The Debt Ceiling Debate Creates An Opening For Permitting Reform

The United States faces many daunting challenges related to, among other things, its healthcare system, immigration, education and the national debt. On top of these problems, the nation needs to develop renewable energy projects quickly to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the effects of climate change. However, the permitting process in the U.S. is notoriously slow, and delays under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in particular are one of the primary barriers to infrastructure deployment. The upcoming debt ceiling debate in Congress creates an opportunity for the stars to align around reforms that, for once, leaders in both major political parties agree are a priority.

Much of the time, the debate around the debt ceiling proves counterproductive as Democrats and Republicans engage in pointless political grandstanding. In the end, the debt ceiling gets raised with no changes to spending or debt. This year could prove different, however, as Republican lawmakers are starting to float the idea of attaching permitting reform to a bill to increase the debt ceiling. The proposal is being described by the progressive media as a “win-win,” and President Biden has supported permitting reform in the past as well.

One challenge facing lawmakers is to come up with proposals that can pass Congress while also being substantive enough to make a difference. Some past proposals have been criticized for not doing enough to limit lawsuits under NEPA, for example. Lawsuits can add years to the time it takes to build, and the prospect of lawsuits discourages investment in everything from renewable energy projects to pipelines. Transmission lines, bridges, highways, and countless other projects are affected as well.

Recognizing the problem, Eli Dourado of the Center for Growth and Opportunity has a new report out that proposes a series of reforms to NEPA, which could help speed up the process. The recommended reforms are intentionally ambitious—they include only those ideas that are likely to make a real difference. One proposal involves curtailing the ability of judges to vacate agency approvals of projects. Another involves limiting the amount of public involvement in the permitting process. Yet another would significantly expand the types of projects that can be exempted from NEPA review.

Of course, not everyone will like these solutions, and there will undoubtedly be debate over the best ways to reform the permitting process. Still, if the U.S. is serious about tackling a collosal problem like climate change, bold actions like these are what is called for. Thus, it is important for lawmakers to approach the permitting issue with an open mind and to be willing to consider ideas that might ordinarily give them pause.

A danger is that lawmakers will pass something that lacks teeth and then move on as if the problem has been solved. Permitting reform is just one piece of the puzzle when it comes to addressing climate change, but it is a critically important piece. If lawmakers fail to take meaningful action in this area, it may not matter how much they spend on paper. Their dreams of a transition to clean energy may never come to fruition in the real world where things have to get built.

While levels of distrust between Democrats and Republicans are high, permitting reform presents one of those rare opportunities where the two parties can come together. Passing a bill would show the public that they are serious about tackling one of the biggest challenges of the day. This would set a useful precedent for how the parties might work together in the future towards solving other pressing national problems.

So policymakers should ask themselves: Are they serious about tackling climate change or aren’t they? If they are serious, then they need to be willing to consider bold ideas and to work together. The upcoming battle over the debt ceiling provides lawmakers the opportunity to do just that.