Energy Infrastructure Permitting: Factors Affecting Timeliness and Efficiency
Released: 2018-09-06T00:00:00

Letter

Factors Affecting Federal Infrastructure Permitting

In our prior work, we identified a range of factors that can affect permitting timeliness and efficiency. For the purposes of this statement, we have categorized the factors into five broad categories: 1) coordination and communication, 2) human capital, 3) collecting and analyzing accurate milestone information, 4) incomplete applications, and 5) significant policy changes.

Coordination and Communication

Effective coordination and communication between agencies and applicants is a critical factor in an efficient and timely permitting process. Standards for internal control in the federal government call for management to externally communicate the necessary quality information to achieve the entity’s objectives, including by communicating with and obtaining quality information from external parties. We found that better coordination between agencies and applicants could result in more efficient permitting. For example, in our February 2013 review of natural gas pipeline permitting, we reported that virtually all applications for pipeline projects require some level of coordination with one or more federal agencies, as well as others, to satisfy requirements for environmental review. For example, BIA is responsible for, among other things, approving rights of way across lands held in trust for an Indian or Indian tribe and must consult and coordinate with any affected tribe.

We have reported on coordination practices that agencies use to streamline the permitting process, including the following.

Designating a Lead Coordinating Agency

We have found that having a lead agency coordinate efforts of federal, state, and local stakeholders is beneficial to permitting processes. For example, in our February 2013 review on natural gas pipeline permitting, industry representatives and public interest groups told us that the interstate process was more efficient than the intrastate process because in the interstate process FERC was designated the lead agency for the environmental review. Other agencies may also designate lead entities for coordination. For example, in a November 2016 report, we described how BIA had taken steps to form an Indian Energy Service Center that was intended to, among other things, help expedite the permitting process associated with Indian energy development. We recommended that BIA involve other key regulatory agencies in the service center so that it could more effectively act as a lead agency.

Establishing Coordinating Agreements among Agencies

Establishing coordinating agreements among agencies can streamline the permitting process and reduce time required by routine processes. For example, in our February 2013 review of natural gas pipeline permitting, we reported that FERC and nine other agencies signed an interagency agreement for early coordination of required environmental and historic preservation reviews to encourage the timely development of pipeline projects.

Using Mechanisms to Expedite Routine or Less Risky Reviews

Agencies can also use mechanisms to streamline reviews of projects that are routine or less environmentally risky. For example, under NEPA, agencies may categorically exclude actions that an agency has found—in NEPA procedures adopted by the agency—do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and for which, therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. Also under NEPA, agencies may rely on “tiering,” in which broader, earlier NEPA reviews are incorporated into subsequent site-specific analyses. Tiering is used to avoid duplication of analysis as a proposed activity moves through the NEPA process, from a broad assessment to a site-specific analysis. Such a mechanism can reduce the number of required agency reviews and shorten the permitting process.

Human Capital

Agency and industry representatives cited human capital factors as affecting the length of permitting reviews. Such factors include having a sufficient number of experts to review applications. Some examples include: In June 2015 and in November 2016, we reported concerns associated with BIA’s long-standing workforce challenges, such as inadequate staff resources and staff at some offices without the skills needed to effectively review energy-related documents. In November 2016 we recommended that Interior direct BIA to incorporate effective workforce planning standards by assessing critical skills and competencies needed to fulfill BIA’s responsibilities related to energy development.

For a September 2014 report, representatives of companies applying for permits to construct LNG export facilities told us that staff shortages at the Pipeline and Hazardous Safety Materials Administration delayed spill modeling necessary for LNG facility reviews.

In an August 2013 review of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and oil and gas development, industry representatives told us that BLM offices process applications for permit to drill at different rates, and inadequate BLM staffing in offices with large application workloads are one of the reasons for these different rates.

Agencies have taken some actions to mitigate human capital issues. For example, we reported in August 2013 that BLM had created special response teams of 10 to 12 oil and gas staff from across BLM field offices to help process applications for permits to drill in locations that were experiencing dramatic increases in submitted applications. In July 2012, we recommended that Interior instruct two of its bureaus to develop human capital plans to help manage and prepare for human capital issues, such as gaps in critical skills and competencies.

Collecting and Analyzing Accurate Milestone Information

Our work has shown that a factor that hinders efficiency and timeliness is that agencies often do not track when permitting milestones are achieved, such as the date a project application is submitted or receives final agency approval to determine if they are achieving planned or expected results. In addition, our work has shown that agencies often do not collect accurate information, which prevents them from analyzing their processes in order to improve and streamline them. The following are examples of reports in which we discussed the importance of collecting accurate milestone information: In December 2017, we found that the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were not recording accurate permit milestone dates, so it was not possible to determine whether agencies met statutory review time frames. We recommended that these agencies clarify how and when staff should record review dates so that the agencies could assess the timeliness of reviews.

We found in June 2015 that BIA did not have a documented process or the data needed to track its review and response times; to improve the efficiency and transparency of BIA’s review process, we recommended that the agency develop a process to track its review and response times and improve efforts to collect accurate review and response time information.

We found in an August 2013 report that BLM did not have complete data on applications for permits to drill, and without accurate data on the time it took to process applications, BLM did not have the information it needed to improve its operations. We recommended that BLM ensure that all key dates associated with the processing of applications for permits to drill are completely and accurately entered into its system to improve the efficiency of the review process.

Standards for internal control in the federal government call for management to design control activities to achieve objectives and respond to risks, including by comparing actual performance with planned or expected results and analyzing significant differences. Without tracking performance over time, agencies cannot do so. The standards also call for agency management to use quality information to achieve agency objectives; such information is appropriate, current, complete, accurate, accessible, and provided on a timely basis. As we have found, having quality information on permitting milestones can help agencies identify the duration of the permitting process, analyze process deficiencies, and implement improvements.

Incomplete Applications

According to agency officials we spoke with and agency documents we reviewed, incomplete applications are a factor that can affect the duration of reviews. For example, in a 2014 BLM budget document, BLM reported that—due to personnel turnover in the oil and gas industry—operators were submitting inconsistent and incomplete applications for permits to drill, which was delaying the approval of permits. In a February 2013 report, officials we spoke with from Army Corps of Engineers district offices said that incomplete applications may delay their review because applicants are given time to revise their application information. Deficiencies within agency IT systems may also result in incomplete applications. As we noted in a July 2012 report, Interior officials told us that their review of oil and gas exploration and development plans was hindered by limitations in its IT system that allowed operators to submit inaccurate or incomplete plans, after which plans were returned to operators for revision or completion.

Agencies can reduce the possibility of incomplete applications by encouraging early coordination between the prospective applicant and the permitting agency. According to agency and industry officials we spoke with, early coordination can make the permitting process more efficient. One example of early coordination is FERC’s pre-filing process, in which an applicant may communicate with FERC staff to ensure an application is complete before formally submitting it to the commission.

Significant Policy Changes

Changes in U.S. policy unrelated to permitting are a factor that can also affect the duration of federal permitting reviews. For example, in September 2014, we reported that the Department of Energy did not approve liquefied natural gas exports to countries without free-trade agreements with the United States for a period of 16 months. We found that the Department stopped approving applications while it conducted a study of the effect of liquefied natural gas exports on the U.S. economy and the national interest. Exporting liquefied natural gas was an economic reversal from the previous decade in which the United States was expected to become an importer of liquefied natural gas.

Policy changes can result from unforeseen events. After the Deepwater Horizon incident and oil spill in 2010, Interior strengthened many of its safety requirements and policies to prevent another offshore incident. For example, Interior put new safety requirements in place related to well control, well casing and cementing, and blowout preventers, among other things. In a July 2012 report, we found that after the new safety requirements went into effect, review times for offshore oil and gas drilling permits increased, as did the number of times that Interior returned a permit to an operator.

In conclusion, our past reports have identified varied factors that affect the timeliness and efficiencies of federal energy infrastructure permitting reviews. Federal agencies have implemented a number of our recommendations and taken steps to implement more efficient permitting, but several of our recommendations remain open, presenting opportunities to continue to improve permitting processes.

Chairmen Palmer and Gianforte, Ranking Members Raskin and Plaskett, and Members of the Subcommittees, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have at this time.

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

If you or your staff members have any questions concerning this testimony, please contact Frank Rusco, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, who may be reached at (202) 512-3841 or RuscoF@gao.gov. Contact points for our Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. Key contributors to this testimony include Christine Kehr (Assistant Director), Dave Messman (Analyst-in-Charge), Patrick Bernard, Marissa Dondoe, Quindi Franco, William Gerard, Rich Johnson, Gwen Kirby, Rebecca Makar, Tahra Nichols, Holly Sasso, and Kiki Theodoropoulos.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.