The Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions)

Description

This training page provides a summary of what’s in the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 (S.4753) and more about CCL's position on the bill. On July 21, 2024 Senators Manchin (I-WV) and Barrasso (R-WY) introduced a bipartisan permitting reform bill called the Energy Permitting Reform Act. This bill is a significant advancement in CCL’s clean energy permitting reform policy agenda, that we have been advocating for over the past two years. As with any piece of bipartisan legislation, there are provisions that people of different perspectives will like, and some they will dislike.

Nobody will love everything in the bill, but the big question is, will it be a positive step towards reducing climate pollution? That answer is a clear 'yes,' as explained more thoroughly in the FAQs below.

Breadcrumb

/topics/clean-energy-permitting-reform

TOC and Guide Section

Why is permitting reform even important?

To do our part to meet the Paris agreement’s goals to reduce climate pollution enough to limit global warming to less than 2°C, America committed to cutting our emissions 50% by 2030 and reaching net zero by 2050. Right now we’re not on track to meet those commitments. Before Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) in 2022, America was on a path to fall about halfway short of our Paris targets.

The IRA will close that gap and bring us closer to our commitments, but expert analysis found that a slow permitting process is creating a bottleneck that’s slowing down the deployment of key technologies like electrical transmission lines, and thus clean energy projects like solar and wind farms that need those transmission lines to connect to the power grid. Clean energy permitting reform is thus crucial to loosen that bottleneck and maximize the potential of the IRA to bring America closer to meeting our Paris commitments.

What’s in the Energy Permitting Reform Act?

The Bipartisan Policy Center has provided a good summary of what’s in the bill. Here is a condensed version:

⚡ More electrical transmission lines, sooner

The Energy Permitting Reform Act (S.4753) includes some important provisions to:

Require transmission operators to include inter-regional transmission in their planning (similar to the BIG WIRES Act)

Giving the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) the authority to:

Permit big important interstate electrical transmission lines
Fairly allocate the costs of new transmission lines proportional to their benefits.

🎯 Strong clean energy targets and faster timelines

On clean energy, it includes:

Strong targets for building renewable energy on federal lands
Speeds up the permitting of renewable projects
Speeds up the permitting of geothermal energy exploration projects and hold geothermal lease sales on federal lands
Extends deadlines for proposed hydroelectric projects running behind schedule

⏳ Statute of Limitations

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.

Most judicial reforms fall under the jurisdiction of a different committee, Environment and Public Works, which may weigh in further at a later date.

⛏️ Mineral Mining ‘Milling’

Allows for mineral mining ‘milling’ (practices like disposing of mining waste or processing ore) on federal lands nearby, but not on the mining land itself. More on this below.

💵 Funding for Improved Community Engagement

The Energy Permitting Reform Act allows the Department of Interior to accept funding from renewable energy companies to improve community engagement in the permitting process for related projects. Recent rules from the White House Council on Environmental Quality and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission included a lot more on community engagement already as well.

🤔 Requirements for lease sales and permits

It also includes some provisions related to fossil fuels, such as:

Requires at least one offshore oil and gas lease sale (and also offshore wind lease sale) per year
provisions related to approving or denying liquified natural gas (LNG) export terminal permits.

Who supports and who opposes the bill, and why?

👍 Supporters

You can see a list of organizations and individuals who support the bill in this table.

Many organizations that work on clean energy, the electrical grid, mining and minerals, and bipartisan energy and climate groups support the bill. So do some fossil fuel organizations.

That’s because the Energy Permitting Reform Act includes provisions that reduce permitting delays for all of these technologies.

👎 Opposition

Environmental organizations listed in this letter have expressed strong opposition to the bill, generally either because they’re not willing to compromise on fossil fuels, or because they believe the emissions increases from the fossil fuel provisions (especially related to LNG export terminals) will outweigh the emissions reductions from the transmission and clean energy provisions. More on this below.

In October 2024, 118 climate scientists signed a letter to Congress opposing this bill (see this sitewide forum thread to find out more), which might understandably raise some eyebrows within CCL. After all, don't we normally agree with climate scientists?

As a climate organization, we do agree with climate scientists on the goal of reducing pollution and stopping climate change — no question.

In this case, these climate and earth scientists are not writing about their area of expertise. Instead, they are critiquing the energy systems modeling about the predicted impact of the bill, which is a totally different field. Their letter is, unfortunately, pretty inaccurate in its claims. For example, one main critique from these scientists is that modeling of the bill doesn't account for the global impact of fossil fuels — but it does. (The modeling of the bill was released in early September 2024 and you can read all the details about the modeling here or watch this training). We continue to respect the expertise of the energy systems modelers who thoroughly assessed the impact of this bill, and we trust their conclusion that the Energy Permitting Reform Act would significantly reduce climate pollution.

Controversial Aspects

🚢 LNG export terminal provisions

For LNG export terminal applications that are currently under review, the bill states that the Department of Energy (DOE) has to use existing studies and procedures for assessing emissions and economic impacts of those facilities.

Once DOE’s environmental assessments are done, the bill also directs DOE to approve or deny the LNG export terminal permits within 90 days.

Without the bill

January 2024 - The Biden administration had paused LNG export terminal permitting for the DOE to more carefully consider the impacts of these facilities on climate emissions in its environmental reviews.
July 2024 - A federal judge blocked that pause in July 2024, ruling that it was outside of DOE’s authority.

The DOE is in the process of evaluating next steps, so it’s difficult to know what will happen with the pending LNG facilities even if the Energy Permitting Reform Act doesn’t pass. Even if DOE appeals the court decision and wins, there’s a vigorous debate in the scientific literature about the climate impact of LNG exports. It depends on the methane leakage during gas liquefaction and transportation, and what fuels that LNG is replacing. Read more about the possible scenarios here.

Flawed Rapid Analysis

Symons Public Affairs did a very rapid estimate of the pending LNG facilities’ climate impact, which was subsequently cited by Bill McKibben and all opposing environmental groups to justify their opposition to the Energy Permitting Reform Act.

This analysis claimed that if the Energy Permitting Reform Act is passed, these LNG provisions will “lock in new greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 165 coal-fired power plants or more.”

This analysis is fundamentally flawed in two key ways:

It assumes that if the bill is passed, all pending LNG export terminal permits will be approved, and if the bill isn’t passed, their permits will all be denied. But that’s not realistic. Even if the bill weren’t passed, it’s very possible that all or at least some of the terminals would still be permitted and built.
It assumes that the LNG from these facilities (which would mostly be exported to Asia) will almost entirely displace renewable energy sources. But that’s unrealistic. In reality, it could potentially displace:
1. other high-emissions fossil fuels such as coal
2. natural gas from Russia, whose gas infrastructure is very leaky.
3. lower-carbon energy sources

And there’s a vigorous debate in the scientific literature about how LNG emissions compare to those from coal or other gas sources.

But a good analysis must try to account for the LNG emissions compared to those from the energy sources they would replace in the specific countries receiving the LNG exports.

This is a very difficult analysis, but the LNG provisions probably aren’t a big deal as discussed below.

📄 Other fossil fuel provisions

Federal oil and gas leases

The IRA included similar provisions to those in the Energy Permitting Reform Act that require federal oil & gas lease sales.

Energy modeling analyses projected that these IRA provisions would only result in a small increase in climate pollution. That’s in part because oil & gas companies are already sitting on a lot of unused leases. Holding a land lease auction doesn’t mean that all the land will be purchased, or that the land that’s leased will all be developed for oil & gas extraction. And it’s in part because there’s a relatively fixed global demand for oil & gas, and so to some degree adding more fossil fuel extraction will displace other sources of oil & gas in the global market.

Leasing for coal on federal land

The bill also sets deadlines for leasing processes for coal located on federal lands, but coal use in the US is already in the midst of a rapid decline as it’s replaced by cheaper and cleaner energy sources.

Removes the need for both state and federal permits

It also clarifies that a federal permit to drill for oil & gas wells is not required on non-federal lands if the federal government owns less than 50% of the subsurface minerals, or if the well is drilled on non-federal land and then horizontally through federal land.

This provision is intended to eliminate the need to get both a state and federal permits, and like these other fossil fuel-related provisions in the bill, it’s unlikely to have a significant impact on emissions.

⛏️ Mining milling provisions

Some mining activities referred to as ‘milling’ (like waste disposal and processing of ore) had been allowed on federal land nearby, but not on mineral mine land, until a recent court decision related to the proposed Rosemont copper mine in Arizona.

The Energy Permitting Reform Act includes a provision changing the law such that mining activities can once again use nearby federal land for milling. These activities must still be included in the mining plans that undergo environmental reviews.

Rosemont Copper Mine

The inclusion of this provision might result in the Rosemont copper mine being approved, since its environmental impact statement found that the project will meet all environmental requirements and standards required by the regulatory agencies and it has a final Record of Decision from the US Forest Service. Rosemont mine opponents who disagree with the Forest Service’s decision that the planned mining operations meet environmental standards were pleased about the court decision that halted the project, and will be displeased with this provision in the Energy Permitting Reform Act.

Environmental Impacts vs. Meeting Demand for Clean Technology

There will be adverse environmental impacts associated with disposing of mine waste in nearby forest land. Whether those impacts are ‘worth’ the benefits associated with the mine including the copper it will produce – a mineral that is in very high demand for clean technologies like electric cars, solar panels, and wind turbines – is a subjective question.

Negative Impacts of International Mining

It’s also worth bearing in mind that most copper currently comes from Chile, Peru, the Congo, and China. These countries generally have less stringent environmental and worker safety regulations than the United States, and there are also geopolitical reasons why it’s beneficial to obtain more critical minerals domestically.

What impact will the bill have on climate pollution?

Four expert energy modeling groups estimated the impact that key provisions in the Energy Permitting Reform Act would have on climate pollution. Jesse Jenkins at Princeton Zero Lab evaluated the impacts of the LNG provisions. RMI estimated the impacts of the electrical transmission provisions. Resources for the Future (RFF) looked at the onshore oil & gas leasing. Third Way assessed the offshore oil & gas leasing and compiled all the results together into one report. The results are illustrated in the figure below.

e9ffa07d69aed7704ef22449d2e3afaf-huge-sn

To put this into perspective, if the US were to continue on our current greenhouse gas emissions trajectory, we would put about 65 billion tons (65 gigatons, or Gt) of carbon dioxide-equivalent climate pollution into the atmosphere between 2030 and 2050. The best estimate from this modeling of the Energy Permitting Reform Act is a reduction of about 6.5 Gt of climate pollution over the same timeframe, or about a 10% cut in total American climate pollution over those two decades. That’s a big deal!

But the modeling made some very conservative assumptions as well. For example, RMI assumed that the amount of electricity demand in the US would double between now and 2050, but the Princeton Net Zero America study estimated that to achieve our commitment of reaching net zero emissions by 2050, due to all the electrification of vehicles and buildings and industry, power demand could double or it could quadruple. And RMI assumed that regional transmission operators will only build enough power lines to transfer 20% of their peak annual electricity load with their neighboring regions, whereas a recent MIT study found that at least 30% would be the optimal amount.

If we build more transmission lines than in these conservative estimates, it means we can also build more clean energy and reduce climate pollution even further. Using some of the alternative and more ambitious transmission building scenarios in Appendix A of the RMI report, the Energy Permitting Reform Act could cut climate pollution by over 16 Gt, or up to a 25% cut in total US emissions between 2030 and 2050.

How does this bill stack up with regard to environmental justice?

America's current fossil-fueled energy system disproportionately harms communities of color, low-income communities, and frontline communities. There are communities breathing air pollution from coal and gas power plants today.

The unfortunate reality is that most of the fossil fuel facilities and infrastructure aided by the Energy Permitting Reform Act will be built with or without this bill. But the best way to stop fossil fuels is to bury them under an avalanche of clean energy. The faster we start building the necessary infrastructure to transition to solar and wind farms and connect more clean energy to America's power grid, the faster we can begin to improve the air quality and therefore people's health in those frontline communities. By loosening the bottleneck slowing down clean energy, the Energy Permitting Reform Act helps make that happen.

In fact, a Department of Energy report found that building more transmission lines and clean energy through measures like those in the bill would reduce the need for polluting 'peaker' gas power plants that are disproportionately located in historically disadvantaged communities. The associated reduction in air pollution could avoid up to 6,800 premature deaths over the next 25 years predominantly in environmental justice communities.

In CCL's view, if we have the opportunity to pass a bill that will significantly reduce climate pollution overall, we feel it's important to take that opportunity. However, environmental justice groups should have a seat at the table in discussing potential changes and improvements to the bill to protect frontline communities.

The Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions)