A Major Update on Permitting Reform
Here's the latest dispatch.
Good evening,
For you newbies out there, welcome to Outsider on the Inside. I hope this dispatch from in and around the nation’s capital on underreported topics finds you well.
If you’re just discovering my musings, here’s a backgrounder and make sure we’re connected on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube.
Quick Thoughts
Support and follow the work of IWF’s Center for Energy and Conservation today if you haven’t already.
Glad WSJ journalist Evan Gershkovich and other prisoners are home.
My new podcast, Sportswoman Show, has joined the Carbon TV family.
California Governor Gavin Newsom (D-CA) recently launched a podcast. That’s a hard pass for me, sorry!
Listen to my friend Madison Hughes’ new single BLACKBERRY BRANDY.
That’s all for now. Stay tuned for the next dispatch next Friday!
We’re Finally Getting Serious About Permitting Reform
Did you know it takes 7-10 years to approve energy and mining projects in the U.S.?
As the National Mining Association explains, “In the U.S., the requirement for multiple permits and multiple agency involvement is the norm, as is the involvement of other stakeholders, including local indigenous groups, the general public and nongovernmental organizations. As a consequence of the country’s inefficient permitting system, it takes on average seven to 10 years to secure the permits needed to commence operations in the U.S.”
If this statistic infuriates you, you’re not alone.
We had National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) modernization enacted during the Trump administration. Naturally, the Biden camp undid this (ugh) and recently finalized the Bipartisan Permitting Reform Implementation Rule (or National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations Revisions Phase 2). It’s hardly bipartisan and would condition the approval of infrastructure projects on obtuse criteria like environmental justice and Indigenous Knowledge.
Nevertheless, serious permitting reform could finally be tackled. And it appears Congress has the appetite to do something.
This week, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources voted 15-4 to clear the bipartisan Energy Permitting Reform Act. The effort is spearheaded by Senators Joe Manchin (I-WV), SENR Chair, and John Barrasso (R-WY), the committee’s ranking member, respectively.
Were this bill to pass, it would (safely) unleash more energy infrastructure projects and expedite their approval. Here are the provisions I want to highlight:
Judicial Review
Sec. 101. Accelerating claims/Judicial Review:
This provision reduces the deadline for filing lawsuits against agencies approving or denying “the permitting of an energy or mineral project” from six years down to 150 days.
Mining
Sec. 210: Hardrock mining mill sites.
This provision will repeal the 2022 Rosemont decision, which required - per the Bipartisan Policy Center - upended “federal law that allowed ancillary mining activities (such as storage, waste disposal, or processing) at the site of a mining claim on federal land, regardless of the discovery of mineral deposits.”
Analysis from the University of Arizona explained the implications of the ruling:
In the Rosemont case, Rosemont Copper Company had a valid mining claim (under the Act) for the land where it proposed to locate the mine. However, in its mining plan of operations (MPO) Rosemont proposed to dump nearly two billion tons of waste rock on adjacent National Forest land. Tribes and environmental groups sued, challenging the MPO under multiple environmental and procedural statutes, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The United States Forest Service (USFS) argued that they had approved the MPO because (1) the dumping of waste rock was a use reasonably incident to Rosemont’s mining operations and (2) USFS assumed Rosemont had valid mining claims on the National Forest land where it proposed to dump the waste. The District Court found, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, that there was no basis for the USFS’s assumption that Rosemont’s mining claims on the National Forest land were valid, and therefore Rosemont had no right to dump their waste on that land.
Geothermal
Sec. 208. Geothermal leasing and permitting improvements
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) greenlit categorical exclusions for geothermal projects on public lands - two C.E.’s for the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Navy - back in April. This provision would allow other federal lands managed by Interior and Agriculture to adopt categorical exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) too. Geothermal companies would also be required to cover the costs for permitting.
NEPA defines CEs as “a class of actions that a Federal agency has determined, after review by CEQ, do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and for which, therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is normally required. The use of categorical exclusions can reduce paperwork and save time and resources..”
Natural Gas
TITLE VI—LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS EXPORTS SEC. 601. ACTION ON APPLICATIONS.
This provision would unblock the Department of Energy’s pause on liquified natural gas (LNG) export projects. A federal court blocked the pause back in June, citing LNG projects are in “the public’s interest.”
I argued this perspective in Washington Examiner in February 2024:
Natural gas makes up about 30% of energy use in the United States. Simply put, LNG is natural gas in liquid form. People like using this because it is a clean, accessible, and reliable source of energy with multiple purposes, including home heating and cooking.
Studies also show U.S. LNG exports reduce global emissions because they displace the use of foreign fuel sources that come with a greater carbon footprint. By rushing to phase out natural gas, the administration is harming our quality of life and the environment.
This decision to pause LNG exports also has vast national security implications. During the first half of 2023, U.S. LNG exports exceeded 11.6 billion cubic feet per day, making us the top exporter of LNG globally. Because our nation has been producing so much product, the Trump administration dubbed LNG “molecules of freedom” and offered other nations to buy from us. And they willingly did and do today.
Oil and Gas Leasing
Sec. 301. Offshore oil and gas leasing.
From the EPRA explainer, this provision “requires the Secretary of the Interior to hold at least one offshore oil and gas lease sale per year over the five-year period from 2025-2029, for a minimum of five sales; restricts those sales to areas currently open to leasing in the Gulf of Mexico, while preserving the existing leasing moratorium in the eastern planning area; sets the lease terms and conditions to be offered in the sales, including a minimum of 60 million acres offered in each sale; and codifies longstanding procedures for the Secretary to determine the adequacy of received bids. “
Unsurprisingly, 360 environmental groups - including many anti-hunting, pro-preservationist ones I frequently criticize here and elsewhere - decried the bill as a “fossil fuel wolf in clean energy clothing” and “Dirty Permitting Deal” to fulfill the vilified Project 2025. Their statement reads:
“This legislation guts bedrock environmental protections, endangers public health, opens up tens of millions of acres of public lands and hundreds of millions of acres of offshore waters to further oil and gas leasing, gives public lands to mining companies, and would de facto rubber stamp gas export projects that harm frontline communities and perpetuate the climate crisis.”
If passed, the bill would undermine the Biden-Harris administration’s common-sense pause on approvals of new Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) exports and restrict the Department of Energy’s (DOE) long-standing review authority by severely limiting the time DOE has to review export licenses and requiring automatic approval after a 90 day period. Moreover, this legislation would force DOE to use outdated climate science and economic analysis, while ignoring any assessment of environmental justice impacts. The bill would also lead to more leasing and drilling without federal oversight and community input and increased irresponsible speculation leading to volatile markets for U.S. consumers.
This section made me laugh. So self-defeating. LOL.
While the bill includes provisions that may possibly accelerate the deployment of the critical clean energy and the transmission infrastructure we have been championing, they should not be paired with massive giveaways to the fossil fuel and mining industry.
If you’re still unsure about permitting reform or find the topic confusing, my friend Emily Domenech - a Capitol Hill veteran who specializes in natural resources policy - just co-launched a new initiative called American Builds to normalize this reform. Here’s their mission statement:
America Builds is the leading advocate for improving federal permitting processes to unlock private investment in American energy infrastructure and manufacturing. Our mission is to streamline, strengthen, and speed permit reviews to provide the certainty and confidence project developers need to build the next generation of innovative technologies in the United States. We are committed to achieving comprehensive and bipartisan permitting reform that ensures we can produce, manufacture, and build in America regardless of politics in Washington.
I’ll weigh in on the bill for Independent Women’s Voice next week. Stay tuned!
ICYMI
Articles/commentary/media appearances from the past week.
MEDIA MENTIONS
I appeared on the syndicated Tony Kinnet Cast on Daily Signal to discuss the latest jobs report, energy demands for data centers, and corporations ditching their ESG/net-zero committments.
ARTICLES/BLOGS
Townhall: VP Harris Would Erase Millions of Freelancer Livelihoods
IWF: First Major Airline Ditches Climate Target
District of Conservation
Catch up on District of Conservation episodes below.
And check out a new episode of The Sportswoman Show with Townhall.com Editor and Fox Nation host Katie Pavlich!
Thank you for reading! Let me know your thoughts and encourage your friends to subscribe to the newsletter too.
—Gabriella
Nicely done, ma’am. Thank you. Some questions:
1. Does the proposed legislation include any measures that would “level the playing field” for all energy projects. Wind projects typically include exclusionary language for T&E species and raptors. This is not the case for hydro projects. Why is it ok for wind to kill an eagle, but not a hydro to kill a minnow?
2. How do agencies define “Indigenous Knowledge?”
3. Your discussion makes it unclear what conditions of the Rosemont decision were overturned, and it that in fact allows the project to continue. As I read your discussion, the court was clearly correct to challenge the FWS “assumption” that the company had permission to dispose of waste on unauthorized lands.
4. I found the language in the Offshore Leasing section very disappointing. First “existing leasing moratorium” does nothing to allow exploration for new deposits. Second, Subsection (c) requires the Secretary to establish a national goal of 30 gigawatts for offshore wind energy production, set a target date to achieve that goal, and periodically revise the goal. Personally, I found this to be most offensive. The government should be a referee, not an active player. “Goals” should be set by the market, and NOT SUBJECT TO THE FOUR-YEAR POLITICAL CYCLE.
My two cents, adjusted for inflation! Please keep up the fight!