The bill
Promoting Cross-border Energy Infrastructure Act
HR. 3062, 119th Congress — read as touching Oil & Gas.
Sponsored by
Rep. Fedorchak, Julie [R-ND-At Large]
ID: F000482
Follow the money
The bill
HR. 3062, 119th Congress — read as touching Oil & Gas.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
21 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Department of Energy and Related Commissions" section, p. 440-442 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
September 18, 2025
📍 Current Status
Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Another masterpiece of legislative theater, brought to you by the same geniuses who thought it was a good idea to put a " warning label" on a chainsaw.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Promoting Cross-border Energy Infrastructure Act (HR 3062) is a bill that claims to "establish a more uniform, transparent, and modern process" for authorizing energy infrastructure projects across international borders. Yeah, right. In reality, this bill is just another attempt to grease the wheels of crony capitalism, making it easier for energy companies to build pipelines and transmission lines without too much pesky regulation.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill creates a new process for obtaining certificates of crossing for border-crossing facilities, which sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare. It also amends existing laws, such as the Natural Gas Act and the Federal Power Act, to expedite the approval process for energy projects. Because what could possibly go wrong with rushing through environmental reviews and public input?
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved here: energy companies, their lobbyists, and the politicians who love them some campaign donations. The bill also affects regulatory agencies like the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Department of Energy, which will have to deal with the fallout from this legislative mess.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a recipe for disaster. By streamlining the approval process, it increases the risk of environmental disasters, public health crises, and economic catastrophes. It's like playing a game of regulatory Jenga – remove one piece, and the whole thing comes crashing down.
But hey, who needs regulations when you have campaign contributions and lobbying dollars? The real disease here is corruption, and this bill is just another symptom of a system that prioritizes profits over people and the planet.
In conclusion, HR 3062 is a classic case of "legislative lupus" – a chronic condition characterized by an inability to regulate effectively, a tendency to prioritize special interests over public welfare, and a complete disregard for the consequences of one's actions. It's time to put this bill out of its misery and start treating the real disease: corruption, greed, and stupidity in government.
Rep. Fedorchak, Julie [R-ND-At Large]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
This bill has 2 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: D000628
Top Contributors
21
ID: J000302
Top Contributors
20
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 41 nodes and 51 connections
Total contributions: $51
Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 helped.
Section 2(a)(1) requires a certificate of crossing for oil or natural gas pipelines crossing the border, but Section 2(d) eliminates the need for a Presidential permit, streamlining approval. Section 2(b) mandates FERC to grant natural gas import/export applications within 30 days, reducing regulatory delay. These provisions benefit oil and gas companies by facilitating cross-border infrastructure.
The bill governs border-crossing facilities for oil, natural gas pipelines, and electric transmission. Section 2(a)(2)(B)(i) assigns FERC as the relevant agency for oil/gas pipelines, and Section 2(d) removes Presidential permit requirements for pipelines and transmission lines, reducing regulatory hurdles for midstream operators like Kinder Morgan and Enbridge.
Section 2(c) repeals the requirement to secure an order under Section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act for electric transmission to Canada/Mexico, and Section 2(a)(2)(B)(ii) assigns the Secretary of Energy as the relevant official for electric transmission facilities, with Section 2(a)(2)(C) requiring consistency with reliability standards. This streamlines cross-border electricity transmission, benefiting utilities involved in interconnection.
For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Fedorchak, Julie [R-ND-At Large])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.
AI Analysis:
"HR 3062 aligns strongly with Project 2025's goal of streamlining FERC's natural gas permitting process by requiring timely decisions on cross-border gas imports/exports and reducing regulatory barriers, directly supporting affordable and reliable energy access."
— 407 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions New Policies FERC should: l Recommit itself to the NGA’s purpose of providing the American people with access to affordable and reliable natural gas. l Limit its NGA decision-making on natural gas pipeline certificates to the question of whether there is a need for the natural gas. l Limit its NEPA analysis to the impacts of the actual pipeline itself, not indirect upstream and downstream effects. In addition, Congress, the states, and FERC should consider how better to pro- tect and compensate property owners whose property is taken for the benefit of the public. FERC also needs to be mindful that natural gas pipelines and projects are important for domestic access to natural gas, including local natural gas utilities, natural gas–fired electric generation, and manufacturing, as well as for exports of liquefied natural gas. FERC: LNG EXPORT FACILITIES Mission/Overview FERC permits, sites, and authorizes the construction and operation of LNG export facilities.125 It does not authorize the export of natural gas; DOE exercises that authority. LNG export facilities are important for delivering natural gas to markets around the world and have become an important policy tool in limiting the ability of Russia and Middle Eastern countries to use energy as a tool in for- eign affairs. Needed Reforms LNG exports are opposed by climate activists. In addition, some domestic man- ufacturers argue that LNG exports decrease available U.S. supplies of natural gas and increase the domestic price, thereby harming the competitive advantages of U.S. manufacturers in world markets. Currently, most LNG export facilities are along the Gulf of Mexico in Texas and Louisiana.126 Attempts to build facilities on the west coast (Jordan Cove LNG127) and the east coast have not moved forward for a variety of reasons; delays and costs of litigation can cause developers to cancel projects. An Alaska facility was approved by FERC in 2020, and the Biden Administration has indicated its sup- port.128 An east coast facility in Pennsylvania (or nearby) would unlock Marcellus shale natural gas for export.
AI Analysis:
"HR 3062 aligns strongly with Project 2025's goal of streamlining FERC's natural gas permitting process by requiring timely decisions on cross-border infrastructure and reducing regulatory barriers, directly supporting affordable and reliable energy access and export capabilities."
— 407 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions New Policies FERC should: l Recommit itself to the NGA’s purpose of providing the American people with access to affordable and reliable natural gas. l Limit its NGA decision-making on natural gas pipeline certificates to the question of whether there is a need for the natural gas. l Limit its NEPA analysis to the impacts of the actual pipeline itself, not indirect upstream and downstream effects. In addition, Congress, the states, and FERC should consider how better to pro- tect and compensate property owners whose property is taken for the benefit of the public. FERC also needs to be mindful that natural gas pipelines and projects are important for domestic access to natural gas, including local natural gas utilities, natural gas–fired electric generation, and manufacturing, as well as for exports of liquefied natural gas. FERC: LNG EXPORT FACILITIES Mission/Overview FERC permits, sites, and authorizes the construction and operation of LNG export facilities.125 It does not authorize the export of natural gas; DOE exercises that authority. LNG export facilities are important for delivering natural gas to markets around the world and have become an important policy tool in limiting the ability of Russia and Middle Eastern countries to use energy as a tool in for- eign affairs. Needed Reforms LNG exports are opposed by climate activists. In addition, some domestic man- ufacturers argue that LNG exports decrease available U.S. supplies of natural gas and increase the domestic price, thereby harming the competitive advantages of U.S. manufacturers in world markets. Currently, most LNG export facilities are along the Gulf of Mexico in Texas and Louisiana.126 Attempts to build facilities on the west coast (Jordan Cove LNG127) and the east coast have not moved forward for a variety of reasons; delays and costs of litigation can cause developers to cancel projects. An Alaska facility was approved by FERC in 2020, and the Biden Administration has indicated its sup- port.128 An east coast facility in Pennsylvania (or nearby) would unlock Marcellus shale natural gas for export. — 408 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise FERC is considering policy statements that would consider GHG emissions as part of its NEPA review and its NGA determination as to whether approval of an LNG export facility is consistent with the public interest. New Policies Since Congress through the NGA has already determined that LNG exports to countries with free trade agreements are in the public interest,129 and because LNG exports help to ensure America’s ability to support our friends and allies around the world while also supporting domestic natural gas production, FERC: l Should not use environmental issues like climate change as a reason to stop LNG projects. l Should ensure that the natural gas pipelines that are needed deliver more of the product to market, both for domestic use and export, and are reviewed, developed and constructed in a timely manner. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Mission/Overview The Energy Reorganization Act of 1974130 created the Nuclear Regulatory Com- mission (NRC). Before then, the commercial nuclear industry was regulated by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), which was established by the 1954 Atomic Energy Act.131 Importantly, the AEC was responsible for encouraging and regulat- ing commercial nuclear power. Broad criticism of this dual function was a major factor in the establishment of the NRC, which held regulatory authority while the newly established Department of Energy held the advocacy function. Today, the NRC is responsible for a broad range of regulatory activities, including reactor safety, oversight of nuclear materials, and protection against radiation as well as permitting new reactors, certifying new reactor designs, and regulating nuclear waste management activities. Needed Reforms In 1989, the NRC established alternative licensing processes that were meant to provide a more predictable and efficient regulatory pathway for new Light Water Reactors (LWRs) by combining construction and operating nuclear power plant licenses, allowing for Early Site Permits, and establishing a framework for pre- approval of reactor designs. More recently, the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act directed the NRC to establish a technology-neutral licensing process for new, advanced reactor technologies.132 Despite these efforts, the NRC remains a significant cost and regulatory barrier to new nuclear power. Especially
AI Analysis:
"HR 3062 aligns strongly with Project 2025's focus on energy security, streamlining regulatory processes for energy infrastructure, and reducing barriers to domestic and cross-border energy flow, particularly by reforming FERC's role and expediting natural gas export approvals."
— 368 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise National Energy Security. Protecting American infrastructure from cyber and physical threats, both natural and human, is vital to national security, the economy, and the well-being of the American people. Protecting and advanc- ing these national security interests is a proper role for the federal government. DESAS should: l Focus on studying threats to the electric grid, natural gas, and oil infrastructure; sharing such information with the energy industry; promoting the reliability and security of energy resources and infrastructure; and developing strategies and technologies to combat threats by working with the National Labs. The following offices would report to the DESAS Undersecretary of Energy Security: 1. Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response (CESER), elevated to an Assistant Secretary. CESER would work with the existing or reconstituted versions (as described in more detail below) of the Office of Electricity (OE); Office of Nuclear Energy (NE); Office of Fossil Energy (FE), currently the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management (FECM); Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE); and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to identify and address threats to energy infrastructure.7 Instead of trying to decarbonize the American economy and allocating taxpayer dollars for commercialization of energy technologies, these offices would focus on energy security by identifying threats to energy supplies and infrastructure, developing strategies to address those threats, and funding fundamental science and technology where appropriate. 2. Office of Electricity (Assistant Secretary). 3. Office of Nuclear Energy (Assistant Secretary). 4. Office of Fossil Energy (Assistant Secretary, with Carbon Management deleted from its title and purpose. 5. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (Assistant Secretary). 6. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (stand-alone or part of CESER). l Eliminate special-interest funding programs. Many DOE energy funding programs are not targeted on fundamental science and technology; instead, they focus more on commercialization and act as subsidies to the — 369 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions private sector for government-favored resources. The DOE Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED); Office of State and Community Energy Programs; ARPA-E; Office of Grid Deployment (OGD); and DOE Loan Program should be eliminated or reformed. If they continue to exist, FECM, NE, OE, and EERE should focus on fundamental science and technology issues, particularly in relation to cyber and physical threats to energy security, rather than subsidizing and commercializing energy resources. l Eliminate political and climate-change interference in DOE approvals of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports. In addition, Congress should reform the Natural Gas Act8 to expand required approvals from merely nations with free trade agreements to all of our allies, such as NATO countries. l Focus the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) on ensuring that government buildings and operations have reliable and cost- effective energy. FEMP should stop using taxpayer dollars to force the purchase of more expensive and less reliable energy resources in the name of combating climate change. l Ensure that information provided by the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA), a data and statistical organization, is data-neutral. l Focus FERC on its statutory obligation to ensure access to reliable energy at just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory rates. FERC is a five-member commission created under the DOE Organization Act that regulates the wholesale sales and transmission of electricity, promotes electric reliability through standards, permits natural gas pipelines and LNG export facilities, sets natural gas pipeline shipping rates, and sets oil pipeline shipping rates. It is an economic regulator and should not make itself a climate regulator. l Streamline the nuclear regulatory requirements and licensing process. Such changes would help to lower costs and accelerate the development and deployment of civilian nuclear, such as advanced nuclear reactors (including small modular nuclear reactors). The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is commission tasked with the licensing of civilian nuclear reactors and power plants and regulating other uses of nuclear materials, such as nuclear medicine. Although it is not a DOE agency, its jurisdiction over nuclear reactor, fuel, safety, and trade issues often relates to or impinges on DOE’s jurisdiction.
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.
Tradeable Energy Performance Standards Act
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Energy relating to "Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In Freezers".
CORE Act of 2025