Comment A side deal reached between Democratic leadership and Sen. Joe Manchin III (DW.Va.) as part of their broader deal on an economic package would overhaul the nation’s process for approving new energy projects, including speeding up a natural gas pipeline proposed for West Virginia, according to a one-page summary obtained by the Washington Post. To win Manchin’s support for the climate, energy and health care package that was drawn up last week, Democratic leaders agreed to try to push separate legislation to fast-track energy projects. Those changes would fall outside the confines of the Senate budget process the party uses to pass its budget bill, making it impossible for Democrats to pass it with just 51 votes. The new deal would require 60 votes to pass and would need GOP support to be signed into law. Republicans have supported similar measures in the past, but the deal could face defections from liberal Democrats, who have warned against making it easier to open new oil and gas projects. The 100-seat Senate is now split evenly between Democrats and Republicans, but Vice President Harris can cast a tie-breaking vote. The two-week fight that saved the Democrats’ climate agenda The side deal would set new two-year limits, or maximum timelines, for environmental reviews for “major” projects, the summary says. It will also aim to streamline government decision-making processes for energy project approvals by centralizing decision-making with a lead agency, the summary adds. The bill would also try to clear the way for the approval of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, which would carry gas from Appalachian shale oil about 300 miles from West Virginia to Virginia. That pipeline is a top priority for Manchin. Other provisions would limit legal challenges to energy projects and give the Energy Department more power to approve transmission lines deemed to be “in the national interest,” according to the document. “This is a pretty vague outline, but if you had this kind of effective streamlining it could lead to the necessary energy infrastructure not just for fossil fuels but for all types of energy that are necessary for reliability and decarbonization,” he said. . Neil Chatterjee, former commissioner and chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; How the Schumer-Manchin climate deal can affect you and change the US But the deal poses new challenges for Democratic lawmakers who weigh these permitted changes as a necessary price to secure Manchin’s support for hundreds of billions in new clean energy investments. Climate groups have largely said the trade is worth it because Manchin’s vote for the broader package would unlock coveted subsidies and tax breaks for solar, wind and other forms of renewable energy. Many Democrats were wary. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) previously said, “I really want to see all the details about the permit. We all knew that any deal between Schumer and Manchin would contain a lot of fossil fuels. The question is balanced.” But the deal appears to have been the only way to secure Manchin’s vote on the broader climate deal. Manchin had raised concerns about approving hundreds of billions of dollars in government subsidies for fossil fuel projects that could be defeated by red tape or climate lawsuits, and said the United States must do much more to avoid dependence by authoritarian petrocrats. In both public and private conversations, Manchin has made it clear that he views approval of the Mountain Valley Pipeline as a top priority. Supporters billed it as a way to help the United States become an exporter of liquefied natural gas, which the United States is sending to help Europe amid the war in Ukraine. Climate groups have opposed the project, with a 2017 analysis by Oil Change International, an advocacy group, finding that greenhouse gas emissions from the Mountain Valley pipeline would be roughly equivalent to 26 coal plants or 19 million passenger cars.