With much of the US electrical grid infrastructure approaching the end of its lifecycle. As emissions reduction goals approach, political discussion has centered on the potential of permitting reform as a means of fast-tracking the adoption of renewable energy infrastructure.
The Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024
Permitting reform in this context is a policy designed to alter, reduce, or otherwise speed up the time it takes for new proposed energy and mineral projects to be reviewed and judged. As a result of this, Senators Manchin (D-WV) and Barrasso (R-WY) introduced the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024. The proposed legislation would affect communities near mineral deposits or future right-of-way sites, along with mine operators, power utilities, and energy infrastructure manufacturers.
The legislation attempts to achieve expedited permitting and planning of new electrical transmission lines, which transport electricity from power generators to homes and end users through a series of different levels and types of current. The legislation would consolidate federal transmission line permitting approval processes under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to shorten the timelines for project approval. The bill would also enforce that the FERC release rulings on interregional transmission lines within six months and require greater coordination in planning and responsibility sharing between regional agencies.
The legislation also attempts to increase US mining, oil, and gas operations with an emphasis on utilizing public land for these activities. The bill would amend the landmark 1872 General Mining Law, allowing for relaxed regulations on mine disposal sites and mining-related infrastructure on public lands. The bill would also extend the life cycle of natural gas permits and incentivize the federal government to offer public land leases for natural gas operations.
Arguments for the Bill
Proponents of the legislation, such as American Clean Power, argue that current implementation timelines for new electrical grid infrastructure are too slow to meet future demand and that reforming the permitting and approval system will facilitate the renewable transition. After construction in the 1960s and 1970s, the US electrical grid is nearing the end of its life cycle and is in need of replacement. The current timeline for new high-voltage transmission lines is approximately three to ten years for completion from the start of planning. Between 2010 and 2015, an average of over 1,700 new miles of high-voltage lines were installed compared to just 55 new miles in 2023. More new lines, particularly high-voltage lines, will need to be built to meet increased electricity demand in the future. Shifting towards all-electrical energy for transportation, heating, and appliances will lead to an estimated 40-100 percent increase in US electricity demand, which will require new high-voltage lines for greater grid capacity.
By increasing permitting efficiency, several think tanks also estimate that a speedier process will lead to new power generation plants of all types, including fossil fuels, reducing CO₂ emissions. An rStreet article estimates that if current permitting approval times are 25 months, a 15-25 percent decrease in approval times would lead to a 1.1 percent reduction of US CO₂ emissions over a ten-year period due to renewable energy projects coming online at a greater rate. Focusing only on the provisions relating to fossil fuels and electric transmission lines, another model estimated the bill could cut American emissions from 2030 to 2050 by 10-25 percent. However, this model does find increases in emissions due to the bill’s fossil fuel provisions; even so, the researchers insist reform would lead to new electric transmission lines resulting in emissions decreases by enabling new renewable energy power plants to come online.
Resistance to the Bill
One of the biggest downsides of the legislation is its risk to the environment and health due to destructive mining operations. Reducing regulations on the mining industry may lead to increased environmental and health harm to nearby communities. For example, the bill would end a restriction in the 1872 General Mining Act regulating mine mill sites to five acres in size on public land. It would instead allow mine operators to claim a number of mill sites they deem “reasonably necessary.” This removal of mill site limits could lead to a proliferation of waste rock dump piles across public lands near an active mine site. Many of these sites contain heavy metals and other harmful materials that can cause health risks to nearby communities as runoff carries these materials into streams and rivers.
Similarly, the bill would allow mine infrastructure on unclaimed land without the additional right-of-way permits or agency approvals currently required. This could include permanent infrastructure such as electrical lines, water pipelines, roads, and buildings. Historically, frontline communities such as those on Native American reservations have suffered significant harm from mine accidents and improper waste storage. A notable example is the Navajo Nation, which is currently undergoing large-scale mine cleanups of former uranium mines.
Another major objection to the legislation is its changes to the objection timeframe on new federal approvals for projects. The bill would place a 150-day time limit from the date of federal approval for challenges against new forestry, mining, or energy projects, a decrease from the current six-year limit. Opponents such as EarthJustice argue that this could lessen the ability of communities to object to potentially harmful projects, as some may not become aware of a development until after the 150-day period. Currently, federal agencies are not always required to notify that approval has been granted. Opponents also argue that the decreased objection timeframe could lead to greater litigation as communities resort to filing lawsuits in lieu of a public approval process.
Indirectly, the bill may also expand fossil fuel infrastructure. Until 2032, the bill would prohibit new solar and wind leases unless a certain number of acres have been offered for oil and gas operations each year. The bill also extends the lifecycle of oil and gas drilling permits from three years to four years, applying to all new permits and retroactively to any permits less than two years old. The bill would limit the ability of the Bureau of Land Management to alter the regulations in onshore oil and gas leases, possibly preventing terms from being updated in response to new information about the environmental impacts of specific practices. Opponents such as EarthJustice and others argue that these changes would weaken the ability of the federal government to regulate oil and gas operations while also leading to greater fossil fuel projects and greenhouse gas emissions.
Future Prospects
Though permitting reform remains a topic of strong conversation, given the current status of Congress, it is unlikely that this bill will see legislative approval. Though there were discussions of building on the Manchin-Barrasso proposal amongst senators earlier this year, it is likely that the changes to the Inflation Reduction Act’s renewable energy tax credits in the recently signed ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ will stall any further negotiations.