To amend the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 to establish a conclusive presumption that a State concurs to certain activities, and for other purposes.

HR1874, introduced by Rep. Kiley (R-CA) on March 5, 2025, remains in active status after the sponsor's introductory remarks on March 6 (CR H1032-1033). The bill amends the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 to establish a conclusive presumption that a state concurs to federal permit applications for coastal zone activities — effectively removing the single biggest state-level bottleneck for offshore energy, coastal infrastructure, and real estate development projects. Currently, under Section 307 of CZMA, states can object to federal permits if the activity is inconsistent with their coastal management plan, which has given states like California, New York, and New Jersey effective veto power over projects in federal waters that impact their coasts. HR1874 converts this to a conclusive presumption of concurrence — meaning states must actively object and justify within a defined window, or the project moves forward automatically. The money trail is regulatory cost reduction, not direct federal funding. The bill authorizes zero dollars. Instead, it saves developers 6-18 months of permitting delays per project, with each month of delay costing large infrastructure projects $10-50 million in carrying costs, legal fees, and financing penalties. For a typical $5 billion LNG terminal, reducing permitting timeline by 12 months improves project NPV by $300-500 million at a 10% discount rate. The mechanism is particularly powerful because it applies retroactively to projects already in the permitting pipeline — any project that has not yet received a final state concurrence determination becomes eligible for the conclusive presumption. The five Presidential DPA determinations on April 20, 2026, directly amplify this bill. The Administration invoked the Defense Production Act to fast-track grid infrastructure, large-scale energy, natural gas/LNG, coal, and petroleum infrastructure. This gives the federal government authority to prioritize contracts and provide financial support for these projects. The DPA determinations create a demand-pull, while HR1874 removes a supply-side regulatory bottleneck. Together they create a synchronized federal regulatory and financial package supporting energy and infrastructure development — the DPA accelerates financing and prioritization, while HR1874 eliminates state-level permitting obstruction. This dual mechanism is the most significant energy infrastructure policy alignment since the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Market implications are clear. $NEE and $SRE benefit directly as developers of offshore wind, coastal transmission, and LNG infrastructure. $KMI, $WMB, $ET, and $LNG benefit as pipeline and LNG terminal developers who have historically been blocked by state CZMA objections. The oilfield service providers ($SLB, $HAL) benefit indirectly as offshore exploration and development activity accelerates in the Gulf of Mexico. The bill's effect is asymmetric — states with aggressive climate agendas (California, New York, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington) lose regulatory leverage, benefiting developers who have been most constrained by those states. The DPA determinations on natural gas and petroleum infrastructure complement this by making financing available for the projects that HR1874 now permits faster.