US Senate Proposes New Permitting Framework. Should It Become Law?

Sheldon Whitehouse is my favorite member of Congress. The junior senator from Rhode Island is smart, articulate, and determined. This week, he was instrumental in getting a bill before the Senate that will radically alter how permitting for energy projects in the US gets done. It is not unusual for Democrats to put forward such ideas. What is unusual in this hyoer-partisan era is for Democrats and Republicans to work together on proposed legislation.

Make no mistake, the bill Senator Whitehouse has helped craft is not a law yet. It will not be voted on until after the midterm elections, when the composition of the the next Congress will be known, but permitting reform is something people in both parties want. Whitehouse and his colleagues on both sides of the aisle have taken a step forward; now they must get enough votes to make their proposed legislation a reality. It is 417 pages long, so there is something in there for everybody, but there are also plenty of items that some members of Congress will object to.

According to Bloomberg, the proposed legislation would make it easier to build everything from long distance power lines, to renewable energy projects, to natural gas pipelines. Like we said — something for everybody.

Support For Whitehouse Bill

A report this week by the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions claims, “In four regions accounting for about half of U.S. electricity demand, reform could reduce grid costs by $7 billion, lower residential electricity bills by $1.1 billion, and reduce costs from shortages by 76 percent while boosting clean energy and cutting carbon emissions.”

In addition, “carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector would fall by 9 percent (amounting to 71 million tons in these regions in 2035 alone) relative to business as usual…..Nationwide, reform could also reduce cumulative grid costs by roughly $125 billion and residential electricity bills by $19 billion between 2026 and 2040.”

Nathaniel Keohane, the head of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, told Bloomberg he’s confident the bill “on net is good for the economy, it’s good for consumers, and it’s good for climate.” He especially welcomed the provisions that would reduce emissions for electrical generation. “We’re talking gigaton-scale emissions reductions over time,” he said.

Rob Gramlich, president of Grid Strategies, said that although the package is technology neutral — meaning it doesn’t favor specific types of energy generation — it “enables a clean energy future” that’s “just going to be very hard to get” otherwise. He believes the bill will make it easier for data center developers to power their projects with renewable energy. “This bill would open up a lot more options,” he said, and added that many states, utilities and, tech companies are interested in cleaning up their power supply.

Jane Flegal, a former Biden administration climate official, took to anti-social media to say the bill is “awesome.” She added, “A real path to get connected to the grid means way cleaner and more reliable power. More renewables and nuclear in the mix, and the gas that gets built isn’t wacky turbines pulled off the aerospace supply chain.” We think she is talking about you, Elon.

Not Everyone Agrees

Bill Mckibben posted on Substack yesterday that there are others in the environmentalist camp who are less than impressed by the proposed bill, which is called the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, or BAAJA for short.

Heatmap weighed in to say, “Current federal law requires an environmental review under NEPA for ‘major federal actions,’ a term that is defined broadly to mean any action subject to ‘substantial federal control and responsibility.’ BAAJA would narrow that definition so that NEPA review would not be required for federal loans, certain grant programs, and repairs of essential infrastructure, among other actions. Geothermal testing, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission permits for transmission projects, and gas pipeline projects within existing rights-of-way would also be excluded.” It went on to say:

BAAJA would also codify several regulatory changes to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act that Trump’s EPA proposed earlier this year to limit state power. Under current law, a federal agency cannot issue a permit to a project that will discharge pollution into a body of water unless the relevant state or tribe issues a water quality certification or waives that right.

The permitting bill would give states and Tribes a maximum of one year to review a project or otherwise waive their right to certify. Senators also proposed that if the state or Tribe waives certification, the matter is settled — the federal government cannot then conduct its own water quality review. If the state or Tribe decide to attach conditions to a certification, or to deny the project altogether, the bill would place a much higher burden of proof on them to back up their decision. States would only be allowed to reject a project based on water quality. They could not cite air pollution or climate impacts.

Colin Rees of Oil Change International was similarly unimpressed. He wrote:

This backdoor “dirty deal” will worsen the climate crisis and put families at even greater risk of losing their homes and loved ones to extreme weather. The science is clear — there are no new fossil fuel projects compatible with a climate-safe future. Yet this “dirty deal” would make it easier and faster for fossil fuel companies to steamroll community opposition to their polluting, climate-wrecking projects.

We all deserve a voice in the decisions that impact our lives. [BAAJA] shuts communities out of decision making spaces, especially the Black, Brown, and Indigenous communities that are disproportionately harmed by polluting fossil fuel projects. We urge all senators to stand firm against this bill.”

Unprecedented Presidential Powers

Bill McKibben told his readers, “The scariest thing about this bill is that it hands Trump unprecedented powers to lock in forever permits his buddies want so that congress, the courts, and the next president can’t undo his vision of fossil fuel dominance. The day after this bill passes, Trump will hang an even bigger “for sale” sign on the White House door for corporations that want forever permits for bad ideas.

“If his campaign donors want permits to drill for oil and gas along the Atlantic Coast, then the next president’s hands will be tied because of this bill. If the new congress wants to try to give communities more power to challenge data centers, it will be too late. Under this bill, they would have to pay Elon Musk and Trump’s other tech buddies compensation — with taxpayer money — to reverse whatever permits Trump hands them over the next two years.”

The Politics Of  Consent

Here at CleanTechnica, we have consistently reported on the tension between local communities and national interests. We cringe when pressure groups headquartered in Washington, DC stir up opposition to solar and wind projects in rural communities. Yet we celebrate when locals organize to block a massive, pollution spewing data center. Does that make us hypocrites? Possibly.

The guiding star for all policy decisions going forward should be reducing carbon and methane emissions until they are small enough to drown in the bathtub. 20 percent of Swiss glaciers melted away in just the last 5 years. In Nepal, a glacier broke loose last month and killed thousands — an event that climate scientists claim was made much more likely by an overhearing environment.

A Kelvin wave — a bulge of hot ocean water — is headed up the west coast of California thanks to an El Nino event that is expected to be more powerful than any other in the past 1000 years. In the Europe and UK, there were 35,000 extra deaths than normal this summer, due to extreme heat.

No doubt, the BAAJA bill will be hotly debated once Congress reconvenes after the midterm election — if there is one. It looks appealing on the surface, but the objections raised by several people are troubling.

On the one hand, giving local communities the power to stop desperately needed climate projects in their tracks gives too much power to rural areas. One local official has declared that NIMBY is now BANANA — Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything. On the other hand, shoving policies made by some distant bureaucrat down the throats of people in the hinterland is a surefire recipe for losing elections.

‘Tis a conundrum, and we would love to hear from our readers how they view this proposed legislation. Please share your thoughts with us in the comments.