The National Security Interstate Pipeline Act (H.R. 9838) is a proposed law introduced by Representative Ken Calvert on July 23, 2026. It aims to speed up the approval process for certain interstate oil and natural gas pipelines that are considered vital to U.S. national security. The bill allows the President to designate specific pipeline projects as critical, which would then be reviewed exclusively by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). FERC would be required to make a decision on these projects within 180 days. Additionally, the bill seeks to limit the ability of state and local governments to delay these projects through permitting processes, and any legal challenges would be directed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Supporters of the bill, including Representative Calvert and several House Republicans, argue that it is necessary to counteract restrictive energy policies in states like California. They claim that these policies have led to decreased oil production and increased reliance on imported oil, which poses risks to national security. By expediting the approval of critical pipelines, the bill aims to ensure a steady supply of domestic energy to military installations and other essential infrastructure, thereby enhancing both national and economic security.
Critics of the bill are concerned that it could undermine environmental protections and state rights by limiting the ability of state and local governments to oversee and regulate pipeline projects within their jurisdictions. They argue that the expedited approval process may lead to insufficient environmental reviews and public consultation, potentially resulting in environmental degradation and public opposition. Additionally, there is apprehension that centralizing the approval process at the federal level could set a precedent for diminishing state authority over energy infrastructure projects.
The analysis of H.R. 9838, which aims to expedite the approval of interstate oil and natural gas pipelines, reveals no direct industry overlaps with the top donor industries of sponsor Ken Calvert. This suggests that the financial backing he receives does not directly correlate with the interests of the oil and gas sector, which is the primary subject of the bill. Without significant financial ties to the industries affected by the legislation, the potential for conflicts of interest appears minimal. Voters should be aware that while the bill may benefit the oil and gas industry, the absence of overlapping donor interests indicates a lower risk of undue influence from those sectors on the sponsor's legislative actions.
Top industries funding Ken Calvert, ranked by total contributions.
Source: OpenSecrets.org (Center for Responsive Politics)
