The new administration’s flurry of Executive Orders has sparked both applause and concern. However, the value-added skill in navigating these developments is to “ignore the static and listen to the noise.”
For example, Executive Order 14156, Declaring a National Energy Emergency, is precisely the kind of “noise” that demands attention. The EO invokes the National Emergencies Act directing executive departments and agencies to identify and leverage any lawful emergency authorities at their disposal. Specifically, agencies such as the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Department of Interior (DOI) and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) are to identify criteria for federal environmental permit applications that may qualify for emergency permitting to facilitate energy supply.
The stated purpose of the EO is to facilitate the production, transportation, refining, and generation of domestic energy resources. It also defines energy resources as crude oil, natural gas, geothermal, biofuels, hydropower and critical minerals but excludes wind and solar.
Like many executive orders (and even some federal laws), EO 14156 introduces uncertainty. Federal departments and agencies typically take many months to develop implementation guidance and rules leaving stakeholders unclear. For example, will a pipeline requiring a Department of the Army Clean Water Act permit qualify as an emergency? Agencies are now tasked with defining these criteria and must propose actions to address the energy emergency by February 15, 2025. The immediate watchwords are uncertainty, awareness, and risk assessment.
Implications for Stakeholders
Both the energy industry and environmental groups must carefully weigh the potential benefits and challenges of this EO.
Faster Permitting ≠ Cheaper or Easier Projects
Executive orders do not circumvent or avoid environmental compliance requirements under NEPA and other laws - it just delays those procedures and their impacts. While an applicant may have received a permit under emergency conditions in days or weeks, they will still need to conduct surveys for threatened and endangered species, historic properties, protected wetlands, and tribal consultation. These obligations come with costs, and emergency approvals could mean committing to unknown compliance requirements, additional mitigation costs, and potential fines. Be aware that the EO does not change the law – it only delays demonstrating compliance.
Risk vs. Reward: Why Quicker often Means Slower
A quicker permit may be appealing, but applicants should carefully assess the risks to their project brought on by attaining a permit quicker. It could be a case of permit now, pay later – in terms of time and money. Unanticipated costs, regulatory hurdles, and potential stop-work orders due to unresolved NEPA reviews could impact project timelines and budgets. A proactive approach now can mitigate some of the risk. Consider meetings with federal and state resource agencies earlier under the emergency process. Also, applicants will be in a much better risk position when armed with completed documentation (biological assessments, surveys) before advancing work into sensitive areas.
Acknowledging uncertainty, recognizing what executive orders do and, as importantly, do not do, and performing a thorough risk assessment, will help all stakeholders navigate this shifting regulatory landscape—potentially saving time, money, and legal headaches in the long run.
Col. (Ret) Edward R. Fleming
Executive Vice President
A member of the Dawson team since 2022, Col. (Ret) Edward R. Fleming spent 25 years in the US Army and commanded of the Corps’ New Orleans and Charleston Districts.
Comments