Bill would set federal project review and energy permit rules

Federal agencies would have to meet review and permit deadlines, and project sponsors could ask courts to enforce them or challenge certain permit actions. The approval protections cover projects with nonfederal sponsors or permit holders. Separate lawsuit rules cover listed energy and mineral projects facing an intentional pattern of unequal federal treatment. Agencies could alter a protected approval only for a court order, a material breach or legal violation, fraud, an urgent threat based on new information, or a request from the permit holder or sponsor. If an agency could not clearly prove an allowed reason for interfering, a court could award fees, delay costs, and 25% to 50% of project costs incurred and not otherwise recovered. An energy-project applicant proving an intentional statistical pattern of unequal federal treatment could receive 50% to 100% of expected construction costs. The applicant must show technical and financial ability, then complete the project or repay the award unless an uncontrollable event prevents completion. Most challenges to a federal environmental review would need to be filed within 150 days. When public comments were allowed, challengers generally must have raised the issue during that comment period, and courts generally could send an approval back for correction without canceling it. A shorter environmental assessment would generally be due within one year, and a full impact statement within two years, measured from the earlier applicable agency finding or notice that an application is complete.

Water authorities would face limits on denials and conditions; wildlife and historic-preservation reviews would use set timelines, and approved states could handle some species consultations. These provisions cover state, Tribal, and federal water certifications; federal species consultations; approved state consultation programs; and federal decisions that may directly affect historic properties. A water authority could deny certification only if clear and convincing evidence showed that no reasonable change or condition could protect water quality. Any conditions must be necessary, least burdensome, and consistent with the federal permit. Wastewater discharge permits and general dredge-or-fill permits would have 10-year terms. A state taking over species consultations would need federal approval, adequate staff and resources, a written agreement, consent to federal court review, and regular audits. A permit applicant could still choose consultation with the Interior Secretary. Historic-property review would focus on direct, reasonably foreseeable harm within the federally controlled area. Courts generally could send a flawed decision back for correction without canceling it or stopping the project, except under limited preliminary-injunction rules. Water-certification decisions generally would be due within a period of no more than one year, or nine months for specified interstate pipelines and power lines. Species consultation would generally use a 60-day period. Many court claims would have 150-day filing windows.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission would direct transmission planning, cost allocation, advanced-grid technology, data sharing, and wholesale access for qualifying groups of small energy systems. Regional planning rules would generally exclude the Texas grid and certain government or cooperative utilities unless they opt in. The large-load rules apply prospectively to covered data-center sites that reach or are expected to reach 20 megawatts. Customers receiving no benefit, or only a trivial benefit, generally could not be forced to pay transmission-project costs. Bulk-grid computing sites would be charged both existing-system and added transmission costs. Separate protections for data-center loads of at least 20 megawatts would require them to cover added generation, transmission, and distribution costs and provide financial security before needed construction. States could charge covered data centers more than their added costs, credit the extra money to other customers, require new power supplies, or limit when the centers may draw power. Groups of at least two eligible on-site energy systems totaling at least 100 kilowatts could enter wholesale markets, but could not collect wholesale and state-program payments for the same service during the same period. Utilities could still act to protect safety and reliability. The commission would issue the regional-planning rule within 180 days after enactment. Wholesale-market barriers for qualifying on-site energy groups would be barred 18 months after enactment. Large-load protections would apply to covered loads connecting on or after enactment.

Federal agencies would use shorter decisions, permit exemptions, and categorical exclusions—categories normally not needing a full environmental review—for specified energy and infrastructure work. Covered work includes renewable and grid projects on disturbed land or existing rights-of-way, geothermal projects, specified oil and gas wells, hardrock mill sites, small water-power projects, and offshore transmission. Oil and gas permit relief applies only to listed nonfederal-surface and mixed-mineral situations. Geothermal relief requires less than 50% federal ownership of the underground resource and a state permit. Neither rule applies on listed Indian lands, and federal royalties remain due. A tribe could grant rights-of-way without individual approval from the Interior Secretary only under a federally approved Tribal rule that includes environmental review, public notice, comments, and responses. A mining operator could claim as many mill sites as reasonably needed under an approved operations plan, but each site could cover no more than five acres and would provide no mineral or patent rights. Related fees and hardrock lease receipts would support abandoned-mine work. Small water-power projects would be limited to five megawatts and could receive licenses lasting 10 to 20 years. Offshore-route planning must consider marine habitats, protected species, and other ocean users. Deadlines vary by program. Examples include 30-day application checks for renewable rights-of-way and geothermal drilling, one year for final action on a small water-power license, and two years to identify initial offshore transmission routes.

The proposal would authorize federal money for species consultations, coastal grants, historic preservation, permit improvements, local energy permitting, and Tribal historic-record systems. Funding would support federal and state species consultations, coastal-state resource programs, federal permitting agencies, voluntary local energy-permit tools, historic-preservation programs, and Tribal historic-property databases. An authorization allows Congress to provide money but does not guarantee that the money will be supplied. The coastal program also depends on available appropriations. Coastal grants would be divided among coastal states using equal shares, shoreline length, and coastal population density, with no state receiving more than 5% of the yearly total. Historic Preservation Fund money actually deposited for fiscal year 2027 and later would become available beginning in fiscal year 2028 without another appropriation and would remain available without a fiscal-year deadline. The major authorizations cover fiscal years 2027–2031 for species work, 2028–2032 for coastal grants, and 2027–2036 for historic preservation. Separate $20 million yearly authorizations cover permit improvements for 2027–2033, local energy permitting for 2026–2031, and Tribal historic-record grants for 2027–2030.