Daily on Energy: Scott Peters talks permitting reform
By the Washington Examiner
SCOTT PETERS TALKS PERMITTING REFORM:
While election season is in full swing across the country, Democratic Rep. Scott Peters isn’t taking his mind off passing meaningful permitting reform when members come back to D.C. later this fall.
Peters, who is running for reelection to represent California’s 50th congressional district, spoke with Callie over the phone yesterday afternoon to discuss the party’s energy policy priorities during the lame-duck session.
At the top of that list? Permitting reform.
If you have been tuned out of the news cycle the last few weeks, at the end of September, a bipartisan group of senators released a 417-page bill aimed at accelerating and streamlining the federal permitting process. The bill is called the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (or BAAJA), and its backers hope to put it to a vote in the upper chamber following the midterm elections.
“I think from the perspective of Democrats…I think for everyone, it’s going to reduce affordability, it’s going to help clean energy because so many of the roadblocks are in the way of clean energy, it’s going to help reliability,” Peters said. “And I think it will resolve a lot of the issues that have been dogging us for a long time around energy.”
He praised provisions in the bill meant to build out more transmission infrastructure, which would make it easier to connect thousands of gigawatts worth of solar, storage, and wind capacity to the broader grid.
From Peters’s perspective as a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the transmission text as written might be the best Democrats can get.
“The transmission provisions in this bill are as good as anything we could ever get out of the Energy and Commerce Committee from the perspective of Democrats – what we’ve been looking for,” he said. “And so I hope that’s settled.”
Bullish on House passage: Last year, Peters voted against the House version of a permitting bill, known as the SPEED Act, saying it didn’t meet certain priorities Democrats had, such as protecting projects from political interference.
At the time, though, Peters was joined by more than two dozen Democrats in the House in signing a letter that called for reforming the federal permitting process, specifically through reforming the National Environmental Policy Act.
During yesterday’s conversation, Peters sounded confident that the interest among his colleagues hasn’t wavered.
“I believe that there is,” Peters said when asked if there is enough support to pass the bill during the lame duck.
“If you first look at the coalition we have, we have a lot of folks who have been working on this, who are concerned about affordability, frustrated with the process, and I think that coalition is going to grow,” he said, referring to the New Democrat Coalition.
The California Democrat pointed out that the Senate package has support from labor groups like the Laborers’ International Union of North America, as well as the Blue Dog Coalition, the Build America Caucus, and the Problem Solvers Caucus.
Pushback from environmental groups: While the Senate bill was introduced with bipartisan support, backed by known climate hawks Martin Heinrich of New Mexico and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, dozens of environmental and green groups have encouraged Democrats to oppose the legislation.
The pushback has largely been led by groups such as the Center for Biological Diversity and Friends of the Earth US, though more than 200 organizations agreed in a letter that the bill does not strike an “acceptable balance” and would still support the development of fossil fuels.
Noticeably, however, large environmental organizations like the Environmental Defense Fund, The Nature Conservancy, Environment America, and the League of Conservation Voters did not sign the letter. And others, such as the Citizens Climate Lobby and Climate Leadership Council, have voiced their support.
“Among the environmental groups, there’s not a knee-jerk reaction to this like you might have expected a few years ago,” Peters said. “They’re really thinking it through and they realize that, you know, this is something that promises to lower emissions. And I think if we optimized around that instead of a lot of extraneous things, which I think unfortunately sometimes enter the discussion, I think the support for this would be really clear in the environmental community as well.”