OPINION:
As negotiations around the final permitting reform proposal heat up, there is an opportunity to advance smart energy policies that will unlock innovation, create jobs and restore American energy production.
The House’s passage of the Limit, Save, Grow Act was laudable. Still, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle need to come together to ensure that all-of-the-above energy reforms are prioritized to overhaul the costly, time-consuming and overly bureaucratic federal permitting process.
Just last week, the Biden administration signaled support for Sen. Joe Manchin III’s bill. It highlighted the need for updated mining permitting regulations, as well as streamlining renewables permitting on federal lands. While not all Republican goals were embraced, the need for compromise should continue to be prioritized.
Over the last five years, approving and building energy infrastructure projects in the United States has become increasingly difficult. Environmentalists have weaponized the judicial system under the framework of the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, to delay energy projects regardless of whether the projects promote fossil fuel or clean energy.
Opposition groups can file numerous lawsuits and challenges to proposed and ongoing projects, alleging that the plans have not appropriately accounted for their environmental impacts. These legal challenges often tie up companies in costly litigation for years on end, halting progress.
As NEPA has become leveraged as a tool to oppose both fossil fuel and clean energy projects, companies are more averse to providing capital for energy infrastructure plans. In other words, weaponized federal policy disincentivizes private and public companies from building American infrastructure that will help our citizens and our allies.
There are numerous permitting reform proposals in different stages on the Hill, though almost all focus on modernizing NEPA. The Lower Energy Costs Act was passed by the House last month, but movement in the Senate remains to be seen. A significant section of the proposed legislation addresses this bad-faith use of NEPA. Section 20202 requires claimants to have “participated meaningfully in the NEPA process before filing suit” and clarifies a “reasonable timeline of 120 days” for those legal challenges.
The legislation that ultimately prevails should address specific areas of concern regarding the current state of the U.S. energy sector. The bill should streamline the permitting process for energy projects under NEPA by reducing the scope of environmental reviews.
Section 20215 would require that an environmental review of an oil and gas lease or permit under NEPA would only apply to “areas that are within or immediately adjacent to the lease plot.” Similarly, the review would not consider “downstream” or “indirect” effects of oil and natural gas usage.
Energy security is national security. If the U.S. wants to continue supplying our European allies with liquefied natural gas, we need to strengthen our domestic energy supply. The policies must reinforce our domestic energy production and, more importantly, allow producers to transport energy to market and consumers faster by streamlining permitting and neutralizing the use of NEPA as a weapon.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle need to prioritize shared goals and embrace commonsense, practical policy reforms. A bipartisan deal on permitting reform can help expand clean energy projects nationwide. Without reform, the U.S. is limiting our own potential. We need more infrastructure for all forms of energy.
• Patrice Douglas is an attorney and former chairman of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.