Trump’s Administration Can Supercharge America’s Energy Comeback Even Further

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Curtis Schube

One of the first executive orders President Trump issued was “Unleashing American Energy.”

It begins an effort to undo the harm caused by the Biden administration’s unprecedented assault on the American energy sector. It overturns President Biden’s own destructive executive orders, including those canceling oil leases and prioritizing environmental regulations over the good of the economy and producing reliable energy.

It also orders that unduly burdensome energy regulations be rescinded. Trump’s EO forthrightly states that its goal is to encourage energy production “to meet the needs of our citizens and solidify the United States as a global energy leader.”

This executive order takes the nation in a whole new direction. It orders the agencies to audit their policies to weed out burdensome regulations that impact energy development. It terminates the infamous Green New Deal. It prioritizes employment and economic impacts in energy policy. It also revokes a Jimmy Carter Executive Order to reduce the burden on environmental studies that notoriously hold up energy projects.

One reform that met less pomp and circumstance, but is not lacking in impact, is permitting reform. President Trump’s Order instructs agencies to “eliminate all delays within their respective permitting processes including … the use of general permitting and permit by rule.”

This type of permitting reform should impact all American lives for the better. We all know how difficult permits can be to obtain, even if on a smaller scale than energy. When making an addition to a house, for example, one must submit it to government and pray that everything is correct.

Then, the waiting game begins as the government reviews the application, requires possible alterations at the its whim, then, eventually at some point, the project can move forward. It can be expensive and time consuming, and sometimes may deter people from even trying.

The same applies on a larger scale. Permits for major projects, like an oil well, can take years, even a decade or longer, to jump through all of the hoops. And, as the federal government is the gatekeeper to many different varieties of activities that require a permit, whoever is in charge of the executive branch can cripple a project.

Permits by rule and general permits simplify the process drastically and ease the burden on both the applicant and the government. They are simple and predictable. For both types of permits, the government will first pre-determine the required criteria for someone to meet before the permitted conduct can commence. The government will promulgate the standards for all to see and know.

The applicant, knowing exactly what is required to perform the permitted conduct, can get a project moving quickly. For a general permit, no contact with the government is even needed. A permittee can begin a project so long as it satisfies the pre-set standards.

For a permit by rule, the applicant simply has to certify to the government, in writing, that all the criteria have been met. In response, the government can only check to see if the correct certifications are made and then either approve it or return the certifications with an explanation of which ones are not met. This is done in a short period of time, such as 30 days.

In both cases, the government has no discretion on a case-by-case basis. Instead of focusing its efforts as a gatekeeper for permits, the government will only focus on permittees who have not met the criteria, but after the permittee has begun its project. The government’s role is focused on enforcement actions.

Both sides benefit from this system. For those who behave correctly, the permitting process does not hold up projects. For the government, the resource drain for overseeing permitting is drastically reduced. The government only has to focus its attention on the minority of parties.

This system also has a built-in deterrent. If a permittee were to begin a project, only to have the government shut the project down at a later time through an enforcement action, the permittee would lose a significant investment.

The true benefit is to the American people. If energy companies can have a quick and expedited form of permitting, then the supply of energy can expand quicker. This makes the cost of energy, and all products, cheaper. In the wake of natural disasters, rebuilding can happen quicker. Infrastructure can be put in place faster. The benefits go on and on.

Permitting reform, such as that referenced in President Trump’s Executive Order, is a fantastic first step toward a more efficient government. His agencies should take full advantage and convert as many permits as possible to a permit by rule or general permit as soon as possible.

Curtis Schube is the Executive Director for Council to Modernize Governance, a think tank committed to making the administration of government more efficient, representative, and restrained. He is formerly a constitutional and administrative law attorney.

Up Next

Democracy Betrayed, The Scathing Truth Behind Canada’s Foreign Interference Report

Don't Miss

Newly discovered business case for Canadian energy could unleash economic boom

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Oxford study finds transgender surgery increases depression, suicide ideation rates

Business / 5 hours ago

Tariffs by Tuesday: Trump Says There Is ‘No Room Left’ For Any Negotiations On Postponing Tariffs On Mexico, Canada

International / 7 hours ago

Trump, Zelensky clash represents seismic shift in world politics

Economy

Here’s how First Nations can access a reliable source of revenue

Published on March 3, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By John Ibbitson

According to Pierre Poilievre, a Conservative government would permit First Nations to directly receive tax revenues from resource development on their ancestral territories. Political leaders of all parties should commit to such direct taxation. Because time is short.

Faced with the prospect of tariffs and other hostile American actions, Canada must build new energy infrastructure, mine critical minerals and diversify trade.

First Nations participation is critical to these plans. But too often, proposed infrastructure and resource projects on their territories become mired in lengthy negotiations that benefit only bureaucrats and lawyers. The First Nations Resource Charge (FNRC), a brainchild of the First Nations Tax Commission, could help cut through some of that red tape.

Currently, First Nations, the federal government and businesses negotiate agreements through a variety of mechanisms that establish the financial, environmental and cultural terms for a proposed development. As part of any agreement, Ottawa collects tax revenue from the project, then remits a portion of that revenue to the First Nation. The process is bureaucratic, time-consuming and paternalistic.

Under one version of the proposed charge, the First Nation would directly collect a portion of the federal corporate tax from the developer. The federal government, in turn, would issue the corporation an equivalent tax credit.

In effect, Ottawa would transfer tax points to First Nations.

“The Resource Charge doesn’t mean we won’t say no to bad projects where the costs to us are too high,” said Chief Darren Blaney of B.C’s Homalco First Nation, when the Conservatives first laid out the proposal last year. “It could mean, however, that good projects happen faster. This is what we all want.”

Poilievre referenced the proposed tax transfer in his Feb. 15 rally when he vowed to remove regulatory obstacles to fast-track resource development projects.

“We will incentivize Indigenous leaders to support these projects by letting companies pay a share of their federal corporate taxes to local First Nations,” he declared. “I want the First Nations people of Canada to be the richest people in the world.”

The First Nations Tax Commission first came up with the idea. Poilievre’s federal Conservatives are the first political party to embrace it. But there’s no reason why support for resource charges could not be bipartisan.

Mark Carney, the frontrunning candidate to succeed Justin Trudeau as Liberal Leader and prime minister, has vowed to use “all of the powers of the federal government… to accelerate the major projects that we need.” Supporting the FNRC would further that goal.

That said, resistance has already emerged.

“Most Indigenous leaders would see right through (what Poilievre said) because we’ve been around that corner a few times,” Dawn Martin-Hill, professor emeritus of Indigenous Studies at McMaster University, told the Canadian Press. “Selling your soul to have what other Canadians have, which is access to clean drinking water coming out of your tap, is highly problematic.”

But Prof. Martin-Hill inadvertently makes the case for the FNRC. Municipal governments raise funds by taxing the property of individuals and businesses and using the revenue to, among other things, provide clean drinking water. A First Nation that taxed a business operating on its territory, and used the revenue to provide clean drinking water for people on reserve, would simply be doing what governments are supposed to do.

Existing agreements, though cumbersome, have brought major new revenues to some reserves. The FNRC could increase revenues and First Nations autonomy.

Given the complexities of the tax code, and the limited administrative capacity of some First Nations, some agreements might see the federal government continuing to collect taxes and then remitting the First Nation’s portion to that government. The goal would be to ensure that revenues streams are transparent, predictable and support the greatest possible autonomy for each First Nation.

Any government committed to implementing the FNRC should convene a working group of First Nations leaders, private-sector executives and government officials to work out a framework agreement.

If the Conservatives win the next election, the working group could be part of a task force on tax reform that Poilievre said he intends to establish.

The FNRC would be voluntary. Communities could opt in or opt out. Provincial governments might also participate, sharing a portion of their taxes with First Nations.

If it works, a First Nations Resource Charge could speed the approval of lumber, mining, pipelines and other resource-related projects on the traditional lands of First Nations. It could provide reserves with stable and autonomous funding.

It’s an idea worth trying, regardless of which party forms the next government.

John Ibbitson

Energy

Trial underway in energy company’s lawsuit against Greenpeace

Published on March 2, 2025

Todayville

From The Center Square

By Chris Woodward

A trial is underway in North Dakota in a lawsuit against Greenpeace over its support for protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Filed by Texas-based Energy Transfer, the lawsuit alleges Greenpeace in 2016 engaged in or supported unlawful behavior by protesters of the pipeline, while also spreading false claims about it. Greenpeace, according to Energy Transfer, spread falsehoods about the pipeline and conspired to escalate what were small, peaceful protests illegal activity that halted the project in 2016.

Energy Transfer – which is seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in damages – claims the alleged actions caused more than $100 million in financial difficulties for the pipeline.

Greenpeace denies any wrongdoing, arguing the case is about Americans’ First Amendments rights to free speech and to peacefully protest, and about corporations trying to silence critics.

Energy Transfer told The Center Square that its lawsuit “is about recovering damages for the harm Greenpeace caused” the company.

“It is not about free speech,” Energy Transfer said in an emailed statement to The Center Square. “Their organizing, funding, and encouraging the unlawful destruction of property and dissemination of misinformation goes well beyond the exercise of free speech. We look forward to proving our case and we trust the North Dakota legal system to do that.”

Last week, Greenpeace filed for a change of venue, claiming that the environmental group may not get a fair trial in Morton County, where the trial is being held.

“The Greenpeace defendants have said from the start of this case that it should be heard away from where the events happened,” said Daniel Simons, senior legal counsel for Greenpeace, in another statement emailed to The Center Square. “After three motions for a venue change were refused, we now feel compelled to ask the Supreme Court of North Dakota to relieve the local community from the burden of this case and ensure the fairness of the trial cannot be questioned.”

The pipeline was completed in 2017 after several months of delays.

Greenpeace has voiced concerns about the environmental impacts that the Dakota Access Pipeline will have in areas where it is installed. Energy Transfer/Dakota Access Pipeline says that, among other things, safety is its top priority and that it is committed to being a good neighbor, business partner, and valued member of local communities that the energy company says will benefit economically.