This bipartisan legislation will strengthen American energy security by accelerating the permitting process for critical energy and mineral projects of all types in the United States.
very early. Can see list of co-sponsors yet. The one-pager looks like it includes many of our priorities, but I'm waiting what CCL staff's analysis is.
I'm kinda surprised that it dropped today in the wake of all the news over the weekend. That said, it does portend time for action yet in 2024.
Transmission: includes inter-regional transmission planning similar to the BIG WIRES Act, although doesn't include a minimum transfer requirement between regions. Crucially, gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) the authority to permit big important interstate transmission lines after giving states 1 year to act, without requiring the Department of Energy to first establish national interest corridors. This is an incredibly important provision that we didn't expect to make it into the package because we thought it didn't have Republican support, so a very pleasant surprise! Possibly the most important provision in the whole bill. Also sets up a transmission line cost allocation system.
Renewables: doubles production targets for permitting renewables on federal lands, to 50 gigawatts (GW). Establishes a national goal of 30 GW for offshore wind energy production. Sets regulatory agency application response timelines for renewable energy projects on federal land. Establishes permitting categorical exclusions for low disturbance activities for renewable energy projects, including sites that have already undergone NEPA review, and for some electrical transmission upgrades including reconductoring and using existing rights-of-way.
Technology-specific reforms: Allows for permitting categorical exclusions for activities required to test, monitor, calibrate, explore, or confirm geothermal resources on federal land. Requires annual federal geothermal lease sales. Allows for existing hydropower construction deadlines to be extended by 4 years.
Judicial reform: shortens the statute of limitations for bringing a lawsuit against an environmental permit for an energy or mining project once it has been issued, from 6 years to 5 months. This reduces uncertainty for project developers while still providing a reasonable amount of time for stakeholders to challenge an environmental permit if they disagree with it. Expedites consideration for litigation of authorizations for energy and mineral projects. Most judicial reforms fall under the jurisdiction of a different committee, Energy and Natural Resources, which may weigh in further.
Fossil fuels: Requires at least one offshore oil & gas sale and wind sale per year in 2025–2029, imposing minimum acreage requirements for both. It's worth bearing in mind that oil & gas companies are sitting on a lot of undeveloped oil & gas leases. Holding a lease sale doesn't necessarily mean the leases will be purchased, let alone developed. Mandates 90-day decisions on approval or denial of liquified natural gas (LNG) exports. Sets deadlines for leasing processes for coal located on federal lands.
Community engagement: Department of Interior may accept donations from renewable energy companies to improve community engagement in the permitting process. Recent rules from the White House Council on Environmental Quality included a lot more on community engagement already as well.
There are a few more provisions – see the summary document for a little more detail. We're told that to expect some modeling results soon to estimate the bill's impact on climate pollution. We anticipate that the emissions reductions from the transmission and clean energy permitting provisions will far outweigh any small increases from the fossil fuel provisions. Overall we think it's a really good bill! As Ben put it in the statement linked above,
The Energy Permitting Act of 2024 represents a giant leap down the path of building new clean energy infrastructure that will lower emissions, decrease costs, and increase reliability for people nationwide.
I'll also give a CCU training about the bill's details, likely in September 🤓
@Dana Nuccitelli, great work getting this summary out! When this came across my Google feed I was wondering where CCL would stand. I'm glad to see we support it. But we should be cognizant of the fact that some influential enviro groups are already blasting it as a “giveaway to the fossil fuel industry.” Here's Earthjustice and Sierra and, of course, the Center for Biological Diversity.
We just need our volunteers, many of whom follow these groups, to be prepared for this onslaught so they are not shocked when they get angry pushback.
@Dana Nuccitelli thank you! I hope we will receive more info before the CCU in September because as @Richard Knight said, positioning this in blueish areas with Democratic Senators and left-of-center volunteers looks tricky. At first blush, it looks like it has the potential to be divisive among CCL volunteers. Our volunteers need to understand and be able to articulate why current actions of this Congress and Administration are not sufficient. Clear modeling about projected GHG impact will help.
Other questions—
Do we anticipate a companion bill in the House?
In terms of timing, is there a thought that there will be an attempt to get it through committee prior to the lame duck, then pass it in the lame duck? That again seems like tight timing for those in states with committee members to understand and advocate.
We have heard from several offices that a large barrier to timely permitting is staff shortages in federal agencies such as Bureau of Land Management. There is an oblique reference to directing more staff to permitting activities. Is there funding for additional or clarity on addressing the staffing shortages?
Hi @Michelle Hamilton. The Secretaries are just stand-ins for their departments in legalese. The donations would just go to the DOI for community involvement efforts.
The package is expected to go through committee markup next Wednesday, @Joanne Leovy. But the idea is to position it for a potential vote in the lame duck period. We're preparing an action for states with those members. We don't know what the House will do, but the Energy and Natural Resources committee may add some more provisions that are within their scope, relating to judicial reform, for example.
@Richard Knight The League of Conservation Voters says this:
Washington, D.C.— In response to the release of Senator Manchin and Senator Barrasso’s Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024, the League of Conservation Voters released the following statement from Vice President of Federal Policy, Matthew Davis:
“The Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 is filled with more handouts to fossil fuel executives and gives a pass to Big Oil and Big Polluters to move forward with drilling and spilling that is harmful to our families, communities and the environment. It limits the Department of Energy on studying the very real impacts of liquid methane gas on consumers and the environment, attempts to stymie the Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts to reduce carbon pollution from power plants, and forces more of our public lands and waters to be leased to coal, oil, and gas companies. It is clear that this bill continues to do the bidding for Big Oil and is a blatant give away of our public lands. These environmentally damaging provisions are dangerous to communities and consumers, and must be rejected. Efforts to improve the resiliency of our electricity grids and the transition to clean energy must not be paired with fossil fuel handouts that continue to damage communities and our climate.”
Thanks @Dana Nuccitelli! That answers part of my question. Here's the other part: Is it common for companies to give donations to DOI? What would motivate a company to make a donation?
@Joanne Leovy I agree: "Clear modeling about projected GHG impact will help." I look forward to an analysis of the relative GHG burden that could be expected and compare to the GWs of renewables ‘permitted’.
They would be motivated by the desire to improve community engagement so that the permitting process goes more smoothly with less resistance, @Michelle Hamilton. I think ‘donations’ are just a stand-in for providing funding. I wouldn't get too hung up on the word.
Hi @George Hansen. While fossil fuel groups like the bill, so does basically every organization associated with clean energy or the grid or minerals. Several environmental groups are opposed, but they tend to be those that largely focus on suing mostly fossil fuel projects, and/or that aren't willing to accept any benefit to the fossil fuel industry even if net emissions decrease. I compiled a list of organizations' positions on the bill below.
To answer your question, US fossil fuels do tend to be less carbon intensive than those from many other countries. Ideally we would still extract less of them, but the key question is not whether the bill will modestly benefit domestic fossil fuels; it's whether the bill will reduce climate pollution on net. I think it's clear that it will, and we should get some analysis demonstrating that in the near future.
Although I deplore the environmental contamination from oil spills such as the Exxon Valdez in Prince William Sound, Alaska, I've read that nearly that much is spilled into the Niger Delta every year, on average. As world environmental pollution goes, it's probably better that it be drilled here--if it must be drilled at all. I agree that we ought do whatever it takes to reduce the use of fossil fuels, even if it allows more domestic drilling. Thanks.
I don't think it's going to make a big difference in domestic drilling either, @George Hansen. The bill would require more oil & gas leases, but oil & gas companies are already sitting on a lot of unused leases. It would require faster decisions on LNG exports, but a judge already lifted the LNG export pause. All in all, while fossil fuel companies will appreciate faster permitting decisions, I don't think it's going to make a big difference in terms of overall extraction.
And the most effective way to reduce extraction is to reduce demand, by burying fossil fuels in an avalanche of cheap clean energy, which permitting reform would help accomplish faster.
“burying fossil fuels in an avalanche of cheap clean energy.”
I spend as much time as anybody terrified at the thought of the world my generation is leaving for my three granddaughters, and this quote encapsulates the market trend that gives me enough optimism to keep doing all the work we do in CCL: after a couple of decades of public investment ("subsidies"), zero carbon energy sources have become the least expensive sources of energy in most parts of the world.
There are absolutely costs associated as we integrate these non-dispatchable forms of energy into the grid. But that thing my parents used to call “Yankee ingenuity” (basically, human ability to think) means that we're figuring out how to replace easily dispatchable tanks full of petrochemicals with other forms of easily dispatchable energy storage like batteries, hydro, gravity systems, and many more.
@Dana Nuccitelli Thanks for answering all our questions so quickly!
What concerns me is the lack of real community engagement (based on your summary). Is there more in there? Asking my MoC to support this without more community engagement provisions would probably lose us points with them.
Below is what we were hoping for. Is any of this included?
@Dana Nuccitelli, thanks for doing the work to assemble this awesome list. I also see that, FWIW, Heatmap supports the bill. It's unfortunate that whenever there is a climate conflict in DC, the reporters run to the most vocal groups like EarthJustice to get the opposing view so that the story frame is “industry says A and environmentalists say B.”
@Dana Nuccitelli Thanks for this summary. Here in Progressive Vermont our MOCs will be very skeptical and we need to craft a tailored message. We heard from both Senate offices that a compromise between Manchin, who left the Democratic Party, and Barrasso would be hard for Democrats to support, let alone Progressives.
Additional fossil fuel permitting, shrinking the window for lawsuits against energy and mining project permits to 5 months, a 90 day window for LNG export decisions, allowing mine operators to use federal land that they don’t have mineral rights on for their milling and tailings/waste dumping operations (overriding recent court decisions) - these are some items I predict will be quite controversial.
Maybe new/more progressive language will emerge from the mark up session?
Hi @Judy Davis. I hope the offices will judge the bill on its content rather than its authors.
I wouldn't describe it as having ‘additional fossil fuel permitting,’ but rather additional lease sales (and as noted above, oil & gas companies are already sitting on a lot of leased land) and some expedited permitting, which just means getting to final project approval or denial faster, not necessarily more fossil fuels. And if groups feel that 5 months isn't enough time for them to make a decision about whether to bring a lawsuit against an environmental permit, they can just err on the side of caution and bring the lawsuit.
Our understanding is that the mineral milling provision came from a Democratic office. It's new to me, but it sounds like allowing land adjacent to a mine to be used for things like processing ore and addressing waste. But I'm interested in learning more about this provision.
It's also important to bear in mind that this is a bipartisan compromise, so nobody is going to like (or dislike) every provision therein. The key question is whether it's good on net, and honestly it's a much better bill than we expected to see, especially on transmission, which is critically important.
There will still be more negotiations. Energy and Natural Resources may very well introduce some additional permitting reforms that are within their oversight (e.g. relating to judicial review). We might see something out of the Peters-Westerman negotiations in the House too.
We'll need a lot of copper and other minerals for this transition. https://www.wri.org/insights/critical-minerals-us-climate-goals The poor and underprivileged are the ones who will suffer most from climate change. Expressing it in terms of climate justice will make it more palatable.
Are there environmental regulations currently in place that will apply to mineral extraction, even on federal land?
@George Hansen, that's a good report from WRI on the minerals critical to the energy transition, that I had not seen yet. Thanks.
Here's an excellent five-episode series from the “Big Switch” podcast by Dr. Melissa Lott of Columbia University's Center on Global Energy Policy, which grapples with the issues of resource extraction and justice from multiple angles. And it's critically important to the health of ecosystems and humans that we use Earth's resources much more wisely than we have in the last couple of centuries.
On the other hand, we must always remember the mind-numbing scale of fossil fuel extraction, currently at 15 BILLION tonnes per year. Michael Thomas of Distilled published a great analysis last year that concludes “A Fossil Fuel Economy Requires 535x More Mining Than a Clean Energy Economy.” The harms from each type of extraction are not a direct apples-to-apples comparison, but shifting rapidly away from a fossil-powered economy makes us and the planet much better off.
@Dana Nuccitelli Great stuff Dana. @Tamara Staton and I were talking about the bill and how to address some of the pushback folks in Hawaii are receiving. Could you comment on what Senators Barrasso and Manchin see in this bill? That is, what are their reasons for introducing this bill? Thanks for any information you or others can provide to these questions.
Hi @Paul Bernstein. I can't speak for the Senators' thoughts, other than their desire to build energy infrastructure in a more expedient manner. But as for why permitting reform in general is important, I'd point folks to our training pages on the subject (see below). Feel free to bring any specific questions/concerns here. And as noted, I'll do a CCU training about the bill where people can grill me with questions as well. Possibly on September 12, but we're still trying to nail down the best date for it.
@Paul Bernstein @dananuccitelli One thought might be to read their statement on the bill: This paragraph might offer the insight you're seeking:
“The United States of America is blessed with abundant natural resources that have powered our nation to greatness and allow us to help our friends and allies around the world. Unfortunately, today our outdated permitting system is stifling our economic growth, geopolitical strength, and ability to reduce emissions. After over a year of holding hearings in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, thoughtfully considering input from our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and engaging in good faith negotiations, Ranking Member Barrasso and I have put together a commonsense, bipartisan piece of legislation that will speed up permitting and provide more certainty for all types of energy and mineral projects without bypassing important protections for our environment and impacted communities. The Energy Permitting Reform Act will advance American energy once again to bring down prices, create domestic jobs, and allow us to continue in our role as a global energy leader. The time to act on it is now,”
@Tamara Staton Thank you. They're certainly saying the right things.
Search Forums
Forum help
Select a question below
CCL Community's Sitewide Forums are an easy and exciting way to interact with other members on CCL Community. The Sitewide Forums are focused on subjects and areas of general interest to members. Each forum consists of topics that members have posted, along with replies from other members. Some forums are divided into categories to group similar topics together.
Any members can post a topic or reply to a topic.
The Sitewide Forums are open to the entire CCL community to create, comment on, and view online discussions. Posts and comments should address the subject or focus of the selected forum.
Note: Categories can only be created by community administrators.
Be thoughtful, considerate (nonpartisan) and complete. The more information you supply, the better the better and more engaging the conversation will be.
Feel like cursing? Please don’t.
Ask yourself, “Would my topic post reveal sensitive or confidential information?” If so, please don't post!
Flag/report any offending comments, and then move on. In the rare instance of a comment containing a potentially credible threat, escalate that immediately to CCL.
If the Sitewide Forum has no categories, select the "Add Topic" button at the top of topics window.
If the forum has categories, when you click on "Add Topic," a dropdown list of the categories appears. Select the desired category and then "Add Topic."
In either case this brings up a box to enter both the topic subject and topic text.
If you have questions or wish to add comments on a posted forum topic, open the post and click the blue “Add Reply” button at top. You can also click on the “Reply” link at the bottom of the original topic posting.
This opens a text box. Add your reply. You can also add documents by dragging a file into the text box. Click “Post” at the bottom of the reply window This will add your reply to other replies (if there are any), sorted by oldest on top.
If, however, you want to reply directly to someone else’s reply, click on the “Reply” link at the bottom of their reply.
When replying to a topic post or a topic reply it may be helpful to quote the original text, or the part that your reply is referring to. To quote a topic or reply, click on the "Quote" link at bottom of post.
When you do this the full text of either the post or reply will be pulled into a reply text box. If desired, you can remove parts of the quoted text in order to get the portion you are interested in quoting.
You can subscribe to notifications of new postings from any of the Sitewide Forums or forum categories. To subscribe, select the green “Subscribe” button at the top of the forum. Click on dropdown arrow to select frequency of notification.
If you are already subscribed, the button will display “Unsubscribe.” Select it to unsubscribe or select the dropdown arrow to modify frequency of notification.
Note: If you subscribe to a Sitewide Forum, such as "Media Relations" that has categories (such as "LTEs and Op-Eds"), you will also be subscribed to all the categories. If you wish to subscribe to only one or more of the categories, unsubscribe to the parent forum and subscribe individually to desired categories.
.
If you see a topic post or reply that interests you or that you like, you can click the “Like” icon at the bottom of the topic post or the reply. This lets the poster know that the topic was helpful. It also contributes to the topic’s popularity, which influences where it is listed in the "Popular" forum tab. There are also additional reactions available for members to use. Mouseover the "Like" icon to choose one of these options: Love, Clap, Celebrate, Insightful, or Interesting.
