PRIA Logo™
119-hr-6352119th Congress

CLEAR Act of 2025

Sponsored By: Representative Balderson, Troy [R-OH-12]

Introduced

Summary

Precluding repeat litigation against energy project authorizations is the bill's main aim. It would create a unified preclusion rule, tighten judicial review of agency procedures, and impose strict filing windows and standing limits to speed resolution.

Personalized for You

How does this bill affect your finances?

Personalize government policy and PRIA will tell you what this bill means for your household, plus every other piece of legislation we track. PRIA reads each provision against your financial profile to show you exactly what matters to your wallet.

Free to download

Bill Overview

Analyzed Economic Effects

2 provisions identified: 2 benefits, 0 costs, 0 mixed.

Defines which energy projects and permits count

This bill would define what counts as an energy project and a permit for it. It would cover power plants, transmission and distribution lines, and energy storage. It would also cover fossil fuel and petrochemical production and transport. It would include critical-mineral mining, refining, recycling, and transport linked to energy or national security. "Authorization" would include licenses, permits, approvals, findings, determinations, decisions, and required interagency consultations. It would apply to federal agencies and to state agencies when they run a federal review. A project would be "complete" when it first starts commercial operation or first delivers energy. Construction alone would not count.

Tighter court limits on energy project lawsuits

This bill would bar new lawsuits about the same energy project after a final court decision on the merits. Only the issuing federal agency or the project sponsor could invoke this bar. To sue after a public comment process, you would need to have filed a unique, detailed comment by the deadline and show direct harm. You would have 150 days after the final agency action is made public to file, unless another federal law sets a shorter time. Courts would defer to agency facts and could overturn for procedure only if the agency abused its substantial discretion. If a court finds an error, it would have to give instructions and a schedule to fix it, with a deadline no longer than 180 days. For orders before enactment, the 180 days would run from enactment; for orders after enactment, from the order date. A remanded authorization would stay in effect while the agency fixes errors. The bill would still allow suits over violations that occur after a project is complete and enforcement actions by the United States or a State. Landowner claims for fair market value in eminent domain would not be barred.

Sponsors & CoSponsors

Sponsor

Balderson, Troy [R-OH-12]

OH • R

Cosponsors

There are no cosponsors for this bill.

Roll Call Votes

No roll call votes available for this bill.

View on Congress.gov
Back to Legislation