Wyden Votes No on Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Permitting Reform Bill
Wyden amendment to protect West Coast from offshore oil and gas was voted down
Watch Wyden’s remarks here
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, D-Ore., today in the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources voted against proposed legislation to overhaul leasing and permitting for energy projects, citing serious concerns about the legislation giving unfair advantages to oil and gas projects over renewable energy–an approach he believes is antithetical to the technology-neutral energy victory that he carefully negotiated in the Inflation Reduction Act.
Wyden also offered an amendment to protect the West Coast from offshore oil and gas drilling on behalf of his constituents, who overwhelmingly oppose these projects. His amendment was voted down 10-9.
Wyden’s statement in Committee as prepared for delivery
We made history in 2022, with respect to energy policy after decades of gridlock debating how to fight the climate crisis. We created a new system built around two principles: 1) the more you reduce carbon, the bigger your tax savings; and 2) going forward, we would have an approach around technological neutrality, where everybody gets to be a part of the future.
The chart behind me about the effects of the energy tax credits passed in the Inflation Reduction Act shows these changes are working. We’ve seen the success of technology neutrality in the tax code unfold: more than $300 billion of announced investments in a range of technologies, including a huge increase in clean energy technology manufacturing. Critical minerals investments, carbon management investments, and other investments are increasing.
The Inflation Reduction Act spurred an explosion in clean energy manufacturing investments; they have tripled in the past two years. This means more American jobs, more energy independence, and more security for the American people.
Any clean technology can access the credits, whether it’s the technology of today or tomorrow’s innovation.
Now, the bill before the Committee today has useful provisions.
I very much favor the transmission language, including reconductoring, which moves America toward a cleaner, more reliable, and resilient energy grid. The transmission language, which modernizes our grid, is by definition technologically neutral – improved transmission will carry any type of energy – which is critical to saving the planet, America’s economy, and our energy security.
I also support the encouragement of geothermal energy development in this bill. That is an effort long overdue.
And I particularly laud the efforts by my colleagues, Senators Heinrich and Cortez Masto, to update mining laws to address the grisly, toxic nature of abandoned mines. The creation of the hardrock mining clean-up fund is really important. I know there is more work to do in the mining space, but this is a solid start.
If the bill contained these provisions alone, I’d give my support and recommend a parade down Main Street.
But here’s what continues to leave me very troubled about the bill as it stands today, and why I reluctantly plan to oppose the bill in its current form.
The big problem is the improvements in law I’ve just described are held hostage in this legislation to the outdated fossil fuel status quo that existed before our reforms of 2022 were enacted.
I will give the Committee three examples that make my point – provisions that run contrary to what we worked toward in 2022.
On page 7 - all of these pages are of the bill released by the Committee last week - Section 201, paragraph (a) LIMITATIONS ON ISSUANCE OF CERTAIN LEASES OR RIGHTS-OF-WAY, the bill doubles down on flawed current policies that say agencies can only offer renewable energy projects in conjunction with fossil fuel projects. And in this bill, the industry gets to say where the fossil fuel projects will be offered rather than deferring to agency determination.
On page 68 in TITLE SIX LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS EXPORTS, the bill allows an executive branch hostile to renewable energy to “pocket-approve” LNG projects in three months by doing nothing. I’m not saying years of project application with no guaranteed result is right; but going from that to 90 days of sitting on their hands and getting a guaranteed YES is like asking to borrow five dollars from a bank, being turned down, and showing up the next day to rob it.
The third example is on page five in TITLE ONE of the bill - shortening the statute of limitations to challenge projects. Shortening time lines is everyone’s goal - when pursuing good policy. That’s why in 2015, Congress cut the statute of limitations for SOME energy projects. This bill shortens the statute of limitations for EVERY project.
I’ll close with two points.
As a former chair of the Committee, I’ve always worked with, and I always will work with, my colleagues on both sides to come up with sensible energy solutions.
And, second, in some instances, you just have to stand up for the people you represent.
In that regard, this bill raises an issue crucial to West Coast residents. It requires a set number of offshore oil and gas leases. In order to avoid the West Coast even being considered a destination for meeting that mandate, I will offer an amendment - co-sponsored by my fellow West Coasters, Senators Cantwell and Padilla. Our residents have codified their collective will by installing moratoriums on drilling for oil and gas off our coasts. Our amendment protects that judgment.
We need my amendment because in this bill, there appear to be a lot of wishes and hopes as to how our coasts will be treated under the bill’s mandates. The bill’s sponsors have assured me that drilling will never happen on the West Coast. If that is the case, adoption of my amendment ought to be easy.
###
Next Article Previous Article
