Overview
Title
To amend title XLI of the FAST Act to improve the Federal permitting process, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The bill wants to make it easier and faster for companies to get permission from the government to start building big projects. It talks about fees they might have to pay and wants to make sure all the rules and timelines are clear so things don't get stuck or confusing.
Summary AI
The bill S. 4679 aims to improve the federal permitting process, making it more efficient. It proposes amendments to the FAST Act, such as clarifying definitions, modifying the steering and reporting responsibilities of the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council, and revising fee structures for projects. Additional provisions focus on agency compliance with permitting schedules and enhancing the transparency of timelines. Furthermore, it suggests reports on workforce and dashboard improvements, and authorizes funding to support these initiatives.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, titled the "Permitting Council Improvement Act of 2024," seeks to amend certain aspects of the FAST Act aimed at improving the federal permitting process for infrastructure and other projects. The bill endeavors to streamline these processes by clarifying agency responsibilities, introducing fee structures for project evaluations, and mandating progress reports. A key focus is on enhancing environmental review processes, ensuring projects that require federal permits proceed efficiently, and improving transparency by requiring reports to Congress. Additionally, the bill allocates funding to support these improvements and seeks to fortify the federal workforce responsible for managing the permitting processes.
Summary of Significant Issues
One of the significant issues with the bill is the potential financial burden imposed on project sponsors due to the fee structure outlined, which can be as high as 1% of a project's total investment. This could disproportionately impact smaller projects or organizations with limited resources. The language used to define eligible projects for the streamlined process is also broad and complex, potentially leading to ambiguity and confusion.
The bureaucratic processes for modifying permitting timelines might introduce additional layers of delays, particularly given tight response windows for federal agencies. Moreover, the requirement to publicly post instances of agency noncompliance on a Dashboard could stigmatize affected agencies, affecting morale and detracting from permit management efforts.
Furthermore, the repeal of the GAO report requirement might weaken oversight, reducing transparency in evaluating the efficiency of the permitting process. Lastly, the Senate's requirement to approve certain appointments could introduce political biases into the decision-making process, potentially affecting the objectivity of the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, the bill aims to improve infrastructure development by addressing flaws in the federal permitting process. By expediting the review and approval process, it could lead to faster implementation of vital infrastructure projects, potentially benefiting the public by improving transportation, utilities, and other crucial sectors.
However, there's a risk that the financial burdens imposed by the fee structures could discourage smaller or less affluent project sponsors from participating, potentially reducing the diversity and number of projects undertaken. Additionally, if ambiguities in defining eligible projects are not clarified, there could be public dissatisfaction due to perceived inequities or inconsistencies in project approvals.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For developers and project sponsors, particularly those involved in large-scale infrastructure projects, this bill could serve as a welcome change by facilitating more predictable and efficient permitting processes. This may result in cost savings due to reduced delays.
Conversely, smaller businesses may find the fee structures inhibitive, potentially limiting their ability to undertake new projects. Environmental and community groups might have concerns that streamlined processes could bypass thorough environmental reviews, although the bill allocates funds to support enhanced review capabilities.
Federal agencies responsible for issuing permits may face the double-edged sword of heightened accountability and potential stigmatization due to publicized noncompliance. While this could drive improvements in performance, it might also discourage risk-taking or innovation in permit management.
Overall, the bill presents a mix of potential benefits and challenges that could have varied impacts on stakeholders across different sectors. Clear communication and effective implementation will be key to realizing its intended improvements while mitigating unintended consequences.
Financial Assessment
The bill, S. 4679, dedicates considerable focus to financial aspects within the federal permitting process. This analysis will explore the bill's financial allocations, their intended purposes, and issues that may arise from these provisions.
Financial Allocations and Appropriations
The bill includes several financial references related to improving the permitting process:
Fee Structure: The bill proposes a fee structure that empowers the Executive Director to impose fees on each covered project. These fees are calculated based on several factors, such as total project investment, the complexity of environmental review, and available agency resources. The fees should not exceed 1% of the total investment required for the covered project. This provision is designed to ensure that project sponsors contribute to the cost of environmental reviews while being mindful of financial burdens.
Authorization of Appropriations: The bill authorizes specific amounts to be appropriated to support the permitting process from fiscal years 2025 to 2031. The appropriations are as follows:
- $12,000,000 for fiscal year 2025,
- $13,500,000 for fiscal year 2026,
- $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2027,
- $16,500,000 for fiscal year 2028,
- $18,000,000 for fiscal year 2029,
- $19,500,000 for fiscal year 2030,
- $21,000,000 for fiscal year 2031.
These appropriations will remain available until expended, offering support for managing and improving federal environmental reviews and permitting processes.
Issues Related to Financial Provisions
Financial Burdens on Project Sponsors: One issue highlighted in the bill is related to the fee structure, which, despite the 1% cap, may pose financial challenges for particular sponsors. There is a stipulation to exclude parties where the fee imposes an "undue financial burden," but the criteria for this exclusion are not clearly defined, leading to potential ambiguity and inconsistent applications.
Ambiguity in 'Covered Projects': Another issue concerns the broad language used to describe "covered projects." This uncertainty might result in administrative hurdles and inconsistent fees, complicating project sponsorship and execution.
Appropriations Without Performance Evaluation: The bill authorizes substantial appropriations without explicit mechanisms for evaluating financial performance or efficiency. This lack of accountability measures could lead to inefficient use of funds, as public spending is not directly correlated with performance outcomes.
Impact on Agencies and Timelines
Administrative Delays: The stipulated timeline for agencies to respond to permitting timetable modifications is tight. It could introduce bureaucratic delays, affecting timelines and the use of allocated funds.
Transparency and Compliance: By repealing the GAO report requirement, the bill potentially reduces transparency and oversight in financial appropriation and spending. Additionally, mandatory public postings of agency noncompliance could adversely affect the morale and cooperative efforts of the involved agencies, perhaps leading to reactive rather than proactive management of funds.
In sum, while the bill S. 4679 aims to streamline the federal permitting process through financial strategies such as fees and appropriations, there are critical areas where the financial implications could create challenges. These include potential burdens on sponsors, ambiguities affecting financial obligations, and risks of inefficiency due to insufficient oversight of appropriated funds.
Issues
The fee structure in Section 41009(b) may impose financial burdens on certain project sponsors, particularly if fees approach the 1% cap without clear criteria for what constitutes an 'undue financial burden'.
The broad and complex language in Section 41001(6)(A) related to 'covered projects' may lead to ambiguity about which projects qualify for the streamlined permitting process, increasing administrative burdens and confusion.
The permitting timetable modification process in Section 41003, requiring responses from all affected agencies within a tight window, could introduce bureaucratic delays or result in noncompliance, affecting project completion timelines.
Repealing the GAO report requirement in Section 41011 diminishes oversight and evaluation of the Federal permitting process, potentially reducing transparency and accountability.
The broad authorization of appropriations in Section 41009(e)(4) without performance evaluation mechanisms could lead to ongoing public spending without accountability, risking inefficiencies or misuse of funds.
The amendment requiring Senate approval for appointments in Section 41002(b)(1)(A) could introduce political biases into the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council, potentially affecting its efficiency and objectivity.
The requirement for posting agency noncompliance on a public Dashboard in Section 41003(G) could stigmatize agencies, discouraging proactive permit management and adversely affecting agency morale.
The complexity and frequent amendments to the bill may lead to confusion and compliance challenges for agencies, as seen in multiple sections. This could complicate the consistent application of procedures and goals of the legislation.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section provides the short title of the Act, which is “Permitting Council Improvement Act of 2024.”
2. Federal permitting improvement Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill amends sections of the FAST Act to improve federal permitting processes for projects. It clarifies agency responsibilities, establishes a fee structure for project evaluations based on complexity and financial concerns, and mandates reporting of delays. It also authorizes funding for enhancing environmental review processes and requires regular progress reports to Congress.
Money References
- (e) Funding for governance, oversight, and processing of environmental reviews and permits.—Section 41009 of the FAST Act (42 U.S.C. 4370m–8) is amended— (1) in subsection (a), by striking “projects to reimburse the United States for reasonable costs incurred in conducting environmental reviews and authorizations for covered projects.” and inserting “projects.”; (2) by striking subsections (b) and (c) and inserting the following: “(b) Fee structure.—The fee structure established under subsection (a) shall— “(1) enable the Executive Director to assess appropriate fees for each covered project based on relevant factors, including— “(A) the total investment required for the covered project stated by the project sponsor in the notice of the initiation of a proposed covered project pursuant to section 41003(a)(1); “(B) the anticipated complexity of the environmental review and authorization process for the covered project; and “(C) the resources available to each participating agency to conduct environmental reviews and issue authorizations for the covered project; “(2) be developed in consultation with affected project proponents, industries, and other stakeholders; “(3) not exceed 1 percent of the total investment required for the covered project stated by the project sponsor in the notice of the initiation of a proposed covered project pursuant to section 41003(a)(1); and “(4) exclude parties for which the fee would impose an undue financial burden or is otherwise determined to be inappropriate.”; (3) by redesignating subsections (d) through (f) as subsections (c) through (e), respectively; (4) in subsection (c) (as so redesignated)— (A) in paragraph (2), by inserting “making investments to improve Federal environmental reviews and authorizations and supporting infrastructure permitting processes,” after “agency project managers,”; and (B) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following: “(3) TRANSFER.—For the purpose of carrying out this title, the Executive Director, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, may transfer amounts in the Fund to other Federal agencies, State and local governments, Indian Tribes (as defined in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304)), Alaska Native Corporations, and Native Hawaiian organizations (as defined in section 6207 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7517)) (including the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs) to facilitate timely and efficient environmental reviews and authorizations, including activities described in paragraph (2), for covered projects and other projects in sectors described in section 41001(6)(A), including direct reimbursement agreements with agency CERPOs, reimbursable agreements, and approval and consultation processes and staff for covered projects and other projects in sectors described in section 41001(6)(A). “(4) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— “(A) IN GENERAL.—In addition to amounts deposited in the Fund under paragraph (1), there are authorized to be appropriated for deposit in the Fund— “(i) for fiscal year 2025, $12,000,000; “(ii) for fiscal year 2026, $13,500,000; “(iii) for fiscal year 2027, $15,000,000; “(iv) for fiscal year 2028, $16,500,000; “(v) for fiscal year 2029, $18,000,000; “(vi) for fiscal year 2030, $19,500,000; and “(vii) for fiscal year 2031, $21,000,000. “(B) AVAILABILITY.—Amounts made available pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall remain available until expended.”; and (5) in subsection (d) (as so redesignated), by striking “subsection (d)” and inserting “subsection (c)”. (f) Savings clause modification.—Section 11503 of the FAST Act (Public Law 114–94; 129 Stat. 1691) is amended— (1) by striking subsection (b); and (2) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (b).
41008. Reports to Congress Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires the Executive Director to submit an annual report to Congress.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the bill states that it will be called the “Permitting Council Improvement Act of 2024.”
2. Federal permitting improvement Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The text describes amendments to the FAST Act to improve federal permitting processes. These changes include adding consultation requirements, modifying project definitions, creating alternative completion dates for delayed projects, and establishing a fee structure to support project reviews. Additionally, it requires reports to Congress on different aspects of the permitting processes, such as workforce needs and dashboard usability, and introduces measures to address agency noncompliance.
Money References
- (e) Funding for governance, oversight, and processing of environmental reviews and permits.—Section 41009 of the FAST Act (42 U.S.C. 4370m–8) is amended— (1) in subsection (a), by striking “projects to reimburse the United States for reasonable costs incurred in conducting environmental reviews and authorizations for covered projects.” and inserting “projects.”; (2) by striking subsections (b) and (c) and inserting the following: “(b) Fee structure.—The fee structure established under subsection (a) shall— “(1) enable the Executive Director to assess appropriate fees for each covered project based on relevant factors, including— “(A) the total investment required for the covered project stated by the project sponsor in the notice of the initiation of a proposed covered project pursuant to section 41003(a)(1); “(B) the anticipated complexity of the environmental review and authorization process for the covered project; and “(C) the resources available to each participating agency to conduct environmental reviews and issue authorizations for the covered project; “(2) be developed in consultation with affected project proponents, industries, and other stakeholders; “(3) not exceed 1 percent of the total investment required for the covered project stated by the project sponsor in the notice of the initiation of a proposed covered project pursuant to section 41003(a)(1); “(4) exclude parties for which the fee would impose an undue financial burden or is otherwise determined to be inappropriate; and “(5) support the timely completion of environmental reviews and authorizations for covered projects, including through the authority of the Executive Director to rescind amounts transferred from the Fund to a lead agency, cooperating agency, or participating agency that is not meeting timelines for the completion of environmental reviews and authorizations for a covered project.”; (3) by redesignating subsections (d) through (f) as subsections (c) through (e), respectively; (4) in subsection (c) (as so redesignated)— (A) in paragraph (2), by inserting “making investments to improve Federal environmental reviews and authorizations and supporting infrastructure permitting processes,” after “agency project managers,”; and (B) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following: “(3) TRANSFER.— “(A) IN GENERAL.—For the purpose of carrying out this title, and subject to subparagraph (B), the Executive Director, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, may transfer amounts in the Fund to other Federal agencies, State and local governments, territorial governments, Indian Tribes (as defined in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304)), Alaska Native Corporations, and Native Hawaiian organizations (as defined in section 6207 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7517)) (including the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs) to facilitate timely and efficient environmental reviews and authorizations, including for activities to facilitate meaningful governmental and public engagement, for covered projects and other projects in sectors described in section 41001(6)(A), and for activities described in paragraph (2), which may include direct reimbursement agreements with agency CERPOs, reimbursable agreements, and approval and consultation processes and staff for covered projects and other projects in sectors described in section 41001(6)(A). “(B) APPROVAL OF CERTAIN TRANSFERS.—Any transfer made under subparagraph (A) in an amount of more than $2,000,000 shall be approved by the Office of Management and Budget.
- — “(A) IN GENERAL.—In addition to amounts deposited in the Fund under paragraph (1), and subject to subparagraph (B), there is authorized to be appropriated for deposit in the Fund $9,002,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2031.
41008. Reports to Congress Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires the Executive Director to submit an annual report to Congress.