Industry groups are coalescing around Sens. Joe Manchin (I-WV) and John Barrasso ’s (R-WY) proposal that would overhaul the permitting process for several energy projects, including fossil fuel and transmission line projects. However, environmentalists aren’t happy with the measure, calling it a “dirty deal” that would be a giveaway to the fossil fuel industry.
Support has been growing both on and off Capitol Hill, and senators from both parties have praised the legislation. Nevertheless, the bill faces long odds for a floor vote after Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) threw cold water on the possibility of any permitting reform bill passing the chamber this year.
The swell of support and opposition comes as the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee is set to mark up the legislation on Wednesday, marking the first procedural test the bill will have to pass for there to be even the possibility of a full-chamber vote.
Manchin told reporters he was feeling confident about the bill passing committee.
Along with streamlining projects, the bill requires the interior secretary to hold at least one offshore wind and one offshore oil and gas lease sale every year between 2025 and 2029, aiming to end the slowdown of lease sales under the Biden administration, which has offered the lowest level of offshore oil and gas lease sales in history.
Erik Milito, the president of the National Ocean Industries Association, praised the offshore provisions, saying that the industry has run into difficulty with the Biden administration in promoting the development of oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico.
“We’ve run into roadblocks with the current administration,” Milito told the Washington Examiner. “The gaps in leasing and the resistance to allowing the industry to get additional acreage, to get out there and develop the resources — it has generated a lot of uncertainty, and it’s actually something that ends up driving investments into other parts of the world."
The bill is also meant to speed up project approvals that are often held up for years due to court battles, enacting what is known as judicial reform. It would shorten time frames during all stages of litigation for energy projects and require courts to expedite the review of legal challenges. Under current law, interest groups can sue over a project permit for up to six years, and if a federal agency is tasked with fixing a permit, there isn’t a deadline to address its deficiencies. The bill would establish a 150-day deadline for groups to sue over a permit and a 180-day deadline for federal agencies to act on remanded permits.
Milito advocated judicial reforms that would force agencies to fix any deficiencies found in a project's environmental assessment or impact statement rather than having the option of shutting down the permit application altogether.
The NOIA president said the Supreme Court’s recent ruling to overturn Chevron deference, a legal doctrine that instructed judges to defer to federal agency interpretations of the law in cases the statute is ambiguous, could also reduce agencies' power to determine approval of projects. He said the judicial branch before Chevron’s overturn was giving agencies more authority than laid out in the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires agencies to review the environmental effects of projects and make determinations on a permit application.
“NEPA is pretty straightforward and basic, and that expansion should’ve never occurred,” he said.
A number of industry groups in Western states that promote onshore drilling have lined up behind the proposal, such as the Western Energy Alliance, the Wyoming Mining Association, and the Utah Petroleum Association.
It’s not just the fossil fuel industry getting behind the measure. The Solar Energy Industries Association voiced support for the provisions that would aim to speed up transmission projects and streamline clean energy infrastructure. The group has advocated reforms that would “fairly” allocate costs for the transmission lines, and the bill contains provisions that would require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to clarify that customers receiving no benefits from projects should not be forced to pay.
But not everyone is going as far to praise the deal. Environmental groups have deemed the measure a “giveaway” for fossil fuel groups and stated the bill is lined with provisions that would roll back environmental protections for communities and public lands.
“While this bill would offer some steps forward on transmission reform, which we hope to help usher forward, this bill would altogether be a leap backward on climate, health, and justice if passed into law,” said Alexandra Adams, a managing director of government affairs at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “The Senate should reject it and look toward alternative solutions already being considered.”
Some Senate climate hawks, however, seem open to supporting the bill. Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI), who has been open to amending NEPA to streamline transmission projects, called the bill a “constructive beginning” and a “serious bipartisan effort.” Still, he mentioned he would have to weigh the pros and cons of the bill, mentioning that he was against the requirements for the interior secretary to hold offshore lease sales.
“What I haven’t done is weigh all the equities,” he told the Washington Examiner.
Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-CO), a member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee who has been working with Manchin on transmission legislation, mentioned that while the bill “isn’t perfect,” it still “looks pretty good” to him.
Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM), a senior member of the committee, has come out in support of the bill , further increasing its chances of passing in committee. The bill is slated to be marked up in committee on Wednesday, when senators are expected to propose amendments.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
However, the bill faces an uphill climb to the Senate floor. Schumer previously poured cold water on bringing any permitting proposal to the floor, calling it “virtually impossible” to pass. But Manchin and Schumer have been in conversations about the bill, both lawmakers confirmed to the Washington Examiner. However, neither member was able to confirm if the bill would make it to the floor.
“[Schumer] has been very receptive,” Manchin said. “Let’s see what happens.”
Most Popular
Comments / 0