From Paper to Pipe, What Recent Reforms Mean for Project Timelines

Originally published for customers May 6, 2026.

What’s the issue?

Recent federal actions target permitting timelines for natural gas infrastructure: FERC removed the rehearing construction bar and is evaluating blanket certificate reforms, and DOE is limiting environmental reviews for non-FTA LNG export authorizations.

Why does it matter?

These changes influence how developers choose permitting pathways, sequence approvals, and plan construction timing relative to regulatory milestones.

What’s our view?

The rehearing construction bar, the blanket certificate program, and DOE’s NEPA scope are three of the biggest regulatory levers governing how quickly a pipeline moves from certificate order to construction.

Recent federal actions target permitting timelines for interstate natural gas pipelines: FERC removed the rehearing construction bar under Order No. 871 and is evaluating blanket certificate reforms, and DOE is limiting NEPA environmental reviews for non-FTA LNG export authorizations. These changes influence how developers choose permitting pathways, sequence approvals, and plan construction timing relative to regulatory milestones. The rehearing change has immediate, measurable impact. Permanent blanket reforms remain uncertain with diminishing impact to temporary reforms as a key deadline approaches. DOE’s new non-FTA approach may broadly save internal processing time.

Cutting the Low Hanging Fruit: FERC’s Rehearing Construction Bar (Order No. 871)

Quantification of the first reform is straightforward. To establish a baseline, we measured the time from certificate order to notice to proceed with construction for projects under Order No. 871, excluding those that began construction after the 30-day rehearing construction bar was removed.

Projects can be delayed for any number of reasons during this period, but on average, it lasts five months. See below for the time to notice to proceed with construction from the certificate order differentiated by environmental review type. EIS projects average roughly six months, while EA projects average closer to three months. Both categories would see a meaningful reduction in time to construction with removal of the construction bar.

Where FERC’s Blanket Certificate (Prior Notice) Reforms Stand

FERC’s blanket certificate reforms are moving through the standard rulemaking sequence. The Commission began with a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) to assess whether changes are warranted. From there, it can proceed to a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR), which is reviewed by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) before being released publicly. OIRA conducts cost-benefit review and coordinates between the agency and the White House to resolve any issues before a rule is exposed to public comment.

The comment period for FERC’s Blanket NOI closed on September 24, 2025, with 26 comments or motions to intervene filed. OIRA’s rulemaking dashboard now shows a proposed rule under review as of May 1, 2026, indicating a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) as a likely next step. The timing of that NOPR and any final rule will depend on scope and complexity. Recent FERC rulemakings illustrate the range.

The recent oil pipeline index review moved quickly, with only 155 days between NOPR and final rule. But as discussed in Too Much Spice? Green Chile Draws More Protests, projects that do not clearly fit within the program’s intended scope can attract protests. If those protests convert a prior notice filing into a full Section 7(c) application, the result can be a longer process than pursuing Section 7(c) from the outset. In many cases, smaller projects can complete a full 7(c) process within roughly a year.

DOE, NEPA, and LNG Export Authorizations: Less Review, Same Timeline?

As discussed in DOE Drew a Narrow NEPA Boundary for CP2. Will It Hold?, DOE has begun relying on categorical exclusions (CEs) for LNG export authorizations, narrowing its NEPA scope to port and marine impacts and moving away from broader upstream and downstream analysis. The question is whether that shift shortens project timelines.

At the project level, likely not. DOE has not historically conducted project-specific NEPA analysis for LNG terminals. Instead, it has adopted FERC’s EIS and supported its decisions with broader programmatic studies evaluating upstream natural gas production, downstream emissions from end use, and the impacts of LNG exports on domestic and global markets.

The impact may be broader than any singular project if as a result of this new approach DOE no longer needs to update those studies or incorporate them into each authorization. This would reduce internal processing time across the board. Litigation will determine whether that approach holds.

If you would like help assessing project timing, commercial exposure, or execution risk, please contact us.