PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 27, 2025
Wildfire Communications Resiliency Act
This bill exempts certain post-wildfire communications infrastructure projects from specified federal environmental and historic preservation review requirements.
Specifically, the bill exempts from review projects that (1) are to be carried out within five years of the declaration of a wildfire-related major disaster or emergency in a given area; (2) are to be carried out entirely within the area for which the major disaster or emergency was declared; and (3) will replace a communications facility damaged by the major disaster or emergency, or make improvements to a communications facility that are necessary for recovery or to prevent or mitigate a future major disaster or emergency. To qualify under the bill, a major disaster or emergency must have been declared by the President, a state governor, or a tribal chief executive.
The bill specifies that these projects are not considered major federal actions under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 or undertakings under the National Historic Preservation Act, thus exempting such projects from the review procedures required under those acts.
People & committees
Rep. Bentz, Cliff [R-OR-2] · R–OR
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Subcommittee Hearings Held
Referred to the Subcommittee on Federal Lands.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jun 11, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1655 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1655 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1655 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1655 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-02-27 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The bill would exempt qualifying communications facility projects from specified federal environmental and historic-preservation review triggers. It would cover replacement of wildfire-damaged facilities and certain improvements in areas with declared wildfire disasters or emergencies, provided the projects meet a five-year deadline. The proposal would affect projects seeking to restore communications or prepare facilities for future disasters; it does not establish that these outcomes would occur.
(a) NEPA exemption A Federal authorization with respect to a covered project may not be considered a major Federal action under section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). (b) National Historic Preservation Act exemption A covered project may not be considered an undertaking under section 300320 of title 54, United States Code.
(3) Covered project The term covered project means a project that— (A) is to be carried out entirely within an area for which the President, the Governor of a State, or the Chief Executive of an Indian tribal government has declared a major disaster or an emergency related to a wildfire; (B) is to be carried out not later than 5 years after the date on which the President, Governor, or Chief Executive made such declaration; and (C) replaces a communications facility damaged by such disaster or emergency or makes improvements to a communications facility in such area that could reasonably be considered as necessary for recovery from such disaster or emergency or to prevent or mitigate any future disaster or emergency.
Section 1 would name the legislation the Wildfire Communications Resiliency Act.
1. Short title This Act may be cited as the Wildfire Communications Resiliency Act.
Section 2 would prohibit treating a federal authorization for a covered project as a “major Federal action” under the cited National Environmental Policy Act provision. It would also prohibit treating the project as an “undertaking” under the cited historic-preservation provision. These are legal classifications used for the specified review requirements; the text does not grant a blanket exemption from every environmental or preservation law.
(a) NEPA exemption A Federal authorization with respect to a covered project may not be considered a major Federal action under section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). (b) National Historic Preservation Act exemption A covered project may not be considered an undertaking under section 300320 of title 54, United States Code.
A qualifying project would have to take place entirely within an area covered by a wildfire-related disaster or emergency declaration from the President, a state governor, or an Indian tribal government's chief executive. It would have to be carried out no later than five years after that declaration. This is a project eligibility deadline measured from the declaration.
(3) Covered project The term covered project means a project that— (A) is to be carried out entirely within an area for which the President, the Governor of a State, or the Chief Executive of an Indian tribal government has declared a major disaster or an emergency related to a wildfire; (B) is to be carried out not later than 5 years after the date on which the President, Governor, or Chief Executive made such declaration;
Eligible work would include replacing a communications facility damaged by the declared disaster or emergency. It would also include improvements to a facility in the area that could reasonably be considered necessary for recovery or for preventing or reducing the harm of any future disaster or emergency. The improvement alternative does not expressly require that the facility itself was damaged, and future threats are not limited to wildfire.
(C) replaces a communications facility damaged by such disaster or emergency or makes improvements to a communications facility in such area that could reasonably be considered as necessary for recovery from such disaster or emergency or to prevent or mitigate any future disaster or emergency.
Presidential emergency and major-disaster declarations would have to be made under sections 501 and 401 of the Stafford Act, respectively. State and tribal declarations could qualify under state or tribal law, including similar declarations that an emergency or disaster exists. A presidential declaration would therefore not be required in every case.
(4) Emergency The term emergency means— (A) in the case of an emergency declared by the President, an emergency declared by the President under section 501 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5191); and (B) in the case of an emergency declared by the Governor of a State or the Chief Executive of an Indian tribal government, any occasion or instance with respect to which the Governor or Chief Executive declares that an emergency exists (or makes a similar declaration) under State or Tribal law (as the case may be).
(8) Major disaster The term major disaster means— (A) in the case of a major disaster declared by the President, a major disaster declared by the President under section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170); and (B) in the case of a major disaster declared by the Governor of a State or the Chief Executive of an Indian tribal government, any occasion or instance with respect to which the Governor or Chief Executive declares that a disaster exists (or makes a similar declaration) under State or Tribal law (as the case may be).
“Federal authorization” would cover any authorization required by federal law for a qualifying project, including permits, special-use authorizations, certifications, opinions, and other approvals. This defines the approvals subject to the proposed environmental-review classification rule; it does not itself issue those approvals.
(5) Federal authorization The term Federal authorization— (A) means any authorization required under Federal law with respect to a covered project; and (B) includes any permits, special use authorizations, certifications, opinions, or other approvals as may be required under Federal law with respect to a covered project.
(a) NEPA exemption A Federal authorization with respect to a covered project may not be considered a major Federal action under section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).
The bill would include the District of Columbia and every U.S. territory or possession in its definition of “State,” with “Governor” meaning the jurisdiction's chief executive. It would use definitions from existing statutes for communications facilities, tribal governments, and tribal chief executives.
(1) Chief Executive The term Chief Executive has the meaning given such term in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122). (2) Communications facility The term communications facility has the meaning given the term communications facility installation in section 6409(d) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (47 U.S.C. 1455(d)).
(6) Governor The term Governor means the chief executive of any State. (7) Indian tribal government The term Indian tribal government has the meaning given such term in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122).
(9) State The term State means each State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and each territory or possession of the United States.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated June 11, 2025, records introduction on February 27, 2025, referral that day to the Energy and Commerce and Natural Resources committees, referral to the Federal Lands Subcommittee on June 3, and subcommittee hearings on June 10. These are events recorded in that dated snapshot.
Source snapshot updated 2025-06-11T08:05:59Z. 2025-06-10: Subcommittee Hearings Held 2025-06-03: Referred to the Subcommittee on Federal Lands. 2025-02-27: Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
2025-02-27: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-27. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; it does not determine formal earmark status from materials outside the bundle.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Findings to examine
The proposed review exemptions are a targeted regulatory benefit central to the bill's main policy. This classification does not assess whether the exemptions are justified.
Those carrying out qualifying communications facility projects would receive special treatment under the specified environmental and historic-preservation laws. The benefit is limited by location, a five-year deadline, and the type and purpose of the work: replacement of facilities damaged by the declared wildfire disaster or emergency, or qualifying recovery and future-disaster improvements.
(a) NEPA exemption A Federal authorization with respect to a covered project may not be considered a major Federal action under section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). (b) National Historic Preservation Act exemption A covered project may not be considered an undertaking under section 300320 of title 54, United States Code.
(3) Covered project The term covered project means a project that— (A) is to be carried out entirely within an area for which the President, the Governor of a State, or the Chief Executive of an Indian tribal government has declared a major disaster or an emergency related to a wildfire; (B) is to be carried out not later than 5 years after the date on which the President, Governor, or Chief Executive made such declaration; and (C) replaces a communications facility damaged by such disaster or emergency or makes improvements to a communications facility in such area that could reasonably be considered as necessary for recovery from such disaster or emergency or to prevent or mitigate any future disaster or emergency.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Jun 11, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI