Bills
| 3.23.22

Creating a Council that Focuses on Streamlining the Federal Permitting Process (S. 280)

Do you support or oppose this bill?

What is S. 280?

(Updated March 15, 2018)

This bill would establish a Federal Permitting Improvement Council that is chaired by a Federal Chief Permitting Officer (Federal CPO) who is an officer of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).


The Federal CPO would be required to:

  • Establish an inventory of covered projects for which the review or authorization of the head of any federal agency is pending.

  • Develop non-binding performance schedules for reviews and authorizations of each category of covered projects.

  • Maintain an online database known as the Permitting Dashboard, to track the status of federal reviews and authorizations for any covered project.

Covered projects would be defined as a construction activity that requires authorization or review by a federal agency. They would involve renewable or conventional energy, electricity transmission, surface transportation, aviation, ports and waterways, water resource projects, broadband, manufacturing, or any other sector as determined by the Federal CPO. Covered projects would also require an initial investment of more than $25 million.

Agencies would be required to establish a plan for coordinating public and agency participation in, and completion of, any required federal review. This plan would be submitted to the Federal CPO and include a timetable with deadlines for agency action, and a process for consulting with participating agencies on issues of concern.

Congress would allow three or more contiguous states to enter into an interstate compact that establishes regional infrastructure development agencies to facilitate authorization and review of covered projects.

All environmental reviews required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) must be completed in a timely, coordinated, and environmentally responsible manner.

The statute of limitations for judicial review of an agency’s approval of a covered project would be shortened from five years to 150 days, and courts could consider the potential for job losses and economic harm from using an injunction to block the project.

Argument in favor

There are myriad ways for the federal government to stall a project it doesn’t agree with (see Keystone XL). Forcing agencies to set deadlines and shortening the judicial review window will help more projects get off the ground and boost the economy.

Argument opposed

When the federal government wants to block a project they will find a way regardless of whether or not there is a Council dedicated to streamlining the permitting process.

Impact

Projects requiring approval from a federal agency, states, federal agencies, the FPIC, the Federal CPO.

Cost of S. 280

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

Additional Info

In-Depth: After his bill passed out of committee in the Senate, sponsoring Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) called his bill “very important” because the U.S. has “fallen to 41st in the world under the World Bank Annual Survey about how easy it is to get a project going.” He also noted that “both the AFL-CIO Building Trade Council and the Chamber of Commerce are strongly supportive of it.”

When asked why federal agencies can be so slow in dealing with permit applications, this bill’s cosponsor Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) said:

“There are too many cooks in the kitchen. Someone lets it sit on their desk and forgets it, which is why we need to streamline and make things transparent.”

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce supported a version of this bill introduced during the 113th Congress on the grounds that it would help “address the problem that far too many shovel-ready projects face today: lengthy project delays from endless environmental reviews and challenges result in lost opportunities to create jobs.”

Expressing opposition to this legislation, the Center for Effective Government says it would: “curtail the environmental assessment process and severely restrict the public’s opportunity to participate in the decision making process for federal projects.”

Of Note: An example of the federal regulatory delays that can befall projects, the Keystone XL first filed an application with the State Department on May 4, 2012 — and it took until early 2014 for the State Department to publish its final Environmental Impact Statement. The project still has not received a final approval or rejection of its application.


Media:

Summary by Eric Revell
(Photo Credit: Flickr user Craig Sunter - Thanx 3 Million ;-)))