House budget bill would streamline environmental permitting in Wisconsin

WISCONSIN (Public News Service) – The budget bill passed by the U.S. House and now under consideration in the Senate would reform environmental permitting in Wisconsin and nationwide, potentially streamlining the process and reducing litigation exposure.

Under the National Environmental Policy Act, large projects with the potential to affect the environment must complete environmental assessments or impact statements, including all federal agencies and affects private development projects that need federal permits. The new provision would create an expedited review process for a fee of 25% on top of the usual cost of a review.

Thomas Hochman, director of infrastructure policy at the Foundation for American Innovation, said the new rule would also shield projects from such litigation.

“There are quotes from folks like an outgoing EPA General Counsel, who say 90% of the details in a NEPA review are purely there for litigation-proofing the document,” Hochman pointed out. “You can imagine if you only need 10% of the details in that environmental impact statement, because you know that you are not at risk of litigation, that is almost certainly a radically faster timeline.”

National Environmental Policy Act reform has been attempted by both parties in Congress in recent years but could not pass the Senate. This year’s bill marks the first time it has been attempted in the budget reconciliation process.

Last September, the Cardinal-Hickory Creek clean energy power transmission line connecting Wisconsin and Iowa began operating after more than a decade of planning and multiple periods of litigation delay.

In court, federal agencies have an 80% success rate on appeal and their environmental reviews are not often changed through litigation. One study of reviews shows solar energy projects face the highest litigation rate. Frequent litigation was also seen with pipelines, transmission lines and wind energy projects.

Despite shortening the process, Hochman noted the reforms may also make projects subject to shifting political agendas.

“If you let each administration determine what the cost is, and also spend time determining what the cost should be, you can potentially see differences in treatment,” Hochman observed. “Maybe a Republican administration drags their feet and puts out a really high cost for a wind project that’s going through an environmental impact statement. Maybe a Democratic administration does the same for a pipeline that’s going through an environmental impact statement.”

Projects may still face litigation under other environmental laws such as the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts.

---

This article was originally published on Public News Service.