参议院推进两党许可改革法案，为通过铺路Senate advances bipartisan permitting reform bill, teeing up passage

The Senate voted Monday to advance a major bipartisan bill that aims to speed up the construction of energy and other infrastructure projects — clearing a key hurdle toward the measure becoming law. The vote was 73-25, teeing up likely Senate passage in the weeks ahead. Sen. Mike Rounds (S.D.) was the only GOP no vote. He was joined by Democratic Sens. Angela Alsobrooks (Md.), Tammy Baldwin (Wis.), Michael Bennet (Colo.), Lisa Blunt-Rochester (Del.), Cory Booker (N.J.), Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Tammy Duckworth (Ill.), Dick Durbin (Ill.), Maggie Hassan (N.H.), Mazie Hirono (Hawaii), Tim Kaine (Virginia), Mark Kelly (Ariz.), Ben Ray Luján (N.M.), Ed Markey (Mass.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Patty Murray (Wash.), Alex Padilla (Calif.), Adam Schiff (Calif.), Tina Smith (Minn.), Chris Van Hollen (Md.), Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Peter Welch (Vt.), Ron Wyden (Ore.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

The bill in question, the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, seeks to make it easier to build — at the expense of some of the nation’s environmental laws. It will make it harder for opponents to sue to block projects on environmental grounds and also hamper the ability of states and the Environmental Protection Agency to preemptively block them, which has historically held up ventures such as fossil fuels and mining. However, Democrats argued Monday that the legislation will be good for both the climate and consumers’ wallets.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) told reporters ahead of the vote that the legislation is expected to save consumers about $60 to $80 each month. He also said it will prevent between 1.5 and 1.8 gigatons of greenhouse gas emissions. Whitehouse said it will increase the nation’s wind capacity by 25 percent, solar capacity by 28 percent and battery storage capacity by 70 percent. “This is a climate and clean energy bill. Once this bill is law, it will have a more powerful climate effect in the power sector than the IRA [Inflation Reduction Act] will have — largely because of the destruction wrought by Republicans on the IRA. This becomes our biggest implemented climate bill,” Whitehouse said.

Around the time of the vote, however, President Trump injected some last-minute chaos into the process, saying he would not approve new wind projects despite the legislation, which seeks to create certainty for various types of energy.

Asked at the White House if he was OK with approving wind turbines, which are among the energy sources the measure’s passage aims to bolster, Trump said, “No, I will not approve wind turbines.”“The bill hasn’t been fully negotiated,” he told reporters. “I will not approve wind turbines because wind turbines are a major loser.”The Trump administration’s opposition to renewable energy projects, especially wind, has been a particular flash point in negotiations on the bill.

It includes language that seeks to prevent presidential administrations from revoking existing permits — which could be a win for renewables right now and fossil fuels in the future under a Democratic administration. Project developers would also be able to sue the government over “disparate treatment” of certain types of energy sources. In his remarks, though, Trump said he was still on board with the legislation, which he had urged the Senate to approve over the weekend. In addition to these project certainty provisions, meanwhile, Democratic supporters of the bill also tout language that seeks to make it easier to build more power lines, adding more energy, including renewable energy, onto the electric grid.

They also note that provisions of the legislation would require data centers to pay at least their fair share for the power that they use and electricity infrastructure that they require to operate.

Nevertheless, the measure faces opposition from numerous leading environmental organizations. “Updating and expediting transmission and clean energy permitting is essential to delivering lower costs, reduced air, water, and climate pollution, protecting communities, and expanding the grid for the American people. But rushing legislation that erodes Tribal sovereignty and people’s right to have a say in what is built in their communities, abandons clean water safeguards, and wildlife protections, while further enabling a rogue president that is waging a war on clean energy and our public lands is not an acceptable outcome,” Loren Blackford, Sierra Club executive director, said in a recent statement.

The legislation is a compromise reached among Whitehouse and Sens. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah). The Republicans pushed to curtail environmental reviews and promote fossil fuels, while the Democrats broadly pushed for help for renewable energy. The bill has broad support from various industries, including leading groups in the fossil fuel, renewable energy, chemical, construction and manufacturing sectors.

On Monday, the Edison Electric Institute, a trade group representing electric utilities, also announced its support after lawmakers announced some changes to the bill on Saturday. Another group the weekend’s changes sought to court is tribes, which have expressed concerns about changes to historic preservation laws that they said could cut out their opportunities to weigh in on proposed projects. On Sunday, however, several groups representing tribes reaffirmed their opposition to the bill, saying it would “continue to fundamentally undermine Tribal sovereignty, weaken longstanding federal protections, fail to ensure meaningful government-to-government Tribal consultation, and threaten sacred sites and cultural resources.”If the legislation passes the Senate, it will then move over to the House.

In the lower chamber, the bill has significant GOP support and the support of several Democrats. However, many progressive and other Democratic lawmakers are expected to oppose the bill, and postelection absences create another potential wild card. Democratic senators who opposed the bill cited reasons including its support for fossil fuels. “Very simply: getting more renewable electrons where they are needed doesn't tackle climate change if you simultaneously promote the burning of more fossil fuels. Unfortunately, this bill does exactly that," said Merkley.

“This bill could make it easier to build more data centers powered by ‘behind the meter’ natural gas plants." “It makes it much easier to build natural gas pipelines that will transport incredible quantities of natural gas overseas as LNG," he added, referring to liquefied natural gas. “More pipelines and export terminals equal more American fracked gas burned at home and abroad. And while the models exclude American gas burned abroad from the climate impact of this bill, the Earth is affected the same no matter where the gas is burned."

Meanwhile, at least one lawmaker who supported the bill at the procedural stage said that without changes, she could pull support upon final passage. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) said in a statement, "I cannot ignore the concerns that Tribes in Nevada have with this bill text. ... If Title III stays in this bill, I will not vote for final passage.”Whitehouse told reporters before the vote that there would be an amendment process, saying, "We look forward to a very healthy amendment process once we have proceeded to this bill."

"With Senator Heinrich as the chairman of the Energy Committee in the next Congress, and with me as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the next Congress, I think we can both safely assure all of our environmental friends that this bill is the floor, not the ceiling, of our climate and environmental aspirations and we look forward to working to accomplish big things with our big Democratic majorities," he added. Updated at 7:16 p.m. EST