Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Energy

The GOP’s Big Permitting Reform Idea Is Mostly Dead

Zapped by the Senate parliamentarian

The Capitol and power lines.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

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.

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe today to experience Heatmap’s expert analysis 
of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Energy

Why the Northeast’s Cap and Trade Market Is Suddenly Controversial

Pennsylvania is out, Virginia wants in, and New Jersey is treating it like a piggybank.

Power lines and the East Coast.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative has been quietly accelerating the energy transition in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast since 2005. Lately, however, the noise around the carbon market has gotten louder as many of the compact’s member states have seen rising energy prices dominate their local politics.

What is RGGI, exactly? How does it work? And what does it have to do with the race for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination?

Keep reading...Show less
Green
Spotlight

The Trump Administration Is Now Delaying Renewable Projects It Thinks Are Ugly

The Army Corps of Engineers is out to protect “the beauty of the Nation’s natural landscape.”

Donald Trump, wetlands, and renewable energy.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

A new Trump administration policy is indefinitely delaying necessary water permits for solar and wind projects across the country, including those located entirely on private land.

The Army Corps of Engineers published a brief notice to its website in September stating that Adam Telle, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, had directed the agency to consider whether it should weigh a project’s “energy density” – as in the ratio of acres used for a project compared to its power generation capacity – when issuing permits and approvals. The notice ended on a vague note, stating that the Corps would also consider whether the projects “denigrate the aesthetics of America’s natural landscape.”

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

A Data Center Dies in Wisconsin

Plus more of the week’s biggest renewable energy fights.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Dane County, Wisconsin – The QTS data center project we’ve been tracking closely is now dead, after town staff in the host community of DeForest declared its plans “unfeasible.”

  • As I previously explained to Fight readers, this QTS project was a quintessential data center conflict. Not only was it situated in a blue county inside of a purple state, but a recent imbroglio over emails between the village mayor and QTS have made it a key example of how private conversations between tech companies and local governments can tarnish the odds of getting a data center permitted.
  • Late Tuesday, DeForest town staff issued a public statement disclosing they would recommend rejecting QTS’ petition to annex land for construction, without which the developer can’t build. A vote on whether to formally deny the petition was scheduled for February 3.
  • If the town rejects the project, the statement reads, DeForest staff expect QTS to “formally withdraw” its request for changes to land zoning plans and the annexation application. The town also cited vociferous opposition to the project, declaring: “The Village of DeForest appreciates the dedicated engagement of our community. Engagement is at the core of democracy. Reviewing public information, participating in public meetings, and discussing potential opportunities and impacts are all important civic activities.”
  • I was prepared to wait and see what happened at the public meeting before declaring this project dead in the water, but QTS itself has gone and done it : “Through our engagement, it has become clear that now is not the right time for our proposed project to move forward in DeForest.”

Marathon County, Wisconsin – Elsewhere in Wisconsin, this county just voted to lobby the state’s association of counties to fight for more local control over renewable energy development.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow