Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

New Legislation Introduced Regarding Review of Proposed Natural Gas Pipelines

By Russell Kooistra & Daniel Archuleta on June 21, 2017
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

On June 7, 2017, Senators Tim Kaine (D-VA) and Mark Warner (D-VA) introduced a bill in the U.S. Senate that would, among other things, revise the Natural Gas Act (“NGA”) to require FERC to (1) review two proposed interstate pipeline projects together under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (“NEPA”) if the two pipelines are proposed within one year of each other and would be within 100 miles apart and (2) ensure that open houses regarding a proposed pipeline occur in each county in which the pipeline would be located.  In addition, on June 13, 2017, Representative H. Morgan Griffith (R-VA) introduced a similar bill in the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

In a statement regarding the bill – called the Pipeline Fairness and Transparency Act – Senator Kaine said, “FERC’s job is to adjudicate the public interest, especially when eminent domain is involved, and this requires taking public input more seriously.”  Notably, the Senate bill proposes to amend the NGA by, among other things:

• Requiring a public meeting to be held in each county or equivalent subdivision in which a project would be located and requiring publication of a draft environmental impact statement (“EIS”), final EIS, and supplemental EIS to be available at each meeting, as applicable;
• Requiring FERC to consider two projects together for the purposes of NEPA if the projects are proposed within one year of each other and would be within 100 miles apart;
• Directing a court with jurisdiction over an eminent domain proceeding to consider the lost conservation value of land subject to a conservation easement in determining the just compensation for the land;
• Allowing for FERC to prepare a supplement EIS if FERC determines that comments in response to the draft EIS raise issues that exceed the scope of the draft EIS or if the draft EIS does not include information about mitigation plans;
• Requiring FERC to consider the cumulative visual impacts of a newly proposed project at the pre-filing or filing stage that would impact the same national scenic trail within 100 miles of a separately proposed project;
• Directing FERC to include in an EIS visual impact simulations depicting leaf-on and leaf-off views at each location where major visual impacts to national scenic trails are identified; and
• Prohibiting amendments to a National Forest management plan if the changes result in a net degradation to the national scenic trail.

A link to the Senate bill is available here.  A link to the House bill is available here.

Photo of Russell Kooistra Russell Kooistra

Russell Kooistra counsels an array of energy companies on various issues related to natural gas and electricity markets. Russell uses his in-depth knowledge of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) policy and regulations to advise clients on complex regulatory matters.

Read more about Russell KooistraEmail
Photo of Daniel Archuleta Daniel Archuleta

Daniel Archuleta helps energy clients handle critical matters, especially those pertaining to the FERC in both the gas pipeline and electric utility industries.

Read more about Daniel ArchuletaEmail
  • Posted in:
    Energy and Utilities
  • Blog:
    Washington Energy Report
  • Organization:
    Troutman Pepper Locke
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo