PERMIT Act, "Pollution to Permit" Act
I got an email from Clean Water Action about a bill that they are calling the “pollution to permit” act. It looks like it would loosen regulations on what can be released into bodies of water. It also talks a lot about permitting reform, but focusing specifically on making it easier to permit without regard to impact on water. I was considering adding it as a potential action for our members to take in this month's action guide for our volunteers. I try to include five each month. Does anyone have any opinions on this one? I know we support permitting reform, but this doesn't look like something CCL would support if it fell within the parameters of bills CCL National looks at, of course. Feedback?
@Cheryl Clark Clean Water Action seems like a left-leaning partisan organization, so I'm not sure we should be taking our cues from them alone on legislation. Are there nonpartisan or right-leaning organizations against this bill?
Hi @Cheryl Clark. Firstly I'd note that the PERMIT Act will not pass as a standalone bill, and thus I would advise against allocating any resources in its direction right now. It's possible that it could be incorporated into a comprehensive bipartisan permitting reform bill, in which case we'll have to assess the pros and cons of the entire package to determine whether it's a net positive or negative, as we did with the Energy Permitting Reform Act last year.
I actually mentioned the possibility of some language like this being included in such a bill in a blog post two years ago, when permitting reform negotiations were still quite new:
Another key concession would involve limiting the reach of Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. This section of the law allows states to certify whether federal projects meet local water quality rules. Some states like New York and Washington have used it to reject permits for fossil fuel projects like gas pipelines and coal terminals, sometimes invoking air quality and climate protections. Republicans would like to see the scope of this section limited to direct water quality impacts, given that it’s part of the Clean Water Act. A recent Supreme Court decision called Sackett v. EPA that limited the bodies of water protected by the Clean Water Act (including Section 401) may make this concession more palatable to Democrats.
As I noted there, the Supreme Court already severely limited the applicability of Section 401 of the Clean Air Act in the Sackett case (which I personally thought was a bad decision, but it's nevertheless now the law of the land). I don't know the intricacies of the PERMIT Act, but it's certainly not as big of a deal as it would have been pre-Sackett. I believe there were discussions about including this kind of language in the Energy Permitting Reform Act, but at the time there wasn't sufficient support for it. Remember that a comprehensive permitting reform bill has to have bipartisan support to overcome the Senate filibuster.
Anyway, I'd advise waiting until [if] we have text of a bipartisan permitting reform bill before worrying about this too much, but my initial thoughts are that this kind of text could be included, and I personally probably wouldn't consider it a deal-breaker given the Sackett decision.
@Dana Nuccitelli Thanks for the quick and detailed response. Having this level of analysis so quickly is incredibly helpful. It allows me to allocate my time and attention more effectively. Thank you, Dana.
@Dana Nuccitelli
Much thanks, Dana! I appreciate your analysis since you understand policy so much better than I do!
--Thanks!
Cheryl
Search Forums
Forum help
Select a question below
CCL Community Guidelines
- Discuss, ask and share
- Be respectful
- Respect confidentiality
- Protect privacy
CCL Blog Policy Area Categories
- Price on Carbon
- CBAM
- Clean Energy Permitting Reform
- Healthy Forests
- Building Electrification and Efficiency