Washington’s energy permitting process is experiencing delays, hindering progress on energy projects.
The federal government holds the position of the largest landowner in the United States, a fact that has shaped discussions around resource management and environmental policy for decades. Policymakers and experts have long believed that streamlined processes for accessing federally owned lands, particularly those rich in resources, function effectively. However, recent research indicates that these assumptions may be flawed.
The development of energy and mineral resources on federal lands often necessitates compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which has garnered a reputation for its slow and cumbersome review process. In response to this bottleneck, the government established a mechanism known as categorical exclusions (CXs) aimed at expediting the approval of small-scale projects that are deemed to pose minimal environmental risk. The theoretical premise is that such projects can be approved faster to ensure essential services continue without significant disruptions.
Despite the political and academic consensus advocating for the broader use of CXs as a means of reforming permitting processes, recent findings challenge their efficacy. The research uncovered instances where CXs have resulted in review times that exceed those of more comprehensive NEPA assessments. For example, while NEPA’s environmental assessments (EAs) are subject to a one-year limit and environmental impact statements (EISs) have a two-year deadline, CX reviews lack a similar timeframe. This absence of a deadline means that, in some cases, CX reviews can extend indefinitely.
A study evaluated 88 CX reviews concerning geothermal exploration projects and found that nearly 20% took longer than 200 days for approval, with approximately 8% surpassing the one-year mark. This raises concerns about the reliability of CXs to streamline processes as intended. Contrary to expectations, the study indicated that project size and complexity did not correlate with extended review durations, signaling systemic inefficiencies in the process.
One notable case involved a minimal impact project named the Dead Camel Temperature Probe Survey, which ultimately took over a year to approve, significantly surpassing the typical timeframe for EAs despite its limited environmental footprint. This disparity raises questions about the effectiveness of the CX framework and whether it adequately addresses the need for timely project approvals.
While the federal administration continues to advocate for expanding CX eligibility, recent reforms appear to impact only a small fraction of qualifying projects. Most projects were already receiving CXs or streamlined reviews before these changes, highlighting an illusory solution to the perceived problem of prolonged federal reviews.
Ultimately, while the intention to facilitate crucial projects with minimal environmental impact is commendable, it becomes evident that the CX process requires reform to ensure it achieves its goal of expediting reviews. Establishing a reasonable timeframe for CX approvals, akin to the existing deadlines for EAs and EISs, is a viable solution that could enhance the efficiency of this permitting pathway.
In striving for a balanced approach, Washington must prioritize not just the quantity of projects expedited through CXs but also their speed. Reforms should aim to create a genuinely streamlined process, enabling timely access to federal resources critical for modern society.
Media News Source
