Some 80% of power project developers say that the federal permitting tangle is a serious factor in slowing down or blocking their projects. We badly need permitting reform. Too bad the Trump admin is deliberately derailing it.
I still don't understand why you think the bill would "lock in" fossil projects. Fossil projects applying for federal permits are going to get them during this admin with or without this bill. The bill doesn't affect that at all and its primary beneficiary is renewables rn
Now if your point is Congress should go even further and add limits on what DOI/USDA/etc can do with policy/regs to prevent pre-textual denials & mistreatment of energy types, then sure! But that's hard and could limit cases where denials are the right choice...
For example, the admin is currently not doing denials, they're ignoring sponsors and pausing review. That's because it's way easier to delay processing than it is to issue individual denials!
Agree it's possible to craft a pretext to deny permits but
(A) coming up with workable pretexts is difficult (look how often DOI is losing offshore wind lawsuits!) and
(B) it's implausible they could keep up a wide spread blockade across all projects and permits.
FREEDOM would not help Trump accelerate oil & gas projects. The deadlines are consistent with current law and they are already maximally interested in speeding oil & gas permits — nothing in the bill helps them permit those projects any faster than they are already going.
Other parts of the blockade, like FAA's reported refusal to issue permits for lights on top of windmills, would definitely be A/C if they based denial on the capacity density memo
Forcing a decision gives devs recourse on a project by project basis, making a broad blockade much MUCH more difficult.
Denying permits would allow sponsors to claim the decision was arbitrary or capricious. The bogus "capacity density" measure is obviously arbitrary across several metrics but the agency needs to make a final decision for it to be challenged...
The FREEDOM Act limits revocations AND forces agencies to issue permits.
If they miss the set deadlines, sponsors can sue, recover daily fees, and/or ask courts to nominate a contractor to complete the remaining review.
See subtitles B, C, and D
bsky.app/profile/riog...
For more info, I wrote a longer report on permitting certainty and FREEDOM here ifp.org/how-to-creat...
A new permitting bill, the "FREEDOM Act", would stop the ongoing abuse against offshore wind & renewables.
FREEDOM creates permitting certainty by setting guardrails on each stage of agency abuse and backs the reform with strong remedies (fines, damages, contractors).
bsky.app/profile/heat...
New exclusive on a major permitting reform advance:
SCOOP:
@alexckaufman.bsky.social has the exclusive on a new bipartisan permitting reform bill that aims to protect tech neutrality — including offshore wind.
Read the full story:
heatmap.news/politics/fre...
FWIW I think they may be a solution! Hope to have something explaining how early in the new year
The report is out, AMA.
How to Build High-Speed Rail on the Northeast Corridor
transitcosts.com/north-east-c...
DOI would do much better if they took their time to officially update their regs and implement better NEPA procedures.
Trying to rush around NEPA using vague authorities is probably just going to result in years of painful court battles
bsky.app/profile/aida...
I'm extremely skeptical of the Department of Interior's attempt at using emergency authorities to speed NEPA reviews up to 28/14 days.
Ironically, DOI is relying on an authority that only ever existed in CEQ regs which are now gone... I expect courts will throw this idea out.
And worse, even if they succeed in turning agency regs into guidance that will just give more power to courts to decide whether NEPA has been properly followed!
Reforming NEPA regs will take time and an empowered CEQ. ThomasHochman and I wrote more here ifp.org/potus-ceq-ne...
-Converting agency regs into "guidance" will only serve to confuse everyone including bureaucrats, project devs & courts.
-The process for converting current regs into guidance will get sued, requiring notice and comment and years of litigation... taking time away from reform
But now CEQ is directing agencies to convert the actual agency NEPA regs into guidance. This is significantly different than getting rid of CEQ reg authority (and bad):
-NEPA is a law and it must be followed — agency regs explain how to do that by setting standards, CatExs, etc...
But CEQ not having a chairman is undermining this process. The agency isn't empowered so they can't move forward with new regs.
-The initial EO set a 30 day deadline that was blown past before CEQ had any staff at all.
-Today's EO refers to a Chairman that still doesn't exist!
Repealing CEQ reg authority was a fine step — it softens some regulatory requirements and gives agencies flexibility to redo & improve how they implement NEPA.
But it was always a down payment: The real upside is figuring out how agencies can redo NEPA regs and make them better
The administration's NEPA reform strategy makes increasingly little sense.
-Multiple Executive Orders are directed at CEQ but there's STILL no CEQ Chairman so nothing is happening
-Repealing agency NEPA regs with no plan to replace them makes no sense.🧵
insideepa.com/daily-news/c...
A better measure would track pre-NEPA times, NOI to ROD timelines, and time to resolve litigation delays.
What we want to know is how long a project had to wait before beginning construction. (9/9)
Measuring NEPA timelines is very tricky because the process starts well before the NOI and ends well after the ROD
Reforms like the FRA are just squeezing the balloon and pushing delays from preparation to the pre-NEPA phase or post-NEPA litigation. (8/9)
What does the data show? Median time is slightly down, but average is steady:
-Median NOI to FEIS is 2.8 years, down from 3.2 in 2020
-Median NOI to ROD is 3.5, same as 2020.
-Average NOI to FEIS is 4.05, same as 4 in 2020.
-Average (NOI-ROD) is 4.4, same as 4.5 in 2020. (7/9)
If anything, even the average understates NEPA costs. Uncertainty has a chilling effect on investment. Companies can’t know ahead of time when their investments will be built or whether NEPA will be co-opted by political interests seeking to delay their project. (6/9)
Second, CEQ decided to use median time to complete an EIS instead of average time. They argue this better represents the typical EIS.
But median time under-represents the cost to developers in the tail of the graph: the potential to take 5-15 years creates painful uncertainty for developers. (5/9)
Projects cannot move forward until the agency issues a ROD, often several months after the FEIS.
If anything the ROD is too early, we want to know how long a project had to wait before beginning construction which can be years after the ROD if there’s a lawsuit. (4/9)