World News | Can Biden’s hardhat environmentalism bridge the gap for a clean energy future?

WASHINGTON, May 20 (AP) – When John Podesta stepped down as an adviser to President Barack Obama nearly a decade ago, he believed hundreds of miles of new transmission lines would will enter the Southwest, expanding the reach of clean energy throughout the region.

So when Podesta re-entered the federal government last year to tackle climate issues for President Joe Biden, he was shocked to learn that those lines had never been built. They haven’t even received final regulatory approval yet.

Read also | G7 Summit 2023: Prime Minister Narendra Modi hugs US President Joe Biden in Japan (watch video).

“These things get stuck and they don’t come loose,” Podesta said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Podesta is now a key figure in solving one of Biden’s thorniest challenges as he pursues ambitious reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Read also | Eight million people are at risk of coastal flooding as New York City sinks under the weight of its skyscrapers, study finds.

Without the president’s ability to simplify the permitting process for power plants, transmission lines and other projects, the country cannot have the infrastructure it needs to be powered by carbon-free electricity in the future.

The issue is unlikely to be a feature of ongoing high-stakes budget negotiations between the White House and House Republicans as they try to avoid a first-ever default on the country’s debt before the end of the month.

Whether a licensing deal can be reached in time is unclear, with Republicans looking for ways to increase oil drilling while Democrats focus on clean energy. But its mere presence on the negotiating table suggests that the political battle lines are shifting.

While U.S. industry and unions have long chafed at the rules, some environmentalists are now annoyed by the red tape.

It represents a stark change for a movement more committed to slowing development than championing it, and it has caused unease among longtime allies, even as it creates the potential for new partnerships.

Still, the shift is at the heart of Biden’s environmentalist vision, which promises that ditching fossil fuels will create blue-collar jobs.

“We have to start building again in America,” Podesta said. “We’re too good at stopping things and not good enough at building them.”

Establishment, of course, is a central hurdle issue for any agreement.

The licensing issue came up last year in negotiations with Sen. Joe Manchin, D-West Virginia, who was a key vote on the Inflation Reduction Act, far-reaching legislation that includes fiscal incentives for clean energy.

Manchin pushed for a separate proposal that would make it easier to build infrastructure for renewables and fossil fuels. He has been focusing on the Valley Pipeline, which will carry natural gas through his home state.

Republicans called the legislation “political payoff.” The Liberal Democrats described it as a “dirty deal”. Manchin’s thoughts froze.

Still, the senator “gets a lot of credit for really elevating that,” said Elizabeth Gore, senior vice president for political affairs at the Environmental Defense Fund.

“It was his efforts that really brought this issue to the fore,” she said.

Since then, the Capitol has been flooded with proposals to ease licensing bottlenecks. House Republicans passed their own budget legislation last month aimed at boosting oil, natural gas and coal production. Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) recently introduced another proposal targeting clean energy.

“I think there is a path forward,” Gore said, describing all the ideas as “stepping stones.”

Neil Bradley, executive vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, was also optimistic.

“The hurdle isn’t whether people think it’s a good idea,” he said. “The hurdle is working out the details.”

Despite the widespread interest in allowing changes, reaching a deal could involve trade-offs that are difficult for Democrats and environmentalists to accept.

Republicans want to see more fossil fuels, and now that they control the House, no proposals will be introduced without their approval. But making too many concessions to Republicans in the House could jeopardize support in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

Environmentalists were frustrated by Biden’s approval of Willow, an oil drilling project in the untouched wilderness of Alaska. After Podesta finished speaking on permits at a Washington think tank this month, activists scrambled to block his car with a banner reading “End Fossil Fuels” in bold, white letters.

According to Podesta, an immediate phase-out of oil and gas is not possible, saying the status quo is not enough when it comes to building clean energy infrastructure. He pointed to federal data analyzed by the Brookings Institution that found it could take seven years to allow transmission lines and less than half that time for natural gas pipelines.

He was cautious when asked where the talks might go.

“There’s bipartisan interest in this topic,” Podesta said. “I can’t predict that either one will end.”

A deal could strengthen Biden’s political coalition by easing tensions between environmentalists and labor unions, which are often frustrated by opposition to projects that would bring jobs.

“They needlessly took food off my members’ tables,” said Sean McGarvey, president of the North American Construction Workers’ Union.

Relations with environmentalists “could turn into alliances depending on how that process ends”, he said, but “we’ve got to do some good business and see if we invite each other to barbecue and crab hunting”.

Other factions of the green movement have expressed displeasure.

Bret Hartle, director of government affairs at the Center for Biological Diversity, said the administration was wrong to allow Manchin’s proposal as a starting point.

The White House “negotiated the game from the start and put the football on the 2-yard line,” he said.

He also criticized Podesta’s licensing approach.

“He’s arbitrarily saying that environmentalists are the problem here,” he said. “It’s easy to caricature environmental legislation as evil.”

Historians trace the U.S. regulatory system back to the mid-20th century backlash against massive infrastructure plans, such as the Interstate Highway system and a series of dams.

The projects have raised concerns about environmental impact and strained local communities.

An oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara, California, and a fire on Ohio’s polluted Cuyahoga River have sparked more concerns about ecological damage.

The result was the National Environmental Policy Act signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1970, requiring federal agencies to consider the environmental impact of their decisions. State-level laws like the California Environmental Quality Act proliferated at the same time.

Christy Goldfuss, chief policy impact officer at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said: “Our system works the way it was designed to. What we’re doing is optimizing that system for the future we need. It’s a very different conversation than anything that’s been had before.”

“It’s a very difficult transition for the environmental movement,” she added. “And I don’t think everyone will be able to. Some organizations will continue to hold back development.”

What about the Southwest Transmission Line that Podesta is counting on?

The goal is to span some 520 miles and deliver power from a series of turbines in New Mexico, billed as the largest wind project in the hemisphere. The route was diverted to meet the requirements of the Ministry of Defense, which is testing weapons in the area, but local conservationists still say the natural habitat will be threatened by construction.

On Thursday, nearly two decades after the original proposal, the federal government announced it had approved the project. (Associated Press)

(This is an unedited and auto-generated story from a Syndicated News feed, the content body may not have been modified or edited by LatestLY staff)