Sign In or Create an Account.

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

Energy

House Permitting Bill Would Block Trump From Pulling Permits

It was approved by the House Natural Resources Committee on Thursday by a vote of 25 to 18.

•
Bruce Westerman and the Capitol Building.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

A key House panel this afternoon advanced a bipartisan permitting deal that would include language appearing to bar Donald Trump or any other president from rescinding permits for energy projects.

The House Natural Resources Committee approved the SPEED Act, which would do stuff energy developers of all stripes say they want – time-clocks on when federal permits are issued and deadlines on when court challenges can be filed — by a vote of 25 to 18.

Under an amendment added by voice vote to the bill in committee, the bill now also includes language explicitly saying federal agencies cannot revoke, suspend, alter or interfere with an already-approved permit to an energy project. GOP Natural Resources chair Bruce Westerman told the audience at the bill markup that the amendment was the result of behind-the-scenes talks to try and assuage Democrats holding out over the Trump administration’s freeze on federal permitting for renewable energy and its attacks on previously permitted offshore wind projects.

During the hearing House Democrats listed out other complaints they want addressed before giving their support, including “parity” between renewable energy and fossil fuels in the permitting process as well as some extra mechanism against blocking projects in the bureaucratic pipeline. It’s easy to understand why they want more assurances given rescinding permits is only one of many ways Trump has gone after renewables projects.

But as Thomas Hochman of the Foundation for American Innovation noted at a Heatmap event in D.C. on Tuesday, the oil and gas industry is also interested in neutralizing the permitting process from any tech-specific politics that could come back to bite them. “They’re imagining a President Newsom in 2029 and they’re worried the same tools that have been uncovered to block wind and solar will then be used to block oil and gas.”

The bill would also insert a number of new stipulations into the permitting review process intended to move things along in a simpler, faster fashion. For example, an agency would only be able to consider impacts that "share a reasonably close causal relationship to, and are proximately caused by, the immediate project or action under consideration; and may not consider effects that are speculative, attenuated from the project or action, separate in time or place from the project or action, or in relation to separate existing or potential future projects or actions."

But judging by the final vote, it’s unclear if the amendment targeting the Trump administration will be enough to get a permitting deal across the finish line should this bill get ultimately voted out of the House by the full legislative chamber. Only two Democrats – outgoing centrist Jared Golden who helped author the bill and moderate swing district Californian Adam Gray – voted in support.

“The Trump administration is putting culture wars ahead of lowering energy costs for the American people. Unleashing American energy means unleashing all of it, including affordable clean energy,” said Rep. Seth Magaziner, a Democrat from Rhode Island critical of Trump’s attacks on offshore wind. Magaziner said under other circumstances he may have supported the legislation but “in order for me to vote for this bill I need strong language to ensure the Trump administration cannot continue to unfairly block clean energy projects from getting to the grid.”

Other Democrats in the hearing echoed Magaziner’s comments, and during the markup the House Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition – a group of influential Democrats working on climate policy in the chamber – put out a statement saying their frustrations remain and demanding the bill “affirmatively end the scorched-earth attacks on clean energy, restore permitting integrity for projects that have been unfairly targeted, and ensure fairness and neutrality going forward.”

Still, the Democrats on the Natural Resources Committee will not be able to stop the bill and it might get more support from members of the party on the House floor (the committee is usually where a lot of more progressive firebrands land). But their concerns are very much representative of what Senate Democrats might raise.

Rep. Scott Peters, a California Democrat involved in the House permitting talks, told me during a phone interview this afternoon that the language added to the bill “solves a lot of the problem on permit certainty” but that getting the deal across the finish line will require solving “the Burgum problem,” referring to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum.

Apparently, per Peters, a major Democratic sticking point is Burgum’s new layer of political review requiring him to sign off on essentially every Interior Department decision needed for permitting solar and wind projects. Any progress further will mean Republican concessions there. “Sending a camera out to survey a site... the Secretary of Interior has to sign off on that, and that’s the opposite of permitting reform.”

An ideal way to deal with the Interior Department’s stall tactic, he said, is to add compulsory deadlines for specific decisions to the bill so that political leaders can’t sit on their hands like that. Still, Peters is optimistic after the addition of the language blocking presidents from rescinding previously-issued permits.

“Today didn’t finish the job but it was a big step forward,” Peters said.


Blue
🔒

You’ve reached your free article limit

Subscribe to Heatmap News for unlimited access to daily energy and climate coverage.
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
Spotlight

A Giant Data Center Offers a Permitting Reform Test Case

What would happen to Project Jupiter if the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act is passed?

Project Jupiter.
Heatmap Illustration/Project Jupiter, Library of Congress

One of the nation’s largest data centers is struggling under permitting woes. So let’s play a game: would the bipartisan permitting bill in Congress make the path easier, or might the federal legislation be irrelevant to large hyperscalers under development today?

Meet Project Jupiter, a mega project in southern New Mexico in Dona Ana County under development by Oracle and OpenAI, with financial backing from SoftBank and political support from the Trump administration for being a part of Stargate, a major Trump administration public-private initiative boosting AI development. Project Jupiter would be one of the largest data centers in the country if completed and currently is expected to run on a microgrid powered by fuel cells converting gas to electricity, which the developers claim will burn much cleaner than a typical off-grid gas turbine power plant.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

The Trump Administration Is Still Messing with Offshore Wind Farms

And more of the week’s top news around project fights.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

1. New England (and Maryland) – The Trump administration is still messing with offshore wind farms, even while trying to pass a permitting reform deal. Examining the court filings reveals why they may feel empowered to do it — and I’m not sure how this ends.

  • Last Friday, in a legal case brought by anti-wind activists, the Justice Department submitted a motion in federal court to send the construction and operations plan for Orsted’s Revolution Wind project in New England back to the Interior Department for more analysis. On Wednesday, the DOJ entered a similar motion in another case challenging the construction and operations plan for U.S. Wind’s MarWin project off the coast of Maryland in a lawsuit brought by the state’s coastal community of Ocean City.
  • Trump’s actions led some to question whether the president was sabotaging the deal, and others to claim the media coverage itself was an attempt to kill it. Going further, supporters of the bipartisan bill claimed the DOJ's motions were precisely why the bill should become law, implying it would guard offshore wind farms against this sort of maneuver.
  • However, for the bill’s backers, it’s worth considering why the Trump administration believes it has the legal authority to do this. It’s also time to ask whether the bill would actually protect these wind farms against this tactic.
  • To answer those questions, you have to rewind. On May 1, 2025, the Interior Department withdrew a Biden solicitor’s opinion instructing the agency to “strike a rational balance” between wind power and fishing interests. This revocation document is technically not in effect at the moment; one year later, a federal court ruled the opinion was potentially illegal as a part of a preliminary injunction on five anti-renewables actions requested by solar and wind trade groups. The Trump administration is contesting that ruling, and the administration has filed a notice of appeal.
  • In August, despite that opinion being in doubt, a federal judge granted Trump permission under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to remand the construction and operations plan for the now-defunct Atlantic Shores offshore wind farm in the waters of New Jersey. U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb specifically wrote that Atlantic Shores failed to demonstrate the federal government had limitations under OSCLA on revisiting these plans and that the injunction from the litigation on appeal “did not prohibit all reevaluation of agency action.”
  • In the recent Revolution and MarWin filings, Trump’s Justice Department argues the construction and operations plans should be remanded under OSCLA without being vacated. The DOJ motions include claims that previous decision documents did not adequately explain impacts to commercial fishing and other industries that use OSCLA waters. It’s not clear if the administration will win these motions.
  • The bipartisan permitting bill would bar the Interior Department and other federal agencies from taking “any new action that would revoke, rescind, withdraw, terminate, suspend, amend, or alter a federal authorization or permit in effect on or after September 16, 2026,” or “any other action to interfere with or prevent the construction or operation at full capacity of a project that has secured all necessary federal authorizations and permits.” The restriction exempts cases where “the agency is required to take such action by order of a court.” As I wrote in our lengthy piece explaining the bill, this provision has a damages component that allows companies impacted by violations to pursue financial compensation.
  • Here’s the billion-dollar question I expect we won’t have answered unless the bill language is enacted and then litigated: Would the court order exception apply to rulings that grant these motions? Or would the developers be able to sue for damages?

2. Columbia County, N.Y. – New York’s renewable energy permitting office has rejected an upstate solar farm on farmland as a House Democrat representing the area joined hands with the Trump administration in publicly railing against the project.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Politics

Climate Races to Watch This November

These seven elections could change state energy policy.

Watching voting.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

No matter how well Democrats do in the House and Senate in November, it’s unlikely to mean anything new on climate policy in Washington, D.C., for as long as Donald Trump remains in the White House.

That is not true when it comes to the other elections this year.

Several states are on the verge of a possible Democratic trifecta, meaning unified control of both chambers of the state legislature and the governor’s mansion. It’s a position that could enable such states to either top off existing climate and energy policies passed in the last decade or to make the first real run at climate legislation in recent history.

Keep reading...Show less
Blue