One step closer to sealing his legacy with bipartisan permitting reform, Senator Joe Manchin (I-WV) along with his cosponsor John Barrasso (R-WY) were able to advance their bill last week; it sailed through committee on a 15-4 vote. This is good news.
Permitting reform is long overdue. In fact, at the exact same time The Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 was being deliberated in committee, a nearby hearing on the future of electric vehicles was lamenting the dire need to revamp permitting in this country. They are not alone. The common thread in energy-related hearings on Capitol Hill is the urgency to update and streamline the permitting process.
This bill aims to reform permitting on all fronts by unclogging the congestion currently making it difficult for projects to move forward. It will clean up the backlog and expedite the process.
The average timeline for a project to obtain necessary National Environmental Policy Act reviews is 4.5 years. For transmission projects, it is closer to 6.5. Such lengthy time frames are not only unacceptable but tend to create or exacerbate problems.
Several wildfires have burned millions of acres throughout the West because states are having to wait six or seven years for approvals and permitting to conduct much needed prescribed burns. Managed forests are more resilient to drought, high temperatures, fire, and insects; unkept forests are a tinderbox, just waiting for a fire to ignite and spread.
Many infrastructure projects experience a significant increase in costs on account of the permitting process. The complexity of the regulatory requirements necessitates additional resources and legal compliance expenses. And the costs of the projects themselves can experience inflation, generally exceeding original budget forecasts.
Recommended
Often times interest in a project wanes: Support might drop, funding is lost, and in the worst cases, the project is cancelled. Opposing parties claim victory. An environmental activist against a missile defense project once stated, “The hope is that delay [occasioned by NEPA litigation] will lead to cancellation…That’s what we always hope for in these suits.”
The current system works against advancing energy production of all types but disproportionately affects clean energy. Fossil fuels are a well-established industry, and most of the infrastructure required already exists; by contrast, the infrastructure for clean energy is barely getting off the ground. Investors and developers shy away from riskier projects where the potential returns are time intensive or less certain. Renewable projects are the hardest to get through the system.
This bill also eliminates the Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) pause enacted earlier this year by ruling that the Department of Energy shall proceed on applications under existing study results until new studies are finalized. The ban never made sense since the administration enacted it after rejecting a petition by environmental groups to do this very thing merely six months prior. Bringing LNG exports back online will greatly assist our allies overseas. We are Europe’s biggest supplier.
The legislation is unfortunately receiving pushback from some environmental groups who do not want fossil fuels to also be a beneficiary. They would prefer to delay this much-needed reform, that will clearly advance renewable energy production, on account of their deep-seeded animosity toward anything petroleum-based. “Permitting reforms must be evaluated through the lens of environmental sustainability,” said one group. Some of the senators who voted “no” in committee feel the same.
This narrow-minded thinking ignores realities on the ground. Energy consumption is expected to increase through 2050. Electricity demand alone is projected to grow 4.7 percent over the next five years, mostly due to the number of data centers forecasted to come online. Under current energy and grid structures, we are ill-equipped to handle the flood of electricity demand about to inundate the system. Renewables have shown to be intermittent and unreliable and will not be able to fill all our energy requirements.
Fossil fuels have been providing roughly 80 percent of U.S. energy for years; it is unrealistic to think that will change any time soon. The country requires an all-of-the-above energy approach to meet current and future needs.
Permitting reform is essential to ensure national energy security and abundance. The current statutes, which have largely been unamended the last half century, do not reflect the needs and challenges of today. We are way past due on updates. Let’s hope the rest of Congress senses the urgency.
Kristen Walker is a policy analyst for the American Consumer Institute, a nonprofit education and research organization. For more information about the Institute, visit www.theamericanconsumer.org or follow us on Twitter @ConsumerPal.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member