Issuance of Permits With Respect to Certain Energy-Related Facilities and Land Transportation Crossings on the International Boundaries of the United States

Background

Before its revocation in 2019, Executive Order 13337 significantly impacted federal processes concerning the siting and permitting of energy-related infrastructure at the United States' international borders. The order explicitly streamlined the procedure for obtaining permits, granting the Secretary of State the leading role in receiving applications and coordinating with relevant federal and state agencies. The order aimed to improve efficiency by accelerating the review process and ensuring that decisions were made within a 90-day timeframe unless additional information was needed. This expedited approach was pivotal in addressing the energy demands by facilitating more rapid construction and maintenance of pipelines and other energy transportation infrastructure.

In terms of law and regulation, the order amended a prior Executive Order from 1968, clarifying and expanding the Secretary of State's responsibilities in the realm of international border energy projects. It required close interaction between multiple government departments, including Defense, Interior, Commerce, and relevant environmental and energy agencies, ensuring that all voices were heard but within a condensed timeframe. This coordination was designed to mitigate administrative bottlenecks that could delay critical infrastructure projects. Additionally, it included measures to respect safety, public health, and environmental standards, though the faster timelines often led to criticism that these considerations were sometimes secondary.

Operationally, this policy led to the development of cross-agency collaboration protocols that aimed to maintain national interest while balancing environmental and health concerns. Federal agencies had to adjust their operations to meet the prescribed timelines, necessitating a more agile and responsive bureaucratic approach. The order's impact extended to social policy by attempting to bolster energy independence, thereby aligning with the broader energy security goals of the era. However, it also sparked debate over the potential sidelining of local and environmental inputs due to its rapid processes, raising concerns from stakeholder groups who felt that public interests might be compromised.

Reason for Revocation

The revocation of this executive order by President Donald Trump in April 2019 was part of a broader ideological shift towards deregulation and enhancing American oil and gas production capabilities. Trump's administration was characterized by a strong emphasis on reducing governmental hurdles perceived to stifle economic growth, particularly in the energy sector. The administration's energy doctrine often prioritized swift resource development and infrastructure expansion over regulatory scrutiny, aiming to position the United States as a dominant energy exporter. Thus, revoking this order aligned with the broader policy of granting swift approvals to cross-border energy projects deemed in the national interest.

This move was also reflective of Trump's commitment to reform perceived red tape within federal procedures, emphasizing a business-friendly environment that could attract investment and spur job creation. The sentiment was that earlier executive orders like the one issued by President Bush contributed to bureaucratic entanglements that hindered economic advancement in the energy sector. By removing perceived obstacles, the administration sought to encourage private sector investment into infrastructure projects, which they argued would boost the national economy and solidify energy security.

Furthermore, this action was consistent with Trump's often contentious stance on environmental regulations, which were seen as unnecessarily burdensome by his administration. By revoking this directive, the administration effectively reduced the complexity involved in cross-border energy projects, simplifying the process which his supporters argued was overly bureaucratic. This philosophy underscored a broader approach that often challenged prior administrations' policies perceived as restrictive to business operations, particularly those in the fossil fuel industry.

The revocation also fits into a pattern where Trump sought to renegotiate various types of international agreements and arrangements to transform them into pieces more aligned with his administration's values and purported benefits to the U.S. The elimination of this order could be seen as part of a strategy to project forceful energy diplomacy, showcasing the U.S. as willing to take charge of its energy policy with less concern over traditional checks and balances.

Winners

The revocation of this order provided distinct advantages to major energy corporations keen on expanding their infrastructure projects across U.S. borders with minimal regulatory delays. Notably, companies in the oil and gas sector, such as TransCanada (now TC Energy), which was instrumental in advocating for the Keystone XL pipeline, stood to benefit substantially from the quicker approval processes. The removal of bureaucratic layers facilitated these companies' ability to advance projects more rapidly, potentially increasing their revenues and market share within the energy transportation industry.

The revocation also represented a boon for industries related to construction and manufacturing of energy infrastructure materials. Companies involved in producing pipeline materials, engineering firms responsible for design and implementation, and logistics businesses coordinating transportation of goods were poised to experience increased demand and economic opportunities spurred by the accelerated project timelines. This economic activity cumulatively could contribute to job creation and regional economic growth, particularly in areas heavily involved in the energy sector.

Moreover, the broader oil and gas industry benefited from a predictable and streamlined process that reduced operational uncertainties. By having a clear understanding of the permitting timeline and reduced regulatory hurdles, companies were able to plan and allocate resources more efficiently. This improved predictability was pivotal in strategic decision-making, influencing where to allocate investments and expand operational footprints.

Losers

The revocation of Executive Order 13337 potentially disadvantaged environmental advocacy groups and communities prioritizing environmental protection. The shortened timeframe and reduced regulatory scrutiny perceived under the Trump administration raised concerns over the potential for insufficient environmental impact assessments. This move was seen as sidelining environmental and community groups' input, leading to heightened tensions and potential legal challenges from organizations like the Sierra Club, which had campaigned against rushed decisions on projects such as Keystone XL.

Local communities, particularly those situated along proposed or existing pipeline routes, also stood at risk of adverse impacts resulting from expedited decision-making processes. The reduced emphasis on public health and environmental reviews could lead to communities facing increased exposure to environmental hazards, such as potential spills or emissions, without comprehensive counteractive measures or sufficient time for stakeholders to contest such projects.

Lastly, indigenous territories and tribal groups often impacted by cross-border infrastructure expansion expressed concern over disregard for territorial sovereignty and insufficient consultation in project planning. Several indigenous communities have historically been affected by energy projects that cut through their lands, raising issues of cultural preservation, land rights, and environmental justice. The revocation symbolized a retreat from more inclusive decision-making processes, exacerbating fears of further disenfranchisement.