It seems like in the previous congress McConnell wouldn't entertain anything that might benefit renewable energy. If the analysis is correct that clean energy would benefit from EPRA more than fossil fuels, then why does it have support from Republicans?
Because the Energy Permitting Reform Act has some direct benefits for fossil fuels in terms of beneficial federal land lease sales and permitting, and so those industries support it, @Alex Messinger. And most Republican MOCs argue for an all-of-the-above energy abundance approach rather than a particularly anti-clean energy approach.
@Dana Nuccitelli I had a similar question, but updated from the election. Given that the Republicans will hold the White House and the Senate, most permitting reforms benefiting fossil fuels – specifically, those affecting LNG terminals and oil/gas leases – can be unilaterally achieved. Why would Republicans support a compromise when they can achieve most of their goals without compromise?
This week, I want to follow up on a Zoom seminar I gave in late October to my college alumni group. I mentioned that I would be reaching out in mid-November to encourage them to contact their Members of Congress about the permitting reform I discussed during the seminar. I was hoping the national meeting on Saturday would provide clarity on CCL's guidance, but it was surprisingly quiet. I plan to email the attendees the attached document on Wednesday, but I don't want to lead them into a situation that CCL might see as counterproductive regarding asking for permitting reform during the lame-duck session. I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter.
Permitting Reform - How To Lobby.docx
They very well might not, @Wayne Willis. Manchin and Barasso will likely make an effort to continue advancing the bill, but it's true that there's not a lot of ‘wins’ left in there that Republicans couldn't get under a Trump administration. We have to wait and see what happens with these negotiations, but it's possible that they'll be renewed next year instead with Republicans looking at NEPA reforms as their ‘wins' in the bill, for example. But we don't know yet.
@Dana Nuccitelli Thanks. I going to advise the seminar participants to “hold fire” re: contacting Congress on “bipartisan permitting reform” a la Manchin-Barrasso until CCL learns more. Thanks again.
For several reasons, @Alex Messinger.
- First of all, they might not, but we hope that they will.
- Because there are provisions they like in the bill that are beyond what can be done with executive action, like permitting reforms for mining, geothermal, hydro, also lawsuit statutes of limitations, and so on. Plus while transmission is considered to be in the ‘Dem’ column, it still generates benefits that Republicans like, for example improving energy security.
- Executive actions aren't permanent and could be overturned by the next administration.
- There's a bipartisan deal that's almost ready to go, with a lot of work put in by Manchin and Barrasso, both of whom are moving on after this year.
- The filibuster will still exist in 2025, and so despite the Republican trifecta, permitting reform will still need some bipartisan support (hence point #4 is important).
- The Republican trifecta will have higher priorities like dealing with tax cut extensions, probably the Farm Bill, etc. Permitting reform could fall by the wayside (hence point #4 again).
Basically, there's a good deal ready to go, so they might just take it. They're also negotiating to include some NEPA reforms to sweeten the pot a bit for Republicans, so we'll see what comes of that. From what we hear those negotiations are reasonable and don't include any poison pills.
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