Is there anyone who could give this bill a quick glance and see if it's worthy of an appreciation? I just want to make sure there's not something terrible hidden in it that I'm missing.
@Alaina Coppa I'll insert my two cents as an individual … no CCL position implied at all, OK? Here's what I see.
- It's a nothingburger: no co-sponsors, no committee hearings, not even a “Summary” prepared even though the entire bill fits on two pages. It is a super-minor bill.
- It is not bipartisan, it has no legs, and therefore would not warrant CCL acknowledgement.
- Frankly, the amendments are so minor, I can't tell what they would do. I don't know why Rep. Griffin bothered with submitting it. Perhaps he has a constituent who wants this and whom Griffin is helping. Without deeper understanding, I would not feel comfortable supporting it, even individually.
All that said, if I were in a meeting with Rep. Griffin, I would appreciate “your effort to address permitting reform by introducing HR 6464” and seque into the broader discussion of “comprehensive, bipartisan permitting reform." I'd urge him to join with his colleagues on both sides of the aisle to forge a significant reform that would make development of energy resources** faster and more efficient … toward a goal of abundant, reliable, affordable energy. NOTE: when talking to Republicans, it's probably wise to point out that permitting reform will make approval of new fossil fuel projects faster and less expensive — permitting reform is technology neutral. (We know that clean energy projects form the bulk of the backlog, but you don't need to highlight that to people who don't care about renewables as much as they do about abundant, reliable, affordable energy.
Good luck!
Hi @Alaina Coppa. The bill just seems to basically bypass a hearing during the nuclear licensing process if nobody's asking for one. It seems fine to me, and could work as an appreciation for recognizing the importance of clean energy sources like nuclear power and efficient licensing and permitting processes.
@Wayne Willis Thanks for the feedback! You're right, there's really not that much to it. There has been talk of building nuclear in our district, so I wouldn't be surprised if it came as a request.
We certainly have other non-climate related bills that we could appreciate that have many more co-sponsors and are bipartisan. I'm trying to decide which is more valuable, the bipartisan piece or a bill related to our policy agenda (unfortunately the latter is pretty rare). We'll figure it out though, thanks again for your helpful input!
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