The reconciliation bill signals a troubling shift towards a “pay-to-play” system for permitting, monetizing the process to short circuit judicial oversight.

Here’s why “pay-to-play” permitting and other associated provisions in the bill may not exactly be in the public interest:

• Expedited review at a price but at what cost to the environment? The bill introduces applicant fees of $10,000,000 or 1% of project costs for expedited environmental reviews of oil, natural gas, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide pipelines. This implements a one-year timeline for Federal and state approvals, and limits judicial review to claims from individuals demonstrating direct and irreparable economic harm resulting from the approval. This raises serious questions about limits to oversight and how environmental impacts will be adequately addressed. 
• Exempting Alaska oil and gas development from environmental laws. The bill has carve outs for oil and gas leasing in the Coastal Plain and National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska from critical environmental laws like the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This includes adopting decisions based on outdated science despite the findings from four years of supplemental environmental analyses, and no longer enforcing regulations specifically meant to protect the National Petroleum Refuge in Alaska. This undermines decades of environmental protection and could lead to irreversible damage to sensitive ecosystems.
• Favoring oil and gas over other technologies hurts our energy dominance strategy. The “pay-to-play” mechanisms and exemptions disproportionately benefit the oil and gas industry, with specific provisions for onshore and offshore oil and gas lease sales, as well as coal leasing. This undermines efforts to invest in other energy technologies that can ensure the stability and affordability of American energy prices.
• Faster timelines means less opportunity to ensure projects actually benefit the communities that support them. When fees are paid to expedite environmental reviews and restrict judicial review, the public has less ability to weigh in on projects and advocate for better environmental outcomes. With less oversight and accountability, the bill significantly hampers the existing regulatory framework designed to ensure responsible energy development.
• Public interest or profit for LNG Exports? The bill proposes a $1,000,000 payment for applications to export or import liquefied natural gas (LNG) to countries without a free trade agreement. Payment of this fee would automatically deem the project to be in the “public interest,” foregoing any real assessment of public benefit nor environmental consequences. This process should involve careful consideration of energy needs, environmental impacts, and geopolitical implications.

The proposed approaches to permitting set a dangerous precedent. Instead, a more effective and equitable approach could involve:

• Investing in Federal agencies involved in infrastructure permitting. Allocate funding to federal agencies to hire and train more staff, including scientists and NEPA specialists. This will allow agencies to conduct timely and thorough environmental reviews without relying on fees from developers. 
• Funding mitigation studies and third-party assessments. Develop a mitigation program that utilizes funds to conduct independent studies on environmental impacts and effective mitigation strategies for infrastructure projects. This ensures unbiased information and allows developers to implement appropriate strategies that address public concerns.
• Investing in a diverse energy portfolio. Achieving energy dominance requires a comprehensive strategy that embraces all forms of energy, including nuclear, renewables (solar, wind, geothermal, etc.), and advanced clean energy technologies. Permitting reform should facilitate responsible development across this diverse portfolio, not just specific sectors.
• Enhancing public participation for greater community acceptance. Ensuring meaningful public consultation throughout the permitting process can lead to project success. This includes providing access to information, ample opportunities for feedback, and consideration of community benefits.
• Streamlining and not undermining the permitting process. The permitting process can benefit from more predictable timelines and improving agency coordination. Adoption of new technologies can help expedite data sharing between Federal agencies and development of AI applications can provide NEPA practitioners with new tools for more efficient and effective permitting.