needs to be mindful that natural gas pipelines and projects are important for domestic access to natural gas, including local natural gas utilities, natural gas–fired electric generation, and manufacturing, as well as for exports of liquefied natural gas. FERC: LNG EXPORT FACILITIES Mission/Overview FERC permits, sites, and authorizes the construction and operation of LNG export facilities.125 It does not authorize the export of natural gas; DOE exercises that authority. LNG export facilities are important for delivering natural gas to markets around the world and have become an important policy tool in limiting the ability of Russia and Middle Eastern countries to use energy as a tool in for- eign affairs. Needed Reforms LNG exports are opposed by climate activists. In addition, some domestic man- ufacturers argue that LNG exports decrease available U.S. supplies of natural gas and increase the domestic price, thereby harming the competitive advantages of U.S. manufacturers in world markets. Currently, most LNG export facilities are along the Gulf of Mexico in Texas and Louisiana.126 Attempts to build facilities on the west coast (Jordan Cove LNG127) and the east coast have not moved forward for a variety of reasons; delays and costs of litigation can cause developers to cancel projects. An Alaska facility was approved by FERC in 2020, and the Biden Administration has indicated its sup- port.128 An east coast facility in Pennsylvania (or nearby) would unlock Marcellus shale natural gas for export.

Introduction

Moderate63.7%
Pages: 440-442

— 407 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions New Policies FERC should: l Recommit itself to the NGA’s purpose of providing the American people with access to affordable and reliable natural gas. l Limit its NGA decision-making on natural gas pipeline certificates to the question of whether there is a need for the natural gas. l Limit its NEPA analysis to the impacts of the actual pipeline itself, not indirect upstream and downstream effects. In addition, Congress, the states, and FERC should consider how better to pro- tect and compensate property owners whose property is taken for the benefit of the public. FERC also needs to be mindful that natural gas pipelines and projects are important for domestic access to natural gas, including local natural gas utilities, natural gas–fired electric generation, and manufacturing, as well as for exports of liquefied natural gas. FERC: LNG EXPORT FACILITIES Mission/Overview FERC permits, sites, and authorizes the construction and operation of LNG export facilities.125 It does not authorize the export of natural gas; DOE exercises that authority. LNG export facilities are important for delivering natural gas to markets around the world and have become an important policy tool in limiting the ability of Russia and Middle Eastern countries to use energy as a tool in for- eign affairs. Needed Reforms LNG exports are opposed by climate activists. In addition, some domestic man- ufacturers argue that LNG exports decrease available U.S. supplies of natural gas and increase the domestic price, thereby harming the competitive advantages of U.S. manufacturers in world markets. Currently, most LNG export facilities are along the Gulf of Mexico in Texas and Louisiana.126 Attempts to build facilities on the west coast (Jordan Cove LNG127) and the east coast have not moved forward for a variety of reasons; delays and costs of litigation can cause developers to cancel projects. An Alaska facility was approved by FERC in 2020, and the Biden Administration has indicated its sup- port.128 An east coast facility in Pennsylvania (or nearby) would unlock Marcellus shale natural gas for export. — 408 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise FERC is considering policy statements that would consider GHG emissions as part of its NEPA review and its NGA determination as to whether approval of an LNG export facility is consistent with the public interest. New Policies Since Congress through the NGA has already determined that LNG exports to countries with free trade agreements are in the public interest,129 and because LNG exports help to ensure America’s ability to support our friends and allies around the world while also supporting domestic natural gas production, FERC: l Should not use environmental issues like climate change as a reason to stop LNG projects. l Should ensure that the natural gas pipelines that are needed deliver more of the product to market, both for domestic use and export, and are reviewed, developed and constructed in a timely manner. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Mission/Overview The Energy Reorganization Act of 1974130 created the Nuclear Regulatory Com- mission (NRC). Before then, the commercial nuclear industry was regulated by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), which was established by the 1954 Atomic Energy Act.131 Importantly, the AEC was responsible for encouraging and regulat- ing commercial nuclear power. Broad criticism of this dual function was a major factor in the establishment of the NRC, which held regulatory authority while the newly established Department of Energy held the advocacy function. Today, the NRC is responsible for a broad range of regulatory activities, including reactor safety, oversight of nuclear materials, and protection against radiation as well as permitting new reactors, certifying new reactor designs, and regulating nuclear waste management activities. Needed Reforms In 1989, the NRC established alternative licensing processes that were meant to provide a more predictable and efficient regulatory pathway for new Light Water Reactors (LWRs) by combining construction and operating nuclear power plant licenses, allowing for Early Site Permits, and establishing a framework for pre- approval of reactor designs. More recently, the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act directed the NRC to establish a technology-neutral licensing process for new, advanced reactor technologies.132 Despite these efforts, the NRC remains a significant cost and regulatory barrier to new nuclear power. Especially

Introduction

Moderate61.4%
Pages: 440-442

— 408 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise FERC is considering policy statements that would consider GHG emissions as part of its NEPA review and its NGA determination as to whether approval of an LNG export facility is consistent with the public interest. New Policies Since Congress through the NGA has already determined that LNG exports to countries with free trade agreements are in the public interest,129 and because LNG exports help to ensure America’s ability to support our friends and allies around the world while also supporting domestic natural gas production, FERC: l Should not use environmental issues like climate change as a reason to stop LNG projects. l Should ensure that the natural gas pipelines that are needed deliver more of the product to market, both for domestic use and export, and are reviewed, developed and constructed in a timely manner. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Mission/Overview The Energy Reorganization Act of 1974130 created the Nuclear Regulatory Com- mission (NRC). Before then, the commercial nuclear industry was regulated by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), which was established by the 1954 Atomic Energy Act.131 Importantly, the AEC was responsible for encouraging and regulat- ing commercial nuclear power. Broad criticism of this dual function was a major factor in the establishment of the NRC, which held regulatory authority while the newly established Department of Energy held the advocacy function. Today, the NRC is responsible for a broad range of regulatory activities, including reactor safety, oversight of nuclear materials, and protection against radiation as well as permitting new reactors, certifying new reactor designs, and regulating nuclear waste management activities. Needed Reforms In 1989, the NRC established alternative licensing processes that were meant to provide a more predictable and efficient regulatory pathway for new Light Water Reactors (LWRs) by combining construction and operating nuclear power plant licenses, allowing for Early Site Permits, and establishing a framework for pre- approval of reactor designs. More recently, the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act directed the NRC to establish a technology-neutral licensing process for new, advanced reactor technologies.132 Despite these efforts, the NRC remains a significant cost and regulatory barrier to new nuclear power. Especially — 409 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions frustrating is that these costs to a large extent are due to the agencies being overly prescriptive rather than outcomes-focused and fall on well-known and understood LWR reactor technologies. New Policies While refocusing its regulatory efforts on new reactor technologies, the NRC should also continue to ensure the security of radiological sources and mitigate cybersecurity risks across the industry. Applications for Combined Operating Licenses (COLs) and design certifications that rely on light-water technology should generally be completed within two years. Early Site Permits should gener- ally be issued within one year for construction on or adjacent to an existing reactor site. Additionally, the NRC should: l Expedite the review and approval of license extensions of existing reactors, which will require the NRC to streamline and focus its NEPA review process. l Set clear radiation exposure and protection standards by eliminating ALARA (“as low as reasonably achievable”) as a regulatory principle and setting clear standards according to radiological risk and dose rather than arbitrary objectives. l Work with Congress to reform its funding approach so that licensee fees are generally required for activities that are specific to a regulated entity, with other agency costs being provided through normal appropriations. Budget In FY 2022, the NRC was required to recover approximately 85 percent of its $887.7 million budget through licensee fees.133 The Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act requires the NRC to recover nearly all of its costs through fees. These reforms would likely not cost additional money but could rebalance the fee-versus-appropriations calculation. AUTHOR’S NOTE: The preparation of this chapter was the work of many individuals. All contributors to this chapter are listed at the front of this volume, but I wish to give special thanks to Brent Bennett, Willis Bixby, Travis Fisher, Ben Lieberman, Brian McCormack, Tom Pyle, Mark Robeck, Daniel Simmons, Jack Spencer, Katie Tubb, and David Walsh. Though informed by many, the author alone assumes responsibility for the content of this chapter, and no views expressed herein should be attributed to any particular individual.

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills