Cross-border infrastructure and presidential permits

A recent report casts doubt on whether proposed federal legislation would actually accelerate decisions on the siting of cross-border energy infrastructure.

Cross-border pipelines and electric transmission lines play an important role in the North American energy industry.  Under U.S. law, cross-border energy infrastructure projects require a presidential permit and a finding of consistency with the national interest.  Executive orders give the State Department jurisdiction over cross-border oil pipelines, the Department of Energy jurisdiction over electric transmission lines, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission jurisdiction over natural gas pipelines. 

Recent projects like the Keystone XL pipeline have focused attention on the presidential permit process, as that project's presidential permit application has remained pending for years.  Some have raised questions about the scope of agency review and perceived differences in the approaches taken by the State Department, Energy Department, and FERC.

As a result, several members of Congress have proposed legislation designed to accelerate the permitting process.  These bills include:

• the Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act (S. 1): passed in Congress but vetoed by President Obama
• the American Energy Renaissance Act of 2015 (S. 791 and H.R. 1487)
• the North American Energy Infrastructure Act (S. 1228)

These bills take various approaches, including limiting agency jurisdiction over cross-border energy infrastructure or the scope of agency review, or setting strict deadlines for agency action following completion of environmental review.

Could federal legislation like this speed up the process for reviewing proposed cross-border pipeline and electric transmission projects?  A recent report by the Congressional Research Service suggests that overall timelines for project review are driven by the scope of the environmental review process, not by delays following that environmental review or agency idiosyncrasies.

In particular, the report found that agency review is "driven largely by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)", which requires federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts before acting.  Moreover, the report notes that the same NEPA requirements apply to all three:

Faced with Presidential Permit applications for energy projects of similar physical scope, the agencies appear to perform NEPA reviews of similar proportion. Very short, smaller projects are generally reviewed more narrowly and quickly, whereas multi-state projects of large capacity are subject to more expansive environmental review and tend to face much greater public scrutiny and comment—regardless of which agency has jurisdiction. 

The report also found that NEPA review is the key driver of overall permitting decision timelines:

As long as agencies apply NEPA to Presidential Permitting decisions, changes to the delineation of, or jurisdiction over, the border-crossing portion of large projects for permitting purposes may not change the scope of project environmental review. The imposition of decision deadlines on the permitting agencies after NEPA review is complete, either for national interest or public interest determination, could provide greater process certainty to stakeholders. However, the overall project review would still be contingent on the completion of NEPA review. Thus, the effects of legislative proposals to change cross-border infrastructure permitting on the review or approval of future border crossing energy infrastructure projects are open to debate. 

It's unclear how the Congressional Research Service report will affect pending legislation.  Likely more influential may be any final action by the State Department on the Keystone XL project's application for a presidential permit.  Nevertheless, interest in cross-border energy trade will likely continue to grow.