Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, whose motto is “Disagree Better,” is clearly not in the mood to take that stance when it comes to what he says is a bogged-down federal regulatory system.
“We can’t build things in this country anymore. We’ve gotten so stupid in this country,” Cox emphasized at a press conference Thursday outlining his budget recommendations.
It is obvious he cannot disagree better with “stupid.”
One of the components of Cox’s proposed budget in the coming fiscal year is a chief desire to infuse money into Operation Gigawatt, which is the governor’s initiative to double energy production in Utah in 10 years. He proposes a spending package of $24.7 million, which includes $20.4 million for the advancement of nuclear energy, and $4.3 million to more thoroughly tap Utah’s vast geothermal resources.
“Large energy projects can’t be built because of stupid NEPA processes. It’s time to stop this madness,” he said.
The National Environmental Policy Act came into effect in 1970, requiring federal agencies to consider environmental impacts of projects to ensure that “man and nature can exist in productive harmony.”
Yet, a clearly frustrated Cox reiterated his angst over permitting reviews.
“It does not have to be this way. I’m excited the administration understands this. I’ve already been talking with (North Dakota Gov. Doug) Burgum. We are going to solve nuclear.”
Burgum is the choice to the lead the U.S. Department of Interior, selected by incoming President Donald Trump.
Burgum was also tapped to lead the National Energy Council given his experience in a state that witnessed exploding revenues from the shale oil taken from the Bakken formation. The oil and gas, at that time 10 years ago, led North Dakota to have the nation’s top economy.
Burgum, in his new role, will oversee a panel that crosses all executive branch agencies involved in energy permitting, production, generation, distribution, regulation and transportation, Trump said in a statement. As chairman of the National Energy Council, Burgum will have a seat on the National Security Council, Trump said.
The Associated Press reported this about the North Dakota governor:
“This Council will oversee the path to U.S. ENERGY DOMINANCE by cutting red tape, enhancing private sector investments across all sectors of the Economy, and by focusing on INNOVATION over longstanding, but totally unnecessary, regulation,” Trump wrote, according to the the story.
That is what Cox and many in “Trump country” want: more certainty, more expedience and less expensive red tape for states and other local entities when it comes to projects.
Energy deployment in its many forms that include advanced nuclear technology, geothermal, solar, wind, biomass or oil and gas and even transmission lines have been subject to rigorous scrutiny by federal agencies.
The permitting process is a panel topic Monday at the conference by the Western Governors Association, of which Cox is vice chair.
At the winter conference in Las Vegas, panelists on the issue of permitting are slated to feature Jeremy Harrell, chief executive officer of ClearPath; Joel Pedersen, chief executive officer, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and Jill Springer, senior policy adviser for permitting with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
One of those permitting issues under contention is due to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, involving a proposed 85-mile railway project in Utah to deliver waxy crude.
The appellate court in Washington, D.C., struck down project’s approval, which prompted an appeal by Utah along with the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition — which is ground zero for oil and gas production in Utah.
Proponents of the project believe the nation’s highest court has a chance to reshape the scope of environmental reviews. Critics of conservation-based organizations, however, assert the justices are meddling far outside their scope and if there is any tinkering with NEPA, it should be made by Congress.
In a media briefing earlier this week, Earthjustice and other organizations argued there is good cause for federal regulatory scrutiny — especially if it comes at the cost of public safety. That could include anything from air free of harmful pollution, contaminated waterways or threats to protected species of animals.