After months of hard work and negotiation, on July 22 Senators Joe Manchin (I-WV) and John Barasso (R-WY) unveiled a sweeping package on energy permitting reform. The release of the Energy Permitting Reform (EPR) Act of 2024 signals ongoing bipartisan support for modernizing our nation’s electric grid and removing regulatory barriers to clean energy market growth. As part of the bill’s aim to speed energy deployment, the EPR would advance the buildout of high-voltage transmission and address significant permitting roadblocks to multiple clean, domestic electricity generation technologies.
Below, we examine several sections of the bill and offer recommendations for strengthening its efficacy.
Bill overview
The Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 aims to streamline and expedite the energy project approval process. By shortening judicial review timelines and accelerating leasing and permitting decisions, the bill seeks to facilitate the development of both onshore and offshore energy resources. The Act mandates regular offshore wind and oil lease sales, modernizes geothermal and hardrock mining processes, and sets increased production targets for renewable energy. It introduces reforms for electric transmission planning to safeguard electric reliability and enhance grid resilience.
Advancing transmission permitting
On transmission, many provisions were adapted and updated from previous bills that proposed innovative decarbonization solutions that stalled amidst congressional gridlock. Niskanen has analyzed some of these efforts, including the Clean Electricity and Transmission Acceleration (CETA) Act, Building Integrated Grids With Inter-Regional Energy Supply (BIG WIRES) Act, and the Streamlining Interstate Transmission of Electricity (SITE) Act.
As with BIG WIRES, EPR highlights the necessity of interregional transmission planning and would jumpstart currently nonexistent processes. The failure of regional grid operators to jointly plan transmission is one of the foremost barriers inhibiting a more resilient grid. Niskanen’s research has found a vital linkage between the permitting of high-voltage power lines and coordinated grid planning processes. Effective planning ensures that the transmission lines we build can maximize benefits and minimize costs by identifying the most efficient and fair infrastructure expansion across states and regions. Planning processes are also an opportunity for thorough stakeholder engagement that can begin long before permits are sought for specific projects. In establishing interregional transmission planning processes, EPR would fill one of the most glaring gaps in our current transmission regulatory landscape.
In May, FERC passed Order 1920 which addresses cost allocation and planning at the regional level. EPR mandates that FERC develop an analogous rule for interregional transmission. Supporting such a rule by explicit congressional authority is an advantage that should not be taken lightly at a time when Loper Bright is the law of the land.
Another promising grid permitting pathway is utilizing existing rights of way, which allows permitting tasks to be greatly streamlined. EPR Section 209 directs DOI and the Department of Agriculture to develop categorical exclusions under NEPA (an evidenced-based limitation on environmental review requirements) for upgrades to grid infrastructure within existing rights of way, following DOE’s lead. The Niskanen Center commented on DOE’s rulemaking on this topic, broadly supporting the proposal. By adding more federal agencies with clarified, streamlined approaches to permitting grid upgrades, EPR would expand the number of projects and geographic scope of this permitting approach.
Enabling clean generation expansion
The EPR would also have important positive impacts on the deployment of multiple clean electricity generation technologies. The legislation would establish goals of 50 GW of renewable energy on public lands (including, for example, onshore wind and solar photovoltaics) and 30 GW of offshore wind. These targets would help agency and Congressional efforts on staffing, permitting process design, and appropriations. Additionally, EPR would directly improve permitting regulations related to geothermal energy by codifying categorical exclusions for certain qualifying project development activities and creating a Geothermal Ombudsman to enhance permitting coordination. The Niskanen Center has previously recommended the adoption of such streamlining and government capacity improvements within our research publications that find this could aid geothermal project development.
Considerations for strengthening the bill
Consolidating permitting processes is another critical strategy for enabling transmission buildout that Niskanen’s research has delved into. EPR would eliminate the “double NEPA” barrier that our work has highlighted. The bill would also bring environmental review under the same agency with backstop siting authority: FERC. While these consolidating effects are laudable outcomes, the mechanisms the bill uses to achieve these ends are important to evaluate carefully. Previously introduced legislation such as the SITE Act offer regulatory models that are both more efficient and more empowering for stakeholders, checking FERC’s authority. The DOE’s recently developed CITAP rule deserves close consideration here as well. DOE recently spearheaded a Memorandum of Understanding across federal agencies and, with extensive public input, created a program for coordinating environmental review of transmission lines. Policymakers should explore and weigh options for leveraging these considerable efforts and the foundation of federal coordination that they have helped build.
Although the EPR has many energy and climate policies and multiple sections address provisions dedicated to transmission, there are opportunities to include additional key solutions that have been proposed on the topic. First, incorporating community engagement in more direct and expansive ways, and identifying meaningful contributions from communities impacted by energy infrastructure, would be welcome additions. Second, providing additional resources to agencies responsible for the review and processing of federal permits would have an outsized impact on the capacity of agencies to do their work efficiently. This need was highlighted in Niskanen’s report on “Evidence-Based Recommendations For Overcoming Barriers To Federal Transmission Permitting,” which found developers and agency staff frequently brought up inadequate resources as a primary cause of lengthy permitting.
Conclusion
The Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 would expedite much-needed transmission infrastructure. Other innovative and substantive solutions to transmission development deserve further consideration and can serve as a model for ongoing conversations about permitting reform.
Transmission is a complex policy area and no silver bullet will address the many significant challenges facing our grid. As the debate continues, we urge policymakers to carefully review the included provisions while relying on prior analysis and the available evidence and data. There is now a plethora of legislation that can serve as a starting point for improving federal transmission permitting.