The GOP’s Big Permitting Reform Idea Is Mostly Dead

The Republican effort at permitting reform by way of the reconciliation process appears to have failed — or at least gotten washed out in the “Byrd Bath.”

Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee announced late Thursday night that the chamber’s parliamentarian had advised that several provisions of the new reconciliation bill text violated the “Byrd Rule” and thus were subject to a 60-vote threshold instead of simple majority rule. The parliamentarian has been going over the Senate bill for the past week and her rulings on more sections of the bill are expected this weekend.

The permitting reform plan drawn by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee essentially allowed project developers to prevent environmental reviews from being subject to litigation if they paid an upfront fee of 125% of the review’s expected cost. A similar provision was included in the House bill.

Rhode Island Democrat Sheldon White House, the ranking member on the Committee, described the permitting language as “turning the National Environmental Policy Act into a pay-to-play scheme” and “a scam ripe for Trump-style corruption.”

Clean energy groups have historically supported efforts to streamline and speed up permitting (and many environmental groups have opposed them), although typically bipartisan ones, like the legislation worked out by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in the previous Congress, that never gained support in the House of Representatives. Environmental groups have long worried that permitting reform, even bipartisan bills, would benefit the fossil fuel industry by disabling checks against massive oil, coal, and gas projects, whereas the renewable energy industry often sees as an opportunity to more quickly and cheaply advance their own projects.

Payment of the fee would also impose a one year timeline for an environmental impact statement, the most extensive type of review, and a six month timeline for an environmental assessment. The timelines were not ruled out by the parliamentarian, according to the Senate Budget Democrats.

The payment aspect of the plan was crucial to give it a shot at surviving the Byrd Rule, because it meant that the provisions decreased the deficit and thus could be argued to be primarily budgetary in nature (the same way, say, a new tax is).

While the parliamentarian or the Budget Committee didn’t disclose the justification for ruling out the judicial review provisions, Bobby Kogan, a former Budget Committee staffer who works at the liberal Center for American Progress, told me that the provision could have tripped up multiple provisions of the Byrd Rule.

“My guess is that judicial review is presumably outside the jurisdiction of EPW and it’s also probably non-budgetary. If it was budgetary, it’s probably merely incidental — it’s fundamentally about permitting,” Kogan said. “Almost certainly, the judicial thing was killed for merely incidental,” Kogan told me.

A Senate Budget spokesperson did not return a request for comment.

Republicans in the Senate could simply drop the provision or force the whole Senate to take a vote on it — but that vote would be subject to the 60-vote threshold to defeat a filibuster.

While the parliamentarian’s ruling probably means that this attempt at meaningful permitting reform is likely dead, the Trump administration and the Supreme Court have taken several whacks at the National Environmental Policy Act, with the Court recently ruling that agencies can limit themselves to the immediately environmental impact of government actions and instructing lower courts to give more deference to agencies’ reviews.