How would a GOP majority handle energy?

What are the odds of Congress passing an energy bill to lower prices, create jobs, eliminate bureaucratic delays, open new markets, and protect consumers? It could happen as soon as next year, if Republicans win a majority in the U.S. Senate. 

Energy policy-watchers have grown so accustomed to the Democratic Senate ignoring bills sent over from the Republican House that it’s hard to imagine what could pass if control of the upper chamber were to change hands. Conventional wisdom holds that newly empowered Republican leaders would consider a slew of narrowly crafted bills, one at a time and on their respective merits. For several reasons, however, this piecemeal approach could give way to a more comprehensive one not seen since the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

First, Republicans have developed an abundance of new energy policy ideas over the last decade in response to technological, economic, and geopolitical change. Second, it’s brutally inefficient to advance multiple bills addressing the same subject on separate paths. Third, a Republican willingness to allow votes on amendments from both sides of the aisle will help to quell the process-related complaints that have prevented many measures from attracting the 60 votes needed for passage. Fourth, it would be harder for the President to veto a bill with something for (almost) everyone, than to veto a series of smaller efforts. And finally, balancing revenue and spending – a must, these days – is easier in a big bill.

So what would a comprehensive energy bill from Republicans look like? There’s good reason to expect it would focus on reliability, affordability, supply, efficiency, trade, lands, and permitting.

Reliability and affordability. Republicans are concerned that even if the lights don’t go out, it is becoming more expensive to keep them on, imposing greater hardship on families and potentially stifling a resurgence in American manufacturing. Because so many see the Obama Administration’s new rules as increasing costs and decreasing reliability, it is reasonable to expect a legislative response. While individual rules viewed as going too far may be targeted for reversal, the priority will be restoring balance more broadly to agency decisions that currently favor red tape over economic growth.

Indications of how hard the party will push back in a Republican Senate would come most clearly from Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who would chair the authorizing and appropriating committees that account for two-thirds of the jurisdiction over energy and environmental matters.

Supply. You can also expect an emphasis on bolstering energy security via domestic production. While development has ground to a near-halt on federal lands, it has soared on state and private lands. A Republican majority would highlight this contrast as it seeks to undo restrictions that have been imposed energy production from federal acreage. And it would make a push to open new areas – from onshore Alaska to offshore South Carolina – where a strong base of support exists for doing so.

Efficiency. Efficiency is already a bipartisan issue, making it a natural fit for inclusion in a broader bill. Most members will see past the relatively thin arguments made against a bill from Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio), and instead view efficiency not only as a good way to lower costs for consumers, but also as a means to generate bipartisan support.

Trade. The emphasis on energy exports is likely to grow. Liquefied natural gas and crude oil will remain fixtures in the debate, but manufactured goods for the nuclear, renewable, and other sectors stand to take on a more prominent role. Support for free trade forms the obvious foundation for action, but as academics, agencies, think tanks, and others continue informing the debate, early indications are that quantifiable consumer benefits will become an argument for eliminating barriers to energy-related trade.

Lands. The appetite for legislation affecting public lands ranges from big reforms of agency planning processes to small exchanges of acreage to accommodate growth in western towns. Deal-making among those who want action on everything that lies in the middle, however, is what will stimulate activity. Land exchanges that open or close lands to resource extraction will be the coin of the realm. Republican and Democratic members alike have priorities in this space and, as soon as the right balance is struck, a bill or group of bills will move.

Permitting. The Republican view of federal permitting remains the same: it takes far too long, and even if you receive a permit, it is now unclear that you will get to keep it. This dynamic is on full display everywhere from the Keystone XL pipeline to the Spruce No. 1 mine in West Virginia. Making matters worse, the U.S. is ranked dead last in the world on the timeliness of permitting for mineral projects. A push to eliminate these bureaucratic delays has been the driving force behind “critical minerals” bills that seek to reduce our reliance on imports of raw materials that are essential to a modern lifestyle. Permitting reform – across all industries – would likely become a pillar of a job-creation agenda for a Republican majority.

There are plenty of options available to Republicans on energy policy. The question is whether they’ll get the chance to put them all together – and send them to the President’s desk.

Hayes is an executive vice president at McBee Strategic Consulting and formerly served as senior professional staff at the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The views expressed here are his own.