PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 6, 2016
Safe and Accountable Federal Energy Review for Pipelines Act of 2016 or the Safer Pipelines Act of 2016
This bill amends the Natural Gas Act to require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), before granting a certificate of public convenience and necessity for a proposed pipeline expansion project, to:
conduct a full evidentiary hearing on the need for the expansion or a cumulative review of planned energy infrastructure projects in the region of the proposed expansion; and
consider matters that include existing capacity, renewable energy goals, and the ability to otherwise meet energy needs.
Additionally, FERC must: (1) consider, in the case of interstate pipeline projects, the cumulative environmental impacts of other interstate or regional projects; and (2) monitor approved pipeline projects for five years to ensure that environmental mitigation steps have been implemented.
People & committees
Rep. Watson Coleman, Bonnie [D-NJ-12] · D–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 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.5630 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.5630 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.5630 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.5630 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.