Sen. Whitehouse criticized for plan to ease project permitting

A bill in Congress would speed up project approval. Is this good or bad?

Barry Schiller in SteveAhlquist.news

Have you heard about the “Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act,” S5653, introduced in the United States Senate? From its name, it certainly sounds like a good thing, but it has actually split the environmental movement.

It is a 417-page bill with 4 sponsors, two from each party, one of whom is our own Sheldon Whitehouse, long a climate leader. The bill purports to be about permitting reform, intended to reduce delays so the U.S. can build projects more quickly, especially in energy.

Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse is thinking of renewable energy, and is quoted in the press release saying Americans “want lower energy bills, and they want more clean energy. Our permitting reform plan gets us a long way toward both of those goals. 

If we can pass this bill, we will flood the grid with clean, affordable energy and make data centers start paying their fair share. Like all major pieces of bipartisan legislation, this bill is a compromise. We believe it is a compromise that will result in a brighter, cleaner, more affordable future.”

Renewable energy firms, worried about getting transmission lines built, support the bill, as does the Citizens Climate Lobby, which claims it will “unlock a huge amount of clean energy development.” But because the bill can also speed up fossil fuel development, it has support from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Mining Association, natural gas interests, and apparently the Trump administration, which wants to speed up projects like oil wells, coal mines, gas pipelines, and nuclear energy.

But some environmental groups oppose it, as the bill limits time for public comment, restricts judicial remedies, and narrows the scope of environmental review. The New York Times summary of the bill says “it puts new limits on landmark environmental laws such as the Clean Water and Endangered Species Acts.” The latter inspired a 4-page letter signed by more than 200 environmental groups, including Friends of the Earth, the Western Environmental Law Center, and the Center for Biological Diversity, detailing why the bill is objectionable. 

That last group says, “The U.S. Senate will soon vote on a massive legislative package that puts polluters, fossil fuel executives, mining companies, and Big Tech ahead of endangered wildlife, clean water, public lands, Tribal rights, and the people left to deal with the consequences. 

It contains 77 distinct environmental attacks. And North Atlantic right whales, monarch butterflies, manatees, spotted owls, and countless other species could pay the steepest possible price. This legislation dismantles critical environmental safeguards so powerful industries can push through destructive projects as quickly as they can — with less public oversight and fewer legal protections. This legislation is the most dangerous attack on wildlife and environmental protections.”

I can’t read and understand a 417-page bill, so I rely on others to. But thinking about our actual Rhode Island environmental history and what we face now, I note community opposition stopped proposals for an oil refinery on Narragansett Bay (why Save The Bay was formed), a polluting incinerator in North Kingstown, a coal plant in East Providence, nuclear power plants at Rome Point and in Charlestown, a new gas power plant in Burrillville, plus plans to slash interstate highways across the Scituate watershed and South County. 

In all those cases, the establishment mostly wanted the projects, but community opposition prevailed (with the help of allies in government). What “good” projects were stopped by community opposition? I can think of a few bike paths (the latest in Johnston), but not much else.

And what do we face now? Opposition to offshore wind isn’t due to community opposition, but to the current Federal regime. We do face a proposed gas pipeline expansion, data centers, LNG infrastructure, incineration, maybe coastal drilling for oil.... with the current Federal administration pushing them, these are the things that will most likely actually happen - plus our public lands in other states turned over to fossil fuel interests.

I’ll add that some local opposition to “solar farms” that destroy woodland, or transmission lines that slice through mountains, is not to be dismissed lightly. “Flooding the grid” with renewable energy isn’t without significant impacts, and the bill seems devoid of incentives to conserve, increase efficiency, or use less energy. 

So though I’m doubtful about it, I encourage discussion of the issue, especially since Senator Whitehouse is so involved and the Senate could start considering the bill as early as next week. I frankly don’t see why any Democratic Senator would want to work on the bill in the current Congress when they will have much more influence in just two months. I think it is worth considering calling Senators Reed and Whitehouse about this issue.

U.S. Senator Jack Reed’s phone numbers are:

• Washington, D.C. Office: 202-224-4642
• Cranston, RI Office: 401-943-3100

U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s phone numbers are:

• Washington, D.C. Office: (202) 224-2921
• Providence, Rhode Island Office: (401) 453-5294