S. 33: LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act

114th Congress · introduced 2015-01-06 · Energy · Latest: Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 114-9.

federal

Follow this bill, step by step

Where it came from: introduced 2015-01-06 · official record
Who proposed it: Sen. Barrasso, John [R-WY] · what a sponsor is
What happened next: no floor votes in our records yet. Why?
Where it stands now: Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 114-9. Not final yet: this can still change. We check for updates every day.
If it becomes law and spends money: follow the money to money laws, then agencies and contracts and grants.

What does this mean?

Official title

LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act

Plain summary

LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act Directs the Secretary of Energy (DOE), for proposals that must also obtain authorization from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or the United States Maritime Administration to site, construct, expand, or operate liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facilities, to issue a decision on an application for authorization to export natural gas within 45 days after the later of: (1) the conclusion of the review to site, construct, expand, or operate the LNG facilities required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA); or (2) the date of enactment of this Act. Deems a NEPA review to be concluded when the lead agency: (1) publishes an Environmental Impact Statement if the project requires one; (2) publishes a Finding of No Significant Impact if the project needs an Environmental Assessment; or (3) determines that an application is eligible for a categorical exclusion pursuant to NEPA regulations. (A "categorical exclusion" under NEPA is a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and which have been found to have no such effect in procedures adopted by a federal agency in implementing environmental regulations and for which, therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is required.) Confers upon either the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit or the circuit in which the export facility will be located original and exclusive jurisdiction over any civil action for the review of: (1) a DOE order regarding the application; or (2) DOE failure to issue a final decision on the application. Requires the Court, if it finds in a civil action that DOE has failed to issue a final decision on an application, to order DOE to issue a decision within 30 days. Requires the Court to set any civil action brought under this Act on the docket, for expedited consideration, as soon as practical after the filing date of the initial pleading. Amends the Natural Gas Act to direct the Secretary, in the case of any LNG export authorization, to require the applicant to report to DOE, according to specified timelines, the names of the one or more countries of destination to which the exported LNG is delivered.

Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in Senate), quoted unchanged (nonpartisan). Read the source.

What a vote does

A “Yea” vote

If it passes both chambers and is signed, it becomes law.

A “Nay” vote

If it is not passed, current law stays as it is.

PSI Sci description of the legislative step (not an opinion).

What does this mean? (plain words)

Official text

LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act

Source: Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in Senate)

AI explanation – may be wrong, check the official text

No AI explanation yet. It takes up to a minute to write and is then saved for everyone.

Limited to a few requests an hour per person.

The strongest published arguments

Arguments for (supporters)

Needs sources: no published arguments on this side yet. We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.

Arguments against (opponents)

Needs sources: no published arguments on this side yet. We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.

Alternatives

Needs sources: no published alternatives yet (for example a different bill, a law instead of an amendment, or keeping current law). We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.

How did my representative vote? · This bill's floor votes

Officials and money

Sponsor: Sen. Barrasso, John [R-WY] · 17 cosponsors

Cost estimate: No cost estimate published yet.

Cosponsors on this site

Martin Heinrich (D-NM), John Hoeven (R-ND), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Michael F. Bennet (D-CO), Mark R. Warner (D-VA), Steve Daines (R-MT), John Cornyn (R-TX), Bill Cassidy (R-LA)

Sponsor's campaign money: Sen. Barrasso, John [R-WY] reported raising $1.8 million (2025–2026). Details. Shown for context only; it does not mean any donor supported this bill.

No linked floor roll calls in our collected records yet. This does not mean the bill has never had a vote. Check the official bill history.

Words on this page, explained (3)

Authorization: A law that creates or continues a government program and says what it may do, often with a suggested spending ceiling. An authorization alone does not provide money; a separate appropriation does.
Jurisdiction: The area or the matters a government or court has authority over.
Rulemaking: The process agencies use to write regulations that carry out laws passed by Congress or a legislature. Usually an agency publishes a proposed rule, takes public comments, then publishes a final rule.

Plain meanings written from linked sources. All words.

Sources

Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in Senate)
Congress.gov
Data: GovInfo BILLSTATUS bulk data (Library of Congress), BILLSTATUS-114s33.xml <https://www.govinfo.gov/bulkdata/BILLSTATUS/114/s>

Record fed-us-cong114-s33 · catalog fed-us-congress-bills-cong114 · updated 2026-11-15 by psicol fed-bills-cong114