Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024

The Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 (S.4753) is one of the latest iterations of permitting reform brought forth by the 118th Congress. The bill was introduced by Sen. Joe Manchin (I-WV) and Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) in July 2024.

The last action on the bill was taken in August. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee cleared the bill from the committee with a 15-4 margin and only one additional amendment.

Overview

Energy permitting reform is the idea of altering regulations and rules to make it easier to build energy infrastructure in the United States. Currently, it takes a long time for energy infrastructure, such as electric transmission, to be built. This is particularly concerning as we are transitioning away from fossil fuels to clean energy sources due to climate change. For example, when there is not enough transmission to connect clean energy to the grid, they enter "interconnection queues", a waiting list for clean energy to essentially get turned on. The interconnection queues have gotten longer over the years.

Energy permitting reform is also important as electricity demand and costs rise. Such demands are driven by things, such as climate change (e.g. increased electrification) and artificial intelligence use.

The primary debates in the energy permitting reform space center around two questions.

1. How much deregulation (or policy change) should occur?
2. How should policy changes be applied to clean energy sources vs fossil fuel production?

For the first question, energy permitting reform would likely alter the National Environmental Policy Act, one of the most foundational environmental legislation in United States history. Such changes could have unintended consequences on other environmental issues if not carefully crafted.

For the second question, many permitting reform legislation increase deployment opportunities for both clean energy and fossil fuel production. Many are critical about whether the tradeoff to make electrification easier and increase clean infrastructure, such as offshore wind production, is worth also increasing fossil fuel production, like mining and liquified natural gas.

Main policy provisions

As stated in the legislation, the primary purpose of the bill is to reduce the barriers to energy deployment and mining activities.

Some examples of specific policy provisions include:

• Establishing a 150-day statute of limitation for judicial review
• Requiring the Department of Interior to increase leasing, extend permitting, and streamline federal permitting for gas, oil, coal, geothermal, and offshore wind
• Addressing the three main barriers to transmission development: planning, permitting, and paying
• Modifying regulatory requirements for mining, liquefied natural gas, geothermal, and hydropower

Reactions and criticisms

Reactions have been mixed. For example, the Citizens' Climate Lobby supports the legislation and states:

"Expert analysis from the most trusted climate and energy modelers finds this legislation could reduce America's climate pollution up to 25% by 2050. That means Congress could notch a huge climate win by passing this bill!"

Other groups that support the legislation include the Niskanen Center, Bipartisan Policy Center, and Solar Energy Industries Association.

On the other hand, the Sierra Club disagrees with the bill. Specifically, they state that:

"Those who promote this kind of so-called 'permitting reform' claim that it's necessary to accelerate the deployment of clean energy, but in truth this is nothing more than yet another attempt by fossil fuel industry boosters to give handouts for polluters at the expense of our communities and the climate. We urge Congress to put forward real solutions to build a clean energy economy, and not pair those reforms with more attempts to pad the pockets of fossil fuel executives under the guise of reducing emissions."

In addition, 300+ environmental groups signed a letter against this legislation with similar concerns.

Other concerns, mostly from conservatives, include the way the bill handles states' rights. Specifically, some are concerned that it oversteps state jurisdiction.