Op-Ed: The Energy Permitting Reform Act is our best shot at advancing critical climate goals

Danielle Russo is executive director of SAFE’s Center for Grid Security.

America has already begun to feel the impacts of landmark legislation like the Inflation Reduction Act and the bipartisan infrastructure law. But how transformative these legislative achievements can be for American reindustrialization, our transition to a clean energy economy, and job growth rests on some key decisions still before Congress.

One bill with the power to make a remarkable difference is the bipartisan Energy Permitting Reform Act (EPRA) of 2024, which will come to the floor once the House and the Senate return in the fall.

Introduced in July by Senators Joe Manchin, I-W.Va., and John Barrasso, R-Wyo., EPRA would be a crucial step toward America realizing its potential as a 21st century clean energy superpower, but only if we can put our desires for a perfect policy aside and embrace practical compromise.

America’s clean energy transition is significantly hampered by our inability to efficiently build the infrastructure that supports it — like interregional transmission lines — and to sustainably access, refine and produce the critical minerals and materials that go into clean energy technologies.

EPRA provides an opportunity to break through the bureaucratic red tape holding us back from achieving real progress on domestic energy expansion and our climate goals. It is not a perfect climate bill — it’s the result of two years of careful compromise, reflected by the strong bipartisan support it received from the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Most importantly, there is not a better deal waiting around the corner.

Present opposition to EPRA focuses on concerns that the bill erodes essential protections and oversight, giving too much away to gas, oil and mining interests. These concerns not only ignore the holistic progress created by the bill’s provisions in their entirety, but also the environmental, economic and human cost of inaction.

More specifically, opposition to the bill centers around the streamlining of judicial review processes for new projects. While well-intentioned, we must recognize that today, these reviews almost always result in massive delays for major infrastructure projects that could move America forward.

A recent study found that on average, National Environmental Policy Act reviews add roughly four years — and the associated financial costs — to fossil fuel and clean energy projects and rarely result in any environmental benefit, with 71% of challenges resolving in favor of the proposed projects.

Some worry that EPRA will lead to more leasing of lands for drilling and mining. Two truths that we environmentalists must swallow are that the energy transition will be gradual, and it will require mining. EPRA by no means would allow for a free-for-all but would make it more realistic to access energy resources in the U.S., where labor and environmental standards are higher. To meet climate goals, the world will need significantly more minerals like copper, lithium and nickel.

China’s near monopoly on these — and other — critical minerals, as well as the world’s reliance on opaque supply chains that obscure how and where these minerals are mined, presents ethical, national security and environmental concerns that we must take seriously. While it can be an uncomfortable truth to accept, it is better for the planet and for people if the building blocks of the energy transition are made in the United States.

The same is true for traditional fuels, which we will continue to need to ensure our lights stay on, our cars keep running and our economy thrives as we transition to more sustainable energy sources. Extracting those fuel sources on U.S. soil, rather than importing them, means lower overall global emissions. While that truth feels uncomfortable to accept, discomfort at times is a part of progress, and overall progress must be our goal.

We need comon-sense solutions for unlocking the full potential of our energy resources, onshoring critical supply chains and ensuring energy availability for critical defense applications, all of which are essential to achieving what legislation like the IRA and bipartisan infrastructure law set out to do. These goals, and this bill, should be embraced across the aisle, for a more prosperous, secure and sustainable future for America.

We must abandon all-or-nothing thinking around our climate and energy goals if we hope to make progress. Opposing this bill is supporting an untenable status quo.