A recent meeting on Capitol Hill between leaders in the environmental community and one of their biggest allies in Congress grew tense.
Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) was firm in backing compromise permitting and grid legislation, but advocates were not sold, according to people familiar with the situation who were granted anonymity to speak candidly.
Heinrich, poised to be the top Democrat on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, deflected when asked if the tenor of the meeting was tense. He described it as “honest” and “constructive.”
“I have an approach that is really rooted in the modeling and the math,” he said. “And I think it’s really important that as we try to solve climate change that these conversations are about the math. We have to reduce our emissions.”
Heinrich — like some other Democrats — voted in committee for legislation from Chair Joe Manchin (I-W.Va.) and ranking member John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) meant to ease approvals for energy projects and boost the grid. Both are green priorities.
But S. 4753 also includes provisions to boost fossil fuel development — including forcing the administration to decide whether to issue liquefied natural gas export terminal permits.
The “honest” meeting was just one of many in recent weeks between Democratic lawmakers and aides and environmental advocates from the League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club, the Climate Action Campaign, Earthjustice and others. Some are formal sit-downs; others are side conversations at other events.
“We’ve been having conversations in the House and Senate,” said Mahyar Sorour, a director at the Sierra Club, declining to divulge details. “We’re trying to ensure offices have the whole story when it relates to this legislation.”
Heinrich called the bill — which passed 15-4 — a “much better deal” than Manchin’s 2022 permitting legislation, which an unusual mix of progressives and Republicans ultimately killed. He pointed to recent modeling showing carbon emissions reductions.
“To solve climate change, we’re going to have to build stuff,” he continued. “So, I think that’s a different frame than where people have been in for the last few decades.”
‘Nice hope, but not accurate’
Historically, the loaded term “permitting reform” was shorthand for cutting red tape to make it easier for companies to extract fossil fuels. But in recent years, the conversation has become more nuanced.
The clean energy lobby — larger and more organized than ever — has complained about its own permit delays. And more Democrats started talking about the need to build out the nation’s grid to unleash the carbon emissions benefits in their $370 billion climate law. They want more power lines so new renewable energy can reach all corners of the nation.
At the same time, environmental advocates and many Democrats object to the notion that oil and gas perks are a necessary part of the trade.
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), who opposes the bill, said that logic “is like a diabetic who says the doctor says I have to get off sugar to address my diabetes. But you know what? I’m going to increase my sugar consumption but take a vitamin every day. Nice hope, but not accurate.”
Others suggest the conversation among Democrats and their allies is shifting.
“I think we’ve gone from a situation in which, four or five years ago, if you were an environmentally oriented legislator cheering on permitting reform, you’d get a lot of outrage and anger, and now it’s just more a policy disagreement,” said. Sen Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii). “I think the temperature is down.”
By similar accounts, environmental groups are not as deeply opposed as they were two years ago when they crusaded against Manchin’s “dirty side deal.”
Others counter that most environmental advocates right now are hyper-focused on campaigning for Vice President Kamala Harris. Things are expected to intensify after the election, depending on the outcome.
Last week, the Sierra Club, Earthjustice and several other groups held a briefing to detail provisions of the Manchin-Barrasso bill as well as a National Environmental Policy Act overhaul from House Natural Resources Chair Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.). One hundred fifty congressional staffers tuned in.
“Sierra Club is really using all the tools in our toolbox to push back on any claims and narratives that this legislation is a net positive for climate,” Sorour said. “We’re continuing to make that case in the fall.”
Reading the tea leaves
It is an open question where Democrats — or Republicans for that matter — in both chambers will land in the lame duck. For permitting optimists, the House’s passage this week of legislation to exempt certain chip manufacturers from extensive NEPA scrutiny could foretell the fate of a larger package.
The breakdown of the Monday House floor vote — 275-125 — was telling. LCV had alerted members it would be scoring the vote; a “yea” would count against them. While more than 100 Democrats opposed the bill, as many as 79 Democrats voted for it.
Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.) is also bullish on a permitting and grid deal, but he said he understood environmental groups are in a tough spot.
“We’re asking their membership to look at certain aspects of development differently than they have for a long time,” he said. “Many environmental nonprofits thought slowing down and, in some cases, stopping development was the best thing you could do for the overall health of the planet.”
He credited Heinrich for bringing together “discordant voices.” “Senator Heinrich is as green as anyone in the Senate — maybe not as green as [Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon] Whitehouse, but pretty darn close.”
A former New Mexico natural resources trustee, Heinrich has voted with LCV 94 percent of the time while in Congress. So, in July, his unabashed support for the Manchin bill came as a bit of a surprise.
“I’ve been in the trenches for, let’s see — 16, 17 years,” he said. “And in the conversations I have back home, people are recognizing if we’re going to solve these issues, we’re going to have to build some things. We’re going to have to build transmission. We’re going to have to build generation projects. We’re going to have to cite storage — you can’t get there without it. So, I think it’s important to have those kinds of conversations.”
