Alongside your irregularly-scheduled Green Tape programming, we will also be posting Right of Way episodes and transcripts here. If you prefer to listen on Spotify or Apple Podcasts, click the links here or here.
In this episode, we discuss:
How the shutdown will affect permitting reform discussions
What makes this round of negotiations different from past efforts
The state of play in Congress, from the House to the Senate, from NEPA to transmission, and beyond
Right of Way Ep. 3.5: Special Shutdown Edition
w/ Joshua Siegel
Thomas: Welcome to Right of Way, a podcast about energy policy, energy politics, and above all the upcoming permitting reform negotiations. I’m Thomas Hochman, director of infrastructure policy at the Foundation for American Innovation, and I’m joined by Pavan Venkatakrishnan, an infrastructure fellow at the Institute for Progress.
Up to this point on the podcast, we’ve been doing a lot of scene-setting. We’ve talked about where we are in this broader energy policy moment, and have also taken deep dives into NEPA, the Clean Water Act, and transmission.
But now things are actually moving on the Hill, and we want to make sure that listeners are getting an insight into how this package comes together, as it comes together.
So, joining us today to give us a rundown on all things Congress is Josh Siegel. Josh is an energy and climate reporter at Politico, where he covers the frenzy of activity around energy policy on Capitol Hill and beyond.
He’s also the host of the POLITICO Energy podcast, which features breakdowns of the latest energy policy news, as well as interviews with members of Congress, energy executives, and other key stakeholders.
If you, like us, follow Josh on Twitter you will know that he is “The Guy” when it comes to energy reporting. It feels like Josh has had every major scoop and piece of breaking news on permitting reform in particular, so we’re very excited to have him joining us.
Josh, welcome to Right of Way.
Joshua: Thanks guys, appreciate that very generous intro.
Pavan: So as we record this, Josh, on October 8th, we are on day eight with no continuing resolution enacted into law, no clear way out of this mess. But I think it’s worthwhile to kind of consider the implications that this has for energy policy, for permitting on this podcast. So DOE has canceled a number of grants, and I’m curious whether you believe that the resolution—reviving those grants—comes in the course of a permitting reform negotiation, or do you think this is more of an appropriations problem?
Obviously it doesn’t help the political conversation in any way for Democrats who are looking for reasons to engage, but I’d be curious to hear your take.
Joshua: Yeah, I don’t think we’ll see this become really the subject of negotiations to reopen the government. Health care seems to be the top priority when it comes to Democrats engaging on reopening the government. We know that this administration is pretty set in its ways when it comes to energy, and is pretty clear on where its priorities are. So I don’t think this will become subject to broader negotiations.
As far as how it affects permitting, I’ve spoken with senators on both sides this week and last week. There’s not a direct relation in that the current impasse has nothing to do with permitting or vice versa. But I think what the question is—as you hinted at—is that trust between the parties right now is not great. You talk to people on both sides and they say, “When you cancel projects like this”—this is not in the permitting context, but we’ve seen them revoke permits or stall on permits when it comes to the projects they don’t like. It’s clean energy, it’s renewable energy—more specifically, it’s wind and solar. In some contexts it’s transmission. I’m not speaking for all Democrats, but the majority I speak with say, “Look, we’re sympathetic. We want to do something in this space in an ideal world. But this week is just another example—the last couple of weeks with how things are going with the shutdown—of why we can’t really trust this administration.”
And then the other issue is time, right? I mean, we know how Congress works. There’s only so many calendar days. I caught up with Chairman Bruce Westerman on Tuesday, who was over in the Senate for different reasons, but I asked, “How do you feel about the shutdown impacting your efforts to really move your NEPA reform bill, which seems like the clearest path to moving something given that it’s bipartisan?” He said, “We’ve had to adjust our calendar. The committees can’t do hearings right now. They can’t do markups.” So it’s still his top priority. As soon as he’s given the go and the government is back, he wants to move on it. But that’s not there right now. We know these are precious days as you get to the end of the year.
Pavan: Yeah, so the calendar is definitely a problem. Do you think that the impasse has dented the momentum in general for passing a package? Obviously, you’re losing a week, you’re losing two weeks, three weeks as Congress discovers how to pass appropriations or a continuing resolution. But do you think that that urgency remains, or do you think it’s diminished?
Joshua: No, I think the urgency is the same. As you’ve highlighted on your podcast, the context in which permitting reform is happening now is different. I’ve been following this issue for three, four years now. The difference is that you have all the industry groups across the spectrum really wanting to see something happen. AI, the rising power demand—we haven’t seen that happen for decades. All of this is really making it an urgent priority across the spectrum to see projects move. That context is still there. So folks who want to see action are continuing to beat the drum.
It’s more a question of: Will the Trump administration back off at all? How much will they engage? They’re doing a lot at the executive level. What’s their level of involvement, what do they want to see happen? I think that’ll be motivating for Republicans. And, can folks like Capito, Westerman get through, in any way they can: “Hey, what you’re doing on the executive side is maybe not helpful.”
Thomas: So you mentioned the challenges that come with the calendar right now, and I think that’s a good segue. Taking a step back, what is the state of play right now? We have one committee that’s introduced a NEPA bill—that’s House Natural Resources with the SPEED Act. We have a second committee that’s introduced a transmission bill—that’s House Energy and Commerce with the confusingly-similarly-named SPEED and Reliability Act. And we have a third committee that’s introduced a Clean Water Act bill—that’s the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee with the PERMIT Act.
I would note here that the NEPA and transmission bills were both bipartisan. You have Golden and Westerman on SPEED. You have Peters and Barr on SPEED and Reliability. The PERMIT Act as of right now is Republican-only.
So a few things here: How is the House thinking about run-of-show? When are they hoping to move things to the floor? And also, how are things going more broadly on pulling these two bipartisan bills and this one less bipartisan bill into a more cohesive, coherent package?
Joshua: I am watching the House side, which is surprising if you followed this closely last time—it was really the Senate driving a lot given that Joe Manchin and John Barrasso had a great partnership and were really moving on that. I do think the House is where there’s more activity, at least with progress that we can see as the public.
When you talk to Westerman, he really wants to get a full comprehensive package. So I think it remains to be seen. Let’s say the SPEED Act is marked up, it’s bipartisan, which I think we expect given it was introduced bipartisan. Does he want to go to the floor with it? Does he convince leadership to say, look, “We want to see what we can do on the Energy and Commerce side”?
The question mark there for me is—yes, there is a bipartisan bill that was put out on transmission that I think was surprising to a lot of people to see a Republican, Andy Barr of Kentucky, put his name on. There were a lot of similarities to the Barrasso transmission language there, but the question mark for me is the chairman, Chair Guthrie.
He does publicly speak about transmission and the needs for the grid in a way that the previous chair, McMorris Rodgers, hadn’t really shown much interest or really engaged much on—and ended up not taking any action on. But we haven’t seen Energy and Commerce schedule transmission-specific hearings in this context. So I think Guthrie’s appetite will determine a lot.
But I do think for the folks who are publicly leading this in the House, Westerman is the guy I’m following a lot because he was really active in the last Congress trying to get a deal there at the end of the year with Manchin-Barrasso and locking up the House side.
He does want to do a compromise. He doesn’t view it as, “Let’s just get some NEPA reforms and some judicial review and call it a day.” He really wants Clean Water Act, transmission, NEPA, judicial review reform—he wants it all together and sees it as, I think, a legacy item.
Thomas: So you just named a few key components of what this package almost certainly has to have to get sufficient votes, right? There’s the NEPA, there’s the transmission, there’s the Clean Water Act, there’s this cross-cutting judicial review issue.
One piece that we’ve heard a lot about recently that doesn’t sit in any of those silos is this effort to limit the ability of the executive branch to target disfavored energy sources through delay, whether that be wind and solar with this administration or perhaps in a future Democratic administration with oil and gas. What are you hearing right now on the Hill about efforts to target that fourth issue?
Joshua: Yeah, that’s a little bit unclear to me. I don’t hear anything on specific language or ways they want to go about that. But as far as it being a motivator for the Republicans and the Democrats who want to see something happen—Sheldon Whitehouse is a great example. He’s negotiating with Chair Capito at EPW on NEPA and some other elements that are related to their committee at EPW—offshore wind, some Clean Water Act components. They’re saying that passing permitting reform into law—that benefits all technologies—is how you prevent these kinds of swings between administrations.
But when I put the question point blank to Whitehouse and other Democrats of, “How would you assure that? How do you prevent these kinds of actions?”—there’s not a lot of specifics. Because Senator Whitehouse has made clear that he will not sign off on anything until he has some indication that renewable energy projects will not be treated differently than fossil fuel projects. And I just don’t know what would give him that confidence. Would there be specific language written into this that would put limitations on it? It remains to be seen. I’m sure there’s creative ideas out there. But right now, we’re not getting a ton of specifics on what that would look like or whether it’s more signaling—like Republican good faith, “Hey, we have a good word from the administration that they want to see permitting and are going to be more selective on how they exert their executive authorities.”
Thomas: So you talked a little bit about how this push has some fundamentally different ingredients with AI being on everybody’s minds, as well as there being all these concerns about energy affordability.
We’re trying to think about what the ingredients have to be for this package to work. Because we’ve seen efforts come up short in the past, most recently in 2024 with the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 negotiations. So, if in a year we come back and do another podcast episode and the bill has passed and Pavan and I are celebrating—what will need to have happened, what will need to have changed from previous efforts for this to really come together?
Joshua: When I look at the last go-round, I feel like there were efforts on both sides to blame each other. “Well, it was the left who wasn’t comfortable with NEPA reforms and judicial review.” And, “No, it was the conservatives who wouldn’t engage on transmission.” In reality, I think there was some truth to both of that.
So I think it would be a combination of finding a transmission policy that makes Republicans comfortable. I know the cost allocation issue is contentious, but that bill in Manchin-Barrasso moved out of committee on a very bipartisan basis. If it got to the floor, I think it would have seen bipartisan wide margins as well.
But the House Republicans weren’t comfortable entirely with that concept. So it’ll take Mike Lee, the chair of the Energy Committee, who has been a little bit of a black box for us reporters. He did put out a tweet recently that he wants to see NEPA and broader permitting reform, and I have heard that he and Heinrich have started member-to-member. So that’s something. But, I think it’ll take Lee really showing some leadership on the transmission side and Guthrie as well in a way that we have not seen.
And then, I do think there’s been more progress than maybe is always noted as far as the Democrats engaging on NEPA. Is the SPEED Act language as it is what will make it in a final package? Probably unlikely. But Tom Carper, who was the top Democrat on EPW last Congress negotiating with Westerman on NEPA—he made some concessions that I think surprised some people. They didn’t get all the way there—it wasn’t enough for Westerman who saw that the GOP was going to return to power and wanted to really drive things. He didn’t get to yes there.
But, it’ll take a combination of the Democrats becoming more comfortable with NEPA changes and judicial review. And I do think they’re making a lot of progress on that. Then with transmission—really, it will be about Republicans getting comfortable with taking action.
The third big bucket is the administration. I still think that honestly is the biggest thing. If we were in a different context and they weren’t doing what they’re doing, it would be really ripe, I think, to get permitting done this Congress with the elements that we’ve been discussing. It’s just that element is really the big question mark.
Pavan: Right, just going back to that idea of industry alignment—there was a New York Times story recently talking about oil and gas executives who were deeply uncomfortable with the stop-work orders against offshore wind. It was striking, right? You’ve got Darren Woods, the head of EQT, the head of API, saying this is a real concern for us—looking at a Democratic administration in the future that has unearthed all these authorities. I think that’s another ingredient here and maybe adds to the urgency.
But anyway, we like to end our podcast by asking our guests for an energy policy hot take. So Josh, what’s yours?
Joshua: Yeah, I don’t know if this is a hot take or not, but when it comes to the conversation around whether the parties are ever going to get together on doing policy that addresses climate change, I’ve seen some stories recently on Republicans removing themselves from that playing field.
But it does feel like we’re just in a new context where action that we see in Congress and their messaging around energy is really going to focus on costs, meeting rising demand, and what technologies are best equipped at doing that.
We’re already seeing that in Congress. I don’t hear Democrats talking about climate change as much. You don’t hear Republicans talk about it either. Not that it’s not an important issue, but I do think the debate that we’re going to be seeing going forward is going to be really about how we enable more energy to get online and what types of energy are best equipped.
It’ll be interesting to see where the Republicans go once Trump is not the president, because I do think when you talk to Republicans in Congress, they’re not entirely comfortable with where the president has gone. Openly, his administration is moving away from all of the above. And it’ll be interesting to see if whoever becomes the party’s standard bearer going forward is the same in how they act against renewables or if they embrace everything—as well as how Democrats respond. So, it’ll be interesting.
Thomas: There’ll be no shortage of new stories to report on for the next few years, that is for sure. Josh, thanks so much for joining Right of Way.
Josh: Thank you.
