WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HR 9838

To provide for the expedited approval of interstate oil and natural gas pipelines that are critical to the national security of the United States.

119th Congress Introduced by Ken Calvert and 6 co-sponsors

The bill would create expedited approval pathways to fast-track interstate oil and natural gas pipelines deemed critical to national security, prioritizing reviews and speeding per

Introduced in House
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HR 9838

Overview

House Resolution (HR) 9838, introduced in the 119th Congress, seeks to expedite the approval process for interstate oil and natural gas pipelines deemed critical to U.S. national security. The bill aims to shorten timelines, streamline regulatory reviews, and prioritize review and permitting for pipelines that are considered essential for energy security and critical infrastructure.

Purpose and Intent

  • Accelerate the development and approval of interstate oil and natural gas pipelines that are deemed critical to national security.
  • Reduce delays in the regulatory and permitting processes that can impede pipeline projects.
  • Prioritize review and decision-making for projects identified as urgent for energy reliability and security.

Key Provisions and Changes

  • Establish expedited approval pathways for interstate pipelines associated with oil and natural gas transportation.
  • Potential alignment or coordination across relevant federal agencies (e.g., energy, transportation, environmental, and natural resources agencies) to streamline reviews.
  • Mechanisms to accelerate permitting timelines, potentially including targeted milestones, prioritization of certain applications, and clear decision timelines.
  • Provisions to assess national security implications as part of the approval process, ensuring pipelines critical to energy security receive prioritized consideration.
  • Possible incorporation of interagency processes or memoranda of understanding to implement expedited review mechanisms.
  • May include reporting or oversight requirements to track progress and effectiveness of expedited approvals.

Note: The summary reflects typical components of expedited infrastructure bills. The exact text may specify particular agencies, timelines, criteria for “critical to national security,” and any environmental or safety safeguards. The bill’s full language would clarify the scope, definitions, and procedural details.

Who and What Would Be Affected

  • Interstate oil and natural gas pipeline projects seeking federal approval would be directly affected.
  • Federal agencies involved in permitting and regulation of energy infrastructure (e.g., department-level offices within Energy, Transportation, Natural Resources, and related agencies) would implement expedited processes.
  • Stakeholders in the energy sector, including pipeline developers, utilities, and energy producers, could experience shorter timelines for project reviews.
  • Environmental, land-use, and community stakeholders may be affected by changes to review timelines and any shifts in balancing energy security with environmental and local considerations.

Procedural and Timeline Aspects

  • The bill was introduced in July 2026 and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, with concurrent referrals to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on Natural Resources for jurisdiction over provisions within their scope.
  • The referral process indicates that committee consideration and potential markup will determine the specific rules, milestones, and oversight mechanisms.
  • If enacted, the bill would likely establish a defined expedited timeline or phased process for national-security-critical pipelines, with potential reporting requirements to Congress on progress and outcomes.

Potential Impacts and Considerations

  • Pros: Faster delivery of essential energy infrastructure, improved reliability of oil and natural gas transportation, and strengthened national security posture through streamlined critical projects.
  • Cons: Balancing expedited approvals with environmental protections, landowner and local community input, and potential implications for environmental review rigor.
  • Controversies or debates may center on ensuring that accelerated processes do not undermine safety, environmental safeguards, or public participation.

If you’d like, I can tailor this summary to include hypothetical definitions (e.g., what counts as “national security–critical”) or compare it to similar expedited-review bills to provide broader context.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.