Francis Chung/POLITICO via AP Images
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chair Joe Manchin (I-WV) and ranking member John Barrasso (R-WY) preside over a hearing on Capitol Hill, July 10, 2024.
A couple weeks back, Sens. John Barrasso (R-WY) and Joe Manchin (I-WV) engineered a compromise permitting reform bill. Manchin has been after this kind of deal for two years, despite delaying the permitting reform being done at the executive branch level in the process by forcing out the chair of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The bill would allow for more renewable energy and in particular transmission grid development, while also accelerating deployment of fossil fuel infrastructure and creating a greater presence for fossil fuels on federal lands, by requiring the government to create public lands auctions for oil and gas companies.
The bill is what you’d expect from two representatives of energy states who recognize the need for diversifying energy output while retaining a role for legacy polluting industries. Here’s a section-by-section of the bill itself, if you’re interested.
Debate has raged about whether to accept this compromise. The energy wonk side believes that the status quo right now favors fossil fuel companies, because more clean-energy projects need to be built, and therefore hindrances to building disproportionately prevent renewables. The activist side believes that any lasting infrastructure or processes that favor fossil fuels in the future make it harder to wind down those assets, and therefore guarantee more emissions than the world can bear to keep global temperature rise below a catastrophic threshold. This Heatmap piece gives a good roundup of that thinking.
What there hasn’t been is any sort of political analysis of this permitting deal. And I think about two seconds of reflection yields the recognition that there’s not going to be a vote, much less a bill signed by this president.
Both parties still believe they have a reasonable shot of taking over the government next year. This deal is predicated on the idea that you have to compromise to get anything done on building out energy production. I don’t get the sense that either party’s leadership believes that. Or at least, they each think they’ll be in a better position to deliver a more favorable compromise for their interests next year. Republicans looking at regaining the presidency will not agree to a bill that gives renewables a better shot at being built. Democrats hoping to hold the presidency and take back the House will not agree to a bill that mandates more fossil fuel production on federal land.
Of the two senators most interested in forging compromise, one is a lame duck who just left the Democratic Party and over the past several years has alienated a good portion of the caucus; the other is in the running for Senate Republican leader and has to manage the egos of his fellow senators if he wants to get enough votes. Neither is in a position to deliver a bill where nobody gets everything they want.
After the elections, there are scenarios that could lead one party to take the deal, because they’ll be in a worse position in the next Congress. But the other party would want the exact opposite in that scenario! Only if there is essentially no change after the election—if Democrats win the presidency and Republicans retain the House—would there be conditions favorable to cutting the deal. That’s not the likeliest occurrence.
This may be a cynical way to look at it, but it’s also correct. News of a permitting bill deal is good for the environmental policy/media complex, but I could spend all day writing about bills that aren’t going to pass. While it’s interesting to play thought experiments about grand bargains, we’ll know who needs to give what to make sure that we can build out more of the green transition after people have voted.
