Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.V.), who is expected to retain her ranking member spot on the Environment and Public Works Committee, is bullish about the prospects of passing a bill to ease permitting rules now that the House is in GOP hands.
Her position on the contentious subject has taken on new weight because Capito became a member of the leadership team of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell this year. McConnell had led most Republicans in opposing a failed effort at the end of last year by Energy Committee Chair Joe Manchin to streamline rules to enable faster approvals for clean energy and fossil fuel infrastructure projects.
Capito was one of a handful of Republicans who voted for Manchin’s bill in December when it was submitted an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act because it would have advanced the stalled Mountain Valley Pipeline, a parochial interest of the two West Virginia lawmakers that would deliver natural gas from their state to the Southeast.
Capito, who led a small bipartisan group with Manchin that negotiated on permitting, is betting she can approach the effort on more favorable terms this year, and she expects the House to act before the Senate does given that Energy and Commerce Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Natural Resources Chair Bruce Westerman have pledged to prioritize the issue.
“Why don't we start there [with the House]? I would love to see us try to work through the committee process that can be successful in the end,” she said.
Capito also said she intends to scrutinize the Biden administration as it accelerates its work on climate regulations, particularly the regulations from EPA — and she’s planning soon to introduce a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act to roll back the Biden administration’s revised definition of Waters of the U.S. (or WOTUS) unveiled by the EPA in December.
This transcript has been edited for length and clarity.
What are some of your priorities for the EPW committee?
With CMR taking over [as chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee] — we are good friends and have served together for a long time — we are anticipating oversight. We have done some bipartisan oversight with IIJA [Infrastructure Investment and Job Act] and we would like to see that continue. We will do some oversight of IRA [Inflation Reduction Act] too.
Obviously will keep looking at the regulatory environment as it unfolds with this administration, which has caused some consternation.
Permitting — it's a very important aspect of energy development and we have a big role in that at EPW. One of the reasons it failed [last year] is because it didn't go through the committee process. I would love to see us try to work through a committee process that can be successful in the end.
Any kind of permitting with EPA is on our ledger. Also, we'll be continuing to look at CCS and small modular nuclear [reactors].
On permitting, you supported the second Manchin proposal, which Democrats argued made concessions to the GOP. How do you close the gap to actually reach a bipartisan deal?
Obviously the goal is to shorten the period of time [for mining permits] from seven to 10 years to a shorter, more reasonable period, which Canada and others have been able to do.
My Start Act represented not just nibbling around the edges, but serious regulatory reform. That's where the hangup is. If we are going to permit, we have to permit all of the above and need equal opportunity for permitting.
What we see on the transmission side — a lot of us felt [with the Manchin proposal] you are federalizing the grid and you're going to federalize it for projects you want. ... There were a lot of questions around that. We need to look at sticking points and find a compromise, which I believe we can.
How proactive should the Senate be on this now that the GOP has the House and is vowing to create its own permitting package?
Why don't we start there? See what they [House members] bring over and see how it impacts everybody's different interests. That's a sensible way. My parochial interest on the pipeline [Mountain Valley] is still there. One of the things we did make progress on is some kind of legal reform in the second Manchin bill ... so all legal suits can't go forever and forever.
Most of those players [from Senate negotiations last time] are on relevant committees — EPW and Energy. Obviously we’d like to get Sen. [John] Barrasso [top Energy Committee Republican] involved and his team involved. That's the only way we're going to get there.
Speeding transmission projects is central to any compromise that might happen. Is the GOP willing to support anything that makes it easier to build interstate power lines, and if so, what kind of policy solution are you envisioning there?
The answer is we could look at that. We were negotiating that piece. Some of us over the last several weeks … I don't want to replay history here. The narrative is, ‘oh they [Democrats] made a lot of concessions.’ The negotiation was, 'What can we tweak on this one bill to make it better' instead of looking at all the ideas on the table.
What are some other bipartisan opportunities?
With CCUS [carbon capture, utilization and storage] we were able with Sen. [Sheldon] Whitehouse and me and Barrasso and former Sen. Heidi Heitkamp to move with 45Q [tax credits that were signed into law in 2018]. And now that’s been expanded [through IRA]. The innovation will be important to industries in my state.
Deployment of advanced nuclear — you are seeing a lot more interest in it. Not everyone loves nuclear, but it doesn't seem to be divisive policy wise.
How should Republicans handle the upcoming debt ceiling fight? Former President Donald Trump recently urged GOP lawmakers to target "billions being spent on climate extremism" from the IRA in their fight over the debt limit. Do you agree with that?
This is really going to be the first meaningful point the House [GOP] can follow through on a lot of discussions they had over the speakership. It's right and proper. If they choose that to be the discussion point topic, we ought to pay attention to that and participate in that.
We have never defaulted on the debt ceiling. We will see what kinds of constraints or handcuffs are put on it as it comes over to us [from the House]. That will be mainly up to the House to see where they hit their sweet spot.
Should IRA money be cut as part of that?
I will wait and see what happens.
What will you do if you think EPA is overstepping on its upcoming carbon regulations for the power generating sector?
I am not confident the administration will stay within the confines. If you look at what the administration did with WOTUS, we will probably come with a CRA [Congressional Review Act resolution] on that. There is still a lot of consternation from ranchers, farmers and others.
I haven't looked at that one [for the power sector] as closely yet. In general, whether it's air or water the EPA has shown their desire to push all their regulations as absolutely as far as they want.
How confident are you that the Biden administration will be able to do some regulating of the power sector that meaningfully cuts emissions while staying “within the fenceline” as the Supreme Court has required?
I think they can [do something]. But they can't rewrite the law. They can't go outside the fence.
On PFAS "forever chemicals," the drinking water regulatory proposal is due out soon from the administration. What do you hope to see there, and how do you think the Biden administration has handled this issue so far?
Over the last both administrations I have been very frustrated with the EPA. They have not come out with a safe drinking level.
To me, it's so ineffective. You can't tell small and large water systems they've got to clean up if they don't know what they are cleaning up to. EPA comes out with a suggested level, but no one can measure what the level is. We must continue to talk about it. We need the EPA to be more definitive here.