The Lower Energy Costs Act is a necessary GOP fight
House Republicans are striking back — hard — against the disastrous energy policies of President Joe Biden and the Democratic Party by moving to pass the Lower Energy Costs Act this week.
The bill aims to unleash American prosperity driven by its vast natural resources, and to break the fever of energy inflation — now at “only” 5.2% — driven by Biden’s spending and by his war on domestic energy production.
Naturally, the White House has threatened a veto, calling it a “license to pollute.” No, Joe: It’s the antidote to the economic poison you’ve been pumping into the country since Day One.
We understand your pique, however. The bill’s marquee provision — a modification of the 1970 National Environmental Policy Act — would hobble the left hugely in that war.
NEPA created a regulatory apparatus that allows for massive bureaucratic delay and endless litigation against any energy project receiving any federal monies or requiring any federal approval. It’s played a huge role in hamstringing the nation on energy for decades. The average NEPA project review takes 4.5 years and costs $4.2 million.
That process is often weaponized to delay projects to death. Like the Keystone XL pipeline, slowed for over a decade (even after President Donald Trump revivified it from its Obama-era limbo) until Biden came into office and killed it entirely.
That kibosh, by Team Biden’s own admission, cost the nation up to 60,000 jobs and $9.6 billion in positive economic impact.
The new bill would mandate sensible time limits to NEPA review (no more than two years) and add a filing deadline for lawsuits, as well as fast-tracking low-impact projects on already-studied lands by exempting them from lawsuits by green maniacs.
It’s also chock full of other good ideas, like rules restricting state authority to block projects that cross their borders and killing the many, many billions the Inflation Reduction Act handed to the EPA.
Most importantly, it represents a first step back to energy sanity against the Green New Dealers, who demand artificial scarcity instead of realistic efforts on the climate — and the accompanying economic pain for the little guy.
