Promoting Cross-border Energy Infrastructure Act — HR-3062 (R-ND) · Congress.wiki

Promoting Cross-border Energy Infrastructure Act — HR-3062 (R-ND) · Congress.wiki

Pros & Cons

The bill centralizes and accelerates federal approval of cross‑border energy projects—benefiting industry and cross‑border trade through faster, more predictable permitting—while reducing state/local input and procedural safeguards and raising health, safety, and environmental risks for border communities and the public.

Potential Benefits

3

Operators and developers of cross‑border oil, gas, and electric projects (utilities and project proponents) will get a single, time‑limited federal approval pathway—including a single federal certificate within 120 days after final NEPA and elimination of the separate Presidential permit—reducing multi‑agency delay and permitting uncertainty and speeding project starts.
Infrastructure
utilities-energy-companies, project proponents, transmission developers
Applicants to import or export natural gas with Canada or Mexico will receive decisions within 30 days of a complete filing, accelerating cross‑border gas trade and reducing market uncertainty for energy suppliers and buyers.
Economy
utilities-energy-companies, natural-gas-traders, taxpayers
Centralizing permitting authority at FERC / the Secretary of Energy reduces executive‑branch permitting variance and may provide more predictable, administrable federal review for applicants.
Government
utilities-energy-companies, project proponents, federal-agencies

Potential Drawbacks

4

State and local governments and border communities will have reduced control and influence over covered cross‑border energy projects because permitting authority is shifted to federal agencies, weakening local input on projects that directly affect them.
Government
state-governments, local-governments, border-communities
Faster approval timelines and limits on Presidential revocation make it harder to halt or re‑examine projects with emergent environmental or safety concerns, increasing risk to nearby residents and first responders.
Health & Safety
border-communities, first-responders, taxpayers
Easing cross‑border approvals for fossil‑fuel pipelines and related infrastructure could encourage more oil and gas buildout, likely increasing greenhouse gas emissions and long‑term climate impacts.
Environment
taxpayers, border-communities, broader public (climate impacts)

Based on analysis of 2 sections of legislative text.

Bill Summary

Summary

Creates a federal certification process to approve cross-border oil, natural gas, and electric transmission facilities at U.S. borders and removes the need for Presidential permits for those border connections. It requires the responsible agency (FERC for oil/natural gas pipelines; the Secretary of Energy for electric transmission) to issue a certificate of crossing within fixed deadlines after NEPA review, unless the project is not in the U.S. public interest. The bill shortens review timelines (including a 30-day deadline for natural gas import/export applications), preserves certain existing statutory authorities (like parts of the Natural Gas Act and FERC authority over oil pipelines), exempts currently operating or already-permitted projects, and prevents the President from revoking relevant Presidential permits except by an Act of Congress. Most provisions take effect one year after enactment and require agencies to propose rules within 180 days and finalize them within one year.

Key Points

Click to see evidence