WATCHING WASHINGTON ENERGY SITING DEBATE

with Patrick Crow A key National Energy Strategy issue before Congress is whether to speed permitting of major energy projects. The issue has been dormant since 1980, when House and Senate conferees agreed on a bill creating an Energy Mobilization Board to fast track energy project permitting. But Congress, concerned about environmental protection and states' rights, rejected it. The Bush administration's NES has revisited the problem, offering a piecemeal approach. It would expedite

May 6, 1991

3 min read

A key National Energy Strategy issue before Congress is whether to speed permitting of major energy projects.

The issue has been dormant since 1980, when House and Senate conferees agreed on a bill creating an Energy Mobilization Board to fast track energy project permitting. But Congress, concerned about environmental protection and states' rights, rejected it.

The Bush administration's NES has revisited the problem, offering a piecemeal approach. It would expedite construction of gas pipeline and nuclear plants and improve federal-state cooperation on other projects.

Rep. Peter Kostmayer (D-Pa.), chairman of the House energy and environment subcommittee, was skeptical about the idea at a recent hearing.

"While expediting the siting process for energy facilities has a certain appeal, the Congress needs to explore the potential consequences," he said.

DOE: SITING REFORMS NEEDED

Mark Schroeder, the Energy Department's deputy general counsel, argued, "The need to address the siting of energy facilities in a timely, cost-effective, and environmentally sensitive manner has never been greater. Even with aggressive conservation and efficiency efforts, this country will need to add 200,000 mw of electric generating capacity over and above current capacity by 2010. Yet present regulatory delay, barriers, and the 'not in my back yard' syndrome threaten and even block the use of some of our cleanest, domestically available sources of energy-natural gas, hydropower, and nuclear energy."

The NES would make FERC the sole agency for making pipeline construction environmental determinations, Schroeder said FERC would have to consult with other federal agencies, but they "would not be allowed to delay the approval process by failing to meet deadlines or by creating the need to prepare additional, independent National Environmental Policy Act documentation."

The NES also proposes an optional certificate process that reduces the permitting process for new pipelines whose sponsors assume the full financial risk of construction. It further requires the federal Council on Environmental Quality to seek ways to streamline federal and state licensing of any new energy facilities. As part of its review, CEO would examine Colorado and Florida programs designed to expedite site approval and environmental permitting for energy facilities.

Frederick Lowther, a Washington attorney who represented the Iroquois Gas Transmission System, said that project-approved last year-"stands as a prime example of why the regulatory permitting process in the U.S. needs a serious overhaul."

He said Iroquois' 5 year trek through state and federal bureaucracies required 43 separate regulatory authorizations, four comprehensive environmental reviews, and more than 1 million pages of hearing records. Iroquois spent more than $55 million to obtain the permits.

A TV ACTOR'S VIEW

The television actor Ted Danson, who is president of the American Oceans Campaign, complained, "What the proposals would streamline out is full environmental review."

He opposed giving FERC more controls over environmental permitting, since "Other agencies bring completely other perspectives and responsibilities to the siting process that FERC's more narrow scope of siting and regulating pipelines cannot adequately address."