The Center for Biological Diversity and several other environmental organizations are circulating this letter urging Senator Schumer to reject any permitting reform legislation during the remainder of this Congress, in particular any permitting legislation from Senators Manchin and Barrasso. The letter appears problematic on many fronts (e.g., taking a stand against hypothetical legislation that the signers can not have even seen, or rejecting any legislation apriori drafted by a particular member of Congress), but the claim that Federal permitting reform would benefit primarily fossil fuel companies is the focus of this post. I have to ask if those claims are valid. Here are some excerpts from the letter:
Indeed, a thorough evaluation of data compiled by the federal agencies themselves shows that environmental regulations and NEPA are not the roadblock to permitting for clean energy projects. According to new research from the University of Texas, from 2010 to 2021, less than five percent of wind and solar projects required a comprehensive environmental review under NEPA, only two percent required a Section 404 permit under the Clean Water Act, and less than four percent of wind projects required an habitat conservation plan under the Endangered Species Act. In contrast, fossil fuel projects almost always require greater environmental review because they are inherently vastly more damaging to the environment and the climate. The single biggest obstacle to renewable energy deployment both before and after the passage of the Fiscal Responsibility Act remains state and local opposition to connection of renewable energy to the grid.Â
Â
Likewise, the threat of litigation has also served as a repeated scapegoat for the slow transition to renewable energy. But again, the data do not bear these claims out. Between 2010 and 2021—only 36 cases involved wind and solar projects, and just 14 involved transmission lines. To be sure, there is vastly more litigation over the approval of fossil fuel projects because they are extraordinarily more destructive to the planet.Â
Dana's recent post about solar being the most litigated type of energy project certainly runs counter to the claim in the second paragraph.
In general, the source they cite makes the claim that permitting reform at the Federal level will primarily benefit the fossil fuel industry, simply because that industry causes the most damage and therefore encounters more delays and obstacles. Â If this is true, one would have to ask whether CCL's federally focused Clean Energy Permitting Reform policy area is at best pointless, and at worst, harmful. Â What should be made of this letter and the claims it makes?
Here's the study referenced in the letter to Schumer.Â
I think this is a very misguided letter for many reasons, @Jim Greuel. First, as you note, it's bad practice to oppose a hypothetical bill without first even looking at its text. I do think some organizations like CBD will oppose any permitting reform proposal that comes out of Congress because they tend to exploit the slow permitting process and judicial opportunities to hamper fossil fuel projects, and so they don't want to expedite these processes, but it's nevertheless bad form to oppose a hypothetical bill without even giving it due consideration.
Just as one example, the document they cite that you link in your second comment notes,
the timing and levels of public involvement should be improved, whereas streamlining—particularly if it erodes public engagement further—could exacerbate the problems detailed in the MIT study.Â
CCL agrees on that point. We want a permitting reform deal to bolster early community involvement. So let's see if whatever text is proposed includes language to that effect before panning it!
It's also true that permitting of solar and wind isn't a big problem. The problem, as we've noted in many trainings, is the slow permitting of electrical transmission lines. Without sufficient transmission you can't build the solar and wind farms. And just look at the time it takes to permit any big important transmission line – SunZia, TransWest Express, Grain Belt Express, etc. all well over a decade – and it's obviously a big problem.
And just look at what we're trying to build. 97% of proposed power projects stuck in the interconnection queue are clean energy. Global fossil fuel demand is on the verge of peaking while clean energy demand is exploding. And the country is already covered in pipelines. I think it's very clear that clean energy will benefit from permitting reform far more than fossil fuels. I also thought the permitting reforms in the debt ceiling deal were broadly good.
I also think some organizations are stuck in the mindset of blocking fossil fuel projects. That's how the climate movement really grew, through opposition to Keystone XL and Dakota Access and Mountain Valley pipelines and so on. But we're now to the point where building clean energy infrastructure faster is more important than just trying to slow down fossil fuel infrastructure. And anyway, the point of permitting reform is just to get to the final yes or no answer more expediently. If a project is bad for the environment and should be blocked, then it still will be in a post-permitting reform world, just more expediently.
Search Forums
Forum help
Select a question below
CCL Community Guidelines
- Discuss, ask and share
- Be respectful
- Respect confidentiality
- Protect privacy
CCL Blog Policy Area Categories
- Price on Carbon
- CBAM
- Clean Energy Permitting Reform
- Healthy Forests
- Building Electrification and Efficiency