In recent days, it seemed that a deal on permitting reform might be within reach. President Donald Trump had indicated he might relent on his administration’s blockade of wind projects, and Senate Democrats expressed confidence that there was room for compromise.
Unfortunately, the legislation seems to have stalled again. On Friday, Sens. Martin Heinrich (New Mexico) and Sheldon Whitehouse (Rhode Island), the top Democratic negotiators, warned against “rushing the process,” likely foreclosing the possibility of a Senate vote before the midterm elections.
Nevertheless, the talks are ongoing, an encouraging sign that lawmakers might act before the end of the year on one of America’s most pressing problems: the bureaucratic malaise that is stifling the build-out of U.S. energy capacity.
It’s a shame that a political bargain is necessary. Everyone understands that America’s demand for energy is surging, largely because of the artificial intelligence revolution, and leaders of both parties have indicated support for easing the onerous approval process for energy projects.
Yet the Trump administration has continued to block developments for ideological reasons. In April, for instance, the Pentagon imposed a de facto moratorium on all new onshore wind farms by refusing to conduct evaluations — which have historically been resolved quickly — to determine whether the developments would impair radar or flight paths. The tactic essentially froze more than 155 projects until a Trump-appointed federal judge ordered the administration to conduct the reviews last month.
That bureaucratic stranglehold illustrates why permitting reform is necessary. For years, not-in-my-backyard activists and environmentalists have exploited federal laws — especially the National Environmental Policy Act — to drown energy projects in paperwork and lawsuits. The ideal reform bill would not only trim such red tape but also restrict the power of the executive branch to interfere in developments.
A bill that passed the House last year included many provisions that would do just that, imposing strict deadlines for federal agencies to complete their environmental reviews and limiting when opponents of a project can file lawsuits. But Republicans added a last-minute provision that exempted offshore wind from the reforms, dooming the bill’s chances in the Senate, where it would need Democratic support to pass.
Both sides have a reason to reach a deal. Crushing gas and diesel prices are likely to be a midterm liability for Republicans. By backing truly tech-neutral permitting reform, they would signal to voters that they support unrestrained energy expansion.
Democrats, meanwhile, would be able to celebrate a legitimate win for clean energy. Renewable energy and storage projects make up 83 percent of the capacity that, as of June, is stuck waiting to be connected to the country’s electrical grid. Speeding up the queue would make it easier for emerging industries to compete with fossil fuel producers, which already have established infrastructure.
Fundamentally, that should be the goal of permitting reform: Let America’s diverse energy sector compete over how it delivers power to consumers, not over how it manages bureaucracy.
The post Permitting reform is good politics and good for markets. Bring it on. appeared first on Washington Post.
