In summer 2024, Senators Joe Manchin (I-WV) and John Barrasso (R-WY) unveiled the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 (EPRA). This bill threatens to dismantle critical environmental safeguards like the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), putting communities at greater risk of harmful pollution and health hazards. Under the guise of accelerating clean energy projects, EPRA prioritizes corporate profits over the health and safety of vulnerable communities, and locks in the continuation of dirty energy. Rather than bowing to corporate interests, lawmakers should focus on protecting the well-being of our communities.
A Direct Attack on Environmental Safeguards & NEPA
S.4753 (EPRA) makes the current permitting process worse. It aims to reform the leasing, permitting and judicial review process for energy and mineral mining projects.
If passed, it would:
- Mandate reforms to onshore oil, gas, and renewable energy leasing that favor industry. Deadlines for applications and permits will be expedited and fast tracked.
- Shorten the window for judicial review drastically from six years to just 150 days, leaving affected communities with insufficient time to mount legal challenges. The right to due process will essentially be thrown out the window.
- Undermine the very foundation of environmental justice, by gutting NEPA, one of the only tools of recourse communities have against big companies and polluting industry.
A Backward Step on Climate Action & Environmental Justice
EPRA opens up the floodgates to loopholes that fast track oil and gas projects, and will undermine our climate and energy goals. These loopholes create space for dangerous distractions such as carbon capture and storage, hydrogen, and other technologies that are unproven to sequester carbon emissions at the rate and speed needed to meet the moment and will actually increase greenhouse gas emissions.
This newest iteration of Manchin’s bill would:
- Require unfettered access to public lands by fossil fuel companies to expand projects that continue to accelerate climate change.
- Require offshore drilling with at least one lease sale per year. This in turn, will increase the life-threatening impacts of extreme weather and mega-storms.
- Guarantee more harm and life-threatening risks for the most vulnerable communities who live by these projects.
As an example, greenlighting geothermal and electric grid projects for energy production and transmission through an expedited review process which does not ensure in-depth analysis, such as a comprehensive review of cumulative impacts for surrounding neighborhoods, is risky and dangerous.
Environmental Studies Professor Dustin Mulvaney points out in a recent article, “[EPRA] contains provisions for everything from undoing the pause on building new liquified natural gas facilities, to letting mining companies dump waste on public lands, to promises to expedite the siting process for electricity transmission lines and fossil fuel infrastructure. In typical bipartisan fashion for energy legislation, western public lands are for sale to energy and mining industries. Oil and gas producers will get access to more onshore and offshore energy, force the approval of new liquified natural gas facilities along the Gulf of Mexico to export, and reverse an important court decision and allow mining companies to treat public lands like a hazardous waste dump.”
The decision by the Biden Administration to pause the building of new liquified gas facilities earlier this year was a big step in the right direction for environmental justice. Passing this polluters’ priority plan legislation is a gigantic step backwards and would codify harm for environmental justice communities far into the future.
In fact, modeling that was disseminated to justify this legislation and peddle it as a tool to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through net emissions reductions is inaccurate and problematic. According to Professor Mulvaney, “They erroneously assume the law is the reason that all future transmission is built. This ignores years of incremental policy incentives to facilitate transmission build out such as the recently implemented Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Order 1920, and grossly overestimates the greenhouse gas benefits from permitting reform.”
Positive Permitting Reform
Environmental justice communities also see the need for permitting reform, but not at the expense of frontline communities. Permitting reform should serve to aid in the needed transition to just renewable energy without harming already overburdened communities. Environmental, climate justice, and community organizations already have a clear vision for positive and progressive permitting reform that would further democratize early and meaningful community engagement and boost environmental review processes. Studies have shown that early engagement will actually “avoid extended delays or project cancellations” and can reduce backlog, while also increasing thoroughness.
In a policy brief by the Roosevelt Institute, they shared that “Most NEPA decisions are made within a reasonable time for the complexity of the project, and the analytical rigor applied to a project is tailored to the intensity of a project’s impacts.” Improving the interconnection queue backlog while also addressing understaffing and underfunding of permitting agencies should also be addressed if we really want to move sensible projects forward. Incentivizing community-led projects and engagement with them at the beginning of the process should be prioritized, not undermined.
