President-elect Donald Trump on Dec. 10 pledged to expedite permitting and trim environmental reviews for investors financing large-scale job-creating and power-generating projects.
The president-elect did not quantify if he had specific industries in mind in offering expedited “approvals and permits” for $1 billion-plus projects, but permitting reform has been a theme in Congress over the past two years, especially for energy and mining proposals.
The measure, co-sponsored by Sens. Joe Manchin (I-W. Va.) and John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), streamlines permitting and restricts litigation timelines, among other initiatives.
Those timelines stretch into decades when it comes to mining proposals.
“The government needs to consolidate all of its department [reviews] so the company can present one, and only one, application” when proposing a project, Sanderson said.
Right now, if a company wants to build a mine on the nation’s mineral-rich federal lands, it usually must file a permit with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) first.
“And they grind along and then you got to go over to” a succession of agencies for further reviews, almost always including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Sanderson said, noting the laborious process can take years and be hamstrung at any point by lawsuits.
The federal permitting process is “cumbersome” and disjointed, she said.
“Each agency has its own procedure and process,” and it is step-by-step sequential instead of simultaneous, she said.
Ideally, she said, every agency “gets one bite at the apple” in one comprehensive 90-day review and then the applicant has 90 days to respond to any issues cited in the permit and environmental reviews.
The 180-day permit review kicks off “a two-year clock” in which all parties resolve issues, she said. If there’s no agency decision at the end of two years, “the project is considered to be approved” and it can begin.
That same timeline applies to litigation, requiring lawsuits to be filed no later than two years after a permit is filed and resolved no later than four years from that date, Sanderson said.
“If a dozen nonprofits and two tribes have issues, they have to come together and present one consolidated complaint that addresses their concerns,” she said.
Without such permitting and litigation timelines and consolidations, the private investment needed to fuel the nation’s domestic energy production will be difficult to secure, Sanderson said.
Investors aren’t going to put their money into something that could take decades to develop, if at all, she said.
“Ten to 30 years? Okay, you call me when you’re in production, buddy,” she said
There’s no reason this can’t happen, Sanderson said, noting “Australia has cut it down to two years. For America to do it in four years would be incredible.”
She cited Rio Tinto’s Resolution copper project in Arizona as an example.
“Twenty years of pouring money into the ground and they still don’t have a mine,” she said.
Trump’s pledge to streamline permitting is a keystone in his “Drill, baby, drill” campaign pitch to deregulate energy production and domestically source key minerals and ores.
“Getting permit reform is the number one priority the federal government should be focused on,” Sanderson said. “Everybody has got to work together in a concerted way.”
Meanwhile, environmental groups opposed the proposal, suggesting it was illegal and a violation of the National Environmental Policy Act, a 54-year-old law that requires federal agencies to study the potential environmental impact of proposed actions and consider alternatives.
Lena Moffitt, executive director of Evergreen Action, an environmental group, said the plan involved Trump “offering to sell out America to the highest corporate bidder.”
She said it was another example of Trump “putting special interests and corporate polluters in the driver’s seat, which would result in more pollution, higher costs and fewer energy choices for the American people.”
Alexandra Adams, chief policy advocacy officer at the Natural Resources Defense Council, another environmental group, also expressed concern over the pledge.
“There’s a reason Congress requires the government to take a hard look at community impacts to make sure we don’t greenlight projects that do more harm than good,” Adams said.
