Illustration: Tiffany Herring/Axios
Senate Energy and Natural Resources is eyeing an early deal on mining legislation.
Why it matters: Tweaks to a bill to address the Rosemont decision gained bipartisan support and could build momentum for a broader agreement to shore up the mineral supply chain.
- The 2022 Appeals Court ruling upended decades of regulatory precedent. It limited where mining companies can locate support facilities in areas that have an economically recoverable mineral resource.
Zoom in: The Mineral Regulatory Clarity Act leaves the Rosemont decision in place — but would allow mining companies an alternative permitting path for mills, shafts, crushers, and waste facilities on federal land.
- Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, the bill's sponsor, said she worked with the industry and conservation groups to craft language that limited the scope of development.
- Companies would be able to use public lands for support purposes only within an agency-approved plan of operations, said Rich Haddock, senior adviser for Barrick Gold.
- The act also includes a provision to deposit mill site fees into an abandoned mine reclamation fund.
If unaddressed, the Rosemont decision "would make it nearly impossible to site mine support facilities," said Haddock, calling the bill "narrowly tailored."
Flashback: The revised bill was part of a permitting overhaul that failed to pass in the final hours of last session.
Zoom out: Possible dealmaking took shape as the committee heard testimony today on the Rosemont legislation as part of a package of six mining bills — some bipartisan, others more contentious.
- Senate ENR Chair Mike Lee talked up his legislation that would add copper to the USGS critical minerals list, cosponsored by Sen. Mark Kelly.
- Sen. John Hickenlooper's bill with Republicans Lindsey Graham and Todd Young would establish a pilot program to financially support critical mineral processing.
What they're saying: "Between the industry's desire for certainty, the confusion caused by the Rosemont decision, the obvious need for a royalty, and the equally obvious need for some measure of discretion as to where mining can occur — there is an agreement to be had," Chris Wood, president of Trout Unlimited, told the committee.
Yes, but: Deep disagreements over creating a hard-rock mining royalty — which Republicans dislike — are likely to persist.
The other side: Some enviro groups also continue to vehemently oppose Cortez Masto's bill.
- "The Senate is flirting with disaster by considering this reckless bill, which would gut essential safeguards to prevent toxic mining pollution on our nation's public lands," said Ashley Nunes, a policy specialist at the Center for Biological Diversity.
The bottom line: "There's an alignment of self-interest," Hickenlooper told Axios.
- "I think in the environmental community, which normally would oppose any of these bills, there's a greater awareness that to address climate change successfully, we're going to need more critical minerals," he said.
